What are some good film cameras that not many people talk of?

[Rol Lei Nut]

The ZI has a much wider effective rangefinder base than the Bessa. That means more accurate focus, especially with longer lenses.

Thanks, I've read about. Obviously the main technical difference to the otherwise more or less identical Bessa. I never looked more detailed into the ZI specs as I never wanted to spend that much for a toy with limited possibilities. Therefore I only have a couple of Russian Leica copies and the Bessa R2.

On the other hand I wouldn't recommend to shoot wild animals or similar objects with a RF camera unless you have an accessory such as the Leica Visoflex system. Luckily my longer Leitz lenses such as the 90mm Elmarit and the 135mm Elmar are Visoflex compatible (detachable lens heads which are also very useful to turn these lenses into very capable macro ones) and my longer Telyts (200 and 280mm) are designed as Visoflex lenses anyway. BTW, Visoflex is usable on the Bessa as well, although I have to admit that I never tried it in real practice as I prefer to shoot digital for such tasks; i.e. with my longer RF lenses anyway. It's in any case a rather cumbersome process to use longer lenses on RF cameras.

Even the best and most modern RF cameras have still some limitations. That's a matter of fact.

I'm using my Bessa primarily with wide angles to make use of the wider angle of view compared to my digital APS-C camera. The CV 12 and 15mm lenses really look more spectacular on the bigger film format and there is no problem with color shift or alike on film. Consequently I didn't really care about the accuracy of the focus system of the Bessa when I made my decision for purchase. Most probably even the finderless L version would have been good enough for me. ;-)

I do hope that this clarifies my point of view which is obviously slightly different.....

I think nobody has seriously wanted to shoot wildlife with a rangefinder camera since around 1959...

Photographers who love rangefinders know their limits and qualities quite well.

Accurate focus is important, hence the preference for decently specified rangefinder bases.

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

1) Leicaflex SL & SL2: The best viewfinders ever made for a SLR camera, period. Bright, objects snap into focus (with the SL, even in the corners. Like a Nikon G screen but much better and without any of the disadvantages. Better than an Olympus OM 4. Also, mechanically dampened mirror & shutter for extremely low shutter & mirror shock. Can handhold slow speeds as well as a Leica M6. Nikon F & F2 feel like shaky tin cans in comparison. They even have some pretty good lenses as well.. ;-)

2) Rolleiflex 3003: imagine a motorized Hasselblad, with interchangeable film magazines, 2 separate viewfinders and some nice Zeiss lenses, but uses 35mm film.

3) Rolleiflex SL35-E: the traditional little brother of the 3003. Pretty design, small & nice to use. Reliability could be better, but the Zeiss lenses are great.

4) Leningrad: Soviet spring motor rangefinder, with 35-135mm framelines in the viewfinder, glass pressure plate & M39 lens mount. Kerrrr...Klack! Kerrr...Klack! Kerrrr...Klack! Oh what a feeling! ;-)

5) Kodak Retina IIIS: interchangeable lens rangefinder (28-135mm + 200mm?). Very pretty, beautifully made. Built-in coupled light meter. Good Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.

And the Exakta: the first 35mm SLR (1936? - c. 1970? in various versions). Some versions are true art deco masterpieces. The lenses made for them in the 50's and 60's are a who's who of the optics world, with only Leica and a few others missing. The better Zeiss Jena, Schneider, Steinheil, ISCO and Schacht lenses, just to mention a few, are some of the best of the period. You haven't really lived until you've advanced film, set the speed and released the shutter with your left hand, while focusing and setting the aperture with your right.

 

[Abbazz]

From the older, more reasonable models the Fujica G690 is best as it's designed to be portable and generally Fuji lenses aren't bad at all.

I have two G690 bodies and the full line of lenses. They are all exceptional but two particularly stand out:

- the 100/3.5 Auto Exposure: this is this only G690 lens with modern multicoatings. As its name implies, it also has an electronic shutter controlled by a CdS sensor, thus offering aperture priority AE. Combined with the comfortable viewfinder/rangefinder, it allows for reportage style shooting on 6x9 film.

- the 50/5.6 lens: 50mm on 6x9 is very wide and the lens is really, really sharp. That means there's a lot of detail recorded on your negative!

The downside of the G690 system is the scarcity of most lenses and accessories. That often translates into inflated collectors' prices. And It took me a few years to get the elusive "Auto-Up" close-up accessory...

