If you actually use an R8 or R9, it quickly becomes the most beautiful camera. The reason for that design are the ergos that fit the hand perfectly, and allow you to control the right side with one finger. But then again, you actually have to use one to realize that.
In your opinion, what are the best modern 35mm film SLRs ever built?
-
A
- Thread starter manfrominternet
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF AERO TECHNIKA 45 LENS COVER
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
If you actually use an R8 or R9, it quickly becomes the most beautiful camera. The reason for that design are the ergos that fit the hand perfectly, and allow you to control the right side with one finger. But then again, you actually have to use one to realize that.
"Perhaps I should have asked this (as this is, in a nutshell, the precise issue I'm facing): If you didn't already have a 35mm film camera with lenses and had $2250 to spend on a 35mm film camera body (SLR or even a Rangefinder) and lenses (say roughly 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 80mm - or even a good 28-80mm zoom), what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?"
35mm would not at all be my choice for landscape photography. Given that you are coming from LF, my choice and preference is the tonality resulting from printing from medium format negatives. I suppose it depends on your end product....small prints or online viewing? As in every other case, there are always decisions, choices, and limitations to consider. If i'm going to lug a Pentax 67 sytem....then i'll shoot LF instead. If portability is the priority, I've used Fuji 6x9, Mamiya 6, Rolleiflex, or Plaubel Makina. In every case the print is more to my liking than those from 35mm.
35mm would not at all be my choice for landscape photography. Given that you are coming from LF, my choice and preference is the tonality resulting from printing from medium format negatives. I suppose it depends on your end product....small prints or online viewing? As in every other case, there are always decisions, choices, and limitations to consider. If i'm going to lug a Pentax 67 sytem....then i'll shoot LF instead. If portability is the priority, I've used Fuji 6x9, Mamiya 6, Rolleiflex, or Plaubel Makina. In every case the print is more to my liking than those from 35mm.
Newer... F5 or F100. (F6 is you want to spend money) Manual focus only I would go with an F3. We can argue all day long on who has the "best" glass, but Nikon by far has the most compatibility. I have also gotten tack sharp images with their glass.
We can also argue over a mechanical camera vs one that needs a battery. I have never had an issue with carrying extra batteries in my bag. For the older Nikons- F3, FE, FE2 etc... those batteries last FOREVER. I just recently changed the 10 year old battery on my FE2. My F3 battery is almost ten years old. But then I don't shoot in below freezing conditions. So your millage may vary. Just my two cents... for what it's worth.
We can also argue over a mechanical camera vs one that needs a battery. I have never had an issue with carrying extra batteries in my bag. For the older Nikons- F3, FE, FE2 etc... those batteries last FOREVER. I just recently changed the 10 year old battery on my FE2. My F3 battery is almost ten years old. But then I don't shoot in below freezing conditions. So your millage may vary. Just my two cents... for what it's worth.
We can argue all day long on who has the "best" glass, but Nikon by far has the most compatibility.
True if you look at all Nikon F mount from F non AI to G, cross out P and E. Pentax top of the line are also compatible from M42 to screw to late AFK2 without aperture ring. If looking at within the system, Canon EF, all EOS bodies will work with all full frame EF lens, including VR.
True if you look at all Nikon F mount from F non AI to G, cross out P and E. Pentax top of the line are also compatible from M42 to screw to late AFK2 without aperture ring. If looking at within the system, Canon EF, all EOS bodies will work with all full frame EF lens, including VR.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
As to the RTS III - I'm currently using one. That big, bright full viewfinder makes it an absolute joy to shoot with. If I were looking for another 35mm set, I'd look at an RTS III with the 2.8 versions of the lenses (28 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 1.7, and either an 85 f2.8 or 100 f3.5). You could pull in all that set for under your $2250 price.
Really, for landscape photography, I'd focus (pun intended) on the lenses; the camera becomes almost irrelevant. I'd spend a $100 on a decent Canon EOS film body, then buy Zeiss 21mm, 35mm and 100mm macro lenses to go with it, and call it a day.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Greg Y brought up an good point that I've kept in my mind. Do you guys think that 35mm is just too small a negative, even for street photography? Ken Rockwell calls 35mm film the amateur medium because of its small size and limited scanning capability.
