hyalinejim

I used to live at McCurtain's villas and there is a well-known McCurtain Street in my home city 🙂
Maith an fear, Kenjo!
Submit it to IndieCork @Emanuel a very good festival, with close links to IndieLisboa 🙂

Nice, the 1N sounds like a great camera. Since I already own some EF lenses, I'm looking to pick up a cheap rebel and get some auto features.
I must admit that I have a bit of GAS with film cameras lately. I started researching and shooting some film last summer. I started with P&S cameras and rangefinders but the first camera I bought was a brand new Nikon N6006 for $48. I didn't have an AF-D lens for it so it sat away in the closet and I eventually listed it on eBay... it hasn't sold yet. Since then, I started buying and shooting with the typical SLR cameras from the 70s/80s...
I'm narrowing down my favorites and will keep a few. I tried to make a rule to only buy an SLR that I had a lens for. Other than the N6006, I've held to that rule. Of course, this rule reminds me that I have too many lenses and I need to thin my herd.
And with that, I'm thinking of picking up an AF-D lens for that N6006... haha. It seems like a fine brick of a camera actually. Good news is that I have been looking for an excuse to buy the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2 for years...
Ugh.

Sounds like you got in at the right time. I do have an XA and don't shoot it quite as much as I should, although I do try as it looks so cute, is very small and results are good if I get the focus right. I had an Olympus RC but it was knackered and I sold it on for parts. Also had a Canon AF35ML and the AF was a crapshoot so that went back into the Bay.
I went on a compact film camera binge during lockdown as there was little or no other entertainment. Sold all thatI didn't love before I moved temporarily to New Zealand, which was a mild mistake as I could have made quite a bit more over there, at the ends of the Earth, than I did over here.
Here, at the pool in Tuscany there is a Dutch girl taking her first shots with a green sticker Contax G1 that she paid €700 for.
I am obsessed with film freshness because I'm profiling various film stocks to make emulation luts (for video) and Lightroom profiles (for photography). I was lucky to be able to buy fresh rolls of everything I'm interested in very shortly before this current shortage / supply chain problem hit. At the same time I have 40 - 50 rolls of various films that have been shipped across the world in the belly of a presumably equator-hugging ship on a five plus month journey at least once and/or zapped by X rays at numerous airports there and back again and I now have absolutely zero qualms about using these rolls for my own personal use now. I don't care how beat up the chemistry is, the value of that at today's prices is insane. 

@Kisaha Well done, good luck and post your results!

Sounds like you got in at the right time. I do have an XA and don't shoot it quite as much as I should, although I do try as it looks so cute, is very small and results are good if I get the focus right. I had an Olympus RC but it was knackered and I sold it on for parts. Also had a Canon AF35ML and the AF was a crapshoot so that went back into the Bay.
I went on a compact film camera binge during lockdown as there was little or no other entertainment. Sold all thatI didn't love before I moved temporarily to New Zealand, which was a mild mistake as I could have made quite a bit more over there, at the ends of the Earth, than I did over here.
Here, at the pool in Tuscany there is a Dutch girl taking her first shots with a green sticker Contax G1 that she paid €700 for.
I am obsessed with film freshness because I'm profiling various film stocks to make emulation luts (for video) and Lightroom profiles (for photography). I was lucky to be able to buy fresh rolls of everything I'm interested in very shortly before this current shortage / supply chain problem hit. At the same time I have 40 - 50 rolls of various films that have been shipped across the world in the belly of a presumably equator-hugging ship on a five plus month journey at least once and/or zapped by X rays at numerous airports there and back again and I now have absolutely zero qualms about using these rolls for my own personal use now. I don't care how beat up the chemistry is, the value of that at today's prices is insane. 

Yes. Give it another read. There's something fundamental you're not seeing. The x axis is the log of exposure, which depends on the amount of light (% reflectance) being recorded.
The y axis is density, the degree of change in the negative due to exposure. There are lines linking both axes at various exposure levels. "98%" etc are written horizontally but that's just for legibility. They are properties of the x axis, exposure, not of the y axis, density.
98% and 2% are characteristics of the scene, for example white paper and black paper, not of the negative.
 

