90s Film SLRs - CHEAPER and BETTER Than You Think!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лис 2022
- Check out this video if you're looking for THE cheapest film SLR cameras you can buy today.
90s Film SLR cameras are the final, state of the art evolution of film technology. They have auto exposure, auto focus, auto loading - and they're really, really cheap too! I bought my Canon EOS Rebel 3000 for £25 with a lens, and I paid £25 for my Nikon F60 body, and £20 for a Sigma auto focus lens.
Back in the day these cameras are what anyone who grew up with manual focus, manual exposure and manual loading cameras were waiting for - me included! They're so easy to use, they're light and portable and both can mount a very wide range of lenses.
Oh, and if you really want, you can shoot them in manual too!
Check out the video for THE best bargains in film SLRs!
If you like the content on this channel, why not become a patron at www.patreon.com/Zenography?fa...
Thanks for watching!
If you are making images largely for yourself, then I would argue that yes, the process does matter, and you should enjoy the process as much as you can. I'm shooting film specifically because it slows me down, and that helps me spend more time thinking about what I'm doing. I don't particularly want my photography to be easy.
Also, there's a lot to be said for cameras that don't need batteries.
A good manual camera is indeed a wonderful thing - but these are so plentiful and so cheap it's hard to ignore them!
Another advantage of the 90s cameras is that they don't have the ageing damage that cameras from the 70s have. Something is always broken on these cameras: the light seals and foam dampers leak and the light meters often have to be readjusted. I own an OM-1, OM-4Ti and a Pentax LX. All wonderful cameras with lots of metal and mechanics, but to be honest, i love my Canon EOS-1 the most. It just feels really good in the hand and i even find it beautiful now ;-).
all cameras fail eventually but mechanical cameras can be fixed without the need for proprietary electronics like ribbon cables, pcbs, etc.
It's true. They are the ultimate film cameras really, and a joy to use. Picked up an EOS 600 and a 650 recently at a flea market for £10.00 a pop. Large cameras for sure, but so nice in the hand.
They're very capable machines, although very different to earlier cameras! Hope you're enjoying yours.
The design of the EOS 650 is special and goes back to the Canon T90 which was designed by Colani. I hope your EOS 600 doesn't have the "battery-eating-syndrome" that some EOS 600 have. When a new battery is empty after 2 weeks, then you know it...
@@christianmayrhofer4178 That's a new one on me Christian. I've got two 600's now. One of which has had a battery in for some time. So far, at least, it is lasting well. The other I picked up recently still seems to be holding its power too. So fingers crossed.
I've just purchased a Canon EOS 500n with AF lens for £25, can't wait for it to turn up!
Sounds like a good buy!
Not only that you can mount any Canon EF lens meant for the use on digital cameras on any film based Canon EF camera, but you can use many if not all 35mm SLR lenses on it with the right adapter other than Canon's own FD / FL mount based lenses, what's caused by the about same flange distance. Speaking of which, Canon EOS cameras have one of shortest flange distances in the 35mm cameras history, and that's the reason there's enough room to squeeze an adapter between the camera and the lens. Moreover, with the right adapter or cheat chip you'll even get a focus confirmation on all those old manual focussing lenses!
Wow that's pretty cool - thanks for the info!
Do you get on canon FD Mount also focusing confirmation? I really like it with EF lenses switching to manual, half press the shutter and focus , until you get the confirmation
@@ming-artoflight2761 As I said you CAN NOT mount any Canon's FD lenses onto EOS cameras. I've heard the noise that some guys machined some of their FD lenses to fit EOS cameras, sometimes that could be done, but in my mind that's too costly endeavour.
HOWEVER, you could search for Canon AL-1 (I think, yes in FD mount), that has visual focus confirmation, a predecessor to modern autofocusing system in SLR's / DSLR's...
Thank you for this video! I find myself of thinking about this for last time.
Thanks Leonid, glad you enjoyed it!
Picked up a mint Pentax MZ-5n for a tenner. Easy to use, matrix meter is bang on. Shoots autofocus lenses, has manual focus assist like Pentax DSLRs and is small and light. I love it for all the points you raise in the video. Yes it has a lot of plastic and the mirror motor cog will break at some point but I can justify having it repaired as I've sold so much stuff!
I've still got one of these. I loved it back then. I think I'm going downstairs tomorrow to dig in some boxes.
I have the Pentax MZ60. It's limited as to what lenses it can use, but it works just like a sophisticated zoom compact and takes lovely photos.
That sounds like a nice machine - long may it prosper!
Funny you mention pentax dslr as i just got for free the complete pentex SLR for free with i think several filter lenses. Manuals and other stuff with notes for free. Deciding to keep it or sell it. As i already have a ton on my plate... however i do love the old 35mm clarity vs the digital when properly focused and properly taken.
Great analysis!
very agree with you, that's why I am still using my manual focus lens on the old film body and on a mirrorless camera
Totally agree Nigel, I have a Canon 300V and and a black Canon 500, I love them, they feel really great in the hand, don't really like straight edges on cameras, the OM film cameras are mainly collectable because of their form factor, size and yes of course their legendary lenses. As per usual a great video Nigel, love listening to you.
I'm in my 50s and started using a Praktica SLR in the mid 80's which was a manual camera but with a built in light meter. It was the only SLR I could afford at the time and if I could have afforded a 'newer' more automated one, I would have. Then in 2000 I bought a Canon EOS 30 camera and OMG - I thought it was amazing. So much easier to use! Then in 2012 I went the DSLR route. Recently, I have got back in to shooting some film along side my digital photos, and immediately just wanted an old EOS film body again. I had no desire to go back to the older fully manual cameras. So I have just got a mint condition Canon EOS 3 which I just love using. It feels the same as my EOS 6D Mk 2 digital camera and I can use the same lenses on both of them, as the EOS film cameras will take any EF lens no matter how old or new it is - just like my EOS DSLR.
