What is the best analog camera?

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Digital cameras are a lousy tool for learning, if what you are trying to learn is how to expose for prints.
They aren't bad if you are learning to expose for the web.

Completely false. Exposure works the same on film and digital. There is no such thing as "exposing for prints" and "exposing for the web." You know that, so why make yourself look like a fool just to express a silly prejudice?

I shoot both film and digital. Both types of cameras have shutters with the same shutter speeds. Their lenses have the same apertures. In fact, you can use the same lenses on both film and digital with some systems (like Nikon and Canon EOS). I use the same handheld meter for both types of photography and get identically perfect results.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But one can learn to take good photographs without chimpin'. I have never found a good remedial course on chimpin', so I learned to anticipate where or not I had gotten the photograph and that has served me well. Historically most other good photographers learned that why, without chimpin' or using a camera like an assault weapon.

 

[MattKing]

Completely false. Exposure works the same on film and digital. There is no such thing as "exposing for prints" and "exposing for the web." You know that, so why make yourself look like a fool just to express a silly prejudice?

You are mis-reading what I said Chris.

I'm not saying they are lousy tools.
I am saying that, relatively speaking, they are lousy tools for learning about exposure for the purpose of printing .
The difference arises not from their respective capabilities, but from the process steps film forces you to take, and the rigour it tends to impose.
I refer explicitly to the purpose of printing because it is much more challenging than web display. And I also refer to printing, because having to print from one's photographs is in my opinion the very best way of learning how to expose.
One can choose the same level of rigour with digital, but the seductive temptations of that little, highly misleading screen on the back of the camera and the fantastically flexible post-processing software choices available afterwards are such that many people seem to creep up on the important lessons, rather than being forced to learn them outright.
That being said, if one is trying to learn by themselves, without having the benefit of personal, direct feedback from experienced and knowledgeable people, both processes are extremely difficult to learn.

 

[Army35mm]

If you've got >1000 bucks to drop, I just saw this in Nikon FA in chungmuro xD

 

[Leigh B]

Both types of cameras have shutters with the same shutter speeds. Their lenses have the same apertures. In fact, you can use the same lenses on both film and digital with some systems (like Nikon and Canon EOS). I use the same handheld meter for both types of photography and get identically perfect results.

Yes, digital cameras have shutters and apertures just, and they work the same as those in film cameras.

But digital cameras also have microprocessors and scene evaluation algorithms that change the exposures.
The exact operation of those algorithms is not known and not knowable to the shooter.

So the exposure the camera decides is "correct for a given scene may differ from what simple metering might indicate.
And you don't understand why.

Digital cameras educate you about proper exposure as much as Kodak Brownie would.


- Leigh

 

[Ces1um]

Yes, definitely.

You will be permanently banned and ostracized. Tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

That's terrible, because virtual feathers really mess with your nose.

- Leigh

wow. You guys are hardcore. I guess I better resign myself to the fact that it's now the photographic triangle. I suppose I could push out all knowledge of the Bermuda triangle. Who bothers with the Bermuda triangle anymore anyways? I really don't want my nose messed with. I hate feathers. They're all, "look at me"- I'm designed for flight not like you fat boy.

 

[Ces1um]

Yup! According to the 4th edition of the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson (which I believe is the one who invented the term) has changed the "Exposure Triangle" to "Photographic Triangle". I think because of so much criticism about it because exposure doesn't resemble a triangle.

I don't think photography resembles a triangle either. That is unless you're taking pictures of triangles I suppose. If I get enough people to criticize the term could we get it changed back to exposure triangle? Photographic triangle is too broad a term. It would encompass more than just exposure. Photographic could also pertain to composition, use of negative space, techniques for double exposure, it literally encompasses all things photography. At least exposure triangle limited the term to exposure. Who is this Peterson fella anyways? Pretty cocky of them to take a well established concept and rename it and expect everyone to follow him. Maybe he should have taken it a step further and called it the Peterson triangle.

 

[Ces1um]

I don't think photography resembles a triangle either. That is unless you're taking pictures of triangles I suppose. If I get enough people to criticize the term could we get it changed back to exposure triangle? Photographic triangle is too broad a term. It would encompass more than just exposure. Photographic could also pertain to composition, use of negative space, techniques for double exposure, it literally encompasses all things photography. At least exposure triangle limited the term to exposure. Who is this Peterson fella anyways? Pretty cocky of them to take a well established concept and rename it and expect everyone to follow him. Maybe he should have taken it a step further and called it the Peterson triangle.

