I've shot this camera before, but I intend to use it this weekend and wanted to make sure everything was working right. This time, I even used non-expired film and it was really nice to see the difference. I also tried some shots in the studio with the strobes. I guessed on the settings for the first shot, but then used a light meter and realized I needed a wider aperture to get correct exposure. The meter turned out to be correct and I was pleased with the results!
The Minolta X-700 was introduced in 1981 and received the first "European Camera of the Year" that year. In my experience, the Program and AV modes work excellently and the Minolta glass is exceptional. Of course, if you feed it old expired film, the results are less than spectacular.
So, this week I took the opportunity to try out a Mamiya m645 1000s medium format film camera. I got a 70mm f/2.8 "standard" lens, as well as a 150mm "portrait" lens. I ran one roll of fresh Kodak Ektar 100 film through it.
I wanted to do a head to head comparison of 6x4.5mm film vs my Canon 6D full frame 20Mp digital to see if there is truly any sort of magical quality to the film pictures that I could not replicate with digital. For the pictures where I used the 70mm Mamiya lens on the m645, I used my EF 50/1.8 "nifty fifty" on my 6D. For the pictures taken with the 150mm Mamiya lens, I used a Tamron 70-200/2.8 Di VC USD with the zoom set to 90mm on the 6D.
I was honestly rooting for film as I wanted to be able to point to it's wider dynamic range and smooth bokeh as advantages..... BUT.... sadly it did not. I'm pretty sure it's more a matter of the quality of the 35 year old Mamiya glass and not so much the film's fault, but in every way my digital pictures were better by any objective measurement.
Just for fun though I thought I'd share the comparison shots here for your amusement!
I was under the impression that you could see more in the shadows without blowing out the highlights on film, but as you can see here, the digital actually did a better job of showing both the darks and the brights.
I was also under the impression that medium format film would produce significantly more bokeh than 35mm, but alas as long as you shoot the equivalent focal length and aperture, the bokeh looks the same.
I had the film negatives professionally developed and scanned at the highest possible resolution which yielded a 48Mp file, which I thought would mean more detail and sharpness, but as you can see, the digital picture has more of both
The Ektar film does indeed have vibrant colors, but with a minimum of post production work, I could make the digital file look the same if I so desired.
This camera has the very handy features of both Aperture Value and Program modes which make it a very easy camera to use, but also has the flexibility of full Manual mode. It worked great for the most part, but I did notice a couple of light leaks, so it might be time for new seals. The old expired film didn't render colors all that great, and 8 shots on the roll didn't turn out at all, but still managed a couple nice ones.
Last weekend I got to shoot my first Prom session with a group of fun loving High School students. We were supposed to shoot outdoor, but the weather didn't play along so we did most of the shooting indoors. I'm still happy with how they turned out and we did manage to sneak in one outdoor pic between the raindrops :)
Forget Instagram filters! All you need to do to make your pictures turn out crummy is to use a 50+ year old camera. Oh and use expired film. Plus if the film says ISO 200, be sure to set your camera to 400 so it underexposes everything. And to make those cool flares? - be sure to open your film back before the film is rewound all the way, that works great.
I have had a great time using the Contax 139 Quartz and Yashica FX-3 as my main film cameras for several rolls now, but with many more cameras to try out and evaluate, it's time to put these back on the shelf for a bit. Here are some scans from my latest batch. Stay tuned for the results of my next camera to sample!
Well, it's been a while since I've posted so, nothing like the new year to kickstart the engine again. I haven't been shooting a lot of pictures lately, but I have spent a little time on self reflection and found some interesting information.
Many of you are likely familiar with the Meyers-Briggs profiles and the 16 personality types. There are numerous online tests you can take to find your type, and I have tried several, but what I found annoying was that I could get different results depending on my current mood, stress level, and other factors. So while the results were usually partly accurate, I never felt they were completely on point.
Recently, I took another test and came up with INTP as the result. (Introverted Thinking, Extroverted Intuition, Introverted Sensing, and Extroverted Feeling, in that order of priority)
While the generic description seemed to mostly match my own perception of myself, I didn't fully appreciate it till I read an essay found on this site:
The first thing I found interesting was that the author bothered to register a whole domain name dedicated to INTPs! While Paul James claims that only about 1% of the population are INTPs, I've seen other stats that claim more like 2-5%. Regardless of the actual number, it's a fairly small segment of society and one of the rarer personality types out there.
Now, Mr. James is rather wordy and the site is not formatted for easy reading, but I will pull out a few quotes that I related to the most:
Naturally, the essay contains much more information but this is getting to be a long post already. So I'll stop here. Needless to say I find the subject matter interesting (for now). How about you? Any other INTPs out there care to comment?
1. A description of the INTP Personality Type by Paul JamesOriginal version: April 5, 1999
revised and published on the web: March 12, 2000
I haven't posted in a while since the summer has been getting busy, but today I took the opportunity to try shooting a car with the Novatron studio strobes. It was fun figuring out how to shape the light the way I wanted it to look. Overall, I'm pleased with the results, but there's always room for improvement.
So after 2 years of shooting, I'm finally venturing out from the "clean edit" as it's called. So far I've been happy just producing a well balanced, properly exposed picture with sharp focus. Lately though, I've felt like trying out some more dramatic processing and I'm liking the results.
I was excited to get to try some professional film and see if it made a difference in the contrast and colors of my pictures. I would say it did indeed help with the outdoor shots as they look pretty good, but contrary to what I thought, the film is still daylight balanced, so indoor shots still came out yellow/orange. I was also disappointed to see light leaks on some shots which means my light seal replacement did not go as well as I planned....
the ramblings, musings, and tinkerings of Minsan Sauers.