Best 35mm SLR Camera for Beginners?

TibbonZero asks: "I've been thinking of getting into photography, but want to stay with 35mm film instead of going digital. Used 35mm SLRs seem to be the best bet, but which ones should I seriously consider? I would like to spend less than $200 on the camera itself, and start off with some cheaper lenses. It seems to me like there's still a lot more bang for your buck in film vs digital cameras at this point, even with film processing costs (I have almost a whole darkroom setup that my father used to use). I think I want a manual focus camera." Don't forget, a 35mm camera (film or digital) would make a nice Christmas Gift for that budding photographer in your life!

Comments

Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the prototypical student camera. No auto-anything, no motor, no
electronics. Just a meter to help you out with exposure. They don't make it
any more but you can find them on eBay, and there are plenty of similar
cameras. Built like a tank and many pros still use them. Or at least that's
what I've heard, I haven't seen a pro use anything but medium/large format
and/or digital these days!

If you learn on a camera like this, you will *understand* photography better
because you will have to make every decision yourself. You have to learn to
constantly keep in mind the following: composition, shutter speed, aperture.
Once you learn to juggle those variables and "think" in photograph terms you
can switch to any other camera with manual capabilities.

Don't worry too much about the type of body though. Just make sure it's an
SLR with minimal "automatic" stuff. Then spend the rest of your money on the
lenses, or tickets to far-away places where you'll take lots of cool pictures.

Think about this: when you press the shutter on the camera, it is just an
empty box (a well-aligned box, but still just a box). So don't waste your
money on the camera body. I see people blow big bucks on the camera and then
with "money left over" they buy some crappy Sigma lens.. don't do that.

Also, you might want to consider a medium-format camera or something where you
have to individually load sheets of film. I personally never liked 35mm
because of the small size and the annoying canister and was glad to dump it in
favor of digital.

Good luck, remember to shoot as many shots as you can afford and never be afraid that you're "wasting" film.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

First post and a lengthy response like that? Let me guess ... you work for Pentax ... you submitted the question ... you submitted the answer ... you probably talk to yourself too!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Pentax is going to rake in a lot of cash from a discontinued 1970-era camera, last made in 1997.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[vondo]

Yes, a K-1000 is a good learners camera, but it may not be the best choice for something to grow with. I started with an all manual Olympus camera. Added more lenses, replaced some lenses, added another body, etc. Then I decided I needed AF and something reliable (the Olympus stuff was finicky). I had to scrap everything and buy a new, modern system.

I'd suggest something that can be a seemless upgrade to a modern system. I stuck with my manual equipment far too long because I had too much invested in it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Moleman]

He's right, the pentax k-1000 is a spectacular beginner camera.

I've used my friends, it's light and very user friendly.

FWIW, I shoot a minolta srt101.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Apro im]

The parent makes excellent points - only thing is that if you get a manual-everything camera, even with a lot of practice, quickly getting a picture is nigh impossible. I might get a low-end camera which has the option of manual everything, but even with my Canon A-1 (as old as I am!), I'm often frustrated by the need to just *focus* before I take a shot. (Maybe if I used it more, that'd come a lot more naturally to me.)
Also, if you're developing your own, of course you can always try to compensate for bad settings at development time.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[monadicIO]

Unfortunately, they're difficult to come by. I'd suggest the close substitute that I have, the Pentax ZX-M. I've been using it for quite some time now, and other than the "infinite time exposure", I pretty much get most of the things that I want to experiment with. It does have time/aperture priority modes which I used earlier to help me, but soon you will be happier just experimenting with the fully manual mode. Given the fact that it cost much lesser than most other cameras, it's a great deal for a student on a tight budget.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to buy one ... aren't you?

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

He's obviously a subscriber, knob.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[sideswipe76]

I completely recommend the cannon rebel 2000. new, the rebel is about in your price range. Used, it's easily in your range. The rebel series has served me well, and they use the EOS lenses -- which there are about n^n lenses out there that are compatible. The other great news is that those same EOS lenses are also completely compatible with the Digital Rebel should you ever go that route. Dear santa: All I want for Christmas is a shiiny new Digital Rebel. Can the elves make me one?

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Avihson]

If not the Pentax get an old Minolta XD-11. The XD-11 had a full manual but also has aperature and shutter priority.

Enjoy, and don't let them go in a divorce! I should have fought for the cameras instead of the kids... the Judge gave her both! The kids came back to me full time a few years later, the camera equipment she sold!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Wolfier]

It might be a good learner's camera. However, if you can find a KX, get a KX instead, because it has more features - it's just like a "K-1000 Pro".

Re:Pentax K-1000

[ncc74656]

The parent makes excellent points - only thing is that if you get a manual-everything camera, even with a lot of practice, quickly getting a picture is nigh impossible.

I'm not sure the auto-everything cameras are that much faster. Once you have something like a K1000 dialed in to where you think the action will be, you can get a picture from it as soon as you stab the shutter. With nearly any auto-whatever camera, the camera will spend a second or more making sure the focus, exposure, etc. are correct before it finally takes the picture. You might be able to speed things up by overriding stuff you know won't change (when taking pictures at an airshow, for instance, you can leave the focus locked at infinity), but then you're not doing things any differently than you would with an all-manual camera.

(I need to have my K1000 looked at sometime...the film-used counter resets by itself, and I think the pictures it's taking now aren't as sharp as they used to be. That last bit might be my imagination, though, or maybe it's the film processor...I should probably run some slide film through it and see how those pictures turn out. Most of my picture-taking has shifted to a Coolpix 995, but it'd be nice to have the K1000 as a backup. Besides, I have wider and longer lenses for it, as well as filters and other fun stuff.)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll second this. I learned to shoot on a Pentax K-1000. They're solid, and cheap, and manual-everything, which is what you want. AVOID anything with automatic ANYTHING as much as possible.

Just make sure the built-in photomic light meter works when you buy the thing. You're gonna need that.

As a side note... I'd highly recommend you play with slide photography. I love the color saturation that you can only get from slides... plus, it's a kind of "way of the Samurai" type of learning--slides aren't nearly so forgiving on your camera exposure, so when you shoot slides, you have to be a lot more careful about making sure you're not overexposing or underexposing. Once you have mastered slide film, you have mastered film exposure.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW if you want to see some GREAT digital photography from a "far off place" check out Hunkabutta (not porn I promise).

Re:Pentax K-1000

[qtp]

I'll second that. The Pentax K-1000 is an incredibly sturdy metal-body camera, and the Asdahi Optical lenses are (were) relatively inexpensive.

I you already have a Nikon in the family, you might consider a Nikkormat or a Nikon FM-2 (or whatever its succsessor might be), which are also dependable metal-body cameras, and you can use any Nikon lenses that you might already have.

I you newbie photog is just starting out, and has never handled a camera, you might want to consider buying a "thow-away" fixed-focus camera because it will force them to think more about framing and getting close to the subject (crop in the lens, not in the darkroom), which are often the biggest hurdles that young photographers face, and are better addressed early on, so as to develop good habits, rather than later, when the student will be more concerned with exposure, depth of feild, and shutter speed.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Alan]

A similarly nice one is the Pentax P-30. It's a bit newer than the K1000, all manual, but still very good. Personally I think that *any* SLR from a company that you can still get lenses for is good. Remember that if you get a P30 at a swap meet for $25 or a brand new canon rebel for $400, the quality of the pictures comes from the photographer, not the camera. A better camera will *not* make you a better photographer, even though some of the features on the newer ones can make your life easier.

I'm a big believer in learning the hard way first, and then use the auto-everything device to see how it is. Remember, if you never have to set your f-stop and shutter speed you won't have the knowledge to do interesting things with the new camera that is auto everything :)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll start by saying I agree with the original post about the K-1000 (my first SLR - and I was able to get a new one). Is the KX the one with the combination split field/microprism focusing? If so, then it is definitely a good step up. My only dislike of the K-1000 is the lack of split field focusing.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, it's built like a brick, good if you have to defend yourself with it. I have had one since the late 80's and done lots of close up pictures at punk shows with it. My favorite lense is a promaster wide angle 28-75 mm. Also I have a nice longer vivatar zoom. It's built to last, so a used one would probably be a good find, unless their value went up.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, my first camera in High School (circa 1976), Minolta SRT 101. Stolen when someone broke into my first apartment. On my second Minolta Maxuum 9000, first one stolen too, I've moved since then. Pentax K-1000 is the choice for learning 35mm film cameras.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[frinkster]

Don't bother with the K-1000. It's cult status has made it way overpriced. A better camera from the same era is the Pentax KM, which is basically a K-1000 with a depth-of-field preview. Much cheaper for more features!

If you want a good new SLR to learn on, find a Pentax ZX-M and a 50mm lens. A good camera shop should be able to sell you this as a kit. My girlfriend bought hers at Central Camera in downtown Chicago for less than $200. I'd almost say that this is the better route, as you get a warranty, a better expectation that everything is going to work, electric film winding, and some automatic features if you feel like using them.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mph]

I agree with the parent. I've done most of my photography with my dad's old Canon TLb, which is very similar to the K-1000 in its capabilities (it's a match-needle metering, completely mechanical, manual-focus SLR). I've got about four fixed-length lenses.

I've taken a non-intro photo class at a top-notch art school, and I can assure you that the camera was not the limiting factor in my work, and there were plenty of talented students doing great things with equally primitive equipment.

One thing that's worth noting about old cameras and lenses is that they've already done most of their depriciating. Start with one of the good old systems mentioned here, and if you decide in a year that you'd be better off with autofocus, or digital, or a view camera, or whatever (based on your actual experience with the camera), you can sell your kit and get about as much as you paid for it.

I would recommend Ansel Adams' series The Camera, The Negative, and The Print for learning the big picture of how your camera, lenses, meter, film, and paper work together, and how to get them to meet your creative vision. Even if you don't plan to do darkroom work yourself, it's good to have an understanding of what's going on. I am a technical person, and find Adams' writing to be very clear and satisfactorily detailed with a strong grounding in physical principles. His contributions to photographic education and technique are at least as important as his images. This series is pretty light on the creative aspects of photography, so you'll have to look elsewhere for that.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[sfe_software]

Good luck, remember to shoot as many shots as you can afford and never be afraid that you're "wasting" film.

I'm not much of a photographer myself, but that's one thing I love about digital. With my 64MB stick, I can get some 80+ 1600x1200 pictures, and if I bring the laptop to dump them on I'm virtually unlimited.

So after finally realizing this, I've started getting into the habit of taking many redundant pictures. Much of the time this proves invaluable, as when I load them up later on a real monitor, I can pick the best take out of 5 or 10 pictures, and it didn't cost me anything more.

If one is really into photography (as a hobby or profession), then I'd give the same advice, regardless of whether it's film or digital. There's nothing like having a perfect picture opportunity, only to have twitched slightly and come home to find you blew it. Snap, snap, snap, and you're much more likely to come home with something good :)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[axelbaker]

I have to agree with this. The K-1000 was a good camera. Other good alternatives are the Cannon AE1, the Nikon FM2, the Olympus OM1 or the Minolta X700. All were (are) excellent manual bodies that should give you years of use as well as the possibility for repair. They are also cheap enough to keep multiple bodies to keep different types of film in (just move the lenses around).

Many people are suggesting spending your hard earned $$ on lenses and getting a cheaper body. I can't stress this enough. The lens takes the picture, the body just holds film. Camera bodies top out at about $3,000 lenses top out at over $30,000. There is a reason. Good glass is worth its weight in gold.

The suggestion of a manual body over a automatic body is also very sound. You will have to learn how to take pictures instead of relying on the camera to do it for you. Some of the best photography schools make you learn on a 4x5 view camera. Basically a black box with a lens. (Think bugs bunny cartoons) After you lean to shoot manual well you will be able to shoot better over all.

Another consideration is film. I recommend picking 1 film and sticking with it to eliminate variables while you are learning. In addition if you shoot black and white you can develop it your self. You can learn a lot about your shooting by seeing and printing your own negatives.
Another "trick" is to shoot slide film until you can shoot it consistently and get good exposures. Slide film has much less room for error compared to print film, so you have to get it right the first time. You also get to see your images with out having to pay for or store prints. Given a few years you will learn prints are a pain to store.

His point about medium format is also valid, but, it can turn cost prohibitive. It is still fun to see a 6x6cm slide though.

Lastly no matter what gear you get, shoot lots. The more you shoot the better you get. And take notes on how you shot things. Its all a practice thing.
Later, when you are fully hooked on photography, and have the money, you can upgrade to a nice medium format with a digital back and take 22 megapixle photos too, but then you will appreciate why your shots look better than that idiot with a point and shoot.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry too much about the type of body though. Just make sure it's an SLR with minimal "automatic" stuff. Then spend the rest of your money on the lenses, or tickets to far-away places where you'll take lots of cool pictures. Agreed. Don't skimp on lenses. Buy one or two nice ones, especially a good "macro" lens. Howver, since you're on a tight budget, you can probably pass on the tickets to far-away places. Instead, buy a really nice simple tripod and cable release and explore the world of macrophotography: flowers, bugs, and other small stuff right in your own backyard. You'll quickly learn the skills and pitfalls in managing light and depth-of-field.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pentax ME (or ME Super) is also a fantastic camera.
Most Pentaxes of this era come with a50mm lens which goes down to f1.4 and takes great photos (even in dark conditions)

Pentax comes highly recommended from me.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[aheath]

The December issue of Popular Photography and Imaging magazine covers 80 cameras in the "Pop Photo Buyer's Guide 2004".Popular Photography recommends the Pentax ZX-M for people who don't want auto-focus but who might want auto-exposure. The street price for a ZX-M with a 50mm f2.0 lens is $190. The street price for a ZX-M with a 35-80mm f4-5.6 zoom lens is $210. Popular Photography recommends the Nikon FM-10 for people who want an all manual camera.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

Well, a Pentax would be ideal then, since (with a few exceptions) all Pentax-compatible lenses and cameras made since the mid-seventies are interoperable, with each combination allowing the use of all features common to both cameras.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

There are usually several K1000s listed on ebay at any given time.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Jason1729]

A lot of what you say is very good. The metering and AF on the body is important too; it's not *just* a box anymore, but as you say, you should splurge on the lenses and cut corners on the body; just make sure you buy Nikon.

Your second last paragraph practically had me rolling on the floor in laughter. You dislike the small negative size (poor image quality) of 35mm so you switched to digital. I've taken pictures on 35mm film in a pin-hole camera I made out of a cardboard box, duct tape and tin foil that are better than any 6MP camera on the market can take.

Digital quality is crap compared to any film...The advantages are in the very low cost per picture and they're great for photojournalists where it's more important to be able to upload your pictures to the head office than have a high quality print.

On the other side of your coin, you complain about the annoying canister but like a sheet film canister. It takes a few minutes in the dark room to load each sheet of film into the frame, and then the frames are around $100 each. So if you spend $1000 on frames, then for a half hour spent in the darkroom loading film you're all set to take 10 pictures. How is that easier than 35mm canisters?

Your last sentence is the best possible photography advice. Film is cheap; a missed shot will never come again. Even after shooting 10 or 20 rolls in a day, when I get my pictures back, I never feel like I've wasted film; if I get a few truly good pictures per roll I'm happy. The only regrets I have in looking at my pictures are that I didn't take enough; I should have shot something from a different angle or bracketed a shot I didn't think was that important.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Go completely manual or don't even bother assuming you are going to learn photography. The only way to get it in your bones is to learn on a manual. That rules out most cameras made today. I've owned at least half a dozen pre-1990 manual SLRs. The K1000 is the king. Its cheap, durable, simple to use and Pentax made great lenses for it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[wayward_son]

Overrated and expensive.

I used to have a K-1000 until it was stolen. Don't get me wrong, it was a great camera, but it has very few features for the price.

After I lost the K-1000, I was able to get a Yashica FX-103 Program (auto exposure with manual override) on e-bay with two zoom lenses for considerably less than a K-1000 with a 50mm.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[grahamsz]

I agree completely with you. I moved from a K-1000 to the EOS series about 10 years ago and now do most of my photography with an Eos 300 (the UK version of the Rebel 2000).

It's a great little camera, very light for travelling and whilst it's probably not the best made - it's cheap and i haven't broken it yet :)

The metering is great and does really well with complex lighting, it's also very accurate and rarely disagrees with my sekonic meter (which cost more than this whole camera).

It's AF is a bit on the slow side - i mostly shoot landscapes so that's no big deal. The lens selection is great, Canon and Tokina do some great lenses and Phoenix/Vivitar/Tamron are around for when you want cheap ones.

I wouldn't fixate on the 'do everything manually attitude' since most auto cameras let you do everything manually when you want. It's much better to focus on composing good photographs and bracket difficult exposures (since film is cheap).

That said i recently started with large format photography and it's been quite a wake-up call to have to do EVERYTHING by hand.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[WankersRevenge]

I'm using a Canon Rebel 2000 and its a great camera allowing me to score some nice pics (work safe stuff). I played around with the Digital Rebel, and quite honestly, it's just the same body as the Rebel. Same pre-sets and switches. Except its digital. Pretty neat, though expensive. The film Rebel is very affordable. My only dissatifaction is with the lens. It takes nice sharp images. I just don't like the range. It's very middle of the road.

I must say, I disagree with the parent's parent. He states the best way to learn is by being overwhelmed by all the photographic variables like shutter speeds, exposure setting, focus, framing ... what's great about the Rebel, is that it takes care of that for you. So, first you work on just your composition. Then you notice - hey my exposure is off. So you start doing it manually. And as you start playing with your iris, you get involved with your your shutter, which gets you into depth of field. It's a step by step process.

In my experience photography comes from the gut. You develop your gut by shooting and making mistakes. If you are swamped with variables, you will be making a gazillion mistakes and not knowing what to correct. You'll probably chuck the camera. It's better to start dumb. And evolve with time.

Also, keep a photo log with you. Helps to record your measurements. A great place to get supplies is at Hunts Photos, but being in LA, I get my stuff through Film Tools (www.filmtools.com).

Closing this rant - don't think digital or film. It's all just a tool. In the end it's what you capture; what you are trying to express with your image.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[np_bernstein]

Absolutly; pentaxes are great for a starting camera. I got a job in a camera shop during part of the two years that I was out of "real" work, and this is also what I would reccomend. Also, iirc, pentax is one of the few cameras that you can use manual lenses for the newer cameras - I don't think you need an adaptor, but you might. Anyway, they have very good optix, the k1000 should cost you somewhere between $95-$125, depending on condition and accessories. I disagree with the assesment on sigma, they do make some good, and even some very good lenses.

And despite what the previous poster said:
DO NOT BUY A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA IF YOUR PRICE RANGE IS -lt $200.
It will be crap.

A cheap Medium format camera will cost $700 if you are *very* *lucky* -- you can get a *body* of an Pentax 645 or an old seagull or something, but it's not worth it. If you get into photography, save up and buy the $2k hassleblad or mayama, it will be worth it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Wolfier]

No. The ones you're talking about is the M series IIRC.

The KX is a more solidly-built K1000 with SPD metering cells, mirror lock-up, DOF preview, self-timer, shutter lock, and aperture/shutter speed shown in viewfinder.

In a sense a K1000-plus.

Compare them here:
http://mcfaddenphoto.com/kx.htm
http://mcf addenphoto.com/k1000.htm

Re:Pentax K-1000

[WNight]

Most modern SLRs with auto-focus are blinding fast. Just today I fired off a four-shot burst at a crow that flew about ten feet over my head. At my first shot it was about 25' out, at the third shot is was straight above and half the distance, at the fourth shot it was already getting farther away.

This was with the Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel).

My old Canon Powershot G2 was a nice camera, but its autofocus was slow. With the rebel I can focus and shoot in about the same time (125ms) as the G2 took to shoot from focused and metered.

All you need to do is keep the focus point over the subject and your shots will be clear. And, if you can't, you turn off AF and do it yourself. With a manual camera you can't turn AF on, so you'd miss all of the fast-moving shots.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[aheath]

An important caveat when purchasing used cameras is the type of battery that the cameras built-in light meter is designed to use. I love my Olympus OM-1n, but I can't buy mercury cells for the light meter. This leaves me with three choices:

Using an alakline battery, which will not produce consistent output and an accurate light meter reading.

Paying to have the camera modified to provide a correct light meter reading when using an alakaline battery.

Paying a few dollars more than I would for an alkaline battery to buy a Wein Zinc/Air battery that is specifically designed as a mercury battery replacement.

I choose to buy Wein batteries. However, Wein batteries are typically not available at your local photo shop.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[buffer-overflowed]

And they're good cameras to boot.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Wolfier]

If you're talking about split-image focusing then yes KX has it too.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[aheath]

The Ansel Adams series is a great series. However, the Ansel Adams series may be a bit advanced for a beginning photographer. Henry Horenstein's "Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual" ISBN: 0316373141 and "Color Photography: A Working Manual" ISBN: 0316373168 are better starting points for beginning photographers. Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography: A Technical Manual" ISBN: 0316373125 is a good intermediate step before the Ansel Adams series.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[bi_boy]

I'd have to agree, I took photo in high school and the camera pool we had consisted of Pentax K-1000s. I liked the camera so much that I went on to purchase my own.

http://homepage.mac.com/mattdenton/photo/cameras/p entax_k1000.html

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with this comment. I'm a photo researcher in the business 3 years and have critiqued and examined photographs for the past 6 odd years or so.

The Pentax K-1000 is the ultimate beginner's camera for all the reasons the parent has posted.

It's true that Pentax doesn't make the greatest lenses in the world but hell that's what an adapter ring is for. You can pick up a Pentax to Nikon adapter ring at any decent camera shop and fit yourself with some great nikon camera lenses. I would start with the typical fixed 50mm length and then get the next most common lens type which is the 28-150mm lens (I think... it's hard to remember because it has been so long since I've been behind the lens).

It's true that medium format is the film of choice for professionals (it's very rare for me to see anything other than 135mm film) but 35mm actually forces you into composing in unique situations but it also forces you to adhere to the rule of thirds or the golden mean.

I would highly recommend the Pentax K-1000 body. If you have a little bit more money (like $25-$50 more) try and get a used Nikon FM-2 body which has a quieter shutter than the Pentax K-1000. The K-1000's loud shutter speed does distract the subject sometimes at close range... it makes them that much more aware that they are being photographed.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[skribble]

Don't buy a Pentax SLR Camera! You will regret it if you you wish to expand in the future.

Not that there is anything wrong with Pentax, it's just limiting, and doesn't scale economically. Stick with Nikon or Canon for general photography, with Minolta a solid 3rd choice (Olympus would be 4th with Pentax bringing up the rear).

Between Canon and Nikon it's really a preference thing (I like Canon, but there are good reason for Nikon too). Canon tends to be more technologicaly cutting edge then Nikon and will have things like Ultrasonic Lenses (SilentWave is what Nikon call 'em) and and Optical Image Stabilization long before Nikon does (Nikon won't have Optical Image Stabilization until Canon's patent runs out in a few more years I think). That said cutting edge isn't always great (Canon's eye controlled focus is cool but still not 100% and was certainly not real useful when it first appeared). Nikon stuff is all tried and true for the most part. BTW the lens is most important... the body (for film anyway) isn't all that important. The cheapest Canon Rebal or Nikon N-6x will do most everything you would want it too (though it will feel like a plastic POS... which they are) The lens is what makes the picture.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

Here I was going to make a joke about recommending my K-1000 that I got as a Christmas present in 1978, and then I find a whole bunch of people are seriously recommending it.

Still use it, along with the original lens. Folks aren't kidding when they say built like a tank, this thing is heavy.

It's kinda tough to hand it over to a stranger to let them take a picture of you and the family, so we bought a second autofocus camera for the wife and kids to use etc.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[dgatwood]

Definitely agree, both for the reasons you give and for the ability to step up to digital easily. If you're going film, go with a Canon Rebel of whatever variety. That way any money you invest in lenses can be transferred over to a Digital Rebel when you get sick of putting up with film development.

The EOS Digital Rebel seriously rocks. It's just really nice to know exactly what you're getting and be able to shoot a dozen pictures of the same thing without worrying about blowing money on development for all of them or running out of film. I don't think I'll ever touch a film camera again unless it belongs to someone else or I have some really specialized purpose that requires leaving the shutter open for more than 30 seconds. I no longer see the point. The digital experience is just that many orders of magnitude better.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mph]

The Ansel Adams series is a great series. However, the Ansel Adams series may be a bit advanced for a beginning photographer.

You're probably right in general, but I figured someone asking on Slashdot probably has enough of a technical/physics background to start with the Ansel Adams books. But I'm sure your suggestions will be welcome if that's not the case.

I'll tack on an unrelated point that I should have mentioned earlier: It's a good idea to set aside some money for a quality tripod (something like a Bogen, not a plastic one from Best Buy or Wal-Mart). The right model will depend on what you want to do (for example, whether you want to carry it on hikes); there have been countless discussions on photo.net, which has been mentioned frequently in this thread. I've got a Bogen 3401B leg set with a 3410 head, which I can carry on short hikes and which has served me well. A good tripod is essential for closeup and low-light photography.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[TheTaoOfPhil]

I had a K-1000 that I used for over 20 years. It's a nice rugged camera. I also had a Nikkormat that I absolutely loved. Those must still be inexpensive on e-bay, etc. Also try keh cameras (keh.com). They have some phenomenal bargains. I also recently went through the agony of deciding whether to go digital or set up darkroom. It is still prohibitively expensive for most mortals to get a digital camera that approaches the quality of film. So a lot of professionsal are still shooting film but then scanning and manipualting in an image editor and then printing in a laser-to-photographic-paper process (e.g., the lambda system). But a film scanner is still way expensive in comparison with setting up a good old fashioned darkroom. Moreover, a photorapher friend of mine who does 80% digital suggested getting started in the darkroom because you learn more that way. Another consideration is that I spend all day in front of a computer and wanted to liberate myself from that entirely. Know that there's a whole other geekdom that awaits you in the realm of darkroom chemistry, such as rolling your own developer and enhancing existing developers. Run, do not walk, to rec.photography.darkroom and feast your eyes. If you want to be a geek among geek of phographers, read _Beyond The Zone System_ by Philip Davies, and other similar books: test your own materials with a densitometer and plot the characteristic curve of your film with your development processes. This is _really cool_ stuff. (Don't believe anyone who says you can't do the zone system with 35mm.) Good luck and for goodness sakes have oodles of fun!!!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Submit leading question to Slashdot.
2. Prepare answer astroturfing a camera made by your company.
3. ...
4. PROFIT!

Your mission, A.C., should you choose to accept it, is to determine just what the FUCK step 3 is, considering the camera in question hasn't been manufactured in a decade or more.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[phidipides]

I'd agree with the parent on this one -- I started with a K-1000, which was a great camera to learn with. However, when the camera finally died my upgrade options were a) buy another Pentax (and have fewer accessories to choose from) or b) replace all of my lenses (and be broke). It seems that the selection of bodies and lenses are far greater with Canon and Nikon, and these cameras offer more "professional" features. In addition, you can find a lot more nice used Canon and Nikon equipment on eBay.

Long story short, I bought a Canon Eos Elan 7 and I'm thrilled with it. It has a few more of the features that I wanted (bracketing, remote shutter release) and the number of lenses and other accessories now available is awesome. The obligatory shameless plug: Photos are here.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[dgatwood]

In my day, we didn't have GUIs or even command line interfaces. And dammit, if you didn't learn by manually toggling the boot sequence into the front of the console, you don't really know how to use a computer.

See how silly that sounds? Proper camera automation doesn't take away control; it gives you freedom, allowing you to focus on the things that really matter, like composition, depth of field, and choosing a subject that doesn't totally suck.

While the person with the manual camera is still screwing around trying to get his or her iris settings just right with a mechanical light meter, I've already figured out my composition, decided that I want less depth of field, adjusted zoom and iris accordingly, taken the picture, and moved on to the next subject.

Best of all, when I adjusted the iris, it adjusted the exposure to compensate so I don't have to think about it unless it made a bad guess, in which case, I still have the ability to look at the LCD panel, see that it was washed out in certain areas, and speed up the shutter, all while the person with the manual camera is still trying to take the first picture. Too blurry because the exposure was too long? Change the electronic ISO equivalency from 200 to 400... 800... even 1600.

I agree that anyone who is serious should spend a little time with their camera set to full manual mode just to experience it, as it does make you more aware of the various variables that go into making a good photograph. However, for complete creative control, one should not limit oneself to a camera that supports nothing else.

Technology doesn't have to be clumsy to be powerful. It's a tool. Each tool is different, and each one works better in different situations, and different people prefer different types of tools. The mere fact that someone uses a modern camera with lots of automated functionality makes them no less a photographer than someone who still uses an fully mechanical metal monster. I'm comfortable with either, but given a choice, I'd rather only think about the aspects of the photograph that matter to me. Sometimes, that means thinking about everything, but more often than not, it doesn't.

When I'm taking a hundred candid pictures for a web site, I generally want point-and-shoot. When I'm taking photographs of nature scenes, I generally want complete control over almost everything. More often than not, though, I want something in-between. A good modern camera does not force you to let it make all the decisions. It merely gives you that choice when you really need it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Theranthrope]

The Olympus OM-G is an excelent camera for student purposes, good range of features, turn-off-able auto, realitivly tough, none of that proprietary foolishness for accessories (*cough* cannon *cough*), and realitivly cheap used. But, you're right about Olympus cameras being finicky. Mine has a slight winding problem and dosen't want to work in cold weather.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Shanep]

Fantastic advice.

Choose a make who builds great lenses. Nikon, Canon, Carl Zeis. Buy good lenses from that company (read reviews which do proper testing for resolution, distortion, contrast, etc, not just some subjective crap written by some self proclaimed knowledgable photographer) and then find a body to go with them. Buying expensive bodies and cheap lenses is a very bad decision. Spending $20,000 on lenses and $200 on a body is not a bad thing to do. The effects of the body with a good photographer are truely negligible as long as the shutter speeds are accurate.

If you really want to learn photography, get a fully manual camera with a built in light meter (to learn the flaws of built in light meters) and use either grey cards or a hand held light meter.

My personal favorite camera is my Nikon F2AS with the MD-2 motor drive.

Like the Pentax K-1000, it is built like a tank. Nikon takes two blocks of aluminium and machine the body and prism housing out of them. Very strong, 100% mechanical (besides the light meter). The AS variant is the best of the F2's which has a light meter, due to the sensor being silicon as opposed to the failure prone light dependant resistors of the previous models. The camera was released in 1977 and yet many current Nikkor lenses (and almost all Nikkor lenses) can be used with it.

I've been to places with friends where we've all tried to take a sudden "good shot", I've just had to raise my camera, focus and fire. My friends with automatics fumble and fight with thier camera because it is in some mode not apt to the photo at hand, with the camera refusing to activate the shutter. They miss the shot. I was able to just compose, focus and fire because it was a sunny day with little cloud cover, so I was able to take a light metering before hand, set my cameras shutter and apperture appropriately and then leave it for an hour or so without fear of over or underexposing! I can also meter seperately for direct sunlight and shade and then switch between the two with the apperture when needed. Very very effective techique that leaves hyper expensive automatics seem ineffectual and wasteful. Seeing someone run out of batteries is pretty funny too. My light meter battery last for a very long time and the batteries in my motor drive merely provide a convieniance.

People with "automatic" cameras continue to get erroneous results which would require them to correct or bracket (take 3 photos (for eg) with slightly differing metering and then at the end choose the best photo!), so what is the point of automatic! It is EASIER to do the lot than to figure out what the camera thinks of the scene and then manually adjusting.

Important point, understand the value of grey cards and hand held light meters! They are important and get around a huge problem with inbuilt camera meters. I'll try to explain it showing the extremes where error is worst...

When you have your camera pointing towards a scene, the scene may be composed of light shades (white, light greys, bright yellow, etc), or dark shades (black, dark greys, etc). The camera will assume (as they almost all do as part of their design), that the scene is composed of objects which on the whole reflect 18% of light (which appears as 50% grey). The end effect will be the bright scene and dark scene both coming out mid grey on average (in B&W). That means that the bright scene in underexposed and the dark scene overexposed.

This is because the camera cannot distiguish between bright objects dimmly lit and dark objects brightly lit. Here, both photos would also come out mid grey, when in reality, the bright objects should come out bright (high key scene) and the dark objects dark (low key scene) regardless of the amount of incident light present.

Metering for incident light with a hand

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mph]

Here is an excellent paper on the issue of mercury cells and their replacements.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[(54)T-Dub]

I hate autofocus cameras!

Maybe this is because I don't own one, but I have yet to find a an auto focus SLR that will switch to manual and give me as much control as my K-1000. The feautres may be there, but inevitably you have to use some stupid lcd or nob with some icons that I don't recognize. Maybe I'm too stupid to figure it out, but I always find myself wishing for a light meter, an apeture dial and a shutter speed nob. That combined with the depth of field lines on the lens give me a whole world of control over my shot. And I can change all of the variables within seconds and even without taking my eye from the lens.

I also find that my friends who have the Auto SLR with a manual mode almost never use the manual mode. And if i ask them how to do a adjust the appeture or shutter speed that give me a dumb look.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[jdg]

The Minolta XD-11 also has one great feature. Although it has an electronically timed shutter, they retained one completely mechanical shutter speed, so the camera will operate and take photographs with the battery completely dead, provided you can estimate or bracket the exposure.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[jxs2151]

Absolutely agree! I still have mine and loved learning photography on it. What a great suggestion.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Pentax's electronic successor to the K-1000 is the ZX-L. Now the ZX-L has auto-everything, but it also has fully manual everything. You can learn the ins and outs of photography but you still have the program functions for convenience. The kicker is that the camera costs about $200, which is about what you would pay for a good quality used fully manual camera.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[megan_of_wutai]

Yes, a K-1000 is an excellent learners camera...

I initially learnt on a K-1000 and these days I shoot on an Olympus OM-2n... beautiful camera, wonderful auto-exposure :)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[megan_of_wutai]

This isn't really much of a problem with most manual focus cameras anyway, at least those with TTL metering, You can get adapters for pretty much any type to any type.

It only gets complicated with auto-focus and mechanical linkages.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Cerebus]

You're too dependent on your gear, sir. I've shot plenty of (IMHO) quality sports work with my K-1000. There's more than enough exposure latitude in the film you should be using for fast work to allow for snap shooting. That's part of photography that's overlooked by more casual amateurs-- film selection should reflect the intended subject.

The unmentioned advantages of an all manual camera:

1) Better performance at climate extremes. I don't have to concern myself with anything other than fogging in cold weather. How are your lithium batteries at -10degF?

2) Fewer failure modes. In fact, the K-1000 has no electronic failures. I don't think I've had a battery in mine for ... 10 years? I shoot mostly nature work these days, and use a handheld self-powered meter. When your battery dies, you're SOL unless you brought a backup-- and every ounce counts when you're three days from anywhere and carrying everything on your back.

A poster above complained about the 1/60 flash sync. That poster is forgetting that 1/60 is the *standard*. Anything higher than that is a *bonus*, but all cameras default to 1/60; this allows for dumb flashes (rather than electronically synced) to be used to control the exposure rather than using the camera's shutter or aperture.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Cerebus]

The disadvantage to digital in this regard is it's tempting to over-edit-- discarding pictures it too easy.

And I won't get into archiving. I have family negatives that are a century old...

Perhaps the best solution is what I've been considering: shoot on film, and digitize with a negative scanner.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[198348726583297634]

And this computer has all these extra buttons my old Winston typewriter didn't have! It even has a separate l and 1 key! All I ever needed was those 40-some keys..anything more, who can figure it out.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Alien Being]

I sold a zillion of those as a kid clerk at Service Merchandise ~1980. They're terrific.

But Nikon always had the best rep for lenses, so I'd recommend finding a good clean Nikkormat FT series.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Penguinista!]

I'm not sure how this is remotely a /. item, but nevertheless... I have to agree with the AC (parent to this msg) on the K-1000 and other recommendations, with some slight adjustments:

1. If you can find one, pick up a Ricoh KR-5. You want the original KR-5 (introduced 1979), not the later versions (Super-II etc) because you want the fully manual version. Take the KR-5 for all the same reasons you'd take the K-1000, except that the Ricoh is smaller and lighter with much better ergonomics; I also like its light meter much better than the K-1000's. It only does 500 shutter speed, not 1000 like the Pentax, but that never bothered me - I always used the slowest film I could find. The Ricoh uses the same Pentax-K mount as the K-1000, so lenses are interchangeable with the Pentax stuff.

2. Spend money on lenses, as has been well said. It is true that you may later wish to change to a camera body that doesn't have the same mount as the Pentax-K (e.g., a Nikon body). Strongly consider Tamron lenses, as they have (unique among professional-quality lenses) an adapter-ring that fits onto the lens so that if you ever change camera bodies, you can just buy the new adapter rings rather than have to replace the lens. If you absolutely must buy cheaper lenses for budget reasons to get going, stop yourself at 2, and then save up and replace those with better ones when you are able. 3. If you have the darkroom available, strongly recommend bulk buys of black and white films that you can process and print yourself. Apart from learning on a fully manual camera, darkroom work is one of the best ways to understand the whole photographic process and equip you to get the best results out of your equipment. 4. Decent film. Experiment to find what works for you, but settle into a small number of film types / speeds and stick with them through the learning process so you have a constant as you experiment. I always liked the Ilford products for B&W but got great results with T-Max too. For colour, my own choice for print film was AGFA which I could get at ISO 25 or 50. As I said, I always went for the slowest film and got the best results by lengthening the shutter speed. Of course, if you're into action photography, this won't work so well for you.

5. Slow film and long shutter speeds reminds me of one other accessory you'll want - a tripod. Doesn't have to be too fancy or expensive, just as sturdy as you can find. If you can spend a little extra on one, I always liked my Cullmann Universal 3335 Macro Tripod - does virtually anything and everything, and you won't mind carrying it fair distances.

I must admit though, I have one beef with the Ricoh KR-5 that I still have. Can't get the darn thing to run Linux. If anybody knows of a project to port Linux to an entirely manual SLR, please let me know.

-brt

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Alien Being]

Oh, and make sure you get a 50mm 1.4 to go with it. The 135mm 2.8 was a darling, and the 43-86 3.5 zoom was quite a popular piece.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[sjwt]

there shoudl be a sales clause in divorce..
ex partner gets the option to match.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[zakezuke]

The Cannon a-1 is a sweet camera, I own this my self. I bought it as an upgrade to my ae-1 program due to the fact it offered a 30 second shutter speed, where the canon f-1 on the other hand offered faster then 1/1000th second shutter speed. An AE-1 / AE-1 program can be had for no much change.

I'll agree with everyone (at the risk of being redundent) that going with a pentax is the way to go, esp since their older lenses will go on their newer cameras, though I don't think they marketed a K mount digital. I remember thinking i'll sell all my canon gear if Pentax released a digital SLR I own a p70 I believe it is, a pretty minimal pentax. You can get a new autofocus pentax pretty cheeply. This clearly is #1 for lens interoperability.

Nikon comes in a close second in the lenses, though never owning one I'm not 100% positive on the level of lens interchangabity.

Third I'll say the Olympus OM-1. The only annoyance is trying to find the stupid hot shoe adapter as the head piece has what looks like a phono chack. I rank this 3 in lens interchangability as the OM mount is still being produced for manual focus still cameras, though from what I understand, the new Olympus is nothing like prior models. The OM-10 I remember not being an attractive option because it's pretty much all auto-matic unless you were to build a manual control for it (don't remember the details)

A major benifit of the OM series is the fact that the exposure dial is right before the lens. The only control that wasn't on the lens area was the shutter release.

Konica i'll put on my list not so much for lens interoperatility but the simple fact that pawn shops tend to sell these cheeply. No longer in production. I forget which model I had, I do remember a gave my niece a Konica TC as a wedding gift. The Konica TC has no slow shutter speeds, I believe the slowest was like 1/15th second.

Minolta I never really looked at to be honest.

So a review
1. Pentax k-1000 or other pentax... pretty standard and interchangeable lenses
2. Nikon (don't own one, don't know the details)
3. Canon a1 (30sec-1/1000)/ f1 (1/4000thsec max) / ae-1 program 2sec-1/1000th.
4. Olympus OM-1 (not OM-10) nice placement of exposure dial. (1/sec 1/1000th)
5. Konica TC 1/4?-1/1000th (perhaps t-3)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[firewort]

actually, the lenses are compatible with the new digital pentax SLR body.

So start out with film, graduate to digital and take the lenses with you from one to the other.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Daytona955i]

I disagree... a no-frills camera may be good for a student on a budget but it won't grow with you.

I went with a Nikon N60 (they have since replaced it with the N65 which is very similar). It is their bottom line automatic camera. I used it for a photography class at school. I could put it in manual mode with the automatic focusing off. Then when I went to family events and needed to take "quick" pictures (ie. I didn't want people to stand there while I adjusted everything) I threw it into either auto mode of A mode (Aperature mode) and turned on the auto-focus. Pictures turned out great.

Now that I have gotten to the point where I am thinking about upgrading I like the fact that I can get any Nikon and still use my lenses. (I've acquired 3) In fact, one of them I inherited from my uncle who has an N80.

My suggestion would be to first decide what you want to do with your camera. If you are just starting, the base camera of whatever brand you decide on should be fine. Also think about upgrading... not all lenses fit on all camera's. Usually lenses also don't fit between different camera models (same manufacturer) So keep that in mind if you think you will upgrade.

Also think about getting an enlarger and setting up a personal darkroom. It's something that I've been wating to do for a while but I didn't have the space. When I was at school I could use the school's darkroom but now that I'm out I don't have a space to use and it can be frustrating.

Also, whatever you choose, choose a good lense. (even if it's a fixed focal length) I have one 50mm lense that I LOVE and I find myself frequently switching back to it when I don't need my wide angle lense or my 80mm lense.

I've been a fan of the Nikon cameras but whatever you decide have fun with it!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

If you're trying to fit a lens with a larger mount to a camera with a smaller mount, your adaptor will have to act as a short extension tube, which probably isn't what you want for general use. So it's not as simple as you make out, in practice.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Daytona955i]

On my Nikon, the only thing I can't seem to do is set the film ISO speed (as it does this automatically)

I can tell you how to adjust the apeture and the shutter speed on my camer... it's not hard and the values come up in the viewfinder as well as on top of the camera.

Aside from M mode (completely manual, you have to set shutter speed as well as the apeture) it has an A and S (Apeture and Shutter respectively) modes. These modes allow you to choose an apeture or shutter speed and it automatically chooses the corresponding value based on what it thinks it should be.

All the functionality is there, it's just different than you are used to. (oh and I still have depth of field lines on my lenses) I almost always have my camera in the A mode with the occasional change to M. However, sometimes at parties or something where there usually isn't time to set up a shot I have been known to put it in Auto, but usually A.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Daytona955i]

I second the Horenstein's book... "Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual"

I have both the Ansel Adams series and the "Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual" book was a much easier read when I was just getting started.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[tooth]

Most of the older Pentax cameras are pretty good, as long as the body is in good nick and you have good lenses. I own two KMs and a ME super, and they've all served me well. There have been a few post on photo.net about old "beaters" that you might be interested in.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother using an automatic film camera to learn photography? If you want to be forced to learn the fundamentals, just go for a full manual camera.

An automatic 35mm isn't going to teach you anything, is going to discourage experimentation due to processing costs, and is going to produce prints that ultimately aren't as useful, portable or sharp as a midrange digital camera.

Either go cheapo, all manual 35mm until you learn the basics, or get a decent digital like a Canon G3.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Daytona955i]

I'm not a believer in learning everything the hard way at first because if you are not dedicated to it, the camera will sit and collect dust.

Learning to take good pictures takes a lot of time and effort. Buying something that will autofocus for you will help you focus (no pun intended) your efforts on other items. Switch to auto for a little while to focus on your composition. Being able to concentrate on one subject will be able to help you not get too frustrated. However, you have to be the person to continue learning and not give up and just leave it in auto.

Of course I've also heard of people who walk into a store, ask for the "most expensive camera" and then return it because it is "too complicated" The person behind the camera is always the one thing that can use improvement before the camera itself.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mrscorpio]

I have an N80, and you can set the ISO on that. Only cameras lesser than the N80 don't have that feature :)

Chris

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

And I disagree with you. :-) The overwhelming majority of people who buy auto-everything SLRs never bother learning to do things manually. I think you're the exception, not the rule. Having said that, I think the thing that makes the *real* difference is how motivated one is to become a good photographer - that's far more important than what tool you choose to use.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mrscorpio]

Learning on a manual camera is like learning to drive a stick shift...you're so busy worrying about the settings and such that you have less time to consider composition and artistry. And yes, some people do it and enjoy it, but more people "just want to take good pictures" and you can easily do this with an auto-everything camera, if you know when to use the flash and know good composition.

If you really want to learn on a manual camera, make your own pinhole out of an oatmeal box and go from there...you only have to worry about "shutter speed" because the apeture is fixed. If you want to learn about shutter speed and apeture, get a camera with both like the N80. Autofocusing is so fast and accurate now, it's going to give you better shots than you could get by hand at least nine times out of ten.

Don't believe me? Listen to a professional photographer: http://www.kenrockwell.com .

Chris

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former pro photojournalist and now avid hobbyist I generally agree with this (first post) advice. The Pentax system is legendary for accurate performance and rugged reliability.

There are other options. Yashica, for example, makes (or used to make) a fine all-manual body that mated with the excellent Contax line of lenses. I used to carry one of those bodies in my bag to back up my Contax system and it saved my butt more than once.

In addition to giving you more control and putting you more "in touch" with the basics of photography manual, mechanical cameras have another big advantage - only the meter requires battery power. If you lose your battery the camera is still fully functional. You can carry an ultra-cheapo hand-held meter as backup if you feel the need.

Stick with a few, good, prime (not zoom) lenses. They're faster and sharper. A common set includes the 50mm "normal" lens that comes with most new bodies, a moderate wide angle (28 or 35mm), and a moderate "long" lens (85 - 105). You can buy cheaper lenses in less-used focal lengths.

I disagree that 3rd-party lenses are necessarily inferior. These days, optics are computer designed and the average 3rd-party budget lens is optically as good as many of the legendary lenses of earlier times. The difference is in the construction. But if you are not planning to air-drop into a combat zone and especially in little used focal lengths (extreme wide angle or telephoto) you can get by just fine with inexpensive lenses.

Finally, as has been mentioned - shoot and keep shooting. Shot everything, under every set of conditions, in every kind of light. If the meter says it can't be done shoot it anyway. See what happens. And look up the term, "bracket."

If you get two or three real keepers out of every roll you're shooting with the pros.

Good luck.

t

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Bilestoad]

Yes but the FM-10 is not worthy of being called a Nikon - it's cheap outsourced garbage wearing a badge, and Popular Photography is hardly to be trusted.
You would be much better off picking up a used FE, FM2, FM3A, even F3 at somewhere trustworthy like keh.com. It doesn't matter how ugly it is or how scratched and worn the outside as long as the shutter is good and the film compartment light-tight.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Faggot]

All this is true, but this also: if you don't buy a Vietnam-era Nikon F, you might as well be wearing panties.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[mrm677]

The Minolta XD-11 is a awesome camera with one fatal flaw-- the hybrid integrated circuit doesn't last.

I got burned on one of these from eBay. I paid $180 for it, and it worked for about 45 days before the meter died.

Get an SRT instead.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Moofie]

Gosh, my old Minolta with the built in light meter uses a little coin cell. I replaced it once, seven years after my dad gave it to me. What kind of batteries does your separate meter use, that weigh less than that?

Re:Pentax K-1000

[jridley]

I think you can learn either way. I learned photography basics as a 12-year old with a full manual SLR. By the time I was 15 I had a darkroom and was teaching other kids. Full manual is not that hard to deal with.

That said, my current camera is a Canon digital rebel; but I often shoot in either a priority mode or even full manual. But my wife's camera is a K1000, and I really like it as well.

Autofocus, especially when done right, is very nice; the Canon can focus better than I can most of the time, and the rest of the time I can turn it off and turn the ring myself.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nearly 40 years in photography (retired from commercial work -- good riddance). I would recommend that you stick with Nikon or Canon. I have a Canon Rebel digital, (I started with Nikon on digital's, and then tried the Rebel -- awesome...Canon uses CMOS instead of CCD's for the image sensor. I instantly switched over, especially since I've got some Canon EOS lenses and a manual body from earlier days. The advantage of this is you can start with a manual body (I did, back in the '60's as a kid), learn sensitometry (aka glorified Ansel Adam's "Zone System"), and went on from there. Take lots of photos, notes, etc. Learn to develop B/W and color (color is easier than black and white after you get the hang of it).
If you want to go digital, you can get a nice Canon body that will take your old lenses.
On the other hand, even though I don't care for the Nikon CCD imagers, their lens compatibility is better than Canon over decades, and if they switch to CMOS imagers, wow. Forget Foveon -- not ready for prime time.
For your info, I've used Canon and Nikon professionally for decades, and have had good luck with both. One other thing, the Nikon and Canon lenses focus oposite, so if you're used to one and use the other (manually), it's an opposite twist.
Anyway, start el cheapo (I did!). Learn optics, chemistry, math and such and go from there. You'll be glad you did -- you'll be able to take just about any camera and get decent pictures. Even today, I could take a totally manual camera with no light meter, and load it with some film (whose ASA I know...), and go out and get decent exposures -- sans lightmeter). Takes practice...
Good Luck

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Registered Coward v2]

The parent makes excellent points - only thing is that if you get a manual-everything camera, even with a lot of practice, quickly getting a picture is nigh impossible

Uh, it's called prefocusing and depth of field. By focusing on the area you expect the action and setting your aperture / shutter speed properly, you can simply point and shot action shots.

One piece of advice - see if the lens for the cameras your considering work on the manufacturers current range of SLR/dSLRs. Some manufacturers (Nikon, as I recall) have kept backwards compatibility while others (Canon) introduced a new lens mount with their later gear.

The biggest investment will be in lenses aka glass - by planing for growth, you don't have to start over when you get a dSLR or newer body.

