Who still uses MF cameras?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Elie A Shammas, Sep 10, 2003.

  1. I got hooked on MF. I just received an Aria with a 50mm f/1.7 Zeiss lens.
    Got it for cheap with the lens, What a gem! Simple and straight to the
    point.

    I hope this will serve me for years to come as my backup camera( opposed
    to my first Aria which got stolen).

    Elie
     
    Elie A Shammas, Sep 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mmmmm, Contax...

    I just dumped a Nikon manual focus kit to raise cash, and when I get some
    more money i'll be reinvesting in a Contax 139Q with 50/1.4 AE Planar and a
    very ugly type II winder. Until I get enough disposable cash i'll stick with
    one lens and have fun with it, and maybe one day i'll get a 35/1.4 and
    85/1.4 to match :)

    In the mean time, i'll stick with my manual focus Bronica and Olympus
    digital camera with AF switched off.

    Keep the helical turning, brother!
     
    Martin Francis, Sep 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I still have and use (but not often) a Yashica Mat 124 which I got
    almost 40 years ago.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Elie A Shammas

    Ken Cashion Guest

    Aren't they nice cameras? I used mine for my studio work in
    1957. I took a lot of portraits of kids to pay for it and my darkroom
    equipment.

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 11, 2003
    #4
  5. Elie A Shammas

    jriegle Guest

    I'm kinda at extremes. I'll shoot my MF K mount bodies (in manual mode to
    boot). OTOH, I plan to get a digital SLR sometime in the future. I often use
    my compact digital but break out the film when its serious time. Every time
    I try to use a AF film body, I end up selling it in favor of the MF one. Go
    figure.

    John
     
    jriegle, Sep 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Elie A Shammas

    jriegle Guest

    Ahhh. Yes, I had one and often wish I hung on to it. Stopped down to f5.6 it
    was nice and sharp and the enlargability seemed endless compared to 35mm. I
    had the little tele lens kit that bayoneted on to the front. I was never too
    pleased with it's sharpness though. I remember tying to use it in copy work.
    I hand held a diopter lens infront of the taking lens after focussing with
    it. After raising the camera the distance from the viewing lens to the
    taking lens, I'd fire the shutter. The enlargements were beautiful.

    John
     
    jriegle, Sep 11, 2003
    #6
  7. All my cameras are manual focus - I've never used an AF camera and haven't
    really felt the need for it. I guess sometimes, when I need to fire off a
    few shots really quickly, manual focus can slow me down - but never by a
    huge margin and a bit of practice along with sensible use of aperture often
    helps me out.

    Chris.
     
    Chris Barnard, Sep 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Elie A Shammas

    SLJ Guest

    I'm still using the first series Nikon FM for B&W.
     
    SLJ, Sep 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Elie A Shammas

    Bandicoot Guest

    I do, both the accepted meaning of MF and the meaning I think you have in
    mind.

    In the latter, most of my 35mm work is done with Pentax LXs, and some with
    MXs. I have two AF Pentax bodies (and a couple of AF P&S cameras) but these
    are not my main workhorse cameras. But then, I am a landscape and plants &
    gardens photographer primarily - if I did more wildlife, events, or sport
    I'd probably use the AF bodies a lot more.

    And all my MF cameras are MF...



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Sep 11, 2003
    #9
  10. Me. Leicaflex SL2 and 5 lenses at present.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Sep 11, 2003
    #10
  11. Elie A Shammas

    Generic Eric Guest

    I have several manual focus bodies (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus) and use them
    all. The only AF body I own is the Nikon D100 and I HATE the autofocus. I
    always use MF; for me it's just quicker and always more accurate.
     
    Generic Eric, Sep 11, 2003
    #11
  12. Elie A Shammas

    minette Guest

    By MF are we meaning "medium format" or "manual focus?" In any event,
    the answer to both is yes. I use a Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR (which is of
    course manual focus) and a Super Ikonta III for medium format work. I
    also use a variety of 35mm manual focus cameras (haven't bought an
    autofocus one yet] ranging from a IIIF Leica to a Canonet GIII QL17 to
    a Konica Autoreflex T3N to a Nikon FM2N. Actually have no interest in
    buying an autofocus film camera - although I'm not that anachronistic
    - I do my own B&W film chemistry, but everything else is commercially
    processed and later scanned and printed at home.
     
    minette, Sep 11, 2003
    #12
  13. Back then manual focus would mean no range finder. :)

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


     
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 11, 2003
    #13
  14. Yes they were good cameras. Well designed and not expensive. They
    worked well for the pro on a budget. I especially liked the ability to use
    220 film back when I used it as a pro. These days I have not used 220 for a
    long time, usually 120 works fine.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 11, 2003
    #14
  15. Elie A Shammas

    T P Guest


    Nice camera, superb lens!

    I use MF all the time, except when using my Olympus DSLR - which is
    not pleasant to focus manually - and my two AF point-and-shoot cameras
    which don't have a manual focus option (Olympus Stylus Epic [Mju II]
    and Pentax Espio 90).
     
    T P, Sep 11, 2003
    #15
  16. Elie A Shammas

    ink Guest

    "Elie A Shammas" dropped into the real world with a crash and proclaimed...
    Hate to chime in, but... ME TOO!

    Actually got the manual FM2n *after* the digital p&s and the
    F65 SLR. I have an F100 for the speedy work now, but my
    favorite "baby" is the FM2n... and will be for some time.

    ink

    - "It's half past four and I'm shifting gear."
    (Golden Earing)
     
    ink, Sep 11, 2003
    #16
  17. Elie A Shammas

    Ken Cashion Guest

    I even had a 35mm insert for it. With the 80mm lens and 35mm
    film, it was a lot of fun to use. I had some +3 close-up lenses for
    mine and actually got some good photos of buttterflies...but alas, it
    was with Anscochrome and that stuff had grain the size of dimes.
    If I remember correctly, at the time Anscochrome was the only
    transparency film that could be processed "at home."
    Dang it! Photography was a whole lot more fun back then!

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 11, 2003
    #17
  18. Elie A Shammas

    Ken Cashion Guest

    That is funny. I had to read it twice to understand what you
    were saying.

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 11, 2003
    #18
  19. Elie A Shammas

    Ken Cashion Guest

    Bob, all this nonsense you are seeing from me on this group is
    because of auto-focus, auto-aperture, auto-film advance, and me just
    transporting the camera. I finally realized that I really wanted some
    control over the photo and an old, mechanical SLR came from the closet
    and two Canons went in.

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 11, 2003
    #19
  20. Elie A Shammas

    Dick Guest

    Was it called Anscochrome? I thought the name was Ansco Color. I
    remember when it first came out, when you developed it, one of the stages
    was shining a bright light on the film for the reversal process. The
    process was later improved to do away with that.

    I still have some of those slides although they are somewhat faded.

    Dick
     
    Dick, Sep 11, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.