Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If the OP is interested in slowing down a DP2Merrill wouldn't be a bad choice either ... they really make you think about your photography and if you only ever carry one battery you'll get about the same number of shots you get out of a roll of 135.
I realise this sounds crazy but why leap into film if it's not actually the medium that's the problem? It's more likely attitude IMO.
I realise this sounds crazy but why leap into film if it's not actually the medium that's the problem? It's more likely attitude IMO.
calebarchie
Established
I have never experienced the machine gun effect with digital either... am I special? 
jamin-b
Well-known
For me the transition from digital to manual was definitely eased by having autoexposure and autoexposure lock. I shoot most of the time in that configuration anyway, including with my Leica M8.
I would recommend a Nikon FE with a quality 40/ 50mm and a nice zoom (I picked up a zoom 35-105 for $25 in near mint condition that takes great pictures and close focuses to near macro levels). Or something in the Pentax K range - Super ME / Program Plus, where there are also a variety of compact, light excellent lenses available in the price range $50-150. If you pay extra for a good or CLA'd copy these cameras are reliable and a great value. Or just start with the best - a Nikon FM3A -- and never look back. These are even more recent and are super durable with a full feature set of what you actually need in a compact body you want to take with you and shoot photos with....
I would recommend a Nikon FE with a quality 40/ 50mm and a nice zoom (I picked up a zoom 35-105 for $25 in near mint condition that takes great pictures and close focuses to near macro levels). Or something in the Pentax K range - Super ME / Program Plus, where there are also a variety of compact, light excellent lenses available in the price range $50-150. If you pay extra for a good or CLA'd copy these cameras are reliable and a great value. Or just start with the best - a Nikon FM3A -- and never look back. These are even more recent and are super durable with a full feature set of what you actually need in a compact body you want to take with you and shoot photos with....
Some members have suggested using film won't help your situation, others have commented opposite. I think they're all right in as much as it depends on the person. I generally take better photos with a film camera than I do with a digital device. That says more about my own strengths/weaknesses than it does about the relative merits of each method of recording an image though. Getting some film kit could be the making of you as a photographer, or it could be a step sideways or even backwards. But I think you should try it, anyway, because you are wondering if it would help, and the bottom line is that the only way to find out, is to try it.
But, it might not be a good move to drop $1000 on kit you're not certain you want to stay with over the long term, at this point. More importantly, it is really not necessary. The quality you can get for a small investment today is excellent.
If you'd like to slow down that suggests manual focus is what you may prefer as I get the impression you wish to go back to basics, and manual focus helps.
All the major Japanese brands were making good, reliable SLR bodies with excellent lenses by the mid to late 1960s. I would only suggest looking to a consistently reliable, all mechanical SLR, simply because they tend to age better than 1970s onwards electronic models. You can't go too far wrong with something from Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Minolta, as they are plentiful, affordable, all had decent lenses, and generally only needed a battery/electrical system to power their internal metering. I personally own SLRs made by all these brands and many others (including a number of German types that are more special interest, due to availability and specific servicing needs).
With that said, I'd suggest you could do a lot worse than a Minolta SRT, because they're well made, solid, very reliable, and super affordable. The Rokkor lenses are as good as anyone else's, but you will not generally pay as much as you might for similar Nikon or Canon optics. It's not a question of the Minoltas being better than, say, the Pentax or Olympus alternatives, just that they're very good kit which you can acquire a bit more cheaply than some other brands without sacrificing anything in the way of features, or build quality. And I say this as someone who really didn't like Minoltas much, once, (suffice to say, I don't think they're very sexy designs, underneath their external coverings). But, it all works, and works reliably, which is what counts most, and, after having being given a number of Minolta items, I was converted when I tried it, despite my own prejudices.
You ought to be able to get a good body and two or three lenses for USD 100 (Eg. a 50mm, 35mm or 28mm and a 135mm) and, believe me, you can do an awful lot with just these few things, photographically.
Whichever way you do decide to go, don't invest too much, initially, until you've had a chance to experience this way of imaging. Apart from anything else, it is really not necessary, to drop $1000 to get started. I'm not advising against such an investment, simply, to make it after you have some personal experience with film and an insight into how you feel about it. I definitely think you should try it, though, if only to get it out of your system.
