1. Post #1841
    frag4life's Avatar
    July 2007
    621 Posts
    I'm pretty sure it does "only" 3fps. (Wiki, Mir.com, Canon Archives)
    [SUP](just saying, not trying to be rude or anything)[/SUP]

    Which is plenty enough for normal use and similar to entry level DSLRs.

    For the single auto focus point you can simply move the camera to focus on what you want and then move it again to frame. (of course try to maintain the same distance otherwise your shot will be out of focus)

    By the way does it have a split prism focus screen?
    All i typed there was at school without any source at all, so yeah, i think i must have mixed up the Canon T90 and EOS 650 with eachother. But thanks for the heads up
    The EOS 650 really looks simmilar to the T90 if you put them next to each other, just look:


    New meets Old by Leevmeister, on Flickr

    Because it's a film SLR you won't be using the burst rate a lot i guess, so it's nice to know, but i wouldn't use it anyway.

    It does not feature a split prism focusing screen, as it's meant as a AF camera, so they didn't bother to put in the split prism anymore. The screen is not replaceable too AFAIK.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events

  2. Post #1842
    Dr. Fishtastic's Avatar
    February 2010
    7,900 Posts
    Film still blows digital out of the water 9/10 times, but it's so difficult to accommodate. My old highschool got rid of their photolab and now does digital only, most photolabs only do digital, and a home dev lab is expensive.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  3. Post #1843
    Gold Member
    BoSoZoku's Avatar
    January 2007
    468 Posts
    Film still blows digital out of the water 9/10 times
    [MY OPINION]
    Well now, each format has it's place, at least fullframe DSLRs have a similar if not slightly better (in some the newest cameras) dynamic range compared to negative film. (slide/positive has a narrower dynamic range of course)

    Digital has ISO capabilities that film can't even dream of even in cropped sensor camera nowadays.

    Convenience and a faster workflow are also usually an advantage of digital cameras.

    Honestly film today is more for the look and the romantic aspect than performance, unless you go to large format for huge prints to have the most resolution possible but even then I'm not sure how they will compare to an high end digital MF camera.

    It's like a car, an old classic car is beautiful, sounds nice and makes you smile while driving it, a modern car can do the same while being more refined, practical and safe.
    Sure most newer cars are boring compared to older cars but you can still find some that are exciting.

    My point is let's not generalize, film or digital are neither the end all be all, it's just a preference.
    [/MY OPINION]
    a home dev lab is expensive.
    Doesn't matter if you are shooting B&W, C41 or E6, unless you want to print at home (which will require an enlarger) developing 135 and MF at home is not very expensive at all, actually if you shoot regularly it will probably cost you less than having a lab do it for you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Italy Show Events

  4. Post #1844
    hzy
    Gold Member
    hzy's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,943 Posts
    [MY OPINION]
    Well now, each format has it's place, at least fullframe DSLRs have a similar if not slightly better (in some the newest cameras) dynamic range compared to negative film. (slide/positive has a narrower dynamic range of course)

    Digital has ISO capabilities that film can't even dream of even in cropped sensor camera nowadays.

    Convenience and a faster workflow are also usually an advantage of digital cameras.

    Honestly film today is more for the look and the romantic aspect than performance, unless you go to large format for huge prints to have the most resolution possible but even then I'm not sure how they will compare to an high end digital MF camera.

    It's like a car, an old classic car is beautiful, sounds nice and makes you smile while driving it, a modern car can do the same while being more refined, practical and safe.
    Sure most newer cars are boring compared to older cars but you can still find some that are exciting.

    My point is let's not generalize, film or digital are neither the end all be all, it's just a preference.
    [/MY OPINION]


    Doesn't matter if you are shooting B&W, C41 or E6, unless you want to print at home (which will require an enlarger) developing 135 and MF at home is not very expensive at all, actually if you shoot regularly it will probably cost you less than having a lab do it for you.
    you forgot about medium format, that gets better-than-full-frame performance at a tiny fraction of the cost.

    also B&W is easy at home, but C41 / E6 is quite difficult and also rather dangerous, I wouldn't recommend someone to try those unless they have a real reason to.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Australia Show Events

  5. Post #1845
    Gold Member
    BoSoZoku's Avatar
    January 2007
    468 Posts
    you forgot about medium format, that gets better-than-full-frame performance at a tiny fraction of the cost.

    also B&W is easy at home, but C41 / E6 is quite difficult and also rather dangerous, I wouldn't recommend someone to try those unless they have a real reason to.
    Not really.

    Medium format can give more resolution (if the lens is good enough) but what other performance are you talking about? Dynamic range may be a bit more and ISO is about the same as 135.

