I'm here To Learn

[table1349]

Well like most newbies you didn't list you location in your profile. If you have a brick and mortar store anywhere near you that would be an excellent place to go looking. Usually a good place to get older film gear at good prices. Plus any decent brick and mortar will have completely checked their used film stuff out and either make sure it is in good working order or will let you know if there is some issue with it.

 

[May Baby]

Well like most newbies you didn't list you location in your profile. If you have a brick and mortar store anywhere near you that would be an excellent place to go looking. Usually a good place to get older film gear at good prices.

My bad, I'm in NYC.

 

[table1349]

Ought to be at least one or two brick and mortars in that town.

 

[dennybeall]

If you consider your first 500 pictures:
-- film - 500 shots = 25 rolls @ 15$(buy film & develop it) = $375 + $50 camera = $425 and toss out 35% of the pictures.
-- digital 500 shots = $0 + $425 Camera w/lens - next 500 shots = $0 = Next 500 shots = $0 etc.

Can you tell I'm 100% digital now after many years with film.

 

[May Baby]

If you consider your first 500 pictures:
-- film - 500 shots = 25 rolls @ 15$(buy film & develop it) = $375 + $50 camera = $425 and toss out 35% of the pictures.
-- digital 500 shots = $0 + $425 Camera w/lens - next 500 shots = $0 = Next 500 shots = $0 etc.

Can you tell I'm 100% digital now after many years with film.

Ehh, still gotta go with my heart.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I'd take opinions into consideration but do what works for you. It's not like eventually you can't have both; I have a digital camera that works with lenses that I use with film rangefinders.

Seeing more pictures of that Yashica didn't exactly help it any. Looks like it should be thrift store bound (if even that). The Argus maybe, I don't know; pricing where you live for many things is probably higher than a lot of places but those are pretty common. On Craigslist people can describe an item any way they want but if the thing doesn't work you're out the money.

You're in NYC - go over to Adorama, or try B&H - both reputable, both sell used and have vintage film cameras. Or try KEH online, I've even bought their bargain condition and it may not be as pretty but works fine.

 

[wfooshee]

I gotta say go with digital, too. I'm 58 years old, have been shooting since 1980, so I grew up with film. Comparing what I went through to learn photography "back in the day," I would have KILLED to have some way to just toss the experimental shots that didn't work, without having to pay anything for them.

I have a Nikon F4 that I gave less than 200 dollars for, and it's functionally perfect. It shows wear, the labeling on some buttons is worn, things like that, but it's an incredible camera. If you HAVE to have a film camera, an F4 or an F100 would be a great option, about a thousand times more camera than anything you've listed for only 2 or 3 times the money.

Going back to FD-mount Canons might be an option, too. A T90, the most advanced pre-autofocus camera Canon made, is about a hunnert bucks these days, and Canon FD lenses are cheap, too. Probably cheaper than Nikon's legacy glass, because Nikon's legacy glass is still useful on Nikon's modern cameras.

The whole tone of your first post is "This is what I'd like but the funds aren't happening, gotta do it on the cheap!" You are NOT going to save money shooting film!!!!! Not gonna happen!!! A C-note for film and processing for every 4 rolls? And you could shoot four rolls in an hour's walk through a city, easily! You haven't spent money on scanning, yet, either, if you want to scan the images for archiving, uploading, or posting. Film scanners (that work) are $$$EXPENSIVE$$$. Scanning film with the adapters on flat-bed glass scanners absolutely sucks.

The other prominent tone in your first post is, "I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but dammit I wanna shoot film!" It's because you don't know what's in store for yourself that you ought to pay attention to those "older and wiser" folks when they say start digitally. There's no lack of romance or art in shooting digital images! You have INSTANT feedback on your shots. You try something and you know right away if it worked or not, rather than 2 days or 2 weeks later, depending on where you have to take or send your film to be processed (by which time you've forgotten everything you did, probably.) Film is fun to shoot, and the old cameras are a joy to hold and operate, but when you're new, neither of those statements will be true. You will be frustrated, discouraged; you will expect the shots to come back one way and when you see them you'll think your film was mixed up with someone else's at the lab, it'll be so far off what you thought you did. Maybe two months, six at the outside, you'll put it all away and never look at it again.

