They're Taking His Kodachrome Away

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

None of this matters to me anyway because I just don't do digital. I don't do computers, flickr, photoshop, inkjets, DSLRs, RAW, battery chargers, batteries in the first place usually, or even lenses half the time. I use advanced yet simple silver-halide chemical processes to create and store high-resolution images in physical form, which I then duplicate optically directly to paper prints without ever using a transistor, in a process that used to be known as "photography".

I really just have no interest in digital cameras, except for putting things on eBay. To me they are just a way to do something that's kind of like photography without having to actually do photography. A dynamic which is extremely valued in our society of people who when not doing virtual photography can be found doing virtual sports on their virtual-reality boxes in their living rooms, or reading their e-books on their e-book paper which is now electronic, but almost as good as real paper!!!

Ah, I should have known we were talking religion and not photography.  I'm outta here.

[LAK]

Mtnbkr

It is with slide transparencies that I see the most noticeable difference.

There are no doubt exceptions, however I think the average "mini lab" quality has declined some - or rather the quality of staff and procedures. I notice CVS stores leave negative strips hanging right out in the open overnight behind the counters. I use a professional lab for personal and paying work with consistently excellent results

That said, film cameras aren't always cheap to repair.  I bought a used Nikon F100 this Winter.  It arrived with what appeared to be minor issues (rubber body cladding coming loose, flash shoe loose and not making good flash connection).  I contacted the seller and he said he'd pay for the repairs.  I contacted a repair shop.  The repairs would cost more than I paid for the camera.  Since that was more than the seller wanted to pay, I sent the camera back at his request.  On the other hand, my 30+yo OM1 needed some minor work and it only cost $100 to repair it and convert the meter to use modern batteries

I bought several OM-1 cameras (and lenses) about 7 years ago, and more recently several old Rollei 35 compacts. I was very picky about their condition and paid good money for a couple of them, and they have not needed any servicing at all so far. However I do take very good care of them.

[mtnbkr]

I bought several OM-1 cameras (and lenses) about 7 years ago, and more recently several old Rollei 35 compacts. I was very picky about their condition and paid good money for a couple of them, and they have not needed any servicing at all so far. However I do take very good care of them.

Mine worked perfectly for the first few years I owned it, but the film advance began to slip a bit now and then.  Apparently it's a common problem with the OM1 as the film advance has some sort of clutch that is a wear item.  I could continue to use it by giving the advance a partial stroke when it didn't quite advance all the way.  The $100 I spent on it was to repair that problem, give it a general CLA, replace the foam seals, and convert the meter to use alkaline batteries.  I still have and use that camera.  It stays, loaded with Tri-X 400, in the case with my digital SLR.

Chris

[zahc]

I really like the OM cameras. I have an OM2n. It blows my mind that Olympus had TTL flash in the '70s. Sometimes I wonder how N and C got so big.

[mtnbkr]

My understanding is the N & C cameras were more durable.  Apparently pros can dish out a beating and the OM gear just couldn't handle it.  That's of no consequence for amateurs.  I don't baby my gear and my OM1 has held up just fine. 

Chris

[LAK]

OM-1N has a redesigned film advance.

It may have more to due with systems and lenses of N & C than durability. When Nikon came out with the F in the late 50's it sold incredibly well and Canon was probably making better rangefinders than SLRs until the F1. During the 60s Olympus was turning out compact range/viewfinder compacts, and breaking ground with subcompacts like the Pen series half frames.

[mtnbkr]

The article I read specifically cited durability in the hands of "pros".  As far as lenses and systems, Olympus wasn't missing anything critical in its lineup, but it didn't offer anything other than size either.

As an aside, a local Ritz camera had a NIB Oly Zuiko 180mm f2.8 for about $400ish up until they closed recently.  It sat in the store for years.  For a NIB zuiko 180, it was a good price, but I didn't *need* a 180mm lens bad enough to buy it.  Kind of wish I had because good used ones go for nearly that price.  Beautiful hunk of glass...

Chris

[LAK]

Sheesh, that is a good price; could have turned a fast few bucks on that one. The only prime lenses I use now are in the 50mm and shorter focal length; I have a Zuiko f3.5-4.5 35-105mm and a Kiron (Kino) f3.5 70-210 macro for "everything else". Just the wear and tear on a $1000+ lens would worry me. Dropping one would really hurt.

[don]

Yeah, buying the best you can afford made sense when you were buying a camera that you could reasonably expect to use for a decade or three.  Ken Rockwell makes a very good point frequently in his writings about not buying more camera than you can effectively use for this very reason.  He was one of the main influences behind me buying a D40 (that and the incredible 1/500 flash sync that isn't available on any other Nikon).  I do not expect to keep my D40 for more than 4-6 years, at which point it'll either be worn out or I'll "need" something better. 

When I bought my N80 in 2004, I bought the best camera I could afford and bought good glass for it as well (50 F1.8, 24 f.28, and 70-210 F4.5-5.6).  Nikon abandoned users like myself by making a move towards motorized lenses for many of their camera.  My film lenses would not work with their newest cameras.  They would work with the older digital SLRs and their pro-level gear, but I wanted a new camera and didn't have the funds for a pro level rig.  With the difference in price, I could buy good lenses for a D40, so it didn't make economic sense.

That said, film cameras aren't always cheap to repair.  I bought a used Nikon F100 this Winter.  It arrived with what appeared to be minor issues (rubber body cladding coming loose, flash shoe loose and not making good flash connection).  I contacted the seller and he said he'd pay for the repairs.  I contacted a repair shop.  The repairs would cost more than I paid for the camera.  Since that was more than the seller wanted to pay, I sent the camera back at his request.  On the other hand, my 30+yo OM1 needed some minor work and it only cost $100 to repair it and convert the meter to use modern batteries. 

I don't think it's the digital image itself.  As I pointed out earlier, all minilab prints are printed the same way whether they are film or digital.  Film is scanned and printed just like a digital image (light beamed onto photo sensitive paper, ie lightjet).  I believe what makes many digital images *look* different is excessive post exposure processing.  Everyone likes to play with Photoshop till the image looks artificial.  My digital pics taken with my D40 look just like the film pics I took with my N80.  I do no post exposure processing, I merely set the camera to give a very slightly warm white balance, underexpose by .3 stop, and when using flash also reduce flash output by .3 stops.  I used similar settings with my film based N80 (except the white balance, I achieved that with film selection).  I also use bounced flash whenever possible.  I make NO adjustments to the image once they are created inside the camera.  What I download is what gets printed.  The results are images that look much the same to my eyes and what I remember shooting. 

Chris

Chris, if you paid $100 to get your OM-1 cameras converted to modern batteries and minor work, you did not get a good deal. The battery conversion is simple as is shutter speed and light meter adjustments. To tighten the flash shoe on the F100 should be a simple matter also as would be reglueing the body cover. If the technician had to pull the mirror cage or replace the meter then such a charge could be justified. How do I know these things? 25+ years as a camera repairman who has repaired many OM-1 cameras. Hint: deal with the camera repair people youself. Camera stores typically add on 50-100% of the repair cost to the retail charge.

[mtnbkr]

Well Don, you're not here and the price I paid to have the work done on my OM-1 is the going rate everywhere else.  I said "minor work" because it was a minor issue that caused me to send it in, but that $100 was for a full overhaul (http://www.zuiko.com/index_015.htm) that included my needed repair, the battery conversion and a whole host of other services.

As for the F100, this was a camera I just bought and I wasn't about to risk my ability to return it, so I took the two quotes I got for the repairs, send them to the seller, and let him make the call. 

In both of these cases, I was talking to the repair shops myself.  I don't recall who I called for the F100, they were on Nikon's list of authorized repair facilities.  I used Camtech (http://www.zuiko.com/) for the Olympus.  Maybe you'd do it cheaper, but he's well known and respected in OM circles for keeping these fine old cameras working.

Chris

[zahc]

zuiko.com has a great reputation for working on OM's. $100 is the basic charge for any camera repair nowadays it seems. In the case of OM cameras it's worth it. I love my OM2n and would gladly pay $100 if I needed to, but it's still in tip-top shape. Heck, I bought the camera with lens for like $60.

Nobody is making these old cameras anymore and it's quite a shame. There's just no way to buy a new camera like them. The thing that strikes me about old manual-focus cameras is the viewfinders. They are giant, it's like looking out a window. Furthermore the magnification often matches the normal lenses for the camera so that the image in the viewfinder is exactly life-size and you can open both eyes very comfortably and it's almost like looking through a rangefinder. Even my F4's viewfinder is dinky in comparison, despite being a pro body. I guess they figure you don't need a big viewfinder in an autofocus camera, but since the magnification through a 50mm lens doesn't match the real world, it really messes with my style.

[mtnbkr]

Zahc, Cosina/Voigtlander is making some nice rangefinders and even SLRs.  Of course, there's always Leica, but you can buy a fleet of Voigtlanders for the price of a single Leica.

www.cameraquest.com

Chris

[melllyn]

Well, now, since APS is just chock full of camera experts, let me ask...I have a Digital Canon Rebel SLR that has begun producing sloppier results when taking action shots (everything seems to have a haze).  I'm thinking it needs a "tune up" ...maybe just needs some interior cleaning done.  The one place I called (Wolff's) wanted some astronimical fee.  Anyone here have any suggestions?  (Please don't suggest I do it myself.  It's all I can do to operate a can of air to clean my keyboard now and again!)

:) 

[mtnbkr]

I'd check to see if Canon has a cleaning service or a list of authorized repair facilities.

Chris

[Harold Tuttle]

I used to have my canon dSLR tweaked & cleaned once a year at Natty Geos Photo Conference

It sounds like your IS is malfunctioning

Does your lens have an IS on/off switch?

[don]

Hmm...I am gonna have to increase my charges ..like about 100%. The OM-1,2,3and 4 were /are good cameras and worth keeping. Where Olympus screwed up was with the OM10, OMG and the lesser quality cameras. Olympus optics are very good. Of the Olympus cameras, The OM-1 would be my choice, but that is just my opinion and taste. I really haven't had much experience with the 3 and 4. The biggest problem I have seen with the OM-1 is the prism gets damaged from deteriorated foam that is used to cushion the prism. It damages the prism or more precisely the coating on the prism. Yes the battery conversion is necessary but that is simply inserting a germanium diode into the electronics. There are battery substitutes but they don't last long.

[zahc]

By the way, does anyone want to buy a near-mint Nikon F4? One of the best cameras ever made, but I bought it for my wife not knowing how heavy it would be. It's headed for ebay; I think she needs something lighter.