Rolly ?

86JR

86JR

86JR

Permabanned
Joined
19 Oct 2007
Posts
6,322
Location
.
Im thinking of buying this :
Rolleiflex Zeiss Planar 75mm 3.5 E3 TLR Camera


For a number of reasons.

1. To learn composure, master aparture and shutter speed, and film iso.
2. Always been interested in medium format film.
3. The camera itself is legendary, i would be happy putting it on the shelf as some technominimalistic "art" in my bedroom, and never using it.
4. Our uni lecturer keeps pestering us to ditch the DSLR's (requirement of the course to buy one btw) and shoot film instead.

But I cant get my head around the film side of things, how do i know what film i need, what film does what, and how to actually load the film, i read somewhere that you have to wind it in as you shoot ? The only film i have ever heard of (and love, but being a bit of a nikon fanboi you understand) is kodachrome.

Also im guessing flash photography is absolete here ?
 
You don't need to buy more equipment to learn how to shoot.

Shooting film is expensive. Hardly anybody stocks real film any more. Most of the professional grade films are not even in a production any more, and those that can be found are expensive.

Developers are also expensive. Finding a guy who still has the knack for correct development of specialist films is difficult and not cheap.

I'm assistant to a guy who shoots both medium format film and digital and every day i struggle to find suppliers and developers. Every day, he loses more and more patience shooting on film, despite having done so for 27 years. My advice is that your photography is not at a level where sinking the time and money into serious film is a worthwhile investment.
 
Last edited:
Dude

DampCat said:
You don't need to buy more equipment to learn how to shoot.

Shooting film is expensive. Hardly anybody stocks real film any more. Most of the professional grade films are not even in a production any more, and those that can be found are expensive.

Developers are also expensive. Finding a guy who still has the knack for correct development of specialist films is difficult and not cheap.

I'm assistant to a guy who shoots both medium format film and digital. My advice is that your photography is not at a level where sinking the time and money into serious film is a worthwhile investment.
Click to expand...

Wrong, just wrong.

Film is easy to buy, but I agree you can't just pick every type up at every chemist any more. Developing films is very easy and straight-forward. Enlargers and other darkroom equipment can be sourced new or second hand quite easily and cheaply.

I agree that's it's not as prevalent as digital these days, but to suggest there's no value in film learning and that it is particularly expensive is just disingenuous. It is relative and if you can't affair 2-3 quid for a roll of film, then maybe it is "too expensive".

The rewards from learning how to use light and exposure in a less forgiving medium sic as film, with practice will make someone a better photographer in the long run.

I say try film definitely. I shoot 35mm, 120 and digital and each gives you something different.
 
I didn't suggest there's no value in learning to shoot on film. It's a fantastic medium and holds many value lost in digital photography.

My point was buying a £700 camera is not going to improve his photography. He struggles with basic lighting and composure on a pro-sumer DSLR. Less forgiving it may be, but there is nothing that he can learn from investing all that money that he cannot learn for free with the equipment he has.

My response was tailored specifically to the enquirer, not to the entire medium of film photography. So, i'm not wrong, just wrong. Unnecessarily dramatic maybe, but not wrong.
 
Last edited:
A bit strong perhaps

DampCat said:
I didn't suggest there's no value in learning to shoot on film. It's a fantastic medium and holds many value lost in digital photography.

My point was buying a £700 camera is not going to improve his photography. He struggles with basic lighting and composure on a pro-sumer DSLR. Less forgiving it may be, but there is nothing that he can learn from investing all that money that he cannot learn for free with the equipment he has.

My response was tailored specifically to the enquirer, not to the entire medium of film photography. So, i'm not wrong, just wrong. Unnecessarily dramatic maybe, but not wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry if misunderstood, as I didn't read you to be saying that particular camera would be a bad idea, rather that no additional (film) gear would be of value to him. I agree absolutely that a mf camera is not the best start into film, but I definitely think there's a lot to be gained by learning from film. The OP can buy a perfectly serviceable 35mm for a few quid and try something like Michael free mans photography school book from the early 80s which sets out everything you need to know on shooting film with lessons to follow and learn from.

If he hasn't learned with what he's got maybe film may help or it may not.

I think we'd both agree there's no substitute for practice, critique (from self and others) followed by more practice.
:)
 
DampCat said:
Shooting film is expensive. Hardly anybody stocks real film any more. Most of the professional grade films are not even in a production any more, and those that can be found are expensive.
Click to expand...

