Help me choose/buy a (vintage) camera!

[table1349]

It's not the camera that will give you the look. It is the choice of film, of processing, printing and a bit of time that gives that look. If you are looking for lens selection then I would definitely recommend either Nikon or Canon. At least in my area in the used film market there are more good lenses available for Nikon or Canon than Minolta or Pentax. Minolta would probably be my third choice as there seems to be more good Minolta glass then Pentax. They generally will have more accessories available as well such as winders, motor drives etc. You may have to pay a few dollars more for say an F2 or AE-1 but they were top of the line cameras in their day with the finest of builds. What ever you choose make sure to check out the meter and make sure it works as well as the shutter. A good used camera shop will have gone over all of that and will either have fixed any problems or let you know what problems it has.

 

[minicoop1985]

What Gryphonslair said. Here's an illustration:


Trout Museum by longm1985, on Flickr


Like a kid on christmas by longm1985, on Flickr

Both of those photos were taken with the same camera, same lens, and similar settings-I think both were 1/25, f4, or something close. The difference: the Trout Museum was taken on Kodak Tri-X (Thanks Limr, you got me hooked), while the kiddo was shot on Kodak T-Max, both 400 speed films. There may be some processing differences-not sure here, I didn't process them.

 

[minicoop1985]

Another thing you may consider: a soft focus filter, AKA Softar in some camera brand lingo (I forget which one), and some Kodak ProFoto XL 100. Not sure if it will get exactly what you're looking for, but the colors would be a bit washed compared to other films I've used and it's got a good, lo-fi high-grain look. Here's an example shot with an Olympus OM-1n, Zuiko 50mm f1.8:


R1-04325-0002 by longm1985, on Flickr

 

[Mike_E]

Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.

Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing? If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.

On the other hand if the desire to experience some of the history of photography runs a little deeper an SLR is in order. Nikon made (still does) some great gear but it's somewhat expensive due to everything being compatible with most everything else in their line. Canon killed off their FD line when they went to auto-focus so you can find some good bargains there. Then there are the usual suspects like Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Konica and so on.

You even might like a rangefinder which is a whole other can of worms. Canon again, Minolta, Yashica all made good ones of varying controls. There are several old Russian copies of Leicas or Contaxes (both of those are very good and very expensive).

So, How far do you really want to go?

 

[gsgary]

Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.

Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing? If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.

On the other hand if the desire to experience some of the history of photography runs a little deeper an SLR is in order. Nikon made (still does) some great gear but it's somewhat expensive due to everything being compatible with most everything else in their line. Canon killed off their FD line when they went to auto-focus so you can find some good bargains there. Then there are the usual suspects like Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Konica and so on.

You even might like a rangefinder which is a whole other can of worms. Canon again, Minolta, Yashica all made good ones of varying controls. There are several old Russian copies of Leicas or Contaxes (both of those are very good and very expensive).

So, How far do you really want to go?

You can get into Leica for cheaper than you think, an M4-2 is one of the cheapest ways and they are a joy to use and there are more lenses that will fit than any Nikon or Canon and there are also Nikon and Canon lenses that will fit

 

[table1349]

Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.

Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing? If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.

On the other hand if the desire to experience some of the history of photography runs a little deeper an SLR is in order. Nikon made (still does) some great gear but it's somewhat expensive due to everything being compatible with most everything else in their line. Canon killed off their FD line when they went to auto-focus so you can find some good bargains there. Then there are the usual suspects like Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Konica and so on.

You even might like a rangefinder which is a whole other can of worms. Canon again, Minolta, Yashica all made good ones of varying controls. There are several old Russian copies of Leicas or Contaxes (both of those are very good and very expensive).

So, How far do you really want to go?

You can get into Leica for cheaper than you think, an M4-2 is one of the cheapest ways and they are a joy to use and there are more lenses that will fit than any Nikon or Canon and there are also Nikon and Canon lenses that will fit

$1,000.00 is cheap??? Quick check of the prices they were going for was $1,000.00 + You can buy a lot of Nikon f2's & glass for $1,000.00. At least you can in my area.

 

[gsgary]

It's not the camera that will give you the look. It is the choice of film, of processing, printing and a bit of time that gives that look. If you are looking for lens selection then I would definitely recommend either Nikon or Canon. At least in my area in the used film market there are more good lenses available for Nikon or Canon than Minolta or Pentax. Minolta would probably be my third choice as there seems to be more good Minolta glass then Pentax. They generally will have more accessories available as well such as winders, motor drives etc. You may have to pay a few dollars more for say an F2 or AE-1 but they were top of the line cameras in their day with the finest of builds. What ever you choose make sure to check out the meter and make sure it works as well as the shutter. A good used camera shop will have gone over all of that and will either have fixed any problems or let you know what problems it has.

