35mm for portrait stuff? hiding to nothing or a good idea?

fontmoss

fontmoss

Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
First off, I'm a newbie to photography not just film. Ive had a Digi SLR since just before Christmas and I've learnt a mountain of stuff because i can fire away with the digi and see what happens (at around 5/6000 clicks so far) but I'm drawn more and more to film. Initially as I couldn't afford, nor justify, a D700 but more so now because everything I see from film has such a rich texture and feel to it. Ideally Id get a digi back for a medium format but as my kidneys aint worth that much its never going to happen. Realistically neither is medium format, even if get the camera and lens the processing costs will kill me.

So my question is, is 35mm worth playing with for portrait stuff or should I put my money aside for my inevitable purchase of a D700? My flickr shows the sort of stuff I normally take photos of, a large portion of which is low light wide open candid stuff-therefore film is going to get v expensive v quickly as a lot of shots aren't going to come off that well and im not sure it would translate that well.

I had thought manual film body with b and w film and an 85mm lens and just use it as a portrait camera but maybe thats a bit of a waste. Im a bit lost as you can tell, need to decide whether to put some cash into film or just bide my time and go full frame (which i will do regardless at some point)

other issue is that i start uni again after the summer (med school) so time and money will be at a premium, poss a digi SLR lends itself to that situation more. cheers for persevering and reading to the end!
 
Have just looked at your flickr and there is some nice stuff in there (y)

As a user of film I would say yes, for me film and portrait just can't be matched by digital.

HOWEVER

It really depends on what you want to utimatly achive a 35mm camera + 85mm lens and 3200iso film low light grainy images, would be an ideal combination for portrait. BUT as you are going for a D700 and off to uni then I would save my pennys for the camera you really want.

You never know, get to know some of the art students at uni and see if the art department will let you borrow a film camera to try out. :)
 
fontmoss said:
other issue is that i start uni again after the summer (med school) so time and money will be at a premium, poss a digi SLR lends itself to that situation more. cheers for persevering and reading to the end!
Click to expand...

If money is an issue then it's definitely a good idea. A DSLR is a lot of money up-front. Film is a bit of cost spread out as and when you can afford it.

You can pick up a 35mm SLR for next to nothing. Get a fast 50mm lens and an 85mm lens and you will be fine.

If your budget is really tight and you would like an all manual camera, I have a Mamiya Sekor DTL1000 body you can have for free. You will need to get some 42mm mount lenses for it though.

If you would rather go automatic focus and exposure there are still some good bargains around (although I don't have any of those available free!).


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
If money is an issue then it's definitely a good idea. A DSLR is a lot of money up-front. Film is a bit of cost spread out as and when you can afford it.

You can pick up a 35mm SLR for next to nothing. Get a fast 50mm lens and an 85mm lens and you will be fine.

If your budget is really tight and you would like an all manual camera, I have a Mamiya Sekor DTL1000 body you can have for free. You will need to get some 42mm mount lenses for it though.

If you would rather go automatic focus and exposure there are still some good bargains around (although I don't have any of those available free!).


Steve.
Click to expand...

Very generous offer Steve! I've seen a lot of this type of generosity on TP and can't say how impressed I am. :clap:
 
Go with Steve Smith you will never regret it. Digital is good, excellent even but 35mm in all it's modes is something special. Take a good tranny film and project it for a wow factor that's very hard to beat.:clap:
 
cheers knikki very nice of you to say so :)

and Steve! as if i wasnt already a member of your fan club! Oliver is quite right, this is a special wee forum. Thanks for the (very generous) offer but im going to aim for nikon body so can swap lenses about.

Which is to say im very very tempted to get a nikon fm2n or fm and an 85mm manual lens to start playing with black and white film. I dont have a scanner and processing costs a fortune here but we're moving back to blighty soon and looks like ill have more space if less time for camera playing.

realistically the d700 will have to wait a while but who knows if i plump for a film camera it could change my whole photography outlook (either way!)
 
ok now i need to decide: 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f2?

50 is nice and versatile not to mention faster (plus a nice portrait length on my digi) but if film camera is going to be more of a portraity camera should i stick with the 85mm idea? slower and bit long on the digi
 
Depends what sort of portraits you want to do.

For head and shoulders only, 85mm is probably the way to go. Does speed matter? You'll be able to throw the background out with f/2 at 85mm at portrait distances. It's one more stop, will you be using lighting?
 
well i use a 35 on my digi which is similar field of view to a 50 on film so thought an 85 might be nicer for a change and also for more portrait rather than reportage stuff. it'll be available light so extra stop would be handy plus i love shallow depth of field stuff.
 
