Ten Analog Cameras

[bmattock]

Thought this was not a bad set of choices for those getting back into film:

http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/02/ten-analog-cameras-you-can-pick-up-for-less-than-50/62930/

Ten Analog Camera’s You Can Pick Up for Less Than $50

If I was going to take issue with any of the recommendations, it would be the Miranda and the Topcon. Not because they are bad cameras, but because they are less common and more likely to have time-related issues that can be hard to fix.

It also has to be noted that some of these cameras are more automated than others and more conducive to use by photographers who have less experience with figuring out their own exposure settings, focus, etc.

Nice cameras, though.

 

[JP Owens]

That Nikkormat is hard to beat. Solid as a rock. I had a Topcon SuperDM for awhile once. Solid camera, but it was the pro oriented model. And of course, you can't go wrong with the Pentax.

 

[sevo]

Apart from the quirks of the Miranda and Topcon, the list has its errors - the SRT 101 does not matrix meter but is bottom weighted (which turns side weighted in portrait orientation), and is SR, not A mount. And some picks are not the wisest within a system - there is no point including the Nikon F60 along the F80, or the Ricoh KR-5 when the less restricted XR-7 or KR-10 also sell within the self-set limit, and the Maxxum 7000 is generally a bad recommendation as a camera to use (some of its too many poorly sealed knobs are almost inevitably dead) while working Dynax era Minoltas actually are more affordable.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I didn't know what Miranda was making cameras 🙂
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...ogies-in-345-million-takeover/article4232066/

I think the guy in the link provided by OP is single sided to SLRs. And none of them are nice to me. As film extremist 🙂 I would suggest Smena for diehard return. Fully manual and well under fifty.

But yes, SLR is safe and boring landing into film category.
OM10 is neat actually and dead simple with huge VF SLR.

 

[zuikologist]

Your comment about automation is very valid, and essentially dictates what should be in this list: a film camera for experiencing the film user interface of shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focusing ring or a film camera that can largely be interchanged with a digital interface. Neither is bad, just different.

Thought this was not a bad set of choices for those getting back into film:

http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/02/ten-analog-cameras-you-can-pick-up-for-less-than-50/62930/



If I was going to take issue with any of the recommendations, it would be the Miranda and the Topcon. Not because they are bad cameras, but because they are less common and more likely to have time-related issues that can be hard to fix.

It also has to be noted that some of these cameras are more automated than others and more conducive to use by photographers who have less experience with figuring out their own exposure settings, focus, etc.

Nice cameras, though.

 

[zuikologist]

And if I were adding another €50 camera, it would be a a Zorki 4 with J8 or i61 for bare bones film experience and great IQ.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

And if I were adding another €50 camera, it would be a a Zorki 4 with J8 or i61 for bare bones film experience and great IQ.

I'm not getting this buzz with Z-4. Ugly camera, shutter with uneven exposure and terrible shutter speed dial.

Your comment about automation is very valid, and essentially dictates what should be in this list: a film camera for experiencing the film user interface of shutter speed dial/aperture ring/focusing ring or a film camera that can largely be interchanged with a digital interface. Neither is bad, just different.

I have film EOS (dirt cheap) which is using exactly same lenses as digital EOS. I think first camera in OP link is the same for Nikon.

 

[ForestCap]

I'm not sure if you can buy some of the cameras (working condition) in the list for under $50. Well, it highly depends on where you live.

I would add Zorki-1 with collapsible I-22 or I-50 to the list.

 

[AlexBG]

No canon FD mount camera which is probably one I would have said.

Love my AV-1 and 50mm 1.4

 

[btgc]

They hardly are all analog each to other. Some are, though.

 

[robert blu]

Nice to see the SRT-101 in the list: it was my first SLR many (too many) years ago, I still have and use it sometimes with the Rokkor 50/1,7 lens (I had the camera checked a few years ago).
robert
PS: SRT-101 was also the first camera of Annie Leibovitz...🙂

 

[Emile de Leon]

Beseler Topcon was the 1st slr cam I ever used..I was 11...and someone loaned it to me..
Was going to buy a Minolta Srt 101...but couldn't get over the odd shaped prism hump...
Those were the days..1960's..

