Using older cameras

[Bounty]

I was out shopping recently and came across a replica '60s pocket camera. It was ridiculously expensive, but the shots it made were very pretty - a bit blurred, with faded edges and ghosting, but the effect was great. Not something to spend $150 on, but the idea stuck.

So now I've found a few sites that sell these replica cameras, and Holga keeps popping up, with the cheaper ones going for <€30. I'm tempted to buy one and experiment a bit, but what should I know before I get one? Are there any brands or types to look out for? Is the film easy to get? I have a regular photographer who does my digital prints who can develop film, so that's not an issue.

Any hints or help?

[aerius]

According to the Wiki article, it uses medium format film which is going to make things a pain in the ass. Medium format film is expensive and there's next to zero commercial places that can process the negatives and print the photos. Most photographers who use medium format film have their own darkroom so they can develop the photos themselves.

Stick to 35mm film, it makes life a lot easier.

[phongn]

Stick to 35mm film, it makes life a lot easier.

Yeah, but MF is nice, too. Granted, a Holga medium-format almost complete wastes the potential of that format ...

[Bounty]

Are there any models that take 35mm you would suggest?

[Simplicius]

I'm looking forward to the day when I can sink a little money into getting my father's old Rolleicord tuned up and ready to go.

Though I've yet to shoot medium format, it looks as though most 35mm films are available in 120 as well. Just regurgitating what I've heard about film brands, Ilford in general and Kodak Tri-X and T-max are satisfactory black and white, while Kodak's color negative film is good and Fujifilm's chromes are highly regarded. I think Kodachrome - the gold standard of chromes - is still available in some places, but it's being phased out and only one place in the world develops it.

I'd comment in more depth, but my budget limits me to cheaper film in general, and used sparingly at that. I've only shot a few of the types above, and my own inadequacies drown out any subtle disadvantages a particular film would have.

On the off chance your friend isn't able to pull through on the developing, you might check http://www.schleich.lu, as it seems they will develop medium format (though I could be mistaken) - it was the first relevant search result I got, at least. Sure, mailing to Luxembourg is annoying, but be glad you aren't shooting Kodachrome, as you'd have to send to Kansas to get that processed.

Also, it's not really my place to criticize, but are you sure you're content to leave the quality of your photography up to luck? Shooting with a Holga or other toy camera is basically trusting that your camera will mess up your image just enough to add a little artistic je ne sais quois, but in those instances where it doesn't all you will get are lousy photos. If you look online or at places where old cameras are sold you could get an old, proper medium-format camera for those €30, and get much greater creative control as a result. There are, for instance, Yashica TLRs for much less on Ebay than what you would pay for that Holga.

Hell, the Brownie Hawkeye will give you photos that are at worst equally unreliable and at best superior to a Holga's for much less money. All you need to do is track down a 620 spool for the take-up and respool back onto a 120 when you send it for developing.

I'd seriously shop around a bit for a good used camera if you care at all about the quality of your photos. If you only want to play around and take the 'see what happens' approach, at least pay a cheap price for a cheap camera - like the Hawkeye - than pay a fad price for a cheap camera like the Holga.

[Bounty]

I'm not specifically looking for unreliability or artsy-fartsyness. If I want to make artsy photos, I'll use my digital and touch them up in the GIMP.

However, I wouldn't mind having something cheap and simple just to play around with. It doesn't have to be deliberately bad, just basic., but I have to admit that the pictures taken by the cameras I saw look cute.

By the way, I only used Holga as an example. Their "starter kit" is €80 and up; if that doesn't scream rip-off I don't know what does.

The Hawkeye takes it a bit too far for my taste, ideally I'd want something with a normal compact camera form factor. My experience with film photography is also pretty much nil (I can hit the "rewind" button and swap them film... that's about it).

[Simplicius]

Are there any models that take 35mm you would suggest?

Sorry for the double post; I missed this one while I was typing my previous one. EDIT: Sorry also for the huge walls of text.

The problem with 35mm cameras is that 35mm is the dominant film format, so they tend to be more expensive all around, while the medium format market seems to be divided between the very expensive professional equipment and the pretty cheap used cameras. Ebay prices for Pentax K1000 SLRs, which are commonly used as student cameras, appear to be between $50 and $75 for the most part; Spotmatics seem to be about the same. The downside of an SLR, of course, is that to be able to use your camera to best advantage, you'll have to track down a couple of lenses, and those are usually pretty expensive unless they're junk. One reason even a used SLR might be more expensive is because you are getting at least one lens with it. I can say offhand that I like my film SLRs, and more so because I got them and their glass for free - but with that, if you find yourself looking for M-42 (old common mount) lenses, the Takumars that are associated with the old Pentaxes are well regarded. I have two, and I like them - though as noted earlier, my inexperience may negate my advice.

Rangefinder cameras, on the other hand, are less common than SLRs and have the advantage of being fixed-lens, although that imposes some limitations on the photographer. Olympus 35mm rangefinders seem to be going on Ebay for costs comparable to the Yashicas I mentioned previously - up to $50 - and also seem to be well-regarded at first glance.

Then, of course, you have the 35mm automatic compacts that you can (or could) get in most department stores and which have largely been superseded by cheap digicams. The automatics are even more limiting than the rangefinders, as they autofocus and autoexpose (or, in the worst case, are fixed-focus and fixed-exposure; no better than a disposable). However, they are relatively modern mass-produced consumer cameras that have been made recently obsolete, so they are probably pretty cheap - they just don't offer the user anything special.

