My Review of the Canon A2

     So today, while my face nears bursting with my current sinus infection, I sit here on my desk staring at my (relatively speaking) old Canon A2, an old EOS camera with modern features that works almost like my new toy, a 5D Mark II [goodbye 7D]. Curiously, it just happens to be its digital successor, but only if you're from Europe, as they got the EOS 5.

     The EOS A2 was introduced to the market at almost the same time that the world experienced the hodgepodge that was Nirvana's Incesticide album, November and December of 1992, respectively. Like Incesticide, it had some junk, erm, features, that Canon didn't want to introduce into the EOS 1, such as eye controlled focusing (which only came on the A2e), a built-in flash that was capable of zooming with your lens, and an infrared AF assist light.

     Also like Incesticide, many of these features were great, and only a couple of them absolutely sucked.

     Starting with the good, the camera fits in my large hand nicely and feels well made. The viewfinder is nice and bright and is uncluttered by useless info. It shoots at a maximum burst of 5 fps, making this camera great for sports, and includes an AF assist light that helps with focusing at night. The built in flash is also nice to have if you just need something that will light your subjects. Film is quick to load, and quick to wind up. Plus, if you go anywhere in public, you are immediately known to be a serious photographer, as the camera's imposing presence around your neck strikes fear into snapshooters souls.

   Now, the bad. Like Incesticide, (and grunge in general) this camera doesn't know what the hell is going on with itself. Like a 15 year old that just experienced puberty, it has all these new feelings that it doesn't know how to process yet. As such, the AF is completely useless without the AF assist light. It can't focus on a black and white striped shirt in bright daylight to save its life. I constantly find myself switching into manual focusing mode to focus correctly. Another annoying problem is that this camera flies through it's expensive batteries. I can only get about 15 rolls per battery before the camera needs a new one (and I don't use the flash). The built in flash's zoom is useless; the lighting is crap regardless of whether or not its zoomed correctly, making it another draw on the already pathetic battery life. Another problem is that due to some weird legal issues, the A2 (the EOS 5 is exempt) doesn't have a typical meter in full manual mode. Instead of a scale showing you how over or underexposed you are, you get a plus or minus symbol and nothing else. The last and most annoying yet insignificant complaint is that the mode select dial is really stiff, and on top of that it locks, much like the new Canons [please Canon, please get rid of these stupid locks. No one wanted them].

     To conclude this review, in my opinion, you should avoid the A2. It does not work well, and the EOS 3 is a much better camera. If you must have it, likely due to the cost of the EOS 3, be prepared to deal with its shortcomings. In the end though, I have taken some nice images with it because a good image is only 5% camera and 95% photographer.

My Review of the Mamiya C220

Alright, I promise to start writing more often for my blog. Haven't done much as far as the darkroom goes but I think I'll start doing full reviews of the equipment I come across.

Today, I'll be reviewing my Mamiya C220. This is a medium format TLR that came out in 1968 and is unique in that it is a bit larger than similar Rollies, but has interchangeable lenses, ranging from a 55mm wide angle to a 250mm telephoto lens. The lenses themselves were unique in that they came with the entire shutter assembly; each lens had its own shutter integrated into it. Although this made them a bit more expensive, it makes finding replacement shutters quite easy.

Another unique feature of this camera are it's amazing macro capabilities. Using the 80mm lens, it can focus from about 9 inches away, making this lens particularly versatile.

The ergonomics on this camera aren't the greatest. I don't like the focusing mechanisms. To focus, you have to use two wheels on either side of the camera to move the bellows out. Paired with a focusing screen that isn't exactly sharp, this makes focusing clumsy and difficult. While I do like that the lenses include the shutter with them, I don't like that the shutter dial is on the front, making it clumsy to check. Having an indicator on top would've helped greatly.

Although this camera has a few drawbacks, what makes it shine is the fact that it doesn't require batteries of any sort. It is completely mechanical, so you can be assured that every example you find won't have bad electronics or anything, because there aren't any. The most electrical system on it is the PC flash sync attached to the lens. Another plus about this camera is that the shutter and winding systems are separate, so double exposures are possible through a small dial on the side of the body.

