Search results for query: *

What is where and what is how much?

My digital Leicas work the same way. I took quite a few shots with them that day but they didn't exhibit the same unbalanced exposure. It can't be the film itself, film has quite a fair bit of dynamic latitude, at least far more than it looks in my photos. I don't think a light meter would...

I don't mind the uneven exposure of the snow photos in B&W. The colour ones though - it looks like the whites/light parts are over-exposed. I think the colour is ok but the exposure seems off. I don't really have a set up where I can edit photos at the moment. All my photo editing over the...

Some of you may have seen the snow photos I posted recently. Those photos were taken with a digital camera. That day, I also took a roll of film with my Xpan. A couple of months ago, I also took some photos with my Xpan, colour C41 roll, at a park. I decided to send those two rolls of Xpan...

You gotta look beyond that and see photography as its own medium, rather than one whose standard is determined by a movie. I do understand what you're getting at though. I see that ridiculous old comment in photography forums where people say: "..you never ask a chef what stove he used, why...

We don't have Walgreens in Australia but at the (I assume) equivalent store here we can still kinda of find 3 rolls of Kodak 400 max for under AID$25.

I just looked up the Yashica you mentioned and found this article: "One London camera shop owner told me that in about 2005 he had about 20 T5s that he could not sell for even the lowest price – he couldn’t even give them away. They ended up being chucked out. Each one of those cameras, still...

I feel like film has steered away from being an accessible medium. The photography courses at my university still use and teach film as a medium (in conjunction with digital of course), however it feels like film is more of a niche artist's medium now, rather than one for the masses.

Interesting points. I have rarely bought 'expensive' film so I can't say I know much about that market. I have mostly used Kodak Max 400 only which I can buy relatively cheaply at the equivalent of Kmart here. But it is a good point that shooting film can get very expensive very quickly...

Just saw this - was wondering what people here think of some of the points the author discusses: https://fstoppers.com/film/how-film-manufacturers-are-making-sure-it-doesnt-make-comeback-582344

That is a very serious camera....

Not as a main camera, no. But maybe as an experimental/playful camera.

How does it work where it only has a single shutter speed?

I kinda feel like I have a main digital camera that will always remain my main camera. So if I have a compact film camera, it would be my ... 'playful' camera for lack of a better word. It'll be something I'd use for a sporadic shot here and there. If the lens isn't as sharp as it should be...

Hmm... this is very interesting too.. and I've also a tiny bit surprised no camera company took him up on this offer, but also cynically not surprised no one took him up on the offer. Schrodinger's offer I guess.

Came close to dropping a couple hundred bucks on this on eBay after I saw your post but I didn't move fast enough before it was snapped up someone else.

When I started this topic, I was talking about the fully automated compact cameras from the 80s like my cheapo Kodak compact shown in my photo. But we fell hard into the premium $1000 manual-focusing rangefinder category pretty damn fast. *insert smiley face emoticon here*

That looks beautiful too. I know I said "compact" but I don't really care about size. But is it really a fully automated fixed lens camera?

I clicked to have a look at the Minolta and then almost immediately pulled back. It looks beautiful and absolutely harmless but this is the kind of thing that will set me down a GAS path of no return. A rangefinder with interchangeable fast lenses ...

I just looked up the Konica C35 and noticed that it does a decent f/2.8 but there's only three shutter speeds, the max being 1/250. This means during a sunny day I probably can't use the lens wide open unless I buy exceptionally slow film speed. The cheap Kodak film I buy from the dept store...

Y'know ... if the blurry diffused artefacts are unique/artistic, I could live with it as a lomography camera.

Yes I looked them up and they're in the AUD$1000-$1500 range here. Which means they're not cheap enough for me to impulse-buy just to have a play. I know the humongous hype around the Contax compacts in recent years since one of the Kardashians was seen to use one. But I think it was also...

Niiiice on both the Leica and Konica, I just looked them up. I've never really been heavily tempted by most full frame film cameras because I'm very happy with my 35mm digital cameras. However, a film compact with fast lens would be a different experience, I might be tempted with something...