BTW - most automatic SLRs can be used in a manual mode; instead of a match needle you have LEDS or LCDs; or as a point and shot - f16, shutter speed = 1/film speed - on a sunny day, all you need is to focus and shoot.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[LionMan]

Not all auto-focus cameras suffer from the feature bloat problem. Some which I have seen (Canons, Olympus, some other) have a dial on the back, a dial on the top, a dial on the left, and several pushbuttons ... it's not something you can just pick up and already know how to use.
However, Pentax's ZX-50 which I have has the features of you want from an autofocus camera, but very simple to use as a manual camera. Switching between AF and MF is just a 2-position sliding switch. You can use the aperture ring on your pentax lens, or you can electronically set the aperture automatically or manually with a dial. And the mode dial doesn't have 20 different modes like bloated cameras - just 5 - full auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, full manual, and ISO setting.
I really don't like feature bloat; if there are features I'm going to use, though, and are as easy to use as on a manual, I'll use them.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[haizi_23]

I disagree strongly with the idea that with a manual-everything camera, quickly getting a picture is impossible. In poor light, you may have a point, but if you're shooting outside in daylight, it's almost as easy as an automatic. Maybe it takes a couple seconds longer? I have the aforementioned Pentax K-1000, which was a Christmas present several years ago, and my first photos with it were taken on a trip to Ethiopia and came out stunning. It helps that the country is beautiful, of course, but I didn't get any of the pictures developed until I returned and so had virtually no feedback as to what I was doing right or wrong. It just worked as advertised -- focus, line the needle up in the light meter, click. Now again, indoors or night time is another story entirely. . .

Re:Pentax K-1000

[p0d]

I wouldn't say digital's quality is totally crap compared to film.

It all depends on what you shoot with. In the digital world, the camera factors in way more, obviously. Even a seasoned pro would have a bit of a time generating something decent from a 2MP Fuji Finepix.

Of course, that's where the $$$ comes in. To get that film-equivalent quality, you have to lay out major bucks...a Canon 10D is considered near-35mm quality (maybe more so due to lack of grain/noise up to ISO 1600), but will set you back $1500. Nevermind the 11.1 MP Canon 1Ds, which according to most tests, outclasses 35mm film in perceptual resolution and sharpness...the 1Ds costs $8,000 for the body alone.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Jason1729]

Even considering the cheaper on you mentioned, $1500 buys a lot of film. At costco, it's about $5 total for 24 exp film and processing. That means for the $1500 you could buy a decent 35mm SLR kit for $300 and spend the remaining $1200 on 240 rolls of film and processing, or 5760 pictures.

How many people will shoot 5800 pictures even with a digital camera? There's also depreciation...I spent $450 on a 2.3MP camera in 2001. It's worth about $100 now on ebay. My nikon 4004s is still worth every cent I paid for it back in 1989. So not only do you have to take 5800 pictures, you have to take them in the first year before depreciation erodes your investment. Otherwise it would be better to shoot 1000 pictures on film in 1 year and buy that $1500 camera for $750 the next year.

Another thing, the film price I quoted includes printing. As soon as you starting printing some of those digital pictures the price goes up even more.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Pentax K-1000

[dogdaze]

Another good choice is the older Pentax ME-Super which is a slightly fancier version of the K-1000 line. It has better metering options and display, but still is manual. If I recall, it also had aperature priority mode and a semi-automatic mode. You get the best of manaul and a dab of auto.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Kompressor]

Not only are pentax lenses and bodies massively cross-compatible within their own timeframe, but most modern pentax bodies are backwards compatible to their older lenses, as Pentax kept the bayonet mount when they moved to autofocus lenses. This means that you can take almost any Pentax lens on the market, new or used, and make it work on most modern pentax bodies. Can't say that for Canon, can we?

I have mounted the 50mm stock lens from my mother's K-1000 (older than I am!) on my MZ-5n (ZX-5n for you americans in the house) and it worked just fine.

For someone who wants manual focus, I would sugest the MZ-M (ZX-M in the states). It is basically a modern version of the K-1000, but it can be used in automatic exposure modes (aperature priority, shutterspeed priority, or full on automatic).

Seriously, I wouldn't recommend buying a new manual focus SLR, unless you're really strapped for cash, or have an asshat professor that insists on it. Almost all SLR bodies can turn the autofocus off, and revert to manual focus. I was considering the MZ-M myself, as I just wanted a new K-1000, but I decided that having the ability to leave it in autofocus might be the difference between capturing a moment, and wasting a frame.

In regards to the ask slashdot, I seriously suggest that you check out your local camera shops. Hit 3 or 4 of them, and talk to a salesgeek. Everyone has their pet brand and favorite camera (I, too, am guilty of reaching for certain brands in our showcase automatically.) There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you end up making a well-informed decision. Any serious retailer should be willing to teach you a bit about how a 35mm SLR works, and break down the differences between the brands and models without expecting you to buy on the spot.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not impossable at all, you just need to practice more. Belive it or not there was a time (not that long ago) when there was no such thing as autofocus on a camera and photographers did just fine. You need to have a good feel for depth of field and there are a lot of tricks that can be used like presetting for a predetermained distance. It's not impossable it just means you need to know your craft rather then letting the electronics do all the thinking.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[pnagel]

I checked out the new digital SLR yesterday. Unfortunately, it is not compatible with all the old lenses a K-1000 can take. Lenses without the A (automatic) setting on the aperture ring will not work on it.

And its a crying shame. I hope they fix it in the next mode.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[axelbaker]

I forgot all about that (my 35mm is a uses alkaline so its a non issue)

Yes having to try to find zinc air batteries or dealing with a meter that is skewed because of incorrect voltages sucks.
The zinc air aren't perfect either, they are a few 1/10th of a volt off too.
Look for some thing that takes a-76's cells if you can.

Worse comes to worse you spend a $100 on a used spot meter and learn to meter really well too.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[realkiwi]

The TLb is the camera I bought at design school.

I banged on a Tamron 85-400 Zoom that weighed about half a ton that someone bought me back from Fiji duty free.

I did miss a 24mm wide angle though.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[heikkile]

only thing is that if you get a manual-everything camera, even with a lot of practice, quickly getting a picture is nigh impossible

On the contrary, I find it nearly impossible to get a quick shot with all this automatics. If it takes 0.1 seconds to focus, it is too slow to catch a good shot from the car window.

The trick with all-manual cameras is to set everything up in advance. At normal daylight you can set it up to a decent speed, low enough aperture to have a deep enough area in focus. With a bit of practice (burn film!) you can shoot almost as fast as you can see a good picture. Train the reflex to lift the camera to your eye when ever you see something promising, and not to press the button more than every second time.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[dipipanone]

if you don't buy a Vietnam-era Nikon F, you might as well be wearing panties.

Psh... SLR's are for sluggards.

What you *really* want is a nice Leica M3.

Unfortunately, it won't cost you no $200, so I'd go with the Nikon F or F1 as well.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[dipipanone]

What kind of batteries does your separate meter use, that weigh less than that?

Dunno about his, but my old Weston Euromaster doesn't use batteries at all.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Grab]

Slightly OT, but that's one nice thing about a decent digi-camera. If you get one that allows you to twiddle everything (rather than the boring auto-everything ones), you can experiment with changing stuff like ISO, aperture, etc and see instantly what the effect is. If you mess up the settings, you can try again. With film, your only option to start with is to fire off a lot of film at all the different settings, noting down carefully what settings you used at each point, and see what the results are when you get the film back 2 weeks later. (I'm assuming a beginner isn't going to have a full darkroom setup ;-)

Frankly though, I'm not sure why *anyone* would want to buy a 35mm camera right now. The great advantage of a 35mm camera over a digi-camera is that good photographers using high-quality film can take better quality photos. A beginner with a 35mm camera (and probably cheaper film for experimenting with) is going to take average-quality photos for some time. But the high-end digi-cameras now (10MP) are finally better than any film. They're vastly expensive of course, but then 2 years ago you'd be talking the same price for a 4MP camera and they're down to 300 or less now. Give it another two years and digital will be wiping the floor with film (it's already happened to the "point-and-click" type camera). By the time this hypothetical beginner gets the hang of it, his gear is going to be as obsolete as a 78 record.

(flame on... ;-)

Grab.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[falconwolf]

Think about this: when you press the shutter on the camera, it is just an empty box (a well-aligned box, but still just a box). So don't waste your money on the camera body. I see people blow big bucks on the camera and then with "money left over" they buy some crappy Sigma lens.. don't do that.

Spend money on the lens, more than the camera body they will be what determines the quality of the exposures. After that what sets good photographers apart from others is how much they shoot. Shoot some, then shoot some more, and more. It takes practice. For those who're new it's good to have a good book as well, one like Photography (7th Edition) . Also a good reference and community website is Photonet.

Though I don't have one now I'm thinking of getting a Mamiya 645E medium format camera, this should be good as a beginner's medium format camera. I'd also like to get a digital back for it, but then that's more money than I can afford now. Actually my photography professor told me I should go digital SLR instead of medium format for what I want to do, photojournalism.

Also, you might want to consider a medium-format camera or something where you have to individually load sheets of film. I personally never liked 35mm because of the small size and the annoying canister and was glad to dump it in favor of digital.

I love those film canisters, they're terrific for storing small stuff in. Overall I like 35mm, what I don't like is the small print sizes, then again the biggest print I've made is 8.5 X 11. I'd love to print bigger, then again I don't have a darkroom to work in right now anyway.

Now that Canon has released the Digital Rebel or as it's called outside the US the EOS 300D, I want to see what other companies release in the next few months as this camera will put alot of pressure on other manufacturers. I'd like to get a fullframe digital SLR with a resolution high enough to print up to 18" at no higher a price than the Digital Rebel.

Good luck, remember to shoot as many shots as you can afford and never be afraid that you're "wasting" film.

AS long as something is learned with each roll of film there isn't a waste.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Lumpy]

sorry I learned photography on the K-1000. I shot sports Action photography and I could get instant shots without effort.

I brought this to my video habit. I have a fully manual Video camera (Canon XL-1 with a 14X manual lens)

Auto gives you mundane photos. Manual gives you good photos... and this is ALWAYS true.... and I found it's true in video as well.

you might not have the skills to use a fully manual camera in all situations, but a large number of us out here do.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[falconwolf]

Also, if you're developing your own, of course you can always try to compensate for bad settings at development time.

This is why my photography professor has those of us taking his class use positives or slide film. Bad exposures for print can be compensated for when printing.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Lumpy]

OT I know...

if you are looking down the barrels of a possible divorce, sell your important-to-you items like cameras to a trustworthy friend for $100.00

if they are sold before anything is filed with the court, there is nothing she or the judge can do about it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[falconwolf]

One piece of advice - see if the lens for the cameras your considering work on the manufacturers current range of SLR/dSLRs. Some manufacturers (Nikon, as I recall) have kept backwards compatibility while others (Canon) introduced a new lens mount with their later gear.

I'm not sure about all of Canon's DSLRs, but the D60, D30, and the new one the Digital Rebel as it's called in the US or EOS 300D elsewhere all have EF mounts so they can take any EF lens. Now Canon is releasing new lens for the Digital Rebel, EFS if I recall right, that eliminates the multiplication factor. The new lenses can only be used on the Digital Rebel, until they release another camera that is.

f16, shutter speed = 1/film speed - on a sunny day, all you need is to focus and shoot.

The Sunny 16 Rule or the rule of Equivalant Exposure. That was one of the first things we learned in my photography class. Starting at f16, for each stop stepped up the aperature needs to be stepped down one and visa versa.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Faggot]

my dad actually got a Leica M3 and two lenses for $500 from some guy whose sister had owned them and had recently died. he wanted $300 but my dad felt too guilty basically stealing them for that price.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[GregWebb]

I've got an old, mechanical SLR too and I have to take issue on the climate point. FWIW it's rather older and more basic than yours - Zenith EM. Thunks beautifully on the shutter though :-)

Yes, there's nothing electrical at all to fail - even the light meter doesn't need a battery. It's not TTL mind you so it's rather less useful. One very significant problem, though, is that the body is all _metal_. It's uncomfortable to use in cold weather and would be flat out dangerous in conditions that cold.

More modern cameras seem to at least have plastic buttons - definitely preferable.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

AC for speed.

The reason I keep my 35MM SLR running is because I take a lot of photos underground. I set the camera up on a tripod, open the shutter, then walk round with a flashgun illuminating as i go, when finished, close the shutter and I'm done. As far as i know you can't do this with a digital.

As for a recommendation. I started fairly late with photography as a hobby, but here's my recommendation. I bought my wife a Nikon F65 this year, it's manual enough that I can use it for pretty much anything, yet simple enogh that my wife (who hates fiddly things) can just point and shoot. and cheap enough that I don't have panic attacks when absailing with it.

2c

Re:Pentax K-1000

[TheCrazyFinn]

Better a Nikon FM2 or FM3 with a set of non-G AF lenses.

The Camera is pretty much the same as a K-1000, apart from the better build quality of the higher-end Nikons; but the lenses will be compatible with all post-1980 Nikon SLR's (including the Digitals).

The Pentax K-1000's are great, but there are better options (And yes, I know that KA2 mount Pentax AF bodies can use K mount MF lenses)

Re:Pentax K-1000

[TheCrazyFinn]

Canon did break compatibility, not with the introduction of DSLR's, but with AF. They have the EF mount (AF) and an MF mount (MF Bodies and lenses). Which sucks, because their EF comsumer-grade lenses are crap compared to their older MF lenses.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Uncle_Destroy]

I've got two cameras. A Nikomat FTn with a few lenses that is fully manual, and a Canon Powershot A70. You can learn a hell of a lot if you spend some time with a manual SLR. But you can do the same with a cheapo digital that has decent manual settings, and not go broke as you should be out there taking a hundred pictures a day working through the basics of what makes good pictures. -Uncle

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

While I love my ZX-30, your statement is not entirely accurate. While I can mount any Pentax mount lens to the camera, the camera won't operate unless the lens has an auto-aperture setting (the A on the aperture ring). I don't know if this is the case for other newer Pentax models (this one is about a year old).

The only thing that I wish it had is a split-window focusing screen instead of the matte screen. Makes manual focusing harder, and forces you to rely on: A. your eyesight, B. the autofocusing system to "Beep" at you when the camera thinks the image is in focus.

If I had it to do over again (but I'm too far invested in the thing I think), I would have gotten a Nikon outfit. The reason is simply because of the used market for lenses, accessories, etc. I went to a couple of local camera shows, and about 80% was Nikon, and I only found one or two Pentax lenses.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[misskatj]

I've got to second all the votes for the K-1000 here. I'm not a photograpy expert by any means, but 10 years ago I asked a roommate who was, and she pointed me there. It's lasted through some pretty heavy abuse, and I've upgraded from my original lens and bought a flash, but I'm still really happy with it.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[carlos_benj]

My problem with Pentax is that they haven't really brought anything to the table in the digital SLR arena. I too sing their praises when it comes to backward compatibility on lenses, but I've really been trying to move to digital and can't get a Pentax digital body to go with the lenses I have (I haven't seen the new D-SLR they've announced in stores yet). Because of that I've seriously been considering the Canon EOS 10-D (because my wallet won't let me consider the 1-D).

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Nexx]

My Nikon F-100 wasn't that hard to get used to. Just hit "mode" and rotate the main dial, and you go through the four main modes - Manual, Aperture priority, Shutter priority, and Programme (full auto). I'm not quite sure how to use the P-mode, because I'm almost always in M or A, and occassionally S.

What's really cool about the newer Nikon AF-S lenses and most Canon USM lenses is that you don't have to hit that silly 2-position switch, flipping between manual and autofocus. I can just play with the focus in the autofocus mode. Very cool.

If money were no object, I'd probably rebuild my kit with Canon kit, though. Their autofocus seems a touch better, and Canon glass is at least as good as Nikon glass, and I lust over the Canon 1Ds.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Nexx]

Well yes, my Nikkomat (backup body) uses a watch battery for the light meter too, and everything else is mechanical, not needing batteries for anything. However, my primary body, the F-100, becomes an expensive paperweight after its 4 AA cells die. In moderate weather, I can shoot about 20-40 rolls (really, six months of 5-10 rolls/month) between new batteries, but I suspect in *cold* weather, that changes dramatically.

As grandparent said, if I were to go to a much colder climate, I'd take non-G lenses (those lack an apature wheel, thus making them incompatible with my Nikkomat), a separate lightmeter, and well, my Nikkomat.

Gotta love 30year cameras. They're built like a tank.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Jon-o]

They've actually just started the *ist line of cameras.

I don't know much about it, other than it being quite small, and some say it looks good.

What *I* want, is much simpler - basically a digital k1000. Autofocus is lovely and all that, but it's not what I want.. of course, no one's going to produce that sort of thing any time soon, so just like with mp3/ogg recorders, I'm stuck with nothing available! Too bad..

Re:Pentax K-1000

[carlos_benj]

Once you have something like a K1000 dialed in to where you think the action will be, you can get a picture from it as soon as you stab the shutter.

Well, if you're "stabbing" the shutter you're probably going to ruin the pic anyway with motion blur. With an auto-everything camera you can do the same thing by putting it in manual mode. I think the parent's point was that with a fully manual camera you can't get the pics you suddenly stumble upon, like the wildlife along the hiking trail before it spooks.

In your scenario, I set up my focus and aperture ahead of time and wait for the action to cross my focal plane (I know the play is going to be at first base so that's where I'm focused), with the auto you point to first base and partially depress the shutter release - everything focuses and you complete the shutter press as the runner and the ball arrive together at the pre-determined location.

Now if something surpising happens at second base My auto might be able to get the picture, but your manual won't.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the vote for Pentax K-1000. I have one, learned on it. My dad's old SLR. I've taken some stunning photos with it even while learning.

I understand exposure a ton better than kids learning on automatics in highschool. My girlfriend is learning with a Canon Rebel KOS and continually argues about things with me, like focus and zoom, because no one bothered to explain the basics to her.

Pentax K1000 ALL THE WAY!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[davidslee]

I think my original post as an anonymous coward dissapeared into the ether so I registered to try my post again. Anyway, I totally agree with the parent on this one but first a little background. Hobbyist photographer for the past 10 years (25 yo), yearbook photo ed for 4 during high school, visuals editor for my university mag for 2 years, and now photo researcher at a national magazine for 2 1/2 years. The Pentax k-1000 is THE workhouse of the photography community. I still know of many professional photographers who take their $50k worth of photog equipment out to a shoot and still bring their K-1000 with a 50mm lens just in case something happens. I've had my K-1000 handed down to me by my father who had it since he immigrated to Canada 30 years ago and it still works exactly the same as the day he bought it. It has never had a single problem even though its been treated poorly, been dropped in a river twice, been used in 30+C and -30C weather and been dropped on the ground numerous times. In fact, on the occaision that I dropped it in the river the first time I just kept shooting my film and it worked fine (true there were scratches on the emulsion but hell it still worked!). The only complaint I would have about the K-1000 is that the shutter is extremely loud compared to other 100% manual cameras. I've seen the Nikon FM-2 listed here as another option and that's a fantastic camera as well with a much quieter shutter but it's difficult to find a used FM-2 body for a reasonable price (last time I checked it was at least twice as much as a new pentax k-1000 body). To avoid the problem of having to buy new lenses later on I would get a $20 solution... a pentax to nikon adapter ring. You can find these at almost any pro shop. True you can't make use the the autofocus interface but remember the k-1000 is a fully manual camera =) With regards to which is faster ... manual vs say aperture/shutter priority vs fully auto.... i'd have to say it depends on the shooter. Personally when I shoot I typically shoot outdoor in the day so if something catches me by surprise I can usually catch a photo of it by keeping the depth of field set as wide as possible for current conditions... that way even if you're aren't exactly in focus in the viewfinder you'll still get the subject in focus thanks to the miracle of DOF. As for not being able to see the effect of the aperture in the viewfinder... come on... you HAVE to learn the effect of aperture on a photo anyway and once you learn it you'll be able to visualize the effect! It's like saying to a newbie web designer that all you need to design a webpage is frontpage... that''ll only get you so far. You eventually have to delve into the hard code. Same with photography... auto everything will only get you so far. Also.... don't learn how to shoot with black and white film. Learn to shoot with COLOR film. It's so much easier to go to black and white from color than from color to black and white. Now granted this is totally subjective and you could argue it all day but frankly if you can get contrast and composition done nicely in the full spectrum of colors, you'll find it easier to do so in the limited spectrum of black and white.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[pivate_ivy]

I don't know much about this camera, but when I was comparing my options a few years ago (1999?) in preparation for my first photography class, I chose the Nikon FM10. The price was decent, and the quality was fantastic. Here are some reviews on epinions. I am by no means an expert, but I can say that as a first-time photography student, I was very happy with this camera, and various experienced photographers with whom I spoke about it said I'd made a fine choice. I've since moved on to digital, but I am still very fond of my FM10. And definitely, the price is a lot better now, if you can get a used one in good condition from ebay. I do agree that you must go for quality over price when shopping for the lenses. They make all the difference! Good luck!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, the K1000 is truely the best SLR to start with. I wish I still had one to use because it was so good!!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[default luser]

I have to agree with this,

A few years back I was shooting shows for a friend ( the director at the time ), and he rented an XL-1 for me to use.

I did a few practice runs during the dress rehersals, and I had to admit the AF was dodgy, probably due to the high contrasts on-stage.

Anyway, I ended up filming the whole thing in manual; the focus on the XL-1 is wonderfully smooth to operate, and the video came out great. Of course, I wouldn't suggest MF video for situations where you cannot anticipate where your subject will move, that's why we still need AF.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[(54)T-Dub]

It's not the added functionality that I am complaining about (though I don't use it). It the ease of use of a manual camera that I lament.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[richyoung]

I'm not sure the auto-everything cameras are that much faster. Once you have something like a K1000 dialed in to where you think the action will be, you can get a picture from it as soon as you stab the shutter.

I have definitely gotten some pictures with my K-1000 that others with auto-focus cameras missed because I did exactly this. The strictly mechanical shutter is faster than anything electronic I've ever used.

OTOH, I've probably missed far more shots because I was unable to set up ahead of time. It can take way too long to set up posed snapshots, because of the manual focus/exposure issue; that's certainly led to "missed shots" in the sense that people are reluctant to let me take the time. I've also missed shots because the curtain shutter was too slow for my flash, or because my light meter keeps failing me. (They're supposed to be tanks, but I've spent close to two hundred dollars on repairs for mine.)

Bottom line is that I'd rather have both manual and AF capabilities so you can choose which is appropriate. And I've come to love digital for the instant feedback -- if you mess up a shot, you can tell, and you can take it again.

first post, btw.
--Rich

Re:Pentax K-1000

[ncc74656]

Well, if you're "stabbing" the shutter you're probably going to ruin the pic anyway with motion blur.

It was a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[simpsop]

I couldn't agree more... the Pentax K-1000 is a fine manual 35mm camera, I've used one for years (even used a telescope as a telephoto lens with an adaptor I bought for $10. Otherwise, I'd vote for a Canon Rebel series, full manual or full auto, lenses are plentiful, and made by a variety of suppliers (low end to high end). Also, for those interested in the "benefits" of APS Film (panorama, compact, or large on the same film), I recommend the Canon EOS IX. I have one, works just like my Rebel, but APS. Definetly useful for group photos & landscapes in panoramic mode, full auto or manual use, and I got it new, with 2 lenses for $249.00.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[penguin7of9]

Actually, it makes little difference either way. Both with manual and with automatic cameras, you need to set focus and exposure ahead of time for being able to take pictures quickly. For manual, you fiddle with dial, for automatic, you use the focus lock and exposure lock buttons. The principle and the result is pretty much the same.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Ben Hutchings]

There should be no need to log the camera settings if you're shooting on digital. EXIF files can hold all that information in the header and I expect that the uncompressed file formats do the same.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[freakinPsycho]

That's not true.

I have the Pentax *Ist D and use a 500/1000 mm lense on it with no problems. This is a k-mount lense so there is no A setting.

What doesn't work is any of the on-camera special stuff so you are going completely on your own judgement.

BTW, this is a great camera and I've had a lot of fun with mine so far. Great pictures and great functions. Bit pricey, but worth it overall.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Chomp]

You may wish to consider the (Asahi) Pentax Spotmatic rather than the K-1000 if you want to be really cheap. A K-1000 is basically a lobotomised Spotmatic F with a bayonet mount rather than M-42 screw mount.

The Spotmatic body has depth of field preview that the K-1000 lacks. Also, Pentax Super/SMC Takumar screw mount lenses are cheap, excellent and plentiful on eBay.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

I started with a K-1000... Eventually, for ease of use and quick shooting for places where I might have busy hands or ask someone else (like my wife or friend) to take a picture for me, I went to the Pentax ZX-7. Lots fo features most people will never use, but its a great AF camera which anyone can use. Plus, I couldn't beat the price.

Which reminds me: go to some camera shows in your area. They're like flea markets for cameras. Read up before you go or go with someone you know who has some photography knowledge. You can find some really good deals (I got my ZX-7 body for $100 and a couple lenses with AF features for a hundred-and-a-half). Also, the lenses off the K-1000 work as well.

Just this week, I took all the change I'd been saving in my couch and invested in the Pentax *ist line... Now I've got a DIGITAL camera which has all the features of my ZX-7 and uses the same lenses. Again, I got a good deal at the camera show (factory refurb for $900. This is normally a $1600 camera!).

Now, don't just go by what everyone says. Stop at a few camera shops. Go to the chains like Wolf or Ritz(or whatever's in your area) and ask lots of questions. Then go to mom-and-pop stores. They'll help teach you things. Then get the best price on what suits your needs (generally at the mom-and-pop stores or the camera shows).

Finally, read up! Get some magazines about photography. Get a book or two about "How To" use the camera. It helps to have the camera and the book at the same time. The magazines will give you ideas on what you want to do with your camera and what the right tools are for the type of photos you want to take.

Good luck!

Re:Pentax K-1000

[WNight]

Manual focus on an SLR depends on the lens of course, and some cheap lenses have a pretty lame focus ring, but on a good lens you auto-focus in much the same way you did in the '60s. Grab the ring and turn until the picture looks right.

On Canon cameras there's a little slider switch at the base of the lens clearly marked AF|MF, if the slider is at AF (towards the front of the lens) it'll focus for you, either when you half-press the shutter, or when you press the optional focus button on the back. (If you don't want the focusing to happen when you shoot.) If you slide the switch to MF you have to do all the focusing yourself, but if you wish, the camera will blink the auto-focus points when it thinks you've done it right. Good for a newbie, harmless for everyone else.

I've got a Digital Rebel, Canon's most hand-holding SLR, and it has a fully-functional manual mode, where you adjust aperture and shutter manually, and priority modes for both, as well as program, which is auto but where you can override the camera's choice. For instance, in program it'll pick the settings and you can spin the handy dial with your index finger to change the shutter/f-stop combo it picked while keeping the same exposure, or press the exposure compensation button and spin the same dial to increase or decrease the exposure.

Being able to modify the metered settings, upping the shutter speed in trade for a wider fstop, means I don't use the shutter/aperture priority modes as much. I only use shutter priority when I know that anything below a 1/100 will be blurry, in a car for instance, and I'm willing to sacrifice a properly exposed shot in order to just get the shot.

I was taking pictures within minutes of pulling the camera out of the box, despite never having used a Canon SLR before. The bells and whistles are there, but they aren't required.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

So start out with film, graduate to digital and take the lenses with you from one to the other.

I think you have it backwards there...digital is very cheap per shot but the quality is crap...perfect to start out.

Film is vastly better quality but there's a higher per shot cost. Better for when you know what you're doing so each shot is better.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[pnagel]

Really? In the shop the camera refused to trip the shutter with a K-mount lens attached. Also, the manual stated that the camera is compatible with K-FA, K-FA2 etc. lenses, and K lenses with K to K-Fa autofocus adapter only (which would extend the effective focal length of the lens by a further 1.7x).

The point is, with cameras like the MZ-S, older lenses just work, metering and all included (with obvious limitations related to the absence of the A setting).

On the expensive *istD, K-mount lenses do not "just work". If one looks at the camera's mount, it quite obviously lacks the linear aperture lever the camera uses to sense the aperture setting you set the lens at.

I would love the *istD to "just work" with older lenses. I hope Pentax fixes it in a later model.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[jridley]

This means that you can take almost any Pentax lens on the market, new or used, and make it work on most modern pentax bodies. Can't say that for Canon, can we?

No, but the current, all-electronic Canon mount has been around for some time, and they are all interoperable.

Yes, Pentax lenses are interchangeable back to the 70's, but that also means that they have been unable to take advantage of the benefits that going to an all-electronic mount would gain them. This means that, even though you could theoretically go buy a lens from 1981 and use it on your Pentax body, even if you go out and buy a brand new lens for it, it's not going to perform as well as a nice shiny Canon USM lens.

The ISA slot is a standard going back a long time, too, and there are a few people that still want to use some crufty old data-aquisition board or something and want an ISA slot, but at some point you need to just give up and say "to hell with it, just buy new equipment, including this ancient standard costs money on every mainboard and practially nobody uses it."

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Kompressor]

I've seen the new digital *ist, and unfortunately, I'm not much of a fan. To me, it feels like a Canon Rebel TI clone, but manufactured to significantly looser specifications. I can't say anything about image quality, as I haven't worked with one in the field, but I played with one in a competitor's store and all the buttons and knobs felt loose.

I'm a firm fan of pentax in the 35mm market, but it seems that Canon has the edge when it comes to digital SLRs at the moment. I've had a chance to play around with a Digital Rebel, and it seems to be a very good deal for the money. It's features and such feel like a combination of the Rebel K2 and the Rebel 2000. AFAIK, there's no depth of field preview (could be wrong on that count tho), and it doesn't come with a memory card, but if you're going to be dropping $1549 CDN on it, you'll probably have the extra $500 for a little bit of CF to go with it ;-)

It's my belief that film is still the better medium when it comes to 35mm style SLR cameras, because it's cheaper to get into, and negatives are going to have a longer shelf-life than digital images. Short of your house burning down, a well processed B&W negative will outlive you.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Kompressor]

True that the Canon lenses designed for the 35mm EOS line are all interoperable, and I admit, Canon has some of the best glass on the market (50mm f2.8, dr00l!), however, they have once agian pulled the backwards compatibility plug with their Digital series. I'm not positive about the rest of their lenses, but the glass that comes on the Digital Rebel is not compatible with their 35mm EOS series. The lenses designed for 35mm will work on the digitals, but not vice versa.

I haven't yet been able to get a reasonable reply from our Canon rep as to why this is so. The default lens on the Digital Rebel is 18-55 mm, but the Digital Rebel has a 1.5x magnification factor, so it looks like about 28-80mm. As far as I can tell, they just want to keep people from using the 18-55 on their 35mm instead of a more expensive 18mm, but that's just hearsay and FUD.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[jridley]

Here's the reason:
The image sensor on the Digital Rebel is smaller than a 35mm frame. This means that much of the outer edges of the image painted by a 35mm lens is wasted; it falls outside the edge of the chip. Moreover, keeping distortion and vignetting down in the outer edge of the lens is the most expensive part of making a lens.
By building a lens especially for the Rebel, they were able to make the lens smaller, lighter, and more compact than if it had to be able to fit a film camera.

The reason it doesn't physically fit a film camera is that it protrudes into the camera past the lens mount; remember, it doesn't have to paint as big an area in the back of the camera, so they can shift the whole lens back a bit, the rear part of it coming into the camera body a bit.

If you wanted to take a film EOS body and mill it out so that the lens would fit, it would work, but the edges of the image would be vignetted, and the distortion would probably be bad.

All in all, it was a good move. I own a digital rebel, and the kit lens is pretty nice for $100, especially for those of us just getting started in the SLR world (my previous SLR was an all-manual T-mount from the 70's).

Also, since that lens is not available for sale without the camera, it's not really much of an issue. Canon has stated that they don't really intend to make any more EF-S lenses, this was just a clever, cheap hack that let them comfortably hit the $1000 price point. This has been a huge win for them; I personally know 5 other people who have picked up digital rebels in the last 2 months.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[Kompressor]

Thanks for the clarification jridley, quite informative (now, if only I could moderate replies in a thread I posted in...)

That explanation of the lens makes the Digital Rebel that much nicer in my books. Next time I'm at work, I'll take a close look and see if I can tell the differenece between the lens mount on the stock lens and a stock lens on the Rebel-Ti.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

I meant "all features common to both." D'oh! Still, it doesn't seem to have prevented my upkarmaing...

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

With a manual camera you can't turn AF on, so you'd miss all of the fast-moving shots.

Most AF cameras are pretty crappy as far as focussing manually goes - focussing aids such as the split prism and microprism collar that were common twenty years ago are virtually unheard of today, and the focussing screens in modern cameras are often made of optical fibre bundles or microlenses rather than ground glass, producing a much brighter image, but making it much harder to judge focus.

As far as your claim above goes, with a manual camera you'd select a narrower aperture perhaps, and then keep your camera focussed on the hyperfocal distance. Now unless your subject comes closer to you than half that distance, it will remain in focus and you can get your fast-moving shots just as well as with an AF camera

Sure there are some good reasons for getting AF (I'll probably bite the bullet when my eyesight starts to go in about thirty years' time), but in my experience, 99% of the time, photographers use AF as a way to avoid having to learn how a camera actually works.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

I remember thinking i'll sell all my canon gear if Pentax released a digital SLR

They have released one; it's called the "*ist D".

Re:Pentax K-1000

[WNight]

Sure, you can just focus on the HFD and get the equivalent of the P&S camera, but this requires a smaller aperture and thus more light. It also means you can't select your DoF for the shot. You lose flexibility in light and composition, but you can get focused shots of fast-moving objects...

Owners of MF cameras talk about how MF is hard on new cameras - partly true - but they don't realize that it's because nobody cares about manual focusing. With all but a few odd specialty lenses (Tilt and Shift, extreme macro, etc) the auto-focus is really good. You can tweak this, good lenses let you manually adjust focus even while in auto, but you rarely have to.

A user who wants to show how auto-focus is bad will compose a shot with the focus point on the subject's nose and complain about how the eyes are out of focus. An AF user will either position the AF point over the eye when focusing and recompose, of let the AF lock in on the face and give the focus ring a quick nudge to bring the eyes into focus.

You don't think pro photographers would have gone to cameras without great manual-focus setups if there was a problem using auto-focus?

Using a manual camera is probaly worth doing, for a day or two in a course. For either long-term use you'll get a lot more good shots with a camera that handles the fiddly stuff for you. It's why digital is taking off, less fuss, more shooting, and now, better quality.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[bluelip]

Who have you found to supply these cells at a decent price? Do they handle phone/internet sales?

Re:Pentax K-1000

[elvum]

OK, I agree that when you need to photograph fast-moving objects close to the camera with a short depth of field or in low light, and aren't able to set the focus up in advance (ie you don't know how far away those objects are going to be), AF cameras are better. That's not a very common occurrence in my experience, but YMMV, etc.

I also agree that in practically all other circumstances, AF cameras are as good as manual cameras once you know how to use them properly.

That one advantage of AF over manual isn't enough to persuade me to pay the hundreds-of-dollars premium that a decent AF camera and lens setup incurs over a decent manual camera and lens collection (which I already have), and frankly I think that 9/10 new photographers would be better off saving the money too.

Re:Pentax K-1000

[WNight]

I'd agree that new photographers should stick with manual, except that digital cameras are all auto-everything (free CPU power) and I can't imagine going back to film, or wishing it on anyone.

And yeah, I find a lot of cases where AF makes the shot possible. Photographing flying birds just a little bit overhead, where the distance changes dramatically. Or squirrels running in trees. As long as the camera is pointed in the right direction and the light isn't really bad, you're going to get a sharp shot. I've played with MF a bit though and it's very usable, though modern lenses don't have much play between macro and infinity so it tends to be touchy.

A manual camera can teach you how a manual camera works, and can avoid distracting you with gizmos, but a digital camera can teach you composition by letting you take all the pictures and review them minutes later to see what worked. And while they have a ton of bells and whistles, you get immediate feedback as to the effect of that feature. Changing exposure compensation makes the live view (on a P&S digital) get lighter or darker. This teaches you how to use a camera, and keeps the bells and whistles from interfering - you don't end up with a whole roll of bad pictures because you accidently clicked a doodad into the on position.

Come on with the jokes..

[deniea]

Is nobody going to make a joke on the darkroom thing ?

Re:Come on with the jokes..

[duckpoopy]

No, only a retard would do that.

Re:Come on with the jokes..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll make a joke. Oooh la la! I use a camera! I shoot with XXX brand cameras!

Re:Come on with the jokes..

[Webmoth]

You want a joke on the darkroom thing? Not exactly a joke, but...

I took a photography course when I was in the 8th grade. The darkroom didn't have double-doors, so you had to knock. Seems you could never get in, because someone was "developing." Something. With an MOS.

Pentax K1000

[brulman]

great student camera, I don't believe they make them any longer, but they are all over ebay and inexpensive. Nice metal body in case you need to stop a bullet in a war zone. No apeture preview though...

Also, if you are more serious, you might consider picking up an older manual nikon. Then, if you collect some nice lenses, you can always migrate them to a digital body somewhere down the road.

Re:Pentax K1000

[MazTaim]

Man, that brings back memories. The K1000 was my first SLR camera. I only wish they made cameras as sturdy anymore.

Re:Pentax K1000

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Agreed. The K1000 is an awesome camera -- simple, rugged, and a large number of lenses available.

I had one that traveled many years and many thousands of miles with me, through sandstorms, rain, and snow; it survived all sorts of terrible things like being banged into a granite cliff (doh!) and being grabbed by a powerful electromagnet (separate occasions, I should point out), and it always carried right on working.

Lasts several years on a battery, too, since it's only using it for the internal light meter. It'll keep working fine without the meter, if you're willing to compute exposures some other way, like Sunny 16 rule.

I'd still use it today, if it hadn't been stolen in a burglary.

Centon DF

[Organized Konfusion]

Centon make great beginner cameras, they are part of the jessops brand who are the largest photographic company in Europe.

Nearly every school recommends their cameras when students sign up for photograpy degrees.

Check out some of their models here

Re:Centon DF

[sql*kitten]

Centon make great beginner cameras, they are part of the jessops brand who are the largest photographic company in Europe.

Jessop's are very expensive compared with online retailers, tho'. A little while ago I bought a Canon Powershot G5* on Amazon for GBP 478. The other day, I went into the local Jessop's to buy a tripod** and noticed that they had the same camera for GBP 628. By all means browse in a Jessop's store, but make a note of what you want to buy and get it elsewhere!

* I wholeheartedly reccommend this camera for the serious amateur.
** For assorted reasons, I needed one there and then...

Re:Centon DF

[rasilon]

IIRC, the Centon K-100 is what happened when Pentax sold the K-1000 production line to them. It's not exactly the same camera, the shutter has changed plane, and is now electronic, but it is still quite similar. It also takes the same PK lenses as the K-1000 etc.

Several good options

[vondo]

You want to make sure you pick something you can grow with. From that viewpoint, a manual focus Nikon body and a couple of lenses might fit your budget. Then later you can slowly upgrade to auto-focus. A used (or even new) Canon Rebel body and lenses might also be a good choice. (Nikon kept things compatible when moving from manual to auto focus, Canon did not.)

Both Canon and Nikon offer digital SLR bodies for when you are ready, and used equipment is easy to find (unlike some of the other manufacturers).

Keep in mind a few things:

1. When buying used equipment, cosmetics are very important to the price. So, if you just want something to use but don't care about resale value, a scuffed up, but otherwise mechanically perfect, camera or lens may be a great deal.
2. If you start with an older manual camera, you will learn a lot more about photography than with a new, auto-everything, camera. You will also waste a lot more film.
3. Unless your father had an amazing darkroom, you'll be limited to black and white prints and maybe developing slides. Color prints are very difficult. But you'll learn tons regardless.

For what it's worth, I recently replaced an old Olympus system with a Canon system. Rebel 2000 body, Elan 7e body, 28-90mm lens, and 100-300mm lens. It's been great. At some point I will buy a digital body too.

Re:Several good options

[Clockwork]

No no, definitely don't buy a older Nikon or a Canon manual focus body if you want to upgrade your system later! Canon manual focus mounts are totally incompatible with the current variety, and modern Nikon autofocus bodies (except for the very very top of the line) won't meter proper lenses. Unless you're going to buy a Nikon F5 later I wouldn't base my decision on upgradability.

Re:Several good options

[ncc74656]

Unless your father had an amazing darkroom, you'll be limited to black and white prints and maybe developing slides. Color prints are very difficult. But you'll learn tons regardless.

I did some color printing in high school...it wasn't much more difficult than B&W. Once you get the color balance tweaked in, you can crank out the pix. The main difficulty you're likely to run up against is that a dichroic head is expen$ive.

Re:Several good options

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick comment on Canon. In HS, I shot about 300 rolls of film a year for 4 years, mostly with my Nikon 4004s. The quality was always stunning. Occasionally I had to borrow one of the school's Canon Rebel cameras to shoot a roll or 2 of a special event. The focus was always off on every shot (and this was with a few different bodies). The metering also wasn't quite as good with the rebels, but it was the lack of focus that really killed them. The main reason I shot so many rolls is because I was the best photographer in the school, but the truth is I was the best because everyone else used those shitty canons.

Re:Several good options

[inode_buddha]

Agreed further still; I wanted the Pentax in college, but couldn't afford it. I got a used Nikon body, all metal construction, manual focus, etc. At the time, it was about $100 USD (used, good condition) from a local shop, so check your local newspaper and phone books near large cities. BTW it still works ok (my brother has it now).

Even weirder: my Dad's Taron bodies with Carl Zeiss lenses from 1972 also work just fine, just FYI...

Re:Several good options

[Master Bait]

I agree about the old Nikon. Their lenses will always be good enough to grow with you in your photographic needs (depending on the autofocus nonsense). So what I mean here is to bypass cheap lenses. Get good lenses -- even if it is a standard 50mm. Also, don't overlook used Yashica 124 twin lens reflex. They use 120 film -- less grain and super tonality because the negative is so much larger than 35mm.

I recently sold an old Minolta SR-1 camera on ebay for less than $60. It had a 55mm Minolta lens and an aftermarket 135mm telephoto. It was a fine user.

Re:Several good options

[WankersRevenge]

I wouldn't bash autofocus. Sure - it's very important to be aware of your focus and depth of field. But sometimes, when you're tired, your eyes can play with you. For instance, I was in the mountains and at the end of the day, my eyes were too exhusted to set accurate focus and I lost half a roll. And some rather good shots too. Also, if I'm taking a picture of a landscape, I eye my focus, then switch to auto and compare which works for me. Like everything, it has its place.

Re:Several good options

[Max Threshold]

Nikon kept things compatible when moving from manual to auto focus, Canon did not.

Sort of. Nikon hasn't changed their lens mount since 1959, but they have changed the way the lens communicates its aperture to the body. Really old lenses have a little U-shaped flange on top to engage a pin that sticks out of the body. Newer AI lenses have a tab on a ring at the rear of the lens. Still newer lenses (G-series) have no mechanical indexing at all; they work only with modern electronic bodies. So although you can mount a manual lens on a N65, N80, etc., you won't be able to meter correctly with it. AFAIK, only the N90 (discontinued) and F5 are fully compatible with manual lenses.

Re:Several good options

[ChrisMaple]

Some enlargers take filter packs instead of a dichroic head. The filters are not unreasonably expensive.

nikon n65

[davidesh]

i've gone digital... but i have a Nikon N65 i have been meaning to put on ebay. with 2 lenses.

was a good beginners camera.

Re:Nikon N65

[grolschie]

I scored a N80 / F80 for only a fraction more than the N55 / F55. So much more camera for not much more in price.

Re:nikon n65

[Jason1729]

I have a Nikon N65. At $199.99 retail, It is absolutely the best camera on the market in the poster's price range. It's perfect for a newbie to the SLR world; it has auto-everything mode but it also lets you switch anything into manual mode. It also has most of the higher end features including 5-zone focus, 10-segmet matrix metering, multiple exposure and bracketing. It also uses Nikon lenses which are the best in the world beyond dispute; even the Hubble telescope uses Nikon glass.

An extra $60 buys a 28-80mm lens, a strap, and a set of batteries.

If the poster doesn't mind spending an extra $100, he should also consider the N80.

I really think you should re-consider selling yours. It really is an excellent camera and completely "going digital" is a bad idea. Even an expensive 6MP digital camera is orders of magnitude worse than a $2 roll of film. I've compared digital and film prints under a microscope; the digital has huge ink, and the photographic print has a light dusting of grain that's barely visable even under the microscope. The digital blobs also have no color variety, they're all in one of the primary colors.

Besides that, you have to store your digital pictures somehow. Do you think you'll be able to access your CD-R or Zip disk in 5 or 10 years? Negatives have been proven to last at least 100 years. Do you want your grandkids to be able to look at the pictures you take? Printer ink fades; I have 1 year old digutal pictures on my wall and the fading is already getting bad enough that they need to be replaced. I have photographs that have been on the same wall for 10 years and still don't show noticable fading.

Digital is very freeing; when take pictures now, I usually only shoot 20-30 frames of film and 10 times as many digital. I know I can waste as many digital shots as I want because there's no cost so I get a lot of good pictures I wouldn't otherwise, but I know I'll still be looking at the film ones in 50 years so anything important, I shoot with film.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Nikon N65

[sQuEeDeN]

I too have a Nikon N-65, and it's been wonderful. The automatic systems are marvelously powerful, but give me more than enough flexibility to do what I want. Together with a moderate zoom lens, a bag, and a filter, I think it was $250.

I've been nothing but satisfied with my camera. And, it just feels good. It's a sturdy, well-built camera that looks sexy. I mean, really, it says Nikon on it, has a well-designed, tech-looking body, and everything else. Definetly makes you look better :p

Re:nikon n65

[sfe_software]

I'm not much of a photographer, but I had to comment on a couple of your points:

I've compared digital and film prints under a microscope; the digital has huge ink, and the photographic print has a light dusting of grain that's barely visable even under the microscope.

I think this depends greatly on the printer used to print the digital photo. A cheap, commodity ink-jet printer is obviously going to do a poor job. Most ink-jet printers claim to do "photo quality" printing on "photo paper", but when you pay $30 for a printer... you shouldn't expect any kind of quality beyond printing a Yahoo map.

Do you think you'll be able to access your CD-R or Zip disk in 5 or 10 years?

Personally, my pics are on my hard drive, and are backed up. If something goes wrong -- CD format becomes obsolete, for example -- I'll make new backups on new media. I'll always have redundant digital backups, on hard drives, CD media (DVD before too long), and even on my web server's hard drive.

As for prints -- well, I've never (yet) printed a digital photo, but if I run across one I particularly want in print form I'll take it to the nearest Wal-Mart or drug store, on my memory stick, and they'll print up a nice, professional copy for me. On much better equipment than a $30 ink-jet printer, I am sure...

Re:Nikon N65

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Canon Rebel 2000 has a plastic ring, Rebel Ti and Rebel K2 (if it ever gets released) have metal. The new bodies have vastly improved ergonomics and give the N65 a run for it's money.

Best thing to do is hold the camera and feel it. My choice of E7 over N80 was basically about how it felt in my hand. I have to be comfortable holding it if I want to take pics.

Re:nikon n65

[davidesh]

My photography is just a hobby. And my prints look great, i get them printed at the local photo processing center... $0.29 a print. I tried my inkjet printer but that was useless. And now instead of albums i get full-page printed professional photo albums, without the hassle of having to manually put them into slots/etc..

Re:Nikon N65

[MacOS_Rules]

I have not much but prase for the N65. I received it as a Christmas/Birthday present last year, and out of 2 or 3 dozen rolls of film, I had no bad shots that weren't my fault. This was my first experience with an SLR. It's a camera with a solid feel (it doesn't feel as if it'll fall apart as you work with it.) Of the lenses I have, I would recommend the Nikkor 28-80mm AF lens (that should come standard with it if bundled in a kit). For telephoto work, I use the Nikkor 80-300mm almost exclusively. My only regret is how the camera handles manual mode. Adjustments to aperature are done on the camera; I don't believe you can manually specify f-stops. This leads to awkward settings adjustments when you're in the heat of the moment and in manual mode. Auto mode works flawlessly, though, and I am thorougly impressed with Lock-on (tracking) autofocus in high-speed situations.

Re:Nikon N65

[ByAnalogy]

Amen to this. The main reason why I recommend Nikon over Canon to new photographers is that they can get an old used body for cheap, and when they are ready to step up to F100 or F80 territory they don't have to worry about lens compatibility. For the most part. There are a few things to consider. If you do have an eye on the future, only get modern glass, as then you can step up to digital SLR or any film body in the Nikon line without problems. Some of the higher end camers, digital ones in particular, are a bit crippled with non-metering lenses.

The next thing I would do is get a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens. Do not cheap out on the lens! These will last you a lifetime, and the lens is the most important part of the process. A cheap third-party lens on a $2,000 camera makes that camera look like a cheap starter. A sharp Nikkor on an old body like the N65/55 will put out amazingly good quality pictures.

I recommend the 50mm for three reasons. One it is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet; two, it is light and relatively cheap; and three, it is good for learning on.

For around $200 you can have a complete starter system (with no flash) that will last you years. Good photographers know the fancy cameras are for the fancy shots. They don't take better pictures, they just take better pictures of the way drops of water fall off of a duck rising out of a pond. You'd have to be an awfully fast gun to get that shot on manual, but with the F5 you can get it and then the duck's friend, too.

In my opinion, by the time you are ready for an upgrade, you'll want to go digital SLR. In the meantime get the above system, and expand your arsenal of glass before worrying about fancier bodies.

And have fun!

Re:nikon n65

[sjwt]

"Do you think you'll be able to access your CD-R or Zip disk in 5 or 10 years?"

Do you think in 20 years you will be able to go
to a photo lab in any mall and hand them a roll of film..

the poor kid behind the counter is going to say
"umm we dont suport USB careds anymore..
where did you get one anyway??"