Yes, for sure! The 1n is reassuringly heavy and solid. It has an incredibly loud shutter sound which can be a good thing or not. And I forgot to mention it's one of the very few Canon EOS film SLRs with 100% or thereabouts viewfinder coverage.

@Kisaha Well done, good luck and post your results!

Lovely shots Tim!
The most "digital" film I've shot, in terms of colour, is Ektachrome 100 as its colour seems to be more accurate than negative film is, similar to how any digital stills camera has fairly accurate colour in RAW when rendered with the Adobe colour engine.

I found a pre-ordered R7 that stayed 2 days in the shop and the owner seems reluctant to go get it (maybe he has Fuji glass!)..if that be the case for tomorrow, I may have it at the end of the week..
The adapter is included as a gift from Canon, ordered the 16mm as well and an extra battery..
The lenses are not an issue if someone has EF glass, and we all know what EF glass means for the industry, everyone has some, and I am certain there will be a lot of RF-S releases in the future and additional RF ones..
I will be starting slowly with the system and I will see where it gets me. The thing is, Canon is now relevant, which wasn't 3-4 years ago..well done Canon!

Lovely shots Tim!
The most "digital" film I've shot, in terms of colour, is Ektachrome 100 as its colour seems to be more accurate than negative film is, similar to how any digital stills camera has fairly accurate colour in RAW when rendered with the Adobe colour engine.

Yes, I think the image quality from the lens(es) will be stunning. But nowadays if anything goes wrong electronically it looks like you are basically fucked and can kiss goodbye to whatever you paid for it. And that's bound to happen eventually. Even at the height of my film GAS I tried to avoid spending over €100 on anything for this very reason.
Anyway, hers is clicking away happily. So far so good!

Ektar is, to my eye, the most 'digital' of all colour neg. Lovely stuff which as above, I habitually overexpose (https://www.vrimage.co.uk/IShootFilm/Ektar-100-June-2018/) - but I prefer Portra.

I have a big bag of Ektar, Portra, Fujicolor Industrial and Acros that I'm slowly working my way through. It's actually amazing how well film holds up after long storage in less than ideal conditions.

Wow I always wanted a Contax G1. That was a Very special camera with even more special lenses for it. You can't go wrong with one of those.

Sounds like you got in at the right time. I do have an XA and don't shoot it quite as much as I should, although I do try as it looks so cute, is very small and results are good if I get the focus right. I had an Olympus RC but it was knackered and I sold it on for parts. Also had a Canon AF35ML and the AF was a crapshoot so that went back into the Bay.
I went on a compact film camera binge during lockdown as there was little or no other entertainment. Sold all thatI didn't love before I moved temporarily to New Zealand, which was a mild mistake as I could have made quite a bit more over there, at the ends of the Earth, than I did over here.
Here, at the pool in Tuscany there is a Dutch girl taking her first shots with a green sticker Contax G1 that she paid €700 for.
I am obsessed with film freshness because I'm profiling various film stocks to make emulation luts (for video) and Lightroom profiles (for photography). I was lucky to be able to buy fresh rolls of everything I'm interested in very shortly before this current shortage / supply chain problem hit. At the same time I have 40 - 50 rolls of various films that have been shipped across the world in the belly of a presumably equator-hugging ship on a five plus month journey at least once and/or zapped by X rays at numerous airports there and back again and I now have absolutely zero qualms about using these rolls for my own personal use now. I don't care how beat up the chemistry is, the value of that at today's prices is insane. 

100% viewfinder, that sounds like a great treat. @hyalinejim I´ve had a AE1 for maybe eight years or so but only once sent a roll of film through it. Now, years later, cameras are cheap but film has become expensive. Good thing I had enjoyed my Oly XA, Mju2, RC35 a good deal, among Canon AF35 plastic fantastic with awesome lens and a few others, Yashica 35cc with a f1.8 lens not to forget!
@webrunner5 You could also do that with the RAW files or maybe even Jpegs from a good ole Lumix LX3 or Canon S90, which still give you a different approach and different feeling in the hands and using them. I enjoy taking snaps with my phone, but I also enjoy holding a camera. You are right about good photo quality coming from phones and the advantage of light weight, image stabi, small footprint.

Yes, for sure! The 1n is reassuringly heavy and solid. It has an incredibly loud shutter sound which can be a good thing or not. And I forgot to mention it's one of the very few Canon EOS film SLRs with 100% or thereabouts viewfinder coverage.

THANKS wonderful friends

Right of course, but I think ergonomics can play a part. Sure it's psychological, but I know I am in better spirits when I'm shooting with a camera that feels like an extension of my arm. If I feel better about the process, then I see clearer and can enjoy the process a little bit more. Sometimes the tools matter more than just the specs.

I don't agree with everything you said here, but I think what you're describing is exactly the spirit of this thread. Be it an FZ47 or a Canon t2i... a GH2 or an iPhone... beautiful images can be made with discarded or unassuming cameras. Some of them even have a look that is equally as interesting as old film or something very high end. I've posted these a bunch of times, but I love what the RX10ii can capture in sLog2 with Monochrome color...

Or this shot from the D5500 and an old Tokina 24-40mm zoom lens...

Now I'm not saying they're great images or anything, but I think they show that these old neglected crappy cameras can produce something interesting... good, bad or otherwise. 

Now, @kye I'm a big fan of your posts, steeped in research and a relentless pursuit of the truth, with a generous doses of suspicion of received wisdom and contempt for misapprehension and hearsay. But in this case you might be a little bit guilty of some of the things that you so rightly rail against!
I haven't read the link as I'm drinking wine on holidays in Tuscany, but surely the point being made in that document is that the difference between 2% and 90% reflectance of linear light is 5.5 stops (it's straightforward multiplication), and not that negative film has a dynamic range of 5.5 stops (slide film might, depending on the film).
No, it's not similar to film, unless you're talking about Velvia slide film, for example, which does have a very limited dynamic range because it's so contrasty. Negative film can record a lot more. Around 10 stops is probably the lowest I've seen (Ektar 100). That's the recording medium. The display medium traditionally was paper (about 7 stops) for print photography, depending on the paper, and I don't know how many stops a projector could reproduce but I'd guess that for movies the dynamic range of the negative was compressed to fit the dynamic range of the print film.
Sony's point about Rec709's dynamic range being around 5.2 stops has a lot to do with the dynamic range of a traditional CRT display. And historically this was all that was needed. Black paper and white paper in flat lighting conditions, ie: TV studio lighting. If you watch old BBC shows like Fawlty Towers and Mr. Bean you'll notice that the interior scenes, where lighting could be controlled, were shot on video, and exterior scenes (where it couldn't) were shot on film. It was all compressed for shitty old TVs. But you can still spot the difference.
Any Vision 3 film or still film based on Vision 3 technology should be ok at 5 stops over for skintones. The highlights will be a bit compressed for sure, but the skin itself when properly colour balanced should look fine. Here's Portra 400 at 5 stops over:

Anyway, these are just small points and your thesis still stands: that there's a lot to be gained from shooting with "lesser" digital video cameras.
To that I would add for you specifically Kye or anyone else reading this thread who is interested in image quality - which I define as (in order of importance) colour interpretation, stops of light reproduced and resolution - get yourself a 1990s/2000s autofocus film SLR that will accept one or more of your existing lenses and shoot some film OR any film camera. If you like pretty pictures, it leaves digital in the dust.
But yes, we are shooting on digital devices that record 10+ stops and have been for quite some time now. The average scene brightness range is 7.5 stops and if you're grading for a Rec709 display, traditionally that meant quite a bit of contrast. So if your camera A does 12 stops a camera B does 10 those 2 extra stops are in the very bright highlights and the very dark shadows. However, with an insipid Netflix drama grade where everything just looks like they shot in log but forgot to apply a lut you would definitely notice a difference. I don't think film ever looked much like that (although it could, if we had wanted it to). And we'll look back on the log look in ten years' time with the same rueful sense of aesthetic horror as we view any decade's transgressions of taste, until in another decade or two they become cool again and everyone scrambles to recreate it.
So don't throw out your first gen Sony S-Log thingy, just as I've kept my MiniDV Canon XM2 that I expect to be asked to make a music video on any day now.

