Help me choose/buy a (vintage) camera!

jando · Feb 26, 2014

Hi,

I'm new on here as can be and I must say I don't know a lot about cameras.

I'm trying to find a camera for myself. I have my iphone camera (that I can obviously use whenever) and I do have a good, new camera with great quality around me (it isn't mine though). The thing is, the cameras these days are too much for me, the quality is too good and so are the colours. There's too much to focus on in a photo! When I look at older pictures (60s, 70s, 80s) I find calmness in them. In nowaday pictures I just see a memory (if the photo's mine). I want both. I want an older camera that might not have the greatest quality or colours, maybe on or the other. I can't put my finger on it. I'd use it for trips or something specific. You know, you take one picture and that's that, these days you can check them on the digitals or you take so many, it's just a big fuss.

p.s. I do have a soviet LOMO 135 M. so maybe I'll use that (but there are some problems).

please ask questions if needed!

dxqcanada · Feb 26, 2014

Hmm, I think you are looking at those snap shots from the family camera ... like the cartridge cameras, particularly 126 instamatics : Instamatic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are viewing the prints now, most will have colour fading due to the dyes in the paper.
Most of those cameras had limited shutter speeds and aperture size, so they tend to under or over expose.
Many had plastic lenses, or very low quality glass elements.

Gavjenks · Feb 26, 2014

Agreed, the classic color is usually from degrading ink. If you looked at those same images you like so much 5 minutes after they were developed, you probably wouldn't like them as much. They would look distinctly more modern.
To achieve similar results now, you would most easily just take a nice crisp colorful image, and degrade it on purpose with a software filter in photoshop, or instagram or whatever.

As for more deliberate photos, just shoot film, and you'll automatically be more deliberate cause each shot costs you. Easy enough to solve. Film cameras cost like $30 and film is $5 incl. developing depending where you are. Cheapest thing to get into ever.

If the composition of the photo you feel is calmer or simpler, that's just an artistic thing you'll have to learn as your style. It probably has more to do with the psychology of your parents or whoever was snapping the photos from your past than it does equipment.

minicoop1985 · Feb 26, 2014

You probably want a Hasselblad.

OK, fine, that's probably a really bad idea. Anyway, being newer to photography in general, I would recommend a good electronic manual focus SLR from the 1970s or early 1980s. The ones that come to mind are Minolta XG (make sure it has a good capacitor first), Nikon FG, and Canon A-1. All three have some incredible glass available and are reasonably easy to find at reasonable prices. 35mm is a pretty good starter film-easy to find, cheap, and easy to handle/load. Also much easier to find somewhere to develop.

jando · Feb 27, 2014

Thank you all three of you! I was worried for a moment that no one had replied.

I'm a bit unsure now. You see the thing with intamatic is that I adore the designs and the photos too but I'm worried that I might feel that the photos I'd take may feel bit kitsch? (not as much with the newer models) But I guess this is more about preference?. The cameras suggested by minicoop are obviously a bit more professional and look much more sturdy, but the photos almost seem modern (you can still feel a bit of vintage though). I do take the thing about discolouration in consideration (now). Question: If I were to choose from the Minolta XG, Nikon FG and Canon A-1. How should I know which one to buy? Should I just get the one with the best price? (as I'm going to buy from ebay).

Is there anything else anyone might suggest? At the end I'll still most likely choose from anything mentioned here.

weepete · Feb 27, 2014

The first ever SLR I used was an old 70's Pentax, used it for years when I was a kid and it was great. I still remember the old green light meter on the side of the viewfinder. If I was buying one I'd get another old Pentax.

vimwiz · Feb 28, 2014

The retro effect you describe is mostly caused by cheap or degraded film, or maybe an out of focus/cheapo lens.
The bodies themselves dont make much difference whatsoever to the image quality, its not like how one DSLR can have a better sensor/dsp than another.

Ive got a buinch of 70s Canon bodies and with good new (but inexpensive) film and canon lenses they take very sharp, modern pictures, equivilent to any DSLR.

The only real differences I note are down to film brand (This affects colours), and speed (Grain).

Buy whatever body works for you. With the same film and grade of lenses, something like a 70s Canon F or A wont make your pictures any more "retro" than shooting with a late 80s model like a T , or even an EOS from the 2000s.