Re:Nikon N65

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go with this body unless you really plan to upgrade in the future. It lacks some features that you'll find yourself missing, like the ability to rewind the film without leaving the leed out. This means that you either have to finish up a roll, or sacrifice the remaining shots if you want to shoot some other kind of film. This may not sound like a big deal, but you waste a lot of money when you're shooting iso 50 velvia, get half way through and then have to go inside where velvia is just too slow to be useful.
Also, the n65 won't let you use replacement viewfinders. Nikons have some really cool viewfinders that make things a lot easier when you need to focus manually. With the split image finder, things are almost as good as with a rangefinder. I'd try to find a cheap N90 if you need autofocus, or if you don't mind the lack of autofocus, get an older F body. I've seen many older, but still wonderful F bodies for not very much money. They all can use the same lenses too (thank you Nikon), though with varying degrees of functionality.

Tim

Re:nikon n65

[Jason1729]

Do you think in 20 years you will be able to go to a photo lab in any mall and hand them a roll of film.

Yes, actually I do. There may not be 6 1-hour photomats in every shopping mall anymore but the demand will definately be able to support the 10's of professional camera stores in every major city.

The stores like that (which is where I get my film processed even now) don't have 'poor kids' behind the counter. They have people who breathe photography; even the salesperson selling the cameras can develop film by hand blindfolded (it is done in a darkroom). Lentricular 3D photographs were a passing fad that was around for a couple of years in the early 80's, but there's still enough people using the old cameras that even now you can find places to get them developed. 35mm film has been around for 70 years...It would be impossible for nobody to still be using and developing it in another 70.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Nikon N65

[Dogtanian]

It lacks some features that you'll find yourself missing, like the ability to rewind the film without leaving the leed out.

Get yourself a film retriever. I have one, and they work, although they can be slightly fiddly. Not an ideal solution, but workable...

Re:Nikon N65

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of these also, excellent camera. It has enough features for automatic use while providing full manual over-ride.

The thing that swung it was the quality of the lens, as well as the metal mounts.

Highly recommend for the first SLR camera.

Go Canon or Nikon

[Dr Reducto]

35mm photographers use mostly either Nikon or Cannon. There is an ongoing flamewar between them. But I really like Nikons better. However, Canons can be had quite cheaply on the low end, though the plastic lens mounts will restrict lens use in the future. Go to a camera store, and try out both Nikons and Cannons. Go with what feel more natural to you.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Cannon jerks love vi and Kirk. When will they learn the the true trinity is emacs, Nikkon and Picard?

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[psychogentoo]

You really can't go wrong with either a Nikon or the Canon. Nikkor and Canon lenses both have great optics. I got the Nikon N65 over the Canon because of the beefier lens mount.

Make sure and save up for some nice lenses. Even if you decide to go digital later, you'll be able to use same lenses. I'm sure you already know but the body of the camera is only as good as the lenses that you use.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[Bob Davis, Retired]

I don't know which Canon you were looking at, but I have two (a 1nHS and a 10D) and each one's lens mount is made of metal. Additionally, the Canon mount is physically far larger in diameter with a shorter back focus, so I can mount Nikon lenses NO PROBLEM.

Either brand is great, though. I wouldn't pick a 'dying' brand like Minolta, Pentax (not dying, but definately on life support), or Olympus.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[declan]

Bottom line: Buy a Canon or Nikon. Unless you never want to change cameras, do *not* buy a Pentax or Minolta or any other brand.

The reason for this is simple. Pro photographers shoot Canon or Nikon, meaning those brands have the best selection of lenses and accessories if you ever wish to upgrade. Or if you want to rent a 15mm or an 800mm lens from your local pro shop just for the hell of it. Or if you want a nice fisheye, and so on and so on.

If you fit into the may-upgrade-at-some-point category, I'd recommend Canon (I own both). Canon seems to be beating Nikon on the price-performance camera body benchmark thanks to the Digital Rebel and the 10D. Lenses aren't as different. A Canon EOS 5 can be found cheaply used (I bought mine new from B&H in 1999), and is a nice prosumer body. The Rebel 2000 is much lighter and is cheaper.

Good luck! You'd probably do better, though, by checking out existing resources like photo.net. They answer this question in some detail.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[psychogentoo]

I was looking at the Canon Eos Rebel 2000. The price and features on the Canon were very similar to the Nikon N65. The major difference being the lens mount. So I decided to go with the Nikon.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Plastic mount won't restrict anything, just make you more cautious on changing lenses often, which low end users are unlikely to do much. Very low end Canons have plastic mounts. Anything above the (discontinued) Rebel 2000 has metal mount, just like the Nikons do. I agree with "what feels natural". If you don't like the cmaera, you won't use it, no matter Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Leica...

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[Zog The Undeniable]

Part of this is that Nikon lenses focus the "wrong way" compared to Canons, therefore it's hard to swap between the two systems once you're used to it.

Snobs will tell you that Canon's is the "right way" because that's the way a Leica focuses, and Leica popularized 35mm photography. Among other brands, I know Minoltas go the "right way" while Pentaxes and Bronicas go the "wrong way". Amazing there isn't an ISO standard for this kind of thing.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[calyphus]

...and Nikons copied the Contax direction of focusing (clockwise toward infinity) and the real snobbery in the 30s - 50s was that artists used Leicas and more technical photogs used Contax. But I digress, the lack of a standard really gets gnarly when it comes to Pentacon 6 medium format cameras where different lens manufacturers build lenses with opposing directions of twist -- same camera different focus direction based on which lens you mount! But considering how many other things are relatively understandable from one camera to another there are enough conventions that lack of standards allows mfrs to come up with some very innovative solutions - check out the DOF indicators on the E & F model Rolleiflexes. It's ingenious.

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[Hooptie]

I would agree with this, but be aware that Nikon has not changed their lens mounting system, while Canon has. What this means is that older Canon gear will usually be less expensive than older Nikon gear because you can use an old Nikon lens on a new Nikon body, and vice versa. With Canon gear however, a lens that will fit my AE-1 will not fit one of the current EOS camera.

Hooptie

Re:Go Canon or Nikon

[stripes]

Plastic mount won't restrict anything

Actually I think you can't mount some of the heavier lenses (like the ones over a pound) and use the camera's tripod mount. I doubt that is a big problem because those lenses tend to have their own tripod mounts anyway (and they are $4000+ lenses, so if you end up needing them you may well need a more costly body for other reasons).

Am I on crack?

[ebbomega]

What the hell is a 35mm Digital Camera? Last I checked 35mm was the size of the film and has dick all to do with digital cameras.

Course, what do I know. I just sell these things.

Re:Am I on crack?

[dead_penguin]

35mm Digital Camera does sound somewhat self-contradictory. My best guess would be a DSLR with a full-frame sensor, where the chip is the same size as a full frame of 35mm film.

Not that I could afford one of those.

Re:Am I on crack?

[Ageless]

Well, they were probably talking about digital SLRs and slipped up, but it can matter actually. The CMOS in the Canon 1Ds is the same size of a 35mm frame, so you get the exact same size picture you would with a 35mm film camera. In the Canon 10D, which is what I have, the CMOS is smaller than a 35mm frame so everything is effectivly magnified by 1.6x.

Re:Am I on crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

A digital camera which is compatible with a "classical" 35mm camera lense-wise, etc.

Re:Am I on crack?

[Jay Maynard]

Full-frame 35mm-sized sensors are hideously expen$ive. I have never seen a body with one (and there are, at this point, only 3 or 4, total, in production) for under $6K. There's also some question as to how well a film-optimized lens will work with digital sensors, due to the latter needing light to strike them much closer to perpendicularly - which is Olympus' stated reason for not using the OM-series lens mount on its new interchangeable-lens digital SLR, the E-1.

Re:Am I on crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO. NO. NO. The image is NOT maginified by 1.6x!!! The sensor on a digital camera is 24mm whereas a 35mm film camera's film is 35mm. Therefore the digital camera has a CROPPED image compared to a 35mm, NOT magnified! If you enlarged a 24mm section on a 35mm negative you'd get the same thing as a digital camera.

Re:Am I on crack?

[calyphus]

Linhof makes an interesting digital body with a full 35mm frame sensor that takes Nikon lenses. It ain't cheap. It is a Linhof after all.

Re:Am I on crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the same thing. Don't get so hissy trying to assert your superiority.

used Nikon FE-2

[odenshaw]

tons of them around.
tons of lens' for them around.
proven to last.
Photography is expensive.

Re:used Nikon FE-2

[aheath]

Another option is a new Nikon FM-10. The FM-10 is a completely manual camera that accepts a wide range of Nikon lenses. A Nikon FM-10 body with a Nikon 35-70mm f3.5-4.8 is about $210 street price.

Re:used Nikon FE-2

[calyphus]

DO NOT GET AN FM-10!!! (yes I mean to shout) It's not actually made by Nikon, but was sub-contracted to the lowest bidder. They are very cheaply made and a betrayal of the Nikon nameplate.

35mm *film* ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to ancientcraft.org and see if you can ask your question there. Slashdot is a technology site.

Re:35mm *film* ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought cameras were a form of technology.

Canon

[Lordofohio]

I started with the Canon Rebel 2000 and I really liked it. I think the controls are intuitive and its got more focusing points than the higher level cameras like the Elan.

I saved money at first by going with Tamron lenses and I was also satisfied with that. And of course whether they're canon or Tamron, the lenses can be auto or manual focus.

Being an amateur photgrapher is also a great way to get girls to undress for you :-)

Re:Canon

[grolschie]

My sister just bought a Canon EOS 300 (I think it's called the Rebel in the US), anyways it was cheap (and better than the EOS 3000). But the real beauty is that it's lens fit the digital Rebels should you upgrade. The EOS 3000 is more in your price range, but has plastic where the lenses attach as opposed to the metal on the 300.

Canon lenses are real expensive though. That's why
instead, I scored myself a Nikon F80 / N80 with two zoom lenses (28-80 + 80-300) for just a little more than the price of the EOS 300 & single lens. Nikon F80 / N80 is an awesome camera.

Re:Canon

[Afrosheen]

It helps if you shout 'work it girl!' and 'the camera loves you!' while you take pictures. That way they assume you're some fruitcake that's not going to go home and wank to the pictures. Which you are, of course, but they don't need to know that. ;)

Re:Canon

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

300 - Rebel 2000
300V - Rebel Ti
300D - Digital Rebel

Every Canon camera made in the last 10 years or so (so worth buying used) has the EF all electronic mount. This means lenses will work as long as the back of the lens doesn't extend too far. Some lenses go so far back in they interfere with some mechanics. There are some third party compatibility issues for companies who reverse engineer the mount instead of licensing it. Sigma lenses tend to have issues with new camera models.

I've found Canon lenses tend to be cheaper than Nikons, especially for high tech things like USM focussing (Ultrasonic Wave for Nikon folks). Depends on where you go I guess. Saying "I got two lenses for the price of one" is like saying "I got two cars for the price of one" without mentioning the two cars were Hyundais and the 1 car was a Bentley. The N80 is more equivalent to an EOS 30 (Elan 7) rather than an EOS 300 (Rebel 2000, much cheaper than Elan).

Re:Canon

[MonkeyDluffy]

But the real beauty is that it's lens fit the digital Rebels should you upgrade.

The lenses that usually are sold with the (film) Rebels (and other bottom of the line SLRs) are bottom of the line. The last time I was lens shopping for my EOS 630, Canon had a low line of lenses, a better line featuring the ring-USM motors, and then the professional equipment. IIRC, the better lens were around $50-$100 more than the lower line, but were much better built and had better optics. Don't underestimate the importance of the lens!

As a side note, I bought my EOS 630 right after it was discontinued, and got it new for slightly more than the price of a Rebel body. The autofocus isn't as good as newer cameras, and it is not very user friendly, but it is built like a tank. And can be used completely manual.

-MDL

Nikon EM

[Compact Dick]

One of the most rugged budget SLRs ever made, and great value for the money.

Re:Nikon EM

[gnu-generation-one]

The definitive answers to any such question are to be found on photo.net

Re:Nikon EM

[homebru]

The Nikon EM is a nice camera. BUT it is not a manually-operated camera. The EM was Nikon's attempt to produce a 35mm SLR point&shoot. Yes, it is manual focus, but the exposure is purely automatic with only a 1/90th second manual speed for the flash. Should you ever have an electronics problem, the EM is (now) considered a disposable camera. You should not pay more than US$75.00 for a working EM with a 50mm lens.

For true manual control, check out the Nikon FM and FM-2 families. Full manual controls of shutter and lens. Battery used only for the meter, which is not coupled to the lens or shutter and only offers over/under advice via LEDs in the viewfinder. Really positive note, when/if the battery goes out, you only lose the meter. You can keep on taking pictures since you, not the camera, control the exposure. There is a FM-3 series, but these are new and still very expensive. The FM-10 is a new re-badged Chinon with a "high-impact" plastic body and, according to some reports, intermittent quality control in the lens mount area.

A "late" model FM (identified by s/n above 300000), working, with a 50mm Nikon lens goes for US$175.00 to US$200.00 on eBay. Massive quantities of working compatible lenses (AI, AI/s mounts) can also be found on eBay. A used FM-2, obvoiusly, goes for much more than an FM.

Really great Nikon reference sites:

• http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/c lassics/nikonfmseries/fm/index.htm
  
• http://www.cameraquest.com/nikonslr.htm
  

Enjoy.

Re:Nikon EM

[megabeck42]

The EM is very limited including only a Program Automatic and an Aperture Priority Automatic system. The only semblance of manual control is using Aperture Priority and adjusting the exposure compensation. He's much better off with a FM, FE, or FA series camera if he's looking at the pre N2000 series cameras. He'd probably get a better deal buying an N70.

Re:Nikon EM

[calyphus]

The EM is not a rugged SLR. The bodies feel rugged - nice Nikon fit and finish, but the electronics are far from rugged. Most EMs have stopped working by now from failed circuitry. Those that are still working are livin' on borrowed time.

The EM was an experiment by Nikon to create a 'consumer' SLR. They weren't designed to be as long-lived as their more advanced/pro cameras. Now twenty years later is not the time to buy one.

Re:Nikon EM

[ader]

I don't think the EM is as bad a choice as others here are making out. If you can find one in provably good condition, it's a cheap body that leaves more money to buy some good lenses (particularly in the Series E line).

Yes, it's mainly aperture-priority but, unless you're shooting action, controlling the aperture (and thus depth of field) is the key to many great photographs anyway. (Arguably, you have indirect control of shutter speed as well, since the meter shows the intended setting and the aperture size influences it. You can change the ISO dial to apply compensation.)

As mentioned, the electronics are the biggest problem. The variable resistors for the aperture ring and ISO dial are the weakest parts; if they're worn, you may notice that the meter needle in the viewfinder will jump around and/or the readings are inaccurate. Compare it to a known good meter or camera at various ISO ratings, and check that a one stop change in aperture across the range is accompanied by a corresponding change in indicated shutter. (NB. The EM meter only activates when the film counter gets to 1 and the shutter button is lightly pressed.) Repair is likely to cost almost as much as the camera, unless you have access to spare parts and the tools to do it yourself.

Ade_
/

Pentax K1000

[The_Terminalator]

All manual and rugged as hell. I took three cameras to Thailand the two modern electronic ones broke from the humidity and heat, the Old K1000 worked perfectly and I got some great shots. I bought mine on e-bay for eighty bucks.

Camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Nikon or Canon nothing else matters! They have the best of everything!

Why not digital?

[rueger]

Honestly, why not start 'em with a digital camera? They can bang off hundreds of pix with no cost while they learn basic composition and not spend hundreds of dollars processing bad pictures.

Once they've mastered basic photography you can move them up to a "real" camera.

Re:Why not digital?

[at_kernel_99]

Digital does work great for banging off hundreds of pix at low cost. However, some folks still like to experiment with film & some of the aspects of photography that are easier to control with a film camera. My beefs with digital (and my primary camera is digital) are: reaction time - i.e. the time between pressing the button & the picture being taken; and 2, the pace of change in digital photography - my 2 year old $450 camera is comparable to current $100-150 stuff. IMHO you can buy a lot more camera in a used 35mm SLR that will last a lot longer than a brand new digital.

Re:Why not digital?

[The_Hooleyman]

Some thoughts:

I think many photographic concepts like composition and focus can be taught on a digital camera without ever having to "print" anything. This is assuming you can view the photos on a PC, TV or whatever. For that reason I think it is very conducive to experimentation.

But, the exposure and film speed issues might get lost on a digital photography student. If they never want to understand film grain and the reactive processes that go on, this may be an insignificant downside.

Re:Why not digital?

[caffeine_monkey]

If you really want to learn composition, then the rapid-fire approach to shooting that digital encourages is not the way to go. Really, if you take enough photos, anybody, no matter how unskilled, can eventually turn out a good photo. But producing one good photo out of perhaps 500 is probably not a result that a learning photographer would be happy with.

Digital lets you point your lens at a scene, shoot like crazy, and pray that something turns out. But the constraints of film force you to slow down, think about what you're doing, and make important decisions before you press the shutter. Medium format film is even better for this, IMHO. Get a twin-lens medium format Rollei or Yashica, especially if you're into B&W. They're cheap, and the quality will surpass any digital camera you could afford.

The other beauty of film is that you can always buy a film scanner and get digital files that are of much better quality than a digital camera of the same price.

Re:Why not digital?

[rjstanford]

My beefs with digital (and my primary camera is digital) are: reaction time - i.e. the time between pressing the button & the picture being taken;...

This has a lot to do with them being low-end consumer digital cameras. A modern digital SLR like the Canon Digital Rebel can hang with the film cameras in single-image response time (ie: a very few ms), and easily take bursts of 4 (or more) high-resolution pictures with subsecond total response time.

Re:Why not digital?

[GoogolPlexPlex]

The person requesting this information stated that they want to get into using SLR cameras. Digital SLR cameras are still way above the specified budget.

Digital cameras within the price range are similar to "compact cameras", and typically have limited modes and manual settings. Anyone can use a point-and-shoot camera, but a person who is interested in learning photography as a serious hobby will need something with more settings.

Another reason to go for an entry-level SLR film camera is that you will be building up a collection of lenses and accessories that will be interoperable with any upgrade you might choose to do later on, for example, moving to a more expensive digital SLR camera body.

I've got a Canon EOS Rebel Ti (EOS 300V) and I'm really happy at the features and image quality I've got for the $$ I spent. It's a fantastic entry-level SLR camera. Another word of advice is you should spend as much now on a good lens as you possibly can - you won't regret it. A cheaper lens will give results that cheat you of the quality that the camera is possible of giving you.

Re:Why not digital?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of reasons.

Money. Digital cameras with capability and flexibiity of modern film SLRS are quite expensive today, far more than his $200 budget.

Value. Though the curve is getting shallower, modern digital equipment does not hold it value (the lenses will, but the backs don't). Particularly with basic point and shoots. A 5 year old digital camera can well be a paperweight.

Control. Only the SLR range cameras will give you the focus, aperature, and speed controls that you really want when playing around and new to photography.

Film. While you can play all kind of games with photoshop, there's a lot of flexibility with playing with film speeds, over and under developing the negatives, etc.

Printing. Negative printing is an art form in itself that happens even after the negative is snapped. If you think that cool Ansel Adams print was simply a shot from an enlarger, you're badly mistaken. A lot of finesse and manual tweaking goes into those prints. Plus, this guy mentioned he had a darkroom.

Presentation. While you can print digital photos all day long, slide film is a long way from dead with its beautiful resolution. Landscapes become breathtaking once the slide is dropped into a projector on a 8-10 ft screen.

A digital back costs at least $1000+ more than its comparable film back. That's a LOT of film and printing for someone who wants to learn the craft of photography, particularly if they have access to a dark room.

He'd be better off getting a solid, used, film back, a couple of lenses, and then find a local Community College with a dark room and photo class.

Re:Why not digital?

[declan]

Your complaints about digital cameras in terms of reaction time were true many years ago. Since the introduction of the Nikon D-series and the Canon digital SLR line (D30, D60, 10D, 1D, 1Ds, Digital Rebel) they are no longer true. (Earlier, Kodak and probably other manufacturers had fast digital SLRs but they were in the $10K-$20K realm.)

Re:Why not digital?

[shellbeach]

The other beauty of film is that you can always buy a film scanner and get digital files that are of much better quality than a digital camera of the same price.

Hmmm ... Two quick points: (a) Scanning in even twenty negatives with a film scanner is such a long and painful process that I never want to do it again, and (b) Scanning negatives of 100 ASA film has never given me good resolution in terms of detail. Certainly not greater than a 3 megapixel digital camera pic. Maybe if you were using 64 ASA slide film, you'd get better results, but only then.

I'm currently ditching my (beautiful) Nikon FE-2 SLR for a digital camera - talk all you want to about how nice it is to have the "constraints" of film, but for me those constraints are exactly that: constraints.

Digital is lighter, cheaper and - best of all - you can see when you've cocked up.

Re:Why not digital?

[shellbeach]

Digital cameras within the price range are similar to "compact cameras", and typically have limited modes and manual settings. Anyone can use a point-and-shoot camera, but a person who is interested in learning photography as a serious hobby will need something with more settings.

This used to be true, but with recent cameras (eg the Canon Powershot A70/A80) it's no longer the case. With the exception that you have to use the LCD display on the back as a viewfinder, you generally get aperture/shutter-priority as well as full manual controls, manual focus and shutter speeds from around 15 secs to > 1/1000 sec. Plus, when half pressing the shutter, you actually get a full preview of what the photo will look like, including exposure settings. You can even get information about what area the AF is using to focus on and histogram displays.

Re:Why not digital?

[uradu]

I'd recommend digital, too, because it tightens the feedback loop considerably. If you get one with sufficient manual settings ("film" speed, shutter speed, aperture, manual focus can be nice, too, though is often implemented idiotically), you can experiment with the effects all these settings have on the final picture much more easily, since you get instant results. With film you always have the processing delay, and even if you keep a good log, you still lose a certain amount of feel for what is really going on because your thoughts and instincts at the moment you took the shot have faded. I believe digital cameras can also make better film photographers if propertly used.

Re:Why not digital?

[blankmange]

Canon A70/A80, as powerful and full of options as they may be, are not digital SLR's. The low end for digital SLR's starts at about $1000.00 -- not in the price range of the original question.

Low-End Nikon, Fast Normal Lens

[turman81]

Go for a low-end used or new Nikon SLR body and buy either their 50mm f/1.8 ($90 or so) lens or their 50mm f/1.4 lens (about $300). The f/1.4 is very expensive, but it takes photographs in very low light. Definitely start off on the fixed 50mm, because it will force you to think about composing the frame; you can just zoom it away.

Digital SLR is the Future

[Qweezle]

Why not just get a digital SLR? Digital has so many advantages over film, and especially going into the future...I could be naive in saying that "film is dead", but I believe that's pretty much the truth. Especially for someone like yourself.

A good site to check out for reviews of Digital cameras(including SLRs) is Digital Photography Review.

Also, to make the "search", easier for you, I'll go ahead and recommend the Canon EOS-10D. One of my good friends(amateur photographer) has one, and swears by it.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

know where I can get a 10D for $200? (well if I didn't have one already).

the skills learned with film apply just fine to digital, and the cost of film means you have more incentive to learn from every shot instead of filling 512MB cards and picking the one good shot.

10D is definitely not a beginner's camera

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[vondo]

Well, a cheap digital SLR with one lens is $1000, for starters. Plus, there is still something to be said for learning with film.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Apro im]

I'd say film is dead except for somebody like the poster - he clearly wants to study the craft - and while journalists and wedding photographers (and the like) who sell the content of their images more than anything else may be moving to digital, there are still holdouts in terms of artists who feel that film photography is a craft that they don't want to give up entirely.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[KilobyteKnight]

I could be naive in saying that "film is dead", but I believe that's pretty much the truth. Especially for someone like yourself.

It may not be dead, but it has certainly moved into the catagory of "not practical for most cases". Most professionals are moving to digital because the quality is now just as good for most situations.

Digital is the best choice for a beginner because you can do a lot more experimenting without spending a fortune on things like film and developing. It also allows to to see the results immediately along with saving all the camera settings information. For someone just getting into photography, I'd recommend skipping film. Just buy a 3+ megapixel digital used on EBay. Buy something more expensive when you've figured out exactly what you want.... which you will.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Abcd1234]

Out of curiosity, any ideas on how do digital SLRs perform for astrophotography?

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[gnu-generation-one]

"Why not just get a digital SLR?"

An SLR costs about $200 for a decent body, and an okay lens.

A digital camera which can take equivalent quality pictures costs about $3000. Probably a lot more if you actually use the full resolution of film.

For anyone looking at digital SLRs, Dan's Data has a fairly good column, which is as much an insight into digital SLR technology as it is a review of his new camera.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Bob Davis, Retired]

I took a picture of the moon last night with my EOS 10D, and my 70-200 on a 2x teleconverter. It turned out fantastically.

Canon's CMOS sensor is much more useful in low light than CCD-based cameras.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[EvanED]

"Most professionals are moving to digital because the quality is now just as good for most situations."

Note you said "professionals". People who want to start photography don't have the resources professionals do. If I want to take great photographs, in many cases that rules out most point-and-shoot cameras. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a bad shot from one of these because the aperature is set for your average shot and isn't adjustable, and I take a picture in low light and it has to keep the shutter open forever leading to a blurry shot. (BTW: anything 1/30th sec. or more is "forever", and 1/60th can be if you don't have somethnig to brace against.) Yet I've taken pics with an SLR in much less light that came out dandy because I could set the f-stop to 1.7 and speed up the shutter by a factor of 4 or so. I could *never* have taken these pictures of the aurora with anything but an SLR.

"Digital is the best choice for a beginner because you can do a lot more experimenting without spending a fortune on things like film and developing."

You just spend a fortune on the initial camera. Amazon's store (Electronics > Camera & Photo > Categories > Film Cameras > SLR Cameras > Manual SLR Cameras) has cameras centered about $250, with one $161. The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800. The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Film is nether a dead medium nor an old medium it is simply mature. And while people constantly crying out about the death of film remember that if he wants a camera that won't be a expensive electrical paper weight in 5 years then go film.

My 35mm camera that my father owned and gave to me when I left home still takes a pictures comparable or better then the best digital 35mm. Film technology despite the cries of the digital manufactures is constantly evolving and growing and these new films require no upgrades or advances unlike their digital brothers. Commerical photography and Jounalism which is known more for it's speed then it's beauty may have switched over for the added speed. But the fine art print world hasn't passed that way yet. And with major motion picture and most theatre still using film for both principal photography and release this medium will be around far longer then the CCD you can buy today in a digital camera.

So get a photo CD, use photoshop, make injet prints. It's not a problem to scan negative most 1 hour places do it now. BUT if you want camera which will last, which can be blown up to 20X30 and can be printed to absolute perfection in your basement at that size then you better go to film.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[EvanED]

Maybe I should mention specifics about those photos: they were taken from Penn State campus with a Minolta X-700. F-stop was 1.7, exposure was around 20 seconds (depending on how accurate my counting was), film was ASA 100 Kodak (!).

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[rjstanford]

The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800. The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life.

That's too bad. With digital, you can easily shoot that many in a single trip... Which is one of the easiest ways to get better. If not the only way.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Echemus]

I would strongly object to the idea that you can "see the results immediately" if you mean the measily preview you get on the built in LCD. I would advise against learning photography on a digital camera, any basic, but functional SLR that takes film is so much better. You have to actually think about exposure and apature then. You make mistakes sure. I fail to see how you can check things like depth of field on a tiny screen, where everything is sharp due to the incredibly low resolution of the display.

Where is the skill in taking say, 50 pictures of one thing with different settings anyways? I would find that unrewarding. Ok, you might use bracketing to take a few pictures with apature a notch either way, or a slightly faster/slower shutter just to be sure. (sometimes slight over or under exposure adds mood to a picture)

Also, when it comes to taking a picture in a moment what settings are you going to use? You can't have lots of trials of the same thing in those situations. Even modern SLRs with complex optics don't always select the correct exposure for the photograph.

Things I would look for in an SLR to learn photography on:

A camera with simple controls and that shows clearly whether an exposure is correct or not, my wife's Canon AE-1 is better at this than my Practica for example, even though the Practica is a more recent camera.
A camera that gives you a depth of field preview is useful too.
I would probably go with a second hand Canon, they are pretty solid, plus Sigma still make lenses that are compatable via an adapter.

Film is fairly cheap and if you are doing a photography course, you probably have access to a dark room and can do most of the developing yourself (another useful skill in learning photogrpahy) which means you'll only print those pictures that turned out and make a saving that way.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[EvanED]

"which can be blown up to 20X30 and can be printed to absolute perfection in your basement at that size then you better go to film."

Not to be pedantic, but most 35mm film won't do this. 8x10 is about as big you can go with 35mm film and before really noticing granularity. Next time you're at a wedding or other place there's a professional photographer, take a look at the film they use. It's typically I think about 4", and that *can* be blown up to 20x30.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[MrScience]

I've got a 10D, and it's great... but I started on an old Sears Chinon (manual everything, with a smidge of auto exposure). Film easily passes digital in quality, and is more flexible (IR, low-light films, etc). I would recommend practicing with a manual 35mm before jumping into digital... but do eventially jump into digital (The 10D makes incredibly detailed 13x19 prints).

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most professionals" are using digital for certain types of work, like normal-resolution images for newspapers and magazines. Anywhere they can get away with it, really, because *in bulk* it's cheaper. Note: cheaper. Not better.

This only applies after thousands of images. Work out the total cost of camera+film+prints, then compare to digital. Digital is *not* cheap if you only make a hundred or so photos a year.

And then, for more usual commercial images, photographers still use film. Digital doesn't come anywhere near medium and large format. They're the high-fidelity systems of the image world, and sometimes, ya just gotta have that. Like, if the prints are bigger than 8 by 10.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[EvanED]

I'm not counting digital shots. Most of the pictures I take with digital are "snapshot" type pictures that in no way require a particularily good camera. SLRs are good for specialty photos: photos in difficult conditions (low light; this is where I've found them most useful), artistic shots, etc. Using an SLR for snapshots is, IMHO, overkill. I don't want to sit there focusing then fiddling with the f-stop and exposure time until the meter is satisfied everytime I want a quick photo. (Yes, I can set the settings in a sec or two usually, but I still don't particularly feel like doing it.) Then digital is splendid.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[KilobyteKnight]

Note you said "professionals". People who want to start photography don't have the resources professionals do.

Yet another reason to use digital. Digital photography is at least an order of magnitude less expensive than film photography.

Yet I've taken pics with an SLR in much less light that came out dandy because I could set the f-stop to 1.7 and speed up the shutter by a factor of 4 or so. I could *never* have taken these pictures of the aurora with anything but an SLR.


Being able to adjust the f-stop, shutter speed, and exposure values has nothing to do with the camera being (or not being) a SLR.

Here is a shot comparable to yours taken with a Nikon Coolpix 995 and here is someone else I know with the same camera. He uses it with a spotting scope for some outstanding close-ups. And here is a place you can get them for under $400.

Here is a shot of mine that was taken at night with a Monolta DiMage 7i... a SLR-like camera, though not a true SLR.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[KilobyteKnight]

I would strongly object to the idea that you can "see the results immediately" if you mean the measily preview you get on the built in LCD.

I meant as opposed to having to take it in for developing, but your point is well taken.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[d-rock]

You can get really good enlargements out of slide film, but it is extremely slow and is very unforgiving of incorrect exposures. You can sometimes find really cheap 120 TLRs (Twin Lens Reflex), especially some of the old soviet ones. They make great enlargements, and are almost always manual everything. I use my grandfather's old Voigtlander and it takes incredible pictures.

Derek

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

All modern astrophotography done in an observatory is done with digital CCD technology. Film typically captures something like 10-20% of photons while CCDs can capture on the range of 90% of photons.

Granted, the technology NASA uses in a multi-million dollar observatory is a lot different than you're going to find in a $1,000 digital Nikon.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I know wedding photographers who shoot 90% of their work on 35mm color negative film. It looks gorgeous enlarged to 20x24. (film emulsions have come a long way in the last 10 years). On occasion, they'll use medium format, but it's not anywhere near '4"'. the largest commonly used medium format negative is 6x9cm. most wedding/fashion/portrait photographers who do use medium format use 6x6, 6x4.5, or 6x7 cameras.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[jgp]

Why not just get a digital SLR? Digital has so many advantages over film, and especially going into the future...I could be naive in saying that "film is dead", but I believe that's pretty much the truth. Especially for someone like yourself.

Unlike the LP vs. Compact Disc war (ducks), modern digital cameras simply do not have the dynamic range of the chemical process. Look at a sensitivity graph: chemical has it in spades, whereas digital is a mere slice with noise at either end. And you can see the difference: Americans would spit chips if their TV shows started being recorded onto digital instead of 35mm film as (almost all) of it is now. Film (still) kicks digital's arse. (And I'm not counting pixels here).

Buying a digital camera now (says he, about to buy a new one this very weekend) is not forward looking: it's simply saying that current digital technology is okay for some of the thing film was good for. Sure, I think Polaroid is dead, but then again, how many Super-8 film clips do you see on MTV (or Rage here in Oz)?

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[iabervon]

Digital is getting better rapidly, while film is staying about the same. This means that film is doomed, but it doesn't mean that you can get a better digital camera at the same price yet (for SLR, at least; the auto-everything digital cameras are better because they can work on the actual images).

Chances are that when you replace the camera you get, you'll replace it with a digital. But the technology isn't available or affordable for that digital today.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[IM6100]

Being able to adjust the f-stop, shutter speed, and exposure values has nothing to do with the camera being (or not being) a SLR.

However, it has everything to do with being able to set your depth of field however you want, when composing the shot. I suppose there are experts who can get the kind of focus depth they want 'in their head' with a rangefinder camera, but probably not very many of them.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[NeoSkandranon]

cost of film means you have more incentive to learn from every shot instead of filling 512MB cards and picking the one good shot.

The cost of film also means you are more inclined to NOT experiment or do anything where you might 'waste' a shot (unless you have tons of money to throw around on film)

I pack 2x 256mb CF cards with my digital cam. I can always afford to try something even if it might not come out right.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[erice]

All modern astrophotography done in an observatory is done with digital CCD technology.

True but misleading. CCD's used in astrophotography are not like those in digital camers.

They have active cooling systems. Active cooling greatly reduces noise, especially on long exposures. Needless to say, digital SLR's do not have active cooling systems. Astronomers also use a technique called "binning". Adjacent sensor elements are combined to make one pixel. Resolution is reduced but noise/sensetivity is improved. This technique is not possible with the Bayer filter arrangement used in virtually all digital cameras.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Rich0]

I've had a Canon Powershot A70 for about six months now and I'm very happy with it. It has a variety of automatic, semi-automatic, and manual modes, which make taking decent but quick shots fairly simple.

You can prioritize speed or aperature if you want, use a landscape setting which knows not to autofocus on the obstacle in the foreground, etc. You can manual-focus or use a macro setting. You can adjust the "ISO" of the CCD - basically trading sensitivity for noise. The whitebalance settings are also pretty good - even on automatic (nice being able to take indoor shots without a flash and not getting orange).

If you know how to use it you can do quite a bit with it.

It isn't SLR though. I debated SLR but it was MUCH more expensive for otherwise the same kinds of features. The LCD gives you an accurate preview of the framing of your shot (I admit no depth of field, but I can guestimate that). Plus, the whole thing will fit in my pocket - which you won't do with an SLR. I've found that on vacations it is nice to have a camera that you don't have to think about to carry with you.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[f1ipf10p]

Qweezle, the requet was "I'd like to spend less than $200". Maybe you know somebody that knows somebody... if so, I want a $200 Canon EOS 10-D, too...

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[joshv]

Astronomers also use a technique called "binning". Adjacent sensor elements are combined to make one pixel. Resolution is reduced but noise/sensetivity is improved. This technique is not possible with the Bayer filter arrangement used in virtually all digital cameras.

If you are referring to having the camera itself gang together picture elements to reduce noise, you are certainly correct, I know of no digicam that does that. But you can certainly obtain a similar result shooting at the highest resolution, then downsampling the image. This will clean up a noisy pic significantly - though no doubt less efficiently than if the sensor did it "in hardware".

-josh

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Snuffub]

Argh, this is the kind of statment that really frustrates me because it's impossible to argue, especially with a technical crowd like slashdot. but there are really things that make this statment completely false.

First of all the cheapest digital SLR i know of, the digital rebel, is way out of his price range.

Second, there are a lot of good reasons that film is not obsolete. The misconception is that amatures should go digital because that's what professional photojournalists do. The problem with this statment is that photojournalists have completely different needs than art photographers, which is what most amatures are closer to. If you need to submit your photo to an editor from 1000 miles away, the photo is going to be printed in a magazine or newspaper (ie both film and digital files will in the end be overkill regardless), and you need to shoot a ton of shots without changing film then digital is obviously superior. If you take away the need for speed, and add the fact that any improvment in quality is a plus film still wins. This is NOT because 35mm film has better resolution than todays cameras which it doesnt. It is because there is no way to get print the very high resolution photos that does them justice. Now here's the tough part, there's no way for me to make you believe that without comparing prints. I can say that I have, which i have, Im a photo and CS major. But in the end you have to go out and look for yourself.

My goal isnt to bad mouth digital either, I love the technology, I scan all my negs (6x7) and i use photoshop when I have a negative which is just in too bad shape for me to save it with traditional dodge/burn/variable contrast/bleach/toneing darkroom techniques. Im just waiting for the day when I can start printing digitaly and make prints that are as atractive as i can get from traditional fiber papers.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[flewp]

I couldn't agree more. Part of the whole photo experience for me is actually developing the film (well, okay, developing B&W film is terribly boring) and actually printing the photos. There's as much to learn about enlarging/printing as there is to taking the pictures themselves.

You just can't get the kind of control over enlarging/printing your own photos by sending them to a 1 hour photo developer/printer.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[laird]

"You just spend a fortune on the initial camera. Amazon's store (Electronics > Camera & Photo > Categories > Film Cameras > SLR Cameras > Manual SLR Cameras) has cameras centered about $250, with one $161. The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800. The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life."

50 rolls? 50 rolls? That's only 1,800 shots. You'll never learn to shoot on a budget like that.

If you want to get good at photography, the only way to do it is to take THOUSANDS of photographs, and learning by doing what works and what doesn't. This means either buying film in bulk and loading it yourself (which I did for years, and isn't as fun as it sounsd) or go digital.

You _might_ make a case for shooting black and white, since it's way cheaper to buy the film, and you can print it yourself, which is a great education.

If you're serious about photography, though, and want color, the costs aren't even close. You can get a great digital camera for around $500 (e.g. the Canon G2 or G3) or the new Digital Rebel DSLR for $1,000, and then be able to experiment like crazy at ZERO COST. Even better than saving money in the long run, it means that you can exeriment fearlessly, which means that you can take more risks and learn more.

My advice, since you don't want to spend a lot of money up front, would be to get an all-in-one digital camera. Make sure that it gives you good manual control, has a fairly large lens, and at least a little zoom for flexibility. Something like a used Canon G2, for $400 or so.

If you find out that you aren't into it, you can always sell it on eBay and get most of your money back. It's amazing, but old G2's are selling for $400, when you can get a G5 for just over $500!

And if you get addicted, you'll start saying things like "I can't believe that the Digital Rebel costs only $1,000 with a lens" and "But if I get a Nikon D2H, not only can I use all my Nikkor lenses, but the camera can use 802.11 to FTP the photo's right to my server while I'm shooting!"

At least it's cheaper than boating.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[laird]

" I would strongly object to the idea that you can "see the results immediately" if you mean the measily preview you get on the built in LCD."

Well, I don't know about other cameras, but with Canon you hold one button to review, then push a slider to zoom in, so you can quickly see whether you caught the details you were after... It only takes a couple of seconds, vs. hours or days for photo processing. :-)

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[laird]

"And then, for more usual commercial images, photographers still use film"

Actually, back when we were testing very high end analog vs. digital at Sotheby's (about 5 years ago), we found that digital cameras produced clearly superior results for printed material than analog. And, if you've looked at any Sotheby's catalogues, you'll know that we take that sort of thing seriously. It's arguable whether the original source digital image was better, but by the time the film got processed, stripped, placed in the layout and printed, it had clearly suffered. The fact that they also cost less to deal with (an asset repository beats a box of chromes any day) and less to process was just icing on the cake.

I suspect that in the last five years, digital cameras have improved faster than analog. :-)

If anyone's sticking with film over digital, it's for romantic reasons, or because they can't afford new gear, not image quality.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[shostiru]

I think the key here for a lot of people is "can't afford new gear". For the amateur (and for that matter some artists I know who aren't exactly rolling in cash) digital P&S is reasonably priced but a digital SLR isn't. And while P&S cameras are convenient -- I love my (film) Yashica -- they don't really have the flexibility of SLRs.

Then too, there are some things I can do with a film camera that may not even be possible with a digital (tho I'm not sure of this) -- extreme exposure times and use in low temperatures come to mind. I've also blown 35mm up to poster size with good results, I'm not sure how well that would go with digital (again, at least in my price range).

I'm not doubting that digital is better for catalogs, magazines, ad copy, etc., in fact it really sounds like an ideal fit for the problem domain. And I certainly look forward to digital SLRs coming down in price. But I suspect that there will always be cases where film is preferrable for technical or financial reasons (as opposed to romance or nostalgia).

Besides, everyone knows that when you go to document that alien landing, the EMP will knock out digital cameras. ;)

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[xRelisH]

I'm curious, could you suggest a good Digital SLR for a beginner? I've been wanting a camera for this sort of stuff, but I want to go digital since I find it cumbersome to use film. There are tons of cameras out there, but they're expensive, I'd hate to choose the wrong one.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

I too had a good feeling this question was coming up. A friend of mine (a very well paid/known NYC based photographer) often uses digital, but does have a special use for film.

He develops the film in different chemical processes...for instance, he may make a stop bath out of a solution of hydrochloric acid. (Err...dont' quote me on that...but I know HCL is used.) Some compelling effects can be had...that are not some sorta canned effect that comes from photoshop (not that I'm dissing photoshop...but serendipity does indeed render interesting things.)

On a side note, Kodak sent him a nasty letter saing that he was achieving things with his film that they said were impossible, and to stop claiming that they were using their film to do it.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Photo_Nut]

Digital SLR may be the future, but the value of today's DSLRs is a function of their retail price and the amont of time they've been on the market, with some cameras 3 years old dropping in value by a factor of 1/10th. Spend $2000 this year or $200 in 3-4 years on a body.

My first camera was a 3MP Digital P&S (it was the first 3MP P&S from Canon). I then went on to an Elan 7 film body and now I have an EOS 10D (6MP Digital SLR equivalent of the Elan 7). For $200 you will get a cheap lens (or a decent Manual Focus lens). If you buy a body for $200, then you will get a manual focus body (or a cheaper amateur body with Autofocus). The new retail price for a decent film body is around $300-$400.

Reduced feature Digital SLRs start at $900, and the digital factor means that they don't hold their resale value. Small P&S digitals can be had for around $200, but they aren't worth it.

My recommendation is to spend 80% of your money on a lens. $200 will buy you a nice piece of glass like a 50mm f/1.4. Then you will need a body to go with it. Go with the cheapest body that will work with your lens (shop at the used department of camera stores or online at ebay -- you might get a lens with your body by shopping in this way). Remember that in 3 years, my Elan 7 and 10D (I paid a total of $2000 for these cameras) will probably be worth less than half what I paid for them. The 4 lenses that I have will probably hold their value. I have shot over 6,000 photos this past year, so that's where all the money that went into these cameras went. If I can manage to go a year without buying a camera part, then perhaps I'll manage to get my price/exposure ratio down to $.10/frame. Printing costs about $.20 per 6x4. My first camera lasted me over 6,000 frames over 3 years of pretty active use.

Whatever you decide to purchase, the only way you can get value out of it is to load it up with media (film/memory cards) and shoot. With film you have to do more diligence to learn from your settings. With digital, the medata is in the image file. Regardless, it is your challenge to make the most of it.

Don't worry too much about the equipment... A great photographer can take an awe-inspiring photograph with any decent camera. A lousy photographer can't make an inspired photograph with the world's best camera. Photography is an art to some and a science to others. To some it is a profession or a trade/craft. To me, it's a hobby. What you need to do is to take more pictures. $200 should be enough to get you a camera. SLR or not, you can still develop your own film.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this link last week, http://joecarr.ca/astro/astrophoto.htm I think the pictures look pretty darn good.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Echemus]

The LCD will only show you what is in frame, nothing more. If you have an extreme case, where you are really close to something and using a very wide aperture, to soften the background you might just see it, but seeing whether you have an entire object in focus, no chance.

Certainly you can duplicate the effect with a digital camera, but at what cost? I good digital SLR in the UK starts around 800 pounds, still the LCD would be useless - an SLR shows you what is in frame anyway, that is the point. I take the point you could run home (or hook up to a laptop when on the move) and see the results fairly quickly.

That said, with a few basic bits of equipment you could have the same results with film cameras. You just need to develop the film, not print it, to see those things and that doesn't take very long at all and can be done at home.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[MonkeyDluffy]

You _might_ make a case for shooting black and white, since it's way cheaper to buy the film, and you can print it yourself, which is a great education.

In my dorm in college, we had a darkroom. I bought film in bulk, and learned how to develop and print. It was one of my best college educational experiences.

At least it's cheaper than boating.

My camera wish list is only a few $K. My boat wish list is $300K+ per boat.

-MDL

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[MnkyKnifeFghtr]

Film will never die, for the same reasons that people will continue to slave over a canvas instead of using "superior" tools such as a Watcom tablet and one of the plethora of drawing programs that are out there.

I, personally, will coninue to use film for a few reasons. One is for archival purposes. I can put a properly fixed negative in proper storage conditions and it will be just as good in 50 years as it is right now. There is no way in hell that I could do the same with any kind of digital image. It would need to be maintained with regard to file format and media type. If I print something with silver, dry mount it and put it in a frame it will last a very long time and still look the same, this can NOT be said (currently) of very many digital printing processes. (Methods like Lambda printing are pretty cool though)

Another reason to use film is the physical connection with your work. Developing your film by hand and printing by hand is very important I think.I don't think that it is possible to become a competent digital photographer without knowing your darkroom stuff. Then there is the issue of resolution. To get the fidelity of film, 4 megapixles just doesn't cut it. Even with 35mm, I can shoot Illford PanF or Kodak TechPan and blow up a print poster size before I even start to see any grain. A wimpy little digital camera just can't do that. Most digial cameras support manual settings through a very inconvenient little menu system on the LCD. The expensive ones, (read $5k+) actually act like manual SLRs and have the settings where they should be.

I have a Nikon FM2 and a Minolta X-570. I love my Nikon. It's all manual except the light meter, and I'm pretty sure I could drop it down a flight of steps and it would be none the worse (though I wouldn't ever). Whomever suggested medium format, I would disregard this. Medium format is GREAT, however they are very expensive for a good one. I would start with 35mm before thinking about medium format or 4x5 or anything else.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[tgd]

Actually, I've gotten incredible photos with a very inexpensive 2 megapixel Fuji piece of crap digital camera, the same way I've done it with many cameras over the years (and as a point of reference, I went to school for this, this is not an IANAP thing...)

The trick to getting photos like that with any camera is just getting it to take as long an exposure as possible. On most cameras the best thing to do is prop the camera up on a very stable surface, shut the flash off forcibly, and set it to use the self timer. Push the button and step back from the camera. Even the very inexpensive digital cameras will increase exposure time to get proper illumination, the trick is to get a stable image. Stable surface + self timer makes up for a lack of a remote shutter release. Check the image, see if you got an exposure you can work with. If the camera metered weird, adjust where its pointing to get it to expose better. Even if the framing is weird, you can crop later in the computer.

You make a very good point, which most people really don't understand, I think. You can get pictures as good as a $1000 digital camera from a $150 analog -- and the film+processing cost between the two translates to so many shots, most people will take years to make up the difference... years in which the digital gets obsolete, and the SLR doesn't.

The biggest benefit to digital to an amateur photographer is the ability to take LOTS of pictures -- thats what makes you better. And, you carrying film around. Several years ago I spent a month in China, and shot over 1000 images on four or five smartmedia cards. That sure beats 50 rolls of film!

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[thebruce]

I'll second that. I was going to pick up the D60 early this year, but the week I was going to get it I heard it was discontinued for the 10D. Once the release date was announced, I was prepared to go pick it up. Stocks were limited, and Canon was slow on getting them out the door, but I got one on release date, and I have been happy ever since.

I had a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 film SLR to begin with, and decided to keep the body so I could still use film if I wanted to later on. Suffice to say - I haven't touched the Rebel 2000 since I bought my 10D.

I've looked at other cameras and the settings themselves are simply just not as intuitive as the Canon line. The fact that you've got everything from fully automatic to fully manual, and the ability to set one property and have the rest automatic for every camera setting for each property in between (aperture, speed), with f-stop over/under exposure, even a setting to use the AF points to set the best aperture to have everything in focus with the right speed for a good exposure, plus 'beginner' automatic settings for the type of picture you're taking so everything is optimized for that type, is really nice to have. And with an ISO range of 100 to 3200 (!) flash photographer is more of an accessory than a photography essential... in a dark scene, and ISO setting of 1600 can still print a quality 4x6 print with little 'grain'. Especially after digitally touched up :)

At the time I bought it, the 10D was the best quality in its digital SLR class. And the fact I could use my 2 lenses from my Rebel 2000 with the 10D also saved me some $. Of course, it was $2500 CAN at the time... the next model series up (the 1D and 1Ds) were $5000-$10000 I believe... so yeah, 10D's definitely worth the price. And now there's the EOS digital Rebel which is basically a cheaper/updated model of the 10D.

so if you're looking for a cheap film SLR, I can sell you my old EOS Rebel 2000 body ;)

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[jallen02]

50 rolls?

I spend 50 or 60 bucks each Holiday or weekend I go out shooting pictures. (average)

I recently went digital with a 6.3MP digital rebel (canon). Get to keep my lenses and I now have 2GB of CF cards to stash pictures on. I will in some ways miss Velvia and the slides I made, but I won't miss spending upwards of 75$ for one weekend of shooting.

