Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: kevs on January 27, 2019, 09:34:00 pm
-
I know Dlsrs, some are cropped/ some full frame. What about film era? I assumed all full frame or no? ie, what get on film and what see in finder? I looking at Canon 1N, and now maybe the Elan, thanks.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
Cameras
The format was introduced in 1996 by Kodak, Fujifilm, Minolta, Nikon, Canon and others. APS was mainly used for point and shoot amateur cameras, although some SLR systems were also created: Canon EOS IX, Minolta Vectis, Nikon Pronea with Nikon IX lenses. Of these the Canon EOS IX and the Nikon Pronea could use the existing 35 mm SLR lenses, whereas Minolta opted to create a new lens line-up later shared with an early digital SLR. Nikon developed the IX series of lens that were lighter and had a smaller image circle (similar to the Nikon DX format used since 2004). Although the Nikon IX series of lenses were not compatible with the Nikon 35 mm SLR, lenses for the Nikon 35 mm SLR were compatible with the Nikon Pronea. Using existing lenses meant that the field of view was reduced by around 1.6×, but had the advantage of a larger lens selection. Creating a new lens system on the other hand gave the possibility of creating smaller and lighter lenses as they had a smaller image circle to cover. APS SLR cameras were too expensive for the high-end amateur market when they first appeared, and professional photographers stuck with 35 mm cameras, which offered greater image quality and resolution.
-
Thanks Slo, no I'm still lost actually, have not dealt with slrs for years, just digital. I'm full frame digital for 10 years, and stay away from cropped digital bodies.
But now, I cannot remember film slrs! My memory is that they were all full frame. I'm looking at the Canon Elan and 1N, and the 1, and 3. Do those differ? Are they all full frame for lens/ full frame what you see in viewfinder?
Thanks for the the links but they were to general/ generic, that's why I post her.
-
Since you asked, Halina Panorama camera was based on a cropped film format. It produced a 13x36mm format crop from the centre of a 24x36 negative.
https://www.35mmc.com/22/04/2017/halina-panorama/
-
Moderator: if you can please delete the spam post by Les that would be great. Thanks.
-
I wasn't aware of any spam in my post. On contrary, I posted it as an interesting and useful information.
Disclosure: I am not associated in any way with the above mentioned camera and its manufacturer.
-
... I cannot remember film slrs! My memory is that they were all full frame. I'm looking at the Canon Elan and 1N, and the 1, and 3. Do those differ? Are they all full frame for lens/ full frame what you see in viewfinder?
Thanks for the the links but they were to general/ generic, that's why I post her.
I emphasized in bold the relevant information in my previous post, i.e., the only SLRs that were in APS-C film format. By inference, all other SLRs were full frame.
-
Thanks Slo, so all those Canons I listed are ok lenses FF and viewfinder... Appreciate it.
-
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/
-
Nice link De, and it does show that for the Elan, you wont see 10% of you shot correct?
Viewfinder Fixed eye-level pentaprism. 0.75x magnification and 90% coverage.
Which is an argument for maybe not getting that camera as opposed to the 1N or the 3.
Granted at least it's not a crop camera like the Rebel etc....
-
Elan and 1N are not in the same league. 1N was a top professional model and Elan was a consumer camera.
-
Yes, thanks, this confirms that.... at least it's full frame images, but not acceptable 10% viewfinder is not seen.. So yeah I'll be passing on it.
-
the only SLRs that were in APS-C film format. By inference, all other SLRs were full frame.
Not correct. The Olympus Pen series of SLRs were 35mm half frame. If we want to be particularly pedantic there was also a 126 SLR made by Rollei and there were plenty of medium format SLRs too.
-
Kevs, be aware of the two different (bayonet) lens mounts Canon bodies used. The F1 and F1N used the FD mount for manual focus lenses. The Elan (US name) up to current digital SLRs were fitted with EOS lens mount. Actually, there was one EOS-mount camera body using EOS lenses which didn't have autofocus capability, but was focused manually.
So, if you're thinking about using any existing Canon EOS lenses with an analog body, don't look at the F1 or F1N, but only bodies using EOS mount.
