Anyone use a Canon A-1 or Mamiya RZ67? Need film camera recommendations...

[kitkatbar]

I have a 5D Mark III dslr but am looking to supplement it with a film camera system under $500. I love the look of the portraits these cameras produce, check out this photographer who uses the A-1:

HOLLIE FERNANDO PHOTOGRAPHY - IN BLOOM

I am looking to recreate this film feel but have never used film before and don't know what I should know about it...I am assuming the way it works is I put in a roll (ASA400 for continuous lighting in studio?), expose and take my shots, then get it developed...and then scan the prints? I am not really sure how scanning negatives work. So I would like to know what I need to get with the A-1 for portrait work.

Also, if anyone knows what I need to use the RZ67 (as in backs, prisms, etc.) to shoot basic portraits that would be great too. Any recommendations, warnings, articles, etc. are really appreciated.

 

[Derrel]

Try shooting some outdated 35mm color negative film in really crappy lighting conditions, without regard for what looks good. You'll be well on your way. Get an old Canon 35mm manual focus camera and 50mm Canon lens.

https://www.facebook.com/HollieFern...0.1401147635./721620774539449/?type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/HollieFern...0.1401147730./629273557107505/?type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/HollieFern...0.1401147740./576329799068548/?type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/HollieFern...0.1401147740./573993269302201/?type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/HollieFern...0.1401147730./605455389489322/?type=3&theater

Shooting photos in this primitive, untrained style might be difficult for you if you've been exposed to so-called proper technique and or lighting concepts about basics like raccoon eyes, fill light, focusing, and so on. It takes either a lot of skill and effort to shoot in a primitive style, or NO training and no skills. I am being serious here; it's more-difficult than it sounds to shoot this way. This true snapshot aesthetic is best done by young, untrained people who sort of just fell into taking pictures. Education, training, photo magazines, technique articles, those kinds of things make shooting this way more unlikely. Grandma Moses for example--one of the most-successful primitive painters of her era...those with formal art education could NEVER manage to approach her level of primitive styling and sensibilities. Read some of Hollie's articles linked to on her FB page.

 

[cookedpixel]

I own both the Canon A-1 and Mamiya RZ67. These cameras could not be more different and will give your images a completely different aesthetic quality.

For studio work the RZ67 is ideal. The bellows system allows very close focusing with any lens, the leaf shutters accommodate strobes at any speed, and the large negatives will reveal far more detail than your 5D (with good technique). I often use the 180mm lens for portraits. The RZ67 can be difficult to use outdoors in available lighting. It's heavy (extremely heavy with the prism finder), the weight distribution and lack of grip makes holding it awkward. The lenses are slow, so you will likely need a tripod outside unless the lighting is ideal or you want a very, very shallow depth of field. Remember, it's heavy, so your tripod and head need to be quite robust. The mirror going up is quite loud, which can cause some subjects to blink. Only having ten exposures per roll can get expensive if you have not developed a disciplined shutter finger. Because of these shortcomings I find myself using my Mamiya 645 and 80mm f/1.9 lens outdoors.

I don't use the A-1 much ever since I switched to a Leica M6 for general/travel photography. The A1 is fast to use and portable, but I never really got along with it as I prefer rangefinders. It will be far better than the RZ67 to carry around and photograph outdoors. FD lenses are good quality and quite inexpensive. Tonal relationships with 35mm film will not be as nuanced as they are with medium format and enlargements won't hold up as gracefully, though I have a 16x20 silver gelatin print taken with Tri-X 35mm in my office that looks great.

To be honest, the lighting, exposure, and processing in the images you linked to is not impressive. The tones are not very nice and exposure is not ideal in many of the images. With film, consistently attaining the look you visualized requires a long sequence of variables to be closely controlled. Your choice in film stock, exposure, lighting, film development, and scanning all play a large part in the final appearance of your image. You can also push/pull film (underexpose and increase development, overexpose and decrease development) for different looks. Many film portrait photographers like Fuji 400H overexposed a stop or two for its pastel colors. I tend to find Kodak Portra 400 a technically superior film and like the warmer tones I get from it. A good lab is indispensable. I use Richard Photo Lab for my color film processing and scanning (use my own darkroom for black and white). They are not cheap, but the development is always spot on, and the scanning technicians are so experienced that they know what you're after just by looking at the negative.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>To be honest, the lighting, exposure, and processing in the images you linked to is not impressive. The tones are not very nice and exposure is not ideal in many of the images.

