Looking to learn with 35mm before going to dSLR

fdiddy · Oct 13, 2009

I am new to the technical aspect of photography but am very passionate about good photography and love to take pictures. I was looking at diving into a dSLR and then thought that I would love to learn photography from the ground up. I'd like to buy a 35mm SLR.

I like the idea of MF so that I can really work at doing everything myself, but don't know enough about the difference between MF and AF to make that decision.

The last thing that is high on my priority list (if it's at all possible) is to make sure that the lenses I will be buying for my 35mm will work with a dSLR that I undoubtedly will buy in the future. I prefer the style of Canon and Sony dSLRs but if Nikon makes lens interchangeability easier it's not a deal breaker.

I'm 100% on starting with 35mm, I will not buy a dSLR now, please don't recommend that I might as well just start with one.

Thanks for all of your knowledge and help.

KmH · Oct 13, 2009

Go to wikipedia and check out the Canon and Nikon lens mounts over the years.

That will give you an idea of which lenses will work with both film bodies and digital bodies

Derrel · Oct 13, 2009

Sony means Minolta AF 35mm SLR bodies. Canon means the last few remaining Canon 35mm SLR bodies made before they stopped producing film cameras. This information is of course, based on the ability to use the lenses from a 35mm film camera on a future digital slr body.

You want Manual Focus? Flip a switch and move from AF to MF.

And have fun paying $12 for every 36 pictures you take as you learn. Around the $5,000 point, you will have managed to make about 415 trips to the lab, 415 trips back home, and probably 200 trips to by film. SO, by the time you've spent $6,000 on film,processing, and drop-off and pick-up plus film purcahsing trips, you'll have learned as much in a year as you could in a month with a $550 Nikon D40 kit.

fdiddy · Oct 13, 2009

I forgot to mention that I would also like to start developing my own pictures, but I think that's a different discussion for another place. Thanks for the replies.

c.cloudwalker · Oct 13, 2009

I am a film photographer, fairly new to digital. Although I will keep my DSLR for some specific things, I intend to go back to film.

That said, everything you do with a film camera can be done with a DSLR. Meaning you can learn photography with either one. Just because a camera gives you all automatic everything (including focusing), it does not mean you can't choose to do it all in manual.

And when you're talking about learning, I have to agree with Derrel. Considering the cost of film and processing, you would learn much faster with a DSLR unless, money is no object.

If you are thinking about doing your own darkroom work, then it is another story altogether. Of course, setting up a color darkroom is not as simple as a B&W one. Color requires much more precise temperature control and the equipment is not as easy to find used as what you need for a B&W darkroom.

Nothing wrong with B&W. That is 100% of my personal/art work. But it is not what everybody likes either.

If you insist on starting with film, I would not worry about lenses fitting whatever digital body you buy later. Just pick a tank like all manual body and a couple fully manual lenses at a garage sale, pawn shop, or on ebay. Depending on your luck, it'll run between $30 and $100 to have something very decent to learn with.

txphotog · Oct 13, 2009

I agree with the couple of previous posts. Digital will teach you a lot quicker because you can take more pictures without spending money getting them processed.

IgsEMT · Oct 13, 2009

my 2cents:
Digital will teach you faster, but film will teach you how to GET your shot and not bang-out 20frames hoping that one of them will come out.
Both film and digital have positives and negatives, if you have a mentor who can guide you, it'll probably be the best thing for you.
Good Luck

c.cloudwalker · Oct 13, 2009

IgsEMT said:
my 2cents:
Digital will teach you faster, but film will teach you how to GET your shot and not bang-out 20frames hoping that one of them will come out.
Both film and digital have positives and negatives, if you have a mentor who can guide you, it'll probably be the best thing for you.
Good Luck

Sorry IgsEMT but I disagree 100% Just because you can keep your finger on the button and bang-out 20 frames in no time doesn't mean you have to do it. There is such a thing as self control.

fdiddy · Oct 13, 2009

IgsEMT said:
my 2cents:
Digital will teach you faster, but film will teach you how to GET your shot and not bang-out 20frames hoping that one of them will come out.
Both film and digital have positives and negatives, if you have a mentor who can guide you, it'll probably be the best thing for you.
Good Luck

This is exactly what I was thinking. I want to be able to take a picture based on knowledge. I don't want to take a picture, then look at it on the LCD screen, and then recompose it, change settings whatever. I believe that I will retain information and think more about my choices if I don't have a way of seeing how my shot turned out before I'm long gone from it.

And yes, I want to develop B&W, not colour.

Overread · Oct 14, 2009

fdiddy said:
This is exactly what I was thinking. I want to be able to take a picture based on knowledge. I don't want to take a picture, then look at it on the LCD screen, and then recompose it, change settings whatever. I believe that I will retain information and think more about my choices if I don't have a way of seeing how my shot turned out before I'm long gone from it.

And yes, I want to develop B&W, not colour.