Get an older digital SLR for a hundred fifty bucks somewhere. As you can afford it, buy lenses. Eventually upgrade the camera - your lenses will still fit it if you stay in the brand. And you won't have ANY per-shot continuing expense. Why should you spend the better part of a dollar EVERY TIME YOU PRESS THE SHUTTER BUTTON when you (by own admission) don't know what you're doing???!?!?!?!

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm thinking my point may have been missed. I'm not telling you not to shoot film. What I am telling you is that you will be doing yourself a huge, huge favor by getting an old DSLR first and using it to master the basics.

Ok, when you shoot film you take a shot. Then you take another, and another - eventually you use up the whole roll. Then you go and have it developed. Then you see what the end results are, usually weeks after the fact. Your not going to remember what camera settings you used unless you write them down for every single shot. Even then you probably won't remember too many details about your shooting situation, etc.. unless you took copious notes.

Now,take that same shot with a low end DSLR - you can take it home and view the results on your monitor that night. Your going to remember a lot more about your shooting situation, and as a huge bonus all of your camera settings are recorded in the pictures EXIF data.

So you can look back through those shots and see, this was my shutter speed. This was my ISO. This was my aperture setting. You can compare that to similar shots with different settings. You can see the effect those settings have. You can experiment and learn at an exponentially faster rate.

So get the DSLR. Experiment. Learn. Figure out the exposure triangle. Metering. How various conditions affect your shot. Then, once you have the photography basics mastered, then if you feel the desire to shoot film get a vintage camera.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D50 ,$89 in Excellent condition, with battery and charger. HAS built-in focusing motor inside the camera body...NIKON D50 6.1 M P DIGITAL CAMERA BODY - KEH Camera

That FX-3 body's covering looks molded and THRASHED....utterly thrashed. The seller is a gold and silver pawn shop...it's a junker, priced at $50. The Argus C-3 is 60 years old. Looking at the case, I would say it's been used a LOT. The viewfinder and rangefinder are likely cloudy--from the tanning agents in the neverready case leeching out the tanning products since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president...

KEH.com has newer, better Nikon autofocus bodies for $35-$50. The FX-3 was the cheapest 35mm SLR I could afford the summer I got out of high school...$50 for it today with the stock f/1.9 50mm lens in that condition is highway ROBBERY. I bought a newer, BETTER Canon EOS Rebel XT for $29 at Goodwill with a Sigma 70-210mm AF zoom lens...which is about what it's worth, $29 with a telephoto zoom lens. The Rebel you have from CL at $35 is an okay deal, but within a week you'll spend the price of it for 72 clicks of film and developing...

The batteries for the Rebel are $7 each.

I understand the romance of film, as misguided as it is.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I learned shooting film; so did plenty of other people. You don't need to use a digital camera starting out (you can but you don't need to); you don't need to see immediately what you did, you need to learn to see what you're looking at.

You need to learn how to frame shots; you could do that with a midcentury viewfinder w/no glass in it, or cut a rectangle out of piece of cardboard (til you get a camera) - just learn how to frame what you see and what you want in your picture. You can practice without film in the camera. Learn how to move around and change your vantage point. Learn and understand how cameras work. Learn how to get a proper exposure.

I can get a good film photo, or a good digital photo, or a good Polaroid. I've gotten some of each accepted into juried exhibits; just shipped one across country, this time a digital image. Last time it was a Polaroid. Good is good.

I'd suggest taking some time to keep looking into what camera you'd like that fits in your budget for now and go from there.


And taking notes is not just a way to refer back to something, but the act of writing something down helps remember it (metamemory).

 

[dcbear78]

I couldn't imagine learning on film. Digital makes it so much easier to learn on. And cheaper. You will most definitely get better faster in digital. I'm now picking up film cameras for my own benefit now I know how to take photos.

But if you must....

Check out Pentax cameras. There are plenty around but they are slowly increasing in price. Something like an ME Super would be good with its semi auto mode.

 

[vfotog]

Warning: Long read ahead...

I'm a 22 year old complete beginner and for a long time now i have been wanting to learn photography and how to become a real photography.

