Film Camera 2021 -1 Canon EOS A2/Canon 5

by Posted in Canon EOS A2/Canon 5 Leave a comment
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I’m going to follow my usual practice of linking a more detailed review rather than trying to do my own. After all why repeat what’s already been done by others. So for a detailed review see: CANON EOS 5/A2(E) QD (Quartz Date). Mine does not have the eye auto focus, and I don’t miss it. I’ve tried it on my Canon EOS Elan IIe and didn’t like it at all. After a brief trial I turned it off. It seemed to me that it was more of a gimmick then anything else. Nor does it have the data back. I don’t miss that either. Otherwise the camera in the review and the camera I have are the same.

I came across this camera for a very reasonable price. I didn’t really want another camera body, but I was interested in the two lenses that came with it, thinking that I could use them on my other camera bodies.

I came across another review that said:

And when the EOS A2 came out, there was no doubt that this was the modern version of the prosumer or advanced amateur Canon A-1. And while the A2 is a solid camera, an excellent way to get into 35mm film photography for a Canon Digital Shooter (Providing you have a line of EF Mount Lenses), the A2 is another ‘k-car’ camera. It does the job, but it’s just boring. It takes great photos, but it does nothing else of note.

It’s now several months since I used the camera and have to say that I can’t remember anything outstanding about it. It’s a small, relatively light camera that was a pleasure to use. I was keen to try it out and shot an entire 36 exposure roll in a short period of time at Sleepy Hollow cemetery. Everything just worked without me having to think about it a lot. Isn’t that about the best thing you can say about a camera.

The second review I mentioned went on to say:

Just because a camera is boring, doesn’t mean it’s a bad camera. The Maxxum 5000 is both boring and bad, but the EOS A2 is boring, but a solid machine that produces decent [photographs]. Despite looking like a Minolta, the A2 is solid in hand, excellent ergonomics in landscape orientation… with all the controls well laid out and easy to operate even for a Nikon shooter…The camera operates how you would expect it to and produces fantastic images, with a great meter, and a solid line of EF lenses to back it up. And as an accessible camera the A2 shines, if you shoot a Canon digital EOS camera and have EF lenses you can grab an A2 and run with it, and it won’t let you down. It also makes for a great second fiddle to your pro body.

I’m very pleased with my purchase.

Taken with a Sony A6000 and Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM (I think).

Another new (used) camera: Olympus OM-D E-M10

by Posted in Olympus OM-D E-M10 Leave a comment
olympusomd-1

Back in February I posted about my newly acquired Micro Fourth Thirds (MFT) camera: a second hand Panasonic Lumix GF-1. In that post (see A new (used) camera: Panasonic Lumix GF-1 ) I extolled the virtues of this camera and talked about how much I loved it. However, anyone reading this blog will have noticed that I’m now using a different MFT camera: an Olympus OM-D E-M10. If I liked the GF-1 so much how is it that I’m now no longer using it as much?

Well, I still love the form factor of the GF-1: how small and light both the body and the lenses are. And I still like it that you can use MFT lenses on both Panasonic and Olympus bodies. However, as I used it more and more I realized that I was missing some of the features that I had become accustomed to on some of my other camera bodies. These included:

1. Wireless. I have found it convenient to connect a camera to my iphone so as to be able to quickly transfer photographs that I don’t want to edit and to quickly upload them to social media. I missed this on the GF-1.

2. Image Stabilization. As I get older my hands as not as steady as they once were. Image Stabilization helps.

3. Tilting Screen. I often want to get down low to take a shot. The GF-1 does not make this easy. As the screen is fixed I pretty much have to lie down to take the shot. I can usually get down, but my aging body finds it hard to get up again. A tilting screen allows me to just bend over to get the picture.

4. Electronic Viewfinder. The GF-1 does not have a built in electronic viewfinder. It does have an auxiliary viewfinder (which I have), but the resolution is quite low and my aging eyes need all the help they can get.

5. Higher maximum ISO. The GF-1’s maximum ISO is only 3,200. I would have liked something higher.

6. Higher resolution LCD. The LCD on the GF-1 is only 460K

7 Focus Peaking with manual lenses. I was used to this from my Sony cameras and although the GF-1 has focus magnification it lacks focus peaking.

So I did some research and eventually found what I felt was a good deal on an Olympus OM-D E-M10. For a more detailed review see here.

The OM-D meets all of the above criteria and has a few more additional advantages: Live composite mode; touch screen; higher resolution sensor (16mp vs 12mp); more focus points (81 vs 23); 8fps continues shooting vs 3; timelapse recording; better video; smartphone remote.

And, of course, it’s pretty much the same size and weight as the GF-1 and I can still use the same lenses.

So far I’m pleased with my purchase.

Taken with a Sony A6000 and Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM (I think).

A new (used) camera: Panasonic Lumix GF-1

by Posted in Panasonic Lumix GF-1, Uncategorized Leave a comment
lumixgf1-1

A while back I was unsure of where to go with my camera collecting hobby. So far I’d focused on film cameras and I had most of what I wanted. Others that I wanted were more than I was willing to pay (e.g. most Leicas). So what to do? Then it occurred to me that I hadn’t explored the world of vintage digital cameras. I can see the look on your face: how can digital cameras be vintage? Well, it appears they are. A “Vintage Digital Camera” Facebook group, to which I belong, defines them as “Vintage Digital Camera issued 2015 or before”. In fact I now realize to my horror that this definition includes ALL of the digital cameras (Panasonic Lumix LX-3, Sony Nex 5n, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5d, Sony A500, Sony A6000, Sony A77II, Sony RX-100 II) that I own. Clearly I don’t change cameras very often.

