Do more expensive film cameras produce better quality photographs?

[dxqcanada]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP

 

[limr]

I'll throw in one more vote for "the lens makes more of a difference than the film body" answer. I shot a Takumar zoom lens for nearly 20 years on my Pentax K1000 before I finally got a different lens and the difference in sharpness reached out and punched me right into next week. It's not that the bodies don't matter at all, but the lens matters more.

The other thing that you should be aware of in terms of lenses is that the coating on lenses has changed over the years too, which sometimes accounts for how different 'old' pictures look as compared to more modern lenses. Much older lenses weren't coated at all. The differences may be subtle, but coating affects image quality as well.

As for the role film plays - yes, some films have finer grain, which you could say would be the 'higher resolution' look you're looking for. Slower speed films (ISO 50 or 100 or 200 - better for bright conditions) will have finer grain than faster films (ISO 400 and up - better for low light). Certain emulsions will also have finer grain than others Kodak Portra (for color) or TMax (black and white) will tend to have much less grain than Kodak Ultra Max or TriX, though the difference is often not that noticeable in most pictures unless the images are enlarged to a certain point.

For the bodies, you're looking for reliability and accuracy if you are relying on it for focus and exposure. If you are manually setting these things, then your brain, eyes, and/or light meter are the things that need more accuracy

My newest 35mm camera is from 1993, which is the K1000 I mentioned above, and though I bought it in 1993, the design and build quality hadn't really changed much in decades. Peter already said it: they are tanks, warhorses. My other 35mm cameras are all older and I love them.

 

[Derrel]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP

Re the above link.... "The Leica MP is a supreme tool. Handcrafted, created for the photographic artist. Designed to deliver the essentials. Focused technology for focused photography, without the distraction of automation. It's for making pictures only a true photographer can see, frame and record. Not a quick fling, but the camera for a lifetime."

Somewhere in Germany, there lives a bull, wondering how his dung magically just "disappears", only to be used to write web copy for the Leica company's website pages...

 

[Light Guru]

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.

Since you are just talking about "resolution" then 35mm is not the place to start. Go with medium format or better yet large format film.

 

[minicoop1985]

I agree with everyone else-I don't know NEARLY as much as a lot of these folks about the technical details, but I do know that a quality lens makes a HUGE difference in image quality. When it comes to the bodies, precision manufacturing will help hold film flatter, and higher end cameras will likely be a little easier and foolproof to load. *WARNING SHAMELESS HASSELBLAD PLUG COMING* When you talk about resolution, I definitely agree (I'm way biased) that medium format would make a much bigger difference with what you're asking than 35mm can do. Something like an old Hasselblad would be quite the step forward in resolution. Plus, if you can afford to sell a car or two, you could get a Hassie digital back with up to 50 megapixels. Only $16,000. Pretty reasonable.

 

[compur]

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.

The term "resolution" doesn't mean the same thing in the film world as it does in the digital world. And, lens resolution isn't the same thing as film resolution.

If you want highest resolution of the final image with a film camera then you need to use the camera with the largest film format.

If you want higher resolution with a given format such as 35mm then you need to use a film with higher resolution and/or a lens of higher resolution. But, of those two factors, it is the film that produces the most noticeable difference in resolution. Choosing a lens with higher resolution will often not even give a noticeable difference in the final image.

This is assuming that the film is correctly exposed and processed. Badly exposed or developed film images can look terrible no matter what.


Higher resolution can improve image quality up to a point but a lousy photo of high resolution is still a lousy photo. And, on the other side of the coin, a great photo is often still a great photo regardless of its resolution.

Resolution has become little more than a gimmick for selling digital cameras and keeping the consumers buying the latest and greatest models that promise "higher quality" images simply because they contain more pixels. The funniest part of this is that most digital shooters throw away the majority of those pixels when they re-size their image because the original was way too huge to fit on a screen.

 

[gsgary]

More expensive bodies make it nicers and easier to use picture quality is down to lenses and film and then the development, i use a Leica M4-2 and an M4-p and they are a pleasure to use but they dont make the pictures better

 

[gsingh85]

What about the Minolta Maxxum 7000. This camera has both AF and manual? How does this compare?

 

[gsgary]

Never used one

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[gsingh85]

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.

 

[BlackSheep]

I used a Maxxum 7000i (newer version of the 7000) for about 7-8 years and really liked it. The AF worked well for me.
I mostly used it for wildlife and landscape photography.

 

[timor]

Discussion went only about technicalities. Yes, in general using better equipment you will have better chance for image of better quality from technical POV. But remember, film requires a full array of skils, better quality doesn't comes automatically with better body or lens. If your film processing is not top notch, even Leica glass and body won't help you.

 

[amolitor]

Resolution has become little more than a gimmick for selling digital cameras and keeping the consumers buying the latest and greatest models that promise "higher quality" images simply because they contain more pixels. The funniest part of this is that most digital shooters throw away the majority of those pixels when they re-size their image because the original was way too huge to fit on a screen.

This is not quite right. Throwing away pixels carefully can result in a picture with lower spatial resolution, but better color and tonal fidelity and less noise. So, there's that.

 

[timor]

Throwing away pixels carefully can result in a picture with lower spatial resolution, but better color and tonal fidelity and less noise. So, there's that.

You care for that, 95% of population doesn't nor do they have much of an idea plus 99% of picture taken never leaves the iPhone.

 

[gsgary]

Leica Camera AG - Photography - MP

Thats next on my list but i want a black brassy one