Winding film in isn't too challenging, and its large body keeps the film straight, so there aren't any bends for it to get caught on. It accepts 120 and 220 film but only shoots in a 6x6 format [great for resolution but it hurts your wallet].

So far, I've shot many rolls through this camera, and I hope to shoot many more. I think it excels with slide film, but I've also put a few black and white rolls and recently a roll of Portra 160 through it and it does a great job with those as well. The nice part is that when you're walking around with it, it looks great and always sparks conversation.

The Final Blunder of Amateur Film

Now everyone has heard of 35mm film right? How about APS film? It was sold as Advantix by Kodak (I can't recall what the Fuji and Agfa called theirs) and came in a nifty little cartridge that was quite fool-proof to accidentally expose or otherwise screw up. In fact, the film's negatives were stored in the actual roll! While this would be annoying for a pro, it means that people's memories would be safely intact, forever. No longer would they accidentally scratch or crease a negative. Plus, it prevented some dumbass from accidentally cutting into the picture on your negative.

As you can see, the APS cartridge is slightly smaller than 35mm film.

At least someone that's reading this should remember seeing it in stores.

Why did it go away so quickly? Well, for one, it was smaller than 35mm, meaning less resolution. Secondly, it was more expensive. And thirdly, it wasn't intended for the professional market.

Ken Rockwell claims that APS film was a conspiracy to get rid of mom and pop film processors by the big film processors, and that it was also a ploy to sell less film to people for more money. While this may be true, the reality probably falls more into the middle ground. While the processing equipment was quite expensive [$500,000], the film incorporated complex mechanical systems which made it easy to process. All you had to do was set the processor and pop the film in. The rest would be taken care of by the machine.

One of the greatest points of this film is that exposure information was stored on the film in the form of a magnetic strip. Too bad this film was too small for the professional market because this is HUGELY helpful. Think of it like the EXIF data that is tagged onto digital photos.

What really sucked about this film though is that it was more expensive to buy and process. Although Canon and Nikon both made SLRs for APS film, few people bought them because the people that usually buy SLRs versus point and shoots didn't like the small film size and thus poorer quality of APS compared to 35mm film.

Although it had a slick, modern design, the EOS IX never caught on.

How could this have been done to win EVERYONE over? Well, let's start with the film size. It should have been the same as 35mm. Most pros back then only shot 35mm because of its convenience. When you had to do highly detailed shots you used medium format or large format. Going smaller automatically turned off the professional market to APS.

Next, they should've given people the option to get their film back inside the roll or cut and placed into negative sleeves. When I go through my negatives I'm usually looking for one specific photo out of 36. I don't want to be guessing with which roll may or may not have the photo I need.

Lastly, they should've made it as cheap or cheaper than 35mm film to process. And I mean it should've been at MOST $5 a roll. Nothing higher. Development costs is probably what really killed this film.

If the marketers of APS did these things, APS would've been much more fondly remembered by everyone. Sadly though, this was not the case and in the end, it's just a small blip in the history of film and [hopefully] the last film among a long line of small amateur film formats to thrown in the garbage by consumers.

Old Gear is Good Gear

One of the things that I don't really understand is why people get so hung up on having the newest version of everything. Computers I can understand. They age and the programs they run get more bloated requiring more and more processing power. Cameras, especially digital cameras, are different though.

Now, in the dark ages (early 2000s) of digital cameras, photographers needed to be on the bleeding edge of camera tech because every time Canon or Nikon released a new top of the line camera, the miniscule megapixel rating would double. These early digital cameras didn't do much except take -acceptable- pictures and even then, the quality wasn't all that great because blowing up a 2 MP image to 8x10 would produce noticeable pixelation. However, after the megapixel ratings went above 8 MP, things got quite different. For example, I have an EOS 1D Mark II that is rated at 8.2 MP. Now many people would think that this would be borderline unusable for making prints, however, I made a portrait of a friend and blew it up to 16x20 and I couldn't find a single pixel.

