|
|
35mm CamerasI've been through a number of different 35mm camera systems. I am happy with the Bronica because it serves my needs and doesn't get in the way, but I put more demands on 35mm cameras, which I carry around with me much more than the Bronica and which are frequently used for quick snaps or action photos. I divide 35mm SLRs into two main categories, autofocus and manual focus. I don't believe that one manual focus 35mm SLR is that different from any other, and if you're happy with one, you'll probably be happy with any of them. But autofocus SLRs are altogether different animals. If you have an autofocus SLR, it means that you value speed or convenience, since autofocus SLRs are, in fact, auto-everything SLRs. In addition to focusing, they will set the film speed for you, advance to the first frame, eat a roll at 2-10 frames per second, set the aperture and/or shutter speed automatically, rewind the film when it reaches the end, and control a dedicated flash. And since the camera is doing all this for you, you want a camera that will do it the way you want, not the way the camera wants. You don't want the camera to get in the way. Choosing an autofocus camera is much different from chosing a manual focus camera. Ancient History, 1992 to 1994The first camera that I bought for myself was a Minolta SPxi. Those of you who are familiar with the Minolta line of autofocus SLRs know that the SPxi was a very limited camera. Unfortunately, I was pretty new to photography at the time, and didn't know what I was missing. When I started to notice, I bought a 5xi, then I finally bought a 9xi. The Minolta 9xi was a wonderful camera, but it was big and heavy, and it had so much automation that I felt that the camera was taking the pictures and I was just along for the ride. In retrospect, if I'd known more about photography, I probably would have appreciated the 9xi more, but as it was, I felt like I was playing second fiddle. Olympus, 1994 to 1998In a revolt against automation, I sold all the Minolta stuff and bought an Olympus OM-4T and three lenses, a 28/2, a 50/1.4, and a 100/2. I remember being very excited by having to set the film speed myself and having to rip the end off the film box and stick it in the camera back in order remember what film I had loaded. The OM-4T is like the Leica M6 in that it is a camera that feels a lot better in your hands than it looks on paper. Its spec isn't amazing, but it has a few features that set it apart from the crowd. First, it uses off the film metering. In auto (aperture-priority) mode, instead of setting a shutter speed at the moment the picture is taken, the metering system monitors the amount of light hitting the film during the exposure, and terminates the exposure when it judges that the film has been properly exposed. It will hold the shutter open for up to 4 minutes, whereas most other cameras max out at 30 seconds or so. Second, it has a sophisticated multi-spot metering system that displays up to 8 spot meter readings on a bar graph and selects an exposure by averaging them together, or alternately, you can base the exposure on the darkest or brightest reading in order to retain shadow or highlight detail. The OM-4T is a tiny and lightweight, but solid, camera and is a pleasure to use. Contax, 1998After a few years with the Olympus, I started to want something a little faster. I like the Olympus, but I wanted something that had a motor drive and that could set the film speed automatically. So I sold the Olympus equipment and bought a Contax RX with a 25/2.8, a 50/1.4, and a 135/2.8. The Contax is an extremely manly camera. It exudes quality. The Zeiss lenses were first-rate and all had a wonderful feel to them. But something was wrong. The Contax felt too big! It was maybe 50% larger and heavier than the Olympus, which doesn't sound like much, but I felt it. I missed the multi-spot metering of the Olympus. And it still wasn't fast enough. Canon EOS, 1998 to PresentI reluctantly concluded that the time had come to re-invest in autofocus equipment. I figured that if I was going to buy a new AF kit, I may as well get the best that there was, so I bought a Canon EOS-1N and a 28-70/2.8 L lens. I only have this one lens, and it does most everything that I need. (I have rented a 70-200/2.8 L on occasion, but I don't want one enough to blow over a thousand bucks on it.) There are those who will argue that Nikon or Pentax or Minolta make better cameras, but Nikon, the closet of the three to Canon, has only recently started utilizing ring motors in their autofocus lenses, 10 years behind Canon and even behind independent lens manufacturer Sigma, and Nikon doesn't have anything to compare to Canon's 17-35/2.8 lens, or Canon's 50/1.0 lens, or Canon's image stabilization technology. The Nikon F5 and the new Silent Wave lenses are awfully impressive, and if Nikon had offered a complete range of Silent Wave lenses nine months ago, I probably would have gone with Nikon, but c'est la vie. In any case, at this level, all the cameras are awfully good. I don't claim that my Canon will take a better picture than the better Nikon, Pentax, or even Minolta models. I said before that AF cameras are largely a matter of taste, and the Canon works well for me. I also bought an EOS 650 as a backup body. The 650 is a screaming bargain and should be seriously considered by anyone looking to get into the EOS line or who just wants a good backup body. The 650 was the first EOS body, and has a pretty professional spec. Aside from a PC socket (get a hotshoe adapter), there's nothing that a pro would miss. However, a used 650 only costs about $200, about as much as a used 500N (Rebel S in the States)! Unlike the 500N and the 50E (Elan IIE), and even the new EOS 3, the 650 uses a normal sprocket to count frames, so it won't fog infrared film. If you have one of those bodies and want to shoot infrared, the 650 may be your ticket. Olympus, 1999 to PresentUnfortunately, a problem common to all Canon EOS cameras is that they're all on the large size. The EOS-1N is a pretty big, hefty camera, and even the 650 is on the porky side. Since I still wanted a small camera, I sold off the Contax stuff and repurchased my Olympus gear, only now I have an OM-4Ti (instead of a -4T) and my lenses are the 24/2, 50/2 macro, and 100/2. So the short of it is that I have two 35mm SLR systems, Canon EOS for when speed is a necessity, and Olympus OM for when I just want to shoot casually. MiscellaneousFinally, I have a Yashica T4 Super that I use for snaps. If you're a halfway serious photographer but don't have a point and shoot, hurry up and get one! You'll be able to carry it places where you wouldn't want to lug your SLR (e.g., to a black tie party), and you might just shoot some pictures that you would have never gotten otherwise. AddendumCanon has recently introduced the new EOS Rebel 2000 (also called the EOS 300 in Europe). For a budget camera ($259 at B&H), this camera has a really impressive spec. It has 7 focusing points (two more than my EOS 1N), full manual control, a depth of field preview button, and a mess of other features that aren't normally found on budget SLRs. It does everything that the EOS 650 does, only better. My only real gripes with it are that it has a plastic lens mount and that it uses Canon's annoying infrared-film-fogging optical frame counter. Except for those complaints, which are pretty minor, I think that the Rebel 2000/EOS 300 would make a great backup camera to a EOS 1N or 3. All contents copyright 1999 by Willis BoyceLast updated November 19, 2001 |