Two 1980s film cameras (Nikon-Pentax) compared today

Was it worth it to buy a new film camera when I had a perfectly good one in the drawer, one that I have owned since 1984? It was time for some comparisons. I put a roll of Tri-X through each and developed both films in exactly the same way. I scanned them with exactly the same equipment and settings though I might have made their curves a little different in Lightroom. I took some of the same subjects.

Pappenheim by Pentax

Pappenheim by Pentax ME Super (SMC 50mm f1.4) might have been shot at f2

Nikon F4 | Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-D | Tri-X Pan 400 Digitized with Nikon D810 | daylight Home developed in D76 | 6.75 mins | tank

The author photographed by Pentax

Nikon F4 | Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-D | Tri-X Pan 400 Digitized with Nikon D810 | daylight Home developed in D76 | 6.75 mins | tank

Bookshelf by Pentax

Nikon F4 | Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-D | Tri-X Pan 400 Digitized with Nikon D810 | daylight Home developed in D76 | 6.75 mins | tank

The images are very comparable and it takes a bit of magnification (more than you can do with these images here) to see that the Nikon seems to produce clearer, sharper images, possibly with more contrast though that could be a LR effect. What this comparison of a few images chosen from two rolls of 36 pictures does not show you is the completely out of focus shots that the Pentax produced, probably a good half dozen of those, plus a couple more where the exposure was wrong. The Nikon on the other hand did not drop a single shot. In terms of camera movement, neither of them compare with a modern camera with vibration reduction.

Above the contact from the Pentax

This is the Nikon

Rust and Bone

This strangely named French film is an adaptation of a number of short stories. Some details and trailers should be here: http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema/Arts_Picturehouse_Cambridge/film/Rust_And_Bone/
I found it very mixed. In some ways it was impressive with imagery that gives structure to the film, blood and water both link the film together, as does sleep – the central male character is often deeply asleep, literally and, we are meant to understand, spiritually. Performances are good from both Marion Cotillard (whose legs are removed digitally above the knee) and the sleepy Matthias Schoenaerts, as well as the child actor who plays is increasingly bruised 5year old son.
On the other hand, the film does not achieve in many ways. It is ultimately a corny and completely unrealistic fantasy about disability while pretending to be realistic and hard-hitting. It has a fairy tale ending too in which our leading duo and the son become miraculously a happy and successful family. Ali turns, predictably, from pent up hard man whose only response to pain and confusion is to hit things and people to a man who has found his own vulnerability and channels his aggression into an apparently successful professional boxing career – while being a caring father and partner. It had some beautiful filming, of the whales in a tank for example and many underwater shots (of trauma often) but at the end of the day it was not successful. Probably worth seeing though.