Thank you! I had some budget nikon that I loved. Love that auto wind sound. Autofocus was always right
Bought a Pentax PZ-20 after I got into the digital system, figuring I already had a lot of the lenses. It's surprisingly nice. A bit soulless with the auto-winding, and I feel like it always stops a roll of film a shot or two shorter than an older manual SLR would, but it was cheaper than the battery, and the glass is good, so it works out great.
My thought are mad people like you and I when using film cameras, like the idea of the challenge. My first proper camera, back in the 60s, was an Halina 35x which I still have. I didn't even have a light meter and used the printed film guides that came with the film and I have a few shots that I was rather pleased with. My dad who passed on many years ago, took some cracking photos with it back in the 60s. We should challenge ourselves from time to time.
Indeed we should, agreed!
Hi Nigel, great review, I always learn something from your vids. I have to agree 90s SLRs aren't as fashionable as their earlier SLR ancestors, perhaps it is really all down to the look. But they are terrific cameras none- the -less. as you say. I'm guilty of the fashion thing too.Back in the day I traded a Pentax S
uper A ( in 1999) for a Canon 50e which I never initially bonded with just because how it looked! Daft! But I kept it and it takes terrific pictures. Over the years amongst other cameras I have acquired, include a few 90s and 00s SLRs e.g. Nikon F75. Pentax MZ6 and Minolta 500si ,they all neat capable cameras and are cheap to buy. Long may it last!
My first ‘modern’ film SLR was the Nikon N80…I remember being so proud of that camera and taking it EVERYWHERE. The auto film loading function was absolutely mind blowing to me!
I still find it pretty cool now!
I ADORE my N80. I got it for an absolute steal on ebay, which allowed me to spend MUCH more on lenses than I had thought I would be able to afford but still stay within my budget!
So my take on this great video Nigel. Been with Nikon since the late 1970's. Yes, the F60 will mount every nikon lens from 1959, even the 'digital' ones without an apature ring, everything until the Z mount. You do have to be careful with the non-Ai lenses (the ones with the rabit ears) as they tend to crash into the plastic locator tab on the camera. In my view the best 'cheap' nikon is the F75, its compact, mounts every lens, is autofocus, and nikon threw everything at it as it was their last offical amateur or consumer film camera, it even had a depth of field preview!! You can pick up a decent one for £50!
You are right that 80-90's film cameras are not as popular because they look too much like digital, BUT also they tended to be rather plasticky, they didn't wear so well, and they depended on electronics....which fail and turn the camera to scrap...can't be fixed you see! All those reasons make them less popular than the metal, all analogue, and mechanical bricks from the decades before. Personally, I've stuck to the mechanical cameras for film a Praktica MTL5B a Nikon EM, an FE and an FM3a (yeah OK 2001), and missed out the 80-90s entirely, my digital stuff is usually nikon pro bodies which I do tend to keep for 6-7 years. My Father however, still shoots with two F75's and a D90.
An issue I've found with budget plastic SLRs is dodgy shutter mechanisms. This isn't confined to one brand. I suspect shutter button electronics were built down to a price, contacts have a limited life expectancy, and the camera fires two or more frames in single shot mode. This is a problem with the current price of film and development.
A lot of electronics here to be sure - but mature, 90s micro electronics, so I think there's plenty of life left in them yet. Thanks for looking in.
@@zenography7923 Thanks for the reply, yes I agree, 90's electronics were much better than the 80's cameras. I also think you are absolutely right on the price point, they are great value for money. I've had all my metal analogue bricks since new, and if I wanted a film camera now I wouldn't be paying the 2nd hand premium for analogy, I think I'd choose something like the F75.
I don't know about the F60, but my F50 does work fine with all my AF lenses (AF, AF-D, AF-S), does not want to use the AF motor internal to my G lenses, but otherwise it's fine, and only in manual mode without exposure metering with my AI and AI-S lenses. I have no pre-AI lenses, so I can't test them. Converted ones should certainly work, but I would be very careful with anything else! I guess the F60 would be similar. Personally I prefer to use my old F601, as it meters with AI lenses, but loses the capability to use G lenses, which are far to modern for my taste anyways. The F601 is about the same price point (10 to 20 Euros) and does not look as much like a modern DLSR, if you prefer the old school look. ;-)
@@zenography7923 I have a Canon 3000n and a Nikon F60 and both fire 2 frames every third or fourth shot, as does another of my cameras of that era (which I've currently forgotten). Also my Nikon F55 has an autofocus issue (it misses) which seems to be very common indeed. Others may be more fortunate.
Hi Nigel,
Picked up the EOS 3000, 5000 and 500 as a job lot, fully working, for £18.00 about a year ago, and they all produce great photos.
Now that was a good haul!
The Olympus OM 1, 2 and 10... Fantastic and also my favorites!! In a period that Nikon (Nikkormat) and Canon where 'hot', Olympus continued to hold.
Totally agree with you on this. Want a beautiful fashion accessory? Get an old metal camera. Want to take pictures? Modern film SLRs are the way to go. I'm very pleased with my "new" Canon Elan 7. All the modern conveniences, nearly silent operation, and it works properly with stabilized EF lenses! What's not to like? The design, of course, but I don't care much about the looks. Another advantage of modern SLRs that seldom gets mentioned: electronic shutters work properly until they die. Mechanical shutters lose their accuracy over time and need adjustment.