I like to take a lot of pictures. I am not to an Ansel Adams think about the picture for weeks and take that one perfect shot on a Hassy or some other Medium Format camera. I am more interactive than that and I truly enjoy it and have taken some "great" photos that way.

The camera will pay for itself within a year. Within a year and a half I will have made up for the cost of the original film SLR body and stuff.

I would call that good upgradability :)

Jeremy

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[penguin7of9]

The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800.

SLRs are a necessary evil for film-based cameras because of the idiosyncracies of film. For digital cameras, the SLR design makes much less sense. A non-SLR digital camera will easily give you a bright, sharp 28-110mm zoom. So, just get a 5 Mpixel camera with a good lens and don't worry about SLRs for digital.

The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life.

If you haven't, you should. And digital makes it possible. Anybody serious about photography can easily go through that within a few days.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like to take a lot of pictures. I am not to an Ansel Adams think about the picture for weeks and take that one perfect shot on a Hassy or some other Medium Format camera."

Somewhere Ansel Adams is rolling over in his grave.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[WNight]

I'd agree about cost, but I don't think there's anything good to be said about learning with film.

Film is expensive per shot. You're less likely to take pictures if every time you press the shutter you pay. You're even less likely to take five or ten shots of the same thing in order to experiment.

Even if you do, you need to have a log book (unless you're using a modern APS camera which tags the film with the settings - I think) in which you enter all the shot details, shutter, aperture, lens used, etc. Otherwise when you do get them developed - a week later for most people, or even a few hours later if you have your own darkroom, you won't remember why shot four of the group of ten is the best.

With digital you take the picture and get instant feedback, with histograms and blown highlights meters. If you don't like the result you change a setting and try again. Not only do you learn through the instant feedback, but a month later when you look at the photo on the computer and wonder why it looks the way it does you can check the exif data and see what it says. All your settings are recorded.

If you buy a digital SLR you'll also get amazingly low noise (the digital equivalent of grain). ISO 200 on my camera (Canon EOS 300D) is noise free, ISO 800 is barely noticable except in shadows, and ISO 1600 is acceptable. But, more than that, you can switch from ISO 100 to 1600 with the spin of a dial, giving you much more flexibility than with film.

You can also white-balance, producing shots where white objects look white, under vastly different lights. For white-balance and ISO in film you need to rewind, eject, and mark the spool, then load another roll and jump to the next empty frame. You then need to carry enough rolls for any occasion and keep track of your sessions as they cross rolls. A pain if you want timely development.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[WNight]

I just sold my old digital. A Canon Powershot G2 that was 18-months old. I'd taken 19,500 photos with it. The equivalent of 540 rolls of film. About $6k worth by your calculations.

Before I'd gotten it I'd shot maybe five rolls of film. I was always wondering if a shot was worth it ("Girlfriend's cute, but I already got a picture last week.") Then, they'd sit around months or years until I got around to getting them developed. I didn't know anything about photography because what little feedback I had was so far after the shot.

Digital changed it all. I got a nice camera with all the manual overrides and full manual mode and I just started taking pictures. Lots of pictures.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[WNight]

There isn't skill in taking fifty pictures of a single view. The skill comes from this though, because you gain a very real understanding of what a stop under and over look like, what changing your focal length does to your DoF, and what f-stops are and why they do what they do.

If you're doing this on film you don't get as many test shots, or instant feedback.

Don't get me wrong, I like my digital SLR more than my digital rangefinder, but I can't imagine going back to film, no matter what the camera body was.

The only way to become a good photographer is to take pictures, digital facilitates this.

Oh, and you don't just focus of the whole shot on the screen, you zoom up to 10x closer and scroll around getting a very good idea of what the shot looked like, as well as if people had their eyes open.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[WNight]

The Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) has already matched any 35mm film that any of us are going to buy, and that's assuming you can get the negative scanned at more than 4000dpi and actually get the full resolution, if you can see it around the grain. It's $900 USD.

The lack of noise in digital SLRs until you get to around ISO800 also makes the output look a lot nicer. If you routinely print larger than 20x30 you might find very sharp film has more detail, but at anything smaller it's not even a contest for modern digital SLRs.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[falconwolf]

I'd say film is dead except for somebody like the poster - he clearly wants to study the craft - and while journalists and wedding photographers (and the like) who sell the content of their images more than anything else may be moving to digital, there are still holdouts in terms of artists who feel that film photography is a craft that they don't want to give up entirely.

There are some photographers yet who work, sell their photos, who don't plan on switching to digital anytyme soon. I've read recently a couple of rags that had two pros face off on digital cameras with one saying why s/he switched and the other saying why s/he won't. There are good points, merits, on both sides but in the end it's in the eyes of the beholder. Personally I want both, film and digital. Though I haven't heard anything about them in months, there was a company offering a solution, Silicon Film. They came up with a digital film where a photographer could take out the old film and insert a digital cartridge thus offering both worlds.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Christopher Bibbs]

I think fans of the Lecia rangefinders and others would disagree with your opion of SLRs. The SLR design is honestly very good for what it intends to do. It'll be years before an LCD can give as sharp an image as what I get through my viewfinder.

Re:Digital SLR is the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get a great digital camera for around $500 (e.g. the Canon G2 or G3) or the new Digital Rebel DSLR for $1,000, and then be able to experiment like crazy at ZERO COST.

A friend of mine was experimenting a lot and got two of his digital cameras eaten by tigers. That's NOT zero cost!

Anything?

[suwain_2]

I'd just cruise around eBay and buy something cheap. At the risk of sounding like an old man, they don't make cameras like they used to. A friend gave me an old SLR (Minolta XG1) that was 'taking up space,' along with some decent lenses. I'm not sure of the value, but if you cruise around eBay, you'll probably find a ton that will suit you just fine.

I've found photo.net to be chock-full of discussion about any camera you can imagine; if you find a good deal, see what the people there have said about it.

Re:Anything?

[Skater]

I've used that Minolta model.. "ton" is right--they're HEAVY. My Nikon body and lenses are much, much lighter. I know this isn't a primary concern for most people, but a lighter camera and lens makes it easier to carry around all day...

The Minolta I had had a quirk where it would hold the shutter open a little too long sometimes, or perhaps the mirror was taking it's time snapping back into position. You could hear it happening, and frequently those shots would be blurry. Not usually a problem--just take another shot, but when the shot is a once-in-a-lifetime, such as a friend crossing the finish line in first place in a race, it gets annoying.

--RJ

Re:Anything?

[sstaton]

Your Minolta's SLR mirror is sticking to the light seals, which decay over the years and become adhesive. Likewise, the rubber shutter plane becomes sticky, and that can cause shutter delay on some models (the XG begin particularly sensitive to this). The XD series (XD-5, XD-7 and XD-11) used a titanium shutter, which needs light lubrication but which hasn't got the sticking issue mentioned. The XD series, as well as the later X series, are much lighter than the brick heavy SR-T series. Check out Garry's cameras for repairs and tuneups.

go to your local photo swap

[Anonymous Coward]

I started out with a Canon AE-1 I picked up for cheap. It has served me well.

Canon Rebel

[NickDngr]

While a little more than the $200 you would like to spend, the Canon Rebel line is an excellent choice. You can adjust the camera to do anything from fully automatic everything, to fully manual, and everything in between. I've had a Rebel G for several years now and it has never disappointed me. The pictures are always excellent and the autofocus (should you choose to use it) is the fastest I have ever used.

Re:Canon Rebel

[BassAkwards]

Agreed. We have a Canon Rebel 2000 EOS which I think cost about $200 and it is an excellent camera. Easy for beginners, but full-featured to grow with you.

Re:Canon Rebel

[Stevyn]

This camera is crap. Cheap plastic crap. The lenses require so much light you need fast film or very expensive lenses (this guy is a beginner). To do anything manual in them is a pain in the ass. I used to work at a camera store and I've sold a lot of these and they were never as good as the used ones sitting in the glass case waiting for someone to appriciate them.

Re:Canon Rebel

[grolschie]

The EOS 300V is superior to the Rebel EOS 3000. Lense fit the Digital Rebel for future upgrades.

Re:Canon Rebel

[rjstanford]

The lenses require so much light you need fast film or very expensive lenses

???

The lens has a problem that you can solve with an expensive lens? Becuase the "camera is crap"? As someone who "used to work in a camera store", surely you're aware of the difference between the lens (important) and the body (much less so)...

Just curious.

Besides, a decent canon 50mm lens is really not that cheap, even the 1.4 is under $300 - and that's a great lens by any measurement. The slightly slower one is cheap enough to be in any halfway-serious photographer's bag, too.

Re:Canon Rebel

[Stevyn]

The camera system as a whole. You don't just by a body, you by lens. The lens system for the canon reble isn't as good as the one for the older cameras such as Nikon F1 or even Canon AE1. This is most likely because of all the autofocusing crap built into the lenses. And because of that, the canon eos system isn't as good as older systems. Therefore stay away from it. Please, someone reply back with FUD; I need christmas to come early this year.

MMMMM Nikon

[IcephishCR]

as an owner of an F5, I find most Nikon's controls as logically laid out. A N75 would be a good choice for a beginner, or if you don't mind a manual camera, you can have an inexpensive pro-level camera and lenses for a great deal, look for the Nikon FE, or the FM used, like on KEH.com, a great source for high quality used cameras. and with a Nikon, when you upgrade from a manual-focus camera to an autofocus camera you have a good chance of being able to used the great lenses you already have!

Cannon Rebel Ti

[booyaka]

I bought a Cannon Rebel Ti last year and have been very impressed with it. I do a lot of travelling and I've found that it is light enough to truck around, yet sturdy enough to take some mild knocks. Using the stock lens that comes with it (with an AF/MF switch) it is possible to use it either as a point-and-shoot type for snapshots, or to take advantage of the full range of features like any other SLR. It misses out on some more advanced features like "eye-focus" but takes the full range of cannon lanses. I can't remember exactly how much I paid, but it was in the $300 range with a decent lens. I think it's definitly a good choice for beginners, but you won't outgrow it too fast either. Try B&H Audio Video or Henry's.

Wrong Forum

[blunte]

You are SO on the wrong forum.

There are many places where you can get intelligent answers to this question, and somehow I doubt /. is one of them.

I'd bet most of the answers here will be, "get a digitial". Just because you see Philip Greenspun's amateur stuff here periodically doesn't mean this is a good place for tips :P

Re:Wrong Forum

[thefluxster]

/. really isn't the best place to go to find answers about this question. You may want to try the following websites:

Photo.net
THE professional photographer's website with TONS of information about different cameras, tips, whole articles on how to get that perfect picture, and learning how to get the most out of whatever camera you have. I've found it to be the diffinitive starting point for any information about photography.

Digital Photography Review
If you plan on getting a digital camera, this site is considered the digital camera authority.

Hope these help you and any other would-be amateur photographers out there.

Re:Wrong Forum

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect from an advertisement article? 'Tis the season to be shopping!

Re:Wrong Forum

[Anonymous Coward]

While photo.net has some great forums and decent instructive articles, it's never a bad idea to consider the source. Many of the articles on that site are accompanied by truly bland, unoriginal, even incorrectly exposed pictures. Now, I understand that not every picture in a howto article can be a work of art, but one should be wary of advice from bad photographers. Once you understand the basics, you'll learn more by taking and looking at pictures than you ever will from photo.net articles.

Re:Pentax K1000 AND FILTERS

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the K1000. I own one myself. The only suggestion I would make is to get a basic filter kit for the lens: one clear one for protecting the lens itself, one for balancing out flourescent lighting and one polarized.

My Ask Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdot,

What should I eat for breakfast tomorrow morning?

Re:My Ask Slashdot

[91degrees]

Bacon sandwich.

I'd suggest a decent piece of back bacon rather than streaky. Also I think bread is important. None of that pre-sliced stuff from a supermarket. Get some good quality bread from a bakery. Slice it thick, spread on some butter, and serve with some brown sauce. (O.K. Fruity Sauce is my favourite but it's hard to get hold of recently).

Re:My Ask Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

A toasted salt bagel with lox, to go with a large coffee from Greg's.

Nikon N65

[nosse_elendili]

I recently went through this issue myself and ended up settling on the Nikon N65. My reasons were somewhat arbitrary, but I have been happy.

I preferred it over similar Canon models becuase it has the ring that holds the lens is made of metal instead of plastic and it just feels sturdier. Also Nikon tends to make slightly better lenses than Canon.

I preferred it over the N55 becuase it has a depth-of-field preview button, which I come to deeply appreciate.

But mostly I picked it becuase it was around $100 (without any lenses) and I read lots of good reviews.

Hope that helps!

Canon EOS

[leftover]

Fine camera, well established lens and accessory lineup, and they already have a digital body if/when you want to switch.

Could always read this...

[JohnGrahamCumming]

The last time (October) this was asked: here

Weird how both people asked about "Digital 35mm".

John.

Old Nikon/Nikkormat

[sailor420]

I learned on an old Nikkormat FN (I believe that was the model). Great little camera, and quite inexpensive. Built like a tank--I dropped it down the stairs once, and all it did was tear up the stairs. There are also tons of lenses out there, to be had for a song. Just go to your local photo shop and poke around their used section, they should have plenty.

Oh yeah, Nikon and Nikkormat are basically the same thing.

Re:Old Nikon/Nikkormat

[Usquebaugh]

In a similar vein Cannon AE1, 70s camera. Has basic metering if you want it. Dirt cheap, indestructable, Hundreds of lenses that are also cheap.

I gave mine to my Dad when I stepped up to the Nikkon 801, also a great camera, but more useless do hickies than the AE1.

I've stopped doing most of my art photography so I'll probably pick up a digital cheapie in the next year or so.

A camera is a good gift for a photographer?

[wackybrit]

Don't forget, a 35mm camera (film or digital) would make a nice Christmas Gift for that budding photographer in your life!

Really? I thought a bag of hammers would have been a much more useful gift to a photographer.

I guess this is why I'm spending Christmas alone. Again.

Re:A camera is a good gift for a photographer?

[IM6100]

Once you branch out beyond the standard claw and ball-peen hammer, speciality hammers do get expensive. So to any hammer enthusiast, a whole bag of different types of hammers would be a great gift. Or perhaps focus on getting them one good hammer. Perhaps a nice Estwing Rock Hammer, which is always a nice thing to have.

Re:A camera is a good gift for a photographer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hammer enthusiast?

Re:A camera is a good gift for a photographer?

[talmage]

Never buy a photographer a camera as a gift unless you know exactly what the photographer wants or it's the photographer's first camera and you are her mentor or have the advice of her mentor.

Photographers are fussy about cameras, lenses, and accessories.

The safest thing to buy for a photographer is film (or memory cards for those who shoot digital).

canon eos rebel G2

[adamiis111]

I've heard good things about the eos line. $209 is the cheapest I can find. This is good because if you start buying lenses, you can keep them for when you get an eos digital body in the future.

Cheapest Pentax

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the cheapest new Pentax MZ-50 3 years ago and have been very happy with it, the quality of the shots has been very good (depending on the photo processing outlet). If you want to upgrade then just replace the cheap lens that comes with it with a more expensive one.

Check Pawn Shops

[Anonymous Coward]

You can find a TON of manual cameras in pawn shops. I was doing research on a good student camera about a year ago and narrowed it down to 3 or 4, with the Canon AE-1 and Pentax ME-Super being the top of the list. Then I found the ME-Super with 4 lenses, flash, and a bag in a pawn shop for $180. They gave me a guarantee that it would work, so I could return it if there was anything wrong. The price on the whole kit was what decided things for me.

Nikon N75

[Txiasaeia]

$200 USD at B&H (or pretty much anywhere), solid body for a sub-$200 camera, nice construction, can meter a lot of lenses (D, G for sure, AIS maybe), can be used full auto, (mostly) full manual, and everywhere in between. It's a lot of fun. You might want to spend another $100 or so and get an N75, but after a long time of speculating and pricing out my options I decided it wasn't worth the extra cash.

BTW, if you live in Canada, it's STILL cheaper to get the camera from B&H in NY and have it shipped to you. Go figure. Film camera warranties are a bit more international than digital, so that's not really even a concern, but for another $30 USD I got a 7-year international Mack warranty. Win-win.

Re:Nikon N75

[cyberentomologist]

You can get the body for $169 at BeachCamera, or a full beginner setup for about $249. http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/Product.asp?sku=NK N75&ref=pricegrabber Here is a link to the Popular Photography article on the N75. They give it high marks for an entry level SLR camra. http://www.popularphotography.com/article.asp?sect ion_id=2&article_id=662 Nikon is also offering a rebate on some of their bodies and lenses (not the N75). http://www.nikonslr.com/home.php

Re:Nikon N75

[Txiasaeia]

I got the camera body and a 50mm 1.8d lens for for $300 USD; it's $50 more than the 28-80 that comes bundled, but the 50mm is extremely sharp and turns out terrific-looking shots, great for both indoors and outdoors.

Pentax

[Snowspinner]

I got a Pentax Asahi off of eBay, and have loved it. Very nice camera.

The reason not to go digital, incidentally, is that digital cameras still come nowhere near the resolution of regular film. Also, if you have access to a darkroom, there's lots of stuff you can do there that's just not the same done on photoshop.

It's the same reason not all artists grabbed their styluses and switched to the tablet PC.

Re:Pentax

[Afrosheen]

Ironically enough though, most artists who started out as traditional artists and moved to the pc/mac use tablets (not tablet pc's) to make their artwork. I did some digital retouching years ago for Glamour Shots and all we used was the Wacom tablets, even on the SGI Irix workstations. For drawing or painting, they're hard to beat.

Re:Pentax

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Canon 1D has a full frame which some people feel is very close to film though definitely not in his price range.

Re:Pentax

[jargonCCNA]

My brother snagged my grandmother's old Asahi about.. a year ago. This is just some of the best stuff he's done since.

Get a clue!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get a digital camera suitable for beginners at comparable prices.

Lens

[Detritus]

Get a good lens, then find a camera body that matches it.

Many camera manufacturers and dealers promote packages with a body and a zoom lens. While they may have improved over the years, zoom lenses are a compromise. I would get a nice 50mm lens as a starting point.

Re:Lens

[megan_of_wutai]

While I agree on this in principle, a good prime lense is better than any zoom (mmmmmm zuiko prime *drool*), a zoom can save someone just starting a lot of money in buying different lenses whilst allowing them to experiment with different focal lengths.

Ancient Canon's

[Ion Berkley]

For what its worth by philosophy for many years has been for my SLR needs I buy old Canon A-1 and
AE-1 stuff (we are talking 20 to 30 year old equipment here). It was bomb proof metal construction, and the fixed focal lenth lenses were very good quality, and on the odd occasion I loose or destroy one, I'm not horibly out of pocket.

This is a good camera.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.newgenpc.com/pmoreinfo.asp?iid=424

Not SLR, and not 35mm, but also not made in the late nineteenth century, you luddite.

Digital -vs- Film

[Anonymous Coward]

>>"I've been thinking of getting into photography" Good for you. >>"But want to stay with 35mm film instead of going digital." Ok. >>"Used 35mm SLRs seem to be the best bet, but which ones should I seriously consider?" Lotta companies claim there's is the best, but it is all the same. Give it a couple of days and it will be outdated and junk. "I would like to spend less than $200 on the camera itself, and start off with some cheaper lenses." Yah get what you pay for. "It seems to me like there's still a lot more bang for your buck in film vs digital cameras at this point, even with film processing costs (I have almost a whole darkroom setup that my father used to use). "I think I want a manual focus camera." "Don't forget, a 35mm camera (film or digital) would make a nice Christmas Gift for that budding photographer in your life!" I see some advertisement in you future. Sound like buying a computer -vs- sticking with a typewriter. There is both good and bad in each of these. Depending on what you want to do. It is not the format, but the picture that is interesting. IMO: A 2 dollar bra on Britanny spears is worth more than a 2 million dollar bra on Rosanne Bar.

Dear Ask Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to buy a computer. It must be the fastest computer available but I'm willing to use crappy parts. Please keep in mind that it should be under $50 and still be great! Also, I am a grade-A moron. Thank you. That is all. No, I can't use Google although I can dress myself. Please discuss.

Re:Dear Ask Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man! That's exactly what I was thinking. Can you put multiple mod points down on one comment?

Learn, then buy

[rjstanford]

I strongly recommend that you read http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/ . Not only does it contain some good general photographic advice, it also has some pretty good recommendations about equipment (not specifics, but enough to teach you how to pick your own).

On the other hand, IMO your budget is way low. If you're looking for an SLR, presumably you're pretty serious. Which means you'll be taking many, many pictures (the only way to get better). And buying film and having it developed.

My recommendation? Up your budget quite a bit. Check out the Canon Digital Rebel. Yes, its about $1k with a pretty good generic lens. But that may be less than you'd spend over a year with a $200-300 film camera, plus decent film, plus developing. Think TCO not just initial purchase price.

If you do go with film, then pick up a simple camera (Canon/Nikon) and a good, solid 50mm prime lens. And lots, lots, lots of film.

Re:Learn, then buy

[EvanED]

"My recommendation? Up your budget quite a bit. Check out the Canon Digital Rebel. Yes, its about $1k with a pretty good generic lens. But that may be less than you'd spend over a year with a $200-300 film camera, plus decent film, plus developing. Think TCO not just initial purchase price."

My estimates show that you can go through about 50 rolls of film before you'd break even. And that's only if you look at the price, and don't care if you don't have hard copies. (Printing shots on photo paper costs about the same as developing film.) That'd be one a week for a year, which seems high unless you're *really* serious. In which case I agree. But I would kill for an SLR because there's enough cases where a point-and-shoot camera won't do at all. (I seem to take an abnormal number of low-light shots.) Yet I don't think I've gone through that many rolls of film in my life.

Re:Learn, then buy

[mph]

On the other hand, IMO your budget is way low.

$200 for a first SLR body is only low if you're thinking about current-production, new bodies. I just bought a beautiful Canon A-1, from the highly reputable KEH, for $109. It is considerably more advanced than my Canon TLb, which has served me well for years (and will continue to do so). Both cameras are rugged, well-made machines that have endured for decades.

Countless excellent photographs were made before autofocus, autoexposure, digital, image stabilization, and other modern innovations. They are conveniences, not necessities, and may in fact be obstacles to learning the craft.

Re:Learn, then buy

[wooftronics]

I would definitely recommend scouring the photo.net site, too.

But in the end, I would recommend sticking with some variety of Canon Rebel... IMHO it doesn't really matter whether it's a Canon Rebel II, X, XS, etc.

Remember that your camera is just a box to hold film flat... the lens does all the work. Rebels are cheap -- you'll have more money left over for lenses.

And the only real "pro" feature you're missing with the Rebel is depth-of-field preview, something that plenty of pros have done *quite* nicely without for years... you just get used to figuring out how much DOF you'll have for a given aperture setting.

Rebels let you do *everything* manually, or you can choose to let the camera pick the appropriate focus, shutter speed, or aperture automatically.

It's even got easy modes for taking portraits, action shots, close-ups, etc... in case you find out that you really *don't* want to learn all that much about photography, or you just don't feel like messing with it from time to time.

And you'll have access to Canon's excellent EF line of lenses... btw, it's true that Canon changed the mount when they went from manual-focus to autofocus... but this is a very *good* thing, not a bad one (as some here may argue).

A Rebel weighs next to nothing, so you'll be likelier to take it places you wouldn't lug around a heavy camera.

And as for the argument that its plastic lens mount is somehow structurally inferior to a metal (Nikon) one... a quick thought about the helmets of pro (American) football players should convince you that we can make plastics pretty much as strong as we want these days.

I would also recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8 lens instead of the more expensive and optically inferior 35-70 or 28-80 zoom lenses.

Re:Learn, then buy

[talmage]

"On the other hand, IMO your budget is way low. ...

"My recommendation? Up your budget quite a bit. Check out the Canon Digital Rebel. Yes, its about $1k with a pretty good generic lens. But that may be less than you'd spend over a year with a $200-300 film camera, plus decent film, plus developing. Think TCO not just initial purchase price."

That's just about the worst advice you can give a new photographer. For one thing, you can buy an awful lot of film and processing for that $700-$800 difference. For another, it's better to enter a hobby at the bottom in case you discover that don't like it or don't have as much time for it as you expected to. That way, your money isn't tied up in an expensive paperweight.

Now, if you had suggested buying an inexpensive digital camera, maybe a point-and-shoot, then I wouldn't disagree with you as strongly. I'd see that you can use it to learn about composition:

while (true) {
take a picture
examine composition in the LCD
decide how to improve composition
}

Even then, I might still disagree with you if I knew that the new photographer wanted to make prints at 8x10 or larger. Until you get into the professional equipment stratosphere (i.e. medium- and large-format digital, thousands of dollars) film still rules in that respect.

pentax me

[at_kernel_99]

I bought a Pentax ME, used, for a girlfriend years ago; maybe 8 or so. She upgraded to something fancy, so I inherited the Pentax. Works great, and is rather durable; it survived a 6 month hike hanging from my neck every day & took great pictures the whole time.

Re:pentax me

[rjstanford]

I bought a Pentax ME, used, for a girlfriend years ago

Really? I wonder how much you'd get for a girlfriend now? Does she have to be in really good shape, and can you negotiate well with the camera seller?

Re:pentax me

[Anonymous Coward]

He said it was a camera that had been used for a girlfriend.

Hopefully it got sanitized between owners. Also, yuck.

Pentax K1000

[joeblarnystone]

If you can get a hold of a Pentax K1000 they are excellent cameras, great for beginners. Full manual, built in light meter. You don't need anything else. They have rugged metal bodies so they can take a dishing. Almost everyone I know learnt from one.

Pentax K2

[eric777]

I started off with a Pentax K2.

It's manual everything, solid no-nonsense body. Very little to break, very easy to use.

Of course, you have to do everything yourself - which helps you to learn little things like composition, depth-of-field, etc. etc.

the model is at least 25 years old - that's when I had mine (!)

After that, I had a Nikon FG - also a great, simple camera.

Re:Digital Rebel!

[fputs(shit, slashdot]

Rebel is a good camera but not 35mm!

I have

[$exyNerdie]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 that I bought for around $400 but used it only twice.

Instead, I use my digital camera which gives me preview option and no cost of film.

I would sell my Canon EOS Rebel 2000 for about half the price if I could find a buyer!

Re:I have

[$exyNerdie]

I just checked Amazon.com and it is selling new for $239.80. Who would give me 200 for mine!

I recommend getting a digital camera instead of SLR unless you wanna get a cheapo SLR just to practice various manual options and then switch to an advanced high megapixel digital camera.

Third party lenses...

[aussersterne]

...are not necessarily so bad.

Sigma has a pro (EX) line, and Tokina does as well (AT-X). Some of Sigma's EX lenses are very highly regarded these days.

I think the previous poster may actually commit some of the sin that he spoke of when he recommends a K-1000 before asking what the person intends to shoot...

Each lens line is different. Canon has certain options that may be useful for sports/wildlife shooting that Nikon does not, etc. So rather than just decide on the "cheapest manual body," take some time to find out whose lens lines most closely match the things that you intend to take pictures of.

Then buy the cheapest body that works with that lens line. Some of the classic families include the Nikon lenses (all one big sort of happy family), the Canon FD series, the Canon EOS series, the Olympus OM series, and of course the Pentax series already mentioned.

Re:Third party lenses...

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that, Sigma lenses rock. I get better color from my sigma then I do my canon non-L lenses. The 15mm fisheye is particularly awsome. You get some of the coolest shots from that lens if you can get somebody's face close up, and its just as good as the Canon as far as quality, and 150 off the price tag: https://webspace.utexas.edu/aap/memetro.jpg

Re:Third party lenses...

[vinton]

I haven't owned a camera from the Olympus OM line, but I've handled them and my impressions are favorable. Smaller than other SLRs, easy to use, and lower priced than many others. I believe these have been discontinued, so you'll have to stick to the used market.

I got a Nikon FM2 a few years back. Reasonably small, reasonably rugged (though not as much as the older F2), nice looking cameras. One advantage to Nikon cameras & lenses is that nearly any lens will work with any camera--with a list of exceptions, and sometimes at the expense of functionality like autofocus and full-aperature metering. Because of this continued usefullness, the equipment price doesn't depreciate too much, which can be nice if you ever want to sell it off.

Re:Third party lenses...

[vinton]

And if you want your camera to be a fashion statement, or completely believe that they don't make them like they used to, check out http://www.cameraquest.com. Great place to read about vintage cameras. This site is largely responsible for my 1940's-era rangefinder collection.

Re:Third party lenses...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I love my Sigma 15-30, one of my favorite lenses, and very well rated by many photography magazines, including getting Lens of the Year awards from a few. Much cheaper than any Canon equivs.

Re:Third party lenses...

[NixLuver]

The problem with this idea is that most people have never experienced lenses of real quality, and magazines tend to rate lenses 'on a curve', so to speak.

I've worked with a lot of 35 mm lenses, from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, on bodies ranging from Canon F1s, T90s, Nikon f3s and f4s, and Pentax LXs (all dinosaurs by this crowd's standards :) and no Japanese lens I have ever encountered stands up to European (Zeiss, Leitz, and Schneider) lenses in overall image quality. Many of the Japanese lenses exhibit fairly high resolution, but most have nothing like the contrast and saturation of their Bavarian counterparts.

Before anyone turns on the flamethrowers, let me point out that I used to pooh-pooh the people who made these statements. I owned a rather extensive collection of Mamiya and Bronica medium format cameras, along with Canon and Nikon 35 mm equipment. Then one day a fellow I knew, who was fond of making the kind of statements I made in the previous paragraph, handed me two cameras, and told me to go shoot pictures with them before I started shooting off my mouth. One was a Leica m3, and the other was a Hasselblad ELM.

There was NO comparison. I now own Hasselblad equipment as a direct result of that comparison, even though I went into it not believing there was any difference.

Aside from rare standouts (tamron 90mm 2.5 macro, tamron 300mm 2.8 tele, Vivitar series 1 70-210 f3.8 - i think ), independent lenses are crap by comparison even with the manufacturer's like Canon and Nikon, to say nothing of the lenses from Europe.

Decent, when applied to lenses, must be qualified. The independent manufacturer's Pro lines are probably better than the major (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax) manufacturer's consumer market lenses, but have rarely come even close to the mid range, much less the rare-earth lenses from the Big 5, who in turn have rarely approached the overall quality of the European lenses.

Everybody get that? :) If cameras were operating systems, Hassy, Rollei, and Leica would be Linux, BSD, and maybe OSX; the Big 5 would be Microsoft. :)

Re:Third party lenses...

[Nexx]

Ooooh Rangefinder cameras.

I want a 645-format rangefinder. They're an absolute dream to focus, and the larger negative means they're a little more forgiving than my 35mm gear.

Not one camera, a secision process

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Though this probably should be asked elsewhere...

Most cameras are competitive with each other. The big boys always introduce cameras that more or less compete directly with cameras from the other companies. Witness the Elan 7 and N80 coming out at right about the same time.
And also, with SLRs, you buy into a system. Remember that lenses and accessories are not compatible across marques.

This leads me to: if you have a close friend or family member with an SLR, get one in the same family. The ability to share lenses and gear with them will generally override any small differences between cameras.

If you don't have anyone, then I'd say pick up a cheap Nikon or Canon. My opinion (flame wars begone) is that the greater ability to rent and borrow matching equipment negates any differences in bodies. Every 3rd party lens has Nikon and Canon EF mounts available.

Don't think of the body. The body is just a lens holder. You may go through multiple, or want a backup body. Get a 50mm lens, preferably as your first lens. Good for low light, good cheap lens so spend more money on film. Lack of zoom makes you move around instead of cheating with the zoom. You'll get different pictures as you learn to move and change angles.

Right now, I'd probably pick the N65 or N55 if you like Nikon, or the Rebel Ti or the Rebel K2 (don't hink the K2 is generally available yet) if you';re a canon guy. A Rebel GII with 50MM lens should cost you around $200, fairly low technology, but about as much as you'd pay for a low end point and shoot.

Re:Not one camera, a secision process

[cei]

As my photography teacher said, "the camera body is just a box to keep the dark in."

Wrong site

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Why no try alt.rec.photo or something? /. is hardly the place to come to for advice on the best begginer 35mm film SRL cameras.

Besides? What's wrong with digital? It's much more fun learing with a digital than with a film camera IMHO, you get instant feedback etc. Film stuff still costs a fair bit even if you have your own darkroom.

My 2c anyway.

The Ultimate Learning Camera

[dr00g911]

The beginner's camera is (and has been for years) the Pentax K-1000. It's pretty much the defacto standard for students and beginning photographers.

It's been discontinued recently -- but you can pick 'em up at photo, pawn shops or ebay very reasonably.

You won't find a better or more sturdy camera for a beginner (I did photography professionally for quite a while, so I have *some* knowledge in this realm.)

Failing that, go Nikon over Minolta and Canon (in that order).

Re:The Ultimate Learning Camera

[May Kasahara]

I second this suggestion. My first photography classes had us use these cameras, and they're great-- easy to use and quite sturdy.

Renting Equiptment

[nullix]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but you can always try renting the equipment first. You can get some good deals for a cheap cost. Rent a camera and lens for a weekend and see how you like it before you commit to buying it online.

Also, be very advised on where you buy from. There are many photography companies online that first offer you a product at a reduced price until you place the order. Then they call you back and offer you a warrenty or special filter kit for hundreds of dollars more. If you don't accept these offers, the item is misteriously out of stock.

Search the news groups since these companies usually have a bad background. I've bought online from bhphoto without a problem. They're a very reputable place (I don't work there or own any stock with them).

There also is a lot of information in the discussion groups at photo.net.

Happy shotting...

Used Mamiya/Sekor 1000/500 DL/DTL

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

These cameras were considered to be amateur grade when they were new with the result that most used ones are still in good condition. Compare this with most of the pro-grade used cameras that are pretty much clapped out when they hit the used market.

The Mamiya/Sekors have a very nice spot meter, a good, bright finder and surprisingly good lenses.

There are millions of used lenses available for the Pentax style screw lens mount.

I have a shelf full of old cameras and the Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL is the one I take down when I need to bring home an image.

canon eos rebel!

[net_bh]

Very good and inexpensive camera for beginners. But do not buy it in a kit with the cheap 24-80mm lens. Instead get it with a fixed 50mm lens.

For details, visit Photo.net

Good luck.

Contax

[Noksagt]

I think you should get a used Contax. These can be obtained for under $200 from an outfit such as Kenmore Camera. If possible, go to a big used camera store to look at several models.

Contax cameras are nice because they have Zeiss lenses available, which are quite stunning. Lower priced Yashica lenses will also fit. My starter was a 50mm Contax lens and a 30-200 Yashica zoom.

Using Contax will impress other photographers and doesn't cost an arm and a leg like Leica.

Re:Contax

[Master Bait]

It's smart to buy a camera like the Contax which is gaining in value every day. I used to have a lot of old Nikon Fs, with motor drives and lots of nice lenses of the era which I bought used. A couple of years ago I sold all of it and ended up with quite a profit.

Re:Contax

[shis-ka-bob]

I'll agree with this. You can get some pretty good deals on the RTS and cameras of that age. The quality of the glass is stunning. Photography is determined more by the lens than the camera body. Film vs. Digital is starting to favor digital, but film is still a great deal.

I'm really hoping that somebody (like Cosina) will build a series of Digital SLR's that can mount to the 'classic' SLR mounts - The Nikon F, the Canon breech mounts, the Contax/Yashica, and the Pentax screw mounts. There is some fabulous old glass that is very cheap. Any 'fast 50 mm' lens from the 70's or 80's will blow away any prosumer zoom lens. If there was a digital body that could mount them, you could have a nice system for enthusiasts.

Re:Contax

[calyphus]

hmm, remember the camera is just a box. The lens quality is the most important part of the package. So, from an economy pov, Yashica camera with Zeiss lenses yield the most bang for buck. The camera won't impress nameplate snobs, but your photos don't have nameplates on them. How impressive your photos are is what matters, not how impressive the nameplate on your camera is.

Canon AE-1

[v_1matst]

get a canon AE-1. You should be able to find the body on ebay or through used camera retailers. This camera is fully manual and takes great pictures (well, it's all in the lens really but the body is nice). I have the AE-1, Rebel DSLR and the elph S100 and the AE-1 by far gets the most use (although the Rebel is rapidly taking over... I just got it).

Re:Canon AE-1

[ThogScully]

The Program has the microprocessor controlled auto fstop and also shutter speed. I think the AE-1 only does one of the other. There are also a few other subtle differences and I imagine they cost so similarly that anyone buying one now may as well get the Program. That's what I've got and I'm very fond of it.
-N

Re:Canon AE-1

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one and it pretty good. Canon made so many Canon AE-1s you can still buy them new in the box for fairly cheap, check out Shutterbug magazine it's sort of like the computer shopper for cameras supplies.

Re:Canon AE-1

[neafevoc]

The AE-1 is a great camera. I still have and use mine. I've been looking for another 35mm manual body though. Since I already built my Nikon kit with a line of Nikkor lenses, I was thinking about the FM3a.

To give some props for the AE-1, a couple dozen or so of these cameras were used for the first Matrix in help with the bullet time.

I wish I knew how they rigged that up (timers, etc) :)

Re:Canon AE-1

[grgyle]

My camera also, owned it for 20 years with heavy use and it has never let me down. I'll never need to buy another SLR. The only awkwardness I've had is in very cold temps (sub-freezing) when the battery can't pull its weight. A trick I discovered...since the batteries are small, you just store one down in your briefs. I get strange looks when I stuff my hands down my crotch and pull out a battery to stick in the camera, though. But those pics i got of the ice caverns were worth the embarrassment!

Re:Canon AE-1

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no stranger than the looks you would get if you put your hand down your pants and didn't pull out a battery.

Digital dude

[iamdrscience]

I've been doing serious photography for about 7 years now and honestly I think digital is the way to go. It costs more for a comparable camera, but you don't have to pay for film over and over again (and chemicals and paper if you're doing your own processing). Plus you have the pictures immediately, you don't have to wait for them to be processed or a bunch of time in the darkroom.

Minolta X700

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can find one its the best camera ever made. My brother recommends it and he works for the competition. Mine is 20+ years has been through 23 different countries (some not to friendly to Americans with cameras) and still works like the day I bought it.

Re:Minolta X700

[kate545]

I can vouch for this. I bought an X700 the week it came out in Tokyo and it still handles as crisply as it did then, and as a matter of fact, today I bought my second X700. I love manual focus and aperature priority.

Stay with Film as long as possible

[unixcorn]

I work for a professional photo lab and I see lots of crappy digital images. I think you are making a great choice by choosing film to learn with. Your results will be good as film has tons of lattitude and will be forgiving. Nothing more discouraging than realizing the picture on that little LCD does not accurately represent what is in the camera memory. Before shooting digital, we would like to tell our customers (of course we can't) to shoot a roll of slide film. If they can meter properly with the slide film, they are ready for digital photography. Slide film has a very narry sweet spot, so is much more difficult to use compared to negative film. Whatever camera you choose, happy shooting!!

Re:Stay with Film as long as possible

[chrome]

Funnily enough, its the narrow sweet spot in my Digital SLR (FinePix S2Pro) thats making me think about moving back to film.

Slide film doesn't seem to be quite as narrow as the CCDs in digital cameras. It really doesn't take much to blow the exposure on a digital camera.

I've "invested" heavily in Nikkor glass, so I'll probably go for an N80. or something similar. The F100 looks tempting but its very expensive. I am not even considering the F5.

35mm Digital Camera would have 35mm sensor [nt]

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

no text

Re:Canon Digital Rebel Kicks Yo Mamas Ass

[l0ungeb0y]

And though the OP was stating 35mm, the Canon Digital Rebel is an excellent SLR Digital Camera. For under US $1000.00, it delivers a very high end package, with gads of features, 6.3megapixel res and 18mm-55mm zoom lens. I picked mine up 2 months ago, and have yet to be dissapointed. Plus, it takes any Canon EF Lens.

So if the poster went out today and bought a brand new EOS series Camera, he could go out later and get the Digital Rebel and use the same lenses for both cameras, if that doesn't kick ass, I don't know what does.

Canon has definitely made a brilliant move with it's EOS line of cameras.

Whatever you buy, remember this:

[skizrule]

An SLR camera is only as good as its lens. You can take the cheapest entry level Canon or Nikon body and the pictures it takes will be identical to those from the $2000+ professional cameras from the same company. Likewise, the $2000 camera with a "kit" zoom lens will produce pictures that will do anything but inspire you. That said, the 50mm f1.8 lenses from both Canon and Nikon are very inexpensive (around $80 new, much less on ebay) and optically among the best available. Paired with any entry level body (which you can upgrade later if the need arises, say for fast action shots), you'd be hard pressed to find a better system to learn photography.

Minolta X-700

[Stevyn]

This camera is great for beginners and long time users. It is built solidly and you can feel is when you hold it. It accepts a lot of lens. Wide angle, telephoto, and a regular old 50mm. It does not have a motor in it and that isn't nessesary at all. The electronics it has can be used as an aid in exposer or to handle more work than you want to deal with. The lenses for these cameras are a lot faster than those for new canon rebels. By fast I mean they allow a lot more light in so you have more leeway in taking your shot. I learned photography on this camera and I worked at a camera store for years and this one was always my favorite.

I'm happy to see you want to get started in film photography. Digital photography is not nearly as good or with the wide range of techniques you can do. Prints always look better on film.

Re:Minolta X-700

[foobsr]

As an exception I post that I agree totally. I own one for ~20 years now and I am still reluctant to go digital.

X700

The above already mentioned predecessor XD 7/11 is fine as well and has even more options.

XD 11

CC.

Re:Minolta X-700

[Anonymous Coward]

I wholeheartedly agree with the X700 recommendation. Mine is going strong after over fifteen years, and is still a terriffic tool.

I might give it up for a nice Nikon...but then again, why?

Jim

Re:Minolta X-700

[cirby]

Big dittoes on that.

You can get Minoltas *cheap* compared to most of the other cameras you've seen mentioned here, and their lenses are very nice indeed. I have an X-700, its baby brother the 370, and a bunch of lenses that are all beautiful, ranging from 28mm to 300 mm.

The X-700 with a 50mm f1.4 is *great* for club photography, by the way.

Re:Minolta X-700

[f1ipf10p]

My vote is with the X-700 as well!

Between my wife and myself we have many of the SLR cameras recommended by other /.'rs here, including a Pentax K-1000, a Nikon N60, and Minolta XG-A, XG-M, and X-700.

The recently acquired 300D (Digital Rebel) is the only one I like better than the X-700, and that is probably because it is new. The build quality of the X-700 is far superior. It is also in the $200 price range where the 300D is not. The Pentax K-1000 is a close second.

I have always liked Minolta's lenses, too.

Good luck, and no matter what you pick, enjoy it!

Re:Minolta X-700

[slagish666]

I agree, too. This is my 35mm camera of choice. Auto-exposure, but you have to focus, which is fine with me!

Plus, there are 1,000s of these cameras out there, and you can probably get a good deal without too much trouble.

As for learning photography, I'm sure you could go full-manual, and learn just about everything you need to know, but for me, I find that composition is very important and you can actually focus (excuse the pun) on that and for the most part, forget about exposure with a camera with automatic exposure (you can always learn from bad shots what you might need to do to compensate for tricky exposures, and learn gradually rather than all-at-once).

Final point that I haven't seen mentioned yet: get the standard 50mm lens for general shots, but also get a lens that zooms to about 120 or 135mm, too. These lenses are gret for doing portrait shots, plus general outdoor, bright light shots where you may not be sure what type of lens you'll need.

The purists might complain about some of this advice, but then again I am not a purist, and I doubt you are, so do what you feel is right for you.

Re:Minolta X-700

[ivanmarsh]

Yes! This is a great camera. They're out of production AFAIK but still widely available.

They can be fully automatic or fully manual and come with many add-ons available.

It's one of the best cameras ever made for the price.

Nikon N65

[c3rb]

Lighting and composition are what make a great photograph. The camera is secondary. I've seen amazing pictures that were taken on a 30 year-old clunker of a camera.

That said...I have Nikon N65 and I love the thing. Simple enough for a beginner to learn with, but still high quality and decent features. But the most important thing: It's light, and isn't a pain to carry around. The most important thing to help a budding photographer learn is to take lots of pictures, and having a portable camera goes a long way towards encouraging this. It 's also reasonably cheap.

As a beginner, (and even as a professional) whiz-bang features aren't nearly as important as proper lighting and composition. However, there are some things you'll want:
- Aperature and Exposure time priority modes. These let you select one setting while the the other is set automatically to provide a good exposure
-Exposure bracketing. This handy if you aren't sure the exposure settings you've chosen are correct. Great learning tool.
-LED readout in the eyepiece display. I can't overemphasize how useful this is.

Good luck with whatever you choose. Just don't feel like you have to spend a lot of money initially. Remember, the camera is secondary.

Buy used

[cybermace5]

If you go to a camera shop that buys and sells used cameras, you can find some excellent deals. This can be better than eBay, because they will let you handle the camera, open all the little doors, push all the buttons, etc. You might even find a shop willing to let you shoot a roll of film and develop it right there.

Good cameras are Nikons and later Canons, but Minoltas aren't bad either. I've had good results with a Minolta X-700 which can be purchased for less than $200. Watch the light seals on the backs of older cameras, the foam rubber ones can get sticky, and velvet ones can wear down.

Re:Buy used

[spaceyhackerlady]

If you go to a camera shop that buys and sells used cameras, you can find some excellent deals.

I second that. For what you're looking to pay you can get a mediocre new camera, or a very good old one.

Unless you have absolutely no way to handle the film, please also consider the many used medium format cameras out there. They can take wonderful pictures - both the old TLRs (I have a YashicaMat), and the old folding cameras (I have a bunch, 1930s to 1950s vintage). You don't need a Hasselblad to take good pictures, but that's OK: for $200, you're not going to get one.

Ultimate involvement (not to mention true photo-geekness) is building your own camera. I built my view camera from a kit. A blast to build, a blast to use (in a meditative kind of way :-), and the results are stunning.

...laura

Re:Buy used

[Jay Maynard]

Foam light seals can be replaced by the patient hobbyist. You can get the seal material and the adhesive on the net from camera repair suppliers; for some cameras, you can even get things pre-cut to fit. One of the most knowledgeable Olympus OM-series repair shops offers a precut foam kit for well under $10.

Whatever you get, find that system's mailing list and get on it. They can help with reputable repair shops, suppliers for system-specific stuff, and so on.

Re:Buy used

[greysky]

Be sure to check a used SLR carefully. If the light seals are worn down it can end up costing you almost as much as a new camera to have it repaired when all is said and done.

OM-10

[Vilim]

I bought an Olympas OM-10 a few years back. Although it isn't manufactured anymore you can ususally pick them up used for relativly cheap. It takes great pictures. I found it to be a great beginners camera.

Re:OM-10

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my OM-10 since almost the day it came out (amazing what Cheryl Tiegs can do for sales).

It has been across the country (twice) and up and down the east coast. It's been banged, scratched and squished.

Salt air, desert heat, brilliant sun reflecting off newly fallen snow and temperatures down to about zero F, it never blinks.

The ONLY thing I have had done to this camera is have the mangetic shutter release replaced 10 years ago.

I have two lenses which do pretty much everything I need: standard f1.8 50mm and an f2 150mm. Throw in a 2x converter, a polarizing filter and a pistol-grip autowinder and that is all any casual photographer needs.

I took it with me on my trip to Vegas and coupled with my Bogen tripod was able to get some shots which could not be done with a standard point-and-shoot camera. Think time exposures inside casinos or at night looking down the strip.

You are correct in that the OM line has been discontinued. Parts will still be made for about 10 years as well as lenses so you still have time.

Otherwise, you'll have to beg/borrow/steal what you need.

I love my OM. *sniff* I consider it my baby. I don't know what I'm going to do when/if the day comes that I have to replace it.

To quote: You can take my OM-10 when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Don't forget Pentax

[nano-second]

When I was 16, my parents gave me a Pentax K-1000 which is a classic student camera. Everything is manual, so you can have complete control. Yes, this offers more room for bad pictures, but that's part of the learning curve. It has a split-focus which is really great and makes moving to manual focus a pretty straightforward change.

If you're concerned about how much you will spend on film, buy a bulkloader. It's not to hard to use and way cheaper than buying individual rolls.

Pentax has a variety of different lenses that are usually interchangeable between different models but beware that older cameras are screw mount and newer models are snap mount. It might be harder to find lots of screw mount lenses on the used market since they are no longer made. I would recommend gettng a snap mount body.

Check out the Olympus OMs - but handle them all!

[Jay Maynard]

I'd recommend an Olympus OM-1 (manual exposure) or OM-2 (autoexposure), personally. Then again, I'm biased, having owned and used an OM-2 since 1976, and an OM-1 before that. They're small (they're the camera that inspired the Nikon FE/FM), light, and handle extremely well. They also have a fiercely devoted following. The biggest drawback is that Olympus has pretty much dropped the system, and in particular never made a successful autofocus version.

A bigger recommendation is to visit a camera store with a wide range of used gear, and spend a couple of hours playing around. You won't make good pictures with a camera that's hard for you to handle or doesn't feel good in your hands. Any camera from a recognized manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, and Konica are the ones you'll likely see) will make perfectly good pictures, and will do just as well in teaching you how to see and capture what you want to capture. The same goes for aftermarket lenses from Tamron, Vivitar, Soligor, or Tokina.

Unlike the previous poster who suggested a digital SLR, I'll recommend you stay away from that until you know better what you like and dislike and can judge your needs on that basis. The field is in way too much flux at the moment, and the costs are still way too high. (You can't get a digital body for less than a kilobuck, and won't be able to for many years, I expect.) There are also too many tradeoffs involved with focal length multiplication effects, and you may well discover that you *like* wide- and super-wideangle lenses - which are simply not available for *any* digital. My most-used camera is an Olympus E-10, but its biggest deficiency is that the widest it will go, even with an accessory lens, is an equivalent 28mm - and there are more than a few times I need wider than that. For those, I reach for an OM-4 and a 24, or 21.