If you can live with a smaller medium format such as 4.5x6 then I can recommend the Fujifilm GA645 which is available in different variations. It is almost fool-proof incl. auto focus but with fixed (but very good) lens only. Maybe that's a good start into medium format. There is a Zi version which is equipped even with a zoom lens if you prefer more flexibility. These cameras can be found quite frequently for rather little money second-hand on Ebay. More information can be found here: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fujifilm_GA645

I can personally vouch for the GA645zi. I use it a lot as a travel camera. It's really a lot of fun to use this oversized point-and-shoot. But, don't be fooled by its appearance: it's a real professional camera delivering high level results, Exposure and autofocus are very accurate (which is good news because the camera was evidently not designed to be used in manual mode: manual focus in particular is a curse). The 55-90mm zoom is somewhat limited but keeping the range narrow allowed Fuji to avoid compromizing optical quality.

But the best feature IMHO is the data printing unit, which allows to print the date, time and exposure data (program mode, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, AF/MF and flash status) on the negative. And the best part is that the data is printed outside the image area, in the film margin. It is really invaluable to have all this information available when you browse through you old negatives.

Here's a good review: http://www.thewsreviews.com/2012/01/fujifilm-ga645zi.html

Cheers!

Abbazz

--
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource: http://artbig.com/

 

[ThomasB]

From the older, more reasonable models the Fujica G690 is best as it's designed to be portable and generally Fuji lenses aren't bad at all.

I have two G690 bodies and the full line of lenses. They are all exceptional but two particularly stand out:

- the 100/3.5 Auto Exposure: this is this only G690 lens with modern multicoatings. As its name implies, it also has an electronic shutter controlled by a CdS sensor, thus offering aperture priority AE. Combined with the comfortable viewfinder/rangefinder, it allows for reportage style shooting on 6x9 film.

- the 50/5.6 lens: 50mm on 6x9 is very wide and the lens is really, really sharp. That means there's a lot of detail recorded on your negative!

The downside of the G690 system is the scarcity of most lenses and accessories. That often translates into inflated collectors' prices. And It took me a few years to get the elusive "Auto-Up" close-up accessory...

I have two bodies as well but unfortunately I didn't manage to get the 50mm lens up to now; i.e. that's the only lens I am missing and it's very hard to find for a reasonable price.

As I have all necessary close-up accessories for my Mamiya press 6X9 camera I don't need it for the G690 as well. The Mamiya offers better close-up capabilities as you can focus by the means of a matte screen, similar to large format cameras. And there are distance rings available as well. I have all that stuff but didn't manage to test it up to now. ;-)

If you can live with a smaller medium format such as 4.5x6 then I can recommend the Fujifilm GA645 which is available in different variations. It is almost fool-proof incl. auto focus but with fixed (but very good) lens only. Maybe that's a good start into medium format. There is a Zi version which is equipped even with a zoom lens if you prefer more flexibility. These cameras can be found quite frequently for rather little money second-hand on Ebay. More information can be found here: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fujifilm_GA645

I can personally vouch for the GA645zi. I use it a lot as a travel camera. It's really a lot of fun to use this oversized point-and-shoot. But, don't be fooled by its appearance: it's a real professional camera delivering high level results, Exposure and autofocus are very accurate (which is good news because the camera was evidently not designed to be used in manual mode: manual focus in particular is a curse). The 55-90mm zoom is somewhat limited but keeping the range narrow allowed Fuji to avoid compromizing optical quality.

But the best feature IMHO is the data printing unit, which allows to print the date, time and exposure data (program mode, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, AF/MF and flash status) on the negative. And the best part is that the data is printed outside the image area, in the film margin. It is really invaluable to have all this information available when you browse through you old negatives.

Here's a good review: http://www.thewsreviews.com/2012/01/fujifilm-ga645zi.html

Maybe I'll grab the zi as well. I only have the GA645 with the fixed 60mm lens. However, also the 60mm lens is extremely good and delivers excellent results.

IMHO medium format on high resolution film is still another league and the only way to go if larger prints with high quality is the target.

 

[Rod McD]

Thank you. The mamiya press and Fuji g690 looks very interesting. How good is the 50mm lens of either cams? How do these cams compare to the mamiya 7 and why is mamiya 7 more popular than these. Not gonna buy (too expensive) anytime soon but it helps to know about these stuff. I used to lurk around searching for mamiya 7 + 43mm + 150mm, and later understood I'm never gonna find a relatively cheap one anytime soon. It still is my dream setup though. The 100mm 3.5 also seems interesting.

Any other 6*9 large format worth looking for (in the compact form factor of the above cameras) ?