P.S. You need a new chair.
I picked up an EOS 3000 without a lens on ebay for £12 and it turned out to be one of my favourite cameras. You're definitely right about them not being popular because of how they look. I took it on a film photography walk and got so many comments about it looking like a DSLR.
They're cheap now, but they're so good I don't think they'll remain so for too long!
@@zenography7923 So true!
I bought a Minlta Dynax 500si to see what the fuss was about. I found it to be a decent camera with enough bells and whistles to shoot most scenes on the auto settings with full manual control for good measure. It produced good photos that are nicely exposed with very little fuss.
I've heard good things about the Dynax cameras! Thanks for looking in.
Brings back memories.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I turned away from the "newer" analog ones after I had defects with various cameras, which simply don't occur with older ones.
I'm also getting fed up with all the plastic - not just within cameras, more general.
But it's definitely better to keep using them, than throwing them away.
Personally, I only have two Canon T90 fully automatic cameras - all the many others are older.
Hey - and again thank you for your videos!
Andy
For me the solid build quality, the 1960s industrial design and the joy of working completely mechanically is the reason I bought my Pentax SP II. Using a 1990s film camera would be very close to using my Pentax K70. That's why 1990s cameras do not really attract me.
Nice video though!
I was pretty much encouraged to buy this Canon 3000N because of your video and review. It cost me 5 pounds. Can't even get a roll of film for that money. I noticed that it makes me shoot more, because it is so much easier. I can confirm that digital Canon EF lenses fit (that's why I bought it). Although I still do really like the feel, the aesthetic and challenge of using classic SLRs - I have a Pentax and two Zenits, still a nice feeling to use them.
You really can't go wrong with these cameras, enjoy!
i kinda prefer the old metal look and feel, and personally, its more fun to play with all them mechanical bits :)
I agree with you, these light plastic cameras are very capable but i have zero feeling shooting with them. And they are ugly ! A lot of mechanical cameras on the other hand are sexy and a pleasure to shoot with ! For me this is not only about the results, the journey is as important.
@@michelk5 well said :)
As far as I know, all EF (not EF-S) mount lenses will work on the EOS film bodies. I use them for both digital and film all the time, it's a great setup! You can also adapt a lot of other mounts to the EF mount, such as M42, Nikon F and Leica R mount.
Thanks for the info!
Yes, any Canon EF lens since 1987 will work without restriction on any Canon SLR/DSLR - analogue or digital! With an adapter, they will also work on Canon DSLM with RF mount! On the other hand, you can use a modern EF lens like the 70-300mm IS ll USM on an old Canon EOS 650 and have image stabilisation and faster AF. that's cool.
I would also add I love the feel of lever wind when you are tense using lever wind (unwinds us) no film in cameras at this point...
Sweet Relief!!!
A good lever wind can give that feeling of mechanical perfection, for sure!
For Nikon, check out the 8008s/801s, which can be had c. $40-50. Semi-pro. Works with any noncrop sensor Nikkor, including tons and tons of manual Nikkors. The N90's not too shabby, either. And the 6006 will do.
Well said. Good point some of the really great cameras from Nikon.
Thanks for the info!
Yep, the N90/F90 is the best deal in film photography. Nobody looks for them. Almost as good as the F100 for a fraction of the price.
Hello Nigel, many thanks! I got a Canon EOS 950 and an EOS 1 Mk. I. They are a joy to use! Best wishes Ralf
Hi Ralf, these are very capable cameras, if built around a different philosophy to earlier cameras. Rather more modern in feel and capable of fantastic results - enjoy!
@@zenography7923 Another camera I purchased for little money: The Minolta 7xi from 1991. Nice!
My favourite ever film SLR was the Nikon F, I had 2 of these. My favourite lens was the Nikkor-Q non Ai 135 f2.8 this weighed a ton but the images were so good. I used to collect Nikon manual cameras and lenses but sold them all at the end of the 35mm era. Never liked those plastic AF cameras.
I've got a Zenit 122 and a Canon 1000d, soon I'll get an Agfa Parat 1. Cheap cameras nevertheless I'm enjoying them so much!
I already have the canon rebel, an Olympus, and a fuji landscape, this style of cameras are called crossovers here in the states being that they're half dslr and half film slr.
Well done, Nigel. Bringing truth into focus. Fashion has often no substance, no wisdom.
Indeed, and there's so much consideration of fashion in the film market just now. Then again, maybe there always was?
I own both a Canon 5D Mk IV (digital) and a Canon EOS 5 (film). I find little difference in using either, which is very handy - and I can use all my Canon glass on both them. A great setup.
Incidentally, I also own an Olympus OM2 and a 2n. Brilliant cameras and excellent lenses.
Similarly to you, I own a Canon EOS 6D Mk II (digital) and a Canon EOS 3 (film). They are so similar to use and roughly the same shape, size and weight. I love using them both!
i just to day picked a Minolta of the same era. Seems ok. Will test it with film done the road and then give it away. But my keeper of the day is a Panasonic 'Lumix' DMC-ZS10.
Would of loved to see the minolta in the 35mm x-700 and the super cool 35mm monster alpha-9
Thanks for sharing ❤
Just a matter of my mood when I go out shooting. Sometimes grab my Nikon F and a handheld meter, sometimes I just want to shoot in aperture priority.
I suppose if I really HAD to get a perfect shot and I was unconcerned about the experience of the gear, I think I would grab my F80 with the battery grip. Ditto for my FD collection and the AE-1/T90.