I think that is the main "Hook" that this young woman's work has; her technicals are very much below the level of a highly-skilled technically competent shooter using EITHER film OR using digital; her pictures have the artsy-fartsy "primitive aesthetic" or "snapshot aesthetic" that many 20-something people associate with "film". Since the internet age has come, and has begun to mature, there exists a huge segment of people who associate sub-par quality, crappy developing, crappy lighting, and crappy print processing with "film photography". The whole toy camera aesthetic has further reinforced that mis-perception. Miss Fernando's pictures are much,much more about "the people" than they are about "the workmanship" or about "the photography". In the fashion-y world, her degree of technical quality is sufficient because the pictures are about young, beautiful women, and handsome, hip, young men, and the audience she's shooting for is all about "the pictures".

I have seen a number of people of her age shooting digital SLRs and achieveing similar results using retro-style plug-ins and actions. This is sort of the anti-photography movement having its 15 minutes of fame. Bad lighting, bad exposure, bad processing = film photography in the mind of a certain subset of viewers, and it makes the images really stand out in the current FLOOD of highly-perfected, Photoshopped-to-a-fault images that litter the web these days. We saw similar "fake film damage" effects introduced at the early age of video, when film was replaced by video and old, faked, scratched and faded film looks were HUGELY popular; in modern urban music, we hear FAKE pops and skips in the intros of MANY songs. I think it's part of a pendulum swing, which is the way things often go...one way....then the swing begins heading the other direction.

Hipstamatic and Instagram filters are good examples of how people are now focusing more on the PICTURE, rather than focusing on the technical quality of the image.

 

[kitkatbar]

@Derrel: thanks for your advice, really appreciate it. now I just want to say it's fine if you're not a fan but I absolutely love her work a lot and it has helped inspire me to move. i will be shooting similar subject matter as her so I am interested in learning. anyways, I have been shooting for years so I know a thing or two about exposing (including dealing with "raccoon eyes", fill, focusing, etc.). But I get your point, I'm really not trying to look too deep into it as far as the training vs non-training stuff. I just want to shoot some film in my spare time, and I am here for advice on setup.

@cookedpixel: yeah I'm learning how different the cameras are. I am a studio portraitist so I am learning towards to RZ67 but would like to first understand how much an entire starter system would cost. also, what is the "prism finder" for (eye-level vf?) and is it different than the waist level viewfinder? it wont be my main camera so I want to learn it while I can. thanks for all your advice!

 

[cookedpixel]

@cookedpixel: yeah I'm learning how different the cameras are. I am a studio portraitist so I am learning towards to RZ67 but would like to first understand how much an entire starter system would cost. also, what is the "prism finder" for (eye-level vf?) and is it different than the waist level viewfinder? it wont be my main camera so I want to learn it while I can. thanks for all your advice!

The waist level finder has no light meter, so a separate handheld meter is required for determining exposure. The image projected on the focusing screen is also reversed left to right (i.e. an object on your right will appear at the left end of the screen), which makes framing a little awkward until you become accustomed to it. It's like looking down onto a small television screen. There is also a magnifier that pops up to allow fine control of focusing.

The prism finder is eye-level (more like looking into your DSLR) and allows you to view a laterally correct image. The prism has a light meter which will allow aperture priority operation.

If you're working in the studio I would highly recommend the RZ67 over the Canon. You would be looking at around $500 for a used body, back, waist level finder, and one standard lens.

 

[cgw]

@Derrel: thanks for your advice, really appreciate it. now I just want to say it's fine if you're not a fan but I absolutely love her work a lot and it has helped inspire me to move. i will be shooting similar subject matter as her so I am interested in learning. anyways, I have been shooting for years so I know a thing or two about exposing (including dealing with "raccoon eyes", fill, focusing, etc.). But I get your point, I'm really not trying to look too deep into it as far as the training vs non-training stuff. I just want to shoot some film in my spare time, and I am here for advice on setup.

@cookedpixel: yeah I'm learning how different the cameras are. I am a studio portraitist so I am learning towards to RZ67 but would like to first understand how much an entire starter system would cost. also, what is the "prism finder" for (eye-level vf?) and is it different than the waist level viewfinder? it wont be my main camera so I want to learn it while I can. thanks for all your advice!

I'll reserve judgement on Fernando's work and comment only on hardware. The RZ and earlier RB are great studio cameras. Agree with cookedpixel that you absolutely need at least an incident--and preferably a combo incident/flash--light meter. The plain prism finders for the RZ are cheaper than the metered versions. Their practicality over a WLF is obvious the first time you shoot with the camera at anything above chest level. The rotating back is a wonderful feature allowing portrait/landscape shifts just by twisting the back. There's really nothing special about the Canon over any then-contemporary 35mm SLR system. Go for medium format if you're going to shoot film.

Just make sure that you've got reliable lab services nearby for processing/scanning/printing. Be prepared for plenty of post work, too.

