The Canon EOS 750 - a P&S SLR

One of the attractions of a 35mm Single Lens Reflex camera is the ability to change lenses, see through the lens via the prism of the camera and be able to compose and adjust your focus and settings  to what works for that image.  SLRs can be as feature-rich as say, a Nikon F5, or as simple as a Nikon EM, which is an aperture-priority SLR.  However, some engineer at Canon must have decided that even choosing an aperture was too much for some people, so they came out with the EOS 750 in 1988.  The EOS 750 operates in Program mode only, and you have to merely point the camera and press the shutter button, and the camera decides what settings are best for that exposure.  Sounds great, right?  

My friend Kim in Kansas  recently sent me a box of cameras, and inside was a Canon EOS 750.  Not a camera that I'd seen before, and  I had to read up on it before I decided to shoot with it.  I have shot with a bunch of different EOS cameras in the past 15 years, and my one beef with most of them is that the controls are rarely the same from model to model, unlike the Nikon ecosystem that I am used to.  Well, the EOS 750’s controls are so minimal, that you can laugh.  Basically, the top control dial is Lock, Program Mode, battery check, DEP (more on that later), and self-timer.  On the left is a switch for the pop-up flash to automatically pop-up or be disabled.  That’s it for controls.  The hotshoe has all of the electrical contacts needed for Canon’s auto flashes.  The film is wound out of the cassette and wound in as you take photos, which has become a standard for a lot of EOS models.  Frustratingly, there is no film rewind button.  The camera uses a 2CR5 lithium battery, and should last for quite a few rolls of film if you don’t use the pop-up flash. The cameras accepts all of the EF-mount lenses.

Layout so simple, a caveman can do it.

The 2CR5 battery is inside the grip.

So, after all that, why would anyone want to use the EOS  750?  It would be a great choice for anyone that wants to use a good zoom lens and take photos without fiddling around with controls.  Also a good camera for a child, though it is somewhat weighty.  But, if you pop on the 40mm AF EOS lens, it could be a great camera for walking around and taking street photos.    

Things the EOS 750 lacks 

• no exposure compensation
• no ISO setting, so film cassettes must be DX-coded.  Non-DX cassettes will be exposed at ISO 25.
• no film rewind button
• no mode except Program Mode

The DEP setting is basically a metering mode that allows you to choose to have the camera determine the best focus distance, and it stops the the aperture down enough to have the subjects in focus.  That’s the only thing that I did not try with the camera.

In use, the EOS 750 is just that  - a point and shoot.  The autofocus has a central AF point, and it seemed to have little problem finding focus.  I used a Sigma 50mm/2.8 macro lens on the EOS 750 and shot a roll of film walking around the neighborhood.  You see, we have a LOT of tree debris still around, over 3 months since hurricane Helene.  I put in a roll of Rollei Retro 400S and shot away.  I was also walking my dog at the time, so having the P&S was actually a good idea.  It’s not a light camera, and without a lens weighs 1.5 pounds.

Results

I developed the roll of Rollei Retro 400S in D76 1:1.  In sunlight, this is a contrasty film, and it worked well for most of my subjects, some of which are featured above.  Overall, the shots came out fine, and considering low level of control that I had, the camera definitely outdid my expectations.

The funny thing about the EOS 750 is that it’s heavier than any EOS Rebel, which has far more controls and features.  There is also an EOS 850 - but it lacks a pop-up flash.  Not sure why they thought that was a good idea, considering whatever they thought the target audience might be.  Anyways, the late 1980s to early 90s was a period of rapid transition to autofocus SLR cameras, and Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Pentax definitely came out with a lot of models, and most had a lot of features that were enabled by the switch to a fully electronic system.  Of these, the chunky EOS 750 might just be the one that’s going to stand out as an oddity.  The funny thing is that after I was finished with the roll of film, I tried firing the shutter without a roll of film, and the camera died.  So, that’s the end of the story!

With so many models of 35mm EOS cameras available, I’d suggest any other model than the EOS 750/850.  

Keeping a Photography Notebook

2024 Photo Journals

If there was ever one lament that I have, it’s about not always keeping a journal.  When we are young, we sometimes keep journals to record our thoughts, thinking that they are important - and they may certainly be so.  If if were not for diaries, much of what happened to ordinary people on a daily basis long ago would not have been recorded.  But I’m not discussing diaries or daily journals, but those notes that are kept to record what I do photographically.  I wish that I’d kept travel/photo journals 50 years ago, and even 20 years ago.  All I do have are all the photographic results from those outings, and in some cases, I did keep notes, but I was never fastidious about it.  I have some small notebooks where I have started with a few entries, and the rest is blank.  Some notebooks are the pocket style, and may contain only a single photo trip, with notes that were jotted down along the way.  I changed that in 2017, when I started to keep a journal of all my photographic activities, not just those taken on trips.  I’ve never kept notes on every roll of film that I have shot, as that’s just not as important as what I saw, where I was,  and what else was happening.  On a long trip, I will number my rolls, so that I can just enter the information later as to the camera and film stock that I used, and the date.  That works out well for me.  You can purchase photographic record notebooks that are essentially just a list of rolls with exposure information, if you are the sort of person that likes to keep that information, and I’m not.

From my 2022 Takumar Trek notebook - a list of films shot, 
all added after the trip was over.

Small photos, printed by the Kodak mini-printer

My preferred journals. 

I also decided rather recently, to stick to a certain style of notebook that is generally about 5.5  x 8 inches, and found that I can buy them in bulk from Amazon. These have brown covers, lined pages, and have 60 pages. (Image).  They cost about a buck each.  While for some people, 60 pages may be too little, I find that they are perfect for a long trip, or 2 to 3 months of activities.  I don’t want a whole year in one journal, because losing one would be bad enough, but to lose a many months or a year at once would be awful.  In addition, the smaller size takes up much less space in a bag.  So far, I have been happy with them.  Another journal that I like is the one issued under the Magnum Photos imprint (Thames and Hudson), which are just a bit wider, and with thicker paper, and 48 pages. They are also more expensive. Moleskine notebooks are nice, too, but a far cry from being $1 each!

These cheap notebooks are utilitarian, for sure.  But they do the job, and that’s what I want.  One thing that I often do is to include shots from my iPhone, when it’s appropriate, and for printing those I use a Kodak C300R camera/printer that does a great job with small dye-sublimation prints.  A good thing to carry on any trip.  The photos really help augment the journal entries.

June 2024, when I was working on the Kudzol developer

Now that I have been diligent/consistent about keeping notes, these journals have been very useful when I need to write about photographs that I have taken.  I find myself referring to them whenever I am working on a project.  I counted 160 rolls of film shot in 2024, and I used 6 journals.  There is no way that I can keep all that in my brain.  I may not know where the hell I’m going, but I do know where I have been!

Older pocket notebooks, some contain just a few pertinent notes, others are entire trips.

from a 2018 trip to Ontario

An entry for 2009. Marc Akemann and I did some night shooting.

How photographers keep notes and  organize their work is a very personal thing.  What works for me may not be what works for you.  But if you have a system, and you like it, stick with it, because you’ll be better off than just throwing your negatives in a shoebox.  I do know that having all of my negatives in polypropylene negative sheets and stored in 3-ring binders has served me well.  I can go into any year and find what I need.  It’s the notebooks about that particular roll of film that I lack, and I wish I’d been doing that since I started. I now have 25 years worth of binders, and I find myself going through them when I am working on a project. I used to make negative contact sheets, and lately I have started going through the years 2000 to 2010 to scan in the negatives.  I can do so much more now with the scans than I did with the darkroom then.  I have a lot of old work that I can use in upcoming zines, and it’s been fun to pore over those older negatives and find that I did get some pretty good results.

But what about if you just want to keep a log of exposures?  There used to be some very specialized notebooks for photographers, especially into the 1980s.  Perfect for large-format photogrpaphers, where every exposure can be unique, unlike the person shooting 4 frames per second.   For a while, those notebooks seemed out of print, but with the resurgence of film photography, various types of photo memo-style notebooks are now available.  Possibly the more useful one is from Mike Padua's Shoot Film Co.. as shown below.

In addition, a quick search also shows another one, but I've not examined it personally:

Of course, you can just use any blank ruled notebook to do the same, but having an organized layout fopr doing those records may be the better way to go, if you go that way.  These notebooks make a great deal of sense for large-format practitioners, since you can develop each sheet of film according to how you exposed it.  

