Minolta autofocus cameras, thoughts needed

[Ricardo Miranda]

If you are going to get a Dynax 700SI, then search for and study the card system introduced in 88 with the i Series. You'll be admired with the capabilities on offer. And read the manuals. Nothing better to learn how one tool works.
Be aware of the push buttons (i.e. AEL/Spot/exposure compensation buttons) in any Minolta made after the 7000 series. It is their Achilles heal. They don't stand heavy use/brute force very well.

For portraits, try the Kodak Portra range.

 

[dsiglin]

I've been using portra for 120 but man it gets expensive. How about Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji Superia 200? I've seen Superia with some weird green tints. Fujicolor ProPlus II is about $5 for 36 exposures, not too bad.

 

[polyglot]

If I could ask - what 35mm films do you recommend for portraits? I've read Fuji Superia 200 is not bad and cheap.

That's a purely stylistic decision of course. If you're aiming for accurate colour and high resolution, then Portra 160 is the standout on current availability - a properly processed and scanned or wet-printed photo from Portra looks like a digital photo, unless the dynamic range is extreme in which case it will often look better. If you want B&W with similar fineness, then Acros or TMX. If you want more speed, then Portra 400 or TMY.

But you might want a completely different look, in which case you will need to start experimenting because there are endless film/developer combinations that all look slightly different.

I advertise as shooting with film so at least they realize it isn't digital. For some people they prefer film. The newer 35mm films have some very fine grain. Is it due to the grain you say don't use 35mm? Is it true that the tonal range in 35mm lower ISO films is better than your say Nikon 7100? Or even 5DMKIII? My reasoning is I know I can get great tonal range and colors with 35mm. I can't afford a full frame digital camera but I can a "full frame" film camera. The pro level cameras of the past are now quite cheap. I actually picked up a Canon EOS 3 over the holiday for a good price. I'm going to try it out compared to a few Minolta AF cameras.

I do have MF camera but I keep it mostly for landscapes and personal projects. 120 film is not cheap.

A good modern DSLR is usually better in terms of simple image quality metrics (resolution, colour accuracy) than 35mm film. Using Ektar or Velvia (which are both too contrasty and saturated for most portrait purposes and have huge colour errors), you can get maybe the equivalent of 24MP from 35mm but only with the utmost care and perfect exposure and camera stability.

If you're going to shoot film commercially as your differentiating factor, you're (probably) already dealing with customers who are willing to pay a premium and are not competing with the $500-wedding churn-n-burn crowd. Don't half-arse it, give them the best possible quality that you can. I've shot a couple of weddings on 6x7; about 10 rolls (100 frames). Film+process+scan costs are probably $15-$25/roll depending on where you live and are effectively billed to the customer at about $30/roll, which is a really small premium to pay over the typical $2000+ for a good wedding shoot with lighting, assistant, etc. Since you frequently see $500 to $1000 price differences between different photographers in that market based on perceived artistic quality, the $300-$500 difference in consumable costs is really irrelevant.

Do it properly.

 

[dsiglin]

Agree 300%. I'm posting on here to pick your brains about what I need in order to do it properly. I am still fairly new to film and there's way too many cameras/film out there for me to have tried. I don't want to go cheap on film but at the same time I want to find what is the best film for portraits and that may not be the most expensive film. That said I'm not planning on getting anywhere near wedding photography, but I am interested in bridal or engagement photos. One reason I'm turned off by weddings is I don't feel comfortable using flash with film. With digital no problem:



I feel like if I should invest in constant lighting to use with my film cameras instead of trying to do flash.

 

[polyglot]

If you're comfortable setting up a flash shot digitally (presumably by iterative tweaking of settings), then do that, transfer the settings to the film camera and take the shot again on film. If you also have a flash meter, you can measure what lighting looks good to you and then use those ratios in future.

Similarly, you can setup a shot as if you were shooting film, but take it on digital with the rear LCD disabled. Do a whole bunch of them, and then don't review until the end of the session. You'll learn whether you're making good lighting decisions without spending any more money.

As for colour portraits, Portra is where it's at. You can+should do your own B&W development at home, and there are plenty of excellent and affordable B&W films to practise your portraiture with for less money than the colour costs. Some of them (TMX, Acros, Pan-F) are also finer than just about any colour offering so you can make excellent prints up to about 12x18 without them looking too much like 35mm. If you're really cheap, you can bulk-load 35mm film from 100-foot rolls.

 

[dsiglin]

Ooo excellent idea about shooting blind with the digital, or even taking it with me. I am looking at portable battery power lighting as I like the idea of being able to see how the light is playing. But yeah, definitely can use the digital camera as a "polaroid" test shot.

And yes I do plan on developing my own B&W film.

 

[dsiglin]

Update, so out of left field I ended up buying a Canon EOS 3. The more I read the more I liked. After testing it out for a few days I'm going to keep this one. I found you can mount M42 lenses and achieve focus confirm. I now have my trusty Helios 44m-7 attached. When it comes to AF lenses, I have just the 40mm 2.8 but the AF is blazing fast. I bought ten rolls of Kodak Profoto XL. I read it's a nice pro-level film sold outside of the US. Still waiting for the scans to come back.

 

[David Lyga]

dsiglin, I am curious: if the M42 mounted properly but did NOT give a focus-confirm, would you still have used them? Are you not able to focus definitively without the confirmation or is digital more trying in this regard? - David Lyga

 

[dsiglin]

I'd end up getting a focusing screen with a micro prism collar.

btw here are a few test shots from that film. It has beautiful colors.