Thread 4426713

This is the Film General Thread. Post your film photos or film gear questions in this thread.
What is the best film camera ever made, and why is it the Nikon F5?

>>4426713 (OP)
forgor to post past thread
>>4422471

>>4426713 (OP)
May be the best 35mm film camera, or the 1v. They're both awesome with different strengths and weaknesses.

Best medium format camera? Mamiya 6/7, Hasselblad H series, Sinar hy6 mod.2, Rollei 6008 pro are all contenders in my books.

Large format? Sinar P1/P2 and maybe the Linhof master technika if field cameras are your jam. Theres a bunch of super high quality field cameras still made today that are beauties, but none have the raw functionality and modularity of the Sinar P series.

>>4426713 (OP)
The Minolta Dynax 60 is the best film camera ever made, as it's the lightest weight camera that gives access to Sony's world-beating Super Sonic wave Motor lense collection in α-mount, as well as Sigma Corporation's wonderful range of EX DG HSM professional objectives.

>>4426744
Even if you were to come to the conclusion that the snoyboy glass comes anywhere near f mount or EF, why would you not go with the a9ti?

Personally, I think that the cheapest camera in the world is the best camera because the most people can use it to share their story. :D

Is pentax program plus a good camera

>>4426803
if it works the shooting experience will be more or less the same as any other manual focus SLR. just dont pay heaps of money for it or buy a broken one.

Two of my favourite shots this year were shot on Portra 400 with my F5. They will never be digitized and are hanging on my walls. Digitizing film is rape.

>>4426807
Based. You do ra4 printing? Id like to get into it eventually. Still need my dang darkroom built.

>>4426713 (OP)
I can go 1(v) better than that.

>>4426835
One from the 1V (velvia 100F)

>>4426836
>>4426835
One from the speedgraphic aeroektar combo, test shot after servicing the rear shutter

>>4426835
all canonfags must die
that shit looks so cheap

>>4426848
Heavily used to take pictures for years, had a new shutter last year before canon stops servicing them.

Finish on the shell looks beaten to fuck but it still works fine.

Same for the speedgraphic, I got it dirt cheap because it's battered, but the lens board is parallel with the film plane and I fixed the shutter so it runs +1/2 stop exposure on the fast speeds and on target for the slow ones.


The purpose of cameras is to take photos, not to be mint condition 'aesthetic' shelf queens.

>>4426852
im not saying it looks bad because its beat up. my f5 looked so fucking beat up and scratched up when i got it and i loved it for that! it was probably my favorite part of that camera.
im saying your canon looks like shit because it does. it looks like plastic chinese shit. especially with that dollar-store level strap. god, canons look so fucking bad.

>>4426856
Tastelet.

>>4426856
>>4426848
>MUH feel
>b-b-build quality
Ok but the 1v is a better camera. You know, for taking photos? As in what its for?

>>4426761
Too bulky, and af speed and fps mean nothing for the way I shoot.
It's great to be able to shoot Sony glass on film, I think about it a lot.

>>4426856
>calls canon plastic Chinese shit
>loves the plastickier chinesier looking f5 thoughever
This board is categorically filled with retards.

>>4426856
>t.

>>4426864
/qa/ lost

>>4426871
Ugh.

>>4426713 (OP)
How do ppl afford this hobby? Especially in this economy? I see a lot of young ppl in film photography but like are ya'll not starving?

>>4426931
Shoot 1 or 2 sheets of b&w 8x10 film per day, dev it yourself and it isn't too bad. I guess you could also do 4-6 sheets of 4x5 if you aren't quite as cool.

>>4426937
yea i heard 4x5 is hella cheap because of it.

>>4426938
Let me guess. You need more than 4-6 shots a day.

Fomapan 100 in 4x5 is 55-85 dollars for a 50 pack. 240 for a 50 pack of 8x10.

Sheet film is generally so slow and tedious to shoot you won't even want to shoot more than like 12 at most. Maybe more if you're doing portraits or something, but still.

>>4426871
>saying this in a post-hack 4chan
intellectually raped

>>4426713 (OP)
>fogged and ruined 2 rolls of film during development because I was absent minded
>but also developed my first rolls of color film ever

>>4426944
It happens to the best of us. Congrats on your first time color dev.

>>4426948
Thanks, the rolls that came out not fogged look okay. I don't print yet but I'm scanning them right now.