As far as photography-related notebooks, there are many sizes and styles available online.  Etsy sellers are one source, as I have seen some nice-looking notebooks there.  I'm not a fan of spiral or wire-bound notebooks, as they can have pages rip out or the bindings get messed up over time.  Lay-flat notebooks are preferable to hard-bound notebooks, because they are easier to write in (at least to me).  In any case, make time to record your photo adventures, so that in the future, you won't be wishing that you'd done it (like me).

Candido 200 = Kodak Vision 200T

 Well, it's my first post for 2025, and it's about film - imagine that!  In the fall I picked up a roll of Candido 200 C-41 film from my local camera store, Ball Photo.  I hadn't read anything about it previously, and finally gave it a try in mid-November.  Before I delve into what I shot, and my comments about the film, let's see who "Candido" is.

Candido is a Portugal-based seller of  repackaged  ECN-2 films.  Their aim is to offer lower-cost color negative film, which is a noble thing, but perhaps the cost is only lower in Portugal.  They have attractive, simple designs for their packaging, and offer three films - 200, 400, and 800 ISO.  All are Kodak Vision 3 films with the remjet removed, ala Cinestill.  I've see older Reddit posts about the Candido 200 in 24 exp. cassettes, which may have kept the cost per roll down, but by the time you add in processing, it's actually more expensive per frame.  The packaging states that it's "designed in London, packaged in China."  Film is of course, from the USA.  So, I'm not sure how the Portugal/London/China/USA thing came about, but I do know that some Chinese companies have figured out how to remove the remjet from the ECN-2 films, and perhaps that's the crucial part of all of this.  

If you have been using Cinestill -branded color  films, you have been using ECN-2 films that are typically rated at a 2/3 stop higher than the native ISO of the particular Vision 3 film with remjet.  Now, I don't agree that removing the remjet makes the film more sensitive - that's Cinestill's claim, for what it's worth.

The Candido 200 color film is Eastman 5213 -Vision 3 200T ECN-2 film with the remjet removed.  Now, it's strange that they don't suggest a warming filter with this film, since it needs one for the proper color balance.  However, I just shot it as if it were a normal color fil, like most of the people would  that buy this film. Note that it is in a metal cassette, which is nice to see.

I loaded my Nikon N80 with the roll of Candido 200, and shot the entire roll while on an afternoon meetup with the Asheville Camera Club in downtown Asheville on November 17.  I eventually dropped it off at Ball Photo in Asheville to get it developed.  Here is the sheet of negatives:

Here are some examples from the roll... no adjustments or corrections.

The images look pretty good, and I did not see residual remjet spots in the scans, which is a good thing.  If you are selling this as a C-41 film, then that has to be done well.  The Vision 3 200T film is one that I have shot quite a bit of, and it's fine-grained.  Colors look good, and I can make them warmer post-scan, if necessary.  You can see halation in the images with bright lights. 

I paid more for this roll of film than I have for Ektar 100, so for me, it's not really a cheaper alternative to say, Gold 200 or Fuji 200, which are good every-day films. Is this film worth it?  I suppose it depends on where you live, and what access you have to color film stocks.  As a re-packaged film, there are other brands out there for less money, so do your research.  

Anyhow, 2025 is here, so get out there and shoot some film.

Working on a project

I have not posted anything here since early November.  For me, that's a bit unusual, since I have posted something every month - sometimes several times a month. However, I have been busy writing and researching for a book that I plan to have out sometime in 2025, tentatively titled "Takumar Trek - the joy of working with a Pentax Spotmatic."  

This is sort of a passion project of mine, since I have always thought that the Spotmatic series and some of their forebears, the Pentax SV, for example, are excellent cameras, and were designed to be as unobtrusive to the photographer as possible.  Culminating with the Spotmatic F, which features open-aperture metering, these cameras are a delight to use.  However, the lenses are legendary, and I'm writing about them, too.  This has also caused me to go through my archives of negatives and find the films that were shot with Spotmatics.  So, I have also been scanning in negatives that I haven't looked at for over 20 years.  It's a good reminder that photography's tools may have gotten more complex and (ahem) more expensive, but a 50 year-old camera can be used for making good photographs.  

