Everyone is a photographer these days, but using old manual cameras is another thing

It’s July 2010, and 35mm cameras are everywhere you look, owned by almost anyone who earns a living and can shell out a hundred quid or more. Even SLRs are bought by some as a “first camera” and consequently used as a glorified point and shoot until 18 months later when its sold for the latest digital model by its owner in the misguided belief that consequently shelling out on the latest and greatest DSLR will make him a better photographer – poor old camera never gets to do 80% of what it’s capable of.

I can confess to never being one of these individuals and I am proud to be able to say so. My Dad bought me my first SLR because I actually wanted to be a photographer as young as age 10 or 11. He bought me an Olympus OM10 when I was about 14, after I’d mucked about with one of his older cameras for a year or two, and when I was 15, when my friends were doing work experience at fast food restaurant, I was doing mine at a professional photography studio in my home town.

Olympus OM10

Anyway, I used the OM10 camera along with its manual focus 50mm kit lens for years, and well beyond the introduction of digital. I’ve taken some great photos with it and I have many albums littered with prints produced by it.  In fact, I used it until 2005 when I replaced it with another film camera of the Nikon brand – the Nikon F65. I’d always wanted a Nikon but never had the money to do so until around 2005, and the digital revolution meant such cameras were much more affordable.  I soon sold that though and upgraded to the Nikon F80 – another superb Nikon film camera.

Then, in 2006, I thought I’d try digital. So I bought yet another second hand Nikon – the 6Mp D70s with kit lens (image here is the D70). I still own it and use it today four years later (though I sold the kit lens). In fact, it was using that camera (which was a serious and expensive camera when it was released in 2005ish), which many wannabe photographer today would try to say is a redundant old thing, that I got my first World Wildlife Fund published photograph. One of my prouder moments, for sure.

The D70s is a great camera in many ways – it’s fast and it boots up in a fraction of a second – ideal for quick reaction type photography. It’s light and I’ve “gone round the clock” with it and it still carries on shooting well. It doesn’t have one of these daft video screens either – why does a stills photographer give a hoot about video footage? Why pay for that feature? The more modern DSLRs offer me little over and above my D70s other than extra megapixels that I really don’t need unless I become a famouse gallery exhibitor. The reality is that unless you are a serious sports photographer, journalist or some such, you really don’t need much more thatn cameras like the D70s offer. Regardless of that, there is always a market for bigger and better cameras, and they will always sell to Mr. Joe Average because he knows no better and to many serious amateurs. Professionals, I find, use the most inexpensive kit they can get their hands on because profit is everything and they can use an £80 camera probably much better than a baboon can use a Nikon D3s.

In 2008, rather than ‘upgrading’ to a better DSLR, I sold my F80 and bought what is arguably the best 35mm film camera every made – the Nikon F5. Why? Because I adore film, and I was bored with spending ages processing my digital files from my D70s. I still use the D70s, but not generally for professional work – I use it for charity work where profit is everything, test shoots etc. It’s my F5 that is my work horse though – I use it for my dog photography as well as weddings and portrait work – it’s an animal of a camera offering blistering fast autofocus that will tear up cheap lenses and 8fps! 8fps, on a film camera!? That’s good, and expensive in the wrong hands! 

Now, don’t get me wrong – if a crack addict stole all my gear, he’d not get too much for my camera’s of course, but he would for my lenses. I have spent a fair measure on glass in my time, and intend to do so again in the future – it’s the only area of photography that I feel true investment is required – I don’t give a hoot what camera I use. To me, there are two main factors that make a good image (asides from the skills of the photographer, of course!) – the choice of film, and the quality of the glass. Stick to that, and your photography will always be good as long as you invest time to learn what you are doing with regard to exposure, tonal range etc – something that many (not all) digital shooters these days seem reluctant to want to do.

Which brings me to my point. Some years ago, my Uncle died. He was a keen photographer back in the 1960′s and 70′s. My aunt gave me his old camera equipment. One such item was the Minolta SR-3 , but he also had a Minolta SR-T 101. Now, these are old, manual (in every way) cameras. The SR-3 doesn’t have a light meter built in, no autofocus, no auto-wind or rewind – Christ, it doesn’t even use a battery! So why, 40 years after this camera model was made am I even thinking about using it? Because it has a Minolta Rokkor f1.4 50mm lens (and it’s just plain fun to do things that most people don’t!). These lenses are famed for their brilliance – sharp corner to corner even wide open – they were made in a photographic era when things were not made cheaply for commercial mass production.

So I gave it a whirl with a roll of Fuji Superia 200 – a fairly standard domestic film. I just blasted through it, casually, in my lounge with the intention of taking the roll to ASDA for a quick consumer level development. I just want to see how the camera worked really and whether these claims of lens sharpness were true.

I have to say, the camera feels very heavy, and it’s not ergonomic on the hand – I had a few painful dints in my right hand as a result of holding it constantly for 10 minutes. It’s like a tank! The focus ring was stiffer in some sequences than others which made focussing trickier than it should be and so by the end I was thinking it was not for me and certainly it was not suitable for my kind of work, which usually requires quick focus and reactions.

Regardless, I took the roll to ASDA using their 1 hour service. Below is a scan of a 7×5″ print from that roll. I was really quite impressed, considering the light was barely enough to get 1/30 sec shutter speed, but that considered, it’s come out OK. Good enough for me to think about giving the camera another try with something a bit more serious, but steady – a landscape scene perhaps using my tripod mount.

So my point is that all these years after such a camera was made, and with modern cameras like the Nikon D3s being top end market products with a price to boot, in the right hands, any camera can do well, and any camera can do bad. The Nikon D3s in the hands of someone who doesn’t care or who does not have an eye for their photos is probably not likely to generate results any better than the results you see in the scan below. (PS – I still own my Olympus OM10, and probably always will!)

Photo produced by Minolta SR-3