EOS (film) vs Old All Mechanical Camera

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's all good. No better. No worse. Just different. I've been using mechanical SLRs my entire photography life. Then my eye sight started getting worse at age 40, and I got a wild idea to buy a Canon EOS-3. You know what? The pictures come out largely the same, but with the EOS-3 I have to make more decisions. It is way harder to get that thing set to completely manual exposures than it is to use an old Minolta or Pentax dialed in for exposure.
But, I don't have to wind the film to the next frame, and I get 1/8000s shutter times, meaning those who like to shoot wide open -> love it!
In the end, it really doesn't matter all that much. But the EOS-3 has a tendency to make me lazy. I take a roll of HP5+, set the ISO to 200 and let the camera do the rest. It even has autofocus that reads the movement of my eyes (and maybe my mind too). It's too easy to go through an entire roll.

 

[blockend]

Camera technology was predicating around second guessing what a photographer needed to get a sharp, properly exposed shot. This was useful in democratising photography, but generally less helpful when a knowledgeable photographer wanted to intervene to his own preferences. Then, tactile and finely machined helical screw focusing was replaced by thin strips of creaky plastic, and large analogue dials were substituted by a multi-purpose thumbwheel changing numbers on a small LCD.

Film camera technology halted at this point, and it would take another two decades for digital camera manufacturers to rediscover the benefits of a tactile interface, a process that is still not complete. Both automatic and manual cameras can be successfully pressed into service, but anyone wanting to manipulate controls to their own vision had to overcome camera automation by an inferior user interface.

 

[GarageBoy]

Some people like the act of using a camera - the controls, the tactility are why they these mechanical cameras
Others like the fact that newer automated cameras have aids that help you photograph potentially faster -
I like my AF cameras for my purposes- my friends don't stay still long enough for me to focus

 

[Peltigera]

I don't know about better but my Vito B is nicer to use than either my EOS 5 or EOS 50 - and both smaller and lighter which is important after a few hours.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The only SLR I'm keeping is cheap plastic EOS. It gives high quality pictures because I could put 50L on it or even cheap modern 50 1.8 which is good for film. I've had greatest EOS with eye driven focus, I've had fancy old mechanical Canon, old OM. I gone, I get no thrill from using of them.

 

[Dali]

Hi,

some people tell me that is not a good deal shot with an EOS film camera, because it's better to use an old mechanical camera like K1000 and similar. The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

But why?

I don't understand this statement because some people like very old reflex camera, with some limitation as slow shutter speed and less slow speed...

The camera is only a "black box" where there is not light... the quality is made only from lens and from the ability of the photograph.

Your idea?

I think that shot on film give more pleasure for some reason, but i don't understand why some people want use some very very old mechanical camera.

Looks like you hear a lot of things (best camera, best lens, best film, best developer, best bla-bla...) but you don't practice much... Be less anxious and shoot with what you have. If you are not happy with the result, it will be time to change.

 

[Diapositivo]

Two points. You could select centre-weighted metering over matrix on the EOS, and disengage AF to manually focus! Or use the camera in manual mode to set the exposure based on experience.

In theory yes. In practice autofocus cameras have very clear focusing screens which make not very easy to focus by sight. They are optimized for autofocus and they end up "forcing" autofocus on you.

Old manual focus cameras have different focusing screens, which are less luminous but make very easy to judge focus. Besides, they have aids such as stigmometer and microprisms crown which make focusing in certain situations easier. All those are often missing in an autofocus camera.

Some electronic cameras (I don't know if it is the case of the EOS) had a focusing ring on the lens barrel, but it was narrow, less comfortable to use.
They maybe had the aperture controlled by the body instead of by a ring on the lens.

Yes those cameras could be used ultimately as if they were old-school traditional cameras, but they were not as immediate or pleasurable to use if used in the old way.

That said, I'd say to the original poster: don't worry, ultimately those are details, enjoy photography. And, in case you find a good second-hand camera which you think can be a new pleasure to take pictures with, buy it. There's plenty of relatively cheap occasions around. (And have a calibration-lubrication-adjustement work made on it, make it sing).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

Some electronic cameras (I don't know if it is the case of the EOS) had a focusing ring on the lens barrel, but it was narrow, less comfortable to use.
They maybe had the aperture controlled by the body instead of by a ring on the lens.

