Can you point me to the right direction?

mfogiel said:
You should understand in the first place, that nowadays the main reason to shoot film is B&W. Are you a B&W guy? If not, forget film.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I differ with that statement.

If you like to shoot colour film, negative or slide you just shoot it and don't care if people are telling you to forget film if you don't shoot B&W.
 
I think Marek's point was the fact that usually one can do B/W post work by himself and "personalize" the photograph as much as he wants according to his tastes (this also allows you to keep costs low); besides B/W has usually more D/R and visual impact (especially on people centered scenes) than colour film that, imho, fits better other cases where vivid colours are involved.

B/W is meant imho to go deeper in people or society souls, it help you to focus on people faces and emotions rather on what they wear or where they are, but you must master it and don't use as a panacea or a fancy thing. If you use B/W for the above purposes, than a RF may help you to get that special moment without being noticed too much. RF + lens usually cover much less part of the face than an equivalent SLR + lens (as showed above). I always remember the Keith avatar. With a hat, if you look distractely at someone with a RF, you won't noticing him while taking a picture (RFs are also way more silent than SLR): hiding a SLR might be more complicated if possible at all. If you are a reporter, a RF kit is also way lighter than its correspondent SLR.
 
In my opinion one thing you should conside is that shooting film instead of digital involves a real different process, or attitude or workflow. People born (photo-born I mean) with digital tend to shoot more, than evaluate what is coming out and than choice. Mainly due to the no film cost, almost no limit in the available number of photo you can take and possibility to do it in a short time frame. When you shoot film each frame you shoot has a cost (not terrific but there is a cost), you are limited to 24/36 exposures before to change film. Than you have the process phase (developping, printing ) which can take a few hours or a few days. Only than you see the result of your work. In my opinion (but I'm old...) it is a more interesting experience which will bring you to "plan" more the pictures you are going to take (and for this also your digital work will benefit) and is worthwhile to be done. A simple camera, not too expensive will be the starting point. XP2 or Kodak BW 400 CN if you like to try B&W. Later you can start to develop yourself B&W etc etc. Many suggetions about in this forum as well. At the end I wish you give a try and enjoy this different "process".
robert
 
I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with some of the statements in this thread such as "b&w has more visual impact" and that shooting color film is a waste of time. The OP want to try film and RF's and the rest is up to him and how he wants to experiment.

To the OP: get the gear you want and shoot away. If you end up not liking it you can always sell it later!
 
Thanks guys. I almost made up my mind and will buy the Zeiss Ikon "it's just a matter of time".

but one concern; Is dealing with film difficult or just different "will i get the grip of it after few films wasted. or is it harder than that?"

Thanks again.
 
Start with XP2 and a Portra400 or Fuji 400 colour neg film. Expose at EI 200, develop and scan in a pro lab. You will get 99% good results right away. When you step up to B&W silver film, start with Tri X in D76 1+1 developed at home, after 10 rolls you will be an expert.
 
my 2 cents. shooting color film vs digital capture in 35mm format isn't worth the trip if one is shooting any kind of volume in color work. B&W is another thing entirely. i really struggle to get the look i want in B&W from digi conversions. maybe i'm just incompetent wrt the digi conversion workflow. or maybe i see too much really fine B&W film work here and elsewhere (causing me to disparage my conversions).

so yeah, i think the film-based RF choice makes sense only if B&W is going to be a significant part of what you shoot. on the other hand, if you have some 35mm color films that you really enjoy, and you're competent to scan color negs and trans, then ignore my post.
 
You'll be unlucky if you 'waste' any films at all. Until recently, after all, 35mm was the norm. Are we all so stupid now we can't handle a 35mm RF camera? It seems unlikely to me. I'd be surprised if you didn't get some pictures to be proud of from the very first roll.

Cheers,

R.
 
Another point of view: I regularly use slide film. Instead of scanning it I project it. I have a very nice slide projector and have yet to see digital look as good as projected slides. I would recommend against getting a cheep scanner. With the Ikon and (perhaps) Zeiss optics, a cheap scanner will be the weak link.
 
First of all, Thanks guys for all that great opinions and help.

jjovin said:
Another point of view: I regularly use slide film. Instead of scanning it I project it. I have a very nice slide projector and have yet to see digital look as good as projected slides. I would recommend against getting a cheep scanner. With the Ikon and (perhaps) Zeiss optics, a cheap scanner will be the weak link.
Click to expand...

you are right, but i'll look for scanners that would do the job good enough. and I'll buy a zeiss 35mm with the Ikon and then buy other lenses "selling lenses and buying them it's just addicting!!!"

I sold most of my digital gear with the exception of 4 lenses which I use a lot (Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, Nikon 35mm F1.8, Zeiss 100mm F2 Makro, and the Sigma 100-300mm F4 "for racing") and a couple of flases.

Thanks again guys
 
I was looking at Dino's "appropriated" comparison photo of a ZI and Nikon FM3a. One big difference that jumped out at me was how far the lens mount jutted out from the body...the result of the mirror box, making the camera body that much bulkier. The ZI's lens mount, like that of every M-mount camera, is flush with the body front. This, in addition to the different lens design an RF system allows, makes for a considerably more compact package. I'm hardly jumping on the Nikon (great camera), but if we're talking size in absolute terms, the FM3a comes up a bit short (or should that be long?). An Olympus OM body, on the other hand, is another story altogether.

On the issue of shooting color, shooting digital sounds like the straightforward solution, but now you're stuck with an SLR again (unless you're willing to venture into the "interesting" world of, say micro-four-thirds cameras [not exactly cheap] or M-mount digital RFs [anything but cheap]). I say: keep things simple and shoot color with the same camera you shoot b/w with. The less gear you have to switch between, the more comfortable you'll feel with the gear you have. (And, so the idea goes, the better your pictures will be. I happen to believe this.)

