I'm here To Learn

[nycphotography]

I think if you are on a budget, and you want to learn, that film is a "very bad idea".

Unlike when a dinosaur like me started, a "very small investment" will get you a phenomenal camera and infinitely reusable film. What is a "very small investment"? Well film is going to run you $20 a roll bought, shipped, developed and printed. if you shoot only one roll a week (and I used to shoot 3-4 rolls a DAY when learning),with the right $200 starter camera you are ahead on cost in less than 6 months.

So _I_ would suggest a used LX5 or G12 for around $200, and the Grimm book basic book of photography for $20.

Either of those digital camera will let you learn exposure, aperture, shutter, film speed (iso), focus, depth of field (somewhat), composition, etc. Plus, you can literally shoot 10 rolls a DAY and then go home and review and STUDY what you've done IMMEDIATELY, rather than waiting a week to get your film back and then try to remember exactly WHY you took 3 frame of the dog and what you were trying to accomplish.

I love film and mourn it's loss, and I truly hope you eventually come to film as an artist. However, there is a much better way to learn the basics of the art.

Just my honest advice.

 

[May Baby]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

 

[robbins.photo]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

Haven't bought used from Adorama, but I've bought more than a few used items from KEH - there rating system is pretty stringent. Most of the stuff I've bought in EX grade or better you'd be hard pressed to tell from brand new.

 

[Braineack]

I have three film cameras I could give you for free today...

using tapatalk.

 

[May Baby]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

Haven't bought used from Adorama, but I've bought more than a few used items from KEH - there rating system is pretty stringent. Most of the stuff I've bought in EX grade or better you'd be hard pressed to tell from brand new.

Hmmm good to know. That's a plus for KEH as of right now.

I have three film cameras I could give you for free today...

using tapatalk.

I'm listening...

 

[vintagesnaps]

That's my thinking, which ones? lol I do not need another camera, I was just looking at Adorama because I can't remember their ratings off hand and decided I need to click on sell, not buy.

Can't remember but probably from Adorama I went with E or E+, and KEH usually about the same, Ex Ex+ or LN, but I have bought bargain. The only thing now is that KEH uses I think stock photos, you aren't seeing the actual camera you're buying (they used to do that but don't anymore).

Film is like $3 or so a roll, cheaper if you get expired film to experiment with. If you want Portra or specialty films it's more but even a 5 pack of Portra is like $30. Try FPP, they sometimes have specials; a 9 roll sampler B&W or a 6 roll color film sampler is around $30.

Developing was about 10 bucks a roll from The Darkroom (San Clemente) but it went up some, more if you want hi res scans or prints etc. Or try Dwayne's (Kansas) or Blue Moon Camera (Portland). Or people develop their own B&W and now there are actually kits to do color (but I don't know how good they are).

There's no need to go out and shoot a lot of rolls at one time, try taking pictures when going someplace or doing something where there will likely be something worth photographing. Shoot one roll, get it developed then go from there, take time to learn what you're doing. It takes some time either way, it did for me going from film to learning digital (I didn't give up film, just added a digital camera) and Polaroids, and alt. processes.


Now you see what happens when you ask a simple question. Or a longer question! lol

 

[vfotog]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

either would be fine. I learned on a Minolta-X370, the 700 would be fine. A much better option than the original two you posted.

 

[May Baby]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

either would be fine. I learned on a Minolta-X370, the 700 would be fine. A much better option than the original two you posted.

You really think so? I guess I'll take your word for it. And I really don't know what I was thinking with those first two cameras.

Since you learned on the X-370 would you mind giving me some first hand tips when I buy the X-700?

 

[vfotog]

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???!?!?!?!

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.

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.

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).

Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds. And honestly, after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique.

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama.

Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price?

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade.

What do you guys think?

either would be fine. I learned on a Minolta-X370, the 700 would be fine. A much better option than the original two you posted.

You really think so? I guess I'll take your word for it. And I really don't know what I was thinking with those first two cameras.

Since you learned on the X-370 would you mind giving me some first hand tips when I buy the X-700?

if you post them here, I'm sure you'll get a lot of help. I'll do what I can too.

 

[May Baby]

I'm buying my X-700 tomorrow. Does anyone have any lens recommendations? I have $100, the camera body is going to cost $60-$65 so the most I can afford is something 30-$40. I want to at least be able to buy two rolls of film.