The problem is I have no idea where to begin at all. I literally have no knowledge of the type of camera shots, terms & phrases, nada. The only thing I kinda know is a wide shot and even then I don't fully understand the concept of that. The realization of how much I don't know and how much there is to learn is honestly intimidating/overwhelming but I can't let that stop me.

I've already decided that I'm going to use a film camera and there's no convincing me. All the photos that I love are on film plus it's the original way. And it just looks better.

I have my eyes on two films cameras that are within my budget right now and I want you guys to help me choose...

The Argus C3 Brick

I can get this right now for $40

The Yashica FX3

I can get this right now for $50

Which one do you guys think I should get?

I decided to go with these two before I save up for a Nikon FM because they are in my budget right now. And because I've learned the hard way with other things that it doesn't matter if you have the latest and greatest if you don't know how to do ****.

you've been given a lot of good advice here, but I suspect you aren't hearing it. Back in the day when I managed camera stores, I helped hundreds of students buy their first film cameras. I wouldn't pay $10 for either of these cameras. But I don't think you should buy ANY camera until you do some reading first. Go to the LIBRARY or read online; there are thousands of books on film photography. If you think you like the photographs these cameras take, then you don't understand how the cameras work. It is the result of the photographer, not the camera. Film cameras, especially old ones, are nothing like digital in that any idiot can take a technically passable image with a digital camera. With a film camera you have to learn about film speeds, shutter speeds, f stops, depth of field, etc etc Once you have a grasp on how film photography works, and you are still interested, then you should start looking for a camera. Really popular student cameras back then were the Pentax k1000 and the Canon AE-1P. They were cheap, sturdy and had all the basics. I just looked on eBay and saw dozens of decent to mint cameras of these models in the price range you are looking at. If you want to go more modern and go autofocus, the film camera that was my favorite of all the ones I ever owned (YMMV) was a Canon A2E. You can find that on eBay with a lens VERY inexpensively too.

While we are talking dollars, I have to reinforce what the others here have said about money. Once you have a digital, it's really cheap to shoot as many images as you want. With film, you have to buy the film. C-41, E6, B+W? Selections are limited now. You have to make sure you've loaded the camera properly or you won't have any images. You can't check the images while in the camera; you have to wait until the film is processed. So while you are learning, expect to go through a lot of film while making mistakes. Then you have to find a place that will develop your film. Hopefully you'll find someplace near, but you may have to send it out. Either way, it'll probably be days before you get it back. The instant gratification of digital is absolutely gone. But with your budget issues, understand that with digital, you can see your images for free. With film, you pay for the film. You pay for the processing. You pay for either prints or a proof sheet and then prints. And while you are on the learning curve, you are paying for a lot of stuff that will really suck.

Instead of film, you can always buy an earlier model digital camera, (Canon 10D, 20D, etc) and you won't pay a lot, shoot manual, and make your mistakes for free while you are learning. And if you still love photography, then invest in a film camera.

 

[Designer]

Ehh, still gotta go with my heart.

Go for it! Yes, I learned on film.

I agree with Derrel's post about finding a better deal. Film cameras are not that expensive, and most of them still work. You just need to keep looking.

 

[TCampbell]

Yes I have fully considered the cost of all of that. The FM isn't in my budget because I don't have $450+ to spend.

$450? That's (very) high for any 35mm film camera. You can pick up an FM from Keh.com in "excellent" condition for about $150 -- if that was what you really wanted. There is a vast number of 35mm film cameras that are less than $100 in "excellent" condition.

 

[vintagesnaps]

There have been people who have posted images from their first roll of film and they turned out pretty good, they seem to have gotten decent photos in 24 shots (or maybe 36). Of course how much preparation or learning may have gone into it I don't know. I think it's quality not quantity, it's not necessarily hard it just takes learning what to do.

I tried pottery, took a class which was fun, but throwing a pot on a wheel is hard! lol Like a lot of things it would take liking it enough to stay with it, have a knack for it, keep practicing, etc. etc. I didn't like it that much. (And wasn't that good at it either!)

Your original choice of a Nikon might have been a good option if you find a better priced one. Then you could have lenses that would work with a digital camera in the future. Which - is not free!! lol