daninjc
Well-known
At least in NYC - just walking around few hours this weekend I saw (and chatted with the owners of): two M6s, three MPs, a couple of fixed lens rangefinders, a full class learning TLRs and a couple nikon Fs! And one M8 and *two* M9! Amazing!
...well just because I didn't count the thousands DPS, and the millions huge & zooming DSLR…
...well just because I didn't count the thousands DPS, and the millions huge & zooming DSLR…
Vlad
Newbie
Perhaps you spotted me and my MP around B&H earlier today. 
ebino
Well-known
Here is what I think. The rush for RF and other classic film cameras has to do with boredom. If these people were really serious about film, most AF SLRs wouldn't be selling dirt cheap. I mean you can buy a Yashica GSN and a Nikon N80 for the same price! That tells me its not about film or photography, its just another cool trend.
Classic manual cameras are going to outlast the AF-SLR's. How many people use 20 year old computers? How many would still work? Electronics and Motor drives do not last as long as a manually operated camera. So- The Nikon F will outlast the Nikon F70. Basically, most AF-SLR film cameras from the early 90s are at end-of-life and they are not readily repairable.
ebino
Well-known
The prices of AF SLRs are so low that one need not buy them for durability, but the issue is that they look like DSLRs, so they're not cool.
If I was in love with film and cared for photography and so on, I'd buy the camera that will minimize exposure mistakes, focus fast and load and rewind film quickly not to mention offer a wide range of quality lenses that i could even use with my DSLR. In other words I'd buy a film SLR.
But that's not the case, cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras are hot because they look cool and make their user feel pretty smug since they're doing everything manual and so on, while in fact most of their film is lost with bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on... Not to mention hours spend scanning and ironicly digitally post-processing those precious negatives once again , but without the humongous information and detail that is provided in a typical raw file.
at some point one has to ask, is this about photography or just another grown form of playing with toys.
If I was in love with film and cared for photography and so on, I'd buy the camera that will minimize exposure mistakes, focus fast and load and rewind film quickly not to mention offer a wide range of quality lenses that i could even use with my DSLR. In other words I'd buy a film SLR.
But that's not the case, cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras are hot because they look cool and make their user feel pretty smug since they're doing everything manual and so on, while in fact most of their film is lost with bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on... Not to mention hours spend scanning and ironicly digitally post-processing those precious negatives once again , but without the humongous information and detail that is provided in a typical raw file.
at some point one has to ask, is this about photography or just another grown form of playing with toys.
Darshan
Well-known
DNG
Film Friendly
And that's I may never own a M8/9, I can't afford to replace electronics every 10 years on very expensive cameras....I would rather buy replacement more common digital cameras at much more reasonable price..
For those that a very large disposable income, this is moot, but, for those that live check to check, (90%), investing in camera (over 1K) that will be un-repairable in 10-20 years is no investment at all.
I have a Digital, but I won't spend over $500.00 on any body, and I buy at least 1 model behind current anyway. I have a Leica M5, That has kept the same value over time averaged, And, it can still be serviced for $300.00 every 10-15 years to keep it like new. That is an investment...
And when the M5 is unserviceable, I'll get a newer M7 that should be good for another 50 years (as long as film is made) -- I'll be long gone by then.
But, The RF is making a comeback, The used prices that are creeping up attest to this on some RFs.
sig
Well-known
A lot of truth in this.... in fact it is me with my zorki 5.
MIkhail
-
Exactly. Well said.
erik
Established
"cheap crappy unreliable classic cameras" hardly a description of a M6 or Nikon F or OM-1 or even a Pentax H3. If you are shooting film you are doing it for yourself and doing things for your own enjoyment means you are thinking beyond just getting the job done. Ever handle a N70? They suck. An F2, that feels like something, and the viewfinder is miles ahead. There is a sense of accomplishment when you don't let the camera do all the thinking for you. Don't like film? Don't use it. Nothing wrong with that. Some people may have good reasons for thinking otherwise however. We can't all be hipsters.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Aren't RF lenses just smaller, sharper, with better color correction, and easier to use? If you shoot 35mm the argument is easy. I'll wait for the corrections in my thinking.
FrankS
Registered User
ebino, you are illustrating the danger of generalization.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
emraphoto
Veteran
thank you Frank, for compiling all i was about to type in a succinct and polite single sentence.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
AF SLRs sucked in the 80s and 90s, I detested them then, and I was a kid then. I still think they suck. I shot with manual Olympus SLRs (OM-4T, I have 3 of them!) as my 35mm system until I finally got a Leica, and now I still shoot the OM stuff alongside Leica.
Spyro
Well-known
Cameras are designed to optimise either manual focus or autofocus, never both. Digital cameras are designed to optimise AF and rightly so because 90% of customers (=$$$) prefer AF. Therefore if you belong in the 10% minority who prefers MF you have the following options:
a) spend <$1k for a nice OM/ FM/ Leica-bessa-zeiss RF/ P&Ss from the '80s, or
b) fork out $7k for a digital leica that will be worth half that in a couple of years and nothing in 6-7 years, or
c) spend $1-2k for an rd1 or m8 that changes the f.o.v. of you favourite lenses.
An AF SLR from the '90s is not an option because it is AF optimised, and if thats the case you may as well get a DSLR and skip the scanveloping.
a) spend <$1k for a nice OM/ FM/ Leica-bessa-zeiss RF/ P&Ss from the '80s, or
b) fork out $7k for a digital leica that will be worth half that in a couple of years and nothing in 6-7 years, or
c) spend $1-2k for an rd1 or m8 that changes the f.o.v. of you favourite lenses.
An AF SLR from the '90s is not an option because it is AF optimised, and if thats the case you may as well get a DSLR and skip the scanveloping.
Spyro
Well-known
Oh and option d) wait for the Fuji x100 and hope they gave you a half decent manual focusing option.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Not always. Wideangle RF lenses are awful in one respect: they have terrible light falloff at the sides of the picture due to the small distance between the lens and the film. In an SLR with retrofocus lenses, its easier to get even illumination. My Olympus wideangles have no light falloff
gb hill
Veteran
And what exactly is this thread about again?...Oh yea!...about film camera's alive & well. Yes all mine whether cool looking or not, there working great! My Canon AE1program has Kodachrome 64 in it. My Bessa R has half a roll of TriX in her & I just loaded some BW400CN in my Zorki 2c So I'm good. Very seldom do I see anyone else carrying around film camera's in my area...too bad!
charjohncarter
Veteran
If that were the case wouldn't RF lens makers just do (wide) retro focus lenses, after all they have plenty of room to work with?
Last edited: