Which camera should I go with?

[Kramertron2000]

Hey everyone! First post from a complete noob, so be nice

I want to get a nice old fully mechanical film SLR as my first "real" camera. I plan on reading up on how to take good pictures and getting a friend who is an artist and photographer to help me out a bit to get started, but ultimately the reason I want a nice camera is mainly for taking field pictures for when I go back to uni to do my PhD (Im a biochemist and botanist, and would like my thesis to be more botany related, so will hopefully be taking pictures of plants and habitats - along with other nice nature shots for my own enjoyment). I will have my phone and probably just my cheap digital point and shoot for backup pictures which will do, but ideally Id like to have some really nice quality pictures in my thesis too.

I want mechanical and film based mainly for the fact they are a bit more rugged than expensive digital cameras (dust and humidity dont go well with anything digital), the inital outlay is less, so if I lose interest or cant get good pictures its not as big a loss, and I like the idea of having to actually think about the shot rather than relying on auto everything (which even my point and shoot can do), and it may also encourage attention to detail and thorough note-taking also not needing batteries to be able to take pictures is a plus in the field. Plus there is the nostalgia factor of being a kid in the 90s when most people still used film and the unique softness you can only get with film.

Anyway, to the question; I have been looking at Pentax Spotamtic Fs on ebay, which I can get a body in apparently good working order (usually without a working light meter, but there is an app for that) for about $50aus then a lens for another $150ish, or there is a guy on a local facebook page selling a Ricoh xr-1s (with a whole bunch of lenses) who is going to check it works then work out something for me. Im not really interested in having a bunch of different lenses at the moment because I know the types of pictures I want to take and also dont particularly want to spend a huge amount yet.

What do the more experienced here suggest? I cant seem to find much info on the Ricoh (also sold as the Sears ks1000), which leads me to believe parts may be harder to find if something breaks etc. whereas the spotmatic was mass produced and there is lots of information about it.

Thanks guys

 

[compur]

The Ricoh XR-1 is a mechanically based camera and probably an OK choice (if working well) but I would avoid any of their later models with electronic shutters as they are often found in inoperable condition these days. It uses K-mount lenses (as do the K-series Pentax cameras) which are plentiful.

The Spotmatic F is also OK if working well but a Pentax K-series (like the K1000) would be younger and would probably have more years left in it. The Pentax K-1000 is basically a Spotmatic F with the later K type lens mount.

All Spotmatic cameras use M42 screw mount lenses which are also plentiful. The Spotmatic F has an added feature of open aperture metering but only when special M42 lenses are used. These are called Super Multi Coated (SMC) Takumar lenses made by Pentax. Regular M42 lenses can also be used but only with stop-down metering as with the earlier Spotmatics.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

if you can afford it, Nikon FM2. Itll work forever

 

[webestang6433]

I would start with a good old Pentax K1000. I got mine in 1980 and have taken 1000's of rolls through it and it still performs perfectly.

 

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks for the responses. The Nikon is probably out of my price range, but looks nice.

Going by the responses it sounds like the Ricoh will be a good choice because its newer than a Spotmatic and is very similar to a k1000. It just depends on how much the guy wants for it. What would be a reasonable price (including a couple of Tamron lenses) to pay for one? There are a couple of K1000s on ebay too I could probably spring for if he wants too much for the Ricoh.

Is there any reason I shouldnt go for the Ricoh?

 

[Dave442]

I took a lot of images like you are looking at doing using film when that was the only option. Now I shoot digital and have found it is much better suited to field work in extreme conditions than film. You might also find that a lot of decent used digital bodies are cheaper than that used Nikon FM2 film body.

That Ricoh XR-1s actually looks very similar to the Minolta SRT-101 that I used in the 70's. Later I had the Pentax ME2 and liked the small size and the Pentax lenses. Before the Minolta I used a rangefinder and hand-held light meter, not something I would want to go back to on a daily basis although it was probably the best learning experience at the time.

So no reason to not give film a try now, but I would not do it based on being cheaper or more rugged or better image quality.

 

[compur]

What would be a reasonable price (including a couple of Tamron lenses) to pay for one?

Depends on which Tamron lenses. Tamron zooms aren't worth much dollar-wise though they are generally of high quality. Tamron primes are worth more and are quite good, generally.

Is there any reason I shouldnt go for the Ricoh?

Generally speaking, re-sale value would be less than, say, a Pentax. But, we're not talking about a lot of money in any case.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon FM would be my suggestion, since it has the flip-up option on the Ai follower, and so could use ALL Nikkor lenses, and all third-party F-mount lenses made since 1959. The Nikon will be 15 or so years newer than many thread-mount Pentax models. The F-mount is also still "alive", not "dead", like Minolta manual focus, or Canon manual focus, which are dead mounts, with nothing being manufactured using them, and it has been so for many years.

The FM-2 recommended above is a fine camera as well, but does NOT offer the AI-follower flip-up option, so it must have Ai or Ai-S type lenses, which are newer. Still...that mount, Ai-S, dates to roughly 1977-80, that era on lenses, and is VERY common. There are however 20-plus years' worth of pre-Ai lenses around, many of which are very low cost.

But _seriously_...as dave442 is trying to suggest...look for a good,low-cost digital SLR body. Even a Nikon D40 or D60 at $99, would be a heck of a picture-maker, and can use pre-Ai lenses, Ai and Ai-S lenses, as well as newer AF,AF-D,and AF-S lenses, with varying degrees of automation, and the best part is...super low-cost shooting on digital, as well as VERY high-quality images.

Your initial statements about ruggedness and image quality on film vs digital are absolutely flawed, especially for a beginner. You want GOOD pictures? With film, and you've never had a good camera? You're barking up the wrong tree. The learning curve is steep with film--and the worst part is that _quality_ prints from 35mm film negatives are difficult to source in many instances, and are expensive, and the quality of the photofinishing these days SUCKS at many labs, or so-called labs. We're 18 years into the twenty-first century, and you're thinking that a 50-year-old, obsolescent film camera (Pentax Spotmatic) is more rugged than a 5-year-old d-slr? Wrong.

Film's learning curve is steep, and difficult for most novices. You'll make many mistakes, and it will be two weeks before you see the mistakes in-hand...with a d-slr, you'll see the mistakes in 3 to 5 seconds. Film is best for people who truly know and understand much about photography.

Anyway....Nikon FM, Nikon FM-2, Nikon FE-2,Nikon F100,Nikon N90s, those would be the best film cameras, IMHO.

 

[Gary A.]

Firstly, you can get digital dSLR’s which are weather resistant. These cameras laugh at dust and humidity. A Nikon FM, depending on shape, goes between $100 & $300. If that is pushing your budget than a weather resistant digital dSLR is beyond your budget.

Secondly, unlike digital cameras, with film cameras, the camera(s) really add little in respect to image quality. Lens quality and film quality are significantly more important to the final image than the camera. The camera is merely a box.

Thirdly, for film, Nikon lenses were some of the highest quality lenses in terms of build and image quality for film. A Nikon camera, F, FTn, F2, F3 were built like tanks.

Fourthly, Digital photography is much easier, more forgiving and in the long run less expensive than film. Average, everyday, run-of the-mill, snapshot taking photography is easy. Good photography is hard. Great photography is a gift reserved for a few with passion and dedication to shooting thousands and thousands of images.

If photography was an integral element of my doctoral presentation ... I wouldn’t treat it lightly.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

Im going to agree with @Derrel and put another vote in for the nikon FE and an F3 if you can find a local one for cheap. The FE with the 1.8 50mm lens can be had for cheap (in your budget) and offers more than enough in the way of features and reliability. I bought one for my girlfriend when she wanted to try shooting film with me and she has been quite happy with it.

I will also reiterate with what everyone is saying here. In todays day and age film adds little to the end result as most things can be mimicked digitally. Like others have stated digital cameras take a lot of abuse, more than film cameras in some cases. Anyway, I dove into film heavily about 2 years ago and ill offer a few thoughts (Im young enough to have been a kid when digital came around so film has a novelty more than a nostalgia for me). You can buy priceless film cameras for really cheap due to how many are flooding the market and the fact that the demand (even though its on the rise) is still fairly low which makes shooting film somewhat attractive for many. Film will not take a better picture, you will botch a lot more exposures, ruin rolls, and flat out burn through money sometimes coming out the other side with useable images numbering in the single digits. For me what film offers is a fun process that I can really be a physical part of end to end. Not only do I shoot but I process and print my own film at home which, if you are going to bother with film in the first place is a key reason to do it. Shooting and having a local lab scan it is a very time consuming way to end up with a digital image at the end of the day. If you are going to take the time to shoot, hand process, and then print in the darkroom thats when you will really learn stuff. Thats when you are really getting involved and in my experience creating a different end product than digital can offer.