Seeing as you don't really seem to be sure about film, why don't you get some form of cheaper body temporarily before splashing out on an FM2n or similar. Something like an OM2, or even an uber cheap M42 body?
 
yeah thats another option but had dismissed as i think ill really enjoy the results from film. tbh it's not film that causes the hesitancy as much as the process (and to certain extent the cost) of developing my stuff and scanning (which cant do here but have cheap scanner in the uk)

Its also whether i buy a film camera and lens or a fast auto lens for my digi or get a monitor to use with my laptop. the D700 is still very tempting but id have to break the bank just get one with a 50mm lens. *sigh* if i could get back and see mate with nice film kit im sure thatd help

EDIT: just found foodpoisons medium format thread, ill get a cup of tea and see you all in a few hours.
 
My offer of a free Mamiya 35mm body is still there.

You can buy M42 mount 135mm lenses very cheaply on ebay. I would use 135mm instead of 85mm for portraits anyway.

The Mamiya 1000DTL is manual focus but has both average and spot metering modes.

If you want it, send me your address.

p.s. I'm trying to give away some of the items I don't use so it's going to be given away to someone anyway.


Steve.
 
Steve i may take you up on that offer-just need to have a look for a lens and also posted another thread re. MF but im very tempted by your v generous offer.
 
50 is short but will be 80 on your d700 which is very usable, I am thinking of doing an identical thing with canon except I already have the body and a pair of 50mm primes (really ought to sell one but its so pretty)
 
dont own a d700 sadly (and a 50 would be a 50 as its full frame)
but cheers for posting

EDIT: i think ill aim for an 85mm with a nikon body, bronica an outside contender but bit too much cash. just.
 
fontmoss said:
EDIT: i think ill aim for an 85mm with a nikon body, bronica an outside contender but bit too much cash. just.
Click to expand...

If you're on a tight budget, you may find that a third party 135mm lens is more affordable than a Nikon 85.

I have a Hanimax 135mm f2.8 lens which is surprisingly very good.




Steve.
 
cheers steve i;m not discounting the mamiya but playing with focal lengths i prefer the 85 and cant seem to find an 85 m42 fit? prob my blindness.

plus a nikon lens would work on my digi (and the 35 f2 i have on the film body) which would be nice and the fm2n goes to 1/4000th shutter speed which would be handy using lens wide open. might Pm you with a couple questions though if you dont mind, im pretty drawn to MF but need some more info
 
fontmoss said:
cheers steve i;m not discounting the mamiya but playing with focal lengths i prefer the 85 and cant seem to find an 85 m42 fit? prob my blindness.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a common size really. 100mm (or sometimes 105mm) were more common.

Not so much of a step up as 135mm would be.



Steve.
 
Fontmoss, I'm not much of an expert with 35mm film, so I can't profess to know as much as most here. That said, this thread struck a chord with me, as I was recently in a similar position :).

First off, I came to the conclusion that of all of the things that I could do with film, as opposed to digital, the one type of photography that would really benefit most ... would be portraiture. I just wanted to get some good shots of family and friends and have "hard copies" of the images, for keepsakes. As I don't own a printer and as film can look so much nicer, if properly exposed/developed, it seemed like the ideal tool for the job. Luckily, this need only involve a "nifty fifity", or some other fixed focal length, wide aperture lens.

Secondly, as I have all-Nikon DSLRs and yet my 35mm cameras are Olympus (OM10) and Canon (EOS5), I wanted a Nikon SLR to use my decent lenses with. So, I took a look around :naughty:...

:eek: You wouldn't believe what bargains there are to be had out there (well, actually, you've probably already seen them for yourself ;)). Like yourself, I didn't want to spend money on a film camera, which would impact on my digital budget and so I had to forget about the top of the range models and look lower down. Although the F100 is a pretty good buy at around 150-200GBP, considering it cost 4 times that not so long ago, that's still about the tenth of the price of a D700. The amazing thing is, you can still get a perfectly adequate, AF, fully manual/automatic Nikon SLR for a tenth of the price of an F100 :eek:!!!

Point in case, I've just taken delivery of a mint condition (c/w box and papers) Nikon F65D, which cost just 20 quid, from a camera dealer on eBay. Looks, ergonimics and build quality are roughly in line with a D40 (although it's wider and lighter) and it has all of the essential stuff for outdoor portraiture. Unlike DSLRs (with their many and varied sensors), with a 35mm camera, all you need is good AF and accurate metering, assuming you're not getting into flash photography. After that, it's mostly down to the lenses and the film that you use :shrug:.

So, I just wanted to suggest the possibility of having a look at the F65 and the F80 models from Nikon. The F80 sells for between 50 and 100GBP, from what I've seen and the smaller, F65 is normally well under 50GBP (sometimes even with a cheap lens). Either of these options would allow you to use any Nikkor FX lenses, which would subsequently allow you to "hit the gorund running", once you're Lottery numbers come up and you get your D700 :D.