I have an EOS50,500 and 650 and a Minolta 500si all of which give excellent results and the lot were less than £70 all with lenses
New here and was wondering your thoughts on the pentax SLR sf10
People that are shooting film will tend to be enthusiasts, they specifically don't want a DSLR experience with their film camera, they want to do everything manually. To use a 90s/00s SLR would defeat the point of not shooting digital; you're getting none of the feel of shooting film but all of the expense and inconvenience.
I haven't used a 35mm SLR since 2005 but I had hold of my dad's Olympus OM-1 the other day and it felt so nice to press the shutter release and wind lever and hear all the mechanicals inside doing their thing, if I ever do shoot film again it will be with a camera like that.
Enjoyed this, for some reason I still had a Nikon N90 in my closet. I am thinking I should play with film again. I am not sure why, because film is so expensive, but it seems film is making a resurgence. What are your thoughts on why?
My friend gave me a Pentax from 1999 and a Mamiya from 1969. Both weren’t used for 20 years. The Mamiya works wonderfully, the Pendax is broken…
Really mechanical cameras rule! 💪🏼 ⚙️
Pentax MZ or some such have a Crux that killed them all.
Would love to see a comparison between these and the Dynax 7/Dynax 9/F6/F5 style true cream of the crop final film SLRs!
The canon Eos1n or Nikon f5 were the ultimate (and still are). I can't pass judgement on the f5 as I have never used one, however the 1n is as perfect as a camera gets (with the sole exception of the 1V)
I ended up with a EOS 300V and Nikon F75. I've only used the canon so far and it works great.
It is different, they have smaller viewfinders so they are worse in that way.
I think the budget Nikons are limited in the lens department, correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is a tip. If you can find the somewhat rare Nikon 28-100mm kit zoom get it because it can create strong bubble bokeh. It was attached to my F75.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look out for one!
I also prefer older film cameras. I still use my Minolta x700, Nikon Fe2, and recently picked up a Nikon F5. I do have digital cameras but I lean towards the analog world. Thank you for your videos.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I’ve got the Canon EOS 300 & 500 along with 5 other SLR’s but really want a cheap but not rubbish point and shoot, I do have the Pentax Zoom 70 which I haven’t tested yet as I’ve not heard anything good about it and, for its size, it’s ridiculously heavy
The Nikon F65 will only work with the newer G type auto focus lenses because there's no tab for the auto index. Aperture adjustment only via the camera. But it's bigger brother the F100 or older F801, F90 and F90x will work with all the Nikon lenses even the old but excellent pre Ai lenses as long as they've had an Ai conversion or been DIY converted.
I had an all black Olympus OM2n and with I. hadn't sold it.
I have a Nikon F75 now and love it.
The problem I have with the F75 is that it uses an expensive battery.
I use my Ricoh Singlex TLS more.
I know what you mean about the battery, but a nice camera though.
The F65 is my bad weather & rain camera (even though, it was never into the rain yet, not even a slight drizzle) but into fog twice. (with enough time to adapt to my room temperature again afterwards) It's my cheapest AF SLR after the F55, so if something would go south ever, i don't ruin my better Nikon SLRs.
A good idea - wouldn't fancy taking my classics out in bad weather!
@@zenography7923 So do I, Nigel !
Agreed. I have eos 30 and 3 and 5D m2, and they let you concentrate on the picture in way that manual rangefinder don’t . I used Leica M for over 20 years and switched to canon. Also, the Meter of Nikon and canon are so precises. Also AF is spot on…documentary especially with changing light and so on, it’s great….I hope you feel ok…
These are very cool little cameras, no doubt about it!
@@zenography7923 and very good lenses, some inexpensive with great IQ, like 50/1.8 or 35/2 (the pre IS version).
I think we all agree, it's not the camera that makes the image, it's the glass.
But, in the final analysis, any camera and lens combination can make a beautiful image. H C-B used an old Leica, with very limited capabilities (shutter speed and lens apertures/coatings) yet made timeless photographs.
Any camera, from 1950 to the present day has more capability and function than most of us will ever need or use.
I personally like to be in control of the pictures I take, but there are occasions when slipping it into Auto will let you capture the instant where being in manual will mean that you miss the moment.
Fashion dictates so much, in photography as well as much else. See a camera used in a movie, the price goes up the very next day,
The film "Blow Up" rekindled the sale of Pentax cameras after David Hemmings was seen using one on screen.
Fujifilm have harked back to the old style SLRs and Rangefinder style bodies for their X-Series and that is a great attraction for me.
Thought provoking indeed, Nigel
George
I love the Fujifilm cameras for their nod to the classics! Hope all's well George, thanks for looking in.
Correction
After checking the movie Blow Up I think that the camera Hemmings uses is actually a Nikon F which I believe was just released as the film was being shot.
My original comment still stands, though. Show a camera in a cult film and the fans will jump straight on it, driving up the prices.
Nikon F60 came attached to the lens I bought instead of a back cap. I would have prefered the traditional back cap with the lens. The batteries for F60 were expensive, but I made the F60 work. Good for testing lenses. I was surprised by the fast speed of auto focus. I agree that they should be more popular as even some point and shoot Olympus cameras from the 90s are treared as cult objects. My analogue Praktica MTL50 was damn difficult to use, I would rather use this one for film photography.
See also nikon f801s / n8008s. I believe you would like it. If you want ais lenses also, f100 should cut it.
Film stock reviews would be fun.
There's an episode coming, but I have quite a bit of developing to do first though!