Hi,

The Mamiya 7 was the latest 6x7 RF and had some very fine lenses in a range that was a little more extensive than the G690 Fujis. There's still a healthy interest and trade in the system. I'm told it does have weaknesses in its old age however - apparently the focusing mechanism uses flexible ribbon circuits to conduct data to and from the electronic lenses and release the shutter. I'm told that they're prone to breaking and not available as parts or replaceable, so some problems are irreparable.

Another ILC RF medium format system was the Bronica 645. It wasn't in production very long, but there were excellent reports at the time.

I would also consider fixed lens medium format RFs.

• The two Plaubel Makina 6X7s with Nikon 55/4.5 and 80/2.8 were excellent, if somewhat delicate cameras.
• The Fuji 6x7/6x9 fixed lens cameras were excellent and very robust. They came in various versions with 55, 65, 80 and 90mm lenses
• The older Fuji 645s were also good cameras. The early Fuji 645W zone focusing camera with 45mm lens is a wonderful landscape camera that weighs next to nothing. The RF versions came with a 60mm and a 75mm in manual focus versions and then there were AF versions and zoom that followed.

Lots to choose from. If I were to return to film, it would be MF not 35mm.

Cheers, Rod

 

[paul_kew]

I'd be more interested in things that have certain unique capabilities (regardless of whether it is actually that much helpful or not). I'd be more interested in cameras that can do things that modern cameras actually can't (or don't). Or things that are technical landmarks - like first to do "x" feature.

The ones I have seen and liked are

1. Maxxum 9 - metering system, 1/12000th of a shutter speed

Already the older 9xi did that.

With the right card, it, along with a few other Minoltas,could also do the last thing on the OP's list - double exposures. Or more.

Regards, Thomas Bernardy
----------

 

[nigbat]

I'd be more interested in things that have certain unique capabilities (regardless of whether it is actually that much helpful or not). I'd be more interested in cameras that can do things that modern cameras actually can't (or don't). ...

I can be as nostalgic as anyone else. I also get that you're asking: are there old ideas that should be new again? Well, the

2. Maxxum 7 - STF mode

certainly deserves special credit, but here's why: it uses fairly complex programmed control to produce images you couldn't produce by other means.

Film cameras, however elegant and mechanically sophisticated, were generally not programmable, but modern cameras are computers. We need to stop thinking about them the way we thought about film.

An obvious difference in this new view is that all cameras should be programmable (or at least scriptable) -- able to run camera apps. In fact, Minolta pioneered this (with program cards), and that's basically what STF mode was: a built-in camera control script.

There are other ways in which film thinking is obsolete. For example, one of the core assumptions in my research has been that capture should be frameless. The only reason we think of capturing an image at a time is because film didn't offer an alternative; capturing continuous waveforms that describe how scene appearance changes over time greatly improves DR while enabling virtual exposures to be made computationally for any time period (shutter speed and trigger time can be selected after capture). Here are some slides discussing TIK, free software which manipulates time domain continuous images, including conversion of video into a continuous format and rendering of virtual exposures.

Now I'm sure some will be wondering why I'm talking about this in an "old lens" forum. The reason is simple: these new camera-as-computer ideas actually make it easier to make good use of old lenses. Compare manual focusing with a microprism optical screen to focus peaking (and seeing what the scene will be captured as in live view), consider autofocus tuning of manual lenses via a TechArt Pro LM-EA4, think about undistorting images -- even fisheye images -- in camera so you can use live view to accurately compose shots. All of this is a game old lenses can play.

In sum, I fondly remember my Minolta XK brimming with then state-of-the-art computer technology in the form of electronic shutter control (the "Auto Electro Finder"), and I still have my XK along with a couple dozen other film cameras. I also still have my 23CII dichro enlarger... and I remember how to do most things I used to do in the darkroom. The fine craftsmanship, low cost, and ease of use of old lenses makes them more appealing than ever. However, I no longer think of cameras as exposing film -- it's a new medium.

It is indeed - and might obsolete conventional lenses entirely...

Loading…

advances.sciencemag.org

 

[E Dinkla]

4. Mamiya 7, Plaubel Makina, Fuji - 6*7 film, almost 5 times the area of a full frame sensor. And still being as compact of a camera as can be.