Cannon AE-1

[KReilly]

I started out with this camera when I was first learning. I picked it up at a resale shop for $125 that came with a 50 mm lens. I used it for several years, and eventually decided I wanted a auto-focus camera. I ended up buying a Nikon N-80. It was much more expensive, and came with a cheaper lens. Even though it is nice to not have to focus, especially with taking pictures of little kids and animals. But, I still feel more at home holding my old Cannon AE.

Cheers

Re:Cannon AE-1

[Franciscan]

My first real camera was a Canon AE-1, I upgraded to a Canon T-70 later, but I ended up using the AE-1 more still. The aesthetic experience of the AE-1, the feel of it in my hand, the design of the controls, the ability to be fully manual, the depth of field preview, the odly beautiful completely rugged build of it, all that.

My digital camera sucks. But it's so convenient not having to have your film processed that I hardly use my camera anymore. For snapshots/family photography, digital is the way to go. For art, do what suits your artistic fancy. My dad just bought a Nikon D-100, which is beautiful, but ooh wee, it's a lot of coin.

Warren/Franciscan

Rebel G (not k1000)

[insanely_mad]

Do not get the Pentax k1000. This is the classic beginner's camera, but it's not very satisfying to use. The Rebel G from Canon is a MUCH better camera that gives you all the control that you would want. And even the cheap lenses from Canon are good. I especially recommend the Canon 28-80 zoom. This is a cheap, but very good lense. With this lense and a Rebel G, you will have a serious camera that you will like to use instead of the clunky and outdated k1000.

Nikon FG

[wideBlueSkies]

I reccomend taking a look at this model .

Look here too.

It's a fully manual 35mm with some automatic functionality.

I won't post the specs here, you can find out anything you need by doing a google search. This camera has a pretty good user/fan base.

They're well made, reliable, take a beating, and can be found frequently enough that you can get an extra for parts if needed.

I have 2 of them. I got my first one in 87, and my second in 2001. Both built in 82, and both are still cranking away.

Pristine condition shouldn't cost you more than $200 at a used camera dealer.

Nikon Series E lenses aren't super expensive, but the quality is great. I reccomend that you at least get a 50mm Nikon lens to start with. The off brand lenses(vivitar, sigma, etc) are cheaper, but depending on what you're shooting, you might not care about the lower quality. Actually, I find that the Vivitar lenses are almost as good as the Nikon models.

wbs.

Re:Nikon FG

[rco3]

Agreed. Bought my FG in '86 the week before my tour of Europe. Made many nice photos, and it still operates perfectly. Program mode works wonderfully, and of course you can operate it fully manually.

You'd be happy with an FG.

Re:Nikon FG

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the vote for a Nikon FG. You can get a Nikon FG and a 50/1.8 series E lens for under $150 on EBay.

Its small enough to stick in your coat pocket, and you can use the same lenses as you move up the Nikon SLR food chain.

Moving up from there, I'd go for an FE2 or FA. Either one can be had for under $200. They offer significantly faster shutter speeds and more options for viewscreens. The FE and FM are okay, but don't add much functionality over an FG.

Various Nikons

[Spunken]

I'm a Nikon-man, so I'll tell you what I know about Nikons. Depending on what you want, there are different bodys.

A used, fully manually body can be found for If you want autofocus and advanced sparkling features like winder, built-in flash, star-burst and what-not, check out the F(N)55-65-80-90. Read reviews and determine which you want to afford.

Or you can wait a while for the Nikon F6 which, according to internet-rumours, will support both film- and digital backs. The world greatest film camera AND the digital alternative!

Think about what you need it for, then decide.

[alchemist68]

If you're only going to shoot pictures once in a while, just get a cheap 35mm SLR, even a new one will be all right. My parents bought me a Minolta Maxxum 5000 "the first autofocus SLR" accoring to Minolta. It works well, but I would not call it professional by any means. I use it a few times a year. It you want something built like a tank, buy Nikon; you can pass more film through a Nikon than any other camera in that camera class. If Nikon is too expensive, then go with Canon. My parents learned about these details after getting heavily involved with camera equipment, darkroom, special effects, etc... They wished they'd known then what they know now. But in defense of Minolta, my parents have never had one fail or need professional service; they've been good cameras, but they're not *the best*.

ALL YOUR PICTURE ARE BELONG TO OUR EYE.

Nikon 6006

[AaronW]

Years ago I bought a Nikon 6006 camera body and I've been very happy with it. On Ebay I see them going for $50-150. This camera has lots of features, auto focus, and numerous lighting options. It can be as manual or as automatic as you want. Also, it takes all the standard Nikon lenses.

In automatic mode it generally does a pretty good job, and the auto focus works quite well. I typically use it with a Sigma 28-105mm lense and a Sigma 24mm wide-angle lense.

Of course now I'd go with a digital camera, but I'm waiting for the price to drop a bit on one that takes the same Nikon lenses.

digital "35 mm" camera??

[ilbrec]

What a hell is that?? I thought 35 mm cameras are called 35 mm, because of the size of the film it uses?? Since digital cameras do not use films, there can't possibly be a digital "35 mm" camera, can it??

Remember!

[Whip]

One thing to remember -- When you get right down to it, a camera is a light-proof box that holds some film, and that's it. When you press the shutter button, the camera doesn't matter anymore. Lens, film, and that's it.

With film cameras, as long as the camera has the features you really need (light meter, etc), your pictures aren't going to be made any better by getting a 'better' camera. 'Better' cameras have better autofocus, better film drive, more shots per second, and the like, but nothing that materially affects the actual pictures you take.

Lenses, on the other hand, make a big difference.

And artistic talent, the most difference.

Re:Pentax K1000 AND FILTERS

[Jay Maynard]

I'll second the clear filter recommendation. Every lens I own (and there are 20-somethign of them) wears a UV or skylight filter (they're effectively both the same, a piece of clear glass) full time. If you do encounter the unexpected, a $25 filter is cheaper than a $125 (or $500) lens.

Do spend the money and get a good one, though, since every picture you take will look through it. Stick with Hoya or Tiffen.

Canon Rebel-2000

[Jester99]

It's a bit out of your budget (I think it runs about $250-275 in most places), but it's a good beginning camera - I and many of my friends have one each. You might be able to pick up a used one for $200 or less. I'd strongly urge scrimping together the extra cash and laying out for one, though.

The lens it comes with stock (28-80mm zoom) isn't one of Canon's higher quality ones, but it still gets excellent shots when used properly - very good on the bang/buck ratio. I've taken some great pictures with it.

The camera has several modes, some of which are fully automatic (which I find useful at family gatherings or whenver I just want to take pictures of friends, etc, quickly), but has plenty of semi-automatic and fully manual modes that allow you to do more artistic stuff when you're into that too.

Plus, whenever you're ready to get more serious, all Canon EF-mount lenses will fit it. (A very wide selection is available.)

Frankly, though, this is the wrong place to ask -- look around on Google for "camera reviews"; there are many websites that discuss photography as or more in-depth than people here discuss linux distributions, and you'll get a better feel for what serious photo enthusiasts and professionals use/like/dislike/etc. photozone.de is a good place to start.

(For what it's worth, most reviews I've read of the Rebel-2000 only ever had complaints when they were comparing the camera to something like the Elan, or another camera that cost twice as much. Well, no crap it doesn't have as many features -- you're not paying to get them! ;) When compared to other entry level cameras, it's certainly a heavyweight contender, despite its light body (it's only about 6 ounces). Many people are kind of turned off by this, claiming that it's fragile, but again, if you're an amateur, you're not taking this thing rock climbing with you, are you? If you actually want to do sports photography, or want to bring it into other situations where it needs to be pretty sturdy, you should be looking at pro-level cameras, like Nikon F-series anyway.

By far above anything else, however, the most important factor of a camera is: how does it feel to you? I took the Rebel over the entry-level Nikon because I just felt more comfortable with it. Most camera shops will let you shoot a roll or play with cameras they've got for sale -- you should only go to camera shops that will let you play with the merchendise. If you like a used Pentax over this, then go for it. If you'd prefer the Nikon, that'd be fine too -- you're the one who has to hold it and position it and line it all up: you better like doing it!

Good luck!

Re:Canon Rebel-2000

[WankersRevenge]

I've taken my Rebel to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and to the top of Yosemite. It's lightweight body is wonderful and it's lasted fine being hit, scraped, and even dragged against some rocks (haven't drop it ... yet). The lens takes sharp pics, though I would like a better telephoto. My only other problem was getting dust inside in the internal mirror which is a bitch to get out. It doesn't effect the shots, mind you. Only the framing when you spy the chunk of grit in that beautifully framed sky of yours. :)

Pentax ME Super, 50mm f/1.8 lens

[Clockwork]

I know a lot of people here are going to recommend the Pentax K1000, but don't listen to them. The thing is, as much as you think you do, you really don't want "manual everything." You just want the option of manual operation. The Pentax ME Super looks and feels very similar to the K1000 (it's a manual focus, classy-looking rugged metal body), but it has better specs in every category, weighs less and is slightly smaller, and has the option of an aperture-priority mode, which you definitely want. As soon as you learn about shutter speed and aperture you will very quickly get sick of having to take your eye away from the viewfinder to get all your settings right, which basically amounts to turning a knob in an awkward position on the top of the camera until a needle floats into the right position. However, for those few instances where you choose not to trust the meter, the ME Super has a fully manual mode as well. Best of both worlds.

Pentax is definitely the way to go, though. The manual lenses (especially the later A-series) are top notch and definitely on par with Nikkor from the same era. It's photography's best-kept secret. And the best part is, if you later want to upgrade to a more serious autofocus body (like the MZ-S) or a digital SLR (like the new *ist-D) the lenses are fully compatible, unlike Nikon which has decided to cripple old lenses on their newer midrange cameras. Old Canon FD lenses won't even mount on the new EOS bodies...

Nikon Cameras

[ScUmM_BoY]

I spent around $300 on my Nikon F series camera (used) about 10 years ago, and it is still in great shape and works quite well.

It came with a 50mm lens, and I have access to many of my dad's F series lenses (including some nice fisheye and macro lenses).

I would suggest something in the F series, as they are very solid and dependable cameras, with plenty lenses available used for it.

One (strong) suggestion...

[strabo]

One suggestion I would make is this: If you are planning on (some time in the future) upgrading to a Digital SLR (DSLR) camera, put some thought in to what you might buy in the future. For instance, if you might consider the Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) or EOS 10D (big brother to the 300D), you might want to go with a Canon film SLR now. Likewise, if you might consider the Nikon D100, you might want to go with a Nikon film SLR now.

The reason I suggest this is simple: lenses. I've had a film SLR for years, and recently was given a Digital Rebel for an early Christmas/Birthday gift. The film SLR I have used for years is a Pentax. Great camera... but all the lenses I had collected over the years can not be used on my new Canon. I'm stuck buying all new lenses.

Over time, you are more than likely going to spend much more on lenses than you will on the camera itself. In my opinion, it is very worth it to make sure whatever film SLR you buy now has lenses that you can take to a DSLR in the future, if you have any inclination to move there eventually.

Just my 2 cents...

- strabo

Canon or Nikon.

[mobius_stripper]

My suggestion is to buy an entry-level SLR of Canon or Nikon that has a full manual mode.

Both Canon and Nikon's SLR lenses can be used on their digital SLR lines and Nikon lenses can also be used on D-SLRs from Fujifilm and Kodak.

Your idea of a manual focus camera might be OK from a creative viewpoint, but when you are taking party pictures or want to take some quick shots without a lot of fuss, I've found autofocus useful and necessary in order to capture the moment. Both Nikon and Canon allow you to defeat AF and switch the lenses to manual focus when you need to.

For Canon SLRs, look at http://www.canoneos.com/index.html
For Nikon, look at http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp =6

Another important thing is to buy from a fairly reputed dealer who won't try to bait-and-switch you or saddle you down with low quality 'accessories' as part of your special purchase deal.
I recommend B & H Photo and Video or Adorama

B & H has the Canon EOS Rebel GII with a beginner's lens on sale for $199.95, and the
Nikon N55 with a slightly better lens for $229.95

If you have a little more money to spend, I'd recommend you get one of these SLR bodies with a slightly more decent lens, such as a 28-105 F3.5-4.5. In my experience I've found that my lenses are the bottleneck rather than the capabilities of the body. Invest in a decent lens or lenses up-front and you can be a lot more productive and creative from the start.

Krishna

The digital advantage

[smartin]

The advantage of getting a digital SLR is that you get instantaneouse feed back on your shot. This lets you experiment with different apature and shutter speed settings and learn how they affect the pictures. Rather that having to take the film in and having to wait to see how things turned out.

I know, I know, you don't want digital

[loraksus]

but you should really take a look at it - developing and film will be free and if you get a actual "good" digital camera, it will be worth it.
Why? Well, the more shots you take, the easier it will be for you to get good at it, with digital, you can take your camera with you everywhere and snap away untill you run out of room on cheap cf cards. More shots = more experience - you can try and learn what you want to from a book, but the number of times you press the shutter is really the important thing.

Pick up something old / used like a canon d30 / d60 or one of their newer models like a 1DS if you have the money - real lenses, exceptional picture quality and most of all, you can manually adjust for fstops and the such. Also, most camera append metadata to the photo files, such as fstop, focus distance, shutter speed, and the all important date and time.

Re:I know, I know, you don't want digital

[nullix]

More shots not always = more experience. With digital, there's a tendency to just shoot away without a care since it's free. So why invest the time and energy in the shot since it's free.

I started out digital and took thousands of pictures. I thought the same thing. Of all the pictures I've taken digitally, only 3 of them are a good quality.

Once I switched to film, I had to figure out the differences in film speed. Differences in lighting and setting up a shot. Since each shot costs money, I have to invest more time in shotting it. I have learned more with photography by using film than with digital. I now take better pictures with film than I did with digital.

Re:I know, I know, you don't want digital

[HarveyBirdman]

It's up to the individual. I bought a digital SLR, and I started getting MORE good shots becuase I'm more willing to take risks and try more alternate angles and compositions. It was those alternates that I normally would not have done that started producing the most fruit. Don't blame lackadasical habits of the user on the camera.

Re:I know, I know, you don't want digital

[loraksus]

Well, with a good digital camera you can control the settings and set everything to manual - so you *have* to set up everything, lighting, aperture, shutter speed and the such. That said, most digital cameras under $500 are nearly worthless to anyone who wants to take good pics, but if you're going to spend $250 on a lower end film camera, spending $250 more becomes attractive if you consider the amount of money saved on film and developing over the course of a year. Costco here charges $4 to develop and even at a buck a roll, thats still $5 for 24 pics. Sure, its 50 rolls, but if you are starting out, 50 rolls in a year isn't a lot of film to be using.

And you could take a good film camera and just put on "auto-everything", but that would also defeat the purpose of learning - unfortunately most cheap digital cameras do just that, and don't let you control any features.

Granted film makes you think more about actually taking the shot, but digital lets you control that, bracket each shot by a fstop or two and play around a lot more, and not worry so much about what to discard and what to keep. If only for the ability to (and get in the habit of) bracket every still you take, I think digital is the way to go for a budding photographer. . .

Nikon F2

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you, I wanted to start with an all manual camera so better learn the fundamentals. I bought a used F2 for around $200 and it was perfect.

Reasons for the F2:
1. All manual.
2. Mechanical Shutter (if your battery dies, all you lose is the light meter).
3. Nikon auto-focus lens work with both the manual and AF bodies (I bought AF lenses for the F2, then when I bought an AF body, I didn't need new glass).
4. Tough metal body.
5. Lots of them around.

I think you are on the right track. When I started, a pro photographer friend suggested I buy an all manual camera and I know I learned much more quickly because I heeded that advice. She also told me to only shoot B&W to start; it's a great way to focus on the composition of your shots.

Good luck!

Miranda!

[RandyF]

I think the best camera I ever had was a Miranda. Mine was fully manual with a removadle viewew (for large frame topview for portrature). Incredible camera, if you can find one.

Re:Miranda!

[calyphus]

Next thing ya know someone will be recommending a Topcon.

Try Steve's Digicams, too

[Broadcatch]

Be sure to check out Steve's Digicams great Holiday Wish List section categorized by price range. I generally agree with their picks (and reviews).

Spend a LITTLE extra money on the body

[DaveJay]

I have a Pentax K-1000 from college. I'm 32 now, and the camera has survived bad packing from apartment to apartment to apartment and across the country, has survived being thrown in the bottom of a backpack, etc., and works beautifully to this day.

This is, I believe, a direct result of the metal body. I do not believe a plastic-bodied camera would have stood up to my abuse to this degree. My digital Canon A60 certainly wouldn't (I keep it in a nice padded case.)

So, yeah, don't throw good money at useless body upgrades from a functionality perspective (all manual is a great way to learn) but spending a little extra for a metal-body camera is something I highly recommend.

Re:Spend a LITTLE extra money on the body

[aheath]

Many modern 35mm SLRs cameras materials that are much stronger and more durable than the early plastic bodies. This is especially true for cameras that are designed for serious amateurs. I suspect these bodies are more durable than many digital camera bodies.

Re:Spend a LITTLE extra money on the body

[Clod9]

Agreed, the K-1000 is incredibly robust. I've fallen on mine while taking pictures skiing, dropped it on the sidewalk,
every kind of abuse you can think of short of dunking it in salt water (though it did live on a boat with me for 5 years). It continued to work, dents and all, flawlessly.
I finally had to take it in for repair after over 20 years of use, because one of the light-sensor wires came loose. I will never give up this camera.

That said, though, my next camera will be digital. Darkroom or no, you'll spend money developing pictures if you take a lot of them, and you SHOULD take a lot of pictures.
And although an all-manual camera is great for learning the fundamentals, you will find that you just can't get some pictures if your camera lacks automatic features.
The best camera would make it easy to gain full control WHEN YOU WANT IT, and do a good job of exposing and/or focusing for you when you don't.

Re:Spend a LITTLE extra money on the body

[sg_oneill]

you will find that you just can't get some pictures if your camera lacks automatic features.

Huh? I can categorically tell you that an all manual camera can take ANY, without exception, photograph an auto one can. without fail. Ya just gotta learn how to use the damn thing.

SLR == Single Lens Reflex

[Guillermito]

For the rest of us, the acronym-impaired, SLR means "Single Lens Reflex".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLR

Canon F1

[lacheur]

I have a Canon F1 that I use exclusively. My father gave it to me for me 13th birthday, one of two that he owned. The fact that it's still in perfect working order after a teenage me dragging it through is a testament to its amazing reliability. It's been worked on once in its life that I know of, a $20 cleaning and replacment of a foam damper. On Ebay these cameras are a little more expensive than you want to pay, but there's a reason that 30 year old cameras still command a good price. I can tell you it'll probably be about the same price if you ever decide to sell it.

It's entirely manual, the small watch battery for the light meter runs for years without a change, goes up to 1/2000 of a second exposure, it's got aperature preview, a timer for shots of yourself, etc, etc, etc. The *only* complaint I've ever had is that it's pretty heavy. Go hiking for a few miles, and you start wishing it was one of those little plastic digital jobies. But the weight does help with both the reliability and taking slow exposure shots without a tripod. Hold your breath, lean against a tree, and you can get shots you might otherwise have missed.

It's old skool, but it's solid, dependable, and a great camera to learn on, since you control *everything*.

Re:Canon F1

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll second that. I got an old F1 body last year for $30 from a pro who was moving to a smaller studio and getting rid of stuff she dind't need. I have another Canon and wanted a second body I could use the same lenses with. The F1 is nigh on to indestructable--the body is machined out of a block of solid brass, and it has a minimum of moving parts. This thing used to have a reputation as the camera of choice for war photographers. For a beginner I'd say it's a better choice than the AE-1 or A1. I dropped my A1 once and it needed $178 in repairs.

Pentax K1000...

[OneFix at Work]

Or one of the similar cameras. These are perfect. Not much to go wrong with em. Tons of cheap lenses available...made like a tank...

If you want a new camera, the sucessor of the K1000 is supposed to be the Pentax ZX-M, but Pentax stopped making their own lenses years ago...

I know you say you want to stick with 35mm, but you will find that the cost of film, chemicals (they go bad), time, under/overdeveloped film (if you're doing color), etc can add up and be a pain...

If you aren't quite sure how far you want to go with the whole photography thing, you might look into a digital camera. And may be smart looking below the SLR range. Canon has a new model out this year, the PowerShot A70 that gets 3MP and has options for an underwater body, filter, and extra lenses. You can operate them in fully automatic or manual mode. I have suggested them to more than one person and am expecting one this Christmas to replace my slightly damaged K1000 (sports photography back in high school)...

I used to be 100% 35mm ("just scan your images if you want em in digital")...but the cost of 35mm and film equipment just got out of hand...sold my dark room equipment (kodak color lab) and I'm very excited about getting into digital.

Re:Pentax K1000...

[Animats]

The K1000 was finally discontinued in 1997, over the objections of many pros. It's one of the last fully manual SLRs manufactured.

I have one, I've used it for years, it's been refurbished once, and it works fine.

Realistically, though, I can't see getting into 35mm film at this late date. Larger formats, maybe.

Re:Pentax K1000...

[OneFix at Work]

Yes, but with 6MP cameras (higher resolution than 35mm)...for those that don't know, 35mm is equivalent to 3000x2000 in digital terms (or ~5MP)...and 16MP cameras are available in the high-end professional market (better than Medium Format), it's only a matter of time before all of that technology comes down to a reasonable price...

I think if you have to ask, digital is the only way to go...there really should be no question between Digital and 35mm right now, the question should be Medium Format or Digital...for right now the Digital cameras are cost prohibitive...but give it a few years.

If you buy a decent 3MP snapshot camera right now, by the time you are taking pictures good enough to want a higher MP resolution, Digital SLR cameras will be cheaper.

The other advantage to going with a Digital Snapshot camera is that, if you buy the right one you can add lenses for SLR cameras using a converter...this allows you to rent/buy new lenses that could be used on a SLR camera when you want to upgrade...Not to mention that if you use the LCD to do your framing in digital, you don't need SLR...

Film is dead. Period.

[unc1e_fukka]

I'm sorry to be the down guy here, but I and my wife have been in the photo processing business for over 10 years, and have seen steadily decreasing business as people switch to digital. George Lucas shot his latest film with a digital video camera. The exposure latitude and pixel count of digital cameras is steadily approaching film. Digital cameras are available for under $100. Not an SLR, mind you, but if you're interested in learning or starting amateur photography, a little digital camera can teach you just as much about composition and lighting as an SLR. You can get prints and enlargements from your DIGITAL camera at your local Eckerd Photo. If you are serious about getting into photography, then by all means, go ahead and get the beginners SLR--but buy a used one. If your interest is only casual, then invest in a digital camera. You can see the results of your composition and lighting choices instantly, and you won't waste your money on processing, only to discover that you didn't load the film properly. A final note-- DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, purchase a camera that uses APS film. Kodak thought they could improve on things, but really only made things worse with that abortion of a format. The negative size is SMALLER than 35mm, and the "wide format" feature is simply a gimmick.

Re:Film is dead. Period.

[taradfong]

George Lucas shot his latest film with a digital video camera

Are you referring to Attack of the Clones? If so, while I agree that still film is dying, I wish George hadn't shot digital. From the opening Lucasfilm logo I could perceive the pixels (and this was in a 'digital projector' theatre). For motion pictures, digital is nowhere near the staggering resolution of a 70mm print.

I'm also shocked when I watch DVDs / Direct-TV at the compression artifacts. Maybe only video nerds like me notice it, but I think in this way we took a major step backward from LD.

Re:Film is dead. Period.

[16K Ram Pack]

APS is going the way of the disc film (remember that). It has smaller negatives, and the marketplace it exists in (family/holiday snaps) is being taken over by digital in a big way (most family people I know have gone digital because the saving on processing/film is so large).

Had Kodak developed APS with a larger neg size, they could have sold it on it's beautiful prints. They might have got amateurs to convert from 35mm and even got SLRs released for it.

Re:Film is dead. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

There will never be a substitute for celluloid. Digital lacks the character; in trying to make the exposures too perfect, all character is lost. There is no one with any significant experience who would ever allege that digital will every be anything other than a decent choice for amateurs and speed freaks...

Re:Film is dead. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and vinly LPs are better than CDs, and tube amps are better than solid state. Hogwash.

The digital artifacts present in satellite TV and some DVDs are due to the satellite providers and content producers trying to squeeze as much as they can into as small a package as possible.

Cable and satellite providers compress their signals heavily so they can offer more channels instead of better quality.

Movie studios squeeze the movie and special features all onto one side or one layer of a disc instead of using the more expensive dual sided or dual-layer discs.

Digital video is not quite as good as film--YET. It's only a matter of time. Look at Sony's SACD as a prime example of digital overcoming its limitations.

If you want to invest in the past--get a 35MM. The future is digital. Cheaper, faster, more reliable, and WAY less harmful to the environment.

Film still has its place, I agree that a good 70mm widescreen movie looks fabulous, but how many movies are produced in that fomat anymore? Any?? I own 2 Nikon SLRs and assorted lenses and accessories. If I want a 20x30 enlargement, I'll use the film-based SLR. Anything smaller is handled just as well with a digital SLR.

As a Pro Photographer...

[davew666]

I only use digital equipment now, no point at all in film for me. But I can see that you may want to get started that way, so go for it. I can tell you though that without digital I would never have got into photography like I am now, since you really are restricted in the number of shots you will take, either by money or time. Practice makes perfect, so you do need to take a LOT of photos for experience.

From an equipment point of view, I use Nikons. But... if I were to start from scratch I would take up Canon instead. I think Nion make sightly better camera bodies, but Canon lenses are better value (USM focussing almost standard, better mount design etc.) This may not be important now if you are getting cheapo manual stuff, but if you start upgrading you will be glad to be on the Canon "side"

Have fun!

My two cents.

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I agree with the poster above who said that /. is not the best place to ask questions regarding 35mm cameras. I would suggest photo.net, but since you have asked the question and the discussion is in full swing, here goes.

I would suggest a Canon Rebel 2000 with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II lens. The camera is not an all-metal industrial tool, but it does have many features that are normally found in pro bodies and it costs little more than $100 off eBay in brand-new condition. About the lens, well, it costs a maximum of $65 brand-new and has a photodb MTF rating of 4.2/5, which is pretty darned sharp. This setup will be light, practical and cheap. It won't withstand falls and hard knocks, but if you're just a bit careful, you'll be able to use this nice camera for a long time.

Don't bother with used Nikon gear, they are WAY over-priced.

Re:My two cents.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Yashica 50mm f1:1.4 is a 4.3 on photodb!

Pentax MZ3

[future assassin]

I would go with the Pentax MZ3 or MZ5. I have the MZ3 and it accepts most Pentax K manual lenses. Its a pretty nice camera although I have replaced it with a Canon D30 as I dont want to spend anymnore money on film since hard drives are less expensive, plus cant beat the instant preview of a photo on a didgital camera.

Heres a review of it the MZ3 Review

Here are some photos I took with it. MZ3 Gallery

A camera is just a lightproof box.

[junkymailbox]

Any camera will be fine. It's just a lightproof box. There's 3 things that are important in taking a picture. In fact .. these 3 things make the picture. Aperture/Shutter/and Time. All a camera does is regulate those things to get what you want. Then the lens can "see" the world. So if you want a "good" picture learn the basics then get some good lens to collect some light.

Olympus OM series

[98jonesd]

I started out with an OM10 i paid 75 for with a 50mm lens.
Good for beginners, easy to use, cheap to buy+maintain, loads of good accessories, and the Zuiko lenses are excellent.
I cant wait to get my OM4ti :-D
more info here:
http://uk.dir.yahoo.com/arts/visual_arts/ph otograp hy/cameras/35mm/olympus/OM/

personally....

[JamesCronus]

personally i've got an olympus OM10, the OM series is amazing, mine is 20 years old and still going strong, it gives you as much control as you want and is a solit yet quite compact SLR

Canon AE-1 Program

[chillmost]

This camera rules. I cut my teeth on this camera. It is sooo good for learning the basics. There are all kinds of lenses for this camera available including 3rd party options. It can go fully manual and full automatic (except autofocus, but that's okay, cuz autofocus is for sucks) depending on what kind of mood you are in.

Re:Canon AE-1 Program

[ThogScully]

I'll second this recommendation and hopefully use my karma to draw some more attention to it. I have a Canon AE-1 Program and it really is a great learner. Everything is fully manual to learn and play with things, but it's also the first ever camera to have a microprocessor for automatic fstop and shutter speed adjustment, using technology still used in Canon's today to identify the ideals for a normal shot.

Aside from being a great learner, I find it's also just a great camera - there's nothing I can't do with mine and it takes great shots even after so many decades (came out ~1980). Ask some professionals as well as photo gurus on other sites and I'll bet many if not most have had some experience and good recollection of the AE-1 Program.

Just a note though, this is different from the AE-1, which I think had automatic fstop, but not shutter, or maybe vice-versa. While still good, I find that automatic capabilities for both is incredibly useful to kind of gauge your guesses until you get used to things.
-N

Re:Canon AE-1 Program

[PeDRoRist]

I'll have to third that. The AE-1 (Program or not) is a very good camera for learners. I started with it but sadly, mine died several years ago (its previous owner was not exactly careful with it, but I had it for free)

Now i'm using a 1978 A-1 which is superior to the AE-1 (more features, handling is easier, picture quality is a bit better IMHO) and I still can find many FD type lenses for it. The only trouble with this camera is power consumption. Once the 6V battery's a bit weak, nothing will work correctly.

AFAIK the AE-1 Program also has this problem.

WDYM by "beginner?"

[csoto]

Do you mean "never took pictures before" (or seldom), or "beginner photography buff?" If you want to learn about photography, you need a fully manual (or auto that allows you to shut all the auto off). I suggest an old Nikon F series, or a Minolta SRT201, which is what I got. I paid about $100 on consignment. The most important part is that I got a couple of good Minolta lenses (not cheap Chinese crap). Remember the most important thing - the camera is just a box to hold your film. The lens is what takes the picture.

Sigma SA-7

[Todd1]

We recently picked up a Sigma SA-7 from Ritz Camera in a package deal that came with two lenses for under $300. Sigma primarily makes lenses for other cameras, and their camera is actually pretty good, too. The features are right up there with more expensive Canon and Nikon cameras.

I'll sell you one!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a pentax MZ-50, great SLR camera with a 35-80mm lens.

Made me happy for years

FILM?

[silicon not in the v]

This 35mm film you speak of--is that like a tape drive in the camera? I'll bet that could store a lot more images than the flash cards they put in digital cameras nowadays. I wonder if I could upgrade my camera to use one of these film drives you're talking about. I'd probably have to buy a film reader for my computer, though, unless it has a USB cable.

Go to a good camera store

[OrangeTide]

Find a local shop, especially one that caters to a nearby community college. You will usually be able to find someone there that is willing to "talk shop" and show you the pros and cons of different units. The best time to go is when it's not busy and the store clerk/owner has time to give you his full attention.

Here are some points you will want to consider:

• Used camera / New camera (if you're on a budget, nothing wrong with used)
  
• Mostly telephoto/zoom shots or close-up?
  
• Wide-angle (yes. you want this. more so than a zoom lens)
  
• Indoor or Outdoor (indoor, get a wimpy flash. outdoor get an enormous flash)
  
• Portable? (once you get all the accessories you now have this giant sack to carry around with you)
  
• Auto-Focus / Manual (you want AF, but make sure the camera you get allows you to use it as a manual without damage and comfortably). AF generally has poorer control than manual when you want manual, so compare cameras in the shop and see which one feels right. (Start with Nikon and Minolta and work your way down to Canon)
  
• automatic film advance/rewind - almost all new AF cameras have this, some olders ones do not. if you get used make sure you don't mind pulling on the thumb toggle after every shot.
  
• Subject - outdoor scenery, people indoors, pets/children (action!), high speed action(airshows), ... this will help you determine what accessories you need first.
  
• Film cost - this is a big factor. check out how much it costs to buy the film and then get it developed. Compare costs and reviews for walgreens/kmart versus seattle filmworks, to get an idea of the range of quality and prices and processing options. Personally I'd stick with kodak or fujifilm, but there are other film brands that are good. Also for best results you should develop that film right away (I have film that's been sitting in my box for over two years, not good.)
  

Now the hard part is this. Determining quality. You *can* ask the clerk at a good camera shop, and he'll be somewhat honest. But a photography magazine will quickly tell you what brands and models the pros are drooling over.

But you can forget about all that, for now. If this is your first camera. You should stick to an entry level model of a decent brand (I mentioned Minolta and Nikon). You will probably not notice the quality differences. Good cameras don't fall apart if you treat them right, the quality really boils down to how the camera helps you get the best possible picture.

I picked up a little Minolta for a decent price in downtown San Francisco. Of course that's a tourist trap, so you have to be careful there. But I managed to talk him out of a store model that looked great, and I got to have the full warranty. And a used zoom and used flash.

Now the real thing you must consider:

Are you willing to give up instant gratification? A decent 35mm film SLR, after you by enough options to have some real fun is going to cost only slightly less than buying a nice digital camera. (about $400). Sure you can buy just the SLR and a wide angle for under $200 used these days. But you will envitably end up buying a bunch of stuff.

Honestly, the camera I bought a year ago. I no longer want/use. I will sell you the whole lot for a fair price if you have your heart set on film.

Canon EOS 300

[nmg196]

It's excellent! I've been using it for a year or two now in the UK and have had no problems. It's really easy to use, it has an excellent autofocus system that you can actually *trust* and use all the time (unlike some!).

I can't really fault it. Well one minor thing: it's made of plastic - it could be better if it was metal or magnesium, but that would just make it much heavier. The EOS 300 (often called Rebel-something in other countries?) I think is Canon's best selling SLR anyway - which says quite a lot on it's own.

In fact I love it so much, that I've just this minute put it on eBay so I can upgrade to the EOS 300D (digital) which is even better (albeit about 8 times more expensive!)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em=2971626884 (UK)

:)

Nick...

Build the System

[mesach]

Remember to think to your future, Do you want to be Re-Buying the lenses you have when you want to get a new body, If you like nikon but cant afford a Good Nikon, Dont go and buy a canon with hopes of buying a Nikon in the future...

Buy a low end of what ever system you want, then when you get a new body that has alot more features you can still use the lenses that you have.

and spend the money on the glass, thats where the picture really matters. If you get slow glass you will really be frustrated with having to search out something to steady your camera on in low light.

look for an older Nikon Not too old because they changed the mounts, and get yourself a 50mm 1.4 or a 1.2 lens if you can find one, start with that.

Re:Build the System

[aheath]

You have an excellent point about considering the future when buying a first 35mm SLR camera. Canon and Nikon seem to be the brands with the greatest range of bodies and lenses. Starting with a low end new or used Canon or Nikon provides plenty of room for future growth. Your caveat about the lens mount is also a good point.

I think the most important thing is to find a reputable camera story that can assist in the choice of a new camera. Another consideration is finding a store that carries both the amateur and professional lines. Nikon now divides stores into amateur stores and professional stores. If you think you may want to buy the top of the line sometime in the future, you may be better off starting at a store that carries a complete range of cameras instead of just the bottom and middle of the range.

Re:Build the System

[calyphus]

look for an older Nikon Not too old because they changed the mounts, and get yourself a 50mm 1.4 or a 1.2 lens if you can find one, start with that.

I think the 50/f1.2 would bust that $200 total budget.

FUD clarification: All Nikon lenses are backward compatible (except the recent stripped down G series) to older cameras. However, the older (pre 1975) lenses are not forward compatible without modification. But it is advisable to get only Ai or Ai-S manual lenses for guaranteed compatibility to all cameras.

Re:Build the System

[jallen02]

I picked up a Canon Rebel 2K for like 180 and the f/1.8 50mm lens for 50 more.

The picture quality on high end print film with the 50mm is OUTSTANDING. Reading all of the reviews (technical and anecdotal) this lens is right up there with the top of the line max out your credit card lenses (in terms of picture quality, the build quality is pretty low). Canon has some really great stuff in the low end if you hunt around. They also have some really bad stuff. f/1.2 compared to f/1.8 really isn't worth whatever you would have to spend for it. It does give you that extra stop or two in low light situations, but the 1.8 is just as good most of the time :)

Jeremy

Re:Build the System

[penguin7of9]

Remember to think to your future, Do you want to be Re-Buying the lenses you have when you want to get a new body,

It really doesn't make such a big difference. Lenses in reasonable condition have decent resale value, so switching systems isn't all that expensive.

Dont go and buy a canon with hopes of buying a Nikon in the future...

Yes, that would be foolish, in particular since Canon has such a nice range of lenses.

If you get slow glass you will really be frustrated with having to search out something to steady your camera on in low light.

That alone is a good reason to go digital. Something like the Sony DSC cameras give you the equivalent of a 35-200mm f2.0-2.4 Carl Zeiss zoom with outstanding quality. Film-based cameras can't even get close.

Re:Build the System

[falconwolf]

Here in the US Mid West, a good place to get used equipment is National Camera Exchange.

Canon AE-1 makes a good choice

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a manual camera, check ebay. One I can highly suggest is the Canon AE-1 or AE-1 Program. I have a 27 year old AE-1 (father bought it in 1976.) After being bashed around, left sitting on the ground in the rain and just about any other sorts of torture, it finally seized up on me on Dec 6 after the local Santa Claus parade. Problably just needs a bit of cleaning and lubricating.

Canon, Nicon, Minolta and Pentax all make great cameras. As a not, most modern cameras have full manual controls and focus can be done manually.

Mid-80s Minolta X-700

[The Ape With No Name]

Tough as nails camera with all the bells and whistles. It has full auto-to-manual exposure/f stop control but not the crutch of auto focus. you can get them on EBay for ~250USD with a lens all day long. There is a lot of aftermarket glass for the X-700 series as well, most of it good Sigma stuff.

Re:Mid-80s Minolta X-700

[Anonymous Coward]

The Minolta X-570 and the Minolta X-700 are both excellent cameras -- far superior to the X-370, the only member of the family still available on new camera shelves.

Both support Manual and Aperture-priority modes. Both support TTL-metered flash (extremely useful for indoor photos with a bounce/tilt flash). A 50mm f/1.7 Minolta lens and a medium-range third party zoom will carry you far.

Differences between them are fairly slight. The X-700 has full Program mode, while the X-570 has the more useful Manual viewfinder display.

Buy from the past, think toward the future.

[SoupIsGood Food]

35mm film has a very, very narrow edge over digital. That edge will disappear in 2-3 years, and is already gone at the high end. Kodak, Canon and Leica's flagship DSLRs easily exceed film in resolution and color, provided you don't mind paying eight grand for a body.

Bearing in mind the future is digital, buy into a system you can bring over to digital. Pentax, Nikon and Canon all have DSLRs that use their old lens mounts. (Leica R and Contax N, too, but $200 gets you a used lenscap and a product brochure.)

Some systems that have great optics and nice bodies, but aren't ever going to see a digital body, are systems you should avoid. These include Minolta, Olympus, Canon and Contax manual focus systems. Minolta's AF line doesn't have a digital body, but it's just a matter of time.

For $200, look into used Pentax gear. Manual focus K-mount bodies are available everywhere for $50-100, and the Pentax lenses are sharp. Multi-coated Takumars are sharp and cheap, especially the 80-200mm zoom, but the Takumars sold in the '90s are rubbish. Avoid no-name lenses, and stick with Pentax or Takumar glass. Some Tamron, Tokina and Sigma lenses may be OK, but do your homework on them before you buy. You should be sticking with the primes, anyway if you're starting out.

For $200, you should be able to assemble a 28mm 2.8, a 50mm f/2, and a 135mm f/2.8 or 80-200 f/4 zoom and a cheap flash, alongside a nice manual body like a used ZX-M, K-1000, or even one of the non-Pentax K-mount bodies, like Phoenix.

Another option is to get a used medium format TLR, like a Yaschicamat, Mamiya or Seagull, and a light meter. If you can find one, a used Koni-Omega or Mamiya "Press camera" rangefinders offer great lenses inexpensively.

SoupIsGood Food

You migh not want to hear this, but:

[Matey-O]

Spend the least amount of money you can on the body and blow the budget on a few good lenses. A 58mm fixed lens is great for teaching you to move to compose a shot, and will pull in enough light to take good shots in less light.

Relying on a zoom is a bad thing to learn right off the bat.

A _short_ zoom (28-80 or 28-110) is good for general photography, but be aware that a zoom lens give up light gathering ability for that zoom, OR you end up paying cubic dollars for a huge cannon you won't want to carry around.

This is all assuming I can't possibly convince you to go digital. I've shot 10 times the exposures in the three years I've gone digital than I did for the 6 years I shot film. Further, if you get a camera with a reasonable fixed lens (35mm equivalent 30-110, you'll take better pictures, always have the right lens mounted AND eliminate the dust issues with changing lenses and scanning negatives or prints later.

I just traded my Nikon kit for a coolpix 5400. I couldn't justify the $200 additional for their prosumer 5700. They had just dropped the price of the camera to $700 for this Xmas season. Plus, it's made with their professionall level glass. (The same stuff I paid a premium for when I got into film.)

So. $700 for the camera, $50 for a 256 Mb Compact Flash, and shot til your fingerprints wear off.

(There are several cameras in that range that are good to excellent.)

I started with film because at the time, it was clearly superior. Now, depending on your needs, that' s not the case.

Nikon FM-10

[Tsuzuki]

The FM-10 is a fully manual camera I picked up a few years back and it's still my favourite camera. It looks like it's sitting in your price point, too, but it doesn't have a flash. If you want to be able to just point and shoot sometimes, the Pentax MZ-50 is pretty decent with full auto, semi auto and full manual modes.

I shop for used lenses and flashes at camera stores because I'm cheap and photography is not my main hobby. :D There are still things you can't do with a digital camera, contrary to popular belief. Half the fun is in the darkroom!

Re:Nikon FM-10

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I have one too, it's a great camera.

Leave room in the budget

[spun]

for a good flash and some filters. If you will be shooting landscapes you will want a polarizing filter and a yellow haze filter. Later you might want to add a tripod and a cable release. You'll want to buy a couple more lenses before long: a wide angle and a zoom. Then there's the bag to carry all the stuff. And don't forget the ROLLS AND ROLLS of film and the processing costs. Photography is fun, but expect to take a lot of lousy pictures even after you get good.

Old Canon body, fixed and/or short zoom/macro lens

[(0d0]

I see people saying "Pentax" or "Nikon" a lot. I perfer Canon. Any of these will honestly work well as long as it is solid, has minimal electronics, and manual everything. If the camera is older than about 20 years (not sure exact age cut/off) make sure that the light meter battery has been updated to take modern batteries and not old Mercury-based batteries.

Once you get a camera body, it's time to talk lenses. You "have to have" a fixed-focus lens. That is the basis for any set-up. Make sure it is at least mid-range quality. You're just starting and I doubt you will keep using that lens for a lifetime.

If you still have money to work with, consider a short zoom/macro lens. There is a whole world waiting to be explored and photographed at very close distances. You can't get those shots without a macro lense.

From my own experience, I have a Canon FtB body which has no electronics save a light meter. Shutter speeds go between 1 sec. to 1/1000 sec. if I remeber correctly (don't have the camera with me) plus a "bulb" setting. It has a shutter release lock, a self timer, and a mirror lock. This last is especially useful at slow shutter speed so that the only moving part is the actual shutter.

Do some research to determine what you "have to have" in a camera body then go to ebay to find the one you want. You can probably find lenses the same way. Also look for local consignment stores/pawn shops/used camera shops.

Happy photographing.

get a full manual

[grimani]

so you won't get spoiled by autofocus and actually learn the camera.

fm10 has a good starter set.

Go Used

[digitect]

Do what I did and go to a used camera store (like Southeastern Camera).

Not only will your dollar go much farther, but you can piece together what you want. I started out with an old Canon AE1 body, two lenses (35mm and 20mm), a cheap leather body/lense case, a camera gear case with adjustable foam inserts, several filters, a remote bulb, and some cleaning stuff for maybe $200 US.

Granted the camera is manual, without any automatic settings, but this is absolutely the best way to learn. Film and developing costs a huge amount, so save yourself the shiny new camera and killer telescopic lense, and instead buy a book on photography, invest in a decent light meter and go shoot a bunch of film, documenting your exposure lengths, f-stops, and light levels in a notebook. Wow, will you get better in a hurry.

Better yet, take a cheapo community college course which will force you to learn basic things like optics, framing, how cameras work, how film works and some general composition rules. Plus it will give you the motivation to shoot rolls more often than you usually would.

HTH.

It doesn't really matter

[Rocketboy]

The camera, I mean. Anything in the $200 range is going to be pretty much the same, feature-wise. Some will have this feature and some will have that but nothing will have everything.

The real question is, what do you want to photograph? 35mm is very versatile but for extra features you have to pay more. There are many used cameras in your price range and a few new (note that the K1000, while a fine camera, is no longer being made. You may be able to find new ones in stores, though.)

Personally, I don't think you need to worry about the brand. They're all pretty much the same, regardless of what their proponents and detractors have to say. The best idea for you is to go somewhere you can actually hold and dry-fire candidates before you have to buy them: it really helps having someone show you where all the buttons are and what they do and feel how it works in your hands.

Once you've narrowed the choices to three or fewer, research user comments on the web (and take everything you read, including this, with a grain of salt.) One note about used cameras: be sure that the batteries it needs are still being made! The old Minolta SRT series cameras were some of the best inexpensive all metall all manual 35mm SLRs ever made by anyone, but they were designed to use mercury cells which are now illegal. They can use Wein air cell batteries, or be converted to use currently available alkalines, but Wein cells will cost a bit more and the conversion to use alkalines will cost, too. Other older cameras have the same problems and for some of them, the End is Nigh. I have a couple of ancient Yashica Electro 35s (old rangefinders) which live underneath my car seat (good beater camera.) There are no currently available batteries for this camera: the last supplier of near-equivalents stopped making the odd size a couple of years ago. (If anyone knows where I can get a few, let me know!)
Good luck!

Rb

Don't underestimate film cost

[fd]

This year alone I've taken around 4,800 digital photos on my digital Canon S50 and plan on taking another 300 or so before the year is over.

The cost of 35mm film alone WITHOUT processing would have cost me anywhere from $400-$800 this year depending on the type of film I bought. Processing would increase the cost, obviously. Even if you have your own dark room you need to buy chemicals and paper. The money I saved in film more than made up for the price of the camera.

In other words, a $1,000 digital SLR will probably cost you less in the long run than a $200 film SLR if you take a lot of photographs. That said, I personally don't plan on investing in a digital SLR until I can get 10 megapixels for around $600 (hopefully some time next year).

Re:Wrong Forum (maybe not)

[Anonymous Coward]

See if you can find a photography class at the local college. I took one 40 years ago, and they taught me to develop my own film. Also, your camera store might have classes, or know where one is held. Professional instruction in photography will give you a lot from the hobby later on. You can have both digital and film cameras. Movies are something else. Stick with still photography, until you know all the basics. You will then, after some classes, be able to spot the errors in any photograph, and become a better photographer in the process. I have a small series of digital images at this address that were taken with an early digital camera, in 1997. At least with a digital camera, you can share your pictures via the web quickly. There are some film processors that will develop your film and give you a CD, to do the same thing.

35mm manual SLR

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, the Pentax K-1000 is a really good starter camera, that's why my teacher in HS suggested. You might also look around for an old Minolta SRT-101. Almost identical to the K-1000 but older. It was on the market during the Vietnam era. My father purchased his SRT101 in the Philipeans during the time and is the camera I learned on and still use today. Never broken down, never had a problem with it. You can also get good quality lenses for dirt cheap. I recently purchased a 300mm mirror lens for about $60. I've seen the SRT101 body itself for as litte as $50 on ebay and in used computer stores. Something you might want to also consider is looking for a camera rental shop. Rent a few different manu bodies and lenses and get a feel for them all. As mentioned, Sigma makes good entry level lenses, you can usually get 2 lens sets in the $200 arena.

Canon ftb or Mamiya C330

[Anonymous Coward]

For 35mm I love my Canon ftb. It's completly manual. The only thing the battery does is work the light meter. The nice thing is you can still shoot photo's when the battery dies or its frigid outdoors and you want to get some nice winter shots. For a lightmeter I prefer a good handheld over the built in one in the ftb, but thats personal preference. The lightmeter in the ftp is acceptable in all but the low light situations. In a pinch with b/w film you can guesstimate and get a usable result. For an external lightmeter look for a good used Gossen.

If your darkroom can do larger format consider a Mamiya C330. It's a real pleasure to gaze down its large view finder. It's the poor mans Cadillac of medium format cameras. It has all the bells and whistles, its built very well. It has bellows for lens extension so you can get really sharp closeup focusing without having to buy an expensive macro lens for a 35mm. Plus the 56x56mm negative size yields exceptional enlargements. Sharp enough to cut your eyeball on :)

For snapshots I use an Olympus digital, for serious work I use the Mamiya or Canon depending on circumstance.

Re:Canon ftb or Mamiya C330

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for posting to my own comment. Yes, I was stoopid and bought a fairly recent fully auto 35mm camera. I don't use it. It doesn't allow me enough creative control, it eats batteries, and doesn't produce results as well as my "old" equipment.

For educational material see if you can find the Ansel Adams books on zone photography. Not only does he explain the technical bits well, he concentrates on the craft and artistic feeling of making photographic art.

PS: A nice complemehttp://www.geocities.com/heidoscop/mam_c33 0.htmnt for the Mamiya C330 thanks to google:

Minolta XG-1 - best I've seen

[sunilhari]

I've been shooting a Minolta XG-1 for years now - great lens and flash options, fully manual as well as fully automatic modes, electronic light meter, and incredibly rugged. Plus, they go for roughly $75 on ebay, and they don't leak light. Best bet for the money.

Re:Minolta XG-1 - best I've seen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll completely agree. When my hand-me-down XG-1 died, I bought two more bodies off eBay for approx $70 both in better condition then mine was.