Just a thought!

F65D (black version)
F65D.jpg


F80
F80.jpg


Ken Rockwell reviews: F65 link ... F80 link ...
 
cheers Naboo (good to see you're not turnin your back on me)

im pretty torn, medium format just seems to produce awesome results but a nikon 35mm is probably a lot more practical. Did you consider medium format? Ill have a look at those models you suggested, i played with a fm2n today and really liked the split prism fun but an uber cheap auto SLR might be a possibility.
 
fontmoss said:
cheers Naboo (good to see you're not turnin your back on me)

im pretty torn, medium format just seems to produce awesome results but a nikon 35mm is probably a lot more practical. Did you consider medium format? Ill have a look at those models you suggested, i played with a fm2n today and really liked the split prism fun but an uber cheap auto SLR might be a possibility.
Click to expand...

:D No, no reason to "turn my back on you" (until you buy a Canon, that is :p) - oh wait, I've just admtiited to owning one myself in my previous post :bang:.

Anyway, I wouldn't dare to compare the results from a cheap Nikon to any medium format camera :shake:. I simply recommended a cheap "F series" model, because the maximum that you would need to invest is less than 50 Euros. Whatever money you spend on Nikon (or Nikon-fit) FX lenses is going to be a good investment for your (planned) future set-up. So, even if you eventually give up with 35mm altogether and sell your F65 (as an example), the most that the whole experiment should cost you would be about 20 Euros (excluding the film/processing) :shrug:.

I don't know about you, but I spend more than that on lunch, some days ;).
 
yeah tis sound advice sir.

head says 35mm, heart says medium format. you weren't tempted to look into medium format at all then?
 
fontmoss said:
yeah tis sound advice sir.

head says 35mm, heart says medium format. you weren't tempted to look into medium format at all then?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't reply to that question earlier on, did I:(!?

No, I wasn't tempted at all. I just wanted something that was going to be cheap, portable and would enable me to get more mileage out of the good glass, which I already have :). A Nikon 35mm was the obvious step.

Also, as I said before, I just want to get some good quality "snaps" of friends and family, which will be cheap to process - I'm not planning to shoot anything to frame and put on the wall ;).

I only put this forward as a suggestion because it could be a fairly cheap way for you to experiment with film. I can imagine that if you go along the MF route and it turns out to be not your thing, it's going to cost you a lot more money in the long run :shrug:.

Good luck, either way (y)!
 
it turns out to be not your thing, it's going to cost you a lot more money in the long run
Click to expand...

true although kit seems to hold its value fairly well.

its weird how my feelings or ideas seem to have changed over the course of posting this and other questions as well as reading the 'why you must shoot FILM' thread. Initially it was a potential sideline that may be interesting but now im starting to see it as a way of getting some really good quality work. with medium format possibly a similar cost to 35mm set up (that im looking at) it does change things but still leaves the issue that a nikon 35mm will allow interchange of glass. cheers for your input that gives me another consideration.
 
fontmoss said:
true although kit seems to hold its value fairly well.

its weird how my feelings or ideas seem to have changed over the course of posting this and other questions as well as reading the 'why you must shoot FILM' thread. Initially it was a potential sideline that may be interesting but now im starting to see it as a way of getting some really good quality work. with medium format possibly a similar cost to 35mm set up (that im looking at) it does change things but still leaves the issue that a nikon 35mm will allow interchange of glass. cheers for your input that gives me another consideration.
Click to expand...

That's what this forum is for, inducing GAS (Gear Accquisition Syndrome) :D.

I have to say, I had no idea that MF gear was anywhere near as cheap as 35mm equipment, to buy. Maybe then, if the releative size and bulk of it doesn't bother you, it could be the way forward :shrug:!?

Just as a follow up to what I was saying yesterday, here's a great example of the kind of bargains to be had in the lost world of 1990s Nikon SLRs :D. This mint F65, complete with Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D lens (boxed), new CR2 batteries and two Ilford films, sold for just £79 this morning :eek:!!!

Link ...

I ask you, £79 ???? The lens itself is worth at least that! In fact, I was looking for one of these Nikon nifty fifties to go on my F65 and just caved in and paid the full Amazon.de price of £115, only yesterday :(.

So, if you were lucky enough to get a deal like that, you could use the nifty on your S5 and any subsequent Nikon fit camera and if you ever tire of 35mm film, just sell the camera body off for £20 or so and you'd be laughing.

:)
 
yeah 35mm offers a lot more routes back out if it's not for me but ive never been one for halfway houses and someone pointed out (on a dif forum) that it is exactly the dif between digi and MF that makes MF more attractive than 35mm, it would be used in a different way and produce different results.

35mm is prob the leader in the race so far but on the back of convenience and cost
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top