Now I've found a site that refers to it as the exposure tricycle, the exposure cuboid, the exposure rectangle and the exposure balance scale! Argh.

 

[Chan Tran]

Yes, digital cameras have shutters and apertures just, and they work the same as those in film cameras.

But digital cameras also have microprocessors and scene evaluation algorithms that change the exposures.
The exact operation of those algorithms is not known and not knowable to the shooter.

So the exposure the camera decides is "correct for a given scene may differ from what simple metering might indicate.
And you don't understand why.

Digital cameras educate you about proper exposure as much as Kodak Brownie would.

As I stated previously... You're on the wrong website. Take your nonsense to DPUG.
That's home base for shooters who known nothing about photography.

- Leigh

Don't film cameras like the F6 have the same algorithm?

 

[fstop]

Don't film cameras like the F6 have the same algorithm?

Yes and the FA used "matrix" metering long ago. you can draw parallels to the zone system being an analog equivalent . I suppose if you use that you are breaking some unwritten rule of exposure also.
Funny how those who condemn photo shop, suggest using the printing process to correct exposure errors made at the time of exposure. Cropping to recompose, dodge,burn, push,pull etc Sounds hypocritical to me.

Pot calls the kettle black?
"As I stated previously... You're on the wrong website. Take your nonsense to DPUG.
That's home base for shooters who known nothing about photography."

 

[flavio81]

If you've got >1000 bucks to drop, I just saw this in Nikon FA in chungmuro xD View attachment 169906

I'd definitively take the special edition Canon F-1N that is sitting behind, instead of that tacky FA monster. Or the Mamiya RZ67 sitting below.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'd definitively take the special edition Canon F-1N that is sitting behind, instead of that tacky FA monster. Or the Mamiya RZ67 sitting below.

Besides gold cameras never look good.

 

[Les Sarile]

Besides gold cameras never look good.

I beg to differ . . .

 

[Sirius Glass]

The photographic triangle does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes, digital cameras have shutters and apertures just, and they work the same as those in film cameras.

But digital cameras also have microprocessors and scene evaluation algorithms that change the exposures.
The exact operation of those algorithms is not known and not knowable to the shooter.

So the exposure the camera decides is "correct for a given scene may differ from what simple metering might indicate.
And you don't understand why.

Digital cameras educate you about proper exposure as much as Kodak Brownie would.

As I stated previously... You're on the wrong website. Take your nonsense to DPUG.
That's home base for shooters who known nothing about photography.

- Leigh

I've shot and processed black and white film since I was a child. I have never encountered a digital camera (and I mean one suitable for professional use, not a point n shoot) that ignores the exposure settings I use and alters the look of the images based on evaluation algorithms when shooting RAW with manual exposure. I get exactly the results I expect, no surprises.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

You are mis-reading what I said Chris.

I'm not saying they are lousy tools.
I am saying that, relatively speaking, they are lousy tools for learning about exposure for the purpose of printing .
The difference arises not from their respective capabilities, but from the process steps film forces you to take, and the rigour it tends to impose.
I refer explicitly to the purpose of printing because it is much more challenging than web display. And I also refer to printing, because having to print from one's photographs is in my opinion the very best way of learning how to expose.
One can choose the same level of rigour with digital, but the seductive temptations of that little, highly misleading screen on the back of the camera and the fantastically flexible post-processing software choices available afterwards are such that many people seem to creep up on the important lessons, rather than being forced to learn them outright.
That being said, if one is trying to learn by themselves, without having the benefit of personal, direct feedback from experienced and knowledgeable people, both processes are extremely difficult to learn.

I print my digital photos and they do not require any difference in exposure than they do when I put them on my website.

As far as processing software, its no different than choosing different paper grades to compensate for poor developing. If you know what you're doing, your negs will print on grade 2 and digital photos will require little post processing.

 

[Chan Tran]

I beg to differ . . .

The picture proved my point. Although all of the 5 cameras in the picture are good looking cameras they all look ugly in gold.

 

[blockend]

We're reaching a point where more photographers have come from digital to film, than those who have only ever shot film. In that context the question is does digital photography offer anything as a teaching tool? To which the answer has to be "of course!" However the fine print is a multi-stage process requiring technical skills, most of which do not transfer between media. I'd hazard a guess that lots of film photographers no longer make wet prints, and a sizeable number of them no longer make prints of any kind, at least for the majority of their photography.

