Begginer advice

[JarredRoss]

Hey everyone. Im posting this thread to recieve a little advice on what to do. Im on a pretty tight budget--being 15-- of about 150$. Ive seen 16mp point and shoots for a little over that, but from what ive heard, you can coax amazing shots out of even the most ancient film cameras that and digital under $5kcant touch. Also, film is way cheaper to start, being as the most expensive film camera ive ever seen was like 450$, while thats a bottom line price for dslr's. At the same time, a lot of the pictures i will take, i will not have 20 seconds or more to fiddle around with shutter speeds and iso adjustments or whatever have ya. I think film would be cool but if you experienced photographers tell me film will not suffice for what im doing, then ill go from there. Thanks for any advice, Jarred

 

[SCraig]

If you are on a tight budget film is most likely NOT the way to go. A film SLR Body is inexpensive, true, but then you still need lenses for it. Also, once you shoot a roll of film you still need to have it processed which in this day and time is not inexpensive. Should you choose to do it yourself then you are going to need a darkroom and all the equipment that goes with that. Both the camera and darkroom require a certain level of experience and knowledge before you will be able to turn out even the most basic decent photographs. You are going to make a lot of mistakes in the beginning and waste a lot of film, so that is money down the drain that would not be wasted with digital.

My recommendation, if you intend to pursue a more in-depth level of photography, would be a digital "Bridge" camera. These are the more advanced "Point-and-shoot" cameras. They don't have interchangeable lenses so once you purchase one you are limited to what it on the camera. They have very small sensors so you are limited in the capabilities of the camera as well. They are, however, capable of outstanding photographs within the limitations of the camera and would serve well as a stepping stone to something more advanced in the next couple of years when you can afford it.

 

[texkam]

Smart phone.
I-pod 5th gen.

 

[gw2424]

I would look at a Olympus Epl1. FS: Olympus EPL1 14-42 kit. Panasonic 20mm f1.7. Hoya ND8X, ND400X, Marumi CPL 52mm. - FM Forums

It is cheap, somewhat durable, and is great for learning about a DSLR without the expense. I'm 14 myself so check out my work to see where you could be after 8 months of work!

Flickr: GabeWisePhotography's Photostream

Good Luck,

Gabe W

 

[JarredRoss]

Ok Ok, price of lenses and bodies put aside, how long does it really take to get the controls down and get the shots to look decent? They make fully automated slr's too, still a ton cheaper than a dslr...

 

[Ysarex89 83]

Hi Jarred,

What you heard about film versus digital isn't true. Given your budget you want a digital camera and ideally a used one. SCraig is right, the cost of film and processing will shut you down quickly. Every time my wife says, "Another digital camera!? How much was this one!?" I remind her what I used to spend on film and processing. You're not going to find a used DSLR for $150.00, but you can find a used compact that you can learn on.

Joe

 

[gw2424]

I picked up the controls within a month or so. However, I sucked. I couldn't pull out good contrast or colors! Remember that whether an image is underexposed or overexposed it can still be a great photo.


“There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.”
--Ansel Adams


-Gabe

 

[JarredRoss]

How much do you think you would spend a year on film and processing? I can handle the 70 or so dollars for the camera and 40 for junk film getting used to it. But i mean if it was hundreds for development...

 

[gw2424]

It would be hundreds. I have taken about 14,000 images in 8 months. Say 3 bucks for a roll and 4 for processing; 36 shot roll.

$2700

Ouch?

Ouch.

Ouch!

 

[teribithia]

Smart phone.
I-pod 5th gen.

Are you joking , The cheap card camera maybe more useful.

 

[texkam]

a lot of the pictures i will take, i will not have 20 seconds or more to fiddle around with shutter speeds and iso adjustments or whatever have ya

A smart phone can be great for someone who doesn't want to "fiddle around with shutter speeds and iso adjustments or whatever. You can also make some outstanding pictures too.
40 Incredible Photos Captured with SmartPhones - noupe
iPhoneography, the worlds #1 iPhone photography blog, bringing you the latest news, reviews and events - iPhone Journal
iPhone Photography
http://www.facebook.com/iphotography

 

[Patrice]

Jarred,

Go get yourself a second hand dSLR. D70, D80, or if you are patient even a D200, can be had for 100 to 300 bucks, often with a kit lens included. Film is expensive, even if you develop yourself, not counting the cost of equipment, you still have to get chemicals. Then you have to scan them, unless you only want to print which is another source of expense.

BTW: use your shift key to capitalize where appropriate. Bad punctuation portrays you as immature, or worse, lazy.

 

[bsinmich]

I have used film for 60 years and digital the last few years. I have put the digital away for a while and using all film, and even black and white. I have a complete darkroom downstairs with 2 enlargers with color heads and all the rest. I am now using B&W in some of my TLRs. There are over 150 cameras there so I have a big choice available. It is very easy to do B&W processing and also not very expensive either. I gave my darkroom away to Boys & Girls club when I moved to Holland, MI. I missed it and bought back more on E-Bay. I now have way too much so if you would like some let me know. I make the trip occasionally to St. Clair where i have Granddaughters & Great Grandson and more in Capac.

 

[weepete]

Film can be great, but if you are learning there simply is no substitute for digital, there's never been anything like it since the affordable compact camera, and the simple reason for that is cost of processing.

At you budget a half decent point and shoot with a comprehensive manual mode is the best option. The only difference between a decent point and shoot and a big dslr is the amount of variables you can control to get the shot that's in your head. If you are smart you can still get kick ass photos with other cameras. If you understand the basics and the limitations of any camera you can get good results, it's much more about composition, willingness to find the photo that work and understanding the basics that can get you that great shot.

The biggest difference is the floppy bit of skin behind the lens.

 

[Duckysaurus]

If you are really in a tight budget, go for a point-and-shoot. Canon point and shoots are generally really good (this coming from someone who shoots Nikon DSLR), and some other brands such as Panasonic or Sony uses Zeiss glass for their lenses are also good too.

Would recommend one of the following (rough Amazon.com prices, can buy elsewhere):
- Panasonic Lumix SZ7 ($130)
- Canon A4000IS ($100)
- Panasonic ZS15 ($130 used)
- Sony CyberShot DSC-W610 ($100-110)

Don't do film unless you can afford the film development and the rolls (not cheap).

And don't think a camera with more megapixels is better. More megapixels means more details (larger file sizes), but also more noise (those white dots you see) when ISO (when you are shooting in low-light, point-and-shoots will usually automatically raise this) is increased. More MP is not always a good thing.