Nice episode, Nigel! These cameras are just as easy to use (and just as pladticy) as the silly overpriced point & shoots of the same period, and way more flexible and versatile. Compared to older SLRs, I think these cameras have lost something in the experience and process of making an image. For all manual work, LCDs, menus and autofocus gets in the way, hence I prefer Nikon FM2N to F-801, and F-1 to EOS-1, albeit all capable cameras.
Thanks Kalle, glad you enjoyed the episode!
I owned an FM, FM2, and FE2, and they are great, classic cameras. I wish I still had my FM2. But for a film newbie, they're way pricier to get into than an 801/8008 or N90. And one of those, used aperture priority with a manual Nikkor, works simply and easily.
I still use the Canon 3000n and the F60. Picked both up on a fleamarket for a few bucks..and they works great for me! But do yourself a favor and get a battery grip for the canon..best regards 🙂
Thanks for looking in Mathias!
The Nikon, if I'm not mistaken, will not mount Pre AI lenses. Those are the ones built between 1959 and 1977. The older lenses will interfere with the metering ring on the camera. So, you cannot mount pre ai lenses on the Cameras made after 1977 with the exception of the FM, FE, F2 and F4. These cameras had a button that allowed you to move the metering tab out of the way of the lens mount.
I didn't realise that, thanks for the info.
As one that started to shoot on digital with dslrs and moved to mirrorless, the 90s modernised film slrs don’t really excite me. If I wanted any automation, I would grab my Nikon Z. I find the autofocus system on my mother’s Nikon F401s to be too clunky.
I guess your closing statement is accurate. It’s a matter of perspective and where we come from which impacts what we are looking for.
I guess so! Thanks for looking in.
Zen FYI:
All Nikon F lenses will mount on all Nikon F cameras. Pre-AI lenses will not provide P or S or A mode autoexposure as they have no way to tell the camera the aperture setting or the lenses maximum apeture. But, M mode still works. Some older lenses will not work with matrix metering. I have an N90 (F90 to you in the UK). It is a very capable camera but extremely plasticy and not very inspiring. I think that the F90 is a better buy. I do, however, prefer the earlier FM, FG, FE and FA models, especially the FA. They offer excellent build quality and a superb, over engineered, film advance mechanism. As for Canon EOS models, I have and EOS 3 which has much better build quality (metal) than the Rebel models at a slightly higher price. As for your comment about why anyone would want to fiddle around with film loading, ask any Leica owner. I have an M4P, and when I have successfully loaded a roll of film I get a distinct sense of triumph. Cheers.
The price of earlier fully mechanical cameras is going up because the good ones will rarely fail. The light meter might fail; but you can still shoot the camera without it. The cameras that are electronics dependent are a risky proposition. If they work, you have a great camera. If the electronics fail, and they will, you have a nice paper weight.
I would guess that most electronics will fail over time, but I think there's plenty of life left yet in electronic cameras, especially those with mature micro electronics, like these.
The only thing about the Canon Rebel series film cameras is, the 2000th shutter speed. The Nikon N/F60 has the same. The Canon Elan series and the 10S/A2 series have a 4000th shutter speed and are only a bit more expensive. The EOS 1, and 1n has an 8000th shutter, along with the EOS 3. They will set you back about 100 to 200 dollars, but are way cheaper than the EOS 1v.
All the crap being said, an AE-1, P, A-1... only have a 1000th shutter speed, and we did okay with them. If I remember right, the OM-1 only had a 1000th shutter speed as well.
Wondering how much time you must spend on CLA and reseals.
Quite a bit!
The downside with 90s entry level SLRs, is they take valuable contemporary lenses. I own quite a few, and it was possible to buy a barely used body for £20 or less. If they came with a lens, say a Nikon 28-80mm or 50mm and Canon/Minolta/Pentax equivalents, the package was a bargain. I use them in tricky situations, like half an inch from water to photograph a mayfly hatch. If buying a body alone, you're competing with lens buyers who want glass for their latest F or EF mount bodies. If you're looking for a bargain, make sure there's a lens in the deal.
Excellent advice, thanks!
I guess the bottom line is quality of images taken and consistency of operation..either the camera consistently delivers images or it doesn't. I have a couple of 50+ year old 35mm SLR cameras in my collection (Nikon F, Pentax Spotmatic) ranging also through the mid-1970's up to the mid-1980's (Nikkormat FT2, Nikon FM, Nikon FG, Olympus OM-10) and the progression to ever increasing use of plastic parts is evident through that collection. I like the robust construction and 'solid feel' of those older cameras but the convenience of technology cannot be denied. The Nikon FG for example: to me it just doesn't have the solid construction and feel of the F and FM but the features it has (aperture preferred auto exposure, full program auto exposure, full manual exposure, plus through-the-lens flash metering with the appropriate flash units) results in a very convenient easy to use film camera for those times when you don't feel like or have the time to fiddle with exposure settings and those features were carried through and refined with models from manufacturers through the 1990's. I just never took to having display screens and push buttons to make camera adjustments in lieu of 'old fashioned' mechanical wheels and dials thus my film camera collection stops at mid-1980's. Great buys out there though for the 1990's era film cameras and if they are competent image takers, why not?
EOS 1-n baybeeeee!
Indeed!
Maybe someone has already mentioned this in one of the already 168 comments on this video, but yes you should be able to mount any of the EF Full Frame lenses to any EOS body.
The EF lens mount was originally designed for the Canon EOS 35mm film cameras, and when they started making DSLR's, they kept the same lens mount. This was likely to avoid the angry that had happened when they rolled out the EOS cameras, and abandoned the very popular FD lenses mount. Fast forward to now that they are abandoning the EF-M mount, and going RF mount only, without an upgrade path from EF-M to RF.
