Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Obtained a Canon AE-1
- Thread starter Everythingisnt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I started collecting music in the mid-90's, when CDs were all over the place. In 2003, while I was going to college, I discovered the wonder that is vinyl.
I guess in many ways shooting film is just like dropping that needle- you get a lot more pop and fulfillment than if you were to just select a track on a CD, or in iTunes. When compared with digital, film has much better dynamic range, and the different films (velvia, t-max, portra, and ilford 3200, to name a few) each have their own feel, and the more you shoot with them, the more you get to appreciate what each brings, and how to get the most of them. I'm actually looking into getting an X-700 in the near future. While shooting a 5D is fun and easy, and processing in PS is forgiving, exciting, and rewarding, I still miss developing that roll of Ilford in the dark- there is something romantic about that.
Mine died at the age of 30. The shutter release mechanism fail and was too costly to repair. But I have get an A-1 still going.
The colors of slide film are much better than those of normal negative films. go take a look on flickr for some of the different types. I personally like E100V, E100VS, and Velvia.
Yes film is still "worth it". In terms of image quality, film still wins. Most digital SLRS still can't match film. When DSLRs are full frame 24MP then they will have cought up. Digital is faster but you pay for it in quality.
Also notice the film is cheaper then digital. Even if you spend $250 on film and processing it is still cheaper than a DSLR and it can do better work
One thing you can do with film is shoot slides and project them on a screen.
The other thing you can do is shoot real black and white film. I used to buy B&W film is bulk 100 foot rolls and process it myself. Film is way cheap if you do this. You still can "freestyle" in Hollywood, CA has everyhing you need.
Today you's scan all your film and go digital after that. Not manu people still do darkroom prints. A few fine art photographers maybe.
The Macro lens is likey exactly what it says. A macro lens
A lot depends on exactly what lenses you have. If they are Canon they are great but third party lenses from that era did not have a good reputaion.
Also notice the film is cheaper then digital. Even if you spend $250 on film and processing it is still cheaper than a DSLR and it can do better work
One thing you can do with film is shoot slides and project them on a screen.
The other thing you can do is shoot real black and white film. I used to buy B&W film is bulk 100 foot rolls and process it myself. Film is way cheap if you do this. You still can "freestyle" in Hollywood, CA has everyhing you need.
Today you's scan all your film and go digital after that. Not manu people still do darkroom prints. A few fine art photographers maybe.
The Macro lens is likey exactly what it says. A macro lens
A lot depends on exactly what lenses you have. If they are Canon they are great but third party lenses from that era did not have a good reputaion.
There are digital SLR medium format cameras which are 60 mega pixel in size such as the Phase One. How do you know that a 24 mega pixel DSLR will be better than film then? Why is that the cut off point or are you just guessing because it isn't just about mega pixels if the camera can't colour balance properly.
With regard to shooting slides, they need to be processed in E-6, not a lot of places offer that now, most have to be sent away for processing, I think digital is better than slide film for projecting images onto a screen.
Also a lot of people still do dark room prints, what are you talking about? Digital prints are only just beginning to match professional Fiber prints in quality, the remaining issue is one of longevity.
Hi there, i have AE-1 also, and it is a beutiful friend. unfortunately, i cracked a viewfinder eyepiece. I think it does not affect the process of making fotos, but still, its not nice to see cracked corners. Could you please tell me, where i could get one? (better in some kind of e-shop) And how much it would cost, i hope it has the point to get it fixed? (i couldn't find any on eBay)
Thanx for any ideas.
Thanx for any ideas.
Well recently I "obtained" an old Canon AE-1 SLR (Actually I found it in an old closet) and was wondering if it is worth the trouble obtaining film and a new battery in order to start using it?
The battery should be easy enough to find at my local camera store, and it uses old 35mm film (which I can also obtain). It has a standard kit lens on it as well as a 100-200mm Telephoto lens, and another lens which seems to be a wide-angle but has the word "macro" on it. (I will post photos soon).
I would like to know a couple things. First off as I already mentioned, is there much of a point in using this camera? Right now I use an aged Canon Powershot S-80, and would certainly appreciate the better quality that these lenses would afford me. If I'm planning on doing nature photography as well as some landscapes, would this camera be of any help?
I was also hoping there might be some interesting ways to use a film camera that I couldn't do with digital. Any ideas about this would be appreciated.
Anyways, sorry for what must seem like a rather confused post, but I am genuinely not sure if I should use this camera or not. I'm currently saving for a good DSLR (Being literally broke from buying film equipment) and would like to know how well this camera would serve in the meantime. Thanks!
Great camera. I have digital, a Canon SD900, but I also have 3 Canon FTB Match Needles in mint condition. Regularly shoot with all of them, with film, just have it processed to dvd and edit in Aperture, i-Photo or whatever. If you want to learn photography- get a match needle, and progress from there to digital
The correct answer is because you can look up the MTF of a given film and compare it to the transfer function of a digital sensor. Film MTFs are available on-line. Google will find them.
But a quick argument is this. Back in the film days being able to resolve 80 cycles per millimeter was "good". It takes two pixels at least to sample a cycle. a 36x24mm frame with a pixel spcing of 160 per mm comes to 22.1 megapixels. round up to the nearest round number size and you gt 24MP.
Yes they make medium format digital backs. 60MP might be about the right number to match the quality of a 6cm square film frame just like 24Mp about matches a 2.4 x 3.6 cm film frame.
Yes they still sell procesing envelopes so you can mail your film to Fugi or Kodak. But you can Process e6 in a hand help "daylight tank" I've done that. It is slightly cheaper and taks less than an hour. No expensive equipment required. I would do my selects on a light table then mount only the half dozen "keepers" in the roll. Easier to send them off in the mail. But if you hand process you can pull or push as required.
Yes there are digital projectors but very, very few of them have more then even 1,000 lines of vertical resolution. Most are only 480 lines. None can come even close to projecting a full resolution image witht e color and dynamic range of film. The difference is almaost the same as betwen looking at an image on the web and looing at a real hand made print.
Most people today are used to digital images, Digital has lowered their expectations. When you show a "real" projected analog image or a Cbachrone or a fine art black and white print people notice the difference
Film is dead......not.
Film is prettier and much more fun to use in my personal opinion. Its also good to learn how to use...become a good film photographer and you will be a great digital photographer.
Film is prettier and much more fun to use in my personal opinion. Its also good to learn how to use...become a good film photographer and you will be a great digital photographer.
I think film and vinyl are dead as far as the average consummer goes. But if you look amoung serious audiophiles and serious fine art photographers vinyl and film are still in use in a big way.
Today in 2008 most people do not even want quality sound systems they prefer 5.1 suround sound movie systems and ultra small speakers. Very few people listen to recorded music critically and of those fewer can afford high end stereo. Same with film. How many people even want to be fine art photographer. Most just want snapshots of their kids and vactions.
That said my opinion of film now is that if I'm going to bother with it I'll use medium or large format. Medium format need not even be expensive. Buy a $25 Holga and some out of date 120 roll film and the whole setup costs less then that UV filter on the end of most Nikon lenses.