Do more expensive film cameras produce better quality photographs?

The reason why I looked at the Minolta Maxxum 7000. This is first camera to use the AF and it was made in 1985. I have looked around and there are some really nice cameras made prior to this date and they are in the region of £200 - £300. These cameras are ones made in the 1950's but these won't be AF. I would prefer a cameras with AF because I won't be able to do it all manually.

I've used one. Focuses faster and more reliably than my Olympus DSLR... Honestly, there isn't much that doesn't, though. Anyway, this was taken with a Maxxum 7000 and a 100-200 f4:


R1-04481-0025 by longm1985, on Flickr

They're good cameras with some GREAT glass options available (Secret Handshake, Minolta Beercan, amongst others), but when it comes down to it, I prefer manual cameras. To me, if I want something automatic, I'll grab my DSLR. I treat film as an escape from digital and a way to force myself to better understand exposure. Having a camera do that for me kinda defeats that. BUT, to each, their own.

As for 200-300 pounds (what, $400-600 ish?), try looking up old Leicas. They don't tend to be cheap.

BTW, I still highly recommend medium format.
 
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?


Most all "name brand" 35mm camera's are just fine.
My Nikon F2 with a 55mm macro is very sharp. So is my Pentax MX with a 50mm or the Pentax 135mm tele- which is a very nice piece of glass. But then again my Canon A2E with Canon lenses is very sharp. I've made 30x40's printed in a darkroom that look fantastic. BUT....sounds like you will be scanning the film....so resolution and sharpness can be affected by that as well.

You also have to account the film processing.

B&W....do it yourself or find a lab that is very consistent in it's process.

For C-41 if you find a lab (like mine here in St. Louis) that uses control strips that monitor the chemicals, you will have very consistent results. C-41 is picky, I've been using C-41 process machines for 25 years and you have to get those chemicals just right.

E-6.....only time I shoot that stuff is to cross-process in C-41. Besides there is only one lab left here in St. Louis that processes E-6 and it's not that good.
 
What was the first 35mm camera that used electricity? I've done some research but can't find the answer nor the year. I'm wondering if I should get a non-electrical manual one.
 
Umm ... didn't you just stay, "I would prefer a cameras with AF because I won't be able to do it all manually." ???
 
Yes I wouldn't able to do it but if I have a manual one at least then I can learn how to do it. From my research (and I have done a lot) it looks like most people can't agree which is the better choice, automatic or manual. I could try both and see which would work best for my needs. What I would like is an SLR non-electrical 35mm film camera where I can select good quality lenses which has a metal body. Also I don't want a camera that is too old where simple tasks are a chore because I know I will have to get a second hand one. I want something simple, as modern as possible, manual (if it's also automatic that's ok), metal (I don't like plastic), non electrical (I want to go retro) and one that I can add a bigger flash so it gives me some flexibility. I don't want a camera that has a load of extra nice features. In fact the less features the better because I want to focus on the basic technology before I move on to more advanced stuff.

The idea would be to use this camera as the benchmark one and learn from it. Then as I learn I could could branch off and learn more advance things but advanced things that matter for my requirements.

Anyone got any suggestions? I did like the Minolta 7000 but it's made out of plastic and it is electrical based. I looked on an auction site and the Nikon F3 has caught my eye. I'm checking out its spec.
 
Hmm. Of all manual metered cameras, my favorites would be the Olympus OM series or Rollei 35. I'm guessing he meant he would have issues metering for proper exposure himself. If that's the case, there's always the option for getting whatever camera you want and a meter. Manual focusing isn't that difficult if you have the patience for it, unless you have a 2 year old. Then... there's maybe 4 cameras out there that can focus fast enough anyway. :lol: I DID get a shot of my kid with a manual focus camera the other day (it's gotta get developed), but he was strapped in to a high chair. :mrgreen:

Edit: you posted while I was typing this. Anyway, as I said, manual focus isn't hard. In fact, manual focus is easier on some of the older cameras than on some of the new stuff. I find my OM-1n to be easier to focus manually than my E-450. Well, I think a potato would be easier to focus than my E-450, but that's a story for another day.
 
Last edited:
gsingh85; one factor that has not been mentioned yet is; most really GOOD photographs have been taken by a really GOOD photographer, such as a professional.

A professional may purchase a more expensive camera because his income depends on getting the best results that he can. Therefore, professionals tend to spend more money on good equipment, namely an expensive camera and a really GOOD lens along with it. So what you are likely to see when looking at the best photographs is that they are usually taken with the more high-cost equipment.

Some of the better results come from better gear, but a significant factor is the skill of the person behind the camera.

Not to say that you can't get there, because you can if you apply yourself. BTW: you can pick up a Minolta Maxxum 7000 and a few good AF lenses for a fraction of what they cost new. And they will probably still be in very good condition. If we were closer, I could sell you mine. I could still sell you mine and my grandson could take it to England when he returns to university after the holiday break. PM me if you are interested.

here is my listing: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/336355-fs-minolta-maxxum-7000-3-lenses-flash.html

PM me with an offer if you are interested.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top