Cheers,
Brett
But, it might not be a good move to drop $1000 on kit you're not certain you want to stay with over the long term, at this point. More importantly, it is really not necessary. The quality you can get for a small investment today is excellent.
If you'd like to slow down that suggests manual focus is what you may prefer as I get the impression you wish to go back to basics, and manual focus helps.
All the major Japanese brands were making good, reliable SLR bodies with excellent lenses by the mid to late 1960s. I would only suggest looking to a consistently reliable, all mechanical SLR, simply because they tend to age better than 1970s onwards electronic models. You can't go too far wrong with something from Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Minolta, as they are plentiful, affordable, all had decent lenses, and generally only needed a battery/electrical system to power their internal metering. I personally own SLRs made by all these brands and many others (including a number of German types that are more special interest, due to availability and specific servicing needs).
With that said, I'd suggest you could do a lot worse than a Minolta SRT, because they're well made, solid, very reliable, and super affordable. The Rokkor lenses are as good as anyone else's, but you will not generally pay as much as you might for similar Nikon or Canon optics. It's not a question of the Minoltas being better than, say, the Pentax or Olympus alternatives, just that they're very good kit which you can acquire a bit more cheaply than some other brands without sacrificing anything in the way of features, or build quality. And I say this as someone who really didn't like Minoltas much, once, (suffice to say, I don't think they're very sexy designs, underneath their external coverings). But, it all works, and works reliably, which is what counts most, and, after having being given a number of Minolta items, I was converted when I tried it, despite my own prejudices.
You ought to be able to get a good body and two or three lenses for USD 100 (Eg. a 50mm, 35mm or 28mm and a 135mm) and, believe me, you can do an awful lot with just these few things, photographically.
Whichever way you do decide to go, don't invest too much, initially, until you've had a chance to experience this way of imaging. Apart from anything else, it is really not necessary, to drop $1000 to get started. I'm not advising against such an investment, simply, to make it after you have some personal experience with film and an insight into how you feel about it. I definitely think you should try it, though, if only to get it out of your system.
Cheers,
Brett
mani
Well-known
I paid 200 swedish crowns for my first Olympus Om1n + 50mm f1,8 a couple of years ago. All working, unscratched, clear lens, perfect meter with battery.
That's about $24.
That's about $24.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I suggest you spend most of that thousand on film and processing etc. And walk around looking for a lab. that will process the film for you. Otherwise you'll have so much to learn and a lot more to go wrong. That can put you off for ever.
Cameras; few are like dSLR's which have far too many modes and controls and buttons. Your choices in film depend on manual or auto focussing but some have both and you can switch between them. Some film SLR's offer P mode and nothing else, some A mode and manual and some everything. Some offer no meter, some offer built in vaguely general (average) metering; some centre weighted, some spot and some a mixture you can chose from.
I'd suggest the OM 1, 2 or 10 with the classic and dirt cheap f/1.8 50mm lens or with the 35mm f/2.8 lens. At a glance; OM-1 is MF and manual exposure with a needle to match against a scale; OM-2 the same but switchable to A mode and OM10 cheap and cheerful but P mode only. OM10 cheapest, then OM-1 and then OM-2 dearest.
There's next a group that are a rival to the OM-1 (a trend setter) like the Pentax ME super and Minolta X-300 which are a mixture of auto or manual exposure (meaning switchable) and are available with some excellent lenses. I use the Pentax with prime lenses and the Minolta with a Tokina AT-X zoom. Both are MF and have CW exposure metering.
Or you could get something like the Minolta 7000 or 7000i which come very near to a dSLR in functions, meaning manual or auto everything. And take DX cassettes, which no one has mentioned but can cause problems when absent.
If you want to slow down your photography, buy and use a tripod.
Important, don't jump in with your eyes shut; start with a camera and a 24 exposure roll of film to see if you can cope and afford it. Spend a thousand on a film camera and you could easily regret it and have no money for the film's prints...
