There's no practical difference in results between 35mm cameras no matter what lies in peoples imaginations.
There's no practical difference in results between 35mm cameras no matter what lies in peoples imaginations.
Steam punk conjures images of large format, glass plates and magnesium flash powder. If you want a practical camera with conspicuous knobs and dials, something like a Super Ikonta will offer Jules Verne looks and high quality images. In 35mm the older Nikkormats with mechanical aperture indexing pin and fork on a pre-AI lens has lots of clunk and click and the camera will outlive you. Or perhaps a Kiev 4 with it's wheel focusing and flip up metering panel?
If your aim is purely photographic it won't matter what you use so long as it's reliable and reasonably sharp.
8x10 millimeters. Got it.
For the OP: If you want sexy, I suggest something that is sexy and cheap. Later, you can buy something else without feeling that you wasted your money earlier.
For sexy and cheap, I recommend the Olympus OM-1.
If you want a rangefinder, try a Retina IIa/IIc/IIIc.
Mark Overton
Use the F50 for a while. And then...............While you're in Japan visit a couple of the BIG camera stores in Tokyo & try a couple
them on for comfort. There's no practical difference in results between 35mm cameras no matter what lies in peoples imaginations.
There is a difference in all the miscellaneous tests about different cameras but nothing you're going to see. I guess
that's good if you take pictures of the many test charts around us.
I have a couple of Yashica Electros and not sure what you mean? Which specific model?I believe that the Yashica Electro does the same, the meter is active even during the exposure, although it probably doesn't compesate for the time as fast as Pentax.
You're re-discovering part of the game!So that means that I still have 28 pictures to make, I’m fighting between shooting 28 pictures as fast as possible so I can see them and taking my time and making them count.
So that means that I still have 28 pictures to make, I’m fighting between shooting 28 pictures as fast as possible so I can see them and taking my time and making them count.
Give him a break guys. The F50 (and F70) is one of ugliest, cheapest feeling peices of plastic Nikon has ever produced.
It stems from the most dense part of the horrible school of 90s blobtacular design (something we are incredible and sadly not out of yet here over twenty five years later, with both Nikon and Canon et al still using some of the same elements).
It never looked good, even the day it launched (at most, It might have looked different or new to a few nincompoops).
No one who proposes to do something like taking photos for aesthetic purposes and with the accompanying sensibility, should find himself comfortable using such an ugly tool. Let alone let himself be caught dead with it on the street by someone he would want to make a positive impression on.
You indeed do take better pictures with cameras you like the look and feel of.
You should feel good about the way the camera looks. Just as you should with your clothes. And you know that, why are you being dense on purpose?Gee, maybe I should have you look over all my cameras to make sure you approve of their fashion looks.
Sure it will do most of what you’d ever want. But that isn’t really the point here.There's nothing wrong with a Nikon F50. Nope, it's not sexy and has buttons and menus but it's capable of excellent results. I was given one a decade or so ago and while I very rarely use it my wife used it for a while as she doesn't like manual focus. It always performed admirably. There are far worse places to start.
So my advice, like some others, would be to get used to shooting with the F50 and at the very least have an idea of what you really want out of film photography. Then visit a big camera shop and try handling some other cameras to see what works better for you.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.I don’t see why, when as photographers are dealing with aesthetics, it’s frowned upon to want a beautiful camera? It should be quite natural.
Gee, maybe I should have you look over all my cameras to make sure you approve of their fashion looks.
I don't think that's what very many of us are frowning upon. What we're suggesting, rather, is that the appearance of the camera is not so important when one is learning the craft/art of photography.I don’t see why, when as photographers are dealing with aesthetics, it’s frowned upon to want a beautiful camera?
Sure it will do most of what you’d ever want. But that isn’t really the point here.
I don’t see why, when as photographers are dealing with aesthetics, it’s frowned upon to want a beautiful camera? It should be quite natural.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?