From: Photo.net
Whether the era of the camera affects the quality
Hello,
I was wondering whether the era the camera is from affects the quality of the image. It seems to me that the only thing which affects the quality is the film, how it's processed and the lenses, whereas the camera only moves the shutter and rolls the film, which two mechanical functions any camera seem to either do or not do. So if the camera has say 1/1000 shutter speed, then not matter how cheap or old it is, it will do it the same way (unless it is broken), and the quality of the image therefore will be the same. The same applies, moreover to simply rolling the film (switching the exposure), which is the same in all cameras be they 10 or 100 000 dollars (unless broken). That is, I cannot see, how a camera which is more expensive or newer will open the shutter at a given speed "better" than any other camera: it either does it or it does not. So it seems to me (but maybe I am wrong), that the only things which affect the quality are the film, processing and lenses, whereas merely opening the shutter and rolling the film would be identical in any working camera.
So the first part of the question is
a) Is there any way the camera may affect the quality of the image (excluding the lenses)?
b) Since I only use old film cameras (both high and low end), from the 1930's to the 1970's, does that mean that if I will buy an expensive camera made in 2010, the quality will improve
? Or will it be no different from buying only a modern expensive lens, and mounting it upon some old but good 1960s camera?
c) I also have a very old Kodak camera from the 1900s, which uses something between large and medium format (I was told that some available film could be cut to fit it). If I will use it, will my pictures look like they are from the 1900's, or will they look absolutely modern, because the film is modern? Will the era of this camera have any affect upon the quality?
I was wondering whether the era the camera is from affects the quality of the image. It seems to me that the only thing which affects the quality is the film, how it's processed and the lenses, whereas the camera only moves the shutter and rolls the film, which two mechanical functions any camera seem to either do or not do. So if the camera has say 1/1000 shutter speed, then not matter how cheap or old it is, it will do it the same way (unless it is broken), and the quality of the image therefore will be the same. The same applies, moreover to simply rolling the film (switching the exposure), which is the same in all cameras be they 10 or 100 000 dollars (unless broken). That is, I cannot see, how a camera which is more expensive or newer will open the shutter at a given speed "better" than any other camera: it either does it or it does not. So it seems to me (but maybe I am wrong), that the only things which affect the quality are the film, processing and lenses, whereas merely opening the shutter and rolling the film would be identical in any working camera.
So the first part of the question is
a) Is there any way the camera may affect the quality of the image (excluding the lenses)?
b) Since I only use old film cameras (both high and low end), from the 1930's to the 1970's, does that mean that if I will buy an expensive camera made in 2010, the quality will improve
? Or will it be no different from buying only a modern expensive lens, and mounting it upon some old but good 1960s camera?c) I also have a very old Kodak camera from the 1900s, which uses something between large and medium format (I was told that some available film could be cut to fit it). If I will use it, will my pictures look like they are from the 1900's, or will they look absolutely modern, because the film is modern? Will the era of this camera have any affect upon the quality?
Thanks!
Responses
JDM von Weinberg May 30, 2014; 05:46 p.m.
General answer: No.
More specific discussion. Such things as accuracy of lens to film plane distance and nature of pressure plate can also affect the image recorded on the film.
Only using old lenses with uncorrected flaws, lack of coatings (flare), and general design inadequacies (such as vignetting, CA, etc.) can create an "old look" and they will do what they can in that regard on any accurately built body, film or digital.
More specific discussion. Such things as accuracy of lens to film plane distance and nature of pressure plate can also affect the image recorded on the film.
Only using old lenses with uncorrected flaws, lack of coatings (flare), and general design
inadequacies (such as vignetting, CA, etc.) can create an "old look" and they will do what they can in that regard on any accurately built body, film or digital.
Old films are also a part of the "old picture" look, of course. If you're serious about that, you need to 'roll your own' with antique-era chemicals, emulsions, and so on. Friends here are doing wet-plate photography, for example. I'm told there are less poisonous ways of doing daguerreotypes, too.