The big caveat when buying used cameras is to make sure it is in working order beforehand. Since old cameras are fully mechanical, and since this means lots of springs and small moving parts, you could wind up getting stuck with a camera that was either used hard, such that it is pretty worn out, or sat unused for a long time, such that the mechanisms are all gummed up. In either case, it would cost more to repair than it would to spend a bit more for a camera that was in working order to begin with.

The other thing to note when buying a camera is that beyond the good functioning of the mechanisms, the quality of the lens(es) is critical, for obvious reasons. When looking ad fixed-lens cameras, like rangefinders or TLRs, you'll want to consider what camera brands have good glass and which don't, while when buying and SLR you'll want to look at what lenses are available for the particular mount your camera uses and which of those are of good quality. Getting the right spread of lenses makes SLRs a bit more confounding - and expensive - than fixed-lens cameras, as any old body in working order will do but it's important to get good glass. Older SLRs make that easier and harder in one respect: they use a common lens mount, unlike the 'systematized' mounts on newer cameras, so you have access to the whole range of contemporary lenses without needing to get an adapter. The downside, of course, is that older lenses can be harder to find, especially high-quality ones that people keep and continue to use on newer bodies, and in some respects the question of "What lenses do I need?" is a little easier to answer when you have the system of lenses built for your camera body close at hand.

So, in short, do some research to try to find the best balance of affordability and quality, bearing in mind that a cheap camera in poor shape is not only useless until it is fixed, but will probably cost more to fix than to buy one in better condition to start with. As to what type of camera is best - SLR or rangefinder, 35mm or medium format - that is largely a matter of what you personally intend to be photographing, and what you intend to do with those photographs.

[Bounty]

I'm looking over eBay for a 35mm rangefinder, and I've found one or two boards that have "beginner's tips" threads.

I' vaguely tempted to buy a serviced Kiev, or maybe a Smena Symbol - even if it doesn't work, it'd make a neat display piece.

But I'm just scratching the surface here, it seems.

[Melchior]

Did you already know lomography?

[Kanastrous]

You could always shoot digital (or scan 35mm negatives) and apply the look you like, in Photoshop.

[Bounty]

Did you already know lomography?

They charge completely ridiculous prices. You can get a Smena off eBay for $10, but they expect people to pay $150?

You could always shoot digital (or scan 35mm negatives) and apply the look you like, in Photoshop.

Yeah, that'll probably be the most sensible option.

[Melchior]

They charge completely ridiculous prices. You can get a Smena off eBay for $10, but they expect people to pay $150?

True, but it's useful for ideas.

[Lt. Dan]

I love my 35mm Cannon SLR. I have a starter lens that isn't really bad but not the best. I still am able to take some nice shots but I've been looking for a new lens. I'm thinking I may get a prime, just to see the quality. I'm not even going to get into the other film types unless I develop more of a passion for the hobby. The odder the film, the more hoops you have to jump through.

I'd stick to the most affordable. Buying the camera is one thing. But the film you dedicate yourself to is going to have an effect on how many pictures you really can take. And the more pictures taken, the more intimate you become with the camera.

[phongn]

I love my 35mm Cannon SLR. I have a starter lens that isn't really bad but not the best. I still am able to take some nice shots but I've been looking for a new lens. I'm thinking I may get a prime, just to see the quality. I'm not even going to get into the other film types unless I develop more of a passion for the hobby. The odder the film, the more hoops you have to jump through.

Go grab a 50mm/1.8 (cheap!) to play with.

[FSTargetDrone]

I know little about cameras or photography, but since you guys are talking about old cameras, thought I'd drop in with this:





It's an Eastman Kodak No. 2 Bulls-Eye Model D box camera. My aunt gave it to me some years back. I don't have any film for it, but it seems complete and intact. The camera originally belong to my aunt's parents and I've been able to find out a little about it:

The Bulls-Eye camera was introduced by Samuel Turner and the Boston Camera Manufacturing Company in 1892. It used paper-backed rollfilm and was the first camera to have a red window in the back for viewing and positioning frame numbers.

Eastman at first countered this new threat by copying it - the Eastman Bullet Camera made its debut in 1895. Both the Bullet and Bulls-Eye were simple rollfilm cameras taking 3½ x 3½-inch exposures.

There's the red viewing window through which you could see the film frame number. The open flap on the main camera body is at the rear, and the hole in the center lets the film frame number show through.



I don't think it's especially rare, but it was made between 1892 (or 1895, so says another site) and 1913. It's the oldest mechanical device I own, so it's interesting to me in that respect.

Anyway, on top there is a viewfinder of sorts, and a key you can turn to advance the film. There are three sliding controls (the two on the left slide up and down) and the side-to-side slider on the right triggers the shutter. The first two seem to change the aperture size when the shutter triggers, but I don't know what the correct term is?



There is a small sliding latch that keeps the camera locked inside the box. You can see the latch on the bottom edge of the camera in the topmost picture. When you slide the latch open, you raise the body of the camera from the outer case, and the inside is made almost entirely of wood, as is the outer case (which is wrapped in leather). Underneath is a place to mount a tripod. Interestingly, my modern tripod fits in there perfectly!

To see through the viewfinder, you have to keep your eye about a foot above the camera...too close and everything gets blurry.

Bigger versions are available here.

[J]

My parents have an Olympus OM-2 with a 50mm and wide angle lens, but this isn't going to help you much since it takes perfect razor sharp photos. It's not going to give any ghosting or special effects unless it's pointed at the sun or something like that, or it's deliberately defocused slightly for the blurred soft-focus look. Also, depite being one of the smallest 35mm SLRs, it feels like it's made of lead, you'll definitely want a nice wide neckstrap for it.