Really nice.I am thinking about shooting film again...It feels less disturbing to your goal of making pictures I think. Do you too just forget that you're actually using a camera when you compare it to all the settings on a digital one?Immanuel
ImmanuelSorry for the ridiculous delay in getting your comment posted. I don't know how I overlooked it.I have to say that even the manual focusing has fallen into place and is becoming pretty natural. And then the negative is what it is - black and white with no color to worry about and no filtering to do when scanning it. The camera definitely doesn't get in the way, which can be a problem with a digital - or later automated film cameras with all of their modes. I am enjoying the simpler, more straightforward workflow.Jeff
I agree, if you read the manuals of some later cameras, they're endless. Those older ones all work the same way.And then an over-processed color image isn't closer to the reality than just black and white.Can you tell me the difference between the Trix and T-max films, I have never shot in B & W. I see the 3200p is discontinued no long ago. Is it worth to try it?Immanuel
Tri-x is "old technology" film and T-Max is "new technology" film that had finer grain when it first came out, although since that time Tri-x has been updated. Supposedly it has finer grain now, but I haven't used T-Max in a very long time so I'm not sure about that. I guess different folks like each film, but I like the look of the "old" technology films, plus they are easier to develop correctly - in fact, it is kind of hard to mess up development too much. I have shot 3200p a long time ago - you should grab some if you can get it - very grainy but it has an interesting look and, of course, you can shoot it in very low light and still get an image - though a lot grainier than most digital.
Thank you; that kind of information one doesn't get on the manufacturers' website. I'm going to buy some film and the p3200 will be on my list too, it is still available here. Trying it out will be the best way to see what suits me... sadly my rangefinder has the aperture blades stuck. But I'll have a look at an SLR, they're some nice ones out there. I think if you look true a good viewfinder, then you perfectly see what you'll capture and a display at the back is not necessary. Do you recommend those small SLRs like olympus OM or pentax MX? Seem to be a lot more compact than DSLR's...
I have never used the OM or MX but they have loyal followings and very good reputations. I almost bought a K1000 at an antique store a few days ago, and even it seemed a good size even though not known for its smallness. I think SLRs that don't have don't have auto-focus and auto film drives built in are the way to go for size and price. Let us know how this goes. :)
OK, I will tell when I get the first results. Happily where I'm living know there is a lab that hasn't moved to digital yet. :)
Glad to bump into another film nut, Jeff. Really like the two pics in this post. You can't beat the look of film - it's just got soul.For Anonymous's benefit, the OM1/2 and Pentax MX are great. The MX has a bigger viewfinder but I'd say the OM's is just a little brighter. They're both superb, though, and you're not likely to get a better window on the world.
Relevant, courteous comments are encouraged. Questions, constructive criticism, and even debates are okay too. Personal attacks, name calling, spam, comments that are off-topic, offensive or deemed to detract from this site's community discussions will be edited or deleted.