>>4426949
Nice. Post some when you're done. :D

>>4426950
>when you're done

>>4426951
Okay. I will wait patiently.
I developed a second sheet ofnthat previous pic in a different developer and I'm waiting for the sheet to dry. The dev got fucked, but not badly enough to learn from it. I will scan it and post it also.

First was in pyrocat HD and second in Spur hrx. Spur hrx is cool stuff.

>>4426953
What does it do?

>>4426955
It can develop microfilms to have normal contrast and also:

>Contrary to other fine-grain developers SPUR HRX delivers high sharpness and outstanding detail
contrast. Another advantage of HRX is its superbly sophisticated tonality due to the ideal, linear
gradation curve gradient. The middle tones are thus very subtly differentiated even in soft development
(N-1 to N-3), thus preventing dull or flat results. The gradation control and hence the zone system
suitability HRX-3 New are retained in the new HRX

It's a little expensive, but whatever.

I wanted extra high contrast so I added 40% dev time to this sheet as well. Still getting a hang of processing film for my albumen prints and experimenting is fun.

Here is the comparison. Which do you like better? Tommorow I will see how it prints.

Local lunch place

>>4426713 (OP)
Because you cannot afford an F6.
Also, the F80 is better in some respects. Better controls, lighter weight, etc.

i get annoyed at with color film because I can't get the colors right
but st the same time, aren't they suposed to be a bit fucked up? i never know when I'm doing it right

>>4426987
negative film was created as an intermediate step to making high quality prints. this includes B&W and c41 film. edit it for the color balance of your choosing.

Got 9 different papers to test albumen print on. Should be interesting. I am especially excited about the Japanese paper I got. Not sure if it will hold up to the process. We'll see!

>hey nice i got 40 shots out of this roll
>hey nice i got 45
>
its one of those days

>>4426931
assuming i buy, shoot, and develop at a lab, 1 roll every week im spending ~100 bucks on film each month, i typically do 2 rolls a week making 45k. its not expensive or prohibitive an i like to use 15 dollar stocks. kentmere 400 is 7 bucks after tax

ilford hp5+ shot with a Pentax Super Program

>>4426987

This shit has potential but why so much tree? Your foreground trees are bigger than the actual thing you were photographing?

>>4427087
Sad!

>>4427066
nice pic!

>>4426713 (OP)
Thoughts on the Pentax 17? Looking to get into film. This is just my planned intro while I also search around for some full-frames to try

>>4427104
I would look for a film SLR for ur first camera. The Pentax 17 seems more of an experimental thing.

A plastic bodied SLR from the 90s will give you the best value and finding a good one is much easier.

>>4427110
I'm coming from digital that I do for work, and I have heard that the P17 is supposed good transitory camera.
Maybe I haven't filtered my searches correctly, but what I see for used on BHP/KEH in bodies in such doesn't seem too convincing.
Probably my ignorance to the film format and what has been considered "good."

>>4427111
the pentax 17 is too expensive for what it is imo. as >>4427110 said checking craigslist for some 90s era nikon/canon/minolta plastic blob will almost certainly net you an ILC camera comparable to the digital camera you're used to (at least it'll have PSAM and AF) for 100 bucks or less, compared to whatever exorbitant amount a new or lightly used pentax 17 will go for

>>4427113
I'm not too hard up on cost. I was originally budgeting for a mirrorless. But, my job is getting mirrorless soon or later, so I want something different. So, the $500 isn't crazy

What should I be looking for in an old 35mm? I don't mind point and shoots conceptually, but a body and different lenses is more my speed

>>4427111
Something like a Nikon F80 or F90 has a good value. I think they are something like ~100 on the used market. You might be able to use your existing lenses, if you're in the Nikon system and they are full-frame.

The issue is there is an irony in the film market rn. Everybody wants the metal bodied SLRs from the 70s, but finding a good one is difficult, and will most likely need some sort of service since they are so old. I would recommend side-steping this hype and just getting a just as capable, or better body from Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax from the 90s.

>>4427119
I don't have any glass of my own. All owned by the shop, so that's not a restrictor for me. I do know Nikon well.
Of course, Craigslist/other 2nd hand places. How do I evaluate them to make sure I'm not losing 100 bucks on a dud?

>>4427121
I would test all shutter speeds, make sure they are able to auto focus, shutter fires, etc.

Focus is smooth, aperture blades are free of oil. There is no fungus in the lens.

>>4426836
terrible for that film and lens combo jesus

>>4426960
dog shit

>>4427111
Get a Kyocera Samurai X3 instead. Has zoom and cheap.

>>4427140
It's a funny-looker, sure. I'm not married the the half-frame concept.