So the only EF lenses that should not be usable on a 35mm film EOS body are the EF-S mount lenses for the APS-C sized bodies. Just like you can't mount them on a full frame body without damaging the reflex mirror, the same should be true of a 35mm film body too.
In fact I have used my EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, and newer EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III lenses on my EOS Elan 7e 35mm body from the early to mid 2000's with no problem at all. I believe they would mount the very latest EF lenses, just not the EF-S lenses.
You can adapt other lenses to the Canon EF mount too. I have an inexpensive FotoDiox adapter to adapt F mount Nikon lenses to my 3 Canon EOS bodies. One is the a fore mentioned Elan 7e. The other two being my Rebel T6, and 6D. These are AI lenses, and do not have auto focus, but the adapter has a chip that works with the camera bodies' built in auto focus system to confirm focus with these manual focus lenses. I find this essential to help me make sure what I'm shooting is in focus since most all but pro grade auto focus cameras seemed to do away with the micro prism, and split range finder focusing aids I rely on in my manual focus Canon bodies.
Other lenses I know can be adapted to Canon EF mount bodies also include M42, and Leica R mount. I think the Leica M mount's may be able to be adapted too, but those are way out of my reach, with only a few of the R mount lenses potentially attainable. Voigtlander is another lens, and they actually did make a few in EF mount. But there were lenses in other mounts such as Nikon F, that can be adapted with those adapters as well. Sadly due to the difference in flange distance, Canon's awn FD mount lenses cannot be used on an EF body without an adapter with usually a poor quaility optical piece in the adapter. This is to maintain infinity focus, but from wht I hear, they usually seriously degrade the picture quality. Sad as I have a FD 35-105 f/3,5 lenses I'd love to use on my EOS cameras!!
In closing, just in case you are curious, here is my Canon manual focus body collection. I have working units in good to excellent condition og the following: T50, T70, T90, and the Elan &e with the battery grip. I have a functioning 80's model New F-1 with the motor Drive AE, and the AA batter pack. The motor drive is in pretty good shape given it's age, but the F-1 has seen better days. Everything appears to still work, and I had film developed out of it with out any noticeable issue. I'd love to get a better looking copy sometime, and hopefully one with the AE Finder to allow Aperture Priority AE.
Then I had a friend salvaged a Canon FT QL for me out of a bunch of stuff that was being donated to the Ham Radio club I'm in. It looks to be in pretty good shape, excpet that the battery compartment for the meter has had a battery corrode inside, and I'm not sure if it will ever work again. The shutter, and advance is all mechanical, so no problems there. It had 2 or three lenses with it, but upon close inspection they all have fungus in them, and I'm not sure if there might be fungus in the camera too? I've ran a roll of film through it, but not gotten it developed. I'm hoping the meter is all that's not working on it, and I can use it one day.
Sorry for the very long comment, I love photography, cameras, and gear. I can talk about them, particularity Canon gear all day long, into the night, and the next morning too! lol
Snap some up while cheap.... Some other cheap excellent considerations Minolta 7000 and 7000i + the excellent matching AF f1.7 50mm, EOS 5, EOS 10, EOS 50e, EOS 600, 650, Nikon F-301....
Thanks for the info!
@@zenography7923 You're welcome... Just couldn't help myself a few years ago... From eBay.. Those Minoltas ago for a peanuts...and the EOS bodies cheap too.. I don't want to be tempting you.. :) Luckily the Minolta lenses I managed to buy are A mount (Which I guess you already know ..) and I can use on an old Alpha 200 but one day I would love to buy the Sony you use...
The Nikon F801 is my go-to 35mm camera! It swapped my 70s Chinon CS and my 80s Chinon CS-4. The 1988 Nikon F801 is a reliable body and the Nikon glass is awesome :). It's all about the lens, so why bother with the expensive Nikon cameras like the FM2 when a 80€ Nikon F801 body wil do?
The styling is exactly why Fuji is so popular, people really don't want a camera that looks like it was melted back in the back of a car
Personally on the older cameras I really do like the feel of a lever wind weather its a Zenith 11 or an Olympus 1n so yes those cheap SLRs are handy once in a while they are not exactly point and shoot but pretty damn close....very curvy bodies can we say sexy....I haven't got one of these...but they can still take damn fine pics...
Yes I have got a couple of DSLRs...but don't really look like these.... Silver jobs...why silver and not gold I wonder???
90% of my childhood photos were shot on a 1996 Canon EOS by my dad and I see them at yard sales all the time.
Those sound like some happy memories!
Process vs image itself? I think the image is very important. If I have a camera that is great fun to use; but I can't get a decent image, then I won't use it. I love my Nikon F3 and F2 and even the eye level finder F. They make wonderful images and they are fun to use. My Nikon F5, however, is so convenient and so capable that I almost like using that camera the best. The problem is that it is a beast and it is very heavy to lug around. Many times I'll just grab my FM. The interesting thing is that, if it is in proper working condition, the camera has much less influence on image quality. The lens, and the film matter more in terms of image quality. So, if you camera works properly image quality isn't really an issue in film photograph6y. So, the camera that you like using in terms of ergonomics and convenience features, not to mention weight is the one you are going to reach for when you are heading out to shoot film.
Strangely, I rarely shoot black and white film in the F5. I guess that is getting into a different topic , though. Love your videos, keep them coming. Thanks for all you do.
Many thanks Erich, glad you enjoyed it!
0:09 MY EPELEPSY
Excuse me ! In an earlier episode you were talking about having a camera that bonded to you.
These plastic cameras from the later years don`t bond to the photographer the same way as the cameras from the 70`s. They are all metal cameras and are more quality products.
