Why shoot film on automatic, pro/high-end cameras?

[GRHazelton]

My most "modern" film camera is a Pentax PZ-1p, sporting autofocus, 5 fps, power rewind, etc. Pleasant enough, but the instruction manual is immense. 5fps is expensive. I had to consult the manual to rewind the first roll I shot. The camera's very programmability is a bit daunting, at least to one who came up through manual cameras.

I also have a Pentax 645n and several lenses. This camera is so intelligently laid out that the instruction manual is hardly needed. Proper dials, no drilling down through menues to change from spot to matrix metering, from automatic to manual exposure, etc.

By contrast with the PZ-1p my Pentax LX can be used without the manual, only a few features are not intuitive. The winder is 2fps, sufficient. As a system camera it accomodates screen and viewfinder changes, mirror lockup, etc.

The LX and Pentax ME-Super are my 35mm film users. They make me think more about what I'm doing than does my digital K-10 and K-5, both fine machines, but somehow lacking in soul. Somehow to me a camera should be metal, weighty, somewhat angular, unlike the rather curvaceous PL-1p and the digital SLRs. Getting old, I guess. Better than the alternative!

 

[PentaxBronica]

The best Pentax AF bodies (if you want handling like the manual ones) seem to be the MZ-5/MZ-5n and MZ-M. They have a proper shutter speed dial. The SF series are nice cameras but I do find the "hold this, then wiggle that" approach to settings annoying. I find I tend to shoot them in Av mode and use AE Lock to deal with exposure compensation as it's faster than cycling through shutter speeds with the jog wheel/slider.

My main reason for not buying an MZ-5n is the fact that they're something of a reliability time-bomb. That little drive cog cracks and you're left with a lengthy and complex repair job to replace the motor.

I took my K2 out today and TBH the only reason I'd take an AF body over this is if I was worried about damaging it (K2s are rather harder to find in working order than SF7s). It's much quieter, the shutter sounds very precise, and it has pretty much every control you could want. The shutter is a stepless design, so if the lighting is suitable you can put it in Auto and it isn't bound by the numbers on the dial.

My only complaint is the lack of an aperture display in the viewfinder like the KX and MX have, which was cured with the K2 DMD (on my wish list!)

 

[Diapositivo]

High-end cameras often have several peculiarities and using one of them is reason enough even if you don't use the others.

My main reason to use my Minolta XM is the mirror lock-up with tripod work. Other will use it for its interchangeable viewfinder, or its interchangeable focusing screen, or its general ruggedness.

Other reasons for using high-end cameras could relate to general quality - features: seeing aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder, seeing in the viewfinder the shutter speed selected by the camera and the one suggested by the camera, ergonomics of the camera, general quality of shutter and especially of viewfinder (brightness, magnification). Quality is never redundant.

I find general viewfinder quality very important, possibly the most important quality feature in a camera. That's probably why I love so much my Minolta X-700. Its other specifications are pretty normal, but the quality of its viewfinder is pretty impressive.

Still, the X-700 lacks mirror lock-up and that's the only reason why I bought the XM (besides GAS).

 

[Alan Gales]

As cheap as 35mm cameras are nowadays, why not shoot the best?

If I was still shooting Contax, my choice would naturally be an RTS lll but as much as I love matrix metering on my Nikon D300 and a Pentax 645Nll that I used to own, I would most likely shoot a Contax Aria or late model Nikon with matrix metering. Matrix metering is fast and accurate in most situations.

Today, the only 35mm I shoot is my Stereo Realist. I mostly shoot large format, digital, and a little medium format and meter with a Pentax digital spotmeter for the film cameras, but of course that's me.

If you enjoy 35mm then why not shoot the best 35mm cameras?

 

[kanzlr]

ohhhh, I just sold the RTS III but it is indeed the most advanced manual focus camera I ever used. Awesome in every regard.

 

[removed account4]

On and off I research various cameras on the internet, and I've GAS'ed over Nikon F4/F5 (and read up on F6 and F100) as well some high-end Contax (RX mainly). I have a few 35mm cameras and all except Nikon F80 and Hexar AF are manual focus and mechanical (like the Nikon FM2n). The F80 doesn't partner FM2n too well because the former won't support the older lenses. So, I might pick up an F100 instead or an F4. But in this digital age, why get these fast, automatic film cameras? I'm not going to fire an F5 off at 8fps. Just use digital kit for that. For those of us who use film, it seems it should be more of a thai-chi type photography, mainly in B&W; enjoying the feel of the camera, honing your skills and understanding of exposure, and getting that film look we love. The Nikon F6 should be in nowhere-land - not much nostalgia attached to it and truly superseded by the digital revolution. I can see why you'd like to use the more recent film cameras - they are most likely more reliable, but one could also pick up Nikon FM3a, which went out of production in 2006.

So why do you use F6, F5, or other high-end film cameras such Minolta 7, 9 or Canon equivalent?

i think the answer was posted a long while ago ... why not ?

 

[MFstooges]

It takes much longer to change shutter speed from say 1s to 1/125s on the F5 than on the F3.

My experience is contrary, I found it's more difficult to change shutter speed with old style dial and I can go from 1 to 1/4000 quicker on my N90s than F2/F3.

 

[narsuitus]

... I found it's more difficult to change shutter speed with old style dial and I can go from 1 to 1/4000 quicker on my N90s than F2/F3.

I am curious. Exactly how do you change the shutter speed on the N90?

 

[MFstooges]

I am curious. Exactly how do you change the shutter speed on the N90?

using my thumb

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have used my EOS1N in Av mode for decades; I don't use it on "full auto" mode because, being a high end professional camera, it doesn't have such a mode.
Many years ago an EOS 5 was used but still Av mode and occasional P for Professional mode (!) was used. It is the way I was trained: not to rely on automation but to the majority of thinking and analysis myself. And that has been my mainstay all the way, even now in medium format.

 

[rakeshmravi]

I like shooting on film. But at the same time I also like the ability to use fast focus, dependable meter when I am confused, better weather proofing and good build and ergonomics. I like the look and feel of the film photographs that is the only reason i am shooting film not b/c I want to use film cameras.

 

[ic-racer]

But in this digital age, why get these fast, automatic film cameras?

Because they don't use film?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sometimes I need auto focus.
Sometimes I need bracketing that I can vary the size of the bracket.
Sometimes I need to bracket on only one side.
Sometimes I need to shoot a burst at a once in a lifetime event when failure is not an option.
Sometimes I need an automatic camera when I am on vacation and do not have the luxury of being able to slow down and shoot right at that time.
Sometimes I want to use fully manual non-battery operated camera. Then I can select from my Hasselblads or 4"x5" cameras.

For the first five I have an N-75 and an F-100.

 

[Laostyle17]

Agreed. I was scared of the N90 when I first used it. Now, if i need that shot, that very moment, I focus on stability and composition. even then I guess N90 is more semi-pro.