Do more expensive film cameras produce better quality photographs?

[gsingh85]

I am a complete beginner to photography and my interest is in Film cameras. I'm finding it really hard to work my way through all the different types of cameras. Basically I want to know if more expensive 35mm cameras give better quality than basic 35mm cameras. By "quality" I mean resolution. I'm not talking about how good the picture, I'm just talking about resolution.

In 1990 my father bought a Minolta camera for about £900 because he was an avid photographer. Growing up in the 90's I used to see a lot of budget cameras for about £30 which is what most people used for their holidays, birthdays etc. Everytime I saw a camera I used to compare it to my dads expensive camera. This Minolta camera really was the business but I've always wondered if it gave a better quality than cheap/budget cameras. I know cameras in the high priced bracket will of course give more features, brighter flash, more zoom etc but does it produce a higher resolution than cheaper cameras?

Same goes for older cameras. If I took a photo from a Minolta SR-T 101 made in 1958 will that give me an inferior photo compared with a 35mm film camera of today? Why are so many cameras made in the 50's and 60's so expensive after all this time. I would have thought photo's taken from those cameras now will not be anywhere as good from 35mm cameras of today.

Any replies would be much appreciated.

 

[bhop]

No, but generally speaking, more expensive lenses will. What you're paying for is controls and build quality for the most part, as far as camera bodies go.

 

[dxqcanada]

The camera body is a holder for the film.
The lens projects the light onto the film.
The camera or lens will have the shutter and aperture mechanism
The camera may have a light meter.

With film cameras ... I only really care about the lens in terms of image quality.
The camera body I select has to do with what controls it provides me.

 

[gsingh85]

So if you have two cameras with different lenses, all other things remaining equal, will each give a different quality on the negative?

 

[dxqcanada]

Yes.

Two different camera bodies both with the same lens ... equal image quality on the film

That's way many film photographers buy one camera body and just changes lenses over the years.
I knew many shooters with the cheapest Yashica camera body and spent thousands on the Zeiss lenses for it.
Contax-Yashica | ZEISS International

 

[Overread]

The lens itself is often the biggest quality affecting factor in a setup (assuming good lighting). As a result put a cheap lens next to a really good one and the really good lens will show improvements. It will be sharper when shot wide open (smallest f number/widest aperture); it will typically have better aperture blades so that highlight rings in the background are more circular and smooth; it will have a more pleasing blurring of the background; it will have more corrective coatings so that things such as flare are reduced.

Auto focusing will also typically be faster and you'll oft get full time manual focusing (you don't have ot set the lens to manual focus mode to use the focusing ring - of course AF must be off/not engaged for this to work).


With a camera body for film the image quality is not much affected by the body itself because so long as it works well the image quality is being defined by the lens and the film itself (as well as lighting of course). The body offers things such as auto winding; metering; flash control; weather sealing; etc.... These things might not affect the image quality directly; but might often help when shooting in more difficult or specific situations - a good in-camera meter with a good auto focusing setup might be the difference between a badly exposed blurry shot half missed and a well exposed and correctly focused shot when shooting something fast moving.

Note that there are different kinds and sizes of film on the market; most bodies will only fit one or a couple of different film sizes so if the photographer wants to use a larger or smaller film size then they have to change the camera body (this often holds true for the lenses as well needing a change).

 

[gsingh85]

I really appreciate your replies. So let me get this right, if I want to buy a (35mm) camera that give me the best image quality/resolution on the negative the two most important things are the lens and the quality of the negative. Is this correct?

 

[amolitor]

Better film bodies may also:

- hold the film flatter
- hold the film more parallel to the plane of focus
- have more precisely calibrated focusing systems

And they may be more adjustable, and hence calibrate-able. A cheap body may have the film plane out of alignment, and that's all there is too it. A better body may have some adjustments a technician can make to correct any problems that have crept it.

All of these are of moderate to minimal benefit, depending on what you're doing.