I bought an OM-2 in 1976 and sold it when i switched to a Nikon autofocus camera.
Now i am shooting Nikon DSLR cameras and thanks to your channel i even got a Fuji XT-2 camera. My interest for older cameras increased and i have purchased three OM-2 cameras with different lenses. I have no interest in buying the Nikon cameras from the 80`s that i owned like the F-801or F-501. Maybe i miss my F4 which was more a quality product. Metal cameras and optics of metal seem to have a better connection to the human brain. You get a nicer feeling of the camera when it`s of metal instead of plastic.
Older, metal, manual cameras are a more tactile experience. You want to pick the camera and use it.
Which I think is why the older cameras are more popular than these. You can't argue with the bang for buck factor though!
@@zenography7923 Agree ! But anyhow, thank you for your inspirational videos. Since i began watching your videos i have bought many vintage lenses and cameras. Hopefully i can make use of them with both my Nikon DSLR´s and my Fuji XT-2. Maybe even trying some 35 mm film also. That would be for the first time since 2005.
If you want the Prosumer-Top of the Line from the 90ies from Canon. Get an EOS50
For Gods sake... It has EyeTracking! I do not use it, but you can control the focuspoint with your eye. Show me a Digital one, which can do that.
The body is not expensive: about 30 to 50€.
To the EOS-Lenses: There are eletrical incompatibilities. I got a sigma (around 1993 which works on an EOS500 but NOT on a 3000n. And the other way round: i got a new Yuongnuo which works on a 3000n but not on a 500.
The EOS50... This Monster can handle both types 😎. I think its just a Firmware-Problem, i dont know exactly.
The "old" lense on "new" cameras will show a "low battery warning". On some "new" cameras you can use old lenses if you do not go under F4.0 its all very strange... So...be aware, when buying old "non-canon" - lenses or new ones for old cameras. Or just get a EOS50 😂
Thanks for the info, appreciated!
The Nikon film cameras will Mount any F Mount lens, yes. The only issue you will have is any lens that ends in “E.” They have an electronic aperture so they will stay at the widest aperture and you cannot stop them down. Any other F Mount lens you can change aperture. I found that out from personal experience and calling the Nikon representative.
Thanks for the info, appreciated!
I agree that the late 90s cameras remove one a bit from the fundamentals of photography. To me that is a huge *disadvantage* because, in reality, they are not simpler or easier to use. The multitude of modes that are presented to the user can be a barrier to being successful and enjoying the process. Why would someone coming from the digital world want to explore using film? One big reason (aside from the fashion aspect) is that they want t9o engage in something more fundamental. That’s not everyone’s motivation, of course, but I think it is for many.
As for fashion I personally have two biases against the “plastic fantastics”. One, they are BUTT UGLY! Yes, I know that’s highly personal, but I know a lot of photographers who feel the same way. That doesn’t mean I or we don’t think those cameras can’t make good images, of course. But part of the success in using a tool in any endeavour is how one feels about the tool. If there is a *zen* factor in having a tool that one admires, then that enhances the chance of success.
Second is the haptics. Again, not everyone is the same, but how a camera *feels* in the hand, how the controls fall to the hand can be critical. Let me give you an example of this in my own experience. A few years ago I traded in my Fuji X-Pro lens with its very good 18-55mm kit lens for an X100-F. I thought the evolution of the X100 controls as represented by the F model would be beneficial. I also wanted to impose a bit of discipline by having a fixed lens camera. What I found was that the control layout did not suit me and the only real advantages with the X100F were the different sensor (in some ways it was better, in others not) and somewhat more compact size. While I made some photos with it that I thought were good, I ended up not liking it because of the interface, and traded it in for a Fujinon 240A for my 4x5 kit.
After a couple of years I ended up buying a used X-Pro1 body, some adapters for OM, Konica, M mount and Konica Hexanon lenses. Despite the less than optimal control layout, the Xtrans sensor in the X-Pro1 has a special quality, especially for black and white.
Finally, as to digital emerging during the period when the curved body style was dominant, sure … it was easier to build digital guts into the same or similar SLR bodies. But Nikon released the DF DSLR who’s body styling was in line with the “classic” designs and it didn’t really sell. Sure the price was high, but still it doesn’t seem the prime reason people pay more for a classically styled film SLR is retro fashion, then the DF should have sold far better.
Coming back to haptics - one of the reasons digital Leicas do so well, despite their very high price, is that the important features of the classic interface/design have been maintained. It’s a cliché, but it’s not broken, so Leica didn’t “fix” it. If I had the disposable cash for a monochrome Leica, I would jump on it. I am very comfortable with rangefinders and for me they are the optimal tool for much of what I do.
I would say those are my 2 cents/pence, but obviously I’ve written a novella. Though it’s probably worth the 2p!
If the electronics fail on them, they are very difficult to get repaired, because parts are hard to come by and the cost of repair would be well above the original price paid for. The less electronics to fail the better.
True, but these are mature 90s micro electronics, which tend not to give any trouble at all. I think they'll last for a good while yet.
The british heart foundation is full of them.
I'll check them out!
Real reason is that these cameras are not rugged. Mainly plastic wherever possible. They are very light and do not instil a great deal of confidence. I know..... I have a 67 Spotmatic and also a Pentax MZ 50 and MZ 5N , both of which are late 90s cameras The latter 2 cameras have too much electronics in them and also are very fragile when compared to the Spotmatic. Just last week the MZ 5N had a film transport problem which has resulted in mirror lock up so it is off to the camera doc later this week. Whilst I accept that the MZ 50 is an inexpensive camera, the same is not true of the MZ5N. If I am going off on a photo outing, I do not feel secure taking one of these cameras with no backup and will also take the Spotmatic , which has not given the smallest problem in its lifetime ! Which happens to be 55 years !!! Unless you are looking at a Nikon F4 to F6 or a Pentax MZ S , or the professional Canon variants, these cameras are not reliable and are also far too fragile !