Not to negate/piss off the whole thread, but I do already have a Pentax 645NII with the SMC 75mm f/2.8 AF, SMC 45-85mm f/4.5 AF, and the SMC 80-160mm f/4.5 AF. Given that the 645 negative is about 2.8 times larger than 35mm, is the difference between a 35mm negative and a 645 negative drastically different or is it negligible, particularly if I scan both the 35mm negative and 645 negative with my Sony a7r IV with the 240mp pixel shift mode? If the difference is substantial, perhaps I'd be better off investing more money into my Pentax 645NII system and get a SMC 35mm f/3.5 AF lens to round out the system and use the savings to but more medium format film.
Again, however, the major reason for my wanting a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go. I've seen some large-ish prints by William Eggleston and was astonished with the quality pulled out of a 35mm negative at such a large size - quite a bit larger than 16" x 24".
Not to negate/piss off the whole thread, but I do already have a Pentax 645NII with the SMC 75mm f/2.8 AF, SMC 45-85mm f/4.5 AF, and the SMC 80-160mm f/4.5 AF. Given that the 645 negative is about 2.8 times larger than 35mm, is the difference between a 35mm negative and a 645 negative drastically different or is it negligible, particularly if I scan both the 35mm negative and 645 negative with my Sony a7r IV with the 240mp pixel shift mode? If the difference is substantial, perhaps I'd be better off investing more money into my Pentax 645NII system and get a SMC 35mm f/3.5 AF lens to round out the system and use the savings to but more medium format film.
Again, however, the major reason for my wanting a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go. I've seen some large-ish prints by William Eggleston and was astonished with the quality pulled out of a 35mm negative at such a large size - quite a bit larger than 16" x 24".
Don't over think it. Just go buy a good used camera and lens and give it a try. It's not really that big a deal.
I'd say an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative is plenty good....sure, larger is possible but...why?
Don't think. Do.
In terms of street photography I think just the opposite, portability, fast lens from wide to normal, to 100 or 135, wide range of fast color and B&W films, AF a bonus. On the other hand LF and MF is my choice for landscapes. It is possible to get the same tones with 35mm, tone is not a result from negative size, it is the result of the combination of a given film and developer. With a larger negative it is possible to get as much detail with a lower resolution film with a fast film, say Tmax 400 as a 35mm with a slower film like Tmax 100. As a rule I find that I get a more gentle slope with a fast film than with a slower film. I normally use Zone when shooting LF which gives me additional control over tones. And detail, 4X5 Tmax 400 or even Foma 400 at 90Lmm, a 4X5 negative provides so much more detail than a 35mm negative, same scene, same angle of view.
MattKing
Moderator
Handheld street photography and 35mm are perfectly suited to each other.
With decent technique, large enlargements can work - particularly when the viewer is looking more for impact than technical perfection.
And those images that might require greater enlarge-ability? Things like more formalized street portraits? One can often go back to get them later, perhaps with a tripod and something that gives you a bigger negative.
For an example of the latter, look no further than the excellent work in this current Photrio thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mamiya-c220-and-100-strangers-continuing.192814/#post-2568062
With decent technique, large enlargements can work - particularly when the viewer is looking more for impact than technical perfection.
And those images that might require greater enlarge-ability? Things like more formalized street portraits? One can often go back to get them later, perhaps with a tripod and something that gives you a bigger negative.
For an example of the latter, look no further than the excellent work in this current Photrio thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mamiya-c220-and-100-strangers-continuing.192814/#post-2568062
A wide lens with a 35mm camera is the best combination for speed and agility for street photography. Just the high percentage of street photographers use that combination prove the case.
The reason i mentioned MF is because of this phrase
"what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?"
When you later say "a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go." I'm a bit puzzled, because i don't think of landscape photography in those terrms.
In Aug/Sept I'll be in the Western Alps, & the Dolomites. I'll be using 6x7 for those photographs. I'll be travelling home through Paris (where i'll be getting my film processed mostly due to the new airport scanner concerns) In Paris I'll be using a Leica (even though I have spent time there with only a Rolleiflex in the past.)
Paul H, I have some very fine landscape negatives taken with 35mm and TMax100 & Agfapan 25 & the prints are beautiful in 8x10 and some in 11x14," but once i print 16x20 or 20x24" i prefer medium format (or LF the odd time it's practical) every time. I have no aversion to large prints from 35mm for street images (or Jim Marshall rock & roll), but i far prefer landscape prints smooth tonality. In LF I use lots of FP4+ and Tmax100 as well, less TriX and TMY2....although i keep all those emulsions in sheet film.
"what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?"
When you later say "a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go." I'm a bit puzzled, because i don't think of landscape photography in those terrms.
In Aug/Sept I'll be in the Western Alps, & the Dolomites. I'll be using 6x7 for those photographs. I'll be travelling home through Paris (where i'll be getting my film processed mostly due to the new airport scanner concerns) In Paris I'll be using a Leica (even though I have spent time there with only a Rolleiflex in the past.)
Paul H, I have some very fine landscape negatives taken with 35mm and TMax100 & Agfapan 25 & the prints are beautiful in 8x10 and some in 11x14," but once i print 16x20 or 20x24" i prefer medium format (or LF the odd time it's practical) every time. I have no aversion to large prints from 35mm for street images (or Jim Marshall rock & roll), but i far prefer landscape prints smooth tonality. In LF I use lots of FP4+ and Tmax100 as well, less TriX and TMY2....although i keep all those emulsions in sheet film.
I prefer MF for landscape photography.
Henri Cartier-Bresson would tell Ken Rockwell to piss off. lol! Thousands of photojournalist would also tell him to sit and spin as well. An ASA 50 negative will allow you to get very large without falling apart. 35mm has a look. Just like medium format has a look. If you want a 35mm camera, then get one. They are extremely fun to use and small enough to take just about any where.
I used to make a good living in photojournalism and taking wedding pics on the side. All with 35mm. And I have blown some of them up to 16x24 with no issues.
As far as speed... I shot two super bowls in the 90s with an FE2 and a 300mm f2 manual focus lens. It takes practice, but manual focus came be fast.
Agreed, if landscape photography is your main endevour, then I'd go MF - a Fuji 6x9 or 6x7 rangefinder gives amazing results for example. No meter though.
If you want to stick to 35mm, then I'd probably go Canon Eos. Some of the "prosumer" camears are dirt cheap and offer amazing capability for their (now) low price. Other choices if you don't need fast AF is a Nikon F4. The F6 wil give much better AF, but a much smaller incremental improvement in metering. An F6 body costs a lot more than an F4, so you have to choose what qualities are the most important to you.
If you want to stick to 35mm, then I'd probably go Canon Eos. Some of the "prosumer" camears are dirt cheap and offer amazing capability for their (now) low price. Other choices if you don't need fast AF is a Nikon F4. The F6 wil give much better AF, but a much smaller incremental improvement in metering. An F6 body costs a lot more than an F4, so you have to choose what qualities are the most important to you.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,619
- Format
- Large Format
90sphotog.... I'd be willing to bet that's the first time I've seen the names HC Bresson and Ken Rockwell in the same sentence.....
How about on the same page, at least?
https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cartier-bresson.htm
I wonder how many of us felt, or realized, the same as you.?90sphotog.... I'd be willing to bet that's the first time I've seen the names HC Bresson and Ken Rockwell in the same sentence.....
Until i wore it to a rag..........................for many years i had the famous HCB quote...about Adams and Weston... on a t-shirt.
And Garry Winogrand, and Robert Frank, and Lee Friedlander, just to mention a few other amateurs...
I would say Nikon FM2. It’s a sturdy and a workhorse in the long run.
OP
OP
Just out of curiosity, which camera is Bruce Davidson using here (to photograph his ‘Subway’ series)?
Substantial. In my experience the jump in quality from 35mm to 6x4.5 is bigger than the jump from 6x4.5 to 6x7. Math (considering area increase) supports this as well.
Now, when using a very very good film like Fuji Acros on both formats, the jump isn't as dramatic, but it is still there, particularly in the crispness of details.
Looks like a Canon New F-1.
It is a Canon New F1, with the Canon Motor Drive FN attached.
Paul H, I have some very fine landscape negatives taken with 35mm and TMax100 & Agfapan 25 & the prints are beautiful in 8x10 and some in 11x14," but once i print 16x20 or 20x24" i prefer medium format (or LF the odd time it's practical) every time.
I agree, over the years I have taken some very nice landscapes with 35mm as well, but when I have landscapes on the wall from 35mm, 6X9 and 4X5 folks seem to gravitate towards the 4X5, well at 11X14 and larger.
I agree, over the years I have taken some very nice landscapes with 35mm as well, but when I have landscapes on the wall from 35mm, 6X9 and 4X5 folks seem to gravitate towards the 4X5, well at 11X14 and larger.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |