Salish Park

My first camera was a Nikon EM, introduced in 1979 and still the smallest SLR ever produced by Nikon. It was fitted with a 50mm f/1.8 Series E lens, and it was what I carried around with me when out and about doing other things and when traveling. Later, once I got some education about photography, I decided I needed a Nikon like what the professionals used. Carrying one of those things around was a total drag, though. It was too big and bulky. It attracted attention. I bought a point and shoot and then another one.

In retrospect, that little EM did the job just great. It’s not a Leica, but it’s as small as one and lighter. The Series E lens is fast and performs real well according to the reviews. Its build quality is good enough, it has held up all right over the years, manual focus is fine, the viewfinder is bright enough. Except for not having manual control, it’s about all the camera I could need for when going around.

If they could make a digital version of this camera, that would be great. Olympus has gone ahead and developed the E-400. I’ve never seen one in real life, but the specs suggest a real good camera for taking pictures on the street. It’s about the size of a Nikon EM: the E-400 at 130mm x 91mm x 53mm v. the EM at 135mm x 86mm x 54mm. What kills it for me, though, is the weak selection of prime lenses available for the 4/3 system; there’s not even a normal. Mostly it’s zoom lenses, which I don’t get: what’s the point of a compact camera if you’re going to fit it with a big honking zoom.

There’s the Leica M8, but the body alone costs $4795 at B&H.

If they could make a digital version of a Contax T3, or even an Olympus Epic, Yashica T4, Nikon 35Ti, Rollei AFM 35, Leica CM or Ricoh GR1v, that would be really great. Of course, there’s already a wackload of digital point and shoots coming out on the market, but, as long as they keep coming out fitted with those teeny sensors, the image quality isn’t going to cut it. Another thing about them are those zoom lenses that are too slow to use; a fast prime would be just fine.

Like the Olympus E-400, the Ricoh GRD is not sold in the United States. The specs suggest this camera fits the bill in most ways, but—not that I ever take five frames per second or whatever but still—if you’re shooting RAW, it locks up for 13 seconds after each exposure while it writes the file to the card, which suggests some aggravating waits down the road.

So, film it is…

After several years of doing this and seeing how other people do it, I feel like I’ve finally arrived at a system I can be happy with for shoots: Kodak Portra 160NC or 400NC, Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, 110mm or 150mm lens, Fujifilm FP-100C for proofing.

The kink in this system comes when it’s time to develop the film. Shooting on film would be so great if it didn’t mean having to depend on labs.

The other day, I drove down to Needham and went in to the lab to pick up negatives and contact sheets. The lady said they weren’t ready. Maybe they’d be ready later in the afternoon. Why don’t I try again tomorrow.

This happens quite frequently. Sometimes I’m told that maybe I should call before coming in, to check. Sometimes the film is ready on time, but that doesn’t mean the news is going to be all great either. Last summer, I had some Tri-X come back with streaks on them. The one time I took slide film there, it got mounted crooked, so for each frame there was a space between the top of the transparency and the edge of the mount.

I shouldn’t lose my perspective; it’s only pictures, and I should just find a way to deal.

The easy and obvious solution would be to go to another lab. That’s what I do, for 35mm C-41 and B+W. As far as I can tell, though—and I’ve done some research into this—if you happen to live in the Boston area and you’re shooting medium format C-41, there are only two places left for develop + contact: Arlington and Needham. And Arlington sucks for parking.

So, digital it is…