In this context we're talking about a two, and most likely a one stage process - press the shutter, receive the negatives and scan back through the post. So the chancy aspect is restricted to exposure and composition. While composition can be a lifetime struggle in film and digital photography, learning to expose film as anticipated is a straightforward task with more than a hundred years of technological consistency behind it. I certainly don't see it as a disillusioning, random, hit-and-hope process. If your negatives are consistently over or under exposed, your camera is faulty or you need to read a book on the subject.

 

[Les Sarile]

I certainly don't see it as a disillusioning, random, hit-and-hope process. If your negatives are consistently over or under exposed, your camera is faulty or you need to read a book on the subject.

As you point out, exposure issues only occur to those who don't know and/or have defective equipment - brain included.

Digital representation here is obviously trolling.

 

[Les Sarile]

The picture proved my point. Although all of the 5 cameras in the picture are good looking cameras they all look ugly in gold.

Gold has many good qualities. That you personally associate it with some negative attribute is just stereotyping . . .

 

[MattKing]

I print my digital photos and they do not require any difference in exposure than they do when I put them on my website.

As far as processing software, its no different than choosing different paper grades to compensate for poor developing. If you know what you're doing, your negs will print on grade 2 and digital photos will require little post processing.

I am absolutely sure that is the case Chris.

What did you first learn on? I'm fairly confident it was film. And I'm sure that your knowledge of the film process improved and informed your first explorations into the digital realm.

Obviously I don't have any detailed, empirical data to back this up, but my experience so far with people who are interested in learning indicates that the people who learn first on film seem to achieve high quality results more quickly and more consistently when they use both film and digital than those who start with digital in the first place. I think this is because the ability to recognize the abstract qualities of a well exposed negative (or slide) is, once learned, a reference that is less likely to lose relevance in the learning process.

The printing part of the equation is really important though. That is where the most important lessons are learned about what one did with the camera.

 

[Ces1um]

The photographic triangle does not have a leg to stand on.

But it is built on a solid foundation! hehe

 

[Les Sarile]

Hi
I would really like to get into film photography and am wondering what is the best camera to buy?

The OP specifically identified to learn on film. Any unsolicited digi response is therefore trolling regardless of your preference.

 

[Greg Heath]

Hi
I would really like to get into film photography and am wondering what is the best camera to buy? A friend gifted me their Pentax p30 but it didn't survive the journey in the post. It had an electric shutter which the camera repair man explained often cause problems. So I would like to buy a fully mechanical operating one.
Ideally I wouldn't like to spend more than $200 Australian dollars.
Your thoughts are much appreciated!
Kit

It really depends on what format you want to shoot with.. 35mm is ok.. personally I think 35mm is a pain in the neck. I started out with Medium Format. The negative is bigger and easier to work with. Plus working with Medium Format, you only have 10-16 shots to worry about. 35mm, you have to shoot between 24 or 36 shots before you can develop, or wind your own cans for whatever you want.

Also what kind of film photography do you want to do ? Actions scenes where you are filming a soccer team, or more calm stuff like street scenes? or still life.

Another recommendation is find a camera that the shutter and the rest of the camera work perfectly. I wasted allot of film and $ goofing around with older cameras that did not operate like they should have. Old cameras are fine, but they have to be accurate. You don't want to be second guessing yourself over did you mess up or did the camera not function correctly.

Greg

 

[Greg Heath]

View attachment 169588


I have done very good work with a vintage Pentax Spotmatic, it is a nice simple reliable manual camera on which it is easy to learn the fundamentals of photography. Both the body and the lenses are inexpensive, in the USA US$50-100 buys a body and a very good standard Pentax 50mm lens. There are a gazillion used lenses (M42 mount) out there that fit the body, at all price points and quality. Use the "sunny 16 rule" for exposure estimation. You can't go wrong.

PS the attitude that electronic shutters are unreliable is not supported by the experiences of millions of photographers. Yes they can fail but so can mechanical shutters, much depends on the quality of the parts used to make the shutter, which often is related to cost.

The Pentax Spotmatics are a bargain because by modern standards they are obsolete and unwanted, not because they were cheap to begin with, they were well made.

I agree ! Spotmatics are wonderful cameras.