Starting with film, what camera to get??

[CK Dexter Haven]

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. Cheers,
Brett

I kinda agree with this. I think, in this day and age, shoot film because you like the LOOK of film, not because you want a more 'contemplative' shooting process. As mentioned above, there are many ways to 'slow down' with a digital SLR.

Personally, when i had a 5D or whatever, i may have shot the same amount or slightly more than when i shot film, but with film, i overshot the same/slightly different shots (fashion/portraiture), for safety/bracketing. With digital, you know what you have and can move on to newer/better/more experimental ideas. Digital can push you further in certain ways, and help you develop your eye. Film forces you to understand the technical side more, and to 'predict' results rather than react to results. Different stuff.

 

[x-ray]

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).

Completely agree. Even the FM and FE first generation are excellent. I bought a like new FE body for $38 and a nice 50 f2 for $40. Can't beat it. I owned Leicaflex 2 SL's and MOT in the 70's and had many problems with them. I hated the shape/ feel and clunky heave nature and got rid of them. Also I had difficulty focusing them. I'd much rather use my Nikons any day.

Forget about what looks cool. If that's your concern you'll never improve. Pick functional over cool looking. The Flex was never popular among those of us that make a living with photography for good reasons.

 

[Coopersounds]

Norway, I'm not sure what kind of digital camera you have, but here is an alternative process.

Turn off all the automatic features if you can (shutter, aperture, focus) and shoot it in complete manual mode. You can bracket your shots (one under exposed, one right on, and one overexposed) to see just how your metering system handles the lighting. That's a first step in using it like a film camera.

The second step is to get a small memory card, to limit your photo taking, the smaller the better. You'd likely have to buy these used, since everything sold new now days is in the 16GB or larger range. Knowing you have a limited amount of image storage will hopefully cut down on the number of images you take, and force you into thinking more about what you are shooting.

A third step would be to set your camera to monochrome if it has that setting. Experiment with the different versions it may have, especially if they mimic certain old film emulsions (my favorite was Kodak Plus-X).

Then use that budget to get out and shoot photos! There is nothing like making a journey to far flung spots for the sole purpose of documenting what you find there. Just thinking about how you will interpret the scenery may get you to concentrate on the best way to photograph it, without resorting to machine-gun tactics.

But if you are really resolved to get a film camera, I'd go with the simplest SLR you can get locally, with a standard lens. Make sure to get a hood for the lens, and some filters (Skylight for color, UV, Yellow, Orange, Green, and Red for B&W, and a Polarizer for both) so you can learn about contrast control, and haze and reflection reduction. And get a decent bag to carry it all, along with several rolls of film.

Have fun!

PF

This is exactly what I thought too. Before you spend the money, try a few 'film features' with your current camera.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I think the trouble is that digital is too blooming (euphemism) easy. Instead of thinking I just push one of the function buttons and the thing does five bracketed shots and later on I pick one. Took me a while to stop doing that (all those photo's of my feet when I forgot the setting was still 'live' did it) and I've been making slides for 50 to 55 years and getting it right (and 37 or 38 slides per roll).

One of my reasons for using film, apart from the pleasure of handling and using the cameras, is so that I don't forget how to take a picture.

Regards, David

PS Talking of spending money, has anyone else noticed how the Leica R5's, 6's and 7's have become so cheap lately? A pity the lenses aren't...

 

[David Hughes]

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

Hi,

Difficult to believe that a professor taught photography, you're not Italian by any chance?

Regards, David

 

[leica M2 fan]

Norway Camera there is a lot of good information on these pages. Sort through it and see what might apply to your wishes. Be sure once you decide to let us know what you decided to do. Most of all, enjoy your selection and do your very best with it.

 

[mdarnton]

There's no better deal than a Nikon FG and 50/1.8 lens--$50. If you like it, you can always spend more money later, buying everyone above's wishlists. Me, that was good enough for me, so I spend the rest of my money on Nikon lenses and Leica stuff, not some expensive Nikon body.

 

[Dwig]

IMHO, the two greatest student cameras are the Yashicamat 124G and the Pentax K1000, though the former's meter is dubious these days are the mercury batteries it was designed to use are not longer made. After these two, there are many many other excellent choices. I would lean toward a dominantly mechanical model with no autoexposure option, as to avoid the "evil deamon" and force the discipline of having to think about exch exposure.

