The only real question you should ask yourself...

...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?

Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.

Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?

That is pretty clear to me:

• If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR. 
• If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.

Remember, a full frame SLR sensor is 36x24 mm, medium format film is used up to 60x90mm. When we know how crucial sensor / film size is, it makes you think twice about going 35mm. Also keep in mind photography was originally large format, and 35mm was only invented for portability. It's like CD and MP3, no one listens to CDs anymore, but quality remains on the CD side.

Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.

 Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.

Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.


What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !

Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.

On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:

• A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700 or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$. 
• Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
• Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.

On the right corner, weighting 3000$:

• Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
• 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
• A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700 does a great job for 550$.
• Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.

You can also read my more complete post on what you need to start shooting film.

So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.

Review: Fuji X100...VS a actual film rangefinder, VS forthcoming X10...

I'm back !

My job (the one that pays the bills and the expensive repairs on my car) has been quite time consuming lately, so were my vacations :)

Anyway I'm back with new photos to post, and more tutorials.

But for now, a personal review of a camera that is being very successful, and acclaimed by critics, but not necessarily by real photographers. That makes it rather interesting since Fuji is clearly branding it as the compact for pros, when pros are too lazy to cary around too much stuff.

Also, by its looks and functionalities, it intends to revive a photo journalism way of shooting, and be the modern equivalent of a long line up of full frame film rangefinder cameras. And I'm wondering...aren't those old guys still not better than the fancy X100 ?

Let's start with the camera review itself:

I encourage you to Google it (after bookmarking this blog !), there's not point redoing what has been done well.

Some reviews:
- Ken Rockwell (classic)
- Steve Huff

However I would tend to weight differently the pros and cons of the camera than many others did. Let's remind us of those first:

Pros: great lens and sensor, low light performance, dynamic range, design and built quality, optical viewfinder. That's A LOT of great pros ! Some might even say, whatever the cons, it can only be great, but...

Cons: slow, very slow operations, dodgy user interface, AF is slow and MF is absolutely unusable (7 ring turns to focus 1 meter further, WTF)

X100 @ F2 ISO 400. The lens is definitely way on top in the compact world.

Why is that more of a pain that it might seem? Changing ISO while shooting was nearly unresponsive when I used it, a real pro used to rangefinders can manually focus and can do it quick. It is impossible here hence the all purpose of the camera is quite questionable. I would say a pro will be terribly frustrated and yet tempted: it's a beautiful object, it's nearly what we are dreaming of (full frame sensor + faster response of electronics + proper focusing would make it perfect), but it will be very frustrating when missing a shot because it takes 3 seconds to write on the card, or won't focus well.


Why not a proper rangefinder instead?

If you are a pro and can spend 1200 dollars on a portable rangefinder, you might be better off spending 80 bucks on a actual full frame film rangefinder, and shoot 1120 dollars worth of 35mm film...(150 rolls). Dynamic range on film is unbeatable, the classic journalist B&W shots will render way better on film (tone range of B&W film is unmatched), the full frame will allow greater definition, bigger files after scanning, deeper images. You travel in unsafe countries? It gets stolen? Ah whatever, order an other one, or 2. If you don't care about cost, you have a Leica M9 (Digital), or a Contax G2 / Leica M6...well you spend the extra bucks that will get you what you really want.

However you might want a X10; keep on reading.

The X10...

Here comes my main and I hopefully most insightful point of this post. If you are an amateur, is the X100 the holy grail? I would nearly say so. You will be able to shoot DSLR like shots with a pocket format, a lens that beats any DSLR kit lens, and a DSLR size sensor. The weaknesses of the camera won't bother you too much because you never shot a Nikon F5 or a Contax G2. So I would nearly say it's the perfect advanced amateur compact camera...if Fuji was not about to launch the X10.

