Starting with film, what camera to get??

N

Norwaycamera

Established
Local time
11:11 AM
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
53
View My Gallery
Hello all.
New here and in need for some help.
I also hope I am not the only one with these problem. If so, what is wrong with me?🙂

Have been using a small, compact digital camera for some time.
It is ok, but, I never have any photos to show.
Yes, I know, just download them, which I do, but still, you have to show them on your pc or laptop or.....Not like a album.
The good old album, it was great. You had photos to show and enjoy.

I also find myself taking more and more crapy photos, no limit, just shoot away......Hmm.
So, what if I start with film, then I have to get them developed, resulting in an album. Limited amount of photos pr. roll, so maybe I will slow down, with time, and maybe, hope so, get better photos in return.

So, my question, what camera to get?
I do not know, but I think an RF is a bit more difficult to use, that is why I am thinking SLR.
Budget?
All in all, with one lense, 35-50mm, around $1000,-

I really do like the look and feel of old cameras. Leicaflex, is a camera I do like, looks cool, feels well made and it is a Leica.

But, honestly, help, what to do?

All help is welcome.

Have a good day all.
 
I don't think film or digital is going to be a "secret sauce" that improves your output

there are many suggestions that can help

Digital is nice because you get immediate feedback and you can make a lot of mistakes and the cost is low once you have the equipment.

be very selective in editing - don't expect 90% keepers from your shots, expect 1/10 at the most

find the subjects and situations that you enjoy shooting - if it's forced, you probably won't get good results

read up on composition guidelines

look at the whole frame not just the subject, our eyes tend to follow the subject or movement and later we see something not ideal in the background.

practice

some suggest one camera/one lens/one year - learn your equipment and your art before having too many choices. if this doesn't work for you, adapt - do it for a week or a month.

enjoy it - it's about fun and creativity and emotion. it shouldn't be a chore


good luck
 
I personally really like the FE2 and FM2 from Nikon for manual focus SLRs (but I've never really tried other Brands because I have Nikon lenses).
 
I have a bunch, but the one I would recommend the most is the Nikon FM2n, with a 50mm Nikon AIS lens, will be about $250. Classic metal camera with manual focus, a mechanical shutter that goes to 1/4000 sec which really is incredible.
It is a fantastic camera and is not so old that you may have reliability issues. Many really nice cameras have problems with their light meters failing, pentaprisms de-foaming so coming lose, shutter issues etc.

Any camera that you look at you should do a google search to see what goes wrong with them. That way biases from owners (everyone recommends what they use..) are removed and you can see for yourself.
 
I suggest starting with a small, high-quality SLR from the 1970s, e.g. a Minolta XD11 or similar, or a Pentax MX, or an Olympus OM1 or OM2. These camera bodies are relatively inexpensive and the optics for them are generally superb. You can then decide whether film photography is for you based upon a modest investment in some quality gear. Others have suggested Nikon SLRs, and those are good suggestions too; Nikon can be a little pricier than some other cameras from the same era.

If you like the results you're getting from film, you can explore other camera options later.
 
mfogiel said:
I would recommend a Nikon FM2 with a 40mm lens - either the Nikkor P or the Voigtlander pancake.
Click to expand...

The Voigtlander is much better than the Nikkor, but both are really pricey. About $350+
A 50mm AIS is about $75-$100, and an excellent lens. Much sharper and faster than the pancake Nikkor 45 2.8
 
Some comments/questions:

  1. Slowing down with a film SLR versus a digital body does not mean your photos will improve; it might just mean that you'll take fewer crappy photos (not intended to be mean-spirited, just friendly advice).
  2. Do you think a film SLR will be a long-term interest, or do you just want to try it out for now?
  3. Autofocus or manual focus?
  4. I don't know what the prices are like in Norway; my guess is that camera prices there are probably higher than they are here in the US.

My advice:

  • For autofocus, IMO the best value right now is a Nikon F100. It is a robust body with fast AF. The Nikon F5 is also a good value and even more robust than the F100, but it is a LARGE BODY.
  • For manual focus, it depends on whether or not this may become a long-term interest for you or just a trial basis. If long term, you may as well buy a Nikon FM3A. If you just want to try it out, then the question is whether you need A-priority or if manual is fine; if the former, then I recommend the Nikon FE2; if the latter, then the Nikon FM2N.
 
SLR: Olympus OM-2 or 2n.

Compact body, good viewfinder, nice and cheap lenses.

At the same time you may buy a fixed-lens rangefinder just to "find the feeling" for RF, like Yashica Electro 35 CC or Canonet QL17 GIII. In the end you might fall in love with such "one lens, one camera body" adventure.
 
Norwaycamera said:
I also find myself taking more and more crapy photos, no limit, just shoot away......Hmm.
So, what if I start with film, then I have to get them developed, resulting in an album. Limited amount of photos pr. roll, so maybe I will slow down, with time, and maybe, hope so, get better photos in return.

So, my question, what camera to get?
Click to expand...

I see this kind of comment again and again on RFF and other online forums. I guess many people feel this way.

I mean no disrespect, please believe me, but what I think I am reading is this:

"I do not possess the self-discipline to keep myself from hammering away on my camera like a machine gun, and the resulting photos are terrible. It's the camera's fault. If only I had a manual film camera, suddenly all would be cured."