Regards, David
PS Starting with a 120 roll film camera will really complicate things, please don't even think about it.
PPS (Edit) RF's should be a choice made by mature and experienced photographers, apart from the RF's for beginners like the Konica C35 and Olympus 35 range and they'll probably not be right for you.
PPPS And buy a notebook to record what will be your successes and failures, so you can learn from them.
I suggest you spend most of that thousand on film and processing etc. And walk around looking for a lab. that will process the film for you. Otherwise you'll have so much to learn and a lot more to go wrong. That can put you off for ever.
Cameras; few are like dSLR's which have far too many modes and controls and buttons. Your choices in film depend on manual or auto focussing but some have both and you can switch between them. Some film SLR's offer P mode and nothing else, some A mode and manual and some everything. Some offer no meter, some offer built in vaguely general (average) metering; some centre weighted, some spot and some a mixture you can chose from.
I'd suggest the OM 1, 2 or 10 with the classic and dirt cheap f/1.8 50mm lens or with the 35mm f/2.8 lens. At a glance; OM-1 is MF and manual exposure with a needle to match against a scale; OM-2 the same but switchable to A mode and OM10 cheap and cheerful but P mode only. OM10 cheapest, then OM-1 and then OM-2 dearest.
There's next a group that are a rival to the OM-1 (a trend setter) like the Pentax ME super and Minolta X-300 which are a mixture of auto or manual exposure (meaning switchable) and are available with some excellent lenses. I use the Pentax with prime lenses and the Minolta with a Tokina AT-X zoom. Both are MF and have CW exposure metering.
Or you could get something like the Minolta 7000 or 7000i which come very near to a dSLR in functions, meaning manual or auto everything. And take DX cassettes, which no one has mentioned but can cause problems when absent.
If you want to slow down your photography, buy and use a tripod.
Important, don't jump in with your eyes shut; start with a camera and a 24 exposure roll of film to see if you can cope and afford it. Spend a thousand on a film camera and you could easily regret it and have no money for the film's prints...
Regards, David
PS Starting with a 120 roll film camera will really complicate things, please don't even think about it.
PPS (Edit) RF's should be a choice made by mature and experienced photographers, apart from the RF's for beginners like the Konica C35 and Olympus 35 range and they'll probably not be right for you.
PPPS And buy a notebook to record what will be your successes and failures, so you can learn from them.
Norwaycamera
Established
Hello and thanks all for the help/replys/tips.
All very welcome and needed for me.
Medium formate, TLR and folders....Well, never crossed my mind to be honest with you.
First film, not just that I find myself shooting a lot more photos than maybe needed but also the fact that you end up with some many photos, before your chip is full, that I find myself hardly remember who/where we was on the first photos....Hope I am not the only one.
With film, I have to think more, less shots pr roll, a cost before I see how they turned out, maybe resulting in some better photos.
Home developing, maybe, but first, I have to start shooting.
Medium formate or not.
Is it that much difference?
I am also a fan of the old slides, great fun and a nice way showing the photos.
How is that with medium formate?
A TLR, to me, they look dam cool, but how are they to operate? Same with a folder...Looks more professional than I am.
Also, a TLR is not a camera you can carry around like you can with a SLT or RF....Maybe I am way off, only seen them, never handled one.
Hmm..Need to do some more thinking before I run off and buy myself a camera.
All very welcome and needed for me.
Medium formate, TLR and folders....Well, never crossed my mind to be honest with you.
First film, not just that I find myself shooting a lot more photos than maybe needed but also the fact that you end up with some many photos, before your chip is full, that I find myself hardly remember who/where we was on the first photos....Hope I am not the only one.
With film, I have to think more, less shots pr roll, a cost before I see how they turned out, maybe resulting in some better photos.
Home developing, maybe, but first, I have to start shooting.
Medium formate or not.
Is it that much difference?
I am also a fan of the old slides, great fun and a nice way showing the photos.
How is that with medium formate?
A TLR, to me, they look dam cool, but how are they to operate? Same with a folder...Looks more professional than I am.