Well let's face it, the X10 is likely to avoid the flaws of the X100, it has a zoom lens with high aperture (pretty uncommon and really cool to have on a compact), it's even smaller, looks as good, will cost half the price of the X100. The only thing is the CMOS sensor VS the DSLR like sensor of the X100, but once again, a DSLR sensor is not a full frame sensor, so it's not thaaaat mind blowing either, and mostly an amateur would hardly see the difference between the two (medium & large formats are the real thing). If the shoot is good, it's good no matter what sensor anyway.


Final recommendation:


First of all, if you bought or really, really want an X100, you're fine. You're miles away from making a mistake. I'm discussing details here and it is an excellent camera, with all essential features on top. Even the AF is not so bad, just not good enough VS a cheaper DSLR.

If you are to upgrade your G2, your S90, or some other premium compact as your main camera, wait a bit. The fix lens of the X100 is awesome, but it might be too much of a constraint never being able to zoom. The X10 should be more versatile, wait and try.

If you own a DSLR, get a fix 35mm 1.8 lens on it for 200$, don't buy a X100. Get a X10 as a portable backup, that will be way more complementary (providing that the X10 images come out good, we'll know quite soon).

If you're a pro looking for the small toy you can have in your pocket just in case, the X10 might be what you actually wanted, depending on how well its lens will perform. It's even smaller and since you shoot full frame or larger format, you find COMS and DX sensor similarly underperforming anyway.

Maddy @ the beach, 120 film

Maddy @ Dublin V

Again, Maddy, my personal classic :)

The Mamiya RZ67 and 110mm F2.8 are still rocking my world.

Marie @ Dublin

Nikon F5, 85mm and Trix X film. Thanks to Marie.

Polaroid, finally

Got a Fuji Instax 210 tonight. I'll do a proper review but for now, here are my first shots :)

(makes me happeeyyy !!!)

oh oh oh ! just realized I have 5 followers, woooooooooooooooooow. Thank you people !

 this is actually me...

Oldies: Joy @ Dublin

Some more old shots before I can scan all I have in boxes.

These I haven't put on www.RonanShotMe.com yet, so they are sort of exclusive.
Shot with a Mamiya RZ67 pro II, 110mm F2.8 lens, a thru a white umbrella (facing model). Metered with an F5 (the Nikon F5 meters really really well). Film is Kodak Tri-X 120.

Thanks to the model : Joy.

The cost of shooting film.

So you want to shoot film too? Hooray! Good choice but it feels like a lot to buy. You are wondering how much shooting film will cost compared to digital? You are not sure what to take into consideration, the real price of bits and pieces etc ? Well this post's for you.

You can now get this baby for $300.

Well I've been spending plenty of my money on it so I now have a clear idea of how much shooting film costs (donation gratefully accepted). I will compare it to a digital SLR type of budget. Here it is:

1. The camera body: 
• DSLR, from $800 to $30 000 for the best (D7000 is at $1200, Nikon D3X& Leica M9 at $7000 for the best 35mm digital camera, and $30k for medium format digital). 
• A great film 35mm will go from $100 (Nikon FE) to $300 (Nikon F5 = a film D3X) used, and up to $1000 for a used Leica M6. A top of the range, digital killer medium format film camera like a Pentax 67II, a Mamiya 7 or RZ, will cost you from $500 to $1000 used (you can still spend $5K on those babies brand new if you have too much money)
• YOU SAVE FROM $700 TO $29 000
2. The lenses:
• If you have a DSLR from a brand that used to do cameras, no extra cost, find a good film camera from the same brand. I hope for you it's a Nikon DSLR...lot of cheap and great film cameras out there ! (check Adorama, B&H)
• If you start from scratch, you will look at normal DSLR prices for 35mm lenses, high prices for rangefinder lenses (Contax G2 and Leica are your 2 best choices, lenses can cost from $500 to $2000), and here comes the great stuff: ridiculously LOW prices for medium format cameras. Ok it sounds too nice to be true but a 110mm 2.8 for a mamiya RZ costs $300 used....I mean this beast outperforms any fancy Nikon, Canon, Leica 35mm lenses. Get it with a medium format camera, and you have the best performing system possible for $1000 all included, minus of course the convenience of digital.
3. Buying film:
• From $3 to $8 a roll (depending on color, ISO, format: check this link for details on formats)
4. Developing film:
• Negatives only will cost you about the same price as the film, it's a bit cheaper in medium format since you got less pictures (about $5 in average per roll)
• Getting prints to will be more expensive, 36 5x7' images can cost you $12. But if you shoot film, you want to scan negatives instead, not get it printed, so you need...
5. ...a film scanner:
• You have dedicated film scanner (machines meant to scan negatives only, not flatbed scanning, the normal ones). There use to be great ones at prohibitive prices, but with no ones buying them they are not produced anymore, so most actual ones are used or 35mm only. Prices vary a lot, a couple of hundreds is quite a maximum price. 
• You can use a flatbed scanner built for photography. Most people use the Epson ones, or Canons. I would recommend the Epson V700: it performs great, as good as the V750. It's a bit pricey ($450) but you can compensate with the low cost of the photographic gear.