All EF lenses have the focusing ring with full-time manual override. I do not know of the "narrow, less comfortable..." ring you are referring to. It is true though manual AF can have a vague feel on the stock EF lenses (even Nikon has this perceived malaise), but it is by no means vague or imprecise on the higher end L-series lenses. No photographer I know of has poked fun at L-series lenses in either AF or manual focus capability and everybody has their preference what works best, but in truth of course both lenses and cameras are optimised for performance in AF rather than MF. That was the intended course of the technology from the start and it continues to go through very small iterations of precision improvement.

 

[cooltouch]

I've been using manual-focus mechanical cameras for 32 years now and I bought my first EOS 26 years ago. Actually, I bought the EOS for the wife to take pix of our newborn and I wanted something good but easy for her to use. I was still using manual-focus mechanical cameras back then, but I was also frequently the one shooting with the EOS too. So there's always been a sort of dichotomy there for me. Manual mechanical cameras, or at least pro-level cameras with limited automation, for "serious" photography, and the EOS for family and/or holiday events. To this day, if I'm shooting film, I'm more likely to reach for my old Canon F-1 than I am to reach for my EOS. I occasionally kick around the idea of picking up a clean EOS-1N or -1V, but I just don't have enough EF lenses, none of which are "L," to justify it. Whereas, on the other hand, I do own some nice FD glass. So this gets back to the "light tight box you hang a lens from" concept. I can hang better lenses from my F-1 than I can from my EOS.

To me, a good camera, paired with a good lens, should be the opposite of confining. Having a camera where I'm in control of all aspects of a photo is the definition of photographic freedom. And for me it's easiest for me to be in control when I'm using a manual camera. I don't have any layers of automation to sort through to pick and choose the stuff that matters. None of the layers to get in the way, either. Besides, most AF lenses -- well, ones I can afford at any rate -- are downright slow compared to most manual focus equivalents. And that's confining right there, isn't it?

Heck, I even use manual focus lenses most of the time on my digital camera. So when I'm shooting film, I'm still right at home. Except I've got a nice, big, bright and comfortable viewfinder to use with my film cameras -- my manual focus ones, specifically, since their focusing screens are made to be, well, focused with.

I'm not a Luddite, though. There are aspects of automation I can really appreciate. Like TTL flash, for example. I have a flash meter, but even when using one, there's a certain amount of guesswork involved. Having a TTL flash-compatible camera goes a long way toward eliminating the guesswork. And yes, there are situations where a good AF system is worthwhile. But I still prefer using my trusty old manual focus gear whenever I can.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The same people tell me that the quality of a shot made on an old camera like some spotmatic, etc... it's superior to the EOS.

That´s nonsense! These people may like handling the older camera more because they prefer chrome and leather to plastics and rubber buttons but that´s it. The EOS system has as good or better lenses than most older mechanical SLRs, especially if you regard the L-lenses. I used EOS cameras in my teenage-years but finally abandoned it because I like the straightforward use of mechanical cameras and also the EOS cameras needed expensive batteries every other month. Otherwise, great cameras. Look for an EOS 30/33 or even an EOS 3 if you like.

 

[Soeren]

I like the finders in nikons F90x and F100 more than the ones in nikkormat ft3, nikon fm and FE2.

 

[Soeren]

Antigen
This might be of interest to you

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/photo school index.html

 

[Antigen]

Some example of old all mechanical camera to give a try? What do you think about Kiev 4?

 

[Dali]

Why a Kiev 4? There are some more obvious choices. Pick up any Nikon / Canon/ Pentax / Olympus / Minolta / Fujica (you name it) SLR made in the 70 or the 80 and burn some film instead of thinking too much.

 

[Antigen]

:lol:

 

[cooltouch]

Why a Kiev 4? There are some more obvious choices. Pick up any Nikon / Canon/ Pentax / Olympus / Minolta / Fujica (you name it) SLR made in the 70 or the 80 and burn some film instead of thinking too much.

Generally a good suggestion, but I would also suggest that one steers clear of the cameras with limited features. Such as the Canon AV-1 or Nikon EM or Pentax ME or Oly OM-10, etc. Cameras which have only auto modes I wouldn't recommend unless the person specifically wants to remain ignorant of what photography is all about. Thus, better choices are cameras like the Canon FTb, Nikon FE or FM or Nikkormats, Pentax KX or MX, Oly OM-1, Minolta X-570, Fujica STX-1, etc. Most of these can often be found for less than $50 in clean condition, sometimes even with normal lenses included.

 

[Soeren]

Some example of old all mechanical camera to give a try? What do you think about Kiev 4?