But this was good enough for me to start looking for others. Before long I had a Canon EOS 5d (my first and so far only full frame camera, which I love and which would be my go to camera if it wasn’t so heavy); a Nikon D80 (I’d never used a Nikon digital camera); and an HP Photosmart 433 (given to me by a friend. Even I probably wouldn’t have bought this one.

Then it occurred to me that I’d never tried a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) camera. So I searched around and found this one at a good price. At first I thought I’d just use it with an MFT-LTM adapter, but I found that it didn’t work well since the camera doesn’t have the focus peaking feature I’d become used to with the Sony cameras. So I picked up the two lenses you see above: Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42 f3.5-4.6 II and Panasonic LUMIX G VARIO 45-150mm F4.0-5.6 ASPH. Since I also prefer a viewfinder rather than using the LCD I also picked up the auxiliary electronic viewfinder seen above.

So how do I like it? Very much. I love the size (small) and the weight (light). The applies to both the camera body and the lenses. Compare this to my Sony NEX 5n which has an equally small body, but very large lenses. I’m also pleased with the performance of the lenses, particularly the 14-42mm, which I use all the time. The viewfinder is adequate if not great, and I find the autofocus to be quick and accurate. The build quality of the camera body is very good, while the lenses feel quite “plasticky”, a compromise I’m willing to make to get a kit which is small and light. I’m more than pleased with the quality of the images produced.

For a more thorough review made when the camera first came out see here.

Taken with a Sony A6000. Can’t remember which lens.

Bakelite Cameras

by Posted in Camera Collecting, Cameras Leave a comment
bakelitecameras-1-of-2

I started collecting cameras around 2011. My first serious camera was a Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII given to me by my late wife. So I thought I would focus my collection on compact rangefinder cameras (e.g. Canon G-III, Olympus 35 RC etc.). After acquiring a number of these I switched to full size rangefinder cameras (FEDs, Zorkis, Canon P, Nikon S2 etc. I even got a Leica) What then followed were forays into classic SLRs (e.g. Nikon F, F2 etc.); autofocus SLRs (e.g. Nikon N90x, Canon Eos Elan II, Minolta Dynax 5 etc.); Medium Format cameras (e.g. Rolleiflex, Minolta Autocord etc.). I even picked up a number of Point and Shoot cameras (e.g. Olympus Stylus, Olympus Stylus Epic, Olympus XA2 etc.

Recently I started to think about what other kinds of cameras I could collect. Then I noticed that somewhere along the line I’d acquired a few bakelite cameras, two of which appear above (a Kodak Bullet) and below (a Kodak Baby Brownie). Maybe I’ll collect some of these. Why? They’re usually quite inexpensive; many of them have lovely art deco designs; I love the shiny (usually but not always) black plastic.

So what is bakelite and how was it used in cameras:

THE FIRST TRULY SYNTHETIC PLASTIC
In 1907 Leo Hendrick Baekeland, a Belgian chemist working in New York, invented the first entirely synthetic plastic. It was a thermosetting phenolic resin patented in 1907 under the name Bakelite. It was made by combining phenol and formaldehyde using heat and pressure. Once the resin hardened, it could not be re-melted by the application of heat. This discovery was of profound importance and effectively gave birth to the modern plastics industry.

BAKELITE CAMERAS
Camera makers soon realized that the properties of this phenolic resin were ideally suited for the use in cameras. Bakelite was opaque, sturdy, durable and could be moulded to any shape. Early Bakelite cameras tended to be phenolic imitations of their metal and cardboard counterparts. However, in 1934 something truly remarkable happened. The industrialist Walter Dorwin Teague designed a camera that was better suited to the characteristics of the new material. This was the Baby Brownie – a black phenolic box with a distinctive vertical ribbing.

Other great designs followed. The Agfa Trolix of 1936 had curved size sides, rounded corners, decorative ribs and a shiny surface all typical of the 1930s streamlining. It is made from Trolitan plastic which is the German equivalent of Bakelite. Such features would have been very difficult to realise in metal.

Another outstanding design of the period was the 1937 Purma Special. This camera took the form of an elegant curved and tapered rectangular case of Bakelite. Unlike most other models the film advance mechanism, shutter lever and shutter release button did not protrude from the body. Again, these features would have been more difficult and costly to realise in metal. (Art Deco Cameras)

bakelitecameras-2-of-2

Taken with an Apple iPhone 8 (second version).

Film Camera 2019/12 – Fujifilm Instax Wide 210 – Results

by Posted in Fujifilm Instax Wide 210 Leave a comment
fujiinstax210results-1-of-5

I initially had some problems with the camera. I inserted the film and pressed the shutter release to eject the dark slide. The slide started to move and then jammed. I told my Son-in-Law (it was his camera after all). He replaced the batteries (the camera had been standing for some time) and then tried some brute force. After some tugging the slide finally came out, but unfortunately the first picture came with it, so we lost a frame.

After that it was all plain sailing. Select the appropriate focus zone and then press the shutter release. The first couple of images suffered from light leaks (see picture above), but the rest were good.

What did I like about this camera? Honestly not much. It’s easy to use and there is something rather magical about seeing the image develop in your hands.

What didn’t I like. First it’s huge. Much larger than an SLR even if it is lighter. You’re not going to be putting this one in your pocket. The viewfinder is off to one side, far away from the lens so there are definite problems with framing. There aren’t many controls, but what there are are all off to one side so you pretty much have to take your eye off the viewfinder and turn the camera to see them (and some of them are not all that easy to see even then).

So while it was fun to use I wouldn’t seem myself using one of these long term: not enough controls for me and I didn’t particularly like the quality of the images much.

fujiinstax210results-2-of-5

fujiinstax210results-3-of-5

fujiinstax210results-4-of-5

fujiinstax210results-5-of-5

This last image was taken using the close up attachment which allows you to focus to 15 inches (so not really that close).