Canon EOS 1n with Sigma 70-200 2.8. In truth, the camera body doesn't matter so much for image quality on film, only the lens and film stock. Aside from practical considerations of AF ability and perhaps minimum shutter speed. 
Yes but the reflectance values are a measurement of the light values in the scene, not of the film. Yes, they translate to density values on film. And they translate to RGB values in digital video. But the 2% to 98% = 5.5 stops is a characteristic of light, not of cameras.

Ah, I see what you mean now. The reason I misunderstood you is because 2% to 90% = 5.5 stops is a measure of light reflectance. It's a property of the scene and not of the recording medium. It's true no matter what camera you're using.
Ha ha! Yes, seven stops is pushing it a bit even for Portra 400. However, the image is still usable, if not optimal:

Now please don't say "I should have said eight" as I've run out of images in this series 😂

Now, @kye I'm a big fan of your posts, steeped in research and a relentless pursuit of the truth, with a generous doses of suspicion of received wisdom and contempt for misapprehension and hearsay. But in this case you might be a little bit guilty of some of the things that you so rightly rail against!
I haven't read the link as I'm drinking wine on holidays in Tuscany, but surely the point being made in that document is that the difference between 2% and 90% reflectance of linear light is 5.5 stops (it's straightforward multiplication), and not that negative film has a dynamic range of 5.5 stops (slide film might, depending on the film).
No, it's not similar to film, unless you're talking about Velvia slide film, for example, which does have a very limited dynamic range because it's so contrasty. Negative film can record a lot more. Around 10 stops is probably the lowest I've seen (Ektar 100). That's the recording medium. The display medium traditionally was paper (about 7 stops) for print photography, depending on the paper, and I don't know how many stops a projector could reproduce but I'd guess that for movies the dynamic range of the negative was compressed to fit the dynamic range of the print film.
Sony's point about Rec709's dynamic range being around 5.2 stops has a lot to do with the dynamic range of a traditional CRT display. And historically this was all that was needed. Black paper and white paper in flat lighting conditions, ie: TV studio lighting. If you watch old BBC shows like Fawlty Towers and Mr. Bean you'll notice that the interior scenes, where lighting could be controlled, were shot on video, and exterior scenes (where it couldn't) were shot on film. It was all compressed for shitty old TVs. But you can still spot the difference.
Any Vision 3 film or still film based on Vision 3 technology should be ok at 5 stops over for skintones. The highlights will be a bit compressed for sure, but the skin itself when properly colour balanced should look fine. Here's Portra 400 at 5 stops over:

Anyway, these are just small points and your thesis still stands: that there's a lot to be gained from shooting with "lesser" digital video cameras.
To that I would add for you specifically Kye or anyone else reading this thread who is interested in image quality - which I define as (in order of importance) colour interpretation, stops of light reproduced and resolution - get yourself a 1990s/2000s autofocus film SLR that will accept one or more of your existing lenses and shoot some film OR any film camera. If you like pretty pictures, it leaves digital in the dust.
But yes, we are shooting on digital devices that record 10+ stops and have been for quite some time now. The average scene brightness range is 7.5 stops and if you're grading for a Rec709 display, traditionally that meant quite a bit of contrast. So if your camera A does 12 stops a camera B does 10 those 2 extra stops are in the very bright highlights and the very dark shadows. However, with an insipid Netflix drama grade where everything just looks like they shot in log but forgot to apply a lut you would definitely notice a difference. I don't think film ever looked much like that (although it could, if we had wanted it to). And we'll look back on the log look in ten years' time with the same rueful sense of aesthetic horror as we view any decade's transgressions of taste, until in another decade or two they become cool again and everyone scrambles to recreate it.
So don't throw out your first gen Sony S-Log thingy, just as I've kept my MiniDV Canon XM2 that I expect to be asked to make a music video on any day now.