 

[minicoop1985]

Never had an RZ, but I've had a Canon A1. Too automated for me when it comes to film, but that's just my personal taste. They seem to be built well enough, and people joygasm over the FD lenses, so it's a good portal to use them, I imagine. I had an AE-1 Program, too-what I don't like: the plastic advance lever feels CHEAP. What I do: Electronics seemed easy enough to use, and reliable. Rugged enough other than that advance lever.

From what I know, the RZ/RB is an incredible system. A faaaaaar cry from a 35mm system-I would spring for this in a heartbeat if I had the money to burn.

 

[pixmedic]

grab a mamiya M645 1000S. I had one for a while. the lenses are fairly inexpensive as well.
its a great way to get into medium format on a budget.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

cant go wrong with a little canon a-1 or even a nikon, bronica, pentax. . . . 35mm film camera. Assuming you pick one up that is fully functional, you can produce just about anything you want. The biggest advantage will be that the 35mm is smaller, lighter and much less expensive to use and to have the film developed. That includes scans. If you have to pay for them to be done, it will be cheaper and have a quicker turn around.

I have a Nikon FM2 (hands down my all time favorite camera I have ever laid my hands on) and a RZ67. I take my RZ everywhere with me and have never had a problem with the weight of it. It is heavy but if you take a little time with it, youll figure out your hand position and how to maneuver with it and it will become second nature.

My first film camera (outside of point and shoots as a kid) was a Rolleicord IV twin lens. Fully manual, no light meter, just went by the sunny 16 rule when outside and adjusted a little here or there based on guessing and it worked quite well. I eventually sold it off because it did not shoot the style of portraits I like and got the RZ. Cant say I would go back. Anyway, the point being, just find something that works and start playing with it. You can even keep a little log with you with your settings written down so when you get your film back, youll be able to compare what worked or what you liked vs what didnt work or what you didnt like.

The other day I picked up a Nikon n4004 (or something like that) with a Nikkor 35-70mm lens on it for 20 bucks. You can shoot full manual or full auto and its awesome. Even has auto focus if I want.

 

[cgw]

grab a mamiya M645 1000S. I had one for a while. the lenses are fairly inexpensive as well.
its a great way to get into medium format on a budget.

That's getting to be a very old camera. The newer Super/Pro/ProTL Mamiyas would be a better choice. The 110/2.8 is a very sweet portrait lens.

 

[pixmedic]

grab a mamiya M645 1000S. I had one for a while. the lenses are fairly inexpensive as well.
its a great way to get into medium format on a budget.

That's getting to be a very old camera. The newer Super/Pro/ProTL Mamiyas would be a better choice. The 110/2.8 is a very sweet portrait lens.

well, the OP was looking for a setup under $500. you can get the 1000S and a lens or two well under that.
i honestly dont know the prices on those other models.

 

[Derrel]

My vote for a good-shooting 120 rollfilm SLR goes to the Bronica SQ-A series cameras, using either 6x6 square format backs and inserts, or 645 backs and inserts. Prices are pretty affordable, and the Zenzanon lenses always had lovely bokeh. The 65mm and 150mm PS (Pro Series) lenses are really nice. It's useful to have the 645 back option, to make the 80mm normal "longer" on 645, and also to have in-camera rectangular captures and a few more frames per roll. Squares are nice and everything, and SOME images look great as squares, but rectangular images are more commonly needed.

I worked at a studio where the cameras were all RB-67's....what an awful camera for handheld use...it was never designed for that. It's a stand camera, all the way. The Mamiya 645 and the Bronica SQ-series and GS-, and the Bronica ETR-series, and I think the Hasselblad 500 series--ALL of those were designed for both studio- and field use. I don't think the RB and RZ were really ever envisioned as field cameras. Just so big and clunky...

 

[Mike_E]

Eh, you're going to do what you want of course but I have to say when it comes to film, size does matter.

 

[vintagesnaps]

One of my cameras is a different model Canon that's all mechanical; I don't think just shooting film would necessarily produce the look of the photos linked in the OP. I'm a longtime film photographer and don't have photos turn out with that appearance, to me they look like they may not have been exposed properly and/or may have been edited to look that way.

Yes, the process is loading the film (not sure what speed is best for studio lighting as I don't do studio work); metering and determining exposure; framing, focusing, and shooting your images; then getting the film developed and scanned - or you can do the developing and/or scanning yourself.

I'd expect it could involve a good bit of post processing to get the images looking that soft and saturated - I've used vintage as well as newer plastic/bakelite simple viewfinder cameras etc. and might get a softer focused look but not like in the linked images. To me a good bit of what's 'out there' that's supposed to look like film, doesn't really look like photos shot on film.