    It might have more detail (that depends too) and smoother tones because of the larger negative but will you notice the difference in standard prints? If you scan it's even less useful because you can't even look at an entire 6mp at 100% zoom on a monitor.

    If you do plenty of huge prints chances are you are a professional so the cost becomes less of an issue anyway. (or you could go for large format)

    Not that any of this would make better photos either way, film or digital as I said it's more a matter of preference than anything else.

    As for C41 and E6 dev what are you talking about? You just have to be more careful with the temperatures and times compared to B&W. What would make it more dangerous in your opinion?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Italy Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #1846
    Killerelf12's Avatar
    January 2008
    1,840 Posts
    Not really.

    Medium format can give more resolution (if the lens is good enough) but what other performance are you talking about? Dynamic range may be a bit more and ISO is about the same as 135.

    It might have more detail (that depends too) and smoother tones because of the larger negative but will you notice the difference in standard prints? If you scan it's even less useful because you can't even look at an entire 6mp at 100% zoom on a monitor.

    If you do plenty of huge prints chances are you are a professional so the cost becomes less of an issue anyway. (or you could go for large format)

    Not that any of this would make better photos either way, film or digital as I said it's more a matter of preference than anything else.

    As for C41 and E6 dev what are you talking about? You just have to be more careful with the temperatures and times compared to B&W. What would make it more dangerous in your opinion?
    Some of the chemicals for C41/E6 are (I think) more hazardous than those for B&W. Really not that dangerous still so long as you have proper ventilation and such, the bigger problem is actually disposing of them.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  7. Post #1847
    Gold Member
    BoSoZoku's Avatar
    January 2007
    468 Posts
    Some of the chemicals for C41/E6 are (I think) more hazardous than those for B&W. Really not that dangerous still so long as you have proper ventilation and such, the bigger problem is actually disposing of them.
    Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves.

    Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it.

    But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Italy Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  8. Post #1848
    ffFf
    Uber|nooB's Avatar
    June 2005
    5,847 Posts
    Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves.

    Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it.

    But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry!
    I had a friend who tried to develop c41 this one time and DIED.



    not even once.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 4 (list)

  9. Post #1849
    Gold Member
    Pickwickian-'s Avatar
    January 2007
    5,143 Posts
    Some recent-ish stuff:


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Artistic Artistic x 1 (list)

  10. Post #1850
    communistcat's Avatar
    March 2011
    635 Posts
    Got three rolls of film to get developed all 800 iso, two of them were shot with a Chinon CM-3 and the other I have no idea what it was shot in, I believe it may have been my Zenit TTL

    2 of the rolls are mainly Urbex and the other one I have no idea about.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  11. Post #1851
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    Just learned that film could go bad.
    I'm an idiot.
    Things that were on those three rolls
    [release]1. My first Civil war Reenactment 2. Vintage car show 3. A lot of practice shots in which I wrote down what I did so I could see the effect 4. Pictures for a biology project (presenting tomorrow) 5. Some pictures of the moon(on that night something was special in the heavens and it was very clear or something).[/release]
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  12. Post #1852
    GraniteMouse's Avatar
    April 2011
    244 Posts
    I've heard of 20 year old film being used and developed without any major issues...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  13. Post #1853
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    I've heard of 20 year old film being used and developed without any major issues...
    Apparently mine went bad, and if it didn't, then I hate CVS with a burning passion. They didn't say it went bad, but that's the conclusion I went with. Looked fine when I fed it into the camera, but what they gave back to me was very transparent film with no visible pictures. It was violet if that means anything.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  14. Post #1854
    Gold Member
    BlazeFresh's Avatar
    September 2006
    3,604 Posts
    some kodak portra 400, I've been switching between that and superia 200 alternatively. Also Been enjoying taking landscapes when i've got the opportunity.






    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Artistic Artistic x 4 (list)

  15. Post #1855
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    I really like how solid the shadow is that the car casts. Also stars.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  16. Post #1856
    Gold Member
    BlazeFresh's Avatar
    September 2006
    3,604 Posts
    Im sorry to disappoint you but they aren't stars, they're dust particles in my scanner
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #1857
    dai
    "arte"
    dai's Avatar
    February 2006
    25,888 Posts
    Apparently mine went bad, and if it didn't, then I hate CVS with a burning passion. They didn't say it went bad, but that's the conclusion I went with. Looked fine when I fed it into the camera, but what they gave back to me was very transparent film with no visible pictures. It was violet if that means anything.
    what type of film was it

    because if it wasn't C-41 (color negatives, including kodak's black and white BW400cn film which you sometimes find at CVS/walgreens), then it probably had zero business going through the color process machine they had there.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  18. Post #1858
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    what type of film was it

    because if it wasn't C-41 (color negatives, including kodak's black and white BW400cn film which you sometimes find at CVS/walgreens), then it probably had zero business going through the color process machine they had there.
    Kodak 400 tx film.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  19. Post #1859
    hzy
    Gold Member
    hzy's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,943 Posts
    Kodak 400 tx film.
    you mean tri-x? or t-max? (both would get fucked at your average C41 lab)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  20. Post #1860
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    you mean tri-x? or t-max? (both would get fucked at your average C41 lab)
    Tri-x.
    Also fuck.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 2 (list)