Actual 6x7 film formats are 56x68mm which is at most 4.3x the 24x36mm format. The Fuji GF670 has an internal switch between 68 and 56mm to get the square format so no chance to do it mid roll. I would keep it at 68mm anyway. There is a wide angle lens model too, the 80mm is not that wide on both film formats. Older folders are slimmer and can be carried in a coat pocket. This one not. Superb lens though as I understand it. The Nikkor on the Plaubel Makina too, hybrid of Planar/Plasmat, similar to the Canon EF STM 40mm 2.8 that appeared much later.

Other less known Medium Format film cameras, MF and larger as the scans of it deliver quality;

Bronica RF645

Kodak Medalist (620 film though)

Graflex Combat Graphic (70mm film) "Gullivers Contax". Do not underestimate the Kodak Ektars on both models. In that period US lenses were second to none.

Brooks Veriwide, 55x79mm film format.

Linhof Technika Press, Press 70, 220.

The more recent Alpa MF bodies + converted backs for 645 ultra plane film, frames lengthwise and wider spaced on the roll.

Not pocketable but beautiful, usable, good lenses, good scans; Polaroid Pathfinder 110a, 110b, 120, can be converted to existing LF (instant) film formats. I have done it myself on my 110a. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Polaroid_Pathfinder

Smaller cameras;

Good pocket 6x9 coupled RF folders of the sixties; the Ensign Autorange 820, the Voigtländer Bessa II, Super Baldax, etc

Good pocket 6x6 coupled RF folders of the sixties; Iskra 1 that I have.

Smallest 6x6 MF folders ever; Voigtländer Perkeo with Color Skopar, 6x6, 3 models.

Probably smallest 6x9 folder; Agfa Record II, in my case with an adapted 1946 Kodak Anastigmat Special (L) 101mm 4.5, read Ektar for it.

Widest frame 6x9 folder; Voigtländer Bessa I, 56x88mm, Color Skopar, that I have, pocketable.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

 

[ProfHankD]

However, I no longer think of cameras as exposing film -- it's a new medium.

It is indeed - and might obsolete conventional lenses entirely...

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaar2114.full

Actually, the metasurface stuff is not the most likely new tech. For example, DO (diffractive optics) have been mostly limited by the design technology available, but as computing power and machine learning methods have gotten stronger, you can very cheaply do much more with DO. There's also a lot of computational photography tech that can use very flawed lenses (or even none)....

Fortunately, the obsolete lenses will continue to work; they're just bigger, etc.

 

[photoholiko]

Agree, I have two of them with CZJ 50/2.8, Shacht 35/3.5, Rodenstock 135/4 Rotelar, Gottinger 50/1.9 and the Kilftt 40/3.5 Macrokilar.

 

[carylee2002]

I say the Nikon SP, Nikon F, always the Leica M3 or even the M2 are awesome. Once you get one of those cameras in your hands you would forget about the modern cameras because they were made to last especially the Leicas were made from brass.

 

[ProfHankD]

I say the Nikon SP, Nikon F, always the Leica M3 or even the M2 are awesome. Once you get one of those cameras in your hands you would forget about the modern cameras because they were made to last especially the Leicas were made from brass.

Well, I certainly am not about to claim that a digital camera is made to last in the sense that we haven't yet hit a flat spot in the sensor technology curve... but: modern cameras are not necessarily less well built nor less durable.

My standard of excellence in SLR build is my Minolta XK, in 6x6cm a Rolliecord VB, in 4x5 a B&J Press/View. All of those have solid metal frames. (Incidentally, at the time it was released, the XK was the heaviest 135 SLR, although it was soon edged-out by the Leica R cameras using Minolta XK guts.) However, most of my ILC cameras also have solid metal frames (usually cast with minimal machining).

For example, my Sony NEX-7, A7, A7II, and A7RII are all very reminiscent of my XK. They all have solid metal frames, although the metal now tends to be lighter stuff -- aluminum or titanium instead of brass or steel. Less chrome plating too. And harder black finishes that don't show "battle scars" as clearly as the chipped paint on my XK shows its brass.

Beyond that, there are now lots of plastics/composites that are more durable than metal.

The thing you don't see much now is the high-friction, but silky smooth, movement of heavy metal against heavy metal -- e.g., like focusing on my old Rokkor lenses. You don't see it because (1) friction is tough on little drive motors, (2) people don't want heavy things and it is cheaper to make them light, (3) the manufacturing concept of tooling "wearing through" a tolerance range, and (4) hand-finishing/tuning of things is now much more expensive. The interesting thing is, I don't think my XK really feels better than my recent Sonys... although the lenses from it sure feel better than most made for the Sonys now.

 

[manueljenkin]

Thanks a lot. I'm gonna check out each one of them.