P.S I have a bunch of Canons. AMA.

minicoop1985 · Feb 28, 2014

Oh man, how did I forget Pentax? Yeah, a K1000 would be a safe bet too. They're indestructible. Ever get mugged, they make great weapons too.

gorilladiver · Feb 28, 2014

If your looking for 35mm film try a Cannon AT-1, very simular to the pentax K1000, both good choices. You might also want to check out the Holga cameras, they are really cheap and give a vintage look to photos, mainly do the cameras cheap construction.

examples of the holga Galleries — Holga Medium Format Camera - Microsite - Lomography

timor · Feb 28, 2014

jando said:
Question: If I were to choose from the Minolta XG, Nikon FG and Canon A-1. How should I know which one to buy? Should I just get the one with the best price?

From this trio I would choose Nikon FG. Minoltas have problem with shutter capacitor and cloth curtain, Canon A-1 also has problematic electronics plus is using expensive battery, not widely available. FG is very compact and reliable. The drawback - expensive lenses, but will work with anything modern except for G lenses - no aperture ring. I have on my FG a Sigma AF zoom 28-105. The viewfinder is still bright enough to work with this not that fast zoom.
The vintage zoom you are looking for comes mostly from processing of the film and prints. If you want that right in camera you should look in Lomography way or some old cheap cameras with plastic lenses and very little controls. Like La Sardina:
Lomography La Sardina DIY Edition Black 35mm Wide-Angle Camera ? Lomography Shop.

Edit. The funny thing is you can have the same look you are so much after with digital camera and a bit of twaeking in PS or, like this image:
http://beanievision.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/xprolablomo_huron_oh_rt6_zup70_cvs400-copy.jpg
in Gimp (LOMO effect).

71M · Feb 28, 2014

jando said:
p.s. I do have a soviet LOMO 135 M. so maybe I'll use that (but there are some problems).

please ask questions if needed!

Well, you're spoilt for choice really. Olympus XA, (or XA2, if the rangefinder focus is too fiddly for you). Nice liittle shoot-and-scoot camera; pocket-sized, sweet lens.

Pav10566 · Feb 28, 2014

The choice of camera's is enormous...it will depend on what type of camera you'll be happy to "drag around" SLR or a point-and-shoot type. If you take an SLR, will you want it to have manual settings or still AE or TV facility? SLR will take marvelous sharp photo's...I have been a Canon user for 40 years now and have an extended range of FD Lens cameras. In that range I'd recommend a F1 N which combines automatic settings or fully manual or the A1. If you are interested check the models out on internet for reviews and Ebay for selling prices...don't hesitate to ask questions

For a Point-and-shoot there is a huge choice, personally I have a Minolta AF-C...35mm, mostly manual but with AF and a very,very good lens, it takes incredible sharp pictures and you can carry it around in your pocket, very small and the batteries last forever

Good luck in your choice

jando · Feb 28, 2014

Yes, I have a lot to choose from. Thank you all once again for the help! I learnt quite a bit too.

I'm still a bit confused about the whole 'how a photo turns out'. So if I want a not so modern looking photograph it mostly depends on the film I use? (ignoring how comfortable, easy to use or durable a camera itself is).

I'll probably have more questions but I'd firstly like to know about the film (what I'm asking above) then I'll do more research on the suggested cameras.

71M · Feb 28, 2014

jando said:
I'm still a bit confused about the whole 'how a photo turns out'. So if I want a not so modern looking photograph it mostly depends on the film I use? (ignoring how comfortable, easy to use or durable a camera itself is).

Well that can depend on how old, or 'faux old' you want it to look. To state the obvious: no auto-focus, you'll manually focus, and if the camera lacks a rangefinder or lens-reflex system, you'll be guessing distance and setting the lens in an imprecise manner, using its distance scale to zone focus. Many cheaper cameras just had an even more primitive near/far focusing mechanism instead. What were you used to, in the past? The pressure plate inside the camera, that keeps the film flat for an exposure, will be less reliable on some older, cheaper compacts, than higher quality ones, and can affect sharpness across the image. A wide range of B&W and colour films are history and unobtainable now. If you're nostalgic for Kodachrome colours, it's over with.

Maybe go to the store and buy some disposable film cameras. They will give you 'the snapshot look', and a fairly decent image if you use them carefully.