what camera to buy (beginner)

[CalebGGodwin]

ooohhhh, well that makes sense, lol. So I'm wanting something without a 'lever' near the snapshot button. Got it, haha...


Edit=================

what can I search for to get something that I don't have to 'wind' after every shot? it seems that all I see is that kind of camera...

 

[Battou]

Word.

And not to derail the thread but what Canon model do you have?

I currently own a Canon AE-1, Personally I do not much like this camera, it does not suit my needs very well. It's exellent for beginners with an extreamly easy to read viewfinder, but falls short in night photography with no mirror lock and shutter speed ranging from 2s to 1/1000.

I own, use and prefer the Canon EF, it uses the a similar view finder as the AE-1 but it is far more capibale after dark with Shutter speeds ranging from 30s to 1/1000, however it does not support auto wind like the AE-1, but I don't use auto wind anyways. Night ability is increadibly important to me as a third shift employee who maintains a work scedual during off time.

The Photos in those threads are of my cameras and are not google finds.

ooohhhh, well that makes sense, lol. So I'm wanting something without a 'lever' near the snapshot button. Got it, haha...


Edit=================

what can I search for to get something that I don't have to 'wind' after every shot? it seems that all I see is that kind of camera...

There are a handful of cameras with Auto wind features that do just that. Just include Auto wind in your search. I think that should work fairly well.

 

[djacobox372]

You are incorrect, on many counts, all of the last generation film SLR cameras use the same AF lenses as their digital counterparts.

The point of buying film SLRs due to a budget is specifically to spread out cost over time. As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time. Further more there are modern AF lenses for both of the major names that exceede the total I have spent on film processing in my entire life. Not to mention, if one gets into self processing all that processing expence gets dropped considerably.

Such closed mindedness is irritating.

Who's being closed minded? You are totally misrepresenting my advice, THATS very irritating. Nothing I said is incorrect! I shoot film and digital, and process my own film. But I'm giving the TS adviced based on the needs he outlined.

The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangable between brands! If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future.

Does the TS sound like a home darkroom type to you? because he sure doesn't to me--my advice is based on HIS needs not yours! Film processing is expensive!

A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick. It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$.

For $300 he can buy a nikon d70 body, that's in his price range and would be the best choice for him IMO.

If he's really into film I'd reccommend a nikon fe, or canon ae1 manual focus body, but with the motor drive--that will run about $200.

I think an extra $100 is worth autofocus, advanced metering, etc etc, and that $100 would be made up within a couple of weeks of shooting film and processing it.

 

[yellowjeep]

I currently own a Canon AE-1 SNIP

I own, use and prefer the Canon EF

I knew that, I should have said what Canon scanner do you have. My bad. :thumbup:

 

[djacobox372]

If you want the ease of digital. Here's what you should get, the camera cost about $300 + lens:

If you insist on film, and can afford to process it, look for one of these. They can be had for about $300 + lens:

I'm bowing out of this conversation because of the unavoidable and annoying flame ware that occurs whenever someone posts a picture of a digital slr in a film forum. I just want to make sure the TS is fully informed of all his options.

 

[yellowjeep]

The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangeable between brands! If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future.


A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick. It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$.

I agree with the first part. As I stated earlier this is why I have the 700si.

Deals can be found on film also, past date film is not by definition bad film. I picked up 24 rolls of run of the mill Kodak Gold dated 10/07 for $11. It is fridge fodder, something quick and easy to grab for me. Processing can run anywhere between $4-12 from my experience. Caleb didn't say he wanted to shoot film exclusively so costs don't have to add up that quick.

And as Battou said
"As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time.".
$200 is the highend of what is needed for a good working film SLR even with a motor drive. Sure its not going to be a 9 or an F5 but it will be a good workable camera.

 

[Battou]

Who's being closed minded? You are totally misrepresenting my advice, THATS very irritating. I shoot film and digital, and process my own film. But I'm giving the TS adviced based on the needs he outlined.

With your first post on the forum, You walk in to the film discussion spouting anti film retoric and say FYI every one else trying to help you is full of **** and spending your money unnecessarily and then suggest a camera that is out of the stated budget.

You came off as very closed minded as you had no real background information available at the time.

The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangable between brands! If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future.

I am well aware of that, that is why I stated that the mount of a lens is more important to a beginner than the focal range and aprature information.

Does the TS sound like a home darkroom type to you? because he sure doesn't to me--my advice is based on HIS needs not yours! Film processing is expensive!

No, they do not seem like a home processing type right now, but the potential is always there.

A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick. It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$.

I don't know where you get your film done but I pay half that. I take issue with people claiming digital is cheaper. If you want prints of any real quality...guess what you are paying the same twenty or thirty cents per print that you would with film, and that is after the thousands you just spent on the gear to take the pictures.

For $300 he can buy a nikon d70 body, that's in his price range and would be the best choice for him IMO.

You seem to have forgotten, the OP stated they zoom cpibility and changable lenses. Yeah the D70 has the ability to have variable lenses but at what cost beyond the initial $300. I am not a Nikon shooter, I honestly do not know what a deicent third party lens on a Nikon mount goes for.

 

[Battou]

I knew that, I should have said what Canon scanner do you have. My bad. :thumbup:

Oh ....I have a Canoscan FS2710.

And as Battou said
"As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time.".
$200 is the highend of what is needed for a good working film SLR even with a motor drive. Sure its not going to be a 9 or an F5 but it will be a good workable camera.