Thanks! I'm going to look them up. F/2 ain't bad! I think I read JCH's post about the Ricoh GR and he said it's easily broken with no way to fix it these days.

This is not my area of expertise but was there ever a compact film camera with a lens that has an f/stop larger than f/2.8? They mostly seem to be f/5.6 or even smaller. I know the Ricoh GR compacts were f/2.8 and they were a premium compact back then. Is that as large as it gets?

Widelux arrived today and almost immediately I noticed a stuttering movement with the turret at 1/15 shutter speed. Very annoyed. Going to return to the seller. All up, I paid $35 for the privilege of postage to receive and return this thing.

Well, bought a Widelux today. I really, really wanted a Widelux 1500 (the medium format version) but after searching high and low in Tokyo for one a couple of years ago, one of the camera shop owners told me that while the Wideluxes were indeed made in Japan, the 1500 was developed and...

Haha you're right, looks like you did quite a bit of work in 2010 and then nothing again until 2021.

I just checked out your website and there's some really nice shots there, and you've been shooting film for 10 years!

I've used the Leicas in extremely dark circumstances, the viewfinder/rangefinder is absolutely useable. It became my 'normal', until one time I decided to pull out my Canon 7D to use in the dark and was surprised that it could not even function in the same circumstances. The reason why I keep...

The way you described it, it sounds like the Bessa is already your desert island camera. But I wish you were able to spend some time with the M6 to see whether it changes your position somewhat. I'm just a little surprised that, with all the talk of GAS and deference to medium format, that...

What is your current go-to?

I just looked it up and found this amusing: "The “500” in the name is a reference to its highest shutter speed, which is 1/500 of a second…or is it? Instead of re-designing a whole new shutter system to drop off at 1/500, they just changed out the shutter speed knob to one painted up to 1/500...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I expected the medium formats to come out on top in this survey, not the SLRs.

I hoped that advances and accessibility with home 3D printing technology would make it easier to replace little parts like these.

Hah, it's ok man. You did remind me of my crush on the S95. I was disappointed that Canon didn't follow through with it. I know they had the S120 but I think they just stopped it right there.

No no, film cameras! I was asking about film cameras. Speaking of the S95, I had a crush on it for a long time. I owned the Panasonic LX5 but it was chunky and fiddly. I liked the S95's sleek, minimalist, pocket-fitting look.

You already answered this 6 months ago. :) Also now that you've reminded me - do you have some photos of that camera? It's amazing that you've had it for 50+ years.

Oh hell no. Shut up Amazon, I looked it up for a cheap joke.

If they had a good marketing dept, they'd try to licence the rights. Also, somebody taking this thread seriously:

What the...? It's like I, the OP and the starter of the original topic about the lomo camera, am invisible now.

I'm assuming if I want the equivalent coverage of a fisheye 16mm without the distortion, I'm going to have to go below 14mm which is fisheye territory.

Thanks for that, that was exactly what I needed to know. I guess my thought-logic was correct. Which kind of disappoints me because while I'm enjoying my 16mm fisheye, sometimes I want something equally as wide but without the fisheye distortion. Sounds like I'm looking for an impossible lens.

I have a serious question - does a 16mm fisheye lens produce an image that is wider than a 16mm non-fisheye lens?

You guys are the worst. I make a post in good faith about a mildly interesting camera, and within 24 hours you've got me participating with your cheap jokes and got me making fun of my own post. The whole thread has gone down a tangent and we're legitimately talking about lens coffee mugs...

But any beverage you put in it will have shallow depth of taste with a shade of vinaigretting around the edges.

I've found the perfect christmas present for you*: *by 'present', I mean you can have this photo that I stole off the internet, not the actual cup itself.

I mean, just to have a play with. https://petapixel.com/2020/10/21/lomography-unveils-panoramic-35mm-film-camera-with-liquid-filled-lens/

Hah, never seen that ad before but I love it. It kinda reminds me of one time years ago when I was one of two photographers hired to snap a big event. I was there with a just-released Sony A7 (the first one!). The other photographer was an old school Canon shooter who was completely unaware...

Is that one you own already?