 Georgina Miss Burgess |
what film camera to use I have recantly got in to photography and would like to know the best Film camera to use for shooting landscapes, and the best equipment to buy to get started.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
As far as the best film camera is concerned,...you will get differing opinions as to which is best. For your equipment needs, a good tripod and a high quality medium-wide angle lens would be a good start. A few filters would also prove beneficial,...such as a polarizer and split ND filter to enhance those great sky scapes.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
You asked for the "best" camera for landscapes. In terms of "best," I presume you mean "quality" of the final image. In that case it's a simple choice among a few high end 8x10 view cameras (11x14 and larger cameras and film are just too hard to come by nowadays). My choice would be the Horseman, but Deardorf and Toyo are also great (Sinar is superb, but is more of a studio camera than a field camera). Then buy Schneider lenses (extremely expensive, but they are the "best."). This combination will provide you with the absolute best quality images you can obtain in film landscape photography (and you did ask for the "best" in film cameras). If you are in to panoramics, either the Fuji 6x17 or Horseman 6x17 would be the cameras of choice, or you can simply use your 8x10 view camera, and crop to the center portion. Costwise, you'd be in the $10,000 to $50,000 price ranges, depending on the lenses you purchased (as you can imagine, which I'm sure you have, the "best" is obviously going to carry a proportional price tag). I also presume you are physically fit, as an 8x10 camera with a few film holders and lenses are going to weigh you down. But it's the price you pay when you want the "best." Anything camerea smaller or lesser would NOT be the best, but a heckuvalot more convenient and cheaper. Michael H. Cothran www.mhcphoto.net
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
While the previous answer is correct in the extreme, I doubt it was very useful to you. A 35mm SLR and a reasonably wide lens like a 28mm, is a cheap ($200) place to start. Even with very fine grain films (ei25), you won't be happy with print bigger than say 5x7. The next step up are cameras that use 120 roll film and the image sizes are typically 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9. Bigger image size means better enlargements, but more expensive lenses, and a whole kit (lens, body/viewfinder, filmholder) could be $750 and up. A wide angle lens in this format will be around 60mm. With a much steeper learning curve, you can jump to 4x5 in a view camera. Now you'll be able to do perspective correction which will help a great deal in the quality of your pictures. You can pick up an old press camera body for about $200, and then spend another $400 for a decent wide angle lens, plus probably another $200 in accessories. If you want a camera with more adjustments or bigger format, just start adding zeros. That being said, unless you have more money than sense, I would start off with a cheap used 35mm slr and 28mm lens. Get a feeling for what you want to shoot, understands it's limitations, take some workshops and see if it's really what you want. If it is, take a class on using a view camera because it's where you're going. Look at what are called "field cameras". They are meant to be light, packable, and have the adjustments you'll probably need.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Well, she did ask for the "best"!
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
oh, I forgot to add, you'll need a 1 deg. spot meter which will probably set you back $200-500. Do your homework since a lot of this gear is available used and this is mature technology. A 30 year old lens that has a good shutter, and no lens problems works just as well as a brand new one. A 40 year old view camera that's light tight and mechanicaly sound will be fine also.
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
And she also said she was new to this and needed recomendations for getting started. Mr C.'s response was not informative in that regard. You don't put a begining rider on a race horse, and you don't tell a noob that they need to spend $80k to take landscape pictures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Well, Bob had already answered her question is a practical way. Michael just carried it a little further. Note that he had best in quotes. Everybody likes to have a little fun every now and then. Georgina, Michael was not suggesting you go out and purchase that equipment. He was just telling you what was the "best".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I think Michael may have also been venting a little frustration at the number of very vague questions we see posted here. Some questions just have too many possible answers without giving us a little more detail. Georgina, you say you recently got into photography, do you already have a camera? If you do, tell us what you have, and maybe we can give you advice on the best way to use it. If you want to buy a camera, can you give us a ballpark on how much you want to spend? As Michael pointed out, that can make a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
As you can see, I'm fairly new to these forums. Sounds like you need to bug BP about putting up a FAQ farm or WiKi so that you can point people off to them, and say, "Read this first, and come back with questions". From what I've seen so far, it looks like "Setting up a darkroom", "What film should I use", "What camera should I buy", "Film vs Digital" would be good starts.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
It is already there at "Search Q&A". Not all questions can be answered there so people still need to ask questions but they do need to be more specific. As to the question of film vs digital, we already know film is better. Right, Chris?
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
Seriously OT, but I've looked there, and thats not someplace to send someone for background info. Just for grins, I went to the "Search Q&A" and typed in "landscape" and got 300 hits. Even narrowing that down to "landscape photography camera" still returns 140 hits. Thats a lot of surfing for someone who may not know what to ask (and thus the vague questions). Thats why you have someplace to point people when they need to RTFFAQ. For that matter, the search isn't all that advanced since you can't limit which forums to look in or use any boolean search terms (and, not, or).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Hey, it's a free forum. What do you expect? LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
James M. Feldman |
Well, I guess from this forum, my expectation should be "very little". Y'all go back to sleep, and I'll close the door real quiet like.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Georgina Miss Burgess |
Sorry for being so vague. I currently don't own a Camera, and have done no photography before but am keen to learn. I am looking for the best quality for the final image. A friend suggested the make Nikon? I am willing to spend up £1000. But would only like to spend this kind of money once on a good quality camera. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Georgina, Nikon is an excellent camera for the type of photography you want to do. Between the top two manufacturers, Canon and Nikon, it is my understanding that Canon has an advantage with the long lenses (telephoto) and Nikon has the advantage with the wide lenses. Both are excellent cameras. If I were you, I would invest in a Nikon manual focus camera. Autofocus is not only not needed with landscapes, it is usually a hindrance (must switch to manual focus to use hyperfocal distance focusing). With so many people going digital, there is a large number of older but great film cameras on the market. Get something like an FM-2 (etc.) and a few good lenses, preferably in the range of 24mm to 50mm, along with a good 2 sop graduated ND filter and you will be good to go, at less than 1000 pounds. (Sorry, I'm using an American keyboard and don't have the symbol.)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||