I spend too much time messing with old cameras and people wonder why. This is a fair question. I’ll start by saying that I don’t think any normal film camera is “better” than even a cheap modern cell phone camera today. The convenience, focus, and versatility of modern cameras is unmatched by anything that existed 20 years ago. Certain film cameras may be superior in narrow aspects but are broadly inferior in all but the most extreme examples. In many ways though, which camera is better misses the point. The real question is, which camera results in the best photo? Someone looking at a photograph doesn’t care what camera was used, they care how the photo looks and how it makes them feel. Just because a cell phone may be a better technical device at converting light into a wall print, doesn’t mean it will achieve the best print in the end.
This might be one of the most obvious reasons to use an old camera. Many people enjoy the nostalgic look that comes from old cameras. I am still wowed by the photos taken by Robert Capa in the 1940s or by Ansel Adams throughout his career. As I work to develop my own style, I have borrowed elements from other photographers that came before me. Part of their looks came from the technology they used. I could try to replicate this look using modern technology or just use the same still functional equipment they had available.
I would love to take all my photos with a Hasselblad 907X with 100C. Unfortunately, I don’t have $8,200 sitting around and burning a hole in my wallet. By comparison, my large format 4x5 camera costs ~$600 with a lens. Yes, film and chemicals aren’t free. I’ll let the reader do the math to see how many photos I can take before the costs are equal. If I want the experience of shooting larger formats such as medium format or large format, film is the only affordable way for me to do so.
In addition, I never want to call a camera an “investment.” Cameras aren’t investments, they are tools at best and toys at worst. However, film cameras hold value better than digital cameras. Film cameras have already depreciated unlike new digital cameras. All of this is on top of the fact that film cameras are generally cheap. A camera can’t lose much more than 100% of its value unless it takes out a roll of film on the way to the bin. A 50 year old Minolta for $75 that gets dropped on the floor and broken into dust is the equivalent loss of a 2% price drop on a $3600 Nikon Z8 or <1% drop on a Hasselblad 100C package.
The film cameras that are expensive today were made with exceptional quality. A Leica M3 is expensive but made from solid metal with excellent craftmanship. Meanwhile, my Nikon is made out of plastic in Thailand. The Nikon Z Fc feels like it was made out of recycled water bottles, probably because it was. Which of these cameras is likely to still hold value in 50 years?
Old cameras are slow and the older they are, the slower they tend to be. Go back a few years and cameras didn’t have subject detect autofocus, go back a bit further and they didn’t have any autofocus, go back further yet and they had no light meters. Fancier cameras and better photographers would be faster than others, but nothing is as fast for the average person today as a cell phone.
Speed can be good or bad. In the right hands, a faster system is a good thing. A skilled street photographer such as Henri Cartier-Bresson would purposely use a fast system (at the time) such as a Leica. For most people, myself included, speed can be a detriment. Unlike famous street photographers, I don’t benefit from speed in all situations. In most common scenarios, the ease of taking a snapshot normally results in a subpar image. It is too easy to see something, snap a photo, and move on. No thought is applied in the taking of the photo.
Using a cumbersome camera forces me to stay in one place and experience that location. It forces me to look around and maybe spot a slightly better angle. Plus, once that first moment of rushing from place to place has passed, it is easier to slow down and really enjoy a scene. A worse camera can take a better photo in this instance.
This works better for landscapes and still subjects. Fast cameras are still better for fighter jets and street photos.
Never underestimate the benefits of having fun on the quality of your work. Does anyone have a huge desire to go seek out a cool new spot, sit there, and enjoy the scene with their cell phone? You might, I don’t. My Nikon has the same problem. I think it is one of the best photo making tools ever made, but it doesn’t inspire me to try new things sometimes. At the end of the day, photography should be fun. (Remember, not my day job)
An old film camera inspires creativity and excitement. The funny side result of this is that I have woken up at 3am to photograph something with an old film camera only to find I liked the digital version better. This is fine. The old camera still served its purpose; it got me to the scene in the first place.
This is a tricky aspect of photography. There has been substantial concern recently about fake and manipulated images. I wish I could say that film photos couldn’t be manipulated. This is not true. Most photographers that shoot film will have their images scanned and printed with a digital printer. This is exactly how I process my color images. Once a film image is scanned, it can be digitally altered like any other image.
The honesty of film is mainly for the benefit of the photographer. I have always liked slide film. Slide film, unlike negatives, provide an exact analog copy of your photo. The enlarged and printed version should look 100% like that positive slide.
Older cameras are far simpler than new cameras. At first, this can seem counter intuitive. The bare minimum for taking a photo is setting the aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Negative film never really required a light meter and good photographers could estimate. This meant that good photographers could set their exposure, then just focus on taking good photos. There is nothing else to worry about on an older camera. Choose your film, put it in the camera, and take some photos.
Compare this to a modern digital camera with menus, submenus, and auxiliary menus. New cameras have so many features to make life easier, but often these features get in the way. Before leaving the house consider which focus settings to use, what white balance settings, what photo profile, maybe even what camera firmware is installed. Don’t forget to charge the battery and clear the sd card (and don’t forget it at home). Once on scene, it is just as bad, should we use focus shift, image stacking, maybe make a panorama.
Now it seems like I am contradicting the Speed section. Before going slow was good, now I’m complaining that digital cameras are too complicated and slow. I will argue that there is an important difference between slowing down for a manual camera and slowing down for a digital camera. Digital cameras suck you into the menus and settings. Film cameras require more time examining the scene. Examining the scene to achieve a perfect focus will help with composition, looking at the menu will not help.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience.