a tale of three SLR cameras

by m. werneburg, 2008.04.20

I've written in these pages that one shouldn't overspend on equipment, and that there is only so much camera gear that a photographer really needs. I should come clean in declaring the extent of my own collection, to illustrate a counterpoint: to know when your camera equipment is holding you back.

I have quite a variety of camera equipment. As of the latest revision¹, I have four film SLR cameras, a film rangefinder camera, and a digital SLR. I also have two "toy" cameras².

Then there are the lenses. At present I have two lens systems. One is for the Minolta film manual-focus series, the other is for the Pentax system (compatible with the DSLR).

the X-700 era

As my gallery attests, I've shot a lot of it with the Minolta X-700. I have two of these bodies, thanks to a gift last year from my brother. The X-700 is a fine camera, and still one that feels right whenever I use it. It's got a variety of useful features, including:

meter override through -2 to +2 manual adjustment and an exposure-lock (probably my most-used feature)
depth-of-field preview
cable release socket and self-timer
a program mode for automatic aperture and shutter-speed settings
through-the-lens flash metering

It's also a well-made little beast, despite a substantially-plastic body and being one of the first Japanese cameras outsourced for assembly in China. All in all, a versatile and rugged beast that served me well.

But in sticking with one entry-level camera for many years (~1997-2004) I know see that I did myself a dis-service. The problem was that for years I was getting inconsistent results. I'd shoot in what seemed like predictable settings and get varied results, often with under- or over-exposed images.

This seeming inconsistency made it difficult for me to learn from my mistakes. It was if there was a randomizing effect at work.

the XD-11 era

Then at the very end of 2003, I bought a second camera body. By then, Minolta's manual-focus film equipment had fallen into disfavour in the market, and used bodies were becoming quite cheap. I bought an old XD-11, possibly the best of Minolta's manual-focus era in terms of reputation. I'd been doing a fair bit of reading online about the Minolta cameras, and my research had pointed me to the XD-11.

The new camera was a revelation. With a substantially improved meter, the XD-11 behaved in a consistent fashion that allowed me to rapidly improve. Once I was able to predictable results I could better see the relationship between exposure time, ISO ratings, aperture and even filters more clearly.

Naturally, the results improved as my understanding improved. Now better able to study what I was doing, my experiments yielded more fruit.

the digital era

It was this success, ironically, that convinced me to move to digital photography. I bought a steeply-discounted Pentax *istDS when it was two models out-of-date but still on the market. I did so despite already having three SLR cameras (the third was the very old SRT-101 that had been a hand-me-down from my father but which had a faulty exposure meter and a half-dead electric system). With its instant returns, the experimentation cycle was drastically shortened and I found my results improving yet again.

back to film

In fact, I soon realized that the new medium wasn't up to my demands. I wanted more from my work than the digital camera was capable of delivering. Specifically, I found digital lacking in:

curiously flat images
too much "workflow" required
poor dynamic range—a limitation in the different shades of grey that the camera could capture

The first was a surprise. I was seeing a lot of photos that lacked contrast, or which had strange colours. And quite a lot of them lacked a certain vibrancy. This is something I later attributed to two of the Pentax lenses, and not the camera itself. One of these I sold, but the other—my first autofocus lens—was too expensive to sell and was a small and convenient thing with which my wife could learn. And yet I wasn't used to being left flat by images that didn't have that certain vibrancy. I also wasn't used to selling lenses, but that's what happened: the lens had gone on the shelf for months due to my concerns over image quality and I knew it was time to get rid of it.

The second was a real problem. Tto get sharp images out of the *istDS, I had to shoot in the RAW format. That meant lots of large files, and a cumbersome workflow to prepare usable results. It's gotten somewhat better with the advent of the Lightroom software, but I found that working with digital photos took too much work. They simply didn't seem to look right without considerable post-processing effort.

The last was to prove the deal-breaker. The digital camera had such a limited sensitivity to tonal variation! I was seeing a lot of scenes where the camera simply gave up and recorded the entire sky as one big white smear. Where before there had been clouds and colours, there was now just white (sometimes offset by grey). And there were shadows that had been rendered a black void in the frame, a place lacking in any detail whatever. My wife, too, though new to SLR photography, complains about the white skies and the deep shadows that seem to cut across so many scenes with unnatural starkness.

The lack of dynamic range was really driven home when I shot a mountain shrine in cloudy conditions where the weather hung between rain and snow. I'd taken my little rangefinder on the trip, and shot a roll of black and white film. I was blown away by the results. Naturally, it was the fine dynamic range of the Ilford film I was using, but it showed me what I'd been missing. The shrine and surrounding trees were recorded in lovely detail, especially those dark areas that the camera rendered black.

I began to experiment in film again, and the results of that experimentation showed me what I'd not realized earlier: the X-700 in some ways had been holding me back. Whereas I'd quickly learned that digital photography had its limitations, I now see that the no-frills meter in the X-700—and quite possibly some quirks in the way it reads the aperture from the lens—were undercutting my abilities.

Through the combination of cameras I now use, I have a much better understanding of the limitations of my cameras, and can get better results from all three. And I also know which camera can—and cannot—be used in a given circumstance. In general, I now use my different cameras for different things:

digital SLR—indoors and events
XD-11—general street, landscape and portraiture
X-700—anything undemanding, for which 400ISO film will suffice

I'm not advocating a collection of cameras. Rather, I'm suggesting that the reader learn from my mistake and notice the limitations of their camera sooner rather than later. Which is not to hastily assume that the camera is at fault when you don't get immediate results; but rather that if you find yourself getting inconsistent results, do some research and find out what's going on.

Notes: 1. April 2008 2. In my defense, three of the film SLR's, the rangefinder and the two toy cameras were actually all gifts, meaning I've bought myself exactly one film SLR. It;s true, but I obviously have more gear than I need.