8 Megapixels doesn't seem so shabby after all now, does it?

Now you can have a Canon T6s, a consumer DSLR costing under $1000 for the kit, with a 24 MP CMOS sensor. This is freaking massive considering that you're cramming more pixels than the Canon 1D X has in it's full frame sensor into an APS-C sensor that's 1.6 times smaller.

Why do camera makers increase the resolution of the sensor? Marketing. Pure marketing. Pretend you don't know anything about digital cameras at all. You walk into Best Buy, go to the cameras, and take a look. You see 2 DSLRs. One is 24 MP and the other is 20 MP. The 24 MP camera is $200 more. Camera people would probably go with the 20 MP (assuming both cameras have the same features) model but if you don't know any better you might splurge and get a $200 more expensive camera.

In my opinion, camera makers should address the picture quality issues of the APS-C sensors while simultaneously ramping up the pixel count every so often. If you notice, APS-C sensors have a lot of trouble in low light with noise and usually have more drab colors compared to full frames. This is one of the reasons why people don't consider crop frame DSLRs to be "pro" cameras. I'd much rather have a 15 MP crop frame camera that takes gorgeous photos than a 24 MP camera that takes ok photos.

Regardless, one thing that the "megapixel wars" do is drive the costs of older gear down. And the good thing about old gear is that it is as functional and useful as the day it was created.

Living Standards

If any of you have watched The Nanny, you'll know that in one of the episodes, Fran says "I have grown accustomed to a certain standard of living and I am not prepared to go back." This is how I feel about Canon's infinitely useful EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM lens. This is not your average camera lens. This is what people get when they need gear that can go anywhere and do anything. This is what you use when you need your gear to work for you, not the other way around.

Canon made this lens as an entry-level L series lens. If you've been using lesser quality lenses, this gives you a taste of what you've been missing out on. Being an "L" series lens, it comes with a leather bag, a hood, an o-ring around the camera mount, and fluorite front glass. It is also quite heavy with a metal body and contains ultra high quality glass. It is weather sealed, meaning that you can take it out in the rain and it won't be ruined. It is unique in that it is the only "L" lens to be part of a kit; it comes with the Canon EOS 5D Mk III. In fact, the one I got came in a white box with no markings from a guy who already had one.

The macro function is quite useful and the image stabilization works like a charm in low light settings. If I'm still enough, I can take a crisp photo at 1/10 shutter speed, something I'm rarely able to do with an non-IS lens. The only point off is the ergonomics, but trust me, you will get used to it quickly because it will be the only lens on your camera after you buy it.

After using this lens for a couple of jobs and lots of personal work, I can safely say that this lens is the greatest lens to have ever graced my pictures since my 50mm f1.8 (which I still use). It is dead sharp throughout the zoom range and has beautiful bokeh, even when stopped up.

Zoomed out to 105mm at f4 produces excellent bokeh in macro shots.

The greatest thing about this lens is its range. A 24-105mm zoom is perfect for most gigs, because it provides both a wide enough view for group shots while being able to zoom in on a bride walking up the isle.

I could go on forever about this lens, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. For the price, this lens is an awesome zoom that can be used for virtually any kind of shot.

My Thoughts on the 7D

It's been quite awhile since I've posted but I haven't been sitting idly. Over the past month I've purchased (at a great price), a Canon EOS 7D and a Canon 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens. Both pieces of equipment are excellently made. Today, I'll be reviewing just the 7D. Compared to my old T3i, the 7D feels like an actual tool, and the versatility of the 24-105 is unmatched by any lens in its price range.

So why would I purchase a digital camera when I specialize in film? Versatility. When I shoot a wedding, I take about 300 pictures depending on the length of the event. Due to changing lighting, experimental use of flash, and the need for 3200 ISO, it is impossible to use film. That's where a high quality digital camera comes into play.

My last digital camera, a Canon Rebel T3i, was -adequate- for weddings. The problem with this camera is that while the pictures from it look great at ISOs below 2400, anything above that looks like junk. In fact, a low light picture at 6400 ISO is unusable. If you keep it in shutter priority or aperture priority, the camera's brain can figure out what needs to be done to get a good picture. The program and auto functions are next to useless and can yield terrible results if you aren't paying attention to the settings, which, if you have the camera in program or auto, you probably aren't. Another point off the T3i is the camera's poor low light autofocus. Anything below moderate indoor lighting will stump the camera.