Digital or film, the way people choose to use the camera is generally within their power. I have never yet seen a camera that takes possession of one's shutter finger and forces them to bang away endlessly without regard to content.

I would suggest, before looking for a specific camera/lens for curing this perceived flaw, that you take a look at yourself and your methods.

It's nice, I guess, to have a photo album. Being old enough to remember when that (and other people's endlessly boring slide shows) were the only way to share photos with others, I'm not as interested, but I get why people like them. I would not be too quick to idealize them, but it's certainly worth experimenting with if you want to.

The first thing I would recommend would be to take stock of what it is you want to do. If you think there is a problem with the number of photos you take, force yourself to take fewer. Set a limit for yourself and stick with it.

I don't know what kind of creative options your camera offers you, but personally, I like to disable most of the automation on my digital SLR cameras. I like having control over shutter speed, f-stop, and ISO. Beyond that, I don't really want the camera doing that much. I may or may not enable auto-focus, depending on what I'm doing at that time. But here's the thing; I am the one in control, not my camera. For most DSLR cameras and many other types of digital cameras, full manual control is available. I wish people wouldn't pretend that it is not possible to control the camera, that it 'forces' them to hammer away like a mad man. It doesn't.

Now, if you want to get a film camera (you said an SLR would be most attractive to you), there are so many choices out there that it's mind-boggling. From the very old to the relatively new, there are lots of very good choices. Controls can be basic, with manual focus and only shutter speed and aperture control, or more automated, with aperture-priority or shutter priority or both, autofocus, etc.

So given that there are so many choices, my suggestion would be to do some research on the features you think you want, and the quality of the camera and lenses involved, plus perhaps the availability of parts and people who can work on it (if that is a concern for you).

Personally, if this is in the nature of an experiment, you might consider something like a Pentax K-1000 or even an older Spotmatic. Huge lens choices, reliable cameras in general, not much automation. You can certainly get by for a tenth of your budget, and use the rest for film and processing!

Best of luck!
 
For $1000- ?

Get film developing kit, get film developing chemicals, bulk bw film with bulk loader and reusable film cassettes. Plus film archival sleeves.
Get darkroom kit (small enlarger, trays, timer, lamp. etc) it is next to free or free these days, plus, printing chemicals and 8x10 FB paper.
DO NOT BUY film scammer. Get just flatbed for photos to scan for share.
Get any 135 format film camera. Better to avoid Leica SLR cameras, get R to F adapter and get F-series Nikon camera. Nikon is Leica in SLR.

It should all fit in $1K and printing under enlarger (instead for scanning) will slow you down twice. First because it is film, second because you'll think - "do I want to print this?" - before taking picture.

Your own prints is the best old album.

Cheers, Ko.
 
Get a Nikon F, you will love it.
You may think about buying one from Antonio in Bergen but I grabbed the last one he had and fixed it !
 
Ko.Fe. said:
For $1000- ?

Get film developing kit, get film developing chemicals, bulk bw film with bulk loader and reusable film cassettes. Plus film archival sleeves.
Get darkroom kit (small enlarger, trays, timer, lamp. etc) it is next to free or free these days, plus, printing chemicals and 8x10 FB paper.
DO NOT BUY film scammer. Get just flatbed for photos to scan for share.
Get any 135 format film camera. Better to avoid Leica SLR cameras, get R to F adapter and get F-series Nikon camera. Nikon is Leica in SLR.

It should all fit in $1K and printing under enlarger (instead for scanning) will slow you down twice. First because it is film, second because you'll think - "do I want to print this?" - before taking picture.
Click to expand...

All of this before he even knows if he will like shooting a film SLR?
 
With that budget there are huge options for different gear. I'd even venture to say that a Medium Format camera could be nice (TLRs and some 645 SLRs are quite affordable). However, that depends on the willingness of the OP and I'd agree that an SLR is a nice starting point.

I've an OM1 with a basic 50mm 1.8 that was great for introducing me to photography.
 
Hello all.
Thanks for all the feed back.
First, film is not just something I like to try out for a week or two.
I do like to start with it, photographing.
Auto or not? Like to try manual.
So, I will look at Nikon, Voighlander and so. But, yes, prices here in Norway are high, but what can I do about that? Maybe get one from US, if shipping is not going to kill me.
Antonio in Bergen, yes, I was in his shop, great shop. It was the push I needed.

Ko.Fe, yes the idea has been in my head. Sounds interesting....and I got the room I need.

Thanks for helping.
 
A medium format is not a bad idea. But, the 645, well it is not a small camera.
Rolleiflex or Hasselblads, but then I am short on cash.....Folder??
Never used one, so hard for me to guess how they are.
Looks nice. But, so does a lot of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

farlymac
Guide Number Nikkor
Replies
2
Views
397
farlymac
farlymac
bulevardi
Missed opportunities
Replies
3
Views
259
bulevardi
bulevardi
J
Leicaflex Standard little problem
Replies
4
Views
646
quilts
Q
Bololoco
Cameras to fix
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
fub
F
D
Daniel Kramer's SP
Replies
10
Views
714
Freakscene
Freakscene
Back
Top Bottom