@OP: If you go with film, I would recommend that you keep the hardware purchase on the economical side (not hard to do), at least at first, and leave room in the budget for film and processing. A few good books on exposure and composition would also be a good addition.

 

[Fraser]

For that kind of budget why limit yourself to film or digital, I would buy a 5d classic, Eos 5 and a 50mm 1.8.

 

[ktmrider]

Get the best classic ever made-the original Nikon F. I know there are arguments for other SLR's but the Nikon F, like the Leica M defined SLR's for a generation of photojournalists.

 

[BillBingham2]

Get the best classic ever made-the original Nikon F. I know there are arguments for other SLR's but the Nikon F, like the Leica M defined SLR's for a generation of photojournalists.

Not to mention the metric-glass-tons of great lenses available. A hand held meter, plain prism, say a classic three lens set up (24/2.8, 50/1.4, 105/2.5) and you have a very easy to carry system that should meet many of your needs.

Or perhaps a 28/2.8 AI-s, 85/1.8, and a 300/4.5 ED-IF if you want something newer but still fun.

I'm not thinking switching to film will do much more than burn some cash. You can do the same by picking more control-able digital camera (e.g. Fujifilm X-T10, X-Pro1) with lenses that have a more traditional aperture controls (around the lens) (e.g. 35/2) and turn off the auto everything you would have the same results.

Or, take a step back in time and pick up a Nikon D60 and a CV or Nikkor 20mm and use the Histogram on the LCD as your meter and learn to set exposure the old fashion way, trial and error.

I think you are moving in the right direction, though a class or two at a local university/continuing education program might not be a bad trail to try for a bit either.

Best of luck, keep asking questions and as mentioned above keep us in the loop. Any way you go you will have fun and we are always here to help.

B2 (;->

 

[anerjee]

I also find myself taking more and more crapy photos, no limit, just shoot away......Hmm.

This problem is easy to solve. Buy a LF camera, and shoot sheet film. Seriously. 😎

 

[Ronald_H]

IMHO, the two greatest student cameras are the Yashicamat 124G and the Pentax K1000, though the former's meter is dubious these days are the mercury batteries it was designed to use are not longer made.

There is a meter in my Yashica Mat 124? 😉

Although I have one of those adapters that would allow the use of a silver oxide battery (got them once for a Canonet) I never bothered with it in the Yashica. I do have a simple handheld light meter but after so many years the one in my head also works pretty well. The f16 rule will get you a long way.

The K1000 is well respected, but I am partial to mechanical Nikons. Old cameras nearly always give some sort of trouble (Leica's included, trust me, I know), but Nikons almost never do. Even EMs and FM10s stand up to a lot of hard use.

 

[johnnyrod]

Holy cow! Usual torrent of advice but always difficult for the OP to make sense of it!

For landscapes, if you know where to point your camera, a 6x9 medium format folder will give you fantastic photos and folds up flat to go in a bag or pocket. You'll have to get the hang of exposure though, but with things like Pocket Light Meter for iPhone, and the latitude of film for getting it wrong, you should be fine. Film and processing are expensive though.

Really though if you want to improve, I'd go for a 35mm SLR as you can see the image you'll get - this is the problem with rangefinders, you see an approximation of the image as it has a separate viewfinder. I'm a Pentax man and they are plentiful and cheap; the MX, KM, ME Super etc. are all quite capable, and the Pentax lenses are not bad at all. I would go for one with some (exposure) automation so you can just grab a shot when you need, but for landscape you have plenty of time to consider your settings. SLRs aren't so compact though, but a 50mm pancake lens is as good as it gets.

As said above, try going manual with your digital. Often it's a bit of a pain of navigating menus, I seldom bother, whereas a film camera often means you have to start with settings. If you think your photos are rubbish though, forget settings and concentrate on composition. Try to take one good picture, then try reframing it or moving aroundthe subject, or similar, then one more good one. My wife takes thousands of utterly rubbish pictures with her phone, blurry an allsorts, instead of trying to land a good one - unfortunately spread betting doesn't work in photography!

 

[narsuitus]

When I feel the need to slow down and/or relax, I usually select one of the following manual/mechanical film cameras:

1. Large format (4x5 or 8x10-inch) sheet film pinhole
2. Ansco Standard Speedex 120 medium format folder
3. Argus C-3 35mm rangefinder

When I want to slow down and/or relax with a manual/mechanical film SLR, I select one of the following:
1. Nikon F2 with meterless prism
2. Pentax Spotmatic
3. Fuji ST705

 

[Ronald M]

Your problem is you do not know how to get decent prints from digital. Today film is digitized by processors and that file is digitally printed.

It is the very same linear flat a digital camera produces. You have two choices. First is shoot JPEG from camera or use photoshop. You need a contrast increase curve to make the flat file look like film. Sometimes simply increasing contrast with the camera will do. Also add some clarity which increases mid tone contrast.

Without some manipulation, digital prints look pretty ugly. But film is going away as more and more places have stopped developing. You will be left with an orphan process.

Start with photoshop elements for $100 and learn to use it well. Send the files to a quality printing service, not the local drug store. Millers is one.


When you do not believe me, go to KEH Brokers and buy an inexpensive camera.
If you buy Nikon SLR with modern lens Ai or newer, the lens can be used on a modern Nikon DSLR when you make the transition.

 

[dee]

I found that using the most basic DSLR - a Sony A290 which has an old CCD sensor which adds depth at the expense of speed , together with a 35mm [ nom 50mm ] lens , full manual control and monochrome was a good introduction to the possibility of adding a film camera [ SRT with 50mm f 1.4 ]
It is great practice because there are many limitations upon subject matter and light levels.
I would not advise a short zoom because the quality is not there and it negates the learning from that single perspective .

dee

 

[ferider]

This is exactly what I thought too. Before you spend the money, try a few 'film features' with your current camera.

For me personally, the biggest advantage and learning experience in using film is having to wait until I develop, then hanging up the film to dry, and inspect it to see which negatives came back as planned.

This can not be emulated with a digital camera.

I suggest again that the OP first roughly decides which film to use (B+W, color, MF, etc.), how to develop, and how to print. Depending on equipment needed (and I'm not talking about dark room) this will affect the budget. Worry about the camera afterwards.

Roland.

 

[CMur12]

To the OP, I encourage you in your quest.

I find the experience of using the manual mode in a computerized multi-mode camera very different from that of handling an all-manual camera, with an aperture ring, a shutter speed dial, and a focusing ring as the main controls.

In the case of the latter, manual control is natural and normal, as the controls are simple, straightforward, and it is the only way to wield the camera. I don't find manual control of a computerized multi-mode camera in any way "natural" (my personal experience). One certainly can use a multi-mode camera in manual mode, but there is too much distracting clutter, in my opinion, for a clean learning experience.

I experience photography differently depending upon the camera I choose for a given task. My approach is heavily influenced by the choice between an all-manual 35mm SLR or a medium-format TLR (also all-manual), even though I ultimately apply essentially the same skills to both.

So, yes, I firmly believe that an all-manual camera is, by far, the best training tool for learning manual control in photography.

I'm partial to old manual-focus Minoltas for 35mm, but all of the cameras that have been recommended so far are excellent choices. Perhaps the most important consideration would be to get one in really good condition, even recently serviced.

One thing to keep in mind with many of the older 35mm SLRs is the matter of 1.35v mercury batteries. I don't think the 1.5v alkaline batteries are a suitable replacement, even if the camera has been adjusted to 1.5v, as alkaline batteries don't provide a steady, consistent output. With one of these cameras, you would need to use zinc-air batteries, which are moderately expensive and short-lived, or you would need something like a CRIS adapter (this has worked well for me), which drops the voltage of a silver oxide button cell to 1.35v. One could also use a smaller zinc-air hearing aid battery with some sort of spacer around the battery to make it fit the battery compartment. One could do the same (same kind of adapter) with a silver oxide cell in the case of a camera adjusted to 1.5v.

- Murray

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Another consideration is having or not having specialist repairers in your country. It can make a huge difference...

BTW, some cameras are happy with modern 1.4v hearing aid batteries, near enough to 1.35v to make no real difference. And then there's the weird LR 44 or SR 44 aggro, which I could never understand.

Regards, Davd