Also, a TLR is not a camera you can carry around like you can with a SLT or RF....Maybe I am way off, only seen them, never handled one.
Hmm..Need to do some more thinking before I run off and buy myself a camera.
Norwaycamera
Established
Hi David, why stay away from 120 film?
The notebook I will get and use. Thanks for the tip.
The notebook I will get and use. Thanks for the tip.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
$1000 to spend on an analogue, a.k.a film based camera, yet being basically clueless about film photography?
For a thousand dollars you would be able to buy so, so much, in all formats and styles.
Nikon FM (my favorite to start with, but it will cost $100 rather than $1000). Add a 50mm f1.8 E lens for about $50 as well.
If you want to go 120 on a budget, nothing beats a Yashica Mat 124. Think $150-ish. Lenses are included :angel:
And of course the cameras below also easily fit the budget, even with a decent lens thrown in:
Hasselblad 500 C/M
Leica M2
Intrepid 4x5
For a thousand dollars you would be able to buy so, so much, in all formats and styles.
Nikon FM (my favorite to start with, but it will cost $100 rather than $1000). Add a 50mm f1.8 E lens for about $50 as well.
If you want to go 120 on a budget, nothing beats a Yashica Mat 124. Think $150-ish. Lenses are included :angel:
And of course the cameras below also easily fit the budget, even with a decent lens thrown in:
Hasselblad 500 C/M
Leica M2
Intrepid 4x5
Except a Rolleicord. Less pot metal, just a nicer thing all round. Depending on where you are they can be found for $150 too. Given a choice between the original or an imitation it's a no brainer.$1000 to spend on an analogue, a.k.a film based camera, yet being basically clueless about film photography?
For a thousand dollars you would be able to buy so, so much, in all formats and styles.
Nikon FM (my favorite to start with, but it will cost $100 rather than $1000). Add a 50mm f1.8 E lens for about $50 as well.
If you want to go 120 on a budget, nothing beats a Yashica Mat 124. Think $150-ish. Lenses are included :angel:
And of course the cameras below also easily fit the budget, even with a decent lens thrown in:
Hasselblad 500 C/M
Leica M2
Intrepid 4x5
Norwaycamera
Established
Thanks for helping, giving good tips.
Yes, maybe I do have a high budget, glad I can get something good for a lot less. Lucky me.
I was saying 1000 for start, just to be sure I ended up with a good camera, one that can be fixed and a good lense
SLR, I do like the look on the Nikon FM.
Yes, maybe I do have a high budget, glad I can get something good for a lot less. Lucky me.
I was saying 1000 for start, just to be sure I ended up with a good camera, one that can be fixed and a good lense
SLR, I do like the look on the Nikon FM.
Norwaycamera
Established
Thanks for the reply.
I will try and look and try one out.
But, by just looking at them, they do look a bit large for caring around....Are they of a solid construction?
Cheers.
Not as large as a Rolleiflex, typically (some very old models may be smaller than later Rolleicords, but, generally).
Rolleis are strange things. I've stripped down a few and put them back together working better than they did before I worked on them. So I think I have a few insights. The standard of build is superlative. In their day the Rolleiflex was the best medium format camera you could buy, bar none, and the Rolleicords were almost as good. You could argue the merits of the Hasselblad SLR versus the Rollei post 1956, and objectively there were/are points for and against either make of camera. As far as image quality went they were generally too close to split. But I digress. Re: build, the Rollei quality of workmanship was second to none, and the proof is that in many cases, it is possible to take a sixty year old Rollei, service and adjust it, and have it functioning as good as new without any replacement parts. Not in every case. But often, if the example has not been abused. That says a great deal about their inherent quality in itself.
However. Parts of the camera such as the back are made of (beautifully pressed and finished) aluminium. The lens board uses a system of cams and followers that are a very precise and accurate way of adjusting the lens focus. But they do not appreciate being banged around, dropped and knocked etc. They can last for decades (some of them will still be being used when they are a hundred plus years old). You do need to treat them with some respect if you want them to stay at their best. That doesn't mean you cannot take them into the field, they are not fragile cameras. But they aren't the sort of camera you'd throw into the empty boot of your car and leave to rattle around it as you drive. Not that any decent camera really is.
