On 10 May, 22:43, "Eatmorepies" <xyztn... DeleteThis @lineone.net> wrote:
> "Seán O'Leathlóbhair" <jwlaw... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178718286.282696.198540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> My standard camera is a 300D for which I have a number of accessories:
> various lenses, 580EX flash, spare battery, remote release, etc.
>
> I have an old Canon T70 which I use occasionally to shoot 35mm.
> Unfortunately, although also a Canon, it is too old to share anything
> except the tripod with the 300D.
>
> I have just been offered a EOS 600 by a friend (for the attractive
> price of £0 = $0). I believe that I can share lenses with it but what
> about other things such as the flash, batteries etc.
>
> I've got a 600 and it was a terrific bit of kit in 1988/9. But since going
> digital (350D and 30D) I've not shot a single film. Run a couple of B&W
> films through it for fun but spend your money on ink and inkjet paper - or a
> newer DSLR. Or better yet, spend your money on an L lens or two. I don't
> know the current price of a battery for it but I used to pay about £7 to £9.
> The cost of running a DSLR is much lower than the cost of running a film
> camera - and the quality is better.
>
> You can use EF lenses but not EFS ones on the EOS600. The flash for a 300D
> will work on the 600 but I don't know if you will have full auto exposure or
> if you will have to use manual flash - you have to use manual flash if you
> want to use an old flash on a DSLR. Best to have a bit of fun with the 600
> and then put it on the shelf. You are buying it at the right price.
>
> Regards
>
> John
Thanks for the comments.
Why am I bothering with 35mm? That's an interesting question. The
primary reason is that a friend wants to do it so I am keeping him
company. It is not costing much: I have my own old T70 and this free
600, we shoot black and white, process at home, scan, and proceed
digitally. The cost is not much for a bit of fun.
Oddly it is the same friend that got me back into serious photography
by selling me the 300D and several lenses for a very good price when
he upgraded (now he has a 5D and a 30D). He came to serious
photography in the digital days. What is now my 300D was his first
serious camera. Oddly, he has acquired this interest in retro
photography later. The hobby is costing him more, he bought a second
hand 1N and the developing kit to do it. By unfortunate coincidence,
I had just cleared out the attic and given my old developing gear to
another friend interested in home developing.
Does film have an advantage over digital? I don't want to reopen an
old debate, just add my own feelings in this context. Just a few
months ago, I would have guessed that film still had the edge in
quality, at least over oldish kit such as my 300D. I remember getting
very nice results from my 35mm SLR as a kid. However, I started to
read up on the subject and I scanned some old negatives and I realised
that it only seemed that the old 35mm was good. My standards had
changed and those old negatives did not compare well to the results
from the 300D. These days, I routinely examine photos in PhotoShop
with View Actual Pixels which is almost poster size. Few of my old
35mm shots were ever printed that large. Long ago, I shot a lot of
slide and these looked good when projected on a large screen (or so I
thought at the time). I need to recover these slides from my parents'
house and see how good they look today. I no longer have any
expectation of better quality from 35mm. This is just for fun.
The experience has awakened me to the artistic possibilities of black
and white. The 300D does not have a B&W mode but, of course, I can
post process to B&W. In fact, even if it did have a B&W mode, I would
not use it so that I could play with colour before conversion.
Nonetheless, the B&W from 35mm has a distinctly different quality to
the B&W from the 300D. The grain of the 35mm actually suits some
shots. It is hard to explain objectively but a few of my recent 35mm
shots have captured an atmosphere that I failed to get with the
300D.
So my options are:
1. Forget 35mm - let the friend continue by himself.
2. Use my old T70.
Pro It is still running on its 20 year old battery.
Con It only has the one lens: 50mm f/1.4.
Con It can't share lenses with the 300D.
Pro The one lens that it does have suits the only type of photos
that I find nice in 35mm. People shots, typically one person using
available light even when that is quite low. The f/1.4 is nice and
bright for the available light shots and has good bokeh potential. It
could be just the greater bokeh of the f/1.4 on the larger format that
I like about the T70 over the 300D.
Con Manual focus (but with the bright lens, nice viewfinder, and
mostly stationary subjects, this is not serious).
Con Manual flash (but I would not expect to use flash with 35mm
anyway)
Con The T70 has a miscalibrated meter. See my other recent posts
if you are interested.
3. Use the 600
Pro Can share most lenses with the 300D. It cannot take the 18-55
but due to the larger format, the 28-135 goes just as wide.
Con My brightest suitable lens is a 50mm f/1.8 so not quite as
bright and has not quite as much bokeh potential. (Of course, I have
the 50mm f/1.8 rather than the 50mm f/1.4 since it is such good
value).
Pro I have a reasonable expectation that the 600 works well. It did
when its former owner last used it a few years ago.
Con The battery is liable to be expensive. I wonder how long it
lasts. I guess that it has to do more work than the T70 since it is
driving AF lenses and the T70 is not.
Despite the free 600, I am now tending towards the T70 until my friend
gets bored with 35mm and then putting both 35mm bodies in the attic.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
>> Stay informed about: Canon 300D and EOS 600 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