By the way, I hate the term full frame, 35mm being more accurate. But then, there were some 35mm cameras which were half frame (e.g. Olympus Pen), so whatever. The Hasselblad X used 35mm film too and wasn't full frame. Somewhat like the automotive industry in which I worked as a fuel system engineer for over 30 years. Whenever US colleagues mentioned gas, it was important to check if they meant gasoline or LPG. A number of (costly) misunderstandings took place during fuel system developments.
But I understand what you mean, Kevs, when you mention full frame.
-
Moderator: if you can please delete the spam post by Les that would be great. Thanks.
I shall do nothing of the kind. I think you do not understand the meaning of "spam" in this (that is, non-meat) context.
On a wider point, it is not open to the originator of a thread in this or any of the forums on this site to dictate what is or is not an acceptable post in the thread: that is why the originator does not have the ability to delete others' posts. Knowledge is seldom useless; the fact that Les's post does not directly answer your original question is neither here nor there.
Jeremy
-
..l The F1 and F1N used the FD mount for manual focus lenses...
I assume the OP had in mind Canon EOS 1N and EOS 3 cameras, not the F Series.
-
I assume the OP had in mind Canon EOS 1N and EOS 3 cameras, not the F Series.
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
Maybe interesting to know for some, Canon used to try out innovative new technologies in their Prosumer EOS-3 an EOS-5 series, before introducing them (or not) in their flagship range EOS-1 series.
The EOS-3 e.g. has Eye-focus capability, which works for some and doesn't work for others. I'm wearing spectacles, so with my EOS-3 it was hit and miss, but it was a very nice try where the camera would focus on what you were looking at in the viewfinder. Great for shooting infants and other fast moving critters ;)
I still have an EOS-3 (unused since I went EOS 1Ds II, which I also still have as a backup and do occasionally use), but it's still a wonderful fit for my hands. The same lenses can be used on all of them.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I assume the OP had in mind Canon EOS 1N and EOS 3 cameras, not the F Series.
Absolutely correct, Slobodan. I must have scanned his query without the proper attention to detail. For some reason, the F1 popped into my mind - maybe because I once used the (old) F1 which was one of my favorite cameras.
-
I remember some consumer-grade cameras which used half a 35mm frame per shot, so you got 72 slides from a 36 roll.
-
Yes, Nancy, the cropping can be done in many ways.
-
I remember some consumer-grade cameras which used half a 35mm frame per shot, so you got 72 slides from a 36 roll.
Long ago I had a Zeiss Baby Ikonta that did exactly that.
-
Not correct. The Olympus Pen series of SLRs were 35mm half frame. If we want to be particularly pedantic there was also a 126 SLR made by Rollei and there were plenty of medium format SLRs too.
The OP asked specifically about Canon SLRs, so my response was within that context.
-
Of purely historical interest (24x36mm was standard by WW II at the latest) some early 35mm cameras (I believe, including certain very early Leicas) used slightly different frame sizes like 24x32 and 24x36mm. These existed in addition to what were later called half-frame cameras, which used variants on the original 35mm movie film size (they were around 16x24 or 18x24mm, and the exposures ran the other way on the film - the camera took a vertical picture when the film ran horizontally. Half-frame cameras have never been common, but a few have been made at most times in the history of 35mm film.
There have also been a variety of panorama formats on 35mm film. The Hasselblad XPan got some modest traction in the 1990s, and was something like 24x65mm. Some odd cameras that swing the lens (or the entire camera) during the exposure managed to go wider still - I think there have been 180 and 360 degree pano cameras that were 24x100mm, or even longer than that.
Unless there were a few half-frame SLRs during the 1960s and 1970s (were some or all of the Olympus PEN line SLRs?), I can't think of any of these that used SLR viewing - they were all variants on viewfinder and rangefinder cameras, I think there were also one or two electronic-era SLRs in the 1980s or 1990s that had a half-frame mode?
-
Answer to the original question; Yes ! :)
-
Answer to the original question; Yes ! :)
Sorry, no. There was Canon EOS IX that was APS-C, as I posted on page 1.
-
And the EOS IX (and IX lite) used standard EF lenses... They did not, however, use standard 35mm film. There has never been a Canon 35mm film SLR that used a format other than 24x36mm.
-
BTW, I shot for years on a Nikon 8008, it was not pro, but very close, great camera. Was there a Canon version of that? Not pro like the 1 or 1N, or 3, but very close in quality?
-
BTW, I shot for years on a Nikon 8008, it was not pro, but very close, great camera. Was there a Canon version of that? Not pro like the 1 or 1N, or 3, but very close in quality?
Canon A1 perhaps. I used a pair of those for about a decade.
-
Sorry forgot to add, has to take EOS lenses..
-
The EOS A2 and A2E, EOS-3 and EOS-1V were all very nice late film-era EOS bodies. Really any EOS will do if you're shooting print film and not shooting sports (if you're using slide film, the better meters of the higher-end bodies are an advantage, and if you're doing sports or wildlife, anything but a 3 or a 1V will be frustrating if you're used to good DSLR AF). A good condition 1V may still be pricey, but what's amazing about film body pricing is that once you get below the final top pro models (EOS 1V, Nikon F5 or F6) and ignoring Leicas, it almost doesn't matter what it once sold for - it's a few hundred or less used.
-
Thanks Dan, no sports, wildlife, and not even using the meter. Just people fine art. So.. you think even low end ones are cool? Elan.. only thing is I'd love to find a mint condition of something, and that seems hard to find? KEH, the lower end ones, they just have as is...
-
I suspect KEH is taking all those "as is" cameras in among collections of digital equipment and lenses they buy from retiring photographers and from estates, then not bothering to test them because they aren't worth much even if mint. Many of them may be in great shape, but no way to tell...
Green Mountain Camera in Vermont has a nice EOS 5 (overseas version of an A2E) - they claim cosmetically 9, tested and fully functional, for $40. I have no connection to them, other than that I've bought a lot of gear from them over the years (I lived in Burlington, VT for 15 years). It may also be worth calling Hunt Photo in Melrose, MA or B&H - neither bothers posting film cameras other than weird high-end stuff online, but either might very well have something. Any store that buys big lots of gear probably ends up with film bodies.
I'm not sure about the rules about posting commercial links, but googling Green Mountain Camera will turn them up, and the EOS-5 is in the used gear listing on the main site (it may also be on their eBay shop)
One thing to watch out for with many Canon film bodies including that EOS-5 is that they use an infrared LED in the frame counter. Works just fine on most film, and more precise than counting sprockets - but it fogs infrared film...
Dan.
-
As is I always interpret as broken.. no guarantee..
Thanks Dan, I'll try out the 5 on Green Mountain. I was hoping to land a mint condition 1N or 1 for.. $150 to $200, but this will be fine..not as cool as the Pro 1N, but it's just to shoot a tad of film using my current EOS lenses. Most of this project will be digital, but it's nice to go back in time and shoot film.
For the really cool looking film camers, I just picked up on Ebay a Nikon F1 and a Pentax Spotmatic ($200, $85)... look are gorgeous to look at. both came with a 50mm.
I liked the fact the 5 has all the manuals, cool.
Funny, when I searched for a Canon 5 on Ebay, you could not find it because they have name so many digiitals now with 5 this or that.. I heard of Hunt, and I did notice that BH only post more expensive used stuff, you email them for little things? So Hunt and Green Mountain, and I heard..Roberts, Goja... are like the Samys of the east coast (I'm' in LA), ie reputable good stores....
-
...
For the really cool looking film camers, I just picked up on Ebay a Nikon F1 and a Pentax Spotmatic ($200, $85)... look are gorgeous to look at. both came with a 50mm.
...
I would like to buy a Nikon F3 HP- i hear it has the most gorgeous viewfinder.
Always shot Nikon and the 8008 was a camera that never failed. ( had the FE, 8008, F100, d2x, d3, d3x, d800e, d810 and now the d850... most of them had never a problem)
Talking about optical viewfinders; It is a pity all recent DSLRs have half translucent mirrors; a good mirror would bring the quality back to the old days.
-
As is I always interpret as broken.. no guarantee..