  21. Post #1861
    Gold Member
    MisterM's Avatar
    August 2005
    3,222 Posts
    Ordered 10 rolls of Ektar 100 (38.99) and 5 rolls of Portra 800 (36.99). Wile sting, Portra 800 is crazy expensive. Taking a Nikon F-801S out over Easter and that amount of film should keep me going a couple of months. My uni store only stocks Fuji Superia for 35mm, interested to see how it performs. The guy in the store said I was the first person to ask for 35mm Ektar in 3 years, since major projects are usually shot in medium/large format.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Friendly Friendly x 2Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  22. Post #1862
    Gold Member
    Pickwickian-'s Avatar
    January 2007
    5,143 Posts

    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr

    Edited:

    Film from pound-land.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Artistic Artistic x 2 (list)

  23. Post #1863
    Gold Member
    BlazeFresh's Avatar
    September 2006
    3,604 Posts
    good results from that actually mate, i've never wanted to risk it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events

  24. Post #1864
    Gold Member
    Pickwickian-'s Avatar
    January 2007
    5,143 Posts
    good results from that actually mate, i've never wanted to risk it.
    Mate, I really don't know what there is to risk.
    Especially today with photoshop, you really can get really pull an okay image into something nice. Not absolutely stunning stuff, but enough to capture a moment well.
    And if it's candid stuff, the fact that it's so cheap really can give you a little room to manoeuvre.
    These are all from the same roll:


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr


    Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events Artistic Artistic x 2 (list)

  25. Post #1865
    churboi austin
    Trogdon's Avatar
    October 2007
    12,865 Posts
    I'm curious to see how my Holga brand film comes out, hopefully not too ugly lomo
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  26. Post #1866
    Gold Member
    BlazeFresh's Avatar
    September 2006
    3,604 Posts
    Mate, I really don't know what there is to risk.

    Well risk taking a good shot and then the film ruining it because its cheaper, however your results are actually pretty good! I'll think twice next time. :)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events

  27. Post #1867
    ffFf
    Uber|nooB's Avatar
    June 2005
    5,847 Posts
    good results from that actually mate, i've never wanted to risk it.
    i've just started using pound shop film as well, it's actually pretty decent, especially at the price

    these two shots were taken with it:


    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Winner Winner x 2Artistic Artistic x 1 (list)

  28. Post #1868
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    That second photo is magazine worthy.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  29. Post #1869
    PenguinKris's Avatar
    April 2009
    825 Posts
    Found out a Costco about 20 minutes away still develops film, so I got two rolls developed today :)
    Shot from an AE-1P using 400 Superia Xtra (super cheap at walmart) Might have to get my camera repaired to fix the light leaks or do it myself soon.

    Cute Couple by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr

    Buddies by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr

    Hello! by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr

    Deep Thought by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Artistic Artistic x 3 (list)

  30. Post #1870
    churboi austin
    Trogdon's Avatar
    October 2007
    12,865 Posts
    They sell foam seal replacements on ebay for AE-1P's for cheap. Or just get a leather case that covers seals
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  31. Post #1871
    Gold Member
    poopiecrap's Avatar
    September 2006
    4,181 Posts
    First roll i have ever got developed, i'm pretty sure its fujicolor 400iso or its Polaroid 800iso it's been in my camera for so long and i was really excited to get it developed
    they are a little over exposed :(
    dump

    9A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    7A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    27A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    26A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    25A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    24A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    23A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    22A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    21A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    19A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    18A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    17A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    16A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    14A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    12A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    11A by street-wizard, on Flickr

    annnnddd heres the rest
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7789628...7629259276464/

