Dad popped over today to deliver some shelves and a special thing – his Nikon F2 camera. This manual SLR has been all over the world and done some serious work and I’m borrowing it for the next few months. It’s part of a bigger plan which will end up with me owning a new camera and, more importantly, knowing what to do with it.
As I’ve mentioned before I think I hit something good photo-wise this summer, suddenly taking shots that I was very happy with. More importantly other people agreed. And then I started getting really critical of my photos, which is always a good sign, spending longer setting them up and processing them in Photoshop (I used to just resize and sharpen – now I spend a good 5-10 minutes on each one and I certainly don’t resize or sharpen). I put most of this down to having taken over 5000 photos with my relatively shitty digicam but also to having had a lot of time to spend on photography this summer along with my drastically slowed down lifestyle. And you can probably throw Flickr into the mix since it’s still populated by a large number of pro and semi-pro photographers, if you know where to look – there’s nothing like constantly looking at good work to make you want to improve.
However, I’ve been slightly daunted by the world of serious photography. I really like the attitude of digital – no developing costs, instant replay and the limitations of a cheap camera give you immense freedom to experiment and just get on with taking photos – and I certainly wouldn’t be where I am (wherever that is) without it. I don’t have to worry about exposure or depth of field or any of that nonsense because it’s just not an option. That said, I’m now at a stage where I want more control so it’s time to learn a little (and to be honest it’s not that complicated, at least in theory).
The question, when faced with the stupendous array of kit out there, is where to go next. Do I go for a quality compact to keep the portability and immediacy with a small amount of control? The “prosumer” (god, I hate that term) high-end digital that mimics a film camera? A serious professional Digital SLR camera (way out of my price range but second hand should do it)? Or go back and embrace film again?
I’m erring towards the prosumer option with my current camera as backup for the everyday but in order to make the most of what it’s mimicking I need to understand the basics, which is where the F2 comes in. I will use this for the next few months taking photographs with the care and attention never before known, principally because I will be paying for the developing of the negs. I’ve also borrowed Dad’s neg/slide scanner (an impressively hefty piece of kit) so printing won’t be an issue, but no more “take fifty, use five” for a while.
And then, once I know what I’m doing, we’ll figure out which camera I should get.
That’s exactly what I’m doing. I bought a completely manual Russian SLR in a car boot sale a month or so ago. Nothing like as nice as that beautiful Nikon, but all the basics are there. Apart from snarling up my first film by being an idiot loading it, I’ve had no real failures. Every single shot has been interesting. You learn a lot about how to take pictures, but the main thing is I’m learning to wait. Get the right moment. It’s fab. I wish you all the best of luck with it, I’m enjoying every minute.
And my digital is becoming a light meter, and a time stamp. I take the same shot with that, so I can easily see the conditions etc on the exif. And it’s great comparing the output. Every shot on the Pentax is much better taken with the lovely glass lens of the Zenit. More clarity, more depth, no barrelling distortion. Good stuff.
Developing is cheap enough if you don’t want prints. A fiver or so for 36. I have been taking mine to a variety of places to try them out. Collecting a roll from the evil Asda tomorrow (first time I’ve been in), and I’ll let you know how they turn out. Or you can see them on my Flickr. Analogue for me. Every single time.
Um, the negative scanner is for scanning the developed negatives, not so much for printing, so you can get a much higher resolution than the ordinary labs do for you. Really high res scans on a CD are about £12 for 36. But the smaller scans are a decent size, say 1400 x 2100 and are more than good enough for the web, unless you want to start shooting for stock or printing posters, or something. I have loan of a neg scanner. Brilliant things, you will just love it.
And btw, she looks so much like you:
http://focalplane.com/portfolios/isobelthumbnail7.html
especially number 9. :)
Okay I’ll shut up now.
Brenda, my first SLR was a Zenit manual with a 50mm f2 lens (screw thread like a Leica). It was a good camera and the lens was certainly well designed and quite robust. This was back in the early 1960s when exporting cameras was a way for the Russians to earn much needed foreign currency.
A comment about cameras and lenses: The camera body is simply a lightproof box that holds the lens a set distance from the plane of the film. The key to a good body is therefore (1) it should be lightproof and (2) it should have an accurate register between lens and film surface. The shutter should also be accurate if repeatability of exposure is important (which it usually is). The lens is generally more important than the body and more should be spent on good glass than good lightproof boxes! There really is a difference between a $1,000 lens and a $200 lens and it is not just in sharpness but also distortion, aberration and the wonderful world of bokeh.
The F2 (it’s mine, by the way!) is a great example of a good body that can hold excellent lenses. The purists will argue that Japanese lenses are never quite as good as German glass but they come close, particularly if you select a good design and then get a lens that matches or excedes the design criteria.
Bumping this for focalplane really.
Bought a FM2 with a 50mm and a 105 f2.5 in a junk shop in Bristol yesterday morning. Very lovely things, the feel is just right. Three rolls of Ilford FP4 later, I think I’m in love. ;)
B, Saw your new love on Flickr and that lens is a classic! I guess it’s at least 30 years old but that was when Nikon made some of its best glass. The new Nikon lenses just don’t have the same tactile feel (because of the auto-focus).
I’m so pleased you saw it. Both lenses are completely delicious. You mean the 105 is a classic? They are both fabulous. Was in Moseley in the mist this morning and finished a roll of XP2 from my balcony. Wonderful feel, that body. :)