No not as a beginner. I don't see why one more old mechanical camera should do anything different than the ones youve got. Stick to your canon and learn to use it well.
If it's because you want a rangefinder id look for a Canon QL17 GIII, a Canon 7 or P or maybe a voigtländer bessa. Between your Yashica Pentax and Canon Ill say you have plenty enough 35mm cameras to last you a long time. As stated before there many factors to consider when It comes to make good pictures the camera being a minor one. Concentrate on learning the skills and the principles of composition and go shoot some film.
The again. What you really need is this baby

 

[ph]

Most points have already been covered except one; the lens you put in front might be more expensive than the camera body. The distance from the EF mount to the film is the second shortest or so of all SLRs, so almost all optics made for other systems will fit when used with manual focus. This will allow cheap but excellent lenses to be used.

Yes, the wiewing system was made for framing, not focussing, but some Canons can have a focussing screen easily fitted. This may in turn upset the light metering system, but if so it can be compensated for.

p.

 

[BMbikerider]

I think that the beauty of an 'old' mechanical camera is the complete lack of sophistocation and absolute simplicity. I have a Minolta ST100 which is so simple to use and will in all probability be fully fuctional after I have gone to the darkroom in the sky.

I also have a Minolta XE1 a little bit more sphisticated but basically so simple. The auto exposure is good enough for me to claw back any detail I may loose through imperfect exposure. I had to have it serviced because of lack of use by the previous owner made it sluggish and although it is almost certainly 40-50 years old and spares will no longer be available it is working as well as it would have done when new.

Then going back to the original question where EOS was mentioned. It is the case of a lot of the later cameras,(not only EOS) being consigned to the bin because the electronics no longer function, cannot be repaired through lack of spares or are simply designed to be used then when they break down, thrown away.

Look at the hammering Cannon F1's and Nikon F/F2's in their day, recieved in general use by the press etc and can still be repaired and come back for more. Even the Nikon F3 cannot be said to have the same 'backbone'.

 

[cooltouch]

Very true. However, while I'll agree that the F3 is not as durable as the old Canon F-1 and Nikon F2, I have seen many F3s that have been through the press corps wars and that survived to tell about it -- especially F3Ts. Another deceptively durable camera that comes to mind -- one that I would have thought for sure would have expired long before now -- is the Canon A-1, which debuted in 1978. That is a surprisingly resilient camera.

As for EOS cameras, I have some experience with longevity. Back in 1990, I bought a 1st edition EOS Rebel, ostensibly for the wife to take pix of our newborn daughter. Well, over the years, that little Rebel was used extensively for pics of our daughter as she grew up and for other family functions. I even used it professionally on occasion. And it never missed a lick. I finally sold it a few years ago, after it had delivered more than 20 years of reliable service. A cheap, entry-level, plastic lens mount, EOS Rebel. Now, I'll admit, the camera was always cared for and never abused, but then I don't abuse any of my camera gear. But the point being that, if you take care of even a cheap, plasticky camera, it can last a lot longer than you might think it capable of.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think the EOS 1 series will stand a LOT of abuse as well. Especially if such a little Rebel can!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I think the EOS 1 series will stand a LOT of abuse as well. Especially if such a little Rebel can!

True, but they will go longer if they are not abused.
My EOS 1N is in its 22nd year of service, still in excellent condition, unmarked and not abused. It has received heavy workouts over the years but not since MF came along. Over the years it has even been drenched from rainforest shoots, frozen in the alps, scorched at the beach and iin the bush and sat out all night to record star trails.

 

[TJer]

I've heard Antigen's comment/question before, from other people, especially photographers who weren't raised as many of our current generation did with the availability of film cameras so their experience base maybe considered somewhat skewed. It's interesting from that perspective because if you seriously look at those differences, which may have given rise to that question, the questions answer may have some merit. Film cameras weren't technological marvels, metering was simple and for the most part the cameras were limited to solid stops instead of third stops or better. The optics, especially, were typically unrefined and uncomplicated affairs. Most lens systems had very few components; few if any of the components had coatings typically resulting in softer images. Those soft images were the basis for many of our prior generations objections to the current technological trends in optics because of their resulting sharpness, and their tendency to create a more "sterile" image devoid of "character" in their eyes. The result has been a trend back to the use of adapted legacy lenses to bring back that "character" to our images. I think these types of issues are at the core of Antigen's question because ultimately, it's about the technological sophistication of the EOS cameras or the lack of it in their predecessors Film cameras and it's impact on the quality of their images that is the answer to Antigen's question. Ultimately, I think he should use a camera that gives him enjoyment and doesn't stifle his desire to take more pictures and develope his creativity. The harder it is for him to learn the greater the chance he'll lose his enthusiasm and drop photography altogether. It happens a lot every day ...