mdarnton
Well-known
FG, definitely. That's my main SLR. I got it when I got a Nikon D300, for a film backup to digital, and I use it a lot more than the D300. It lacks nothing that I need.
Photography on a Budget
- Thread starter Penceler
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 4K
kuuan
loves old lenses
I am going to spoil the nice list of great film cameras, sure many can be had for little money but shooting film isn't really cheap, is it? I recommend a digital SLR that is a few years old paired with some good manual lenses. My first was a used Pentax *istDs that some 6 or 7 years ago had cost me 200, paired with a Takumar 1.4/50 that had cost me some 15.-. Camera should be cheaper now, lens more costly, take a Takumar 1.8/55 then. Have taken some of my best pics with this combination. If you want to save the money for the M42 > K adapter, the cheapest go for around 10 to 15, take a Pentax M 1.7/50. Or take a NEX3 or NEX5 and pair it with any manual lens, the adapter for the more common ones will cost around 10 usd.
goamules
Well-known
With me, my best finds are lenses. Got a Leica Hektor 50mm cheap, because the seller listed it as a "Lica." Got a Dallmeyer fast Cine lens on an "old junk movie camera" for $10 at a camera show. An 1858 Petzval portrait lens, because the camera collector didn't want it, he collected 35mm. And dozens more.
mdarnton
Well-known
Well, the most obvious photography on a budget is a cell phone. Just about everyone's got one these days. My last two have had solid cameras. The latest has very little delay time. The results are great, and shooting raw, which I tested but don't do, the camera is really quite fine.
cz23
Well-known
"Photography on a budget" seems like an oxymoron. Sure, you can get cheap gear for capturing pictures. But then there's all the rest. Film, darkroom and supplies, scanner, etc. Or computer, software, printer,.... Then there's $3-4.00/sheet for nice paper, and framing.... Then as your standards and aspirations grow—which they will—watch out.
I suppose a mobile phone and Flickr or Instagram are about as rock bottom as one can get.
I suppose a mobile phone and Flickr or Instagram are about as rock bottom as one can get.
btgc
Veteran
....getting to location, accomodation (remote sites), food, your humble can-get-everywhere AA-batteries (remember that joke, anyone? now we know AA batteries can't power digital cameras, except expensive lithiums which are inside factory batteries, too, just rechargeable). Prints, decently big prints - either printed on hard base or mounted, or framed. Every bean counts.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, film vs digital again...
Hmmm, film vs digital again...
Hi,
The last time I did the sums seriously I came to the conclusion that the files from my digital SLR (I'd just sold it) cost as much each as the 5" x 7" prints from my film cameras. Of course, if I was taking a dozen digital shots for one mediocre keeper the cost per file would be lower but I learnt on slide film.
Add the cost of a printers, inks, paper and so on to the cost of the digital files and the digital becomes expensive. Also digital cameras use batteries that seem to me to be either cheap rubbish or very expensive and good. And I'm ignoring the replacement cost of things like printers and computers that seem to me to be disposable items. Then there's replacing the software when you change a failed computer for a new one and find that half your software, the laser printer and the scanner won't run on it
Digressing slightly more, I've notice that digital cameras are now appearing as often as film cameras in the charity shops, but dearer and only 1 - 4 megapixels so far. I bought one recently I'd always fancied from way back and the cost of a replacement charger and battery was a shock...
And are we comparing like with like? Good film cameras are cheap these days, especially when compared with digital. My P&S film cameras at a pound or even half that are vastly superior to digital ones I've used in terms of the lens quality, even allowing for that meaning primes vs. zooms.
Regards, David
Hmmm, film vs digital again...
Hi,
The last time I did the sums seriously I came to the conclusion that the files from my digital SLR (I'd just sold it) cost as much each as the 5" x 7" prints from my film cameras. Of course, if I was taking a dozen digital shots for one mediocre keeper the cost per file would be lower but I learnt on slide film.
Add the cost of a printers, inks, paper and so on to the cost of the digital files and the digital becomes expensive. Also digital cameras use batteries that seem to me to be either cheap rubbish or very expensive and good. And I'm ignoring the replacement cost of things like printers and computers that seem to me to be disposable items. Then there's replacing the software when you change a failed computer for a new one and find that half your software, the laser printer and the scanner won't run on it
Digressing slightly more, I've notice that digital cameras are now appearing as often as film cameras in the charity shops, but dearer and only 1 - 4 megapixels so far. I bought one recently I'd always fancied from way back and the cost of a replacement charger and battery was a shock...