Some people say a Rollei is bulletproof. It's not. (A Nikon F is bulletproof, Don McCullin established that, the hard way, during the Vietnam conflict). They're well made. Durable. Very long lived. But they don't care for being abused, and if you do, your lens board will go out of plumb sooner rather than later. Treat them with the respect they deserve, though, and you can take them almost anywhere.
Cheers,
Brett
Fadedsun
Established
My first film camera was a Pentax K-1000, which died not too long after I bought it; the shutter busted. After that I picked up a Canon A-1 (people would probably recommend the AE-1 instead) which served me well for my introduction to film photography. I still use it occasionally, but for street photography the shutter is obnoxiously loud.
I would recommend either of these cameras to start out with as they're both quite cheap.
I would recommend either of these cameras to start out with as they're both quite cheap.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Expensive mainly and you'll find it a bit of a handful if you intend to develop your own. Try finding a lab before you go that deep into the water.
6 x 6 and bigger slides are mind blowing but I suggest you look at the cost and so on; films and a projector. Also, with slides you must get everything right before touching the shutter button and that isn't easy.
Having said that the Yashica's a pleasant camera to use but might just be too much for you. It's something you come to after a while, not your first choice in my opinion.
Regards, David
Norwaycamera
Established
Brett, thanks for a very good reply, great information.
Agree, all things needs to be taken care of, well not a iron bar.....
David, thanks.
I have found a lap who do all formate, so that is good.
But, as you say, medium is a bit more expensive.
I am off now to have a look at a Spotmatic, it is with its first owner and some lenses.....what that means I do not know.
But, will lett you all know what it turns out to be.
Agree, all things needs to be taken care of, well not a iron bar.....
David, thanks.
I have found a lap who do all formate, so that is good.
But, as you say, medium is a bit more expensive.
I am off now to have a look at a Spotmatic, it is with its first owner and some lenses.....what that means I do not know.
But, will lett you all know what it turns out to be.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The Spotmatic is a pleasant camera to use with some great lenses, ask about batteries to worry the owner, and look through the lens for fungus, scratches etc. BTW, they are going cheap on ebay here (GB) and accessories are being given away sometimes.
Regards, David
PS We never asked, stupidly, but what sort of subjects do you photograph? Because, for example, the TLR's are so-so for landscape but great for portraits etc...
The Spotmatic is a pleasant camera to use with some great lenses, ask about batteries to worry the owner, and look through the lens for fungus, scratches etc. BTW, they are going cheap on ebay here (GB) and accessories are being given away sometimes.
Regards, David
PS We never asked, stupidly, but what sort of subjects do you photograph? Because, for example, the TLR's are so-so for landscape but great for portraits etc...
Norwaycamera
Established
David,
Thanks for the tip, I will do so.
Well, landscape, family is my main goal.
I do like a camera that I can take with me, in the woods, mountains and yet use it when the Sunday dinner guest arrive.
(But, a one camera for all, guess that is hard.....and why you guys have more than one.)
Thanks for the tip, I will do so.
Well, landscape, family is my main goal.
I do like a camera that I can take with me, in the woods, mountains and yet use it when the Sunday dinner guest arrive.
(But, a one camera for all, guess that is hard.....and why you guys have more than one.)
GaryLH
Veteran
An annodote....
Though definitely not the general case.. Or even remotely close to what happens in college photo classes today.
Back in the mid-70s when I was in college, the professor who was teaching the photo classes.. First Day .. He told his classes park your film cameras, your all gonna use a yashica mat 124 in the beginner photo class.
Anyway, I heard this from my archi roommate at the time that was taking his course. If I remember correctly, the advance classes he let them use whatever cameras they wished.
On the other hand, my wife used my Nikon FE2 when she was taking a photo course in junior college in the 80s (carreer change). Her professor didn't care what the camera was so long as if had full manual control capability and they used a normal (50ish) lens..
Gary
Huss
Veteran
There are some really nice Nikons for sale on the Classifieds on this site right now (none mine!)