I have no trouble getting Velvia 50 and Delta 400 for about £5-50 a (35mm) roll, they're both absolutely professional films and that's hardly the earth, I've got them at the high st photo chain for £8 a roll or so when I was desperate before...

Developers are also expensive. Finding a guy who still has the knack for correct development of specialist films is difficult and not cheap.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're looking but Metro Imaging and Rapid Eye in London are both excellent, there are plenty others too...
 
Velvia 50 120 is almost £20 a roll in medium format 6cm, and the Fuji Provia almost £30. You can get the newer Kodak films for cheaper, but they're not a patch on the older Kodak films, which were amazing.

In any case my point seems to have been glanced over again. I guess I havent worded it very well? I'm not saying its impossible to do, merely that I believe it's an unrealistically expensive route to take for someone who hasn't yet gripped the fundamentals of basic photography.

Personally, i wouldnt want to shell out £20 a pop whilst learning and experimenting.
 
Last edited:
The way some people go on about film, it would seem there will be no 'proper' photographers being created 10 years from now when film is even more of a niche than it is now.

I learnt to use an SLR camera as part of my graphic design course circa 1985, and it was all film. Did learning on film make me a better photographer? Impossible to say really, but what I would say is that you do not need to invest in a film setup in order to master the use of composure/aperture/exposure/ISO etc etc.

If you want to do it because you're curious or because it's fun, then that's different.

But, please let's not get all 'sniffy' that film photography is the best way to learn. It's a similar debate to classically trained guitarists vs self taught ones.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread slightly but I have been thinking about getting into film more and more recently. I actually got into photography at college where all we did was film, so I know about the developing, dark room side of things. I just know nothing about gear.

I would like a cheap, old school, manual, SLR, oh and definitely something reasonably compact with just a 35mm lens or something. Something that produces images that look old, something a little different. What would you recommend?
 
I've been shooting film recently as it was an area of photography that interested me. It didn't teach me anymore about metering, ISO or exposure really as I learnt all that through reading and experimenting with my DSLR.

What did happen was that I learnt is to appreciate taking time and waiting for that ideal shot as I only had 36 exposure per film instead of going trigger happy with a DSLR and when the final result appears in front of your eyes (I develop my films myself in my bathroom), it is strangely satisfying :)

Few shots from my film camera I developed and scanned in myself from Colchester Zoo.

img070.jpg

img063.jpg

img049.jpg
 
Tooks said:
The way some people go on about film, it would seem there will be no 'proper' photographers being created 10 years from now when film is even more of a niche than it is now.

I learnt to use an SLR camera as part of my graphic design course circa 1985, and it was all film. Did learning on film make me a better photographer? Impossible to say really, but what I would say is that you do not need to invest in a film setup in order to master the use of composure/aperture/exposure/ISO etc etc.

If you want to do it because you're curious or because it's fun, then that's different.

But, please let's not get all 'sniffy' that film photography is the best way to learn. It's a similar debate to classically trained guitarists vs self taught ones.
Click to expand...

The one thing I would say about film, is that for me it makes you consider the subject a lot more when composing the shoot. Ok we can scan film shots in and still post process but I don't like to do that. I've only learnt photography on a dslr so picking up an old Canon AE-1 has given me a fresh perspective. It worked for me anyway, it won't for everyone!

@twoblacklines, you're falling foul of wanting the best in a certain area again :D To be honest if you've got money to burn, go for it. I think there is also mileage in looking at the more affordable options as well considering you're looking to learn the ropes at this stage. You can always upgrade if it's an area you wish to pursue further?
 
ScarySquirrel said:
Sorry to hijack the thread slightly but I have been thinking about getting into film more and more recently. I actually got into photography at college where all we did was film, so I know about the developing, dark room side of things. I just know nothing about gear.

I would like a cheap, old school, manual, SLR, oh and definitely something reasonably compact with just a 35mm lens or something. Something that produces images that look old, something a little different. What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

Does it have to be SLR? Canon AE1 with 50mm f/1.8 can be had on auction for under £100 which is perfect what your needs apart from the 35mm. I shoot primarily with my 50mm on film even thought I spent money on a 35mm lens, I havent actually used it yet :(.

If you are willing to look into rangefinders then a lot of other options would open up.
 