I don't quite understand mid part of your video title: "...cheaper..."
Have you calculated cost of using them?
Let me tell you what I did. I bought several old bodies. Ones I never was able to afford 40 years back. I really enjoy having them today, those marvels. This has nothing with taking photos. It was just my emotion.
Also, managed to obtain some old lenses.
And now I am at my 4th mirrorless digital body. All mentioned old lenses perfectly fit to my digital body. I can work manually. I can work slow. I can enjoy as never before. And don't need to spent a single penny on film and chemistry.
I respect people still use film today, but that is far from cheap as used to be. At some areas it is even hard to buy film, and even more hard to find lab.
Once you have a mirrorless camera then yes, it's cheaper to shoot digital, but they can be quite expensive to buy. These film cameras are astoundingly cheap to buy and, as the final evolution of film photography they're pretty good too! Enjoy whatever you shoot, and thanks for looking in.
The only thing keeping me shooting film more is the ridiculous price of film itself these days.
The widespread and extensive use of plastic in the cameras of the 1990s meant a significant loss of quality and a departure from the tradition of manufacturing cameras characterized by high quality - from "consumer" cameras to "professional" cameras. The most inexpensive Nikon in the 1970s was of high "professional" quality. Likewise with Canon and Pentax. However, there were still camera brands that stuck to the production of quality cameras - for example, Contax. But otherwise, the 1990s was a period of decline for the manufacture of quality cameras.
I guess it depends what you mean by quality. These cameras aren't made of metal but they're still working well at 20/30 years old - there must be some quality going on there I would think?
These Film DSLR have a big, terrible flaw. I learned it the hard way when I tried to use my Nikon F90, a prosumer camera not cheap at the time. You kill your battery, you throw away your film!
They can't remember at which frame you are in the film and freak out for having something inside when you put in charged batteries. It does not work until you open the back door to reset the counter, and, as you have a film inside already half way, good luck! 😓
I MUCH prefer my film cameras and I also enjoy manual focus though a split screen much more then these crude autofocus systems.
The lack of a split screen is a difficulty for manual focus, agreed.
nowadays why use a camera with the same look-and-feel and experience of a digital dslr camera? this is why when someone want to try film i give the advance to buy a MF camera like a yashica mat or seagul 4A or a kiev 88 or zenza bronica, shot on film and have the same feeling of shot on digital brig to delusion (still imho), a nice '70 all metal 35mm camera or a MF camera will give you something more, something pleasing in the act of taking the image.
Don't take this the wrong way, but based on the thumbnail, have you ever considered donning a lab coat, powdering your hair, and yelling "Marty! Get in the DeLorean, we've got to back to 1988 and get all the cameras while they're still new!"
Now that would be a cool shopping trip I think!
At 7:50, I reached the same conclusion; definitely old cameras make one looks cooler and that’s better for pulling girls. The whole point of film photography, isn’t it? 😉
Helmut Newton uses at last the eos 100! Why? The quietest Motor and only one fokus point....says Helmut Newton!
Wow I didn't know that, thanks for the info!
@@zenography7923 The cameras (one bw, one color) are in the exhibition "Newtons Property" in the Newton Foundation in Berlin
Function aside, there is something about gray plastic that is a turn off for me.
I found the biggest flaw on this generation to be the bateries. they are F expensive, and the camera eats them up. if you don't have a grip with 8 r6 cells you are F.
It’s all about street cred, not photography!
:)
I think you are discounting the value of durability. These cameras have an abundance of plastic and electronic parts that are bound to fail sooner or later. I want to buy a $500 Pentax LX because I think that if I do, I'll never buy a 35mm camera again.
Good mechanical cameras are likely to be the only ones that are repairable at some point in the future, as electronics start to fail - but I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet. These cameras use mature micro electronics that tend to be very long lived - plenty of life in them yet, I think!
The comments are interesting.
Thanks!
Well it's the same with everything. Design sells. Why would people buy expensive shoes when they can get cheap ones and they do exactly the same job. Well because of design and whole look and prestige of the product. But sure. I got your point.
I guess you're right, but you can't argue woth the 'bang for buck' factor here!
@@zenography7923 of course no. ‘Bang for buck’ is definitely big one here. 👍🏼
Why do you keep editing yourself to have super crazy long hair in the thumbnails lol
It's not an edit. I have super crazy long hair.
@@zenography7923 🤣
What’s crazy about long hair?
@@powbobs He doesn't appear to have long hair but then has long hair in the thumbnails. And in some of them, it's very big and wild looking which is jarring since he appears to have short hair.
@@goldenhourkodak
Pony tail or low bun to keep it out of our faces in windy conditions.
And the metering on all 90’s film SLRs will be much better and probably more accurate than any Olympus OM 👍🏼
You may be right there, although I've found automated OMs to work pretty well.
Build quality.
The 90's consumer film cameras were made from way too much plastic. You have to coddle 90's cameras, they are fragile and get physically damaged quite easily, and now, after only 20-30 years, they are often in poor states due to degrading plastic and rubber coatings.
If you want a good 90's film camera, look for a pro grade camera, that was owned by an amateur. Bless them, they bought them and then just looked at them. 😋
Good advice, although my Canon eos 3000 remains in excellent condition!