A bunch of Super Takumars

In the process of writing, I've learned more about the predecessors to the Spotmatics, and have acquired a few more of them.  I've also had the opportunity to try out what was supposed to be a working Pentax ES - one of two fully automatic exposure SLRs released by Pentax before the K-mount bodies were on the market.  It's a shame that the ES and ESII are flawed creatures, probably doomed by the electronics that made them quite the advancement for Pentax.    

I've also been encouraged by reactions from people that learned I was writing a book.  My hope is that it will be useful to a newcomer to film photography as well an old hand  that likes 35mm cameras.  Millions of Spotmatics were sold during 1964-1973, and they remain a good bargain for anyone wanting a simple, easy-to-operate 35mm SLR.

A lot has happened this year, and while I am extremely disappointed and angered in the outcome of the presidential election, I aim to work diligently on things that are meaningful to me in the years ahead.  2024 started with a great trip to Tucson, AZ, and I had many great little trips in NC, VA, and OH that provided me with some good photographs.    I also met some wonderful people that just happened to be photographers.  I published two issues of Monochrome Mania, and in December, a new issue of Panozine came out.  All are available on my Etsy store.  

I wish you all the best for 2025.  

Ilford’s Mark V b&w cine film

 

Every once in a while, I see a film that I’d never heard of, and think “I have to try that!” Ilford has long been my favorite film supplier, and to see an old stock that I never knew existed, definitely piqued my interest.  For a while the Film Photography Project was selling this film that they called Mark V in 24-exposure rolls.  I think that Lance Rothstein is also selling it at his unusual expired film site. I didn’t know that Ilford manufactured film for the cine industry, but the Ilford Mark V film dates from 1978.  That indeed, is very expired.  After doing some research, I figured it was worth a shot with this film that expired the year I was married.  As you know, we have a rule of thumb regarding exposing expired film — which is that it typically loses 1 stop of sensitivity per decade.  Black and white films do a bit better with age, and the lower the ISO, the better the film survives.  Some films like the old Verichrome Pan, which was rated at ISO 125, seem to survive just about anything, with decent results on 50+ year old film.  The Mark V film was originally rated at ISO 400, and I looked at examples online, which are most often rated at ISO 50, so I went with that.

I loaded the film in my Nikon F3HP, which is one of my favorite Nikon SLRs. I didn’t shoot anything that was one-time thing, just in case the results sucked.  I finished the roll over the span of a couple of weeks, the last one being post-Helene, which devastated so many areas around me.  I developed the film in HC-110B for 6.5 minutes.  I must have been distracted, because after I rinsed with water, and poured in the fixer, it was actually from the jug of D-96, not fixer.  Oblivious to my error, I agitated the developing tank as usual, and then as I went to pour out the “fixer” into the jug, I saw my stupid error.  I rinsed the film again, and this time, poured in the fixer.  I didn’t know what I was going to get, but I figured that I really screwed up the roll.

After fixing and rinsing, I took the film off the roll and hung it to dry.  I could see that the film base was quite dark, but I could also see the frames - dark, but not opaque.  Once the film dried, I then scanned it in on my Epson V700, and I was pleased to see that the images actually looked pretty good!

Mark V film - it "cups" a bit and dies not lie flat in the scanner holder.

Here are a few examples from the roll.  

My thought on this is that it takes a lot to screw up a roll of film, especially b&w.  I basically double-developed the film, and yet I got usable images.  Unfortunately, I only purchased 1 roll of the Mark V, and now it is sold out.  Despite my best efforts to screw it up, the results were acceptable.

The film is obviously grainy, and the dark base is probably related to the age of the film.  Rating it at ISO 50 was a good choice, though.  Without knowing the history of how the film was stored, I’d say it did much better over time than I could have foreseen. 

Regarding b&w cine film — my current go-to is expired Eastman 5231, which is much like Kodak Plus-X.  I rate it at ISO 80, and have gotten stellar results using D-96 for 8 minutes.  While it’s a hard-to-find film, I have a source, and am really grateful to be able to shoot with it. The other b&w cine film choice is Kodak XX, or Eastman 5222. It’s a terrific film, and I used to buy it in bulk long before the cine film to 35mm stills became a big deal.  Another choice is Orwo UN54, which is an ISO 100 b&w film.  I have used it, and it’s a pretty decent emulsion.   So, there are other choices, but the Ilford Mark V must have been really nice back when it was fresh.