Exactly, the 2 shots below are the same film HP5 but the first is shot at iso800 and developed accordingly

This is HP5 shot at iso400 and stand developed in the fridge which gives a smoother look

 

[pondball]

Exactly, the 2 shots below are the same film HP5 but the first is shot at iso800 and developed accordingly This is HP5 shot at iso400 and stand developed in the fridge which gives a smoother look

HP5 .. Brings back some memories! Had to give up my darkroom when we moved to our house in the country close to 30 years ago... Which also giving up the B&W photography I enjoyed so much... Just got back I to it now with a recent purchase of "my new" D700... Most recent SLRs before that were two canons, probably from the late 60's to early 70's... Used them right up to '86 when we moved and gave up the darkroom, then only after that for some trips etc... But they were still very functional well into this millennium... Canon TL and FtB... Some prime lens, a macro and one tamron 70-210... Oh yeah, also had a Bunch of filters
One thing I'm learning is that it was a whole lot easier getting a shot with the old bodies than it is with my new nikon... Not complaining as I'm sure I'll enjoy this one too once I figure out the first 100 functions/settings... But the two old canons were about as manual as you could get and I kinda liked them for that reason... And yes they still worked even after the battery ran out!

 

[vimwiz]

Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home.
Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)

 

[pondball]

Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home. Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)

Didn't know HP5 was still available. Sadly, all the photo stores have closed down within a 40 minute drive of me. I used to roll my own film and could get upwards of 70+ shots on a single roll. Probably still have so,e of the old stuff hanging around including the dark bag and film roller. Definitely have the cameras and lens sitting around. Good point about scanning though... Never thought about that... Duh! Ilford was always my choice of paper, matte or semi matte, but don't think I ever touched glossy as I don't like shiny things.

 

[gsgary]

Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.

Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing? If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.

On the other hand if the desire to experience some of the history of photography runs a little deeper an SLR is in order. Nikon made (still does) some great gear but it's somewhat expensive due to everything being compatible with most everything else in their line. Canon killed off their FD line when they went to auto-focus so you can find some good bargains there. Then there are the usual suspects like Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Konica and so on.

You even might like a rangefinder which is a whole other can of worms. Canon again, Minolta, Yashica all made good ones of varying controls. There are several old Russian copies of Leicas or Contaxes (both of those are very good and very expensive).

So, How far do you really want to go?

You can get into Leica for cheaper than you think, an M4-2 is one of the cheapest ways and they are a joy to use and there are more lenses that will fit than any Nikon or Canon and there are also Nikon and Canon lenses that will fit

$1,000.00 is cheap??? Quick check of the prices they were going for was $1,000.00 + You can buy a lot of Nikon f2's & glass for $1,000.00. At least you can in my area.

Thats not too expensive search for my other on ebay M4P 70 year Anniversary

 

[jando]

well the list is getting shorter. however there are 2 cameras i found: olympus pen ee2 and minolta sr-1. I like them because some photo examples actually are that mix between sharp and soft (I couldn't choose which one I'd prefer more). And at this point understand it's the lens and the film. Also filters were suggested (thank you!, I'll look into that). But it's just that I saw proof that you can take pictures like the ones I'd want, as opposed to just trusting you guys (but I do, don't get me wrong haha). The picture were taken with colour negative film (mentioned by 71M). I don't know the lenses for the cameras, but I think in this case they're important because some pictures taken with the same film looked much sharper. But I'm guessing it would be possible to take exact same looking pictures with the cameras already on my list (the ones you all suggested)? Two examples (L: Minolta Sr-1 / R: Olympus Pen EE2) :


sources: film is- going down | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and Grans Magatzems | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Mike_E asked what was I planning to do. As I said to pixmedic privately I guess I'm just planning to document my life but in a more personally tasteful way, hence not getting any camera or taking picture with any camera I have around me. So that means I'm not gonna be going too far with this I just want a camera that could take pictures like the ones I want. It's a big possibility that in the future I'll experiment and buy/try new things, but I have to start first ha.

But I think there's not much more all of you can help, I think I'll just have to choose.

 

[vimwiz]

Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home. Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)

Didn't know HP5 was still available. Sadly, all the photo stores have closed down within a 40 minute drive of me. I used to roll my own film and could get upwards of 70+ shots on a single roll. Probably still have so,e of the old stuff hanging around including the dark bag and film roller. Definitely have the cameras and lens sitting around. Good point about scanning though... Never thought about that... Duh! Ilford was always my choice of paper, matte or semi matte, but don't think I ever touched glossy as I don't like shiny things.

Yeah Ilford film and supplies is very common here in the UK, HP5 is still probably the best widely available/easy to process/cheap b&w film.
Yeah, use a scanner, much cheaper to get started with!

 

[jando]

Well I still haven't bought a camera haha, but the list is not that long anymore and I have been doing extra research, checking prices etc (pros and cons). I now have a small question about Minolta Sr-1's lens or maybe just lenses in general. The picutre below was taken with a 50mm Rokkor f/1.4 And I wanted to ask if I were to get the body with a 55mm lens, let's say f/1.8. How different would the image look? Or if I got a 50mm f/1.7? Just curious. Had a hard time understanding when reading articles so I thought I'd just ask as everyone's very helpful.

 

[minicoop1985]

I vote Rokkor 50 1.7.


Someone's pride and joy no more by longm1985, on Flickr

50 1.7 Rokkor-X, XG-SE body, testing out the in-camera metering.