I'll be totally honest: I don't develop myself, I have no time and room for that. But the equipement to do it all, dev. + paper etc is about just as much as the camera + the scanner... get it done. 

The loss of control from not developing yourself, you can get it back when scanning the negs so to be honest, you can do without it for a start.

So let's summarize: 

A DSLR + lens + memory cards= from $1500 to $3000 

A great film camera + lens + scanner = from $350 to $1500 (from great 35mm to top level medium format)

You save from $1150 to $1500, which allows you to buy and develop... about 150 rolls of film :)

Product review, the Nikon FE.

The Nikon FE you said? Is it a new compact? How many mega pixels ? (One day I'll write an article to explain how stupid that question is).

Well no, the Nikon FE is a superb machine, extremely reliable, trustworthy, with amazing ergonomics, and it looks like that:

Isn't it beautiful? It also exists in black, one of my friend has one in black...I must say I nearly bought a second one for the look of it. Oh yeah it cost $ 100 on any famous photo gear site's used section.

-"Wow thanks Ronan, we really needed a 1978 camera review"

Well maybe you do actually, because unlike hundreds of compact digitals that cost 500 euros for features that are just as useful as a spare tire on a horse, this my friends is a camera.

It is a manual focus SLR with built in metering and aperture priority mode. It means you can set the aperture and it will shoot at the right speed automatically. And that's pretty much it. It's fantastic, because you can shoot without even thinking: point, focus, shoot. No need to go thru a 7 layers menu to find the right presets.

The meter appears to be center weighted (gotta check but it behaves like it, the Nikon FA has matrix metering) and you can lock the exposure with a button conveniently center on the side of the lens, falling under your right fingers. If you know the zone system well, you can expose perfectly with this little monster, it is a brilliant meter.

What else, the battery lasts forever (years...), it's built out of metal, and nicely, you won't have the battery clip duck taped after it fell from a chair, oh no.

Lenses? Well it takes everything Nikon has ever produce as far as I know, even the most recent. I use it with the 35f2 full frame and the 85f1.8.

I already explained why I shoot film, so I'll explain why I shoot the FE:

• It is small, doesn't rely on batteries and if it gets stolen I can get an other one for 100 bucks. That makes it a great travel friend.
• It meters brilliantly.
• With the $100 50mm f1.8, it is the cheapest package for someone to start film photography (or simply photography with a taste for grain and black & white)
• Wear it with a leather jacket and beige kakis, and I swear you'll feel like Indiana Jones.
• It takes great pictures even if, has always, that highly depends on the lens.
• Vintage look of color 35mm film
• Beats digital B&W easy.

Weather you want to give film a serious but cheap try, or if you like to collect vintage but still great cameras, or...well just get one. Those are low rez scans, ask me if you want a large file to make up your mind.

Neopan 400, Budapest, 35mmF2.

Hilford HP5, Barcelona, 35mmF2.

Portra VC, NYC, 35mmF2.