 

[xayraa33]

Shame, no Prakticas.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The article is for young people who have no experience and limited funds. This models are readily available in working condition. I agree on Nikkormat, Spotmatic, and Minolta.

 

[zuikologist]

I'm not getting this buzz with Z-4. Ugly camera, shutter with uneven exposure and terrible shutter speed dial.

It was just a suggestion to get an interchangeable lens RF into the list. Now, if we could get an M7 in there for $50....


I have film EOS (dirt cheap) which is using exactly same lenses as digital EOS. I think first camera in OP link is the same for Nikon.

Again, more a question about the UI - what are people after, the metal and glass experience of a 60s or 70s camera, or something altogether more modern.

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, doesn't he/she mean film cameras?

Anyway, I like the little Olympus range-finder but I think there may be battery problems as it takes a mercury battery, from memory. That might kill it dead for a beginner.

The Minolta 7000 is a great introduction but might be a little too complex to start with; better, imo, to return to film on a budget as you get a lot for the money.

Others also need batteries and being old (like the Spotmatic) might have problems that would make 100% working ones dear. And how do you get the Nikon with a standard lens for that price?

I'd go along with the others for a bog standard no metering and no AF camera. And where are the good quality P&S's that would be an easy step into film?

Regards, David

PS (EDIT) Just read it again and get the impression the Olympus 35 RC hasn't been owned or used as the lens is "reportedly" sharp etc.

 

[css9450]

PS (EDIT) Just read it again and get the impression the Olympus 35 RC hasn't been owned or used as the lens is "reportedly" sharp etc.

The internets are full of "top ten" lists like this one, usually written by someone who has not owned or used any of the items on the list, and who has merely Googled all the material in the article, with photos mined from Flickr. In other words: Take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[tomken]

No canon FD mount camera which is probably one I would have said.

Love my AV-1 and 50mm 1.4

Agree, loads of FD mount bodies and lenses out there. Even if you break something, it's cheap to replace (unless it's some crazy expensive L lense).

 

[bmattock]

Since we're all offering our personal favorites, I'll toss in one of mine.

For the person who is just getting into film photography, who doesn't have an investment in any particular system yet, I'd suggest a Pentax K mount body, perhaps one with AF and manual controls, such as the MZ-5/ZX-5. To me, this is a nearly-ideal beginner's camera for film, with an upgrade path to digital that doesn't involve throwing anything away or selling off depreciated equipment.

The ZX-5 can be used with ANY full-frame Pentax K mount (and many third-party K mount) lenses, manual focus, auto-focus, etc. It can be used with M42 screw mount lenses with the Pentax M42 adapter, no problem.

It can be used in manual focus or auto focus modes, and the exposure can be set automatically (based on what the lens permits) or under full manual control. It even has focus indication like the more modern Pentax DSLR bodies.

It's light, cheap, and reliable in my experience. If I had one quibble about it, it's that the viewfinder does not have a split-image rangefinder spot. However, I find it easy to focus manually without it, and the viewfinder screen is replaceable - I believe the ZX-M has the split-image screen and could be substituted, although I haven't tried that yet.

I also have the extension battery grip for mine, which allows the use of cheap AA batteries for film advance and the electronic functions.

Just a personal suggestion for the newbie. You can get into it cheaply, buy some really wonderful lenses, and then take all the glass over to a Pentax DSLR when desired - either keeping the film body for dual use or doing just one or the other, as one wishes.

 

[Addy101]

the SRT 101 does not matrix meter but is bottom weighted

It depends on your definition of matrix metering - back then it was the closest thing to matrix metering. This is what The Rokkor Files has to say about the topic:

However, it was not just the fact that the camera metered at full aperture that was revolutionary about the SR-T101. The camera actually incorporated the world's first matrix metering system, called the 'Contrast Light Compensator' system by Minolta. The system used two seperate metering cells, situated at different parts of the pentaprism. These cells measured the light falling on different parts of the viewfinder screen, and provide a reading that takes into account the contrast in a scene. As a result, the camera has the capacity to significantly reduce underexposure of shadows or other dark areas in a photo, by minimising the effect of particularly bright areas which are brighter than the real average of the scene.