The full manual control is perfect when you're learning or feeling creative, but the auto exposure is great when you don't want to think about what you're doing :)

Re:Minolta XG-1 - best I've seen

[slagish666]

I agree. This is the camera I started on, then I bought a family member's X-700 and am very happy with that. But, I took a lot of pics with the XG-1 and found it to be a great camera -- I actually miss it!

features missing on K-1000

[morgue-ann]

I started with a K-1000, but when it was $130 from K-mart in 1984. They aren't made anymore and are more expensive than warranted due to (overblown) reputation.

Yes, they're tough (mine still worked fine 4 years ago with no CLA (clean, lubricate and adjust) when I traded up to a Super Program), but they're lacking:

1) Crappy meter. Slow to react and wierdly non-linear at low light levels, so not good for existing light photography with an f/1.4 50mm lens & 400ASA film.

2) No depth of field (a.k.a. depth of focus) preview. This is a hard feature to learn how to use, but control of DOF is a big part of learning photography and one area where 35mm kicks the crap out of point-and-shoot digicams (which have small sensors, short focal lengths and deep DOF so hard to knock the background out of focus for portraits).

3) Slow flash sync (X) speed. 1/60th, right? Once you learn manual existing-light photography, you might want to try manual (guide number/focus distance) flash photography. For fill-flash (lighting up a face shaded by a hat brim or eyes shaded by brow), faster sync gives you flexibility.

[I actually don't recommend trying to learn to use bounce & other tricks to make flash look more natural on anything but digital unless you have a darkroom. Too much lag between exposure & result to figure out what you're doing]

4) rubberized-cloth fully mechanical shutter. This means the battery only powers the meter & the camera will work with no battery at all. However, it isn't as accurate as quartz-controlled metal blade shutters like in the SuperProgram.

That said, the Pentax line is nice because the lenses work on the new bodies (including their digital *ist), though sometimes metering doesn't work. Nikon is the only other mfg. that kept the mount the same when they went autofocus-- Canon & Minolta changed. Minolta still makes their manual focus cameras, though. Canon manuals are orphaned with parts getting harder to find.

---

Make sure you get a "fast" lens. 85mm or 100mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4. It's damned hard to focus an f/2 50mm lens (which came on my K1000 originally) because the DOF wide-open is too deep to give you a "snappy" focus.

---

Oh and KEH for mail-order used.

Re:features missing on K-1000

[WuphonsReach]

2) No depth of field (a.k.a. depth of focus) preview

That is my #1 issue with the K-1000 (bought mine in 1986 or 1987, still have it). I used a friend's Nikon or Minolta (a long time ago) where you could partially press the shutter button to see the true depth of field.

Currently drooling over the new digital SLRs... (shooting with a Sony 3 megapixel CD-R camera until them).

Re:features missing on K-1000

[verifiedCoward]

2) No depth of field (a.k.a. depth of focus) preview.

Any K-mount lens includes a built-in poor-man's depth of field preview feature: just release the bayonet lock and rotate the lens barrel about 15 degrees -- not so far that the lense falls off the mount, but enough for the diaphragm lever to disengage causing the iris to close to its current setting.

Is this not /.? Where's the hacker ethic?

Amen, brother

[kzinti]

The K-1000 is great for beginners because it simplifies the task down to its essential controls - focus, shutter speed, and aperture. No fancy modes, auto-this, auto-that. By learning to use a fully manual camera, you'll improve your technique on an automatic camera, because then you'll know when it's better to turn off some of that automatic stuff.

I bought my K-1000 back in '86, and it's still one of my favorite cameras. My only (minor) complaint is that I'd rather have a split-prism focusing screen; I find them easier to use than the microprism screen in the K-1000. Too bad the focusing screens can't easily be changed out.

Find yourself a gently used K-1000 and have a great time.

--Jim

Minolta Dynax 5

[Sam Lowry]

As for the price and feature set it beats Canon Elan 7(E) and Nikon 75. And you will find it for less than 200. However be prepared to spend at least 1000$ for the lenses if you want to get good pictures.

simple question, simple answer.

[timerider]

As you already decided that you'll stick with film instead of following the digital craze, I assume you also want to learn. So you'll learn.
Best way to learn: do it yourself. so, whatever cam you get, make sure that it never does the work for you; get one with as little electronics as you can find. a few red/green leds in the finder to warn of overexposure is ok, but more is too much.

some Names / brands (mostly old stuff, go for ebay or pawnshops):
fuji stx2 -- that one was my first one
exakta
olympus om1 / om2 -- my dad had an om2

now that you're saddles with a cam, get a book as well. but dont ask me, I learned from my dad ;) ... you might consider at least reading a bit on processing as well...

bye,
[L]

Nikon FM2n

[Laplace]

I have a Nikon FM2n with a MD-12 motor drive that I'm selling. It's a great camera; my vision demands autofocus, though, so I'm selling it. Feel free to make me an offer!

Skip 35mm - get a TLR

[Anonymous Coward]

If, like you said above, you have darkroom equipment and want to learn how to use it fully, I'd get a cheap 6x6 TLR.

• several reasons:
• Less automation. You have to think more about every shot, and make sure that you _set_ the exposure to how you want the image represented on film. This will lead you to learn about depth of field and defocused-hilights, creative motion blur, etc....
• a TLR can be handheld at a lower shutter speed than an slr, because there is no mirror or focal plane shutter, and can be grasped in a more stable way. This lets you really take advantage of subject motion blur. you only get 12 shots on a roll. This isn't necessarily a limitation, but can be a creative boon. If you want to experiment with a certain technique, you don't have to wait until 36 exposures are up to see the results.
• Larger negative = better, finer detail, better tonal gradation, better image overall. A technically perfect 35mm shot is always worse than a technically perfect 6x6 shot, by virtue of the increased negative size.
• TLRs look cool. When doing candid street photography, people often comment to me about my camera, and they are more than happy to let me snap them. It becomes a conversation piece. Also, since you don't hold the camera to your eye (most have waist-level viewfinders) you can take pictures without drawing undue attention to yourself. You can also hold the camera upside down above your head pointed downward, and still see the image to compose a bird's eye shot.
• 120 film is IMHO easier to work with in the darkroom than 35mm.

My recommendation would be a yashicamat 124g or equivalent from ricoh, rollei, mamiya, etc... As long as it has a 4 or 6 element taking lens, and is in good working condition, and you use a lens hood (extremely important!!!) your images can be indistinguishable from those taken with an expensive hasselblad, and can be better than anything taken with a nikon or canon.

Whatever you do finally decide on, remember that if you buy something used inexpensive (but high quality) then it really does not matter if you buy into a 'system' such as nikon or canon. Don't get me wrong, I love my nikon F2, but the hype they give is just that - a pitch to get you to part with more of your money. Don't become a gearhead and let 'brand loyalty' get in the way of taking pictures.

Happy shooting!

What sort of photography do you have in mind?

[Drishmung]

Do you aspire to be Brian Brake or Ansel Adams?

Why not find a local photographic club---even before you have a camera, and ask their advice? Have a long talk with people at the club, not about the hardware they use, but about photography itself. Find out what interests you, what directions you find attractive, and then take some more advice on how to achieve those ends.

Yeah, right

[filtersweep]

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=ht tp%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcI SAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSor t&query=Pentax+K1000+

Re:Yeah, right

[frinkster]

Wait until those auctions end and then compare them to the KM auctions. For half the price (or less), you get the same camera with added features.

Fondle them, pick one

[nuggz]

I got a Canon Elan.
I think that the Canon 620/630 and Elan just feel right in my hands.

The camera is just a dark box that holds film anyway, just make sure it is comfortable.

Nikon N6006/8008

[greysky]

I have a nikon N6006, and have been quite happy with it. It does both manual and auto focus, and you can find lenses on ebay for cheap from time to time. The great thing about it is that the lenses are compatible with many of the more popular digital slr bodies (Nikon N100D comes to mind). If you anticipate wanting some of the more advanced features (such as depth-of-field preview), then the N8008 is better, but when it comes down to it, the 6006 is a great, fairly rugged (metal body rather than plastic) SLR camera.

Re:Nikon N6006/8008

[rabid_dave]

I have a 6006 and I'm pretty sure it is polycarb over a metal chassis. In other words, it's still got metal where it counts: lense mount and chassis. Still, you could probably club someone to death it and then take their picture with it.

The focus of the 6006 is a little slower (and it hates horizontal lines) than with newer Nikons (N70's come to mind and shouldn't cost much more on the used market).

A good Resource

[mesach]

Called Building a 35MM SLR System

Photo.net is one of the best resources for photography questions... I can get just as lost there as I can here reading the posts.

More photos you take, the better you'll get

[Goonie]

Basically, the secret to being a good photographer is to take a lot of photos. The more you practice, the better you'll get, and the more good shots you'll get along the way - even if by chance :) So, in my view, a digital camera is likely to be a better learning tool as you can take as many photos as you want without having to worry about the expense.

Used Nikon FE/FG-body

[robathome]

For an inexpensive, solid 35mm SLR body, I would definitely recommend the Nikon FE/FG's. The FE2 and FG are both readily available used in the price range that you are looking for. The FE2 provides a fast 1/4000 shutter and 1/250 flash sync, and has an aperture-priority Auto mode. The FG has a slower shutter (1/1000) and sync (1/90), but adds a fully automatic Program mode.

Both are manual focus, feature center-weighted Through-The-Lens metering, and take the same 1/3N lithium cell battery. A key feature of the Nikon system is that a new autofocus D-mount (AF-D) will fit a 20 or 30 year old camera just fine, and work perfectly with Nikon's auto-index (AI) aperture. You can start with an old manual-advance, manual-focus body and accumulate a selection of nice lenses, both manual focus (AI) and AF. Then, you can transfer those to a more recent AF system, or even transfer those D-mount lenses to a new digital body (like the D100).

Indeed, the ultimate learning system

[kcm]

The beginner's camera is (and has been for years) the Pentax K-1000. It's pretty much the defacto standard for students and beginning photographers.

I cannot agree more. I've been seriosuly into film and digital photography for almost 11 years, now. I would suggest nothing less than a study, manual, easy-to-use SLR like the K-1000. Get a 50mm lens to go with it, as that's approximately the human eye focal length at 35mm.

You will learn what apertures mean, what shutter speeds do, how to control depth-of-field, and how to work with light. It's manual, yes, but that's a GOOD thing in your case. Learn first, appreciate features afterwards. And you'll learn to conserve film before you learn to waste it (i.e. digital) :).

I'd even go so far as to suggest a simple B&W developing setup. It is dirt-cheap, saves a little on processing costs, and allows a LOT more flexibility when learning.

You'll be able to sell the body and lens(es) for what you paid for them, roughly, if you buy them used. If you don't like the hobby, you've lost little and hopefully gained some new favorite photographs. Much better than if you discover you like taking pictures, not photography, and have spend $2k on a digital SLR that has since rapidly depreciated.

But then again, I drive a standard transmission. What do I know.

Bang for buck argument faulty

[Junior J. Junior III]

Since I bought my 3.3 mp digital camera 2 years ago, I have taken ~2500 pictures with it. At 36 exposures per roll, and figuring as a rough estimate $10 per roll for the film and to develop them, that's ~$700 worth of film and developing I never had to spend money on. Which pretty much means that by now, the camera has paid for itself and then some. I know when I was snapping photos to celuoid, I would wait forever between devleoping a roll of film, just because I knew what it cost and didn't want to waste pictures. Now that I have a digital camera, I take pictures all the time and it's no big deal.

Minolta X-700

[Klev]

Just a few dollars above 200 (at least where I got mine), but this camera produces amazing shots. Professional quality lenses are readily availible on ebay, and everything is easy to find for them. Great camera.

Canon FT-B

[Snorpus]

You should be able to get a used FT-B, with one or more lenses, for $50 or less. I started with this camera 30+ years ago, and still have it.

If you're interested in photography, as opposed to web-pics, you'll learn way more and spend way less by going with an older, less automated camera from any of the major brands, especially since you want to do your own developing and printing.

I suggest you find a good camera store with a salesperson who remembers the SLRs of the 70s, and who will steer you right, until you buy that super digital 20X zoom 10Mbpx electronic marvel.

Try Pentax ZX-M

[rpdillon]

The K1000 is a nice choice, but is no longer sold. I've tried a few, but the Pentax ZX-M ($150, body only) is my favorite option. It is manual focus (as requested) but also features full auto on some of your other functions, while permitting full manual as well. Has all the basics (aperature priority for consistent depth of field, shutter priority to avoid motion blur (or maintain motion blur), bracketing, spot metering, depth of field preview). Good metering (more than just red, green LEDs). Nice focusing system as well.

I still shoot the ZX-M, but I also own digital, for obvious reasons. Film is still great for darkroom experience. You can get set up with a few aftermarket lenses for less than $500 easily, and have quite a bit of fun, particularly with black and white.

Re:Try Pentax ZX-M

[Kevinv]

I use the Pentax ZX-M too. It's a great camera, auto everything but focus for when starting and good manual controls for going beyond.

It takes way better pictures than my digital, but i take more pictures with the digital 'cause I can carry it anywhere.

Pentax K-1000 or Olympus OM-1

[wazzzup]

These are great all-manual no auto anything cameras and the best way to learn and understand concepts like exposure, bracketing exposures, light conditions, that will apply to any serious student of photography - film or digital.

Your're correct when you say there is great bang-for-the-buck in 35mm cameras now as well because only the most expensive digitals ($5000+) begin to even approach the "resolution" of 35mm film.

If you happen to be an amatuer astronomer, these cameras are highly sought after in the amatuer astronomy community because the all-manuals are the only cameras capable of keeping the shutter open for hours at a time. The new camera shutters are battery powered (and thus fails before the proper exposure has been achieved) and the digital SLR's aren't at all suited for deep-sky photogrpahy for a number of reasons that only very, very expensive CCD cameras address.

With having your own darkroom, you're ready to enjoy what I find is a really rewarding and fun hobby.

Manual focus recommendations

[chmilar]

You can get 35mm SLR's that do not have much automation for cheap. Since the camera manufacturers are pushing the auto-everything cameras, the manual camera bodies and lenses have a low resale value (with the exception of "collector's" cameras). The big change came with autofocus lenses, which require new camera bodies full of fancy electronics. After that, the manufacturers just starting piling on the "features".

If you opt for a manual focus camera, you can get a nice system for cheap, and still have automatic exposure metering (with full manual override), and probably auto film wind (of questionable usefulness, except for sports).

If you really want to learn photography, these cameras are better than the full-auto ones. You will actually learn about exposure and focussing. Not that there is much to learn - these things are pretty straightforward, once you don't have to fight against what your full-auto camera thinks it needs to do.

Nikon and Canon are the best-known brands, and, because of that, they will command a higher resale value than others.

I sold cameras in the early 1980's, when cameras had "just the right amount of automation". At that time, my opinion was that Olympus and Pentax offered better "value for money" than Nikon and Canon. The quality was comparable, and the prices more reasonable. In the resale market, a manual-focus Olympus or Pentax can be purchased for peanuts.

I just checked e-bay, and see a full Olympus OM-2 system, with three Olympus lenses, flash, and accessories for well under $200. This is the system I started with, and recommend it highly.

Recommended cameras to look for:

• Olympus OM-2, OM-3, OM-4: Basically the same camera, with upgrades over time. Has aperture-priority auto-exposure and full-manual exposure. Top-notch line of lenses. These cameras are also smaller and lighter than average. Very rugged.
• Olympus OM-1: Manual-exposure-only.
• Pentax K-1000: Cheap when it was new, so should be really cheap now! Kind of clunky operation.
• Pentax ME Super: Very small. Aperture-priority auto, and full manual. Manual-exposure is awkward to use. Not as rugged as Olympus OM-series.
• Pentax MX: Very small. Manual-only operation. Extremely rugged.
• Nikon FM, FM-?: An excellent, rugged camera. Large. Manual-only. Overpriced on resale market.
• Nikon FE, FE-?: Like the FM, but with aperture-priority automatic exposure.
• Nikon F2, F2A, F2AS: Legendary photo-journalist camera. Huge and heavy. Too much of a collector's camera for good prices.
• Nikon F3: Follow-on to the F2. Considered a failure by the photo-journo's, but really an excellent, rugged beast.

Cameras to avoid:

• Canon AE-1: Uses shutter-priority automatic, which is not as nice as aperture-priority. Plastic body is not rugged. (The AE-1 was a hot seller, but Canon's later models are much better.)
• Nikon EM: One of the crappiest cameras ever sold.
• Pentax ME: Has no manual-exposure mode. Auto-only.

For lenses, in this vintage, it is best to stick to the Olympus, Pentax, or Nikon lenses. While the 3rd-party lensmakers (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) are very good nowadays, they were a couple of steps behind in the days of manual focus (with some exceptions, like the Vivitar Series 1 lenses).

It is a real pain to use the auto-focus lenses on a manual-focus body. The focussing rings are too small, and the action is really loose. It is much better to find older lenses.

Manual only

[BCW2]

If you want to learn photography a manual is the only choice. This allows you to compose a proper shot. All the auto junk is just a glorified instamatic.

Proud owner of a Nikon F2 since 1977!

Canon Boy here

[nomad63]

I swear by the old schooll Canon 35 mm SLRs. I am still sticking to my AE-1 camera after going thru about a dozen others digital and non-digital. It is a bit on the heavy side, but I do not exchange it for any other SLR that I know of

Browse eBay

[donheff]

Skimming the other posts, I would agree that the serious future is digital SLR. But if you just want to learn photography fundamentals the old fashioned way, you can find any number of good buys on Canon's , Nikon's and Minolta's on eBay. In your shoes, I would buy something with a few lenses and options for semi-automatic and full manual. My daughter was looking for a "real" camera to learn on and wanted to do some black and white darkroom work on the 30 year old stuff in our attic. We found a like new Canon AE1 with a few lenses and the origianl box for well under $200.

Far more important...

[Racine]

...is film selection.

If you're trying to learn the basics of photography, you'll need to learn how to master exposure. You'll also want the most pleasing visual results possible while doing so.

If you get your manual camera and proceed to shoot color negative film, you may never ever learn your mistakes, and your results will remain mediocre at best. This is because most color negative film is designed for people like grandma with P&S auto-everything cameras, so it needs to have a very, very wide exposure latitude to handle exposure errors of +/- 2 or 3 stops. This is fine if you just want decent prints from your vacation or family Christmas, but if you're trying to take real photographs, its limiting, since you'll never be able to figure out what, if, anything, you did wrong, and the colors are pretty dull compared to pro slide films. Sure, the prints will look properly exposed, but they will also look very dull compared to what you see in magazines and on posters.

If you want to learn exposure and get stunning results, use slide film. Since you wish to use your own darkroom, this may be more economical for you too, you'll just need some new chemicals. Slide film has a very narrow exposure latitude and produces positive images that can be viewed without an intermediate printing process that is usually performed by a high school kid earning minimum wage. Differences of 1/3 stop will be apparent so you'll be able to learn. On your properly exposed shots, you will get far fewer washed out skies. You will get colors so stunning colors that you will literally laugh with joy the first time you go through a set of slides. Want your landscapes colors to look as good as National Geographic's? Well first, be there when the light is good. Secondly, use Fuji Velvia. They do.

Depending on what you plan to shoot, I can recommend the following films:

Portraits/night shots: Fuji Astia 100/100F
Landscapes: Fuji Velvia/Kodak E100GX
General purpose: Fuji Provia 100F

All of these are super high resolution and fine grained. I've printed 35mm examples up to 10x15" with stunning results, and medium format Velvia shots up to 16x24 that look so good that you just can't possibly appreciate the difference medium format makes until you see it.

I recommend buying the film from B&H Photo Video or Adorama, since they have great prices compared to any local photo store (1/3 to 1/2 the price).

See my webpage for examples using these films.

Canon AE-1

[LoRider]

I have used a Canon AE-1 for about 10 years and it's a great camera. You can pick one up for about $150 and there are tons of aftermarket lens to purchase (Canon lens' are expensive). I just had an overhaul done to mine and it's like brand new.
AE stands for Auto-Exposure, and you can also set the camera to full-manual mode. You can't wrong with this camera.
Canon AE-1 Program is the same camera with the ability to program it (don't know what you can program, I assume settings).

Re:Canon AE-1 - or an A-1

[mschuyler]

The A-1 takes the AE-1 one better. You ought to be able to do this on ebay. The A-1 is the big brother to the AE-1 with a choice of shutter or speed priority, plus auto and full manual. The AE-1, in contrast, has just one of those priorities (I forget which one). There are a few more bells and whistles on the A-1 as well. It takes the same lenses. In my opinion one of the best SLR's ever made, long outdated but never excelled. I went to a Nikon digital myself (Coolpix 5700), but will always remember many good years with the A-1

learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

Digital is NOT the way to learn photography. It encourages you to take way too many pictures, and has way too much error correction built into the systems. Slide film is the only medium where no post-processing is applied to the film that was in the camera after development, so there's no correction for poor exposures. What you shoot is what you get.

If you want to learn how to shoot, cheaply, get a K1000 (old metal body, if you can find it), a good 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens (older SMC-Pentax lenses are incredible). If you have the budget, an older Canon or Nikon body will do as well.

Buy yourself 10-15 36 shot rolls of ISO 100 or ISO 50 SLIDE film, and find a decent place that will develop and mount the rolls for ~$5/roll. Preferably a place with a friendly and helpful staff. Come in during off-hours. If you're really serious, buy yourself a tank developer and a dark bag, and do it yourself.

Go out and shoot one (1) roll of film. Take a notebook along, and write down the exposure you used, as well as the suggested exposure (centered needle in the K1000) for every shot. Develop the film. Look at it, carefully, on a lightbox with a loupe. If you don't have a lightbox, hang around the developers shop long enough to look at your shots. Are they over or under? What does the composition look like. Is there detail left in the shadows & highlights? Look at it very carefully. Once you've figured out what went on, load up the second roll and repeat. By the time you finish up the 10th roll, several weeks later, you're gonna be a pretty good photographer. Then consider going to black and white film, which will force you to learn a lot more about how light works than you've ever noticed before.

Re: the digital rebel-- it's ~$1000k, with an 18-55 (35-70mm equiv) f/3.5-f5.6 zoom. That has got to be the worst possible lens to learn photography on. The zoom lens teaches you nothing about how focal length works, it just encourages you to stand in one spot and zoom until it looks right. The tiny aperature (compared to a f/1.8) severly restricts how you learn about light. And the fact that it's so gawd awefully difficult to operate in full-manual (I'm assuming it's no easier than on my elan 7e) means that you'll be sliding into full auto long before you know enough about exposure to understand what you're doing, or catch the computer when it sets a bad expo.

Learn the craft honestly, then go get the best lenses you can afford, and a decent body to hang them on. You'll be taking great shots within a few months.

--

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[aoteoroa]

18-55 (35-70mm equiv) f/3.5-f5.6 zoom. That has got to be the worst possible lens to learn photography on. . .The tiny aperature (compared to a f/1.8) severly restricts how you learn about light.

For the non-photographers out there let me expand on this point.

Look at a few samples of professional photography. Wedding photos, glossy fashion shots in a magazine, or even you local newspaper. You will notice that many pros use selective focus - photos where the subject is in sharp focus and everything else is blurred. To achieve this effect the camera needs a longish lense and a wide aperture. The minimum combination would be about a 50mm and f2.8 . The lens that comes with the digital rebel (and virtually every autofocus camera on the planet) is long enough but the aperture is not wide enough to achieve this effect.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[Speed Racer]

You will notice that many pros use selective focus - photos where the subject is in sharp focus and everything else is blurred.

Are you really going do describe bokeh without actually using the word?

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[breser]

I don't think this is entirely fair to digital. I don't see how taking lots of pictures is a huge impediment to learning. In fact taking lots of pictures is exactly what you need to do.

If your camera has a RAW mode the only processing it will do is white balance. Most of the better digitals will let you adjust your white balance manually. Is it different then film? Yes. But if you're manually adjusting the white balance you're learning.

Digital offers some additional help in learning that you can't get from a film camera.

* Immediate feedback. You can get an idea if the picture you took is under or over exposed.

* The camera keeps track of the settings for you courtesy of EXIF. So when you lose your notebook you've still got the information you need.

* Histograms can be really useful in learning.

I'd agree that the automatic features are tempting to use and hurt your ability to learn the fundamentals. But if you get something reasonably new in a 35mm SLR you're going to find it has those issues too. So this isn't anything specific to digital (though all the digitals have this functionality). Basically, if you want to learn how to shoot good photos you need to learn the fundamentals and that means having some commitment to actually learning them. This is of course not unique to photography but true of most anything.

I will agree that the lense on the Digital Rebel isn't so hot. In fact I wouldn't recommend the Digital Rebel to anyone because you lose some of the flexibility of adjusting the camera how you want. But it's also not like most entry level cameras (which is exactly what the Digital Rebel is) come with great lenses, this is equally true of film camera/lense bundles.

Basically you're ignoring all the benefits of digital to learning. While at the same time critizing it for things that to some degree are equally true of film. That's not to say that digital is a great platform compared to film for learning. I'm just inclined to think you're picking on the wrong issues or at least coming across that way to me.

Right now I'd say there are a couple of fair problems with Digital for beginners:

* Price. A Digital SLR that gives you the flexibility to learn on is expensive. Right now digital cameras that are affordable for most people are probably point and shoots. This price may be traded off by film expenses however. It really depends on how much you plan on using the camera. However, we're starting to see the Digital SLR price drop. My original D30 was about twice as expensive as my 10D which is a better camera. This trend will continue and eventually the price negative will be against film.

* Focal Length Multiplier. Right now just about every digital camera has a smaller sensor than the size of 35mm film. For the Digital Rebel and the 10D this results in a multiplier of 1.6. This means if you want to take wide angle shots you'll need to buy a significantly more expensive lens to achieve the same effect. Say you want a 24mm lense for wide angle (a reasonable starter lense for wide angle work). You'd now have to buy a 15mm lense or shorter to get the same effect. Sooner or later though the multiplier effect will be removed by newer equipment.

* Accurate reproduction after the shot. It's difficult to get a computer and monitor adjusted so it properly reproduces the image you took. Many people really don't bother to do this at all. Which is a problem for digital. Is it your settings on the camera or is it your monitor that's making the shot look wrong? I think as people use computers more and more for digital media awareness and technology will help with this issue.

So right now film is probably the more affordable way to learn. But it has its own trade offs. Film costs, processing costs, having to write down camera settings so you can see what works and doesn't work, lack of immediate feedback, etc...

Frankly either way is fair way to learn. It just takes the committment, effort and the money (equipment and lenses aren't cheap really either way) to do it.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[5KVGhost]

Digital is NOT the way to learn photography. It encourages you to take way too many pictures,

I've heard that argument before but I still think it's silly. There's no reason to discourage a beginner from taking as many photos as possible of as many things as possible. Digital just takes the pain and tedium out of the process. You can compare the results immediately and see what works and what doesn't. There's no better way to learn than by seeing, and with digital you've got the exposure data, focal length, etc. embedded directly in the photo for reference.

and has way too much error correction built into the systems.

Not if you don't want it. Decent digital SLRs let you shoot in manual mode and turn off all that stuff. Unless you want it.

Go out and shoot one (1) roll of film...

That's all good advice, but you can do all that with a digital SLR in less time and with less inconvenience. Without the expense of film or worry about variations in developing. And you might even learn how to salvage otherwise worthless shots while you're at it.

Re: the digital rebel-- it's ~$1000k, with an 18-55 (35-70mm equiv) f/3.5-f5.6 zoom. That has got to be the worst possible lens to learn photography on.

Good point. A beginner would be better served using a good, inexpensive lens like the Canon 50mm f1.8. It's not as nice as their lovely f1.4, but at $70 it's a darn good place to start. (The wide-angle zoom is nice to have, too, though, for those shots that you just can't get any other way.)

And the fact that it's so gawd awefully difficult to operate in full-manual (I'm assuming it's no easier than on my elan 7e) means that you'll be sliding into full auto long before you know enough about exposure to understand what you're doing, or catch the computer when it sets a bad expo.

I've never used an elan 7e, but I never had any trouble using manual options on the D30, D60, or my current 10D. Certainly no more than I did with my old AE1-P.

Learn the craft honestly, then go get the best lenses you can afford, and a decent body to hang them on. You'll be taking great shots within a few months.

Yup. However you learn, great photos are what it's all about.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[bshroyer]

Some of the better advice I've seen written lately. Eliminated the need for me say most of what I have to say, learned in my years of being photo editor for a Midwest university weekly newspaper.

I can't stress enough just how unsexy but totally reliable and capable the Pentax K1000 is. I have NEVER seen one break. I've yet to change the battery (operates the light meter) in mine after ten years - and I bought it used. It's a totally manual camera, but intuitive, and it just "feels" good in the hand. Add to that the fact that you can find hordes of good quality used lenses for this body in any camera exchange.

Lots of folks are "upgrading" to digital and fully auto cameras, leaving reliable workhorses like the K1000, and its many accessories, cheaper than they've ever been for the beginner.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Digital is NOT the way to learn photography. It encourages you to take way too many pictures..."

That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. How does taking too MANY pictures hamper you from learning photography?

Please don't listen to this guy - he's a film elitist. The reality is, digital photography is the *best* way to learn because it allows you to make mistakes CHEAPLY and more importantly it allows you to learn from those mistakes QUICKLY (no need to wait for your photos to develop.)

Let me give you some better advice: Check out the canon A line. (Powershot A30-A80.) These are awesome little digital cameras that start you off simply and give you more creative control when you want it (even allowing full manual if you wish.) Learn to compose your shots, learn how aperature and shutter speed affects exposure, learn how to create decent photographs INDEPENDANT of the tool you're using (don't let these gear heads distract you, photography really ISN'T about the camera.) Then when you're ready to "look through the lens", consider a digital SLR such as the wonderful Digital Rebel that so many here are raving about.

And while this bozo who only shoots slide film is fiddling with dark bags and lightboxes, you'll be learning the art of photography.

paulb

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[konker]

Re: the digital rebel-- it's ~$1000k, with an 18-55 (35-70mm equiv) f/3.5-f5.6 zoom.

~$1,000,000? bloody hell.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see how taking lots of pictures is a huge impediment to learning. In fact taking lots of pictures is exactly what you need to do."

Simple it teaches you bad habits and gives you too much of a reliance on your equipment. If you cannot move from one camera to another without spending days re-learing then what you have learned is by in large useless especialy in an area where you would want to upgrade.

Wrong! Taking lots of pictures are not what you need to do. Taking lots of pictures RIGHT is what you need to do.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[jallen02]

I will second that.

I bought and learned over the course of a year with a Rebel 2K and lots and lots of print film. I spent more on film and developing than I did on the camera itself. I did learn, but it was expensive. I have gone digital and I will not look back, ever.

I have never enlarged past 8x10, and probably never will. MOST people won't enlarge beyond 8x10 so the MP race is meaningless. Get digital camera with a good lens and 3-5MP and start taking pictures! I was on the photography newsgroups for a while and so many people get hung up on the technical aspects of photography that it is hard to weed through the noise. Focus on composing your shots and taking the picture. A digital camera will let you see your mistakes and learn more quickly. If after a couple of years you really are into A.) Technology will have improved and B.) You will know what to plunk money down on and what you like and what you need.

Start cheap, shoot a lot of pictures in digital, and enjoy it. Find a camera that will last and one that has a decent lens and some manual controls, the rest will take care of itself in a couple of years :-D

Jeremy

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

How does taking too MANY pictures hamper you from learning photography?

Simple-- people that are taking a hundred pictures aren't looking at them. They get one or two good ones, delete the rest, and pat themselves on the back. If they take twenty or thirty shots and then sit down and LOOK at them, they're going to do fine. But they may as well have done it on film.

Speaking of sitting down and looking at the shots, where exactly is our novice going to look at these unmodified raw digital images? On a multi-thousand dollar color corrected and calibrated monitor? I don't think so. They're probably not going to have a clue what the gamma or color temperature of their screen is at, or have any idea how to correct that to see the "raw" image they shot correctly.

Even if you do digital right, and learn all you want about composition, it's still gonna be really tough to learn about exposure, keeping your highlights and shadows from getting blown or blackened, on a digital.

Please don't listen to this guy - he's a film elitist.

That's funny, since today I shoot about ten times as much digital as film. Digital is great, once you've learned. My all time favorite shots, though, are landscapes I shot on kodachrome 64, and then had 20x24 cibachromes done. Simply incredible, no grain at all visible. If you wanted to print that at 300 dpi, you're gonna need a 43 megapixel camera. Just a bit out of my budget, personally. Maybe the NSA's got one, but I'll stick to my canon.

--

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[reve]

I'm going to disagree strongly here, because I believe the art of "getting a good picture" has expanded beyond the mechanics of photography.

[For the sake of the purists (with whom I agree in regards to semantics if nothing else), in this post "photography" will involve nothing other than optics and chemistry, and "picture-taking" will be the catch-all. Me, I use an original Nikon F1.]

You bring up a very important point when you mention that there's a significant amount of post-processing done in the developing stage on non-slide film.

However, I think we all need to get beyond the antiquated notion that anything done in post is "bad" -- or cheating, for that matter. As I understood it, the goal here is to get some good lookin' pictures. Thus, we should embrace post production techniques instead of shunning them. Not just film development, but photoshop/gimp and the whole bit.

Why? Because it makes for (what most folks consider) better pictures. News photographers are shooting digital, dumping to the laptop and tweaking their shit in PS before sending their work to their editors now. ANY commerical motion picture has gone through BANKS of color correction and post processing to remove film "defects." When "professionals" regularly (if not universally) engage in VIOLENT post-processing of their works, it becomes part of the picture-taking process.

Back in the day photographs were taken directly onto postivies. Now we shoot on negatives, and the act of developing has become part of the process. Similarly, more and more post techniques are becoming PART OF THE PROCESS.

I can see the appeal of the "walk before you run" school of teaching here. Tell the photography student that they should master the (mechanical) basics before they move on to the sundries and tweakery. However, if that were truly the case we'd be discussing techniques for how to best create a pinhole (for a pinhole camera) rather than how to score a dope SLR on the cheap.

SLRs are pretty damn advanced pieces of machinery. If you suggest someone start their serious forays into photgraphy with an SLR, you invalidate any sort of the "walk-before-you-run" argument. So why tell them to shoot only on slides?

But then again, I'm a pragmatist, so hey.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[breser]

What the heck does relying on your eqipment have to do with the number of pictures you take? You don't learn by taking good pictures. You learn by taking bad pictures, seeing what is wrong with them and then trying again. With film you have to take the picture and then later find out if you did any good. You can't realistically reproduce the exact conditions. So what you've learned is what didn't work. Next time you run into that situation you try what you think should work... oops it's still wrong because you didn't learn from the last time.

The only reliance you can end up with equipment wise is just by not knowing the fundamentals. Which as I pointed out in my previous post, even newer film cameras have lots of new automatic toys that are tempting.

I also find it odd that you think taking lots of pictures is a bad habit of digital people. I'd argue that film people tend to take lots of extra pictures. Why? Because they can't necessarily go back and take the same picture again. If they make a mistake, have bad film, etc... then they're hosed.

Digital people on the other hand can take lots of pictures when learning. Figure out what works and then take fewer pictures as they learn how to take good ones and verify that they are good.

Both systems have their inherent pluses and minuses but your arguments seem to be "Don't use digital because it's not as hard to use as film."

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

I totally agree that "post-shot" modifications are important and necessary. The ultimate goal for most people is to end up with something nice on paper, whether printed with a dichroic head or by a dye-sub printer. And even a perfectly exposed negative will benefit from some dodging or burning during printing. But the original poster wasn't asking about what equipment they needed to make the best images, they wanted to know how to learn to take good images. I'd stand by my advice to learn how to take a good picture, then use whatever equipment and software you need to get the very best images.

Maybe I am a geezer (certainly am in Slashdot terms, having passed that fateful 11110 year) But I think post-production should be about making the best image/print, not about correcting sloppy exposure and composition. And so, once you've mastered those two aspects that every SLR user can control, you can hand off your print film to be developed and printed knowing that the printer is starting with good raw materials, rather than expecting the printer to fix your slop.

If you black out in the highlights in your neg., no printer in the world can salvage the detail. If you get no light into the shadows, no amount of dodging will bring them back. If you haven't learned how exposure works, you're not going to look at a scene, and say something like "there's a lot of blue sky in this shot, so the meter is probably gonna underexpose the foreground. I want some detail out of that little lawn gnome in the tree-shadow over there, and I don't care if the sky whites out a little. So I'm gonna go 1/3-2/3 stops over". Or something like "I want just that person, and not the ugly billboard fifty feet behind them. So I'm gonna open up to f/1.8 and shoot at 1/5000, rather than the f/8 that the meter's recomending. God forbid, I might even slap on a ND filter to get the lens wide open." Of course, if you've bought the 35-70 f/3.5-5.6 that the manufacturer included with your kit, you can't get that shot anyway :(

--

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

"I have never enlarged past 8x10, and probably never will. MOST people won't enlarge beyond 8x10 so the MP race is meaningless."

If you get a good shot, you should try it sometime. I've got a really nice 16x20 black and white of a farmstead near my parent's place hanging on my wall. And a really cool 20x24 cibachrome. To do that at 300dpi, you'd need a 43MP camera. Don't have one of those...

--

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[jallen02]

Very true :)

I do have some nice negatives I would like enlarged some day. I mostly shot Fuji Reala or Velvia slides. Some day.

I still carry the SLR with a roll of Velvia ready to go in case I find a really great shot on the Digital camera. I bracket like hell with the Velvia, lol. So I guess I am trying to say I agree with you :). I know there will invariably be some people out there who shoot at least a dozen great pictures their first year with a digital camera who go, "Man, I wish I could have this one enlarged!".

The thing is, it took me like twice as long to get comfortable with the film. With the digital camera I don't feel so "guilty" about experimenting and burning through a couple hundred MB of CF experimenting. For most people digital shots = no cost, but film shots = $$$, so I like telling people to start off with a lower end digital camera to learn to take pictures. When you want the good stuff you will know what you want after that.

Jeremy

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

Film is definitly more expensive. But good slides on velvia.... Nice. If you've got a great shot, you should definitly save up for a ciba, as a 20x24 will run you about $100 to get printed. I've only done it once ;). Worth it, though.

It's all inorganic dyes, so if you keep it behind UV blocking glass it ought to last forever (well, not as long as an archival B&W, but close enough). If you're going to keep it behind glass, get the glossy, classic deluxe (the cheaper print on coated paper won't last as long. The deluxe is on polyesther film). They look totally different from a normal print. More like looking through a window.

--

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[jallen02]

Your comment on an enlargement looking totally different from a standard print reminds me of getting started a year and a half ago. When I first started taking pictures with the SLR I got really upset that the developing place was messing up my prints (colors were all just drained). They were totally overusing the chemicals and not going with fresh stuff often enough. But I equated bad prints to bad pictures. A year later I took some of my original negatives and had them scanned at the same place I have my slide film developed. The colors in those pictures (taken with the kit Canon lens) were simply vibrant compared to the original prints)

The sad thing is that those bad prints actually made me think it was my equipment and or me. For several months I just couldn't figure out why my pictures didn't have any pop. I was using every print film out there (Reala, Royal Gold, etc. etc.) and I still couldn't get anything great. I finally caught on when I went to a Wal-Mart 1hr lab and the prints looked very colorful.

The thing is most people are going to go through this sort of trial and error process and it can really douse one's spirit for taking pictures when all you get are bland de-saturated pictures when you are expecting at least to have colors that are as colorful as real life.

With the digital camera there are still post-processing tricks to be done, but usually you can see/feel the true potency of a camera right away and I feel like you are on a steadier platform right from the beggining. There are no changes in film/print quality to throw you off etc. You get faithful production each time.

Re:learn on slide film, nothing else.

[rhombic]

"There are no changes in film/print quality to throw you off etc."

That's exactly my point. When you shoot slide film, the final mounted slide is actually the piece film that was inside the camera when you took the shot. As long as it's developed according to manufacturer specs (not a problem if you're shooting modern E-6 process film) there's essentially no variation in the final product you get out. If you did a good job, the slide looks good. If you did a bad job, the slide looks bad. As far as the print looking different, I was talking about a cibachrome (renamed to Ilfochrome, but everybody still calls them cibas ;), which is a process for making prints directly from a slide. The colors and quality of reproduction simply blows away anything you can print from a color negative on coated paper-- unfortunately, it's pretty expensive to make them, and most folks don't take the time. If you visit a museum with really incredible looking color prints on the walls, they're probably cibachrome prints.

A modern printing machine can do anything, from taking a great neg and making a crummy print, to making a mediocre print look pretty good. And if you're looking at your digital pics and want a "faithful" reproduction, you have to make sure the color temp and gamma of your monitor is corrected.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not shooting for film snobbery. A lot of really good digital pics get taken all the time. And plenty of great pics have been taken with 35-70 zooms. But if a person wants to learn, nothing's quite like a manual body, 50mm f/1.8 lens, and slide film. I don't start fires with a flint and steel, either. But I learned how, and now I can feel a lot more confident that if I have equipment (i.e. lighter) problems when I'm out camping, I know what to do and how to fix it. Just a personal thing, ya know.

Canon A-1

[farnham]

I had a Canon A-1. great camera and because they changed lens mounts some great pro glass is out there at reasonable prices.
It's very tough, has a really amazing meter(I was usually wrong when I second guessed it) and has a huge number of accessories and lenses available.
It has both aberature and shutter priority modes, tells you what it chooses, and will also if you go full manual.
It is a great camera and reasonably easy to find.

Good luck!

Re:Canon A-1

[BanjoBob]

I remember Canon's ads... If you can't take a photo of it with the A1, you probably can't take a photo of it.

I've had numerous A1 bodies and it is still my film camera of choice. I have a lot of lenses, filters and attachments for the A1 also. The camera is extremely versatile, easy to use and easy to learn.

You can find refurbed bodies relatively cheap and C Mount lenses too since no current body uses this format any more. I prefer manual focus since I do a lot of airplane air-shows with 500 and 1000 mm lenses. I've never found an auto-focus that can focus fast enough on an F-16 coming right at ya!

I have a digital SLR but for serious work, I still use film. Agfa is my preferred print film. It has more grain than Kodak or Fuji but I think it has the best color (personal opinion). Use a slower film (less grain) and shoot properly.

Enjoy!!
\

Re:Canon A-1

[sup4hleet]

I vote for the Canon A-1 too, you can go all manual if you want to for the experience, or it can be a "focus-n-shoot". I started with an AE-1 which is cheaper, but doesn't have the features. On the used market there really isn't a better deal in 35mm than the used Canon A series (also called FD). EOS cameras can't really use the lenses so they're cheap too. Last time I checked, a used A-1 was about $120, and AE-1 about $50, 50mm/1.8 lenses less than $25, 50mm/1.4 less than $50, a Vivitar Series one 70mm-210mm zoom less than $70 ,a no-name 3rd party zoom is less than $30, and third party wide angle lenses are cheap too! They make a sub-$50 winder A that will auto-advance for you. As for flash I'd really recommend the Sunpak 422D, I have two; at $25 they're a steal. Plus T-mount, and m42 , old pentax mount, adapters are available in Canon FD allowing you to get generic lenses that can fit a number of bodies! I like the Canon A series cameras, they are good to learn on and I still use them to photograph weddings, candids anyways. Check out my site http://www.jmxphoto.com to see some of my Canon A-series work as well as my medium format and toy camerastuff as well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Best of both worlds - Get a negative scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the digital camera is woefully inadequate for fine photography unless you spend thousands of dollars. Even then you're not going to approach what can be done with $500 and the right skill.

I've found the best solution is to take pictures in film and use a film scanner to convert them to digital. This way you have a reliable storage format (I'll bet that CD-R will go before a negative does), you don't have to maintain a dark room, and your pictures can be touched up in PhotoshopCS. You can't even begin to argue GIMP's photo enhancement tools hold a candle to Photoshop's.

You can buy an inexpensive negative scanner like the Minolta Scan Dual III for $250 or the Nikon Cool Scan IV ED for around $500-$700. They still give crazy good scans but come without the DigitalICE auto-touchup algorithms that the more expensive models tout.

Trust me. Use the darkroom to develop the film and do the print editing on a computer and print them at Kinkos. You'll save an unbelievable amount of time and possibly money (assuming you can get Photoshop CS academic). Your results will definitely be better as well.

Actually, Olympus OM-1 is the best... here's why

[tentimestwenty]

It's true, most 35mm photogs use Nikon or Canon but there is a dark horse in the form of Olympus. I find the OM-1 and successors to be simply the best used 35mms. They have great lenses and are some of the smallest cameras made. I've had Canons and Nikons but they just seem to have a bulk that I could never get over, thus I never carried them. 99% of taking photos is having the camera with you :-)

Consider availability of lenses too

[meanfriend]

The lens is the most important thing if you want sharp pics. Bodies are just glorified cases to hold film in the dark until its time to expose them. Yes, I'm oversimplifying things, but in the hands of a skilled photographer, an old battered body coupled with a high quality lens will kick ass.

Some camera shops rent lenses and the ones around here all rent Nikon lenses with a smattering of Canons. Any other brand just isnt represented. If you want to rent a lens for a special occasion that you aren't necessarily interested in buying, then having a Nikon will afford you the best selection.

Same goes for used lenses on Ebay and at camera swap meets. It seems to me that the selection of used Nikon lenses practically surpasses all other manfacturers combined.

If you want the greatest selection of new AND used lenses, Nikon deserves a serious look.

My suggestion - ignore the lens nazis

[SuperKendall]

Although I have a digital SLR and love it, I have to agree with your choice to learn on film (especially having the darkroom, which will help alleviate the cost of developing which is a major reason in my shift to digital).

However, what I will note is that in no way should you get too hung up on lens choice now. Canon? Nikon? Pentax? Sigma? It doesn't matter.

Why? Simply put, because by the time you come off learning film and wish to move to digital, there's no telling which way you might want to go. At the moment it looks like Nikon is aiming for the photojournalist market while Canon has the bulk of the prosumer. But who's to say that will hold for even two years? Digital body development is accelerating just like computer processors have been, and it's hard to say who will win the race, or if the winner is even in existence now (though that is a remote possibility).

So don't even worry about what lens choices now will mean later. Just pretend like you're going to sell them all off later no matter what and be at peace with your choice.

Good luck, whatever choice you make - and enjoy learning!

Don't Forget Books...

[Androgynous Coward]

Get Ansel Adams photo instructions books.

The Camera
The Negative
The Print

Read them all cover-to-cover and use them in conjunction with your Pentax K-1000 ;)

Go with Canon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, every old-school gandpa on the Internet is going to tell you to buy a Pentax K1000 or some other manual-focus, do-it-all-yourself piece of history, some black-and-white film, and build your own darkroom. DON'T DO IT!

Ignore these Luddites: buy an auto-focus Canon camera. An auto-focus Nikon would give you similar capability, but I've found that every Nikon camera has a completely different user-interface. When you switch Nikon bodies, you invariably have to learn a completely different set of controls. Canon cameras, on the other hand, are remarkably similar. I started out with a manual-focus Canon AE-1 Program and was able to upgrade to a Canon EOS A2 without any significant learning hurdles.

Aside from that, Canon has the best auto-focus system in the business. Plus, if you buy Canon or Nikon you'll be able to rent lenses (assuming you live near a decent-sized city). The fact that your camera has auto-focus, auto-exposure, and a built-in flash will mean that you can use it even when you don't feel like lugging around a tripod, light meter, and the entire Ansel Adams library.

Yes, yes, you need to learn how to expose film correctly and a crappy manual camera will FORCE you to do that or abandon the art. But you also need to learn composition. An auto-everything camera will allow you to practice exposure and composition separately. In the begining, that's a huge advantage...

Nikon all the way...

[interactive_civilian]

Just to stir the flames a little...

Get a manual Nikon (the FM-3 is REALLY nice, or try for an FM-2 or even an older FG...if you were in Japan, I would offer to sell you my FG as I rarely use it in favor of my FA). There is one main reason why Nikon is better:

Nikon has not significantly changed their lens mount since the F-mount was created.

What does this mean for you? Well...let me tell you my situation. Right now, I have a Nikon FG (ca.1983) and a Nikon FA (ca.1984) as my camera bodies. I have a new auto-focus 50mm Nikon lens from 1999, a 70-300mm Nikon autofocus from 1998, a late 1980s (I think) Promaster 28mm, a 27.5mm extention tube (2000), and a bellows/slide duplicator from the 1960s. They all work with both bodies perfectly well (except of course I cannot take advantage of auto-focus).

The point is that you can use almost any F-mount lens with almost any Nikon camera (though you may have some small problems with early lenses, but then again, maybe not...do your homework). Canon, IIRC, has changed their lens mount a few times, so you don't really have the option of chosing an old body and new lens to start with and then perhaps upgrading the body in the future or using old lenses as well...

IMNSHO, that is why Nikon is better. ;-)

Re:Nikon all the way...

[Dr Reducto]

Yeah, my personal favorite is the Nikon, except I was talking to the dude at my photo store, and he was talking about Nikon dropping the "D" lenses in favor of "G", which I dislike due to lack of aperture ring. "G" lenses are not backwards compatible with MF Nikons, and my N80 doesn't like the manual lenses. So get those "D" lenses while you can, because they are the most compatible ones Nikon makes. I am still trying to muster the funds for the 24-120D lens.

Re:Nikon all the way...

[anthropos9]

I agree, Nikon is definitely the way to go. You can get an N65 or N55 for about as much as you say you want to pay. They both use the Nikon F-mount system and have a decent array of features. But if you want the most bang for your buck you should get an N80. The N80 bosts almost all of the features of the F5 (Nikon's top of the line pro 35mm camera), with the exception of a slower motor and it's not water tight. You'll spend a little more on this body than you say you want to, but this camera will no let you down and in the long run you'll be thankful you spent a little more on the body.

Name brand used manual focus

[gn08979]

I would get a used name brand and a 50mm lens. A Canon AE-1, or Pentax k-1000 are good choices. Of course Nikon and Olympus are good too. The darkroom is great, color or balck & white. When you shhot color you want to use slide film. Sure prints are great, but with slides you will learn about exposure, contrast, saturation and backlighting. All things that the photo lab can correct for, but you won't expand your knowlege. Speaking of slide film try Fuji Velvia and you must try Kodachrome. These films are 'slow' meaning action shots will need plenty of light. The next thing to buy after your basic setup is a tripod. More valuable than any lens. Get you, your camera, your tripod and your Kodachrome out at all hours of the day or night.

color ain't that bad... Re:Several good options

[swschrad]

color printing isn't that bad to do, either negative or positive. the pricing entry point for equipment is rather ugly, however, as is the chemistry and paper. if you're an unrequited fossil and check your developer and fix by tasting a dipped fingertip, however, don't go color, you'll end up cold, blue, and stinky in a corner. b/w is bad enough... b/w toners and color are positively fatal.

however, there is another alternative. the minolta dimage scanner in USB is going for $299 in this area now, and that won't buy a set of color acetate filters for a b/w enlarger and a developing tube with motor base. scan the film into ye olde PC and use photoshop and your printer to make prints.

Not digital--are you certain?

[beej]

Ok, so they're really expensive, but one thing you get with digital is instant feedback to your input. What happens if I try to shoot this at ISO 1600 instead of 100? Or f/3.5 instead of f/22? Or a certain aperture for a certain exposure length? It's easy to get an understanding of the concepts when you see the results right there.

I kept it "cheap" and got a Canon Digital Rebel. (Though you can spend merely 50% more and get a 10D.) It was $900 for the body, $100 for the cheapo stock lens, and $230 for a 1GB flash card.

And I freaking love it!

The main features I wish it had were: 1) ability to sample the custom white balance at a button press instead of needing to take a picture and go through the menu to use it and 2) ability to convert a raw file to a JPEG in the camera.

Not that I'm pro, or anything, but here are some samples:

Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3

Re:Not digital--are you certain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dropped off thinking of buying one because it
lacks spot metering. That and the cooked exposure/focus on all creative modes...

Re:Not digital--are you certain?

[swordgeek]

Bah!

First of all, your (lovely) pictures all look like they came from a digital camera. I would have picked them out blind 100% of the time. That's a drawback.

Secondly, you're suggesting that he spend FIVE TIMES his budget to go in a direction he's not interested in.

Third and most importantly: "Easy" isn't the same as "Good." Reading will explain the concepts to you better than screwing around, and careful experimentation (i.e. note taking) will reward you with a FAR better understanding than...screwing around. Furthermore, there is so much processing that goes on behind the scenes in digital that you are seldom sure how much of an image is your work, and how much is due to the electronics.

I think digitals are great, and probably an excellent tool for a strong intermediate photographer, but for really learning photography and composition, they're poor tools.

Re:Not digital--are you certain?

[beej]

First of all, your (lovely) pictures all look like they came from a digital camera. I would have picked them out blind 100% of the time. That's a drawback.

Well, to be fair, they are low quality jpegs, and don't accurately represent what comes from the camera...so the valid question becomes: could you do it over the same pic as a 300dpi print with no jpeg compression artifacts? As a 600dpi print?

That being said, film really is different than digital and you'll get different results--I don't know what you're using to pick them out of the lineup.

And is the fact that you can tell the difference between film and digital a drawback necessarily?

Secondly, you're suggesting that he spend FIVE TIMES his budget to go in a direction he's not interested in.

I'm merely asking him to reassess. :) If he's set in his decision, he'll ignore me with no harm done. Besides, after deciding not to spend $1300 on a camera, he'll be happier than ever to spend $200! :)

Reading will explain the concepts to you better than screwing around, and careful experimentation (i.e. note taking) will reward you with a FAR better understanding than...screwing around.

I think we're talking about two different kinds of understanding here, sort of book smarts versus practical smarts. Neither is more important than the other, but I know a lot of people here on slashdot don't like to read manuals, and I was trying to cater to that. :)

Furthermore, there is so much processing that goes on behind the scenes in digital that you are seldom sure how much of an image is your work, and how much is due to the electronics.

Shooting in raw mode helps with this. You can process the data however you choose.

but for really learning photography and composition, they're poor tools.

Disagree on the composition part. Instant feedback, at least for me, works way better than waiting for the prints to come back. Additionally, I shoot about 100x as many pictures as I ever would if I had to pay to get film processed. Practice, practice!

Canon EOS 630/650

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to highly recommend the Canon EOS630/650 series camera as its a delight to use as a student with full manual / auto setup, as well as a decent steel body, so its nice and sturdy with a big grip, unlike alot of the new plastic ones on the market which feels like you're holding it with 2 fingers, eg. 300N (which is a still a decent camera) for around the same money.

Its got a hotshoe, backlit LCD display (which helps on the night time student photo shoots). Shutter and aperture priority if you're wanting to check the lighting without a seperate meter, and then switch to manual mode and push the aperture +1/-1 in either direction and ditto for s.speed.

And it's an EOS, so its compatible with any new or old lense. I picked up a cheap ultrasonic 22-55 lense for around AUD$100 which works a treat for cheap wide angle shots, and I also picked up a Carl Zeiss 70-135 for longer shots.

Film will never die...

[djtripp]

I am a big Nikon fan, I've had my F3 for over 10 years. If you are looking to get a someone started in photography, you can't go wrong with a the Nikon F55 or a Canon EOS Rebel GII
Both of these are pretty good camera bodies with good lenses.

More importantly, both allow fully automatic function, and full manual as well, when you get to be a better or more advanced photographer, you will need these functions.

Since they come with an entry level zoom lens, this is the biggest hinderance. Great to start, and for most people all you will ever need. So when you start to get serious there are a lot of great lenses out there. So buy the camera where you can get the lenses you want, at the price and quality you want. Like I said earlier, I am very fond of Nikon and their Lenses are spectacular (And as far as I know, they are still the only optic company to grind their own glass for their lenses, for better control and optic clarity.)

Most important, try them out, see which one is easier to operate, handle, and shoot with.

Film is not dead yet. Digital still can't capture all the color and the glory of the traditional film process. Plus chemicals are fun to play with. I love the smell of fixer in the morning.

Get robust over gimmicks

[16K Ram Pack]

Good time to be looking. Most people are switching to digital. Personally, I'm going to get a digital SLR when the price comes down (which they will massively over the next 18 months). I'd use film in the meantime (although personally, I'm using a digital compact for cost saving reasons).

I've used film 3 SLRs - a Zenith EM (Russian, nightmare hard - metering a bastard - I don't recommend), an Olympus OM10 and a Canon EOS.

The EOS is a great camera - does point and click/auto focus OR you can just override everything and manual focus.

I know some purists will be offended by the autofocus, but there's times like family events where it means that anyone can pick it up and use it.

Nikons are also excellent cameras.

camera

[kawabago]

Nothing will improve your pictures more than taking lots of them. A digital camera will let you do that at almost no cost. So for a learning photographer, a digital camera is by far the best choice. Get a large memory card and take 200-300 photos at a time. You'll see your images improve very quickly if you do this.

Canon EOS Elan 7

[Andronicus]

I'm with you. I started in 35mm photography with the aim of taking astrophotos. I was looking for a body that would fill those requirements. At the same time, my wife suggested we get something robust enough to do great terrestrial photography as well, and replace the limited point-and-shoot'ers lying about.

We chose the Elan 7. Designed for EF lenses, it's an automagic everything SLR, BUT it can be fully manually controlled! You choose! I go manual, my wife goes auto as she gains experience.

I picked up this nifty accessory for it too, an infrared shutter remote. This lets me get into pictures from tens of feet away and have total control. Or, it lets me trip the shutter on long exposures without disturbing the camera. Way better than the old cable system (which is also an option with the Elan), in my opinion.

You're right about the costs. I'm a fan of both film and digital. Each have great PROs and equally great CONs. There's little processing cost for dig, provided you don't print any of the pictures you take! For the cash outlay required to get a nice digital SLR with the same flexibilty as its 35mm counterpart, you could shoot film literally for years, buying and processing the whole way.

The real digital advantage is in capturing precisely the shot you wanted without waste of film or time. Film shooters must take notes, bracket exposures, and cross fingers. Sometimes this may even mean a reshoot after proofing.

I'd say don't cheap out too much. Buy a decent modern body. As you hone your craft, you may appreciate "some" automation down the road.

I have two EF lenses now, and the automation inside them makes for faster shooting, which helps during the high action of, say, jousting at the Renaissance Festival!

With any modern body, you can later purchase t-mounts and adapters which will let you use virually ANY manual lens in existance. Best of both worlds there.

You may find you want to try some elaborate things later like off-camera flash setups. A modern body will make working with external flashes easier, espcially those designed for that particular body. The flash exposure can be setup automatically from the camera body. That means less confusing guide-number charts of which I admit I'm totally ignorant.

My setup also includes a decent film scanner. This lets me take my film into the digital realm as needed. I truly get the best of both this way, and for the time being, I'll keep shooting film on my Elan. I can invest the money saved into more lenses, flashes, tripods, filters, and such.

When digital and film level up, then I will very likely add a digital body. With a little luck, the EF lens system will still be in use and I can retain my EF collection for use on the digital body too!

Ebay

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit ebay and pick up an older minolta, say a 5000 or 7000i or so. The body will cost you around $50.00, around $70.00 to $80.00 with a 50mm lens. Spend the rest on lenses. Two years ago I picked up a Maxxum 5000 with a 50mm lens, a 70-210mm lens, and a 28mm lens for just over $200.00. A decent flash unit will add about $50.00 on that.

Nikon FM10 (mini review by an spanish amateur)

[gcantallopsr]

Most of my best friends are in the local LUG. I edit my e-mail with vim. I systematically GPL all my code. And all my cameras used to be automatic and digital. I didn't know much about photography, but I understood that almost all decisions were taken for me by some japanese engineer's design. And the results weren't always pleasing. Sure, I could see the subjects in my final prints, but I did not saw them as I wanted to.

So I wanted more control, the hacker way. But I didn't want to begin with a multi-thousand-dollar SLR because I knew that my limited knowledge would be the most important issue at least for the first months (i.e. for the first thousands of test pictures). Taking pictures is a camera (body + optics) + film + photographer + light + subject(s) system, and I was (well, I still am) the weakest part of it. So, being an engineer, I tried to dimension the system not to waste resources (money). When I outperform my camera, I will replace it with a better one (I like the Nikon FM3A and I've seen amazing pictures taken with a Leica MP). Until then, I will stick to the cheapest (plastic!) SLR made by Nikon. I've played around with my father's Yashica Mat 124 G, and the medium format (6x6) negatives give impressive results, but TLRs are just too heavy for me.

The FM10 is a purely mechanical camera (it only needs batteries for the exposure meter, neatly solved with just three LEDs). Wonderful pictures mean you did it well. Pathetic pictures mean you did it wrong. But at least, you did it. And you can learn from every success or mistake. I spent last weekend in Ibiza and Formentera and took about 150 pictures (Fuji Reala 100 in the sunny mornings and Ilford Delta 400 under lower light conditions, and to test B&W). I'm having them developed in a local laboratory because I don't have resources to do it myself (yet). I'll see the results tomorrow (negatives and photo cd with 16MB hi-res files) and I expect to get about a 10% of truly good pictures, worth to enlarge and print. Previous tests produced some nice pictures. They were simple pictures, but I got them just as I wanted to see them. I had to waste several rolls first, but it was due to my poor initial skills.

The FM10 performed pretty well, with absolutely no mechanical failures (and it's fully mechanical so this means no failures at all). It was light to carry all day (in continuous trips, switching from planes to boats and even rented cars, or simply walk) and it was really easy to use (no mistakes were made due to bad design).

After two weeks of careful tests and two (almost three) days of what I think it's "heavy" use it's showing light wear signs on the corners (!), loosing the "matte" champagne finish and showing a brighter material. It doesn't seem to be a real problem and I think that it will age nicely. Most important parts still look as if they were never used, and picture quality is consistent. It will be my "main" camera for the next year, and I expect it not to broke in this period because in the next 365 days I won't probably shoot more than 4x36 pictures in a weekend. I don't have the time, and It would be too expensive O:-)

I got me a Canon Elan IIe

[melted]

I already have a DSLR and a nice collection of expensive lenses, so I wanted to be able to shoot B&W and slide film (Velvia, Provia) with the same lenses, so I bought a Canon Elan IIe. It cost me $150 with 12 rolls of film, a bag and a remote release thingy. Not bad at all.

Though these days for someone with a limited budget I'd suggest the upper-class P&S or Digital Rebel just to avoid the processing cost and get the instant gratification of digital.

If you buy a DSLR be prepared for massive cash outlay for decent lenses. Cheap lenses mean crappy pictures and even more so on digital than on film.

Re:Check out the Olympus OMs - but handle them all

[16K Ram Pack]

There's something quite reassuring about the Olympus OM series. I used to have an OM10, and it always felt rock solid - like you could drop it from a great height and it would carry on working.

I changed it for a Canon EOS, which didn't feel so solid, but I did prefer it as a camera.

As for digital SLR prices, they are already starting to fall. Here in the UK, the baby Canon EOS digital body is now about 700UKP. A few months ago it was being sold for about 900UKP.

nikormat

[Eraser_]

I would like to say I have 2 Nikormat's. These cameras are _tank_ cameras. They have no auto nothing in them, and a light meter. However they do have flash attachments, etc. I have inhereited both of my parents nikormats, one of which was dragged through central/south america by an anthropology student (my mom). It has dings and dents, but man if it doesn't take a beautiful picture.

Canon AE-1

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one, it's a hand-me down from my grandfather, and while it's probably older than I am, it takes fantastic photographs. It was Canon's first camera with auto-exposure, but it works well, and you can always fall back to manual if you want. I have no idea what they cost, but they must still be available, I've seen a surprising number of other people with them.

Wrong priority: spend on lenses

[MadCow42]

The lens makes MUCH more difference to image quality than the camera body does.

Unless you need all the fancy auto-exposure, TTL flash, and auto-focus features, you're much better off buying a cheap body and good lenses.

Tips:
- buy a camera body from a major name-brand maker. Ensure that your local camera shops or Ebay have a good supply of used lenses for that body type.
- zoom lenses are ALWAYS worse than fixed ("prime") lenses
- "pro" level zoom lenses are pretty decent, but still not as good as a good prime lens... you'll spend at least $900 on a decent zoom.
- buy name-brand lenses if you can afford it (i.e. Nikon, Canon, or whatever your body is). 3rd party lenses are sometimes pretty good, but more often than not they're crap. Otherwise, do some serious homework before buying a 3rd-party lens. (a good example of a decent 3rd-party lens is the Tamron 90mm/2.5 macro... but a lot of other Tamron lenses SUCK!).

My $0.02 (Cdn).

MadCow.

For an upgrade path, i'd go canon

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a big fan of nikon for all my film gear (still have an f-70), but i wish i'd gone cannon personally. Now i've got a digital (300D to be exact) and, none of my lenses are any use to me. I've also tried the higher-end canon's and the nikon dslr's and i'd still prefer canon even if price wasnt a factor!

I've also tried the canon film slr's (most of the places i've worked for use these) and they are pretty dam good too!

Having said all that, i am very happy with my nikon gear, the f70 is quite good to me, and i plan on keeping it.. but, the temptation is always there to switch to a canon slr to cut down on my lens baggage!

my $0.026 (including GST and import duties)

Canon FD is THE way to go

[mfarah]

The FD line is the manual-focus one, as you wanted. Those bodies/lenses are built to last, have great quality, and aren't expensive.

First, get a good body - A-1 is my personal favorite, although you may get an AE-1 or a T-70 instead. Ignore the T-90 and F1 for the time being (T-90 has too many features; F1 is intended for serious professionals).

Then, get two lenses:

1) a fixed 50mm f1.4 lens (THE all-around lens, light and fast, highly corrected, AND cheap)

2) a zoom lens. The 75-200 lens is a good entry choice (good optics, slow but pretty light).

Finally, a good flash. Speedlite 199-A is my choice.

You'll need a case to carry all of this (buy it AFTER getting the above-mentioned hardware), and some filters (a polarizer, a warming filter and a skylight filter are the most basic ones).

AND, you'll need to make choices about film - there's a LOT of different film types, each one with its own strength and weakness. For all-around negative film, I love Fuji Superia REALA 100. For slides, Fuji Provia (black and white I don't know enough yet).

You may buy all this stuff at KEH - they're a bit more expensive than getting the stuff from e-bay, but you can rest assured that they'll deliver items in the quality they stated and you won't have surprises.

You're asking the wrong question, and here's why.

[megabeck42]

A camera itself is a light-tight box with two important components: A Lens and a Shutter.

The most important of the two is the Lens. The Lens warps and bends the light to react on the film. Camera is a box; Lens does all the work and has far more effect on the quality of your image than the box.

This is the crucial part of the comment: SPEND MORE ON YOUR LENS THAN THE CAMERA.

We've all taken physics so we can all appreciate how fantastically complex these lenses are. Remember how the angle light is bent when passing between two different densities is depedent on its wavelength? Well, imagine having to deal with that along with half a dozen other problems in lens design.

First, evaluate what you want to shoot and then figure out what focal lengths you will need to create the images you want. Remember that focal length has many different effects on the image. For example, magazine covers are typically shot with very, very long lenses - around 400 or 500 mm - because the telephoto effect compresses facial features. Try taking a portrait with a wide-angle some time. ;) Point is, choose the focal length that has the distortion you want, then zoom with your feet. Also, remember you can always crop in the dark room.

Many of the large camera companies have very devout followings who are more than happy to tell you about notable lenses. For example, for Nikon, people will often gush over the old AI-S 80f2.5 (iirc, haven't been on the nikon list in over a year.) However, other 'solid' lenses are the AF-D 50f1.8, the AF-S 80-200f2.8.

So get yourself a *nice* lens then get yourself a cheap, old, used manual camera body like an FM-2 or FE-2. (with a few exceptions) Nikon lenses are backwards compatible. Ie, I can take my AF-S ED IF 80-200f2.8 lens and use it quite well on my Nikon FE.

Also, Their flashes are backwards compatible, I can use my SB-28DX on my FE as well as my F5.

A quick rundown of Nikon Lens tags:
AF = AutoFocus
AI and AI-S = Automatic Indexing (manual lenses that have a tab which mates with a ring on the lens mount to report the aperture index to the camera for metering.)
ED = extremely low dispersion glass (used to make different generations of lenses distinct. ELD is a specially doped glass from nikon that, like its name, has very low dispersion.)
IF = Internal Focussing (the lens will not extend/contract to focus, the focussing is done by moving internal elements within the lens.)
-D = The lens can report the distance it is focussed at to the camera for flash metering.
-S = The lens uses a piezoelectric ring inside the lens barrel to focus instead of relying on the mechanical linkage to the motor in the camera. These lenses also have -D functionality.

Personally, I would get an AI 50f2 or an AF 50f1.8 with a Nikon FE or FE-2 to get the hang of things. Once you get feature envy, then you can get yourself an F100, SB-80, etc.

N55 vs N65 and N75

[cyberchondriac]

Is this mostly for learning and experimentation, or do you want something you can grow into over the years too ? Not that I'm any kind of expert, because I'm not, but I've spoken with a lot of experts over the years who recommend Nikons, and apparently not just on name brand recognition. I'm getting my wife an N55 from Ritz for Christmas - granted it costs over $200, but not by too much, about $25 -$29 dollars.
The interesting thing about the N55 is, it's such a better deal than buying an N65 or N75, because Ritz bundles a store-brand Quanteray lense with the higher end Nikons to try and keep the price down, whereas with the N55, you're getting a 35 -80mm Nikkormat lense, much higher quality.
I guess my point is, don't skimp on the lense ! And for the most part, can't you shut a lot of the auto stuff off ? Having said that, I know the old Pentax is sought after by astronomers because the full manual control allows for more creative control when doing astrophotography, and at some point newer cameras simply don't relinquish total control, but where that line is drawn is something I forgot.
There's my second point: if you're doing this for astrophotography, then yeah, you're probably better off with an old Pentax. Just my 2 pence.

Nikon FM2

[finnhart]

The Nikon FM2 (for "Fully Manual", I believe) is a rock solid manual-focus camera. Back when I was taking photography classes (10 years ago), this camera was regarded as a classic.

I remember the instructor saying that many pros would always carry an FM2 along with all their other hightech gear, because the FM2 always works. Very low power consumption, no chance of mechanical error even in arctic/desert conditions.

Check out the Nikon Page for more details.

Other than observing that the two are very similar, I can't give a detailed comparison of the FM2 versus the Pentax K-1000 which others have mentioned. Either one will do you fine, so just look for the best deal.

Also, if you are most of the way there with a darkroom setup, spend the 20 or so bucks on a manual winder & empty rolls so you can buy film in bulk and load the rolls yourself. The ability to wind your own rolls is great for a couple reasons:

1. Buying film in bulk is waaaay cheaper.
2. If you need to switch in the middle of a roll, you can salvage the remaining film with a little snip-snip-reload action. Just make sure to make the cut well AFTER your final shot! (I've screwed that one up before).
3. With bulk film, it's economical to wind small rolls (10 frames or so). This gives you a lot of freedom to swap different speeds or color vs. b&w without having to always trash the rest of the roll (or salvage it per the above).

Re:Nikon FM2

[swordgeek]

As someone who used to sell (and use) the K-1000 and, and has owned an FE-2 (Very similar to the FM-2), I can comment on some of the differences.

1) Lenses. Nikon lenses are justifiably famous, although Pentax has always been a very highly regarded competitor. Regardless, the ancient Nikon will take brand-new autofocus lenses without a fuss (although of course without using the autofocus ability), whereas the Pentax won't.

2) Build quality. The FM2/FE2 was a TANK. This is still the camera that many Nikon-using professionals carry around as a backup body, given that it's bulletproof (in the very worst possible situation, 1/250sec shutterspeed is entirely mechanical and always works) and takes all of the current lenses. The K-1000 was an excellent little camera and built substantially stronger than many, but isn't designed for the same level of abuse.

3) Many minor features between them. Interchangable ground glass on the FM2, but I don't know about the K-1000. The FM2 is somewhat unfriendly to those of us who are left-eyed, as the wind lever has to be cocked (into your right eyeball :-) to shoot. Nikon accessories tend to be more expensive, I believe.

Both are really solid cameras. I might suggest an FE2 over an FM2, because having at least a semiautomatic mode (aperture-priority) encourages you to take more pictures.

Re:Nikon FM2

[calyphus]

1/250sec shutterspeed is entirely mechanical and always works

Actually, on the FM2 ALL shutterspeeds work even with a dead battery. It actually has a more advanced shutter design than the FE2, and the F3 for that matter, which do have the fall-back single operable speeds (1/90 on the F3) with dead batteries.

Re:Nikon FM2

[swordgeek]

Whoops! Right you are. My memory is a bit old.

I notice though, that the new FM3a (which actually has fully automatic modes) has a shutter which operates either electronically or mechanically throughout its entire range.

Re:Nikon FM2

[howlatthemoon]

I third this recommendation. I would recommend a nikon FM (or FE) series over the K1000 any day. On the used market, you should be able to find one at a reasonable price. When I worked in the camera trade I almost never saw a dead FM/E unless it was a pretty clear case of abuse. Remember ALWAYS put the camera in the bag in the car. Do not leave on the roof.

Canon EOS or Rebel

[^chuck^]

You should be able to pick up a used one pretty cheap. The lenses support both manual and autofocus, the view finder has support for the visually crippled (you can get a correct lens, so that if you are near-sighted, like me, you can still use manual focus), the camera has basic "point click" picture taking capabilities, but also allows you to alter just the Time-Value and automatically pick the "correct" aperture setting. Same with the other way round, or you can select good ol' manual manual mode :).

All in all, its my first and only SLR, I love it, and I've learned alot using it. The funniest thing I've discovered is that most pictures come out great on the regular "take the damn picture" setting, without playing with the settings. It really does come down to framing your shot most of the time.

oh yeah, and if at some point you want to get a digital SLR, there is a digital EOS SLR camera, which uses the same lenses as the 35mm ones.

Nikkormat SLR3

[anonymousCowz]

With a simple 50mm lens (2.0 is good enough). It doesn't cost much. At the art academy I did it was the camera to start with. No autofocus to distract you from the picture and they are cheap. They are really old but don't worry about that, they are practically indestroyable.

Story: -1 Offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it to a photography site.

Re:Story: -1 Offtopic

[HarryCallahan]

What's the matter, no mention of SCO? Anyway, 347 replies says you're wrong

Minolta SRt-201 is similar

[sphealey]

The Minolta SRt line (SRt-101 and SRt-201 are the most common) has similar characteristics and usually go on eBay for around 175 USD. Plus you arm muscles will be stronger after you use it for a while.

sPh

Re:Minolta SRt-201 is similar

[mnmn]

Thats just what I had for my first camera. It has practically all the manual controls and you can find lenses for it many places. Doesnt need a battery except for that light-measuring thingy. The thing is quite rugged but the shutter speed is 1000 max, and I've made some nice pics off of it. Careful about the quality of the lens on any manual camera, generally the body is 40% and lens 60$ of the total cost. Skimping on the lens is not a good idea and can put off both a budding and a fully flowered fotographer

My arms ARE stronger, and I cant carry the thing around my neck while I'm cycling or even just hiking. I've handled nicer nikon canon etc cameras, but for some reason they seem like too much electronics and too many variables to keep in mind while composing a picture. If I had to get a new one, I'd probably go with a medium format camera with the exact featureset of the SRT201.

Re:Minolta SRt-201 is similar

[sstaton]

The SR-T series, sold from the late 60's until the late 70's, are Minolta's classic line of rugged, all manual SLRs. They introduced the CLC system, a contrast compensation metering that does pretty good job of metering high contrast scenes. Two models (101, 102) have flip-up mirrors, which eliminate camera shake for astrophotography. All models use the same MC (meter coupled) metering system so the user need not take their eye off the viewfinder to compose, focus, check depth-of-field (DOF) preview, and set exposure. And they're almost all mechanical and metal inside -- they usually survive hitting the ground with only the occasional dent.

On eBay, these cameras range from $50 to $100 with a 50mm f/1.7 lens.

The meter battery is very, very hard to find, as it is a 1.35v mercury cell (which is now banned - too many ended up in landfills). Several options exist to work around this. Zinc-air (Wein) cells work at almost the same voltage (1.4v), but wear out after six months of use. The meter system can be recalibrated by a relatively lightly skilled electronics geek to work with 1.5v silver cells. And there is a product that encapsulates the v76 series silver cells and which drops the voltage of the 1.5v cell to the mercury's 1.35v.

This line of Minolta works with the MC or MD series lenses, the latter ("Metered Diaphram") required for full automatic operation with the XD and X series (e.g. XD-5, XD-11, XG, X-700, etc.) bodies. Look for Minolta Rokkor lenses -- they are very high quality lenses. A 28mm, 50mm and 135mm will provide a great range of lenses for an amateur photographer.

The only major problem with older Minolta cameras is the light seals decay and become sticky over the years. It costs around $40 to have them replaced by a competent camera repair store, but they are harder and harder to find. Check out Garry's repair site for help.

Good call...

[sammy baby]

I learned on my mother in law's old Nikkormat FT2. Manual everything, with a built in light meter. Two lenses, both fixed - one 50mm macro, and a 200mm.

The manual everything forces you to think about the relationship between light, apeture size and shutter speed, which is the most important thing to learn. The fixed-length lenses force you to learn composition (the second most important thing) without the assistance of zoom.

And unless you're going to develop yourself (may or not be an option for you), be prepared to shell out a bunch of money getting film developed. It's a bitch, but it can't be helped.

Get a Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens.

[MongooseCN]

This is one of the sharpest lenses made, by public opinion and lab tests. Shoot it around f8 for the sharpest image. It's also pretty cheap, I think I got mine for around $80.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Compact Dick]

Potentially inappropriate advice, as pointed out by the other replies [thanks to those who did so far.]

New or on Ebay

[deaddeng]

You can still buy a mostly-manual Minolta X-370, but they are made in China now by "Seagull."

You can go for used on Ebay and get a Minolta X-570 or X-700. I pefer the X-570--heavier body, better metering, and cheaper used. Late model X-700 have more plastic, which is good in terms of weight but not as nice a feel. Neither is too far from production that parts would be a problem, and they aren't old enough to be a classic like the XD11/XD7 or XK1. I like minoltas because the lenses are very good for the $ and they widely available new and used-- anything with an MD mount will work.

You will tend to pay a premium for Nikons, but they still make a great manual SLR.

Don't know where you live, but Penn Camera on the East Coast US has clean,serviced used cameras.

We are the two brightest bulbs in here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd probably have fun going bowling with you.

subject

[digable]

I've been thinking of getting into pornography

am i the only one who read it this way?

Re:subject

[dogdaze]

In that case, he needs to go digital. No messing around with the photolabs nosy crew.

M42 mount and primes

[Twitch42]

M42 mount lenses and bodies are plentiful and various. You have many choices in manufacturers, build quality, and prices. You won't be getting any whiz-bang features, but you can put together a nice system for a low outlay.

I'd also go for prime lenses (35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm, etc) instead of zooms (35mm-105mm, 100mm-300mm, etc). Most people think that a zoom is for saving you from walking. Wrong! You choose the focal length first, then walk to where you can frame the picture correctly. Sure, there are times when you don't have a lot of room to move around, but the focal length you choose has a HUGE inpact on the outcome of the picture. It should be a conscious choice.

Prime lenses allow you to open up the aperture more, so they are more useful in low-light and when you want to shorten the amount of focal depth. With a 50mm f1.4, you can blur the background quite well, but zooms often only open up to f4. The quality of lenses tend to be better also, as compromises don't have to be made for a range of focal lengths.

Nikon F - old camera but fabulous

[switchbaby]

I've been using this camera since I was a teenager. Aluminum body, nice and heavy (and pretty tought to break), which makes it easier to steady. But what is really great about it are the lenses. The basic 1:4 lens has terrific depth of field which gives the shots rich detail.

Last time I travelling with friends through Paris, we shot much of the same sights. But the when we compared our film a few week later, it was unbelievable. My friend was shooting a midpriced Canon, around $500, and her shots looked visibly flatter (we had afternoon light, so there were no flash/lighting issues). Just checked eBay and there seem to be a couple in the $100-$250 range - reasonable.

Overall, using a manual camera allows you know what f-stops really mean and what needs to be pushed to get the shot. There is one more advantage to using a manual camera: no autowinder. That means that you have to plan what you want to shoot because you need to assess the environment (light, angle, aperture). It makes you truly look at what is around you.

You end up seeing more than you think....and sometimes finding a shot you might never have considered.

(plus wherever I go, cute boys also stop to check out the camera...makes my girlfriends jealous!)

Lenses!

[glenebob]

This has been said already, but it can't be stressed enough. If you want to take decent pictures, spend your money on lenses! The body is just a big hole that allows light to hit your film. The lenses are what focus and modify that light. There is very little a body can do to mess up a shot; once the shutter opens, it litterally is just a big hole. Lenses are everything!

Now that you're out shopping for killer lenses, keep this in mind: The more glass between your film and your subject, the more the light is modified. Coatings make a big difference (much of the cost of a good lense). Don't expect to go out and buy some neato 28-400 zoom and have all your bases covered. As a general rule, the more zoom range, the more glass. Stick to short-range zooms and be sure to pick up at least a couple prime lenses (50mm for example). Use the primes whenever you can. This is all stuff a knowledgable lense salesman will help you with.

With decent lenses, you will take killer pictures with something simple like a K-1000 (you simply must own one of these). With cheap lenses, you'll take crap pictures no matter what you do.

Older Models

[bottlerocket]

It seems like most posters are recommending newer hardware. I personally use a Canon AE-1 Program, which came out about 20 years ago. It's built like a rock, with an all-metal body, and has withstood several tumbles. It has all the essential features to create great pictures that newer models have, but without the cheap plastic body and lenses.

You can get older camera bodies for around a hundred dollars, and often times they have the same (or more!) features that a modern entry-level SLR would have. About the only thing really missing for older models is auto-focus. (Although an auto-focus lens is available for the AE-1. It was the first consumer-level camera to have one!) And if you go with a Nikon body, their lenses are backwards compatible. So, if you decide to upgrade to a body that support auto-focus in the future, you'll be able to use your old lenses.

Why bother with manual focus cameras? Because most entry-level cameras still have clunky auto-focus mechanisms that often result in the wrong objects being in focus. It's crucial when first starting out that users learn how aperature settings affect depth of field and how to use focusing techniques to draw the eye to parts of the picture. Auto-focusing hides this stuff from the usuer, and they never learn how to use it to their advantage. Learning proper photographic techniques is the difference between taking artistic images and snapshots.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now...

Nikormat - superb manual camera

[glawrie]

Just to say I've got a Nikormat FTN. Had it for over 20 years, from my days as a student (it was second hand even then). Travelled with it, never had a case for it, it is worn and dented, but never missed a beat. Has highly effective ergonomics - including OM1 style shutter speed changing via ring at base of lens rather than with shutter dial on top of case. After about five years I 'upgraded' to a Nikon FE - but never got the results from FE that price suggested - and soon reverted to Nikormat. Have had shutter (all mechanical) re-calibrated on Nikormat twice. And changed light meter battery. But otherwise it is unchanged since day I bought it.

Features here, not brands

[swordgeek]

There are about a 'zillion posts recommending a particular brand or model. Here are the things to consider.

Do you want:
1) Autofocus?
2) Auto exposure (i.e. point-and-click) ability? Or abilities?
3) Autowind? (and if so, do you want the ability to do double exposures--one often precludes the other)
4) Fully manual exposure (not always possible on autoexposure SLRs, sadly)
5) The ability to use almost any random lens from the company? (narrows you down to Nikon and maybe Contax)
6) Tanklike/batteryless/cold-weather abilities? (usually means an older one, although the Nikon FM3a seems to qualify)

That should be a start. Do NOT get an APS camera. Period.

First, answer some questions...

[jdreed1024]

"What are you trying to do?" Seriously, that famous tech support quote is very appropriate here. What's your end goal? Learn about photography? Take B&W shots? Color? Slide? For personal enjoyment? For a future exhibit? Planning to go pro?

First, go pick up the Complete Kodak Book of Photography. Some of it is a little basic, but it's a good source of tips, and a great comprehensive book. Unfortunately, it seems to be out of print on, but Amazon does have it used. It may have renamed itself or something. Go to a brick and mortar bookstore and browse.

If you're doing developing and printing, you'll want to build your own enlarger. You learn a lot about the process, and you get geek points. For more geek points, build your own timer with a relay that times the exposure on the enlarger.

As far as a camera goes, you want a simple one to start off with. A good SLR will cost a LOT of money, so be prepared to either buy used for your first time, or have some really really nice relatives, or befriend someone who works for Canon. The manual vs automatic debate is -1, Overrated. Any decent "automatic" SLR camera will have a full manual mode. Just because you have the automatic feature doesn't mean you have to use it. As a beginner, you will want to stay in manual mode the whole time to play around, but automatic is useful for quick shots if you're also using it for snapshots. Don't get anything that doesn't at least have an automatic mode. (basically, automatic:manual::emacs:vi. Subsitute the relevant religious arguments)

My first SLR was a used Canon AE-1. ("So simple, anyone can use it!") This was Canon's first automatic exposure (guess what AE stands for) camera. Focus is completely manual, but the f/stop can be set manually or automatically depending on the mode. So it can be a full manual camera if you want. It's a great camera, and you could probably pick one up for cheap these days, though they're getting old enough that they're collectors items, so they might be more expensive. A great, great camera.

If you buy a new camera instead, it may have a built-in pop-up flash (like the Canon Elan series) It'll be crap for anything except snapshots and some indoor photos. If you want to play around with lighting and the like, you want a real flash (sold separately) that attaches to the camera shoe. And a reflector, probably.

For vendors, you'll want to find a local one for most chemicals (since shipping those is a bitch due to regulations). Check your yellow pages. If you have a local photo store (the old fashioned kind, not the kiosk in Wal-Mart), they might be able to point you in the right direction. For equipment, B&H Photo and Video in NY is the way to go (www.bhphotovideo.com). Their catalog is the size of a phonebook and they have a good selection and the BEST customer service I have ever dealt with. 42nd Street Photo is ok, but their customer service folks are surly.

You'll also want to play around with good quality film. Kodak Tri-X pan is still the standard for B&W, especially for entry-level. For slide film (slides are a must if you're taking nature shots - you can't appreciate a sunset over a mountain range in 5x7 foramt), Kodakchrome 64 is still a classic, except it has to be sent back to Kodak for processing. (Although people have told me that's no longer true, and some larger labs can do it, but I didn't think Kodak had licensened the technology - it's a different developing process). I like Fujichrome Sensia and Velvia (The latter is a little better). If you're traveling at all, get a lead pouch or request a hand examination of your film. I had some 400 speed film ruined by the new TSA x-rays recently (despite the claim that they don't effect any film below 1600). Pro films will need to be kept in the fridge until you use them. As will paper. Playing around with high-speed film is fun too, for shooting in the dark with no flash. It'll be very very grainy though.

Oh, and if you plan to take pictures of

Re:First, answer some questions...

[jdreed1024]

Don't get anything that doesn't at least have an automatic mode.

Er, that should be "that doesn't at least have a manual mode".

Re:First, answer some questions...

[Sosarian]

> Kodakchrome 64 is still a classic, except it has
> to be sent back to Kodak for processing. (Although
> people have told me that's no longer true, and
> some larger labs can do it, but I didn't think
> Kodak had licensened the technology - it's a
> different developing process).

Don't bother with Kodachrome, it is on it's way out and you have to send it to Kodak Toronto or Rochester to have it developed.

The chemicals used to develop it are more toxic than the alternatives and it takes weeks if not months to get your film back.

I like Velvia if it's sunny and you have that option, otherwise Sensia or Ektachrome will do just fine.

-Mike

Try somewhere else

[Boarder2]

It's been said a couple times before, but, you asked the wrong place.

Try a photography forum if you're serious about your question.

Here are a few good places:
Photo.net - All around great place to learn about photograpy/different cameras. Excellent forums and reviews available.
dpreview.com - Digital camera reviews. Check out some Digital SLRs, you might be pleasently surprised.

Try a Pentax ZX-M

[briansz]

It's a K1000 but better. Depth of field preview, winder, available battery grip that accepts NiMH 'AA' cells, better metering, so cheap as to be almost disposable NEW.

Plus, it still has KNOBS.

Mine cost about $200 with the battery grip via mail order, and coupled with a 24mm Pentax f/2.0 and Sigma 50-200 APO it was SWEET.

Everybody says lots of used Pentax lenses are available. They are, but they're usually garbage from Taiwan. Pentax Prime lenses are COSTLY and RARE on the used market. The cheapest SMC 24mm f/2.8 I could find was about $279 so I just said the Hell With It and popped $400 on a brand new 24mm f/2.0.

OTOH, If you want something completely bulletproof and big/heavy doesn't scare you, try a Nikon F2A. I still regret selling mine.

For learning, digital SLR

[ya8282]

Advantages over film SLR:

1) Running Cost Effectiveness
Fixed costs (purchasing the digital camera body, memory card, and printer vs. purchasing film camera body, developing tools, scanner) will be different, but the total costs of creating a final print for film SLRs will soon exceed your cost total for the digital SLR because the film SLR has a higher running cost.

You'll want to take pictures of everything and setup your own tests to improve. It's essential to test your lenses as well to make sure that you didn't get a defective copy.

Many of your film shots you will regret having developed whereas taking a digital shot will allow you to conveniently preview them on your computer before deciding to make a print out of it.

The cost of a decent dSLR body like the Canon 10D or crippled Canon 300D will run you between $750-1300 (non-gray market) whereas the film equivalent Canon EOS bodies cost around $100-300. The lenses cost the same since you can use them on either digital or film body...

2) Instant Development/Feedback
With digital, you can view the histogram immediately after taking the shot to see if you overexposed, underexposed, or blew the highlights. You can also view the picture to see if you framed the shot properly, and most importantly, chicks (or whatever gender-orientation you may prefer) dig it when you show them the shot you just took of them.

Time is money, so I'd rather save a lot of time than a little bit of money.

3) High resale value
Check eBay for used prices on dSLRs. The ones that still function are very close to the price of a new one. Most film SLRs don't retain their value quite as well.

4) Limitations
Limitations of digital photography will probably cause you to encounter more issues in which you will need to be careful about. It is advantageous to learn about these in advance. For example, blown highlights is a common problem in digital photography. You will learn methods of avoiding blown highlights and become particularly conscious about it, while film photographers mostly ignore the possibility.

This being said, I would recommend the Canon 10D ($1300) and 28-135mm IS lens ($400) to start with. It's a great combination You can judge for yourself if you made the right decision, and if not, you could sell off the equipment for close to the price you paid for it.

I would also recommend the site dpreview.com -- the forums are especially helpful for getting others' opinions.

Re:For learning, digital SLR

[babyrat]

Seeing as the original poster was talking $200, I don't think $1700 is a realistic recommendation - even if he could sell it for $2000 in a year for a $300 profit, if you have $200 you cannot buy a $1700 camera.

Other posters have suggested manual mode cameras. These are great for learning photography, but while you are learning you won't be taking many good pictures with this camera. A relatively modern camera will allow you to go into full manual mode for learning, but will also have the full-auto mode (and many modes in between) to allow you to take great pictures at events (for example Christmas while you are enjoying an eggnog or 6 and don't want to bother manually setting everything to get a picture of uncle Bill spewing beer out his nose).

It's sort of the best of both worlds, and a used model can be found on your budget.

I cannot emphasize enough the benefit of the near-instantaneous of digital, but if you don't have the cash up front it is irrelevant as a prosumer digital (even non-SLR) is gonna cost you about $500 minimum.

All that being said, I can't help but mention I have two Canons (a G1 Digital and a Rebel SLR) that are now doorstops (after about 3 years each) - they failed (in different ways) with no real abuse I can think of. The cost of repairing was not worth it, so I now have Nikons. Only had them for 6 months or so, so I can't comment on their durability, but I'm sort of anti-Canon at the moment (although they both took great pictures until they broke).

Re:For learning, digital SLR

[Lord of Caustic Soda]

Digital is cheaper if you never intend to print anything.

I'm not quite sure the resale value of any digital camera will hold over the say 5 to 10 years, whereas that second-hand 35mm or medium format camera from 30-40 years ago probably won't depreciate any further so long they are kept functional.

Most digital cameras are better at shooting macro than SLR, but the smaller sensor area means you can't get as shallow a depth of view with the lens wide open, and the digital "grain" isn't as nice as film. Also getting anything wider than 28mm is hard with digital.

Canon T70

[Kymermosst]

If you want a used, older, manual-focus camera, the Canon T70 might be one to consider.

I've got one, it takes FL and FD lenses that are relatively cheap. I got an 80-200 zoom in perfect condition for $25.

My only gripe about the T70 is that it has no depth-of-field preview, and no aperture-priority mode, but if you understand photography, this shouldn't be a problem for you. If you plan on leaving it in the automatic mode or shutter priority modes, also not a problem.

Its big brother, the T90, is also a good camera, but not very cheap to be had.

Re:Canon T70

[quan74]

I agree, my first SLR was a T70, and save for an unfortunate accident involving my backpack falling over a 120 ft waterfall, it would still be my favorite.....

Try checking around your town in the "old/family owned" type camera shops, you can probably pick one up with some decent accesories for $200-250.

Splurge, get a digital rebel

[Kurtv]

You will get more out of one of the new digital SLR's. Yeah its gonna cost you an extra $800 to get into the dslr area but its worth it. You can instantly see the results of using different lenses/settings/filters. Plus this is slashdot so get into the digital age. I have had my digital rebel for 2 months and love it. Yeah I have a big credit card bill, but it will go away....

K-1000 FOREVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

K-100- FOREVER!

I love the Pentax K-1000

old cube cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad I can't remember the name, but a real great camera for beginners would be one of those older cube looking ones where you look down from the top and see everything backwards in a little window. I've seen lots of them around an camera shops for around $50 I think. The film is the same width as 35mm film so you can process it with the same equipment, but the negatives are still much bigger so the quality of your photos will be a lot higher.

Huh?

[autopr0n]

What exactly makes a light meter worth so much?

Re:Huh?

[dipipanone]

What exactly makes a light meter worth so much?

Why do some computers cost $500, while others cost $50,000?

It's the same thing. Accuracy, build quality, engineering, etc.

However, there's no point in spending $50,000 if all you want is to surf the web, and the same principle applies to light meters.

Re:Huh?

[TheCrazyFinn]

Bad meter=bad pictures.

The Meter is the only thing on the body that is ALWAYS worth paying for. It determines exposure, which determines whether or not the picture looks decent(Provided you can compose and it's in focus) and also depth of field if you're shooting in a non aperture-priority program mode. The shutter only needs to be over 1/2000 if you are shooting very fast action and AF isn't really a need.

It's also the reason to go for an older used semi-pro body over a new consumer or amateur body.

The Meter in my 20-year old FA (The first Matrix Meter ever, body is the equivalent of todays F100) noticably outperforms the meter in my F65 in challenging lighting conditions(especially backighting).

Re:Huh?

[grahamsz]

They make more expensive ones.

It's digital, and i like digital things and find them inherantly more easy to trust than an analog system.

Secondly it's a spot meter. It can measure the intensity of 1 degree, 2 degree and 4 degree spot which is great for very dramatic lighting, whereas cheaper meters will average a larger area.

Thirdly it can sync to a random flash - so i can test fire a flash on my camera, the meter will spot the increased brightness and let me measure how much light is bouncing off a surface.

Fourthly. I'm using it with a cheap ($675) large format view camera with a cheap ($450) lens with a cheap ($140) tripod... so it's not really that much.

Also i'm amused by the fact that every time i see 'glamour' photographers working on TV, they always seem to have a Sekonic L-508 in front of the boobies :)

Re:Actually, Olympus OM-1 is the best... here's wh

[megan_of_wutai]

Yay for other Olympus fans! :)

I'd HIGHLY recommend you make lens selection #1

[CatOne]

Because, if you grow with the camera, and you decided to go for a big $$$ body or a big $$$ DSLR, you'd rather have lenses you can take with you.

People who buy a Nikon or Canon SLR are overwhelmingly likely to go for the same brand of DSLR, simply because the value of the lenses can be 10x the value of the body (well, maybe 20x with a manual SLR ;-)

Re:Wrong priority: spend on lenses

[ya8282]

I agree, spend on professional quality lenses for quality. You'll save even more time (time = $) by not having to edit the final products in PS/GIMP (we're still a Linux geek community right?).

Canon AE-1, Nikon FE-2 or FM-2

[piotru]

Buy used (only FM-2 is still manufactured)

These cameras have the depth-of-focus preview button which I find indispensable while composing pictures.
(this is the button closing aperture to preset value so you can see what would be in/out of focus on the picture - is the background blurred, etc.)

Especially the Nikons are sturdy, their lenses are comptaible with later models.

I would especially recommend FE-2 for it's convenient light meter display.

Basic 50mm 1.4 lens is handy, but I've chosen 50mm 1.2 to work with.

35mm Split Lip Rayfield Camera?

[Hrothgar The Great]

Well, that's what it is, right?

anything by nikon!

[kraksmoka]

i'm a digital photographer and shoot all the time. have done film in the past and will only touch a nikon for my money. they are durable, reliable, best optics, great integrated systems and every good other corporate buzzword you can add.

some people (cough, red hat) drop support for things very quickly in the it world. same with some camera makers, a new attachment for each camera to drive up the prices. nikon's F mount has been a standard for over 40 years and those 40 year old (often outstanding) lenses can fit even the newest camera.

bottom line, why buy two cameras, when one good one will do! get a great nikon and never get another rig!

To those who say film is dead...

[swordgeek]

...film is _dying_. It's not dead yet. Furthermore, when it dies, it'll end up in the same place as these other dead photographic technologies.

* B&W
* Large format
* Hand tinting
* silver prints
and even
* daguerrotypes

Now the more astute readers may notice that EVERY ONE of those dead technologies are still in active use--by artists. Even if digital was clearly superior (which it isn't yet), there's no need to steer people away from what they WANT to use, i.e. film.

In other words, it's not about technological superiority--it's about art and expression.

Olmpus OM system

[dfn_deux]

An Olympus OM1 or OM2 can be had for a hundred bucks w/ a lense or two on Ebay. They are simple to use have auto exposure and full manual modes and because they didn't go to autofocus when the big boys did there are a ton of them available that were built in the early eighties and don't have more than a 100 rolls shot through them.

Consider a range finder camera

[snStarter]

You might consider a range finder camera. You can buy the body of a Leica IIIg at your price point with another $100 or so for a 50mm lens. 35mm and 90mm lenses are also available.

There are also Contax ranger finder cameras out there.

You'll need an exposure meter because these puppies are ENTIRELY manual but that's a good thing for a new photographer.

You won't be taking a lot of wild-life photos with a range finder but you can do some splendid street photography and you can do great portraiture. After all it's the glass and Leica glass is the best in the world.

You might even scrounge around and get lucky and find an early Leica M which would serve you well all your life.

These are great cameras, made like tanks and rugged.

So look around and if you have a really good camera store in your area take your time and check out lots of different cameras.

My first great camera was a Leica IIIf which now lives at the bottom of Charleston Harbor. (A submarine's weapons shipping hatch is NOT a great place to put down a camera, even for a moment.)

Re:Consider a range finder camera

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I've heard that the shutter blades one of the newer Leica R-series SLRs are said to be almost disturbingly fragile, but that's way, way beyond the scope of the under-$200 discussion.

Nikon 6006

[rabs]

I have an old Nikon N6006, and I'd say you'd get a whole lot out of it, even (and especially) when you've become confident with point and shoot. You have a whole range of options that will take you from the world of automatic to manual operation. In addition to point-and-shoot, you have

- continuous focus, focus-and-hold,

- aperature priority, shutter priority

- a variety of metering options (matrix, center-weighted, point)

- fully manual operation

- "change" the film rating so you can do push development

- bracketing

Strangely enough, it does NOT have multiple exposure -- kind of an odd thing to leave out, but I haven't missed it too much.