And, yes, if you really get into it, a decent scanner is a neat idea. As well as a printer. :)


- Barrett
 
I used my first rf when I was about 8 years old. The I shot slrs until I was 40. Then I bought a Zorki 4K and soon after a Zeiss Ikon. Pepercut's advice is good - if you like the rf experience then you can easily buy an Ikon later, but it's a lot of camera for an experiment (of course, it may be trivial to you in which case go for it!)

My Ikon is not that disimilar in size to my Canon AE-1, but it's a lot smalle rthan a 5D or 1Ds3 with a big bit of glass on the front.

MIke
 
Hi mob81, your post could have been by me a month or so ago, I got a digital camera (Sigma DP1) and quickly felt I wanted to go further with photography. Big black plastic SLRs never appealed, so I ended up looking at range finders, and in the end got a Zeiss Ikon and a Nokton lens. I think it's awesome, I enjoy investigating different films and have order lots of different types to try.

I'm just a beginner and would defer to most other people on this forum, but I do think it's worth getting a camera you really like and are proud of, rather than a cheap one which does not push your buttons. I love the way the ZI feels and handles, which makes me want to use it, maybe a scuffed old fixed lens range finder wouldn't quite do that for me.

I'm not saying the advice here to get a cheaper range finder at first is wrong, I'm just saying that for me, and maybe you, having a camera which you love to hold and look at might make you want to "do it justice" and use it more.

All the best

Garry
 
mob81 said:
Hello everyone,
I’m a DSLR shooter “amateur photographer” I grew up using digital camera and still love it. However, I like to try out a rangefinder and would like to try a film one too. My eyes are on the Zeiss’s Ikon. I’m a bit afraid to try the change but I’m willing, and I love manual focus lenses “make me work better and control the picture as I wish!” and manual focus on a DSLR a bit hard at the beginning “I hope” but I’m getting the hang of it. But I still want to try out a film camera “been in my head about a year now”.

Why I want to try a film? Well, because digital camera has been around for years now, and film shooters are still a large number “even some pros who use digital cameras are still using films” and that’s something --- I figured it gotta be something special about films that makes them still using films. So, I read and was impressed but lost at the same time!

So please can anyone point me at the right or the best way to know more about modern film cameras “how to use them, film types...etc” any site or a book or videos...etc.

Is the learning curve hard or easier than I thought? “and I’m thinking real hard”

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You have to be born as RF guy. It's too late for you just keep using your dslr :)
 
thegman said:
Hi mob81, your post could have been by me a month or so ago, I got a digital camera (Sigma DP1) and quickly felt I wanted to go further with photography. Big black plastic SLRs never appealed, so I ended up looking at range finders, and in the end got a Zeiss Ikon and a Nokton lens. I think it's awesome, I enjoy investigating different films and have order lots of different types to try.

I'm just a beginner and would defer to most other people on this forum, but I do think it's worth getting a camera you really like and are proud of, rather than a cheap one which does not push your buttons. I love the way the ZI feels and handles, which makes me want to use it, maybe a scuffed old fixed lens range finder wouldn't quite do that for me.

I'm not saying the advice here to get a cheaper range finder at first is wrong, I'm just saying that for me, and maybe you, having a camera which you love to hold and look at might make you want to "do it justice" and use it more.

All the best

Garry
Click to expand...

Dear Garry,

I couldn't agree more -- and that's after taking up photography in '66 and rangefinders in '69/70.

Cheers,

R.
 
amateriat said:
I was looking at Dino's "appropriated" comparison photo of a ZI and Nikon FM3a. One big difference that jumped out at me was how far the lens mount jutted out from the body...the result of the mirror box, making the camera body that much bulkier. The ZI's lens mount, like that of every M-mount camera, is flush with the body front. This, in addition to the different lens design an RF system allows, makes for a considerably more compact package. I'm hardly jumping on the Nikon (great camera), but if we're talking size in absolute terms, the FM3a comes up a bit short (or should that be long?). An Olympus OM body, on the other hand, is another story altogether.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Like Dino, I have both the FM3A & the ZI. I much prefer the FM3A for flash photography.

As time goes on, I use fewer & fewer lenses. With the FM3A, I pretty much limit myself to the 45/2.8 Pancake lens that can be bought with the camera as a kit & the 28/2.8 Nikkor. The 45/2.8P is a beautiful lens, based on the classic Tessar design. Combined with an SB 30 flash, this makes quite a compact kit, very comparable in size to a RF body & lens. The 28/2.8 is bigger than a comparable RF lens but not a huge difference & not much bigger than a 50 Nokton or the like. With these 2 lenses, I can shoot anything I want. If I need to I have an 85/2 for portraits, but I rarely taking posed pictures of that sort.

An SLR with a telephoto or a zoom lens will certainly be bulkier than a RF, but that's comparing apples & oranges. I think that the FM3A with the 45/2.8P is a nice alternative to a RF if size is the only consideration.

My advice would be to save your money on lenses. Pick one lens in the 35-50 range & shoot exclusively with that for 6 months to a year. You'll eventually know if you need anything more than that.
 
Last edited:
I shoot with a 5DMkII and a ZI.

Film isn't important for me. Colour quality is far better from the 5D2, but BW is closer but for the way I shoot I still get better technical images from the 5D2.

However once the image content is taken into account, somehow the ZI seems to pull ahead. I just take better pictures with a RF for some reason. And really I'd rather have a great image which is less technically brilliant than a technically brilliant but boring image.

If you can afford it then the ZI is fantastic, and there is no real point in choosing something less expensive. If you get tired of your ZI you will probably be able to sell it without losing more than 20-25% of what you spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top