. If you're serious about that, you need to 'roll your own' with antique-era chemicals, emulsions, and so on. Friends here are doing wet-plate photography, for example. I'm told there are less poisonous ways of doing daguerreotypes, too.
John, There are various breeds of 1/1000th second You may know the efect that FP shutters render a spinning "line" like spokes or a propeller as "banana". The higher the X synch speed of a FP shutter the better the 1/1000sec. - test shots could be done with Pentacon six (1/25 X) vs later Nikon 1/250 X.
Since I mentioned Pentacon already I would add that some mid price range older equipment is known for film winding issues. "Rollex Patent" roll holders too.
IMHO the era of a camera might have some impact on the functionality of its focusing aid. Its much easier to focus a contemporary Hasselblad with its extra bright screen in a dim jazz club than a vintage one. I can't focus the corners of my ground glass behind a Super Angulon WA lens at domestic lighting on "office" level.
b) Depends. A vintage Leica M body with beam divider in good shape should take stunning pictures with a modern lens. A similar vintage SLR might be too dim to focus. - OTOH I consider the older dim ground glass variants easier to handle in broad daylight than latest AF SLR's.
Maybe later film bodies offer better built in metering too. - Switching from spot to integral metering or even Matrix mode might help. - This doesn't mean it beats handheld meters and I can slam my Lunapro with the TTL metering sensor in a dedicated holder into any LF camera taking contemporary film holders.
c) in the 1900s they usually had no panchromatic film, ortho was quite a luxury. - If you filter everything besides UV & blue out you should get close to the old look.
Since I mentioned Pentacon already I would add that some mid price range older equipment is known for film winding issues. "Rollex Patent" roll holders too.
IMHO the era of a camera might have some impact on the functionality of its focusing aid. Its much easier
to focus a contemporary Hasselblad with its extra bright screen in a dim jazz club than a vintage one. I can't focus the corners of my ground glass behind a Super Angulon WA lens at domestic lighting on "office" level.b) Depends. A vintage Leica M body with beam divider in good shape should take stunning pictures with a modern lens. A similar vintage SLR might be too dim to focus. - OTOH I consider the older dim ground glass variants easier to handle in broad daylight than latest AF SLR's.
Maybe later film bodies offer better built in metering too. - Switching from spot to integral metering or even Matrix mode might help. - This doesn't mean it beats handheld meters and I can slam my Lunapro with the TTL metering sensor in a dedicated holder into any LF camera taking contemporary film holders.
c) in the 1900s they usually had no panchromatic film, ortho was quite a luxury. - If you filter everything besides UV & blue out you should get close to the old look.
Stephen Lewis May 30, 2014; 07:49 p.m.
A - Some bodies had unique methods of ensuring the film was flat, like one Contax model which used a vacuum to flatten the film; or in some cases, slightly curved to match the curvature of the image from the lens. Also, the issue of shutter speed is an interesting one...what is critical is that the shutter consistently operate within certain tolerances at each speed. Often more costly cameras had tighter manufacturing tolerances and used higher quality mechanisms, sometimes employing different metals,, so that you ended up with consistency within the manufacturer's tolerance for longer periods of time, hence required less frequent repairs.
B - Some 2010 era film cameras, notably Leicas, had improvements from previous years, which will probably in the long run improve durability. The rangefinder/viewfinder on a certain model had reduced flair from the previous model. Will that have any affect on your photos - no.
from previous years, which will probably in the long run improve durability. The rangefinder/viewfinder on a certain model had reduced flair from the previous model. Will that have any affect on your photos - no.
C. Films from the early 1900s, as stated above were generally orthochromatic, and also had different grain characteristics. Generally you can do a pretty good job, especially if you are adept in the darkroom or at using digital tools, at achieving a look similar to that produced in earlier times.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