Film won't give you this
Digital won't give you this

Only shooting - and shooting lots will give you this - combined with experimentation. Never get into the trap of thinking that all the old masters only ever took one shot of a scene and walked away with a keeper. Many times they would take a series of shots at different settings to ensure that they got the correct look on the photo when they get back to the lab. Sure experience (years) would help them whittle down the number of shots needed to get that correct effect as would familiarity with the subject they are working with as well.
I seem to recall one notable photographer saying that 1 keeper out a roll of film (36 shots) was good day out.

I'm not trying to talk you away or toward either film or digital, I just want you to understand that shooting with a film camera will not make you a better photographer or make the learning process any better or quicker. Infact being able to review shots in the field and make key changes whilst your there - in the light and can retake the shot is a fantastic thing. Sure its showing that you didn't get it right the first time -but its giving you a change to correct that mistake and learn from it. All those great film masters - they've got boxes of old failed shots that the world never sees

Dwig · Oct 14, 2009

Given your desire to start with a MF film SLR and want some degree of compatibility with a future DSLR your only real choices are Nikon and Pentax. Even with these, there are some significant limitations in lens compatibility between the older film SLRs and modern DSLRs.

The Canon EOS film cameras share a lens mount with DSLRs, but these are highly automated AF cameras that would offer absolutely no learning advantage over or distinction from their DSLRs. The same goes for the Minolta Maxxum line of film cameras. The only reason to try to learn on these, instead of a DSLR, is to learn film darkroom techniques. The lenses older manual focus Canon A & F series, FD mount lenses, and the older non-Maxxum Minolta models, MD and MC mounts, aren't compatible with the Canon and Sony, respectively, DSLRs.

The older MF lenses for Nikon will work on their DSLRs if they are AI mount or newer (~1974 or newer). The Pentax K-mount lenses, and older thread mount with an adapter, will work on their DSLRs. In both cases there will be no gain in functionality on the DSLRs (MF lenses stay MF, ...) and in some cases there is a loss (AI Nikkors don't work in all metering modes on DSLRs and on some they don't meter at all). In both cases, modern AF lenses, if they are compatible with full frame DSLRs, will work on the older MF bodies provided they have their own f/stop rings (many don't).

Dao · Oct 14, 2009

Being a beginner in photography, I will agree with others that going with digital help me learn and understand photography faster. One of the draw back with digital camera when compare with film based camera is the stock focusing screen on digital DSLR. It is easier to use manual focus on film camera. (i.e. split circle focus screen)

I believe the learning process (except film processing) is some what the same with digital or film. But then again, I do not know too much about film camera. I bought a used Canon EOS film camera, and I will use it in the future especially on B&W.

Gecko23 · Oct 14, 2009

fdiddy said:
I was looking at diving into a dSLR and then thought that I would love to learn photography from the ground up. I'd like to buy a 35mm SLR.

The physical process of photography is the same, irregardless of what media you are exposing onto.

And I can't agree that taking fewer pictures means that you'll take better pictures. For every published shot you see, no matter whether it originated on film or SD card, I promise you that the photographer who produced it took dozens, possibly hundreds more that will never see the light of day.

I say, get a DSLR, then if you want to tinker with manual, switch the mode dial to 'M' and hook up some vintage manual glass and have at it. Pentax and Nikon are the best bets for backwards compatibility, but there are adapters for just about everything that will work fine.

battletone · Oct 14, 2009

I am not very good at judging exposure just by looking at the current condition and know what I need. But even my "old" Maxxum 4 has an exposure meter of sorts. ...which I guess you could use just as a backup and just decide what you want prior to looking through the viewfinder.

But I would say get yourself a 35mm camera if you want one, especially if you plan on setting up a darkroom. I found it to be fun the few times I had the chance to print my own pictures. Just don't get hung up on what film camera will have lenses transfer over. There are some smoking deals out there right now on film cameras with plenty of lenses all packaged together. Then get your digital one day from the company that has what you want. You don't want to be stuck with something just because you wanted a $50 lens to work in the future. I don't know how much info the lens made for film cameras would provide on a DSLR, but these new cameras write so much about your exposure settings, lens type, and zoom into the file that I would consider that something worth looking into before investing too much in pre-digital lenses.

blash · Oct 14, 2009

Word of advice: grab a Nikon. Why not say, Canon, with the one or two film SLR's that they have to support the EF mount that is used with their SLR's and not the ancient FD mount that doesn't work anymore? Because these bodies will be electronic bodies - they will still automatically set the aperture and shutter speed for you, and generally autofocus as well.

What you want is a Nikon FM/FM2/FM2n/F2AS. I have a FM2n that I bought at B&H this past summer and it is a great little camera. The battery in the camera is only used for the exposure meter, the actual operation of the camera can occur without a battery. I can use it with my newer 50mm f/1.4 AF-D lens, because the lens has an aperture ring for manual aperture selection - this lens will meter 100% and work perfectly with all the newer Nikon DSLR bodies. The FM2n I bought also came with a split-focus screen which makes it MUCH easier to manually nail focus (the FM2n doesn't autofocus) than any of the screens on DSLR's today (wish #1 for a new Nikon DSLR for me? A split-focus screen).