It's not that the camera was poorly designed. It's that it wasn't designed to make money. It's not a tool to base a business off of. It is designed and priced to be used by people that are new to DSLRs. In fact, the camera, by default, will tell you what each mode is and what it's for when you click the wheel to it. For example, if you put it onto Av, it tells you on the display that Av is for aperture priority.

The 7D is quite different. For one, it's bigger and heavier. Its frame is made out of magnesium rather than plastic. It also includes a HUGELY useful feature- the Quick Control dial. This dial serves multiple purposes: in manual mode, it controls the aperture, and in the various program modes, it controls over/under exposure. Another welcome change is that the camera takes CF cards rather than SD cards. This means that read and write times are faster and that in turn helps the camera achieve an impressive 8 FPS burst rate with a decently sized buffer (4 frames at 8 FPS and more than I've tried to take at 5 FPS).

Perhaps the biggest, most important feature that it has is that it has only one full auto setting. Just the green square. No Action, Landscape, or Portrait settings are available. Why? Because this camera is aimed at people who won't ever use those. Instead, Canon gives you three custom modes. The autofocus system is quite intelligent and it has many more autofocus points than the T3i. A feature that it keeps from the Rebel series though, is the on-camera flash. This is sadly absent on the 6D, 5D Mk III, and 1D. It is very convenient and yields great results when used as a fill flash.

I could go on about how wonderful the 7D is, but I'll end it here. To conclude, the 7D, now that it's been replaced by the 7D Mk II, is a perfect value for people that need more than a Rebel camera but less than a 5D.

Coming next, a review of the venerable and infinitely useful 24-105.

One Generation's Trash is Another's Treasure

So the other day, I started doing research on instant camera film and came across the Impossible Project, an instant film manufacturer that makes film for Polaroid cameras. Although it's a little expensive and I don't plan on getting any to play around with anytime soon, I bounced some ideas off my mother about using an instant camera to take a few of my friend's engagement photos.

She then asked why they would bring back instant film to begin with.

She was right though. Instant film is expensive, low quality, vulnerable to UV radiation, and most of all, the colors are splotchy and tonal ranges are usually not all that great. This is an outdated format that was never more than a gimmick for family photos or at most, the tool of a pre-digital photographer that needed a proof shot.

However, as I explained to her, all of the things that you don't like about these cameras are all of the things that I want in my pictures

As I explained to her the Lomography movement and all of the hipsters, artists, and film photography people embracing it, she began to understand the artistic quality that instant cameras posses. It's almost tongue-in-cheek with a vintage air but not quite; in other words: art. These cameras: Polaroids, Holgas, Dianas, and Lomos, take photos that are more than the sum of their parts.

When you go on Instagram, almost everyone is taking pictures with normal cameras, sometimes even great cameras, and putting a filter over the image to make it look old. Why? Because there is something to be had in an old looking image. It brings a feeling of nostalgia and timelessness. But, why make a good looking image look old when you can have a camera that will take the real thing? This is where the Lomography movement comes in and this is also why the Holga, a camera that I describe as "so bad it's good," costs $30 shipped when it only costs about $2 to make. When demand rises, prices rise as well.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with this. This new movement is probably why there's so many new films on the market like CineStill or Red Bird. If anything, this helped save a dying art and create new interest in something that was previously getting its tombstone cut. I mean, if Ilford introduced their B&W disposable camera 10 years ago, they would've been laughed at.

Professional quality film photography isn't going anywhere. It won't go away in 10, 20, or maybe even 30 years from now, but it definitely will change. Most people nowadays, when looking at high quality pictures, regard film grain and digital noise to be the same thing. They're similar, but I've never seen sensor noise that I thought was attractive. Eventually though, camera makers will figure out how to get the resolution and quality of their digital sensors to match and exceed film. But, when that happens, the Lomo movement will keep film alive.

P.S. In 150 years, digital photography as we know it will be where film is now.