35mm Camera (do any of you use them any more?)

[Bobster]

The a900 is right up there with the 5DMkII

really? can you post a link to a full size JPG (shot JPG not RAW of a ISO1600 shot in a dim room say average overcast day without any lights on -50mm 1/160 @ ISO1600 1.8)

all the shots i've seen above ISO800 on the A900 are bad..

[brammers]

Yeah, will do. Give me a while though, exams next week - Chinese exams are hard...

[brammers]

Oh - I take it a JPG from RAW will be acceptable? I don't shoot JPGs out of camera - snapshots only.

Actually - just had a quick look, already got one

Here we go:



Here's a 100% crop:



Full size here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3539833...7602884440987/

Sorry it's a bit soft - even with IS 1/50 at 135mm takes some doing - this was just a snapshot. For those who don't have exif readers, ISO 1600, 1/50s, f2, 135mm. Jpg from RAW - export is using default LR 2.2 settings.

[kalniel]

In Mongolia my Dynax 7 was getting thrashed about in bumpy vans driving cross-country and I started to notice that the AF didn't give the sharpnest image in the viewfinder - it was sharper if I manually tweaked focus back a notch or 2. So how do you deal with that when you can't review the shots for another month? You take each wide-aperture shot twice, one where the AF thinks the focus is, one where the viewfinder shows the sharpest image...

Surely the point of SLR is that at least as far as the focus point is concerned you know if the image is sharp because what you see through the viewfinder is exactly the same focal point as would be on the film. Exposure and depth of field can't be seen of course.

[brammers]

Ja, that's the point of them Kalniel - assuming everything nice and aligned and not shaken loose by bone-jarring roads I had a friend who's 5D had the same thing, but of course with that being digital he could just look and see what the problem was

[muddyfox470]

Which are the best postal developers then, that deal with B+W and Colour Photos?

Also with B+W film that is C41 specified, does that mean it has to be developed using the colour process, or can it still be processed as B+W ?

Cheers

[muddyfox470]

Can anyone help me with where I should get my photos developed (at a fair price) High Street or Postal

Are there different people I should use for Colour, B+W and Colour Negative ?

Thank You

[muddyfox470]

Please, anyone. Where would you recommend developing films? Cameras came today, and I've been busy testing them out (just to see what happens ) Thank You!

[kalniel]

I'd still recommend trying out your local camera shop. I don't know who that is for you, obviously.

[YorkieBen]

really? can you post a link to a full size JPG (shot JPG not RAW of a ISO1600 shot in a dim room say average overcast day without any lights on -50mm 1/160 @ ISO1600 1.8)

all the shots i've seen above ISO800 on the A900 are bad..

I don't think the A900 is the best option for high ISO shooters but for studio work and landscapes all the reviews I have seen indicate it is at least the equal of the D700 and 5DII. Above ISO800 the A900 falls behind unfortunately, something for Sony to work on in the future.

[muddyfox470]

I'd still recommend trying out your local camera shop. I don't know who that is for you, obviously.

I went to my local "Charles Eagles and Son", decided to try them out [despite them being exceptionally rude to me and my fellow students before - when I got the Voigtlander out to rewind the film though he was like "oh wow" haha - i guess he expected me to have something like this ], at £4.99 it's one of the cheapest ones; they send them to "colorama" though, and although I've found their website I haven't heard much or can't find any reviews.

The proof will have to be in the pudding...

However the first film I wanted to get through quickly so I could get it developed and see what happen; so just got to wait and see. This is the thing about film; the anticipation and anxiousness Especially considering how far out the view finder can be

I've been experimenting with the manual settings though so will let you know how it goes

Found out that Savers and Johnsons (Dry Cleaners) no longer do photo developing...

Though I am going to try this company that looks promising - only problem is having to pay to send the films there

http://www.thewholepictureonline.co.uk/

£6.50 including Photo CD seems fairly reasonable, and the scans are at 3000x2000 pixels so pretty good quality... will try them when I have a couple of films to send...

=================================================================

The Voigtlander is a joy to use, very sturdy and weighty in the hand, and works perfectly; it's got that well-made feeling...