Should I get a 28-70mm lens first? Or should I get something that's 70-200mm?

I'm also open to donations haha.

 

[Derrel]

LUCKY FOR YOU, the Minolta manual focus lens mount is a dead mount...there are no new lenses being made in the mount, and no new bodies, and Minolta is out of the camera business entirely, so...the bodies and lenses turn up at Goodwill and Salvation Army, and in thousands of pawn shops across the world. The X-370- and X-700 were pretty good sellers for Minolta, and many were sold with 50mm lenses, or 35-70mm zooms; as far as what you will likely find on the pawnshop-level, it would be mostly inexpensive zooms like 35-70mm f/3.5~5.6, stuff like that...smallish, fairly compact zoom lenses, many in "store" brands, mostly manufactured by small Japanese lens makers and re-badged. Quantaray, Rokinon, Asanuma, and other names you've probably never heard of. There are often 70-200 or 70-210, and similar lenses, roughly 3x ratio tele-zooms, with f/3.5 to f/3.8 maximum apertures, sometimes f/4, available very cheaply, like $15 or so from pawn shops. These lenses were CHEAP when sold initially, like $79 or $59.

I would suggest that the 35-70mm lens is the best buy, and the most-useful with a 35mm film SLR. Look at KEH.com and Adorama, places with large used lens inventories. If you go to pawn shops, let the store management know that YOU KNOW that Minolta lenses are "dead mount"..and that over $20 for almost ANY non-Minolta lens is too much money to pay. if you notice, the vast majority of pawnshop lenses are dusty,and have sat inside the box or case for 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 years, and have not sold.

 

[May Baby]

LUCKY FOR YOU, the Minolta manual focus lens mount is a dead mount...there are no new lenses being made in the mount, and no new bodies, and Minolta is out of the camera business entirely, so...the bodies and lenses turn up at Goodwill and Salvation Army, and in thousands of pawn shops across the world. The X-370- and X-700 were pretty good sellers for Minolta, and many were sold with 50mm lenses, or 35-70mm zooms; as far as what you will likely find on the pawnshop-level, it would be mostly inexpensive zooms like 35-70mm f/3.5~5.6, stuff like that...smallish, fairly compact zoom lenses, many in "store" brands, mostly manufactured by small Japanese lens makers and re-badged. Quantaray, Rokinon, Asanuma, and other names you've probably never heard of. There are often 70-200 or 70-210, and similar lenses, roughly 3x ratio tele-zooms, with f/3.5 to f/3.8 maximum apertures, sometimes f/4, available very cheaply, like $15 or so from pawn shops. These lenses were CHEAP when sold initially, like $79 or $59.

I would suggest that the 35-70mm lens is the best buy, and the most-useful with a 35mm film SLR. Look at KEH.com and Adorama, places with large used lens inventories. If you go to pawn shops, let the store management know that YOU KNOW that Minolta lenses are "dead mount"..and that over $20 for almost ANY non-Minolta lens is too much money to pay. if you notice, the vast majority of pawnshop lenses are dusty,and have sat inside the box or case for 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 years, and have not sold.

Great advice, thank you!

I was planning on going with this since it's ready available and I can be sure of quality...

Used Tokina Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f 3.5-4.5 SZX270M

But now you've got me wanting to go on a manhunt to pawn shops around the city. It's definitely something I'm going to do.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...see, there you go...a "name brand" third party lens, Tokina, and it's a 28-70mm, so you have wide, semi-wide, normal, and short telephoto all in one lens that's $34.95. So, you end up with about a $100 Minolta 35mm SLR kit.

 

[Designer]

If you don't pay ENOUGH then you're not serious.

 

[May Baby]

Yeah...see, there you go...a "name brand" third party lens, Tokina, and it's a 28-70mm, so you have wide, semi-wide, normal, and short telephoto all in one lens that's $34.95. So, you end up with about a $100 Minolta 35mm SLR kit.

If you don't pay ENOUGH then you're not serious.

Jesus Designer you don't let me off easy lol.

But nah I definitely understand where you're coming from. It's just that I'm so eager to jump in this and get started. My budget is my budget and I'm just trying to get the best within that budget.