    Edited:

    oh and they were shot on my minolta maxxum 7000
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  32. Post #1872
    dai
    "arte"
    dai's Avatar
    February 2006
    25,888 Posts
    Tri-x.
    Also fuck.
    sorry man

    it seems they don't even train them to double check, the only reason I was saved from the same fate back when I first shot some good film was because the guy doing the developing double-checked rolls because he had already ruined someone else's before, mentioning the roll turning solid pink and him getting yelled at for 'doing it wrong' by the guy who took the pics.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  33. Post #1873
    Killerelf12's Avatar
    January 2008
    1,840 Posts
    sorry man

    it seems they don't even train them to double check, the only reason I was saved from the same fate back when I first shot some good film was because the guy doing the developing double-checked rolls because he had already ruined someone else's before, mentioning the roll turning solid pink and him getting yelled at for 'doing it wrong' by the guy who took the pics.
    It's a shame that nobody cares enough to take 5 seconds to look at the film, or care\know what they're doing anymore. It's not like anyone old enough to be using the equipment hasn't used a film camera in their life, we haven't been in the digital age that long...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  34. Post #1874
    Gold Member
    credesniper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,557 Posts
    Worked out in the end, I went back an explained in the kindest way possible that they should have checked/known (read several stories of people having the same problem), asked if they could reimburse me by giving any three rolls of black and white and they said okay. I'll be working their this summer as a photolab person and hopefully will prevent anything like this happening.

    And if any film lover could point me in the direction for a tutorial on how to develop film, along with a site as to where I can purchase the chemicals that'd be great. I believe I've found a tutorial teaching me how to scan negatives, and now I just to learn the process to get the negatives.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  35. Post #1875
    GraniteMouse's Avatar
    April 2011
    244 Posts
    So the other day, I came into a lovely little Mamiya C22. I didn't/don't know anything at all about TLRs, so I played with it for about an hour. Today, I went into my favorite camera shop to get 220 film.
    They don't have 220 film, and told me it'd be better to find a 120 back. They don't have a 120 back. :saddowns: Even if I find 220 film and use the back I have now, I'll have light leaks.
    My aperture is fixed at f4 (60mm), instead of the widest possible 2.8. That's alright with me.

    I don't know how likely I am to find a broken C22 that I can buy just for parts... Since, you know, the camera has no parts that can really be broken.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 2 (list)

  36. Post #1876
    PenguinKris's Avatar
    April 2009
    825 Posts
    Got another roll developed, will scan some more later.

    Homeless Bikeman by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  37. Post #1877
    Killerelf12's Avatar
    January 2008
    1,840 Posts
    So the other day, I came into a lovely little Mamiya C22. I didn't/don't know anything at all about TLRs, so I played with it for about an hour. Today, I went into my favorite camera shop to get 220 film.
    They don't have 220 film, and told me it'd be better to find a 120 back. They don't have a 120 back. :saddowns: Even if I find 220 film and use the back I have now, I'll have light leaks.
    My aperture is fixed at f4 (60mm), instead of the widest possible 2.8. That's alright with me.

    I don't know how likely I am to find a broken C22 that I can buy just for parts... Since, you know, the camera has no parts that can really be broken.
    Are you sure it's a 220 back? Those are pretty damn rare as far as I know, since that was the optional back (and film) for that series, until the C220 and C330, with their rotating backs. You won't have light leaks with the back you have now, but the focus will be off, since the film sits closer (220 film doesn't have backing paper, pressure plate compensates for it.) And if the aperture is stuck, well, get a new lens eventually. Beauty of the C series TLRs, interchangeable lenses.

    If you use ebay, check around every once in a while. Broken Mamiyas pop up now and again, that's how I picked up my C3. Unfortunately, I didn't completely fix it, and until I finish this roll I can't go back in and do it proper...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #1878
    churboi austin
    Trogdon's Avatar
    October 2007
    12,865 Posts
    i don't think he means that the aperture is stuck, just that it doesn't go as wide as 2.8
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  39. Post #1879
    Killerelf12's Avatar
    January 2008
    1,840 Posts
    i don't think he means that the aperture is stuck, just that it doesn't go as wide as 2.8
    You're probably right, though a lot of things seem weird about his lens. There's no 60mm for the series, but there's 55mm and 65mm, the 55 having its max at f/4.5, and the 65 at f/3.5. I'm probably over thinking this, trying to help seeing as I have two of (essentially) the same camera as that.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  40. Post #1880
    GraniteMouse's Avatar
    April 2011
    244 Posts
    You're right, the lens is an 80mm. I don't know where I got 60mm from.

    I think it's a 220 back.
    This is unnecessary backstory, but I like that my cameras have a history: This was my great-grandfather's and he died 50(?) years ago, and a few years ago, his wife moved from their house. His sons (my grandpa & great-uncle) went through the photography stuff and split it (I guess.). The sons have passed, and now my grandma has all of my grandpa's stuff, as well as some from the great-uncle. There could be a 120 back lying around. [/ramble]

    Its passed through a lot of hands, so things could have gone missing. However, the material that usually blocked the hinges at the bottom of the door has worn away.

    The aperture will not move from f4. Not towards 2.8 or 5.6.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 2 (list)