Whereas the Lomo (Cosmic 35) with its plastic body feels light, and is very hit and miss (which I guess is all part of the fun), shutter wont always engage; rewinding the film is HELL, and overall feels less quality. Which I guess it is; but the big bonus of this one is that you can double expose the film, which leads to some nice effects.

I've put a quick album with a few photos of the cameras here:
http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/muddyfox470/35mm/

[tfboy]

I've cheated and gone full frame on digital (with a D700). I really appreciate the benefits of digital as brammers has already pointed out but really wanted to get high ISO performance and the ability to get real wide angle shots with a dynamic range that approaches film. Digital IMHO is still off film for it's naturalness in extreme exposures. Whilst it's amazing how much overexposed you can recover with RAW and the more bits help out, but film still is on top from what I have seen.

But all the hassle? I can't justify it

[colmo]

brammers summed it up.

I love my Dynax 7 (and for that matter, my X-700 and MG-M!), but every time I raise a film camera to my eye and press the shutter, it's costing me money. Last summer, I finally finished off a roll of slide film in the 7 after a few years! Some nice hot-air balloon shots, too. Must get the scanner setup again...

If I was going to shoot film, it would be with prime lenses on chromagenic B&W (like Ilford XP2 Super), not slide. Chromagenic B&W is cheap and easy to get developed, and you can opt to scan it instead of having prints made (which are usually crap, if you use a small, local service as I have to). The massive exposure latitude of such films means the rather more rudimentary cantre-weighted metering on manual-focus SLRs is more than adequate.

The Voigtlander range appeals for this kind of photography, but they're a bit pricey considering old manual SLRs can be had for a song on eBay.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I use both but to be honest film processing in the UK sucks unless you do it at a more pro oriented place or do it yourself. Luckily when I was in London there were one or two affordable places which were good!! I have been abroad and the quality of the film processing has been much better even from normal places using minilabs!! So many places here stink of gone off chemicals when you enter them. They should at least keep the place air conditioned and all chemicals refrigerated!!
I have never been a fan of mail order to be honest too!!

Also many of the very slow films have been discontinued such as Konica Impressa 50 which was my fave!! The same goes for even faster films like Kodak Elite Colour 400!! Luckily Reala 100 is still around. Scanning was also time consuming so it is much easier to use a digital SLR IMHO. I only have a Sony A200(also have a Dynax 5 too) but in good light it is a great camera. I would have bought a A700 but I decided to invest in some better glass at the moment. The V4 firmware update has now made the camera quite good in low light too. I hope they do a similiar one for the A900 too!!

I also do have an old LCA too although it never did produce the greatest quality pics!! The old Agfa Optimas are great cameras which have very sharp lenses.

[kopite]

Theres a firmware update for the a200?!?!? where do i get it?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was talking about the A700 unfortunately!! It would nice if there was a firmware update to improve the low light ability of the A200. If you shoot in RAW ISO 800 and 1SO 1600 are usable too. Nice if they also reintroduced mirror lock-up as they had in the earlier A100!! They probably expect us to upgrade to an A700!!

To the OP if you do not mind buying online the following 2 websites are good:

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=777

http://www.mx2.co.uk/

The larger branches of Jessops and branches of Jacobs have a good range of film.

Here are my current recommendations for colour print film:
1.)For a slow film with tiny grain, great colours and great sharpness in good light go for Fuji Reala 100. For best results get this film print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Usually if your minilab is using a Fuji Frontier system this is the case. The Frontier 500/550/570 and 590 are the newest Fuji minilabs.

2.)For a fast film in overcast conditions get Fuji Superia X-TRA 400. Again it is better to get it printed on Fuji paper. If you want more punchier colours get Kodak Gold 400. This will look better printed on Kodak Royal paper. People who operate Noritsu based mininlabs tend to use this paper or the inferior Kodak Edge paper.

You can get ISO 200 film too but I prefer using either ISO100 for sharpness or ISO400 for speed.

Anything over ISO 800 tends to be bit grainy.

For portraits the Kodak Portra series films are good as these have different versions for different skins tones.