 

[sensiblename99]

I'd be more interested in things that have certain unique capabilities (regardless of whether it is actually that much helpful or not). I'd be more interested in cameras that can do things that modern cameras actually can't (or don't). Or things that are technical landmarks - like first to do "x" feature.

...

The Leica R4 is much maligned but unfairly. They have a larger viewfinder magnification than most SLR's and most Leicas. If you change the standard R4 focusing screen, which is relatively dark, with a focusing screen for later R bodies, which is quite a lot brighter, than you have a camera which is better suited to wide angle lenses which can be difficult to focus on many SLR's. This is a great camera IMHO, not quite up there with the R8, or Canon 1V's, but not many cameras are.

Olympus OM bodies are great, for a similar reason to the R4, but they have their shutter speed dial in a strange spot.

 

[D Cox]

There were many fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder cameras that were very good. Obviously you can't adapt the lenses to a digital camera, but if you just want a good film camera most rangefinders with f/2 or f/1.8 lenses are worth looking at.

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

I'd be more interested in things that have certain unique capabilities (regardless of whether it is actually that much helpful or not). I'd be more interested in cameras that can do things that modern cameras actually can't (or don't). Or things that are technical landmarks - like first to do "x" feature.

...

The Leica R4 is much maligned but unfairly. They have a larger viewfinder magnification than most SLR's and most Leicas. If you change the standard R4 focusing screen, which is relatively dark, with a focusing screen for later R bodies, which is quite a lot brighter, than you have a camera which is better suited to wide angle lenses which can be difficult to focus on many SLR's. This is a great camera IMHO, not quite up there with the R8, or Canon 1V's, but not many cameras are.
Olympus OM bodies are great, for a similar reason to the R4, but they have their shutter speed dial in a strange spot.

The Leica R4 was much maligned at the time because it was considered a re-branded Minolta and had some reliability problems. In reality, Leica did start from a Minolta XD7 / 11 chassis, but changed the shutter, the mirrorbox and, unfortunately, part of the electronics and that's where the trouble started. Many of them had electronic problems and failures, and the camera was irretrievably classified as a lemon in the popular mind. In reality, any which are still working today are either good samples or were fixed at some point.

The R4 is a small and nice camera, but if you can live without auto exposure and with some extra size & weight, the Leicaflex SL & SL2 have (even) much better viewfinders.

Only caveat: some very few newer R lenses won't mount the Leicaflex SL2, and a few more won't mount the SL.

 

[E Dinkla]

There were many fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder cameras that were very good. Obviously you can't adapt the lenses to a digital camera, but if you just want a good film camera most rangefinders with f/2 or f/1.8 lenses are worth looking at.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

 

[v12nut]

Lets show some love for the Pentax LX ! a superb toy in its day.

Cheers

 

[Abbazz]

Lets show some love for the Pentax LX ! a superb toy in its day.

The Pentax LX is indeed one of the finest SLRs ever made.

Let me introduce an ugly duckling in the Pentax lineup: the Z-1p (PZ-1p in the USA). Launched in 1994, it was a "semi-pro" body, which featured quite a lot of advanced specifications: 1/8000s top shutter speed, 1/250s flash synch, two control dials, 4 fps built-in film winder, etc. Best of all, the Z-1p was so sturdy that Pentax experienced almost no warranty returns on this model.

Best of all, it can be used in autoexposure mode with every lens ever made by Pentax, including "K" and "M" lenses, without having to press the "Green button", unlike all recent Pentax SLRs and DSLRs featuring the infamous KAF2 mount.

Nowadays, the Z-1p is looked down by collectors because it has a plastic top cover (don't let this detail distract you, this is high quality polycarbonate, lightweight and sturdy). Also the fact that it is an autofocus camera turns away manual focus purists. Therefore it can be bought for very little money, making it one of the best bargains among all film SLRs.

For someone seeking a workhorse camera with excellent value, I warmly recommend looking at the Pentax Z-1p.

Cheers!

Abbazz

--
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource: http://artbig.com/

 

[manueljenkin]

What do you think of Fuji gx680 series? I can find a 50mm lens and can snag one up. I'm looking for 180mm 3.2 but couldn't find one yet. I like the versatility of the system, the lens covers a larger than 6*8 image circle so it's possible to experiment with tilt shift focus and stuff (I think it's not possible to do this with gx680iii s so I wouldn't buy that, but there are 3 other models I could find). It honestly looks like the cool gadget I'd love to tinker with. Not so much worried about weight since it will be a special use camera.