And are we comparing like with like? Good film cameras are cheap these days, especially when compared with digital. My P&S film cameras at a pound or even half that are vastly superior to digital ones I've used in terms of the lens quality, even allowing for that meaning primes vs. zooms.
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Rock bottom is a 1.2 mega pixel camera and card from a charity shop that takes 2 AA's. Add in the cost of a charger and it will still be dirt cheap. Then show the pictures on your computer only.
But it's not the same as a proper film camera and decent and large pictures on the wall.
Regards, David
ferider
Veteran
I'm wondering how many people here will recommend to use a 100$ or less film SLR, but at the same time do not worry about spending > 600$ on their iPhone.
Roland.
Spanik
Well-known
25 euro for a fully working Yashica 124 MAT-EM. As for digital, got a working Olympus C-4040 free and found a smartmedia card for 5 euro. Takes any AA batteries.
But I'm of the same idea as David Hughes: digital isn't as cheap as we pretend.
But I'm of the same idea as David Hughes: digital isn't as cheap as we pretend.
Bingley
Veteran
Those are great bargains. I've got two working XAs and they're great little shooters.
Bingley
Veteran
True, but an iPhone does other things a film SLR can't do.
Speaking of which, one of my better finds in the bottom feeding dep't was a Pentax ME Super, which I found for around $60. A good platform to try some nice Pentax glass...
ferider
Veteran
All right, I'll play, just for you Steve 🙂
Of the top of my head, great deals on some of my most beloved cameras that I have had, below US 1k
<= US 100: Perfect Olympus XA (US 20)
<= US 150: Nikon F3 + 50/1.8
<= US 250: Canon P + 50/1.8
<= US 350: Hexar AF
<= US 450: Leica M2
<= US 500: 500EL and 80mm
<= US 800: Sony a850 (24MP, beautiful VF, you can have one below US 650 and add a Minolta 50/1.8 cheaply)
I don't think film is cheap though. It's relative: the older I get, the more valuable I feel my time becomes.
Then again, plenty of very good digital gear out there, as long as you don't need Nikon on the name-plate: with everybody wanting an x100t, check prices on used Fuji x100s. And I always wanted to try a C-8080. Some of the older Panasonic integrated zoom cameras are great. Etc.
Roland.
Vics
Veteran
I bought a Sony DSLR a200 from KEH for $134 and a kit lens for $55. Great way to dip a toe into digital photography for $189. In new gear for cheap, the Nikon D3300 looks great at $400 incl kit lens.
Tijmendal
Young photog
Honestly, if you want to shoot photography on a budget, SLR's are the better option. Much more bang for the buck.
Nikon, Canon FD and Olympus OM camera's/lenses are all amazing value. You can put together an incredible kit for below 200$ for any system.
Nikon, Canon FD and Olympus OM camera's/lenses are all amazing value. You can put together an incredible kit for below 200$ for any system.
DNG
Film Friendly
My 2 SLRs on a budget
Nikon EM, ($30)
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais ($30, needed a claw fixed = $15 Total = $45)
Nikon FE ($9 + Film advance repair EST $30)
Nikkor S 50mm f/1.4 ($25)
I buy Tmax 400 36x under $5 a roll,
I use HC110 as my developer (FreeStyle has a 16oz clone for $12.99 "Legacy L110)
Nikon EM, ($30)
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais ($30, needed a claw fixed = $15 Total = $45)
Nikon FE ($9 + Film advance repair EST $30)
Nikkor S 50mm f/1.4 ($25)
I buy Tmax 400 36x under $5 a roll,
I use HC110 as my developer (FreeStyle has a 16oz clone for $12.99 "Legacy L110)
bmattock
Veteran
The best is yet to come. The next purchase I'm sure.
Bingley
Veteran
You have done well, young Skywalker!
"I don't think film is cheap though. It's relative: the older I get, the more valuable I feel my time becomes."
I'm feeling that, too, but I still love the process and the results.
pet905
Established
My latest acquisition at $180.00 CDN: OM1, OM2N, 28mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8(2), 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.8. The entire kit in excellent condition both cosmetically and functionally.
goamules
Well-known
I agree. I bought a Nikkormat the other week at a yard sale for $20, with a 55mm Macro and a 50/2 lens. Put a hearing aid battery in it, calibrated the voltage offset with the ISO settings to match my external meter, and I have a working meter. Put a roll through it, they all came out fine. 20 bucks.
Similar threads
- Article