For the really cool looking film camers, I just picked up on Ebay a Nikon F1 and a Pentax Spotmatic ($200, $85)... look are gorgeous to look at. both came with a 50mm.
Being pedantic there is no such thing as a Nikon F1. the camera was the Nikon F and was followed by the F2. Canon had nicked the F1 name for the Canon F1 before the Nikon F2 was introduced.
Dave
-
I've never lived in New York, so I'm not sure what B&H does with the stuff they don't post on the web - they almost certainly get a ton of it when they buy whole systems. It would be hard to run on their scale without getting hundreds of film bodies every month - and not all of them are going to be recent pro stuff, Leicas, Hasselblads and 4x5" (which seems to be about all they post).
Hunt has a couple of big display cases full of used gear (and I'm quite sure it's not all on the web - I haven't been in there in a couple of months, but I'm sure I recall multiple film bodies). I wasn't looking for one, so I don't recall Canon vs. Nikon vs. others (I'm pretty sure I would have mentally filed Leicas in a different category), nor whether they were tested.
Green Mountain seems to post most things somewhere - some on the web, some on their eBay site.
KEH seems to dump a huge fraction of stuff as "AS-IS" - they either got a jumbo load of broken film cameras or simply aren't bothering to test them. It seems far more likely that they don't bother to test them. I wonder what would happen if you called them asking for something in a general category (e.g. takes EOS lenses, reasonable to use) and offered them $25 extra to pick one that looks like it's in decent shape and has no obvious operational flaws? They wouldn't offer their usual guarantee, but could you get them to say "it's not broken leaving here"?
-
thanks Dan what does this mean, "and offered them $25 extra to pick one that looks like it's in decent shape and has no obvious operational flaws? They wouldn't offer their usual guarantee, but could you get them to say "it's not broken leaving here"?"
That was hard to follow, but I want to know.. maybe I'll use that one day!
-
Thanks Dave, good point.. did Canon basically just copy Nikon's nomenclature back then?
-
If (as seems likely) KEH's huge pile of AS-IS gear is actually merely untested, instead of known broken, they might take a reasonable offer to test a few cameras and sell one that works . They must have some that are cosmetically decent, and that they have no reason to think are broken. Would they pick out a working one if someone paid them to do it?
This assumes that the pile of AS-IS gear was acquired as part of larger deals when they bought volumes of gear they actually wanted, and they simply didn't bother to test it. The other possibility is that they bought a bunch of broken cameras (maybe from a repair shop going out of business) to sell for parts. If that's the case, few or none of them work and my idea of asking them to test stuff for a fee has no value.
-
Thanks Dave, good point.. did Canon basically just copy Nikon's nomenclature back then?
Back in the 1960s there were really only 2 Professional 35mm film cameras the Leica M series and the Nikon F. By professional I don't just mean those intrepid war photographers with a Nikon and Long lens over one shoulder and a Leica M with wide angle over the other but the scientific and engineering community. The Nikon F was highly modular, it had interchangeable backs (250 exposure anyone?), interchangeable viewfinders, a multiplicity of focusing screens, motor drives and a host of technical attachments. At the time Canon was not a player in this scientific/engineering field in particular and the Canon F1 was its attempt to enter. I guess the thought that by using F in the name they might give the impression that theirs was an alternative to the Nikon F in the specialist fields. In practice in the engineering field one had to jump through hoops to justify purchase of such a system and Nikon had such a track record that spending company money on a new supplier would be very hard to sell to the money men. :-[
Dave
-
thanks Dave, nice info, and when I assisted late 80's pros told me 90% of pros were on Nikon. I was on Nikon
Fast forward 2002 and Canon comes out with 1ds full frame. Nikon took what 6 years to get full frame? I think 90% pros then went to Canon.
How could Nikon be caught so flat footed with emergence of digital?
-
I've read that there is a Nikon F mount buried in the Hale Telescope somewhere (it's not the primary imaging system, which was large-format, and is now extremely custom digital). This lends credence to the scientific/engineering argument - lots of stuff we wouldn't normally call a "lens" has an F mount (sometimes a Pentax K mount).