And then it hit me. What about film?
I hadn't shot film in about 15 years but in the meantime, film has actually got a bit cheaper (taking into account inflation), there are loads of places you can buy and process all over London, scanning is easy and quick with modern computers' CPU power; and experimenting would not break the bank. So the only real question is whether film would look any different/better than a competent digital.
I wanted to get a fully mechanical 35mm SLR but then I saw the medium format Fuji 645: much more user friendly (for instance Auto Focus) which meant that -in a social situation- you can pass it around to friends and they can do a decent job taking photos without you needing to explain/adjust anything. And, let's face it, back in the 1990s the price of this thing would have consigned it to the "day-dream" category. So armed with Ektar and Portra film, I went out there to find out whether I had wasted my money.
As you can sense already, this article is not about exactitude and DXO markings. I'll give you an honest appraisal of these beasts; and I will try to think who might benefit from opting for this sort of camera and under what circumstances.
Feel and user interface
Staring with the fixed-lens GA645, I must admit that this is not the most conventionally "pretty" camera; but then you notice that it just sits in your hands very comfortably and securely. The weight is just right. In fact, the chassis of the GA645 is all metal and even though this is surrounded by hard plastic, you will not notice any creaks. And, given that this is a medium format camera, the size doesn't feel as if it gets int he way of things. I know that the internet is obsessed with "pocket-sized" cameras but honestly I can't fit my NEX in my coat pocket with the 18-55mm; and I couldn't fit my GF1 in there either with its 14-45mm.The GA645zi represents a more conventionally impressive bit of design - do young people still say "bling" and "ice"? In any case, I still say "shiny" and this camera is indeed very. Shiny. The outer shell is titanium and it is heavier than its non-zoom stable-mate. The reality is that both cameras are extremely well put together. Their controls are so intuitive and common-sensical that you'll be using them in Aperture Priority within minutes without any hesitation - and getting to EV compensation is pretty straightforward too.You can see where Fuji's excellent traditions come from - no wonder the company have had so much success and respect for their digital cameras in the last few years.
But I jumped the gun: this is a film camera, so how difficult is it to load it with film? Simplicity itself: getting to grips with un/loading the film becomes a non-issue after the second attempt. There is auto film advance and very clear markings everywhere, so the only thing to watch out for is a known issue: make sure that you apply a bit of pressure on the film as you are loading it, otherwise it will not end up being tightly wound up when you unload it and light leakage could occur. There are a couple of useful videos which show how to do the film un/loading - they refer to different Fuji models from different decades, but the methodology is the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPB-b-Gxcz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7G8TtH3Vg
It's worth repeating: it's amazing that a camera company uses its tradition to define how all their cameras fundamentally and recognisably behave through time. I wish Nikon, Sony and Canon could learn and apply this lesson to all their products in the market right now! Why do they expect useras to employ a different thought process every time they use a different camera from the same stable? Why is the Nikon V1 so different in its UI than the Nikon 3200? Can you imagine going food-shopping and having to use English at your green-grocer's, German at the bakery and Chinese at the fish monger's? Ok rant over.
How do they perform
First things first, the Auto Focus is useful and user-friendly but basic: there are focusing zones (1.5m, 2m, etc); the camera identifies -in most cases reliably enough- at which zone your subject is situated and focuses on its target distance; but it does not focus at any in-between point even if your subject is there. There is some chatter on the internet about "soft" results, but I have not seen any examples of real missed focus. Most soft images arise from users not taking into account the minimum focus distance: a challenging 1m on the zoom variant and a more usable 0.7m on the fixed lens. Needless to say, these cameras are totally and absolutely unfit for macro. Also, the manual states it clearly: the AF is not suitable for moving subjects. These are portrait and landscape cameras.Which is what makes them great for travel; along-side my NEX (for video and selfies), these MF cameras make for a light-weight but powerful combination.
Image Quality
So many variables...
The fixed lens on the GA645 is amazing: fast enough (f4) and with no distortions to my eyes.
The zoom may not be as great, but -comparing like with like- it is better than my Canon 24-105: sharper, less distortion, less coloured fringing. I think you will need to spend silly money to get something better.
Film choice is important; from my Kodak-exclusive experience, there are some obvious choices:
Ektar 100 is fun and dramatic but it's no good for skin colour, unless you want to have a 1950s-style apple-cheeked cherubs. Under-exposing a bit will turn everything a bit blue; over-exposing can affect any colour, depending on the light, time of day etc.
Portra 160 is a nice summer-time film, with natural skin colours and very fine grain.
Portra 400 is bread and butter: good for everything.
And how about output?
If you have the space and time, you can control everything from processing to printing.
If not, then you have choices. My own preference is to either get the film processed at Aperture (24-hour turn-around for £6) and do my own scanning using my Canon 9000; or use genieimaging to develop and scan for around £7 per film with 3-4 days turn-around.
If you print, go for 7x5 at least - the prints are very satisfying and "three-dimensional"; if you scan yourselves, don't bother going over 25-ish MB. There is enough character there to be happy.
Who are/aren't they for?
NOT: for action; for macro; for people obsessing over pixels and scratches.FOR: fun; travel; conversation starter :-)
