While you can still read older photographers going on about the daunting jump to digital, a lot of us these days actually start on digital and gravitate towards film as we get deeper into photography. But with so many choices out there, how do you know which film camera is right for you? This guide breaks down the massive range of cameras available into three simple groups based on why you’re going into film.
Certainly the most obvious reason to try out film is the look. Photoshop and other software has come a long way, but the easiest, most reliable way of getting that “film look” that’s so popular nowadays is to just shoot film in the first place. Film comes in different styles: there is high contrast, low contrast, saturated film, film with very low saturation, even infrared film or other specialty films like film for aerial photography. Many photography magazines have only just started allowing digital images [of course, film is still allowed and recommended], since a well-scanned medium format or large format slide has much more sharpness and clarity than the $5000+ Canons or Nikons in the field. Despite the “digital revolution” in photography, and recent announcements like Polaroid’s decision to stop making instant film [there are even other alternatives like Fujifilm's FP-100C, which is an even better solution that fits in many Polaroid cameras], film is far from “dead”, and the advent of digital means an abundance of equipment on the used market.
So how does this affect your camera choice? Honestly, not much. The main thing you have to do is make sure that the films you want are available in the size your camera will use - no point in switching to film for the super-saturated colors of Fuji Velvia slide film if you get a 110 camera, for which only a couple types of negative film are available. But most film is available in 135 (35mm) and 120 [medium format] formats, which covers the vast majority of cameras you’re likely to consider.
If you’re just in it for the look and want a seamless transition from your digital gear, you may also want to consider how closely your film camera’s ergonomics match with your digital’s. It’s an easy choice if there’s a direct counterpart, like the Canon EOS-1v and 1D, or the Nikon F6 and D2x, especially because your cameras can even share lenses. Otherwise, most film SLRs are simple enough to just pick up and use, but trying to use a twin-lens reflex or press camera without documentation can be quite a shock.
By the way, that so called “lomo” look can be mostly duplicated just by cross processing your film (using negative film chemicals to process slide film). Don’t feel compelled to pay extra for a mediocre plastic camera when you can get a real classic system camera for the same price. If you really want the vignetting and edge softness, you can stick a big hood on your lens and rub vaseline on the front element, and still be able to take sharp pictures with the same camera after switching lenses or washing the Vaseline off. There’s no need to limit yourself to only “artsy” fuzzy ones, in fact the Vaseline method is more economical than it seems. The film maker Alfred Hitchcock had a number of shots in the film Vertigo that had Vaseline on the lens - it gives a soft effect that is much easier to control than using a Lomo, Holga or a Diana, or putting an expensive “soft filter” on a lens.
The reason why quite a few pros (and amateurs too) still shoot film is the unparalleled image quality. Though 35mm film has been more or less matched by APS-c DSLR sensors, and almost overtaken by bigger ones, with a cheap medium format rig, you can easily get scans of 6,000 x 9,000 or 54 megapixels, by scanning a 6×9 slide at 2,600 dpi [many film scanners go as far as 6,400 dpi], far greater than your average DSLR. The new Epson V700 scanner is an economical choice that can help you obtain very large images at stellar quality. If you print big regularly, film is a compelling choice.
So if 35mm isn’t good enough, how big does your film need to be? The next step up is the 645 format, named for its 6×4.5cm negatives. Scanned well, this can already yield spectacular results, like this photo here, taken by Charles with his inexpensive Mamiya M645 SLR kit. And by inexpensive, we’re looking at ready to shoot kits of body/prism/standard lens starting under 250USD [note : I purchased a body / lens / meter for $199, then a second body for $75. The models were the M645J and the M645 1000s, the 80mm f/2.8 Sekor-C, and the standard metering prism]. That’s barely enough for a DSLR! Other cameras to look at are the Pentax 645 and the Bronica ETR series for a similar budget, and the Contax 645 and modern Japanese autofocusing models if you have quite a bit more cash.
The 120 and 220 rollfilms these cameras take can also be used for bigger negatives. Bigger SLRs like the Bronica SQ series and the Hasselblad V series shoot 6×6 squares, and then there are behemoths like the Mamiya RB67, Bronica GS-1, and Pentax 67 that shoot 6×7. And while that’s about it for SLRs, it’s also worth looking at old twin-lens reflexes like the Yashicamats and Minolta Autocords, as they give great 6×6 negatives at the cost of fixed lenses. Medium format rangefinders also exist, ranging from the Bronica RF645 to the massive Fuji 6×9 models. And then there’s large format, which these days refers to negatives 4×5inch or bigger - a 4×5 Speed Graphic, once the mainstay of photojournalists, can now be found for a couple hundred USD.
Another kind of quality you may be looking for is equipment quality. Now that some pros have more or less deserted film, their gear is available on the used market for rock-bottom prices. Don’t be fooled: the reason so many professionals are ditching film isn’t because of quality, it’s because of speed. Have you ever wondered why 35mm is “the” film format? It’s simply because you can shoot a very high number of frames per second, and the film is very small so you can carry a lot. Photographers looking to get on the front page of The New York Times don’t need quality — they just need the shot.
The medium format gear listed above is one example of “quality” gear, but there are also tons of bargains to be had in 35mm. If you’re looking for an SLR to complement your digital Nikon kit, why get a plastic consumer one when you can find a tough-as-nails professional F4 for under 300 USD? Prices on Canon’s EOS-1 series are also temptingly low. Going further back into history, you can pay around a hundred bucks for an excellent manual SLR like an Olympus OM-1 and have a beautiful photographic tool as well as a handy emergency hammer just in case you feel like driving some nails. Even the famed Leica M rangefinders that every reporter used to have are quite affordable; 600-800 can get you a charmingly beat up but perfectly functional M3, which will keep going for another fifty years provided you give it a little attention every so often.
Of course, this isn’t an exhaustive list of why someone would shoot film. I myself stuck with it for quite a while because I preferred the feel of aperture rings and shutter knobs over command wheels, and happily jumped ship when I found a digital camera providing the same experience [Brian uses an Epson RD-1s, a six-megapixel digital rangefinder]. But hopefully you now have a better idea of how to navigate the wide world of film cameras before you. As always, if there’s anything that’s still unclear feel free to post a comment.
This post is tagged 120, 35mm, bronica, canon, film, fuji, GW690, hassleblad, Leica, M645, mamiya, medium format, nikon, RD-1s
No Comments
Leave a Reply