Well, getting the focusing path right matters, always. The issue here is making ABSOLUTELY SURE that the optical distance to the focusing aid/mechanism is EXACTLY THE SAME as the optical distance to the film. Without that, there's basically no way to reliably get accurate focus at all.

 

[gsingh85]

So where does the actual cost come from? If I have a Fuji film negative and put it in a £10 camera and put the same negative in a £1000 camera, does the high end camera give better resolution/higher image quality on the negative? Obviously the answer must be yes but why is this so? From the replies the major factor is the lens. That I can understand but how would the film body affect the resolution on the negative?

Is the main price factor of a camera the lens aside from the features?

 

[peter27]

Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.

 

[gsingh85]

Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.

Ok so if i brought a used Minolta SR-T 101 from ebay, how would this camera differ from a bog standard £50 35mm camera from the 90's? In general, which would give the better image quality/resolution on the negative? Will it be the newer one because the technology is newer or will it be the older one because it's metal and not cheap plastic made from china?

 

[peter27]

Whilst the choice of lens and film are major factors, something else to consider is the reliability and accuracy of the shutter. I have two Pentax bodies that are 30 to 40 years old and both are totally reliable, from shortest to longest exposure times. They are quite heavy old warhorses and both were made in Japan at a time when craftmanship still counted for something. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cameras which are being assembled in China or the Philippines nowadays will be as precise even five years down the line.

Ok so if i brought a used Minolta SR-T 101 from ebay, how would this camera differ from a bog standard £50 35mm camera from the 90's? In general, which would give the better image quality/resolution on the negative? Will it be the newer one because the technology is newer or will it be the older one because it's metal and not cheap plastic made from china?

I've already told you what I think but I will add that newer technology doesn't necessarily equate to better photos: or do you imagine your grandparents enjoyed sex less than yourself? Go to your local library and look through some books about famous photographers and you will see a lot of great photos taken with older technology.

 

[gsingh85]

"Go to your local library and look through some books about famous photographers and you will see a lot of great photos taken with older technology."

That is exactly what I done. I looked at photography from the 1940's and the 1950's and the photographs. I've even looked at black and white photographs from the 1930's and the image quality looks incredible. This is exactly why I am confused.

Cameras and their features do vary quite a lot to suite different requirements and budgets when referring to the cameras features but there must be something that remains constant in terms of image resolution. So after going through what has been posted I'm thinking the lens, the film and the film body are the major factors.

35mm cameras made in the 90's will have different features to those made in the 1940's but you could get equally good image quality on both cameras. The features are certainly different but my point is what remains the same. Both, I'm assuming, will have good quality negatives, good quality lenses and both will have good film body.

So, the cameras that create low resolution images will have poor quality film, lenses and film bodies. I just want to confirm if this is correct.

 

[Overread]

A photo is one part technical and one part artistic. Plus added into the mix there are a lot of very bad photos both artistically and technically which are very important because they record something important or represent the first photo of a kind or a situation. Eg a fair few famous editorial photos are very poor quality but display such a key or important event that they become famous because of the content.

So yes with sub standard equipment you can still get an important photo - or artistically work within those limits the camera has to produce something great. Better cameras/lenses/lighting/ will reduce the limitations and extend the possibilities. It's up to the photographer then to work with them and the scene to get the shot.

 

[gsingh85]

A photo is one part technical and one part artistic. Plus added into the mix there are a lot of very bad photos both artistically and technically which are very important because they record something important or represent the first photo of a kind or a situation. Eg a fair few famous editorial photos are very poor quality but display such a key or important event that they become famous because of the content.

So yes with sub standard equipment you can still get an important photo - or artistically work within those limits the camera has to produce something great. Better cameras/lenses/lighting/ will reduce the limitations and extend the possibilities. It's up to the photographer then to work with them and the scene to get the shot.

Yes of course that makes sense. So if I want to get the highest resolution on the negative what 35mm cameras and lenses would you recommend?