I paid for my cameras

$17 - Signet 40 (fixed lens rangefinder)
$35 - Minolta XG-1 W/50mm lens
$37 - Yashica T3D (point and shoot)
$75 - Canon AE-1 (over paid) W/50mm lens
$112 - Pentax H2 W/55mm lens
$256 - Leica IIIf Black Syncro W/lens (variable lens rangefinder)
$295 - Canon EF W/50mm lens

I have yet to pay more than $100 on a lens for any of the mounts I have in my posession

 

[Corry]

Stay on topic and stop bickering, please.

This is the film forum, and he is asking about film cameras. No need to start a digital v. film war.

 

[Battou]

alrighty, well I understand the auto/manual focus a good deal more now. Thank you Battou and Yellowjeep.

About the development, Yellowjeep, you said "Then you just have any one hour lab develop your film but no prints".... what does that mean?

I'm trying to weigh my options for development as well...

1) allow cvs/walgreens/etc to develop them and put them in low res on a disc as well as prints

2) camera store developed with high res on disc and prints

3) buy a scanner that scans film negatives

... if I do the third option... how does that work? you have your roll of film in which you took the pictures, and you have your scanner. I know there's more to it, but what?

Sorry I missed this post....

Buying a film enabled scanner is prolly your best bet at the moment. Here is Why:

1) cvs/walgreens/etc - Places like that have a tendency to not print images exactly as they appear on film often times blowing out skys and whatnot ( in other words even a clear blue sky could get printed as white.) Given that modern commercial processing digitizes the image from the film to print the prints the imagery contained on the disk will be exactly as it looks on the print. There is no guarantee that the printed image is what you took.

I can provide images for comparison to prove this if you like.


2) camera store developed with high res on disc and prints - The old saying "you get what you pay for" applies here, or in this instance you pay for what you get. The higher rez disk and quality prints are going to cost you more than you need to spend, but in many cases can be worth it. However as a beginner you should anticipate some lack luster pictures, We all went threw that stage and trust me, you are not going to want to pay twenty or thirty dollars for 24/36 unusable pictures.

3) buy a scanner that scans film negatives - Again there are some things to learn with it but, you are in control of the digitization process. That may not mean much to you at the moment but down the road it may. To start with you can leave the scanner set at it's defaults and it will scan the image that is on the film, nothing more nothing less. This way any error you made with camera settings are more likely to be visible. If you underexposed the shot, the scan will be under exposed, if you over exposed it the scan will as well, if you took a perfect shot it will be perfectly presentable, maybe lacking some of the pop of some of the other displayed images, but you can learn how to make that happen as you go as well as learning how to fix errors like over and underexposing. Also at this stage in the game you will prolly want a Film enabled flatbed scanner, that way if you grow disenchanted with photography the equipment is still usable as a regular scanner (the same can not be said about the more expensive dedicated scanners like mine, I stop taking pictures it's useless). The scanner is not likely to cost you a fortune, Like I said, at your level ask a sales rep for a scanner that can scan negatives, the cheapest one with that feature will suit your needs for now, or if you wish you can save up and get a more expensive one that you feel you would like better, that one is up to you. When I got back into film after nearly a decade, it was almost a month before I had pictures that where worthy of being put on public display.


how does that work? - Well...to Be honest with you, I am not sure how much variation there is on the basic element of doing it but, from my experience, Send your film out for processing cvs/walgreens/etc will suffice for this, but you can also go camera store developed too, just don't worry about the disk with it that is a couple few extra bucks a pop. When it comes back negatives are generally cut in strips of 4 or 5 frames. With the film scanner there will be a holder for the film, you just put a strip into the holder, place it into the scanner, tell the scanner what it's doing and go from there. More detailed instructions are generally going to be included with the scanner. In other words the instruction booklet will be far more informative than I can be at this time, but I can give the basic jist of it.

 

[Early]

A Nikon N90s with or without a hand grip in excellent condition is going pretty cheap these days. It's an autofocus film camera, but there's a whole slew of both manual and autofocus lenses available for it.

 

[yellowjeep]

Caleb Any news of a camera, or at least are you leaning towards something?

 

[Smith2688]

I would personally seek out a camera like a Pentax MV, Pentax ME Super, Pentax Super Program, or Chinon CE-4 (that's what I use but I thought you might prefer a Pentax brand camera, if not, there are plenty more options) with a fast (low f-stop number) 50mm lens to start with.

 

[CalebGGodwin]

No news of a camera yet. Money situation got twisted against me, so it will be a few weeks before I can buy one. But I have definitely learned a lot, and will keep learning while I wait, and continue to post questions and concerns that I may have. I really do appreciate it, especially to those of you who have taken the time to really answer my questions...

 

[Renaissance Man]

Dude,

Go to Amazon and get a "Photography for Dummies"-like book to START. You do not know enough to even discuss this on a forum yet. Buy some magazines too. Better yet, go to a used book store for same. You need to understand the basics of photography: light, film and how if works, optics, exposure, etc. THEN you can frame your questions and understand what people are trying to say. For example: You should KNOW the mirror delay on a SLR is a small fraction of a second; any photography of moving objects would be impractical otherwise!

Second, everyone assumes you want to know how all the photography fundamentals relate to "film" based photography. But the essentials are the same in digital, so why the quick jump to film. I have done both, and I would recommend you start with what you have - point and shoot digital - take a TON of pics of subjects you care about, then figure out what limitations the point and shoot has that prevents you from creating images like you want. Like - can't shoot in low light situations, shutter delay is too long for sports photography or candid portraits, etc.

And nobody has mentioned the processing costs for film! It you only want to spend $200-400 bucks on gear, can you even comprehend $100 per MONTH in processing costs if you are really serious about learning to create exciting quality images???

Stay digital, wear out the camera you have before buying another, then assess if you really have a strong desire to be serious.

READ and LOOK AT PHOTOS a lot for the next 6 months while you shoot as much as you can with what you have.