Before you think "man that sounds expensive", I got all my dark room stuff from a local lab that was quite literally throwing it away. You can find quite a bit of processing equipment for free due to the fact most don't even want to deal with it as long as you are willing to hunt around a bit for it. They even tried to give me a full on E-6 machine that "worked when put away".

 

[Kramertron2000]

Awesome responses guys, and yeah I guess you are right. I shouldnt count on a film camera producing great (or even usable results at least at first), and not really anything better than modern digital. I think for serious pictures Ill most likely stick with a point and shoot (really all I need is adequate pictures, with good or professional being a bonus). Id still like to get started with film and mess around with digital to work out the actual skills. And developing and processing myself is also something Im interested in, having a chemistry background, so there is also that element.

There are also plenty of cheap second hand dslrs around too, so if i really need better pictures I can spring for one of those too.

As for the cameras Im looking at, turns out the Ricoh is a Xr10, so one of the later ones with the electronic shutter. He wants $150au including a lens (the only details he gave me at this point is its a 35-70 zoom). Does that sound reasonable? Someone mentioned earlier the ones with the electronic shutters arent all that good, and I was kind of liking the idea of fully mechanical.

Thanks again for the honest responses

 

[Kramertron2000]

Oh and he just sent me a picture - it looks to be in reasonable condition, and the lens fitted says 1:3.4-4.5 35-70mm macro Ricoh Japan.

 

[weepete]

While I wouldn't discourage an interest in film photography I'd recommend you don't dismiss digital as it really does offer several advantages over film photography.

Particularly with macro photography and flowers focus stacking is great technique to make use of in order get around the thin depth of field limitations. Learning to read a histogram really helps with getting the exposure nailed and live view can be great for really getting the focus down for static subjects and used as a compositional tool to help visualise the 2 dimentional composition. There's also publishing, where if you were wanting to get film photos in to your thesis you'll probably need to get them scanned in to a computer and converted to jpeg format (and that in itself can cause issues and additional expense).


Rest assured that digital photograhy does not need to be all automatic, you'll be able to use a DSLR or mirroless camera just like you would use a film SLR if you wish (just turn off the LCD screen). Most decent digital cameras offer the same Av, Tv and manual modes of film cameras. So it's exactly the same skill set that you'll need for both types of photography.

You'll soon find out that settings and the tech behind them are only a minor part in what produces the 'pro' level of photos, what really sets them apart is composition, lighting and content.

 

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks weepete

I think what Ill do is still get an old film camera, but start taking some pictures with the point and shoot and my phone's camera, and maybe post some on here to get an idea of where I need to improve and what Im doing right. Ill start doing some reading and maybe go out with my friend so she can give me some tips, and also keep my eyes peeled for some reasonably priced good quality used digital cameras to also learn with.

Another thing I can do once Im back at uni (if I even end up doing something where good pictures will be of benefit - I still haven't even decided on a topic yet) as part of the new "professional development" aspect of the program is take a photography subject (although more likely Ill be doing something boring like statistics for that). I will also have access to dark rooms and maybe even cheap chemicals for developing my film when I get to that point.

Back on the subject of cameras, I think I may give the Ricoh a miss and go for something fully mechanical. Batteries suck, and I kind of like the idea of not being entirely dependent on them (even though in reality without batteries Id still probably need a light meter app on my phone, and any shots I do take will most likely end up being rendered to a digital medium anyway).

 

[SoulfulRecover]

The FM-2 recommended above is a fine camera as well, but does NOT offer the AI-follower flip-up option, so it must have Ai or Ai-S type lenses, which are newer. Still...that mount, Ai-S, dates to roughly 1977-80, that era on lenses, and is VERY common. There are however 20-plus years' worth of pre-Ai lenses around, many of which are very low cost.

I use D lenses on my FM2 and can use my G as well. Granted the G will only shoot wide open as I don't have the ability to change the aperture manually from the outside. Of course I may be miss-understanding what you are referring to