ScarySquirrel said:
Sorry to hijack the thread slightly but I have been thinking about getting into film more and more recently. I actually got into photography at college where all we did was film, so I know about the developing, dark room side of things. I just know nothing about gear.

I would like a cheap, old school, manual, SLR, oh and definitely something reasonably compact with just a 35mm lens or something. Something that produces images that look old, something a little different. What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

I very much like the Nikon FM2n (and the newer FM3a is a nice camera also), it's got a really good reputation for reliability and it's widely available with a good selection of AIS lenses floating around which will work on modern Nikon DSLRs too (high end ones at least...).

Also worth a look are various Pentax models of the same vintage, much recommended for photography classes and brilliantly simple and rugged. I'd take the Nikon myself but an old K1000 is a good camera and will be cheaper

My FM2n cost about £175 for the body and about £85 for a 35mm f/2.8 AIS (which isn't the best lens in the world and I've since replaced). A pentax would be a fair bit less.
 
ScarySquirrel said:
Sorry to hijack the thread slightly but I have been thinking about getting into film more and more recently. I actually got into photography at college where all we did was film, so I know about the developing, dark room side of things. I just know nothing about gear.

I would like a cheap, old school, manual, SLR, oh and definitely something reasonably compact with just a 35mm lens or something. Something that produces images that look old, something a little different. What would you recommend?
Click to expand...

Leica III? Not cheap though :D

I picked up a Canon AE-1 cheaply, I love it and really should get out using it more. It cost me £70 with a 50mm f1.8 a 28mm, a 24-70 and a 70-210 f4.
 
Last edited:
You can buy a solid performer like a pentax k1000 or minolta x300, 500, 700 etc for less than £30 with a 50mm 1.7 and pick up lenses for them for £5-10 easily.

The best lenses are collectable, rare and expensive (still cheaper than modern equivalents generally0 and can be uop to a couple of ton for these cameras.

Other medium format cameras and lenses can be really expensive, but can produce great results.

I shoot film because I enjoy the creative process and the calmness in creating something that doesn't feel the same with digital to me. It's an individual thing and I do prefer ot over digital when I am making art prints.
 
Rojin said:
@twoblacklines, you're falling foul of wanting the best in a certain area again :D
Click to expand...

This!

Start off with something cheaper, then you don't get burned if it's not for you.

I'd suggest going for an old nikon body. Your current lenses will more than likely fit, 35mm film is cheaper than 120 and you can buy a cheap enlarger off the bay if you want to try and make some prints too.

I have a nikon FE2. It's fully manual but it also has aperture priority if you get a bit lost, which is very useful. It's beautifully machined and feels great in your hands. It's small, stick on a 50mm and you can walk around unnoticed, great for street photography.

24973443641bdb59f620.jpg
 
Agree on the Canon AE-1, or the Pentax. I inherited and subsequently learned on a Pentax ME Super, although I haven't brought it here with me. I do miss using it.
 
twoblacklines said:
Im thinking of buying this :
Rolleiflex Zeiss Planar 75mm 3.5 E3 TLR Camera


For a number of reasons.

1. To learn composure, master aparture and shutter speed, and film iso.
2. Always been interested in medium format film.
3. The camera itself is legendary, i would be happy putting it on the shelf as some technominimalistic "art" in my bedroom, and never using it.
4. Our uni lecturer keeps pestering us to ditch the DSLR's (requirement of the course to buy one btw) and shoot film instead.

But I cant get my head around the film side of things, how do i know what film i need, what film does what, and how to actually load the film, i read somewhere that you have to wind it in as you shoot ? The only film i have ever heard of (and love, but being a bit of a nikon fanboi you understand) is kodachrome.

Also im guessing flash photography is absolete here ?
Click to expand...

No offence but if you're having trouble learning point 1 with a DSLR it wont get easier using a 50 year old £800 TLR. You know they're pretty hard to use compared to a digital SLR right..?

If you're interested in medium format film then why not just spend £40 on a Diana or a Holga to experiment and mess about with it.

Or if you really want to shoot film you could try something like an F80 which you can use your Nikon lenses on and has AF/Metering etc. Or try and older Nikon like an FM2.

There are also some very nice Rollei 35mm film cameras which are cheap.

And how do you load film?? Well that depends entirely on each individual camera. Some are full auto like the F80, some are fully manual and need full winding on and rewinding.

And why exactly would flash be obsolete with a film camera?? We did have flash photography more recently than the last decade :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom