One of the smallest rangefinders you can find, the Olympus XA is a great little carry anywhere camera. The only drawback is the tiny little focus control and it’s semi hidden nature makes focusing somewhat fussy. You can set the aperture and focus in such a way that it works as zone focusing. At f5.6 and focused at xyz everything from x feet to infinity is rendered clearly enough for most uses.
I’ve been working on a photographic series using my Pentax Z1p SLR more than any other camera so of course there are more images from it too. Past posts and information can be found here (Z1p Images Ektar100) , Z1p and Images , Oct 2013
I’ve been forced to look for alternatives in having my film processed so I thought I would explore what the true costs of continuing to shoot film were for me.
So what did I discover? Well for one thing using less expensive film with 24 frames is a bit of false economy I might as well use the Kodak Ektar that I love so much because it works out to only pennies per frame difference over Fuji Superia. I also discovered that the instant film I am using isn’t prohibitively expensive. Yes it certainly is more than using 35mm film but it compares well to the cost of using medium format and don’t forget you get a print. What this chart doesn’t take into account though is just how much enjoyment I derive from using my film cameras. I might be slightly less inclined however to use a camera I know will give questionable results when it costs around $0.30 every time I click the shutter.
An update I’ve actually located a place that will develop C41 120 film at the same price as 35mm giving me a total cost of $1.22/0.82/0.61 per frame depending on the format I’m using.
More images from my Braun Super Paxette with the Kata 45mm f2.8 lens and Kodak Ektar. These ones were selected from the roll for their theme of old buildings. Part one can be seen here Braun Super Paxette Part 1
If you have read my blog for a while you may already know about my affinity for this camera. Super Paxette, Real Photographers dont crop and Super Paxette More Images This time around I used Kodak’s excellent Ektar 100 film. The only thing that might make this camera better for me is if I had some of the other lenses that were made for it. I have the 45mm Kata which is the most useful focal length but there were also lenses available in focal lengths 35mm, 50, 85mm and 135mm.
It should be mentioned that the lens is not the sharpest even stopped down around f5.6-f8 and the bokeh has an odd distorted look when it’s focused on something close. The film mask creates a look something like the zig zag scissors you use in preschool and the shutter release is in a completely unfamiliar location. The flip side of all those things though is that the lens is sharp enough for making good 8x10s. The Bokeh is a cool effect that can be used when making an image and the film mask is also pretty interesting and the shutter is actually in a comfortable spot.
I’ve selected 26 images from the roll of 36 for inclusion but broken them into two separate posts. All 36 turned out technically fine it’s just that sometimes I shoot similar shots or even pictures that aren’t that interesting. (Yes I still get to decide here what is interesting or not)
This is a mix of images from either the Canon G2 or the Canon Sure Shot Classic 120. I compared the two cameras outputs in Digital vs Film 2001 edition. I cropped the film images to match the aspect ratio of the digital cameras 1.333x 1 to make distinguishing the two a little harder. At these sizes it’s not always obvious which is which. I did my first exploration for the difference between film and digital in a post here The battle of 2001 and came to a similar conclusion so I will move forward in time next to see if I can find that illusive moment when digital photography exceeded film in its abilities for the average photographer free of all the marketing.
Previously I looked for the point at which digital image capture exceeded film for the average snap shot Film vs Digital the battle of 2001. This time around I’ve chosen two different cameras available in 2001 both higher quality and with zoom lenses.
The two cameras are the 4.1 Mpixel Canon G2 with its 1/1.8″ CCD sensor and 34-102mm (35mm equivalent) f2.0 – F8.0 lens against films Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 and its 7 element super Spectra coated f4.5 -f10.9 lens using Kodak Ektar 100. I shot the Canon G2 set at 100 ISO through out.
The Sure Shot Classic 120 was released in 1999 and the Canon G2 came out in 2001 but seeing as film cameras age far more gracefully than digital cameras I think it’s a pretty good comparison, besides there were not many more film cameras being developed at that point.
Looking at the images as the same size side by side it is immediately apparent that for web-based or small prints up to 5×7 there is little difference between them although the Ektar turns out to be less grainy. I think it would be more evenly matched if I had used a lower grade film like Fuji Superia.
It’s only when you look at printing larger sizes that it become apparent that film has the clear advantage.
Another thing that isn’t readily apparent is the fact that I had to slightly adjust the exposure a lot with the Canon G2 to prevent it from clipping the highlights something I couldn’t do with the film camera but was completely unnecessary anyway. All through this film has the advantage in dynamic range. The example bellow is without any compensation in a very high contrast situation.
As for colour the digital camera rendered them more naturally.
In 2001 even at about 3 times the cost digital point and shoot cameras did not yet exceed film cameras of the same type and I havent even touched on the issue of speed of operation where the G2 is about as fast taking a picture as the Classic 120 is rewinding a roll of film. That’s an exaggeration but from the time you turn the G2 on till you can take a picture is nearly 6 seconds plus about 2.5 to zoom plus 1 second to focus so you better plan ahead in the past.
I will post a gallery of images from the two cameras in a future post maybe mixing them up between the two cameras.
There is no denying the appeal of the square when it comes to medium format. From my original Dianna to my Rolleiflex the square rules. The advantage the Autorol has over the others though is it has a better lens and shutter than the Dianna and is more compact than the Rollei. The results are also great, easily producing images that can by blown up or cropped to other aspect ratios. Read more about it in my post here Wester Autorol or here Wester Autorol Sample
If it’s that 1980’s vibe your after this camera will match your feathered hair nicely just don’t get it caught between the sides of your water-bed. The Ricoh 35 EFS is very simple to operate. All exposure is automatic, the flash is turned on by you and you focus be selecting a little icon on the lens barrel. I mean how well do you want the camera focused on that mix tape in your hand anyway. So yes it’s built to look like a rangefinder of the 1970’s but it’s all plastic like the 80’s and is on the large side just like your shoulder pads. The lens is a 40mm f2.8 with 3 groups and 4 elements. Seriously though this is like totally the camera I would take in a Delorean at 88 miles an hour.
A small fun colourful camera that shoots 16×9 pictures and verges on being miniature. That pretty much sums it up in one sentence.
The next sentence of course should be it uses APS film which hasn’t been produced for several years.
More about this camera Fuji Nexia Q1