Plus, great quality Nikon lenses are available, such as zoom lenses that double as a decent macro lenses (sure to give you many months of joy), and other lenses that are cheap on ebay (which is where I got my marvellous 50mm 1.4f).

(Also, a lot of people do NOT recommend the N8008, which is supposed to be the next generation. It has multiple exposure, but is not as fast.)

- rabs

Nikon FG

[BelowRadar]

Great manual focus auto exposure and program mode SLR. Its also a full metal not plastic camera with a smaller profile. I have two bodies and they are often on eBay for $125-175. The black version bodies are special. The FG is great for backpacking because of its size and weight. The great thing about Nikons is the lens compatibility with older and newer Nikon lenses. I can use my older manual focusing lenses with my autofocus body and my autofocus lenses with my manual bodies (FG). Of course I don't have autofocus, but that is not needed in every situation. My point is there are some great values to be found with the older lenses and bodies and you don't have to throw them away to upgrade to a new body.

Lenses, Lenses, Lenses

[Rick.C]

I would like to spend less than $200 on the camera itself, and start off with some cheaper lenses.

Dude, you have it so backwards. You pick the lens first, then find a camera that will fit it.

This may sound odd, but it's true. Assuming you know a bit about photography, you know what kind of aperature you'll need based on the kinds of pictures you'll be taking - low light, flash, outdoors, etc. You also know what focal length will suit you best. Look at the major brands - Nikon, Pentax, Cannon, Olympus, etc. and find a lens (or maybe two lenses) that will be your workhorse. Then choose a body you can afford with the idea that it will be your backup body later when you can afford better.

Back in the '70s I fell in love with the Olympus 100x2.8. I didn't like the "big nose" effect of a 50mm or 35mm when doing a head shot. A 135mm is big and too long to use indoors. Most 100s and 105s were f4.5 at the time. The 100x2.8 is the same size as most 50mm lenses, so it fits in a regular camera case. Shucks! What's not to like about it? So anyway I got a dealer to substitute the 100x2.8 for the normal 50x1.8 on an OM10 body. It's still my main 35mm camera today.

Based on your personal preferences, pick a lens first, then find your best deal.

BTW, the zoom lenses are OK unless you want to do enlargements. Then they seem a bit fuzzy.

Inexpensive Cameras

[WeBMartians]

Quick: 35mm... Consider buying used... Don't be seduced by telephoto lenses- you'll probably fall in love with a good very wide angle and a nice macro lens... Shoot LOTS of pictures and expect to throw most of them away. Details: The 35mm format has survived all sorts of technical and market challenges- 35mm film is going to be available for quite some time at very convenient locations. The same cannot be said for 120, 220, 70mm, 4x5 (sigh, I love 4x5)... Used equipment is indeed a gamble, but there are plenty of reputable sources and some good bargains. Asahi and Honeywell Pentaxes come to mind. These have an older, screw-type, lens mount (not the same as newer Pentaxes) so you'll have to forage for lenses too. The Takumar lenses (Pentax) are very well respected. MANY NEWER CAMERAS USE PLASTIC PARTS. Plastic just does not wear as well as metal. If you buy used, you are buying "used" (as in worn). If you buy low-end new, you are buying "used very soon." Of course, are you buying an heirloom or a useful tool (even if short term)? Believe it or not, most professional photographers lease their equipment. Even the much vaunted, tank-like Hasselblads do not last long in the professional environment. The combination of use and sheer abuse quickly does in any product. Cameras are a bit like manual razors: the razor-handle/camera-body is what you buy and the blades/lenses are what you get scammed on. Telephoto lenses are the sexy products, but except for certain applications, they are not very useful. For 35mm photography, I like a very wide angle lens (low 20's in focal length) and a macro lens (able to focus close up). The only longer lenses I could recommend would be a 100mm (good for portraits) and, optionally-ONLY, something much longer. Quality control is not what you might expect. Several tests have shown that the variance between different samples of the same brand of lens is such that it completely obscures any differences between brands themselves. And that brings me to "mind set." One of the greatest photographers is Cartier Bresson. Go look him up and check out his pictures. He uses a very simple outfit that is reputed to be just a "normal" lens on a manual 35mm camera (admittedly a primo Leica, but he started with a cardboard box camera). I am not sure he uses even a light meter. His brilliance is in being able to see the picture just before it happens and to "be there" to catch it. When you think about it, he's kind of like a great baseball player- he reflexively positions himself to snare the moment. How did he get to be so good? Certainly there is inate talent there. It was sharpened by shooting a gazillion images. That's what you have to do. Conclusions- Do your homework. Pick a camera that has a reasonable reputation for some reliability (don't be flim-flammed by gadgetry). Buy it. Shoot a LOT of pictures and throw most of them away. The remainder should form quite a collection of gems. If you have to throw the camera away in a few years, do so- you bought it once, you can do so again. At least you'll have the images, you'll have developed an eye, an d you'll have a great time. Best!

Things to consider

[pkinetics]

If I had to do it all over again, I'd start with a decent auto exposure / manual focus camera. Don't gimp on your lense. You'll appreciate it later. The better your F stop, the happier you'll be later when you experiment. Also manual focus lenses tend to be cheaper.

You'll start off taking lots of photos, so get cheap film to start, ala Costco. Pick up a couple of good photo technique books. A good book will discuss The Rule of Thirds, lighting and bracketing, and picture composition.

• Always critique your photos. Learn what you can do better.
• Get in close, get intimate with your subject.
• Keep all your photos so you can compare. Plus its a big ego boost when you see how much you've grown.
• Talk to your local camera shops. Not the big box stores. They won't know jack.
• Take lots of photos. That's the only way to learn.
• The big difference between professional photographers and amateurs: The amateur takes a few photos and shows a lot. The pro takes a lot of photos and shows only a few.

You'll soon learn what your camera and lense are capable of and won't be wasting a lot of film.

My current: Minolta 700xi with a 50mm f1.4. I prefer it over my Minolta 450si with 28-200mm. That is until I get my 200mm APO. To each camera a different purpose though.

One of the most popular: a Nikon FM2. Lots of lenses and been around for a long time. Good workhorse for wedding photographers who aren't using a medium format SLR.

Canon or Nikon, forget the rest.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lenses are the most expensive, most important part. Go with either a Canon body that takes Canon EF lenses (e.g. Canon Rebel) or a Nikon. Then, if you get into it and want a better camera body, you don't have to start over with the lenses, all your old lenses will work. And since Canon and Nikon are BY FAR the most popular SLRs, you can use your friends lenses. (And, if your friends use Nikon, go wtih Nikon, if your friends use Canon, go with Canon. If your friends use something else . . . Go with Canon or Nikon. As to lenses, for versatility for a beginner with a limited budget, it's hard to beat one of the "super-zooms", e.g. a Tamron 28-200 lens, which come in versions for Canon or Nikon (and Minolta, and manual, I think.)

Less Features = More Learning

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure that what ever you get can be *easily* used in 100% manual mode: focus, aperture, shutter speed, and film speed. The automatic features are often nice, but you need to learn the hows and whys of exposure, depth of field, etc. so you will know when and why to use which automatuc mode (and when not to!). On-camera flash is especially expendable; it gives that hideous "mug shot" look and is the cause of the infamous red-eye. Get a good external flash (again, be sure it does manual--automatic is an optional luxury) and a PC cable to hook it up.

As other have said, choose your line (camera make and lens mount--many manufactutrers have more than one style) carefully. A beginner's SLR body is relatively cheap to upgrade, but a good lens is not! Speaking of lenses, for low cost experience start with a fixed focal length, manual focus lens (maybe two, one a "normal" focal length between 35-50mm and the other a short telephoto of about 80-135mm). Zoom and autofocus add complexity (of both optics and moving parts), so cheaply built ones don't perform and last. Wait until you can afford a quality lens before spending that much.

Take the money you save not buying the automatic gadgets, and check Amazon or the local bookstore for Ansel Adam's textbook, "The Camera". The technology shown is decades old, but the techniques hold to this day and he explains them with both technical accuracy and esthetic artistry.

photo.net

[gabe]

Photo.net

Canon EOS

[Christian]

Two pieces of advice:

- Spend more money on your lens than on your body. In fact, don't get a cheap kit lens that comes with a camera. Buy a decent body that has the features you need but don't throw away money on a poor quality lens. If you can't afford the lenses you need right now, save. But don't waste money on a poor quality lens. I was given this advice when I bought my first 35mm SLR. I ignored it (on grounds of cost) and now I've had to replace the lens anyway with one that produces decent image quality. While zooms are flexible, primes are often great value for money in terms of image quality.

- When you buy a 35mm SLR you aren't buying a camera. You're buying a system. While there are good arguments for all the systems, IMO the Canon EOS system is the one with the best options for the future. A big part of the reason for this is Canon's current dominance of the digital SLR market. If you buy into the EOS system, you have a clear upgrade path to a DSLR. Yes, Nikon 35mm lenses will work with their DSLRs but Nikon seems to be headed down the path to sub-35mm digital sensors as a standard and is therefore bringing out lenses which will not work on your film SLR. (Canon have done this too but not for any serious lens, just as a way of selling cheap cameras.) Canon's clear intention is towards full-frame DSLR sensors and ultimately that's what most photographers want. Anyway, it's a complex issue and my overall point is, be careful what system you choose. It's not the body that matters but the lenses and there are really only two big 35mm system at the moment (Canon and Nikon) and Canon's EOS seems like the one with the best future. All the people who've bought into the other systems will now flame me but look into the facts for yourself. One opinion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/whither -n ikon.shtml

Canon AE-1 or Nikon

[swamp boy]

A good 35mm will last nearly forever. I've been very satisfied with old, manual Nikons (Nikkormat FT2 and Nikon F2) and the Canon AE-1. The Nikons are a bit higher quality, but the Canon is well built. The biggest obstacles to good photography are: (1) the photographer, and (2) the subject(s) - when photographing people. If you're serious about photography, any decent 35mm SLR can produce spectacular results in the hands of a skilled photographer.

Gift Idea

[t0ny]

I would rather Santa give me a video camera and Paris Hilton's phone number.

Good Reasons to go Digital

[leistnerm]

I suggest avoiding the film slr route if you are just learning. The main reason is if you spend the money and go the digital route you will learn considerably faster.

The instant review on the lcd, histogram, etc beats waiting for days, an hour whatever to get your film developed. It really helps when you are first learning, trust me.

I also would pick a system, look at the lenses they are more important than the body is. If you like the Canon line up, buy a Canon body. If you like the Nikon line up, get a Nikon body.

When I was deciding it came down to Nikon having
better wide angle lenses and Canon having better telephoto ones. I chose Canon, but you can't go wrong with either.

Don't waste time with another system, in a few years you'll be looking to ebay to hawk all that stuff to get a Canon or Nikon system.

Hope this helps.

Real Photographers use...

[Crypto Gnome]

Nikon Fe (or Fe2).

Cheap body, cheap lenses, good to learn the basics on.

Imagine the picture before you shoot

[swamp boy]

This is IMO the best advise that I know regarding photography. If you can "see" the intended/desired picture in your mind before you shoot, then you're much better able to produce the photographs that you really want. There are several mental questions that you should ask yourself before every shot: (1) what composition (framing) do I want? (2) what kind of lighting effects do I want? (3) what kind of "feeling" do I want to evoke by those that see the picture?

The way to get there is to study and critique the photos that you take as well as those that others take. Decide what you like and dislike. And ask more experienced photographers for their suggestions.

re: camera choice

[neonmagic]

I'd recommend checking out cameras like:

Budget end:

Pentax P30-n
Pentax K1000
Nikon Fe2
Nikon Fm2
Canon AE1
Canon AE1 program
Minolta X300
Minolta X700

Costlier end:

Canon T90 (best manual camera I think)
Nikon F3hp
Canon F1n
Leica R6
Olympus OM3ti

Personally, I'd still recommend that you forego the completely manual camera (most of which have long been discontinued and can only be purchased 2nd hand). I'd wholeheartedly recommend getting an AF (autofocus) camera, as the AF is particularly fast and very accurate (well it is if it's a Canon lense ;-) hehehe). Most of the medium range AF modern cameras have a full manual operation, as well as the ability to manually focus if you really want. Later on, you can switch on auto modes and autofocus should you so wish.

I'd really recommend the Canon range - simply the best in the market, period.

Dave

Consider the Pentax ZX-M

[jed_reynolds]

I agree that the K1000 is one of the classic VW's of photography. However, a K1000 will run you between 180-200 bucks, and for no convenience. I chose a Pentax ZX-M because it essentially the same thing but has an easier to use TTL meter and auto wind and a timer. I don't remember my K1000 having a timer, maybe it never worked. ZX-M will run you ~140 bucks, and very easy to shop for--just pick up any photo magazine and flip to the back.

I would not suggest getting an 28-80 Tamron zoom, mine didn't hold up. I'm happy with my Sigma 28-105, and it's nice because it opens up to 2.8, making it faster than most 28-80 zooms. I also have a Pheonix 19-35mm wide angle, and a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens which is really good compromise for indoor portraits without a flash. Look for a separate flash unit.

If you weaken further, I think the ZX-60's sell for 120-130 bucks and have auto settings, and built in flash, and auto focus.

If you want your kid to really get into it, buy them 100' of tmax 400 film and a book on how to develop film and print photos, and they'll certainly learn something.

--jed

Still availible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dakota makes an all manual all mechanical SLR still.

Judging from the current crop of answers and

[pr0ntab]

balanced POV between the pluses and minuses of different brands, with little film-is-dead bashing, I think you're wrong!!!

Slashdot seems to be full of amateur photographers. Because if we were "real" artists, we wouldn't be hanging around here. It's the art for the technically inclined, or gadget collector.

Olympus OM-1

[borgasm]

Definitely go with a manual film camera.

I have an Olympus OM-1 that is from the 70's. It still works perfectly. There are no batteries, so I can shoot whenever/wherever. It also handles well in cold weather where other cameras lose battery efficiency.

A manual camera is best to learn on, because you'll understand things like film speed, aperture, shutter speed, manual focus....etc. I feel automatic cameras are somewhat cheating (although I do like them for fast action sports).

The picture quality from the camera is also better than any SLR I have seen. The Zuiko lenses aren't cheap, but they aren't a ripoff either. Most manufacturers of SLR's use lenses with only 1 or 2 glass elements, but the Olympus is all glass with 6+ elements for better quality.

The Olympus also feels like a solid piece of equipment. I have dropped it numerous times, with no ill effects. Automatic SLR's today feel like plastic toys.

Wah?

[spoco2]

"No depth of field (a.k.a. depth of focus) preview"

I am actually interested in this point as I'm sure my Dad's camera, the one I used to use before I got my own digital, and which I want my own of as it was beautifully simple and effective to use, had this....

ie. When I looked through the view finder I could cleary see the background blurred out and my subject nicely focused when using a narrow DOF...

Am I missing something?

Re:Wah?

[Kompressor]

The lens would have been wide open at your largest aperature by default, so yes, you would have seen a very shallow depth of field. However, it also would have appeared the same when you used the smallest aperature on the lens, as the apearature doesn't close down until you press the shutter release.

The smaller the aperature (bigger f-stop number), the deeper the depth of field, and the more of the picture that is in focus. The depth of field preview stops the aperature down to the size it will be when you make the exposure, and lets you see just how deep the depth of field will be in the final exposure. This can be quite handy when you have something in the forground and something in the background that you want to be sharp and crispy.

Re:Wah?

[vondo]

Some (most?) other SLRs have a button you can press that will stop the lens down to the setting it will actually shoot at. This lets you see what will really be in focus and what won't on the final image. It also darkens the image, since less light is coming in, which is why it's not done normally.

It's a very useful feature if you are shooting two different objects at different depths. To use your example, if the final shot was going to be at f/8 and you wanted the background blurry, you don't know if it is going to be blurred or not if you can't preview. Maybe you *have* to go to the f/1.8 or whatever that the lense is at when you are focusing.

Re:Wah?

[spoco2]

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification... if that is the case then I definitely want this feature on any 35mm camera I buy, as it's the main thing I love about film cameras (and now more expensive digital), the ability to easily limit your depth of field etc.

Camera doesn't matter, get the best you can for $$

[acomj]

for $200 dollars you'll get what you can find. Try to get a good lens, it matters more than the camera.

I suggest you browse KenRockwell.com to cut through all the tech stuff and get to the important photo stuff.
Here some buying tips for a new photographer from the Ken Rockwell sight which is excellent. .

But even better are his tips on how to make a great photo and I quote

"You can create magnificent images with ANY camera. Too many people think camera shopping is the first thing to do on a quest for great images. I need to explain that it's really the last. Some of us own fancy cameras because we are rich and these fancy cameras make photography more convenient. They have nothing to do with the final quality of the images"

Minolta Maxxum 5

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd actually suggest getting a camera that has the automatic features, but gives you a lot of control and a good interface for metering.

The Minolta Maxxum 5 is under $200 at B&H new. It has very fast autofocus, can do 3 frames per second, includes DOF preview, exposure comp. in 1/2 or 1/3 EV increments, and supports Minolta's high-speed-sync flash and wireless off-camera flash. Oh, with the exception of particular, very old Sigma lenses, any Minolta AF lens will work on it, so you can go used.

Sure, you can't get a tilt/shift lens, or an IS/VR lens (as of now, anyway), but you know what? You're not going to buy them. Most of the people who go on about wanting the option never plunk down the $$, and they're sure as heck not going to put it on the lower-end bodies in the Nikon or Canon lines anyway. Future equipment aspirations (without a specific plan) are lousy motives to buy into a camera line.

Thats Funny, ...

[Mooncaller]

... all the posts befor you seem to disprove your assertion. It should not be a big suprise at all that a large number of /. regulars are into photography. I, myself do some photography, mostly for collecting matterial for artwork these days. Though I do periodicly take photos for their own sake ( always B/W). Hey, geeks need artistic outlets too!

forget 35

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget 35. Go with a larger format. But if you are intent on 35, then by digital camera instead! Image quality of digital and of 35 similar enough. but large format film gets better quality than all of the rest, and you won't waste as much film on bad shots either.

Cameras

[rabidlemur]

Quibble: There are digital SLR's, and 35mm film cameras. Most digital SLR's use the same form-factor as a 35mm SLM, but...they ain't 35mm Digital SLRs. Pedantic mode off. :) For the 200$, a used Canon Elan II would be a good camera, the rebels are just too plasticy and not what I'd get for someone that wants to try more than snapshots. In AF nikons, there's a lot out there, but be aware that the newer AF bodies do not work with older MF lenses, and indeed, there are several generations of nikkor lenses that don't all work well with all cameras. In the manual-focus game, a Nikon FM-2 or FE-2 is a great body - tough, easy to use, and nikkor MF glass is not hugely expensive. I'd avoid going the Canon route cause you'll never be able to use the lenses on a new body, but starting with Nikon MF, not only can you updgrade the body - although many of the digital bodies will not meter with older lenses, you can get an adapter to use Nikkors on a Canon SLR - I have an F2 and an EOS A2, and shoot my 15mm nikkor on the EOS more than on the F2. Whatever camera you get, make sure teh enduser has a chance to play with it BEFORE you get it - ergonomics count for a lot, and different people like different bodies - a big part of the Nikon vs Canon holy war is over the subtle placement of our fingers - and a big draw of the Leica M6 is the "feel" of the camera. So playing with the shiny is important b4 you buy it and dedicate yerself to a lens mount.

Canon EOS minor issue

[WormholeFiend]

They have an infrared frame counter.

If later on you want to try shooting infrared film, it will fog a part of it.

What kind of photograhy ?

[tuomoks]

Almost all advices here are good - depending what kind of photography you want. B/W or color, moving targets or still, etc. For some targets the auto-focus is fast enough, for some the manual is much faster. Some lenses work for color but B/W is a real trouble. Personal experience, yes, Canon Rebel is very good especially for B/W but I prefer Nikon FM2 with fast lens. Now - Canon lenses are much better than Nikon but the problem, they are expensive. Also - FM2 focusing is almost perfect ( for me ). My current cameras Leica M7 with Noctilux ( a little more expensive ), Canon EOS-1v, Hasselbald 202FA, some Contax ( Aria is very nice decent price ) and of course old Rolleiflex and Mamya two lenses plus some Polaroid & Speedgraphics.. And still ( excluding Leica ) I have no favorit - tough or ??

Canon Rebel

[Sabalon]

Last year my wife got a Canon Rebel. She likes it a lot...she is like you, just getting into photography.

It can go full auto or full manual, or any number of half and half settings. As others will say, it is a plastic body (or as my brother-in-law says, doesn't have that "defend yourself against a mugger" feel to it) but it still works well.

Others on here will put it down for a number of reasons, but it's not that bad, takes wondeful pictures. As far as I'm concerned, they can make fun of it while they buy their $99 monster cables. :)

Go digital! Film and Processing costs add up quick

[poopie]

I recently go a Canon Digital Rebel.

Previously, I've had a Canon Rebel 2000, Canon AE-1, Nikon FM-2. I also have a Canon Elph Advantix, and A Sea&Sea MX10

After last year's vacation, we came back with 45 rolls of film. Cost of film and processing was close to the price of a digital rebel today.

Additionally, I'm not so pleased with processing from Costco or Longs - they auto-adjust things in a way you may not want, they don't change chemicals often enough, and the person developing your pics is probably not a photography expert.

So, it's a pay now for digital or pay later for film.

Since I was scanning my best photos into the computer anyway (which by the way takes a ton of time... for mediocre results), going digital made lots of sense.

I ended up getting the digitial rebel, repurposing my Rebel 2000 28-200 quantaray lens, and purchasing a 2gb CF card and an extra battery.

On the highest jpeg resolution and least compression, I can store close to 600 photos in the camera. On lower settings, I can store thousands of picures.

Now, I can see the results instantly to see if I need to change settings or take more photos, and I have the results immediately.

Digital may not be able to replace medium format cameras yet, but I'm definitely not going back to film.

Go digital

[Anonymous Coward]

I've completely given up on 35mm since I got my Fuji Finepix 2800Zoom ($250) and a Canon i470D photo printer ($130, now down around $100 or even less when they are offering rebates). A handful of SmartMedia cards ($10-$20 each on sale from Fry's) in hand and I can shoot pictures all day, pick the ones I like to print and save a lot of money. Frankly, I can't tell the difference between the prints and what you get from 1 hour photo places and not only is it faster and cheaper, I save even more by only printing the pics I want. And I can easily print 5x7s or 8.5x11 pics of what I like without having to visit the photo place again.

Come to think of it, I should go put my old Fujica AX3 (1980s era) 35mm SLR out for sale on eBay. It was a great camera in its day, with both automatic and manual settings for everything, the only bad thing was accessories were hard to find compared to popular brands due to it being an off-brand. But today it is a dinosaur. Wonder how much I could get for it...

Seriously, if the only reasons for going 35mm are luddism or nostalgia, think again.

have you thought about medium format?

[Snuffub]

One option that you might not have thought of is to get a yashicamat medium format camera. these things cost 100-150 on ebay and theyre really great cameras for the money. Its a twin lens reflex, which means that it's got two identical lenses which move in tandem, one exposes the film when you release the shutter, the other projects a near identical image onto ground glass for you to view. the negative is 6cm by 6cm so you get about 3 times the coverage of a 35. The downside is that the lens is not replacable, the film will cost more to process (if youre not developing it yourself) and most importantly many times the built in meters are often broken so you might need to learn to use a handheld meter.

If you dont want a medium format camera Id recomend you buy into a system rather than a particular body. I personally used a cannon body until i switched to mamiya and I was very happy with it. They have bodies for under 200 new and someone makes a lens for just about every job.

finally some buying advice, if you want used equipment check out keh.com, for new stuff try out bandhphoto.com

Re:have you thought about medium format?

[Bilby]

I agree fully with this - my favourite camera is an old Mamiya twin lens medium format. The bellows means that I can focus on anything, and the huge negatives are great - they make for really clear enlargements, and they scan wonderfully. I have a Pentax MX and a digital as well, but I really love the Mamiya.

However - the film is harder to get, the lenses (with the Mamiya) are hard to get hold of, and developing them is not a job for the photoshop on the corner.

Re:have you thought about medium format?

[calyphus]

Going the MF TLR route, has an added advantage for a beginner. It naturally slows you down, preventing the snapshot mode that SLRs promote.

When you have to reload every 12 frames, you will be more careful and learn to value each frame more. Learning to take enough time to compose the best image, to see that image in your mind, is one of the most important things to learn in photography.

Quite the opposite of the digital promoters idea of shooting hundreds of images an picking the one lucky gem. Why waste time taking bad photos, when you can learn to make each one good?

The Yashica TLRs were very popular, partly because they were notably inexpensive compared to the Rollei's, and schools like them. That's a disadvantage - all that student ab/use isn't good. I'd recommend a Minolta Autocord first -- better value for the money, marginally better lenses, better build quality ('cept the tendency of the focus knob to break off), usually in better shape, and the brightest standard focussing screen of all TLRs.

Re:have you thought about medium format?

[Lord of Caustic Soda]

So long you can handle the weight, the C330 I have isn't exactly light, but yes the scans even off a humber 1200dpi scanner beats any digital camera around.

The upside is 120 film is piece of cake to work with in a darkroom than 35mm, rolling the damn thing onto the spool always take ages and no small amount of swearing.

Pictures with a 3 dollar camera.

[acomj]

And very good ones. Actuall only the BW ones were with the cheap camera.

That site is full of information including a page on howto make good photos See specifically section 3 - your camera doesn't matter.

Re:Pictures with a 3 dollar camera.

[manon]

True, in the beginning the type of camera doesn't matter... after some time, it will matter. You will want to play around with the shutter and aperture. You will try other lenses. Once you start with enlargements, you'll see why it's worth paying a bit more for the lens.
I have a total of 4 camera's, the most reccent one is the Nikon N80 (F80 in Europe, don't ask me why). This is going to be my last camera with 35mm film. Next switch is the Nikon D2H (digital reflex camera), I fell in love. Some of my work.
Tip: if you shoot B/W, buy a red filter :-)

No DOF

[mrm677]

The Pentax K1000 is over-rated and over-priced. It lacks depth-of-field preview.

There are plenty of other, better older manual-focus cameras to choose from.

another suggestion

[WormholeFiend]

http://www.cambridgeworld.com/Beseler_Medium_Forma t_Cameras/beseler_6x9_pinhole.htm

very cheap for a medium format camera.

Choose the lenses first, then the body

[Bilby]

With SLRs, I always found it was best to find out what lenses I could get hold of in my range, and then pick a body that uses them. The camera body is really not much more than a light-proof box - quality glass is at least as important.

I currently use a Pentax MX for my simple manual SLR. It's a nice camera - not as good as the LX, but cheaper, and Pentax tends to be fairly priced. And it is better than the K1000, which is still a solid and reliable camera. With the Pentax I was able to get some good lenses - an excellent 85mm, good 50mm, and 100mm & 200mm lenses, without spending much. Other brands may be better, but if you are selective in what you buy I find that you can come out really well with Pentax, and take very nice photos. Oh, and Pentax have continued with the same mount, even on their latest cameras, so I can, if I want, stick one of my manual lenses on their top automatic SLR body and it will still work. This isn't necessarily the case with other brands.

Canon EOS REbel

[cbdavis]

$900 SLR. Can use Canon EF lenses. I bought a
Nikon 5700 in January for $1200 - I am crying.

Canon FTb

[falcon203e]

I learned on my uncle's Canon FTb. Bare-bones, solid as a rock, and relatively small. If you're really trying to get into SLR photography, this is a great beginning camera.

No matter what you buy, get a lense filter

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip taught to me by my extremely qualified tutor at uni: buy a UV filter, which has a minimal effect on the result.

You attach such filters to the end of your lense; which gives a sort of "second skin" to your lense. So, if you are unfortnate enough to scratch the lense; you replace a AUD$30 filter instead of your far more expensive lense.

As for learning.... I was lucky enough to be given a Canon EOS500, which has all the auto settings but includes a manual mode. Gives you the best of both worlds. My gf did the same course with a AUD$200 secondhand Pentax and we got the same marks. If anything, she learned more thoroughly since she couldn't "see what the camera says" about a shot :)

Seriously though; I would not go 35mm. I'd go for a digital SLR, unless you are really keen on having prints of everything. Shoot digital, get a good printer, print the good ones.

If you want a really honest opinion on the quality of your photos; you will need to find a teacher who can be as blunt as mine. I spent a long time being told my photos were crap ("the whole class is shooting crap photos; that's why i'm here - to teach you how to take better photos"); so when I was finally told "that's not bad" and "that's a good photo" I went out and partied. If your feelings are too delicate for that kind of feedback, then ask your mum ;)

No matter what: have fun. Photography is a wonderful activity :)

Canon AE-1

[samila73]

Canon AE-1 is very good beginner camera for serious photographer. Back in 80's this model was one of the best and it still is.

No motor, no automatics (well, in AE-1P, sister model, you'll get automatic exposure, but that's optional). Just exposure meter.

You'll find these babies abundant in good condition and availability of both original Canon and third party lenses for FD/FDn bajonet is good.

Detailed information of AE-1, AE-1P and FDn lenses a href="is available in "the Intttternet".

Re:Canon AE-1 - or an A-1

[Blahbbs]

Or get a Canon AE-1p off of Ebay like I did. It has selectable shutter and aperature priority. It can be fully manual, or fully auto (manual focus, though). Nice camera. In addition to the 50mm lens, I picked up a 80-300mm lens and a nice flash. I should probably use it more than I do. If you buy used, be sure to set aside $50-$100 additional to get the camera cleaned and the seals re-done.

80's era Nikons...

[billcow]

I've semi-inherited (semi because it's still technically his) a Nikon from the mid-'80s from my dad - he used to be a semi-pro photographer (he even got an article published in a motorcycle magazine on shooting races). It's got a couple automatic functions - it has a small CCD just in front of the shutter that samples light levels so it can do auto-exposure in a couple different ways, plust you can get auto-focus lenses for it, or an attachment to automatically advance the film, but for the most part (and the whole part if you disable these features) it's manual. And adjustable auto-exposure is nice if you want to see how it would set things and/or don't want to carry around a light-meter. In any case, it's a really nice camera - high quality, nothing fancy that you can't turn off, nothing fancy that can break and render it un-usable. And they made a whole range of different models that are the same basic design, so you can probably get one that doesn't have *any* of the "extras". He also has this book - "How to select & use Nikon SLR Cameras" that's kind of a combination users-manual/beginners guide to photography with Nikon cameras; it covers the entire line of cameras. Plus, there are a whole bunch of additional stuff you can get for it - there are a bunch of lenses, you can exchange a little glass plate in the viewfinder which is overlayed over what you see (the one mine has features a little circle in the center that assists with focusing, it's complicated to explain, but it's really useful without being distracting), you can attach a flash either directly to the camera or you can put one somewhere arbitrary and run a cable to the camera. It has a couple of features that are helpful for special-effect type things too - re-cock the shutter without advancing the frame, long exposure times (from 1/4000 up to 1 second, or for as long as you hold the shutter release). About the only downside is that since the auto-exposure can change both the aperture and exposure time, the shutter is electronically actuated, so you have to have a battery installed - but i'm not sure, could be most SLR cameras need one, as I've never used a camera beside this one. I'd certainly feel comfortable recommending it to someone, but i'd suggest to check out that book first, to compare the other models - it was written by Carl Shipman (I think my dad may have actually known him) - it's ISBN number is 0-912656-77-8.

Re:80's era Nikons...

[rabid_dave]

It sounds as if you are describing a Nikon F3. Very nice description and very nice outfit.

Hands down... Canon EOS 630

[F1_Fan]

Well built, no IR film counter (so you can shoot IR film just fine), solid automatic modes, full manual, compatible with most (all?) current and past Canon EF lenses so you're set for the future when upgrading to a new Canon body.

The only thing to watch is that the camera has had the mirror bumper replaced or that the camera shop will do that for you. These cameras are coming up to 13 years old now and there's a foam pad that leaves goo on the shutter blades.

I just got one to compliment my Digital Rebel. I am amazed at what a solid camera this is. I've put two rolls of film through it and the results are great.

Selecting your first SLR

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link on the subject (sorry if it has already been mentioned)

http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/equip/mmselec t. html

Manual plus digital

[jridley]

I agree that if I were to learn photography again from scratch, ONE of the tools I'd have would be a full manual SLR, and the K1000 is one of the best, though I'd look into Nikon F bodies and Olympus OM-2s as well, and see what you like. Also talk to the people at the store and see if there are any SLRs in your price range that will allow you to preserve your investment in lenses/strobes/etc when you trade up your camera body. A full manual SLR may not have that as a reasonable option, so you may want to go with something like a Canon Rebel, which can still be used perfectly well as a manual camera when you want to.

A comment though; I actually think that digital has a real place in learning photography. Maybe the best setup would be a combination of a film SLR and a relatively cheap digital. Digital is FANTASTIC in that you can shoot a TON and get a lot of feedback. I'm not talking necessarily about the LCD either; they're too small and inaccurate for a really accurate look at the photo; they're mainly good to see if someone's eyes were closed, the framing is about what you intended, and to check the histogram if you have that feature.

But any pro (in any endeavour) will tell you that the best way to get good is to practice, a hell of a lot. Most pros shoot thousands to tens of thousands of frames a year. I used to as a teenager, but that was because I was shooting black-and-white, bulk loaded film which cost far less than a buck a roll, and I was developing it myself, again for less than a buck a roll.

That's still an option; you can still shoot black and white and develop yourself, and honestly, you can probably learn as much or more about most things with B&W than with color; I still love B&W though I rarely shoot it anymore.

But honestly, darkrooms are messy and smelly and expensive to set up, and many folks are shutting theirs down and using photoshop, which most agree can do more than a chemical darkroom.

You can get the same quantity of practice for practically no per-shot cost with a point-and-shoot digital. Some, such as the Canon A-series digitals, are actually quite full-featured cameras, and even have full manual modes. There's nothing magical about an SLR; sure, it's eminently versatile, and should be the #1 choice, but you can get plenty of work done with a small camera as well.

Also, you'll want a small camera anyway. An important rule to remember is "you can't take pictures if you don't have a camera." Any pro or serious amateur I've talked to may have a half dozen SLR bodies, but you can bet he's got a point-and-shoot to drop in his coat pocket when walking around the park, and I've seen plenty of nice photos in online galleries where the caption says "I saw this great photo waiting to be taken, sure glad I put my little point-and-shoot in my pocket that day!"

I think it would be well worth picking one up eventually, though perhaps after an SLR; old Canon 2mp or 3mp A series digitals should be down around $200 or so if you can find one.

A few suggestions on reading materials, at the risk of slashdotting the servers: photo.net and luminous-landscape.com - read everything you can find there, push the shutter button 20,000 times or so in the next 12 months, and you should be on your way.

Leica Rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

grab an old leica rangefinder (or canon copy) off of ebay and you'll never look back. Make sure the lenses are Leitz.

digital fotos are for pussies!
SLRs are for idiots!

HAHAHA< YUO R TEH FAGOT SUBSCRIB3R +5 FUNY

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG LOLOLOLOL WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!

KEH

[Registered Coward v2]

One place to check used prices is www.keh.com. They sell an extensive rabge of gear, and you can get qoutes on equipment you plan to "sell" to get a an idea of price ranges.

General Comments, Camera Hints

[Whatsmynickname]

The first thing you should do is sit down and ask yourself "what kind of photography are you going to do"? Family outings, travel, scenery, sports, ??? Then pick the best (beginners) camera / lens for the job. For example, sports or photojournalism photographers lean towards a 35mm / digital SLR with a telephoto or zoom lens. Same with bird / animal nature photography. OTOH, scenery photographers tend to either lean towards 35mm with low grain film or medium format cameras. When I take pictures on a family outing, I want to travel light as possible (ie, don't want any clunky 35mm when an ultralight digital point and shoot (P&S) will do). So the first question is "what do you want to shoot"?

IMHO, based on the type of shots you want, choose the lens(es) [brand name and focal length], and that will dictate what body you will get. Try to get a quality lens. Once you buy the camera, it doesn't make sense to have to immediately resell the camera body AND lens when you want to expand and find out your options are limited, so think of it as buying into a family.

IMHO, you may want manual control when learning, but you will eventually want some automation down the road. This is especially when newer camera automated metering systems (such as Nikon's N65 or N75) do so well nowadays. Whatever you do, go to a camera store and check out the "user interface" to see how easy it is to do something in manual mode...

Here's a site that I believe has good advice on cameras in general and all the newest cameras. Don't forget to check out his gallery as well!

Film is another important choice. IN GENERAL, higher film "speeds" allow more opportunities to shoot, but lower film speeds tend (I say TEND) to have finer grain (read sharper) pictures. High speed film has gotten much better nowadays, grain wise. Slide film has more vivid colors, but is more contrasty, so it's harder to shoot in areas with bright/shadowy areas. Print (negative) film has more "latitude" or less contrasty, but generally doesn't have the visual impact of slides. Portrait photograpy tends to use print film, nature or scenery tends to use slides. Digital tends to be vivid like slide film, depending upon the camera / sensor, but it's "latitude" is generally less than film (here come the flames!).

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I totally disagree that film is better to learn photography on than digital. You would be right in saying a film SLR is better than a digital point and shoot, but a digital SLR (Canon 300D) would allow you to see what shutter speed and lens aperture does for the shot just as well as any film. Plus, you don't have to wait day(s) to see what the results of your settings are. I only caution you to check out the user interface of the digital SLR to see how easy it is to shoot totally manual.

What did I do? I started with a Nikon FM with 24mm and 20mm lens for scenery photography a long time ago. I use a Nikon CP700 for family outings. I recently bought a used Mamiya 1000s system for $400 at KEH for scenery photography (totally MANUAL). I use Fuji's Velvia 50 slide and I also bought a Epson 3170 scanner to digitize the photos. It's been trial and error, but I love the eye popping color and resolution when I get it right! I can also get my pics drum scanned and professionally printed if I choose, so I like my setup...

Whatever camera you choose...

[Max Threshold]

You should take this article into consideration when choosing your lens.

Though I love old manual cameras like the Pentax K1000, you would probably be happier with a modern camera that will "grow" with you if you take a serious interest in photography. Nikon's N65 and N75 are great starter cameras around your price range, and the N80 is a great camera for a great price. On the Canon side, the Rebel Ti is nice (it's the cheapest Rebel with a metal lens mount) but the Elan 7 is ridiculously overpriced, especially compared to the N80. (Find an Elan II on eBay instead! I've owned two of those, they rock.)

Check out PN. The critics are harsh at times, but it's still the #1 photo information site on the Web.

Finally, don't fall into the trap I did, of becoming a snob and shooting pro film, B&W, and slides all the time. Buy some good cheap film like Fuji Superia in bulk and shoot the hell out of it. That's the quickest way to improve your skills.

Get a Nikon 8008

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nikon 8008 is one of the best and can be have for under $200 at most used photo store.

Who cares about the body, go for the lens

[Anonymous Coward]

A $1000 professional SLR camera is worthless with a scratched coke-bottle bottom lens.

Save up for a decent lens. That, and good photography skills will land you better pictures.

Nikon FE is my fave

[bigt_littleodd]

Although I am on my 4th digital camera, nothing beats the experience that I gained with my Nikon FE body. It's a "semi-auto," by which I mean that it is aperture-priorty camera when you set the shutter speed to "Auto."

The Nikon FE is built like a tank. The meter battery lasts for literally years, the lens mount is solid, and it produces predictable shots year after year without repair. I've had mine for 21 years and still love it! (No, it is NOT for sale!)

Now, my teenage daughter has taken an interest in photography and I have passed down this camera to her. It is easy to handle, logical in layout, and takes a wide variety of accessories (such as motor drives and focus screens), almost rivaling the variety of the legendary professional Nikon F-series cameras.

You can find an FE on eBay for about US$120 or so. Accessories are now ridiculously cheap and plentiful as well. :-)

IMNSHO, you can't beat the FE body for value. But always remember that a fantastic camera body is only as good as the lens you put on it! Buy good glass no matter what camera you settle on. Nikkor lenses are great, but still pricey, even on used units. If you want rock-bottom, super-basic 35mm cameras with great build quality, check out the Minolta SRT-201 or SRT-202 models. Not very sophisticated, but great machines! HTH

Canon 300V

[Archon-X]

Easily the best starting camera. Pretty cheap to start off with, and they've got great Xmas specials on too.

It's powerful enough to shoot *great* snaps.. and simple enough for everyone to use, and you've got the fantastic range of EF lenses to upgrade to...

Snaps taken on this very model ->

Snap One

Snap Two

Vivitar V3800N

[hatrisc]

seems to be about the same as a pentax k-1000 (i'm not much of a photographer though, so what do i know). i do know that it supports k-mount lenses so basically all the features of the k-1000 are there, and it hasn't been discontinued!

no zoom

[neripunk]

Whatever you do, avoid buying a zoom. It's not that I'm completely averse to zooms, there are some very good ones out there, but the nice, fast ones tend to be pretty expensive. Most manufacturers promote body+zoom "kits". I made this mistake when I bought my Canon EOS 300, and now the 28-90 that came with the camera is perpetually sitting in my bag.

Especially, as a learning tool, a zoom can be a bad asset, since it encourages you to compose by zooming in and out rather than thinking about the perspective of different focal distances. Only when you have a good idea of perspective can you use a zoom effectively. It is a pain having to change lenses every moment, but this annoyance will keep you thinking about the right tool for the right effect, if you are learning it's better to go the slow way. And in that respect, put some money on your budget for a good tripod too, an indespensable tool that will also help in making your more reflective about your shots.

So go get a second hand body, or a new body with no lens, add a 50mm (most entry level 50mm lenses are fast, cheap, and sharp), practice with that for a while, and then go get a wide-angle prime (24mm is my favorite lens right now, maybe a 28 is better for most people) and keep practising. When you feel the need, you can complete your system with a telephoto (since you've already got a fair idea of how perspective works by now, it would be OK to get a zoom now).

As some previous poster said, shoot slides, bracket your exposures, take notes of everything and study your pictures.

Consider the environment

[YouHaveSnail]

Consider that film photography requires dumping a significant quantity of somewhat nasty chemicals down your drain. I think there's value in learning film photography at some point, but it may make more sense for that point to come after you've honed your ability to compose a shot, understand lighting, etc. Go with a semi-cheap 3 megapixel digital for now and introduce film later on.

Re:Consider the environment

[calyphus]

The manufacturing processes of digital sensors are not benign. So, arguing that it is environmentally superior is a non-starter, and 'significant quantity' lacks precision as does 'nasty' chemicals. If one is really interested in environmentally benign photography, one can select different formulas, e.g., citric acid based developers, and methods, e.g., incorporating silver reclamation units to process fixer. Also, there are ways to neutralize chemicals before disposal. The hazardousness of photochemicals are frequently grossly overstated by the uniformed. Modern concern has lead to viable substitutes for the most dangersous components, with the notable exception of some classic toning processes. The photographer/darkroom worker can control these things, but cannot control the method of camera manufacture.

Limiting oneself to a short roll of film is the best way to hone one's ability to compose a shot, not shooting hundreds of digital throw-a-ways.

Re:Consider the environment

[YouHaveSnail]

Limiting oneself to a short roll of film is the best way to hone one's ability to compose a shot, not shooting hundreds of digital throw-a-ways.

Says who?

It's my experience that the best way to learn to do something well is to do it, to do it often, and to do it without having to worry about screwing up.

When someone is learning to draw, you don't give them twelve sheets of expensive paper and say "Use these wisely." Instead, you give them a thick pad of newsprint and say "Go outside and draw everything you see." When someone is learning to throw pots, you don't give them a pound of clay and ask them to make the best pot they can from it. Instead, you point them at a large pile of clay and tell them to make a dozen pots. Same goes for programming, woodworking, golf, rock climbing, wine tasting...

Oh, I hear what you're saying. And I'd agree that it's important to get students to think about what they're doing, and to look at each thing that they do (photo, drawing, program, whatever) and consider where they went wrong and what they could do better. The concern is that with no cost associated with each shot, students will just take dozens or even hundreds of shots without thinking about each one in the hope that a few of them will turn out well.

But a student that doesn't understand what makes a good photo won't be able to pick the few random good ones out of the many random lousy ones. A student that does understand and who wants to improve her own work will quickly grow bored with trying to get lucky and will instead start to think about how to make each shot better. What's more, an occasional lucky shot is part of the joy of photography, and perhaps the most important thing to learn about taking good pictures is to let luck happen when it does, but not to rely on it.

There are all kinds of ways you can teach someone to look at their own photos more critically, and to teach them how to master various skills. Limiting someone to a dozen or two dozen exposures is not necessarily the best way to do this. It's just the way that it has been done in the past, because it was the only practical way. Digital photography eliminates this restriction, and it opens up a whole new world not just for experienced photographers, but for beginning photographers too.

Nikon system comments

[rabid_dave]

I've only looked at about 45 of the posts on here, so I might be repeating some of the stuff already mentioned.

About the Pentax K1000: It is a great camera and you saw a lot of students using these. They stopped making it in about 1996 or 1997 because it was time to remanufacture the molds used in assembling (casting) and Pentax wasn't turning enough revenue off of the K1000 itself. That's the story I got from another sales guy when I worked at a camera shop in high school and college (late 1990's).

Anyway, you could buy this thing at just about any department store or camera shop up until then. Lots of other companies made lenses for the Pentax K-Mount. Ricoh made some pretty neat bodies to accept K-Mount lenses and some lenses of their own also.

It would be an okay system to go with, but if you are serious (even a serious amatuer) about photography, you do not want to touch any brand except Nikon or Canon. The other brands make some good stuff (Olympus OM series, Minolta, Pentax) and some REALLY good stuff (Contax, bow your heads). But if you want availability in both new and used lenses and bodies, you will have the best luck with Canon or Nikon.

And here is why Nikon might be a little better. Nikon's manual and autofocus gear is reasonably interchange-able. That is, any lense that is an AIS lense (I think that's the right acronym) will work on a modern body or an older one. I guess the difference has to do with how the apeture position is fed back to the camera body. The oldest Nikons use a big silver shoe that connected to a lever in the viewfinder prism assembly. This was how the light meter 'knew' what the setting of the apeture.

The later AIS lenses use a little notch in the aperture ring itself.

Anyway, too much information on a tangent that we need not explore on this website. In summary, when Canon created their autofocus stuff, their bayonet mounts basically reversed. Nikon's mounts have always stayed the same. Manual focus Canon lenses will not work without a convertor.

I've seen a lot of suggestion for the good old Nikon work horse bodies. But really, even those bodies might cost more than $200 with a F1.8 50mm. You might be able to get an F1, but that is getting too old (and out of the AIS lenses).

Something to consider is the Nikon FM10. It is a manual camera with an electronic shutter. Really, as far as Nikons go, it is a cheap piece of plastic, but it will get you in the system and teach you everything you need to know about f-stops and shutter speeds (even depth of field preview I think) without breaking the bank. Keep it in your camera bag after you get your F100 and give it to your kids to learn photography. It might look and feel cheap, but if you take care it, it will last.

I think that looking at F3's and FM2n's is worth it, but don't expect to get one for under $200 unless it is: 1.) broken 2.) the person selling it has no idea what it's worth. For Case 2, BUY IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN GET!

Other things to consider:

I know I just tried to create another Nikon convert, but I would seriously consider looking into which company (Nikon or Canon) is presenting a better (for YOU!) variety of digital SLR bodies. Canon has one for about $1000 right now called the EOS Rebel Digital something. Nikon has the D100 (either D100 or D10, I can't recall) in the same megapixel range for about $1400 or $1500. If Canon is going to be the brand putting more digital bang for the buck in the hands of the serious amatuer, you should consider giving them a look.

Sigma has some cool digital stuff with their purchase of the patent on FEON CMOS chips, but it's Sigma and well... it's Sigma.

Try this site for more photo infomation:
http://www.photo.net/

I recommend the articles by Philip Greenspun in the beginners and equipement sections. He is a geek (I mean this most kindly) and a photographer. Good stuff. Good luck!

Body is replacable. Lenses are most important

[Anonymous Coward]

As another poster already said, you should research the kind of lenses that best suite the type of photography you're interested in. Spend lots of money on good lenses and you can always buy a camera body that's compatible with them later if you need more features. Granted, you should get a body with at least the minimum, but the body is the most dispensible part after you've spent probably 10 times as much money on various lenses and attachments.

Remember, the camera is a piece of optical equipment. The quality of your lens is 100% proportional to the quality of the light hitting the film and the quality of your picture.

What do you want to do?

[RDPIII]

You need to consider what you primarily want to do with your system. Are you taking a photography class? Then you probably need spot metering, which you don't get in all of the cheapest bodies. Do you want to do stop-action shots? Then you need fast shutter speeds and fast auto focus and/or predictive auto focus. Do you want to do close-up work? Architecture? Portraits? That determines your choice of lenses. Without knowing any further details, I'd say get a Nikon N65 (around $180, lacks spot metering) or N80/F80 body (around $350, has spot metering, better autofocus) and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens (around $90). That's about as cheap as you can get for decent to excellent gear (the 50mm lens is a keeper). Get a good book and lots of film. Buy from a dealer that lets you try the equipment or return it if it doesn't work for you.

You'll get a lot of advice on the Canon vs. Nikon debate. It's like Perl vs. Python, csh vs. sh, C++ vs. Java (meaning, there is a clear answer, except that it's different for everyone). For me it came down to this: which system is it easier to borrow lenses for? Where I live the answer is Nikon, but your milage may vary. A Nikon 80-200mm zoom lens is a heavy and very expensive piece of glass that I might need once in a while for a weekend, but I could never justify the expense of buying one for myself. So I rent. And for me the only option in this department is Nikon. (But then again, you could just as easily rent a Nikon body together with the lens.) It was almost as simple as that.

My Nikon N70

[salmo]

Ok, I'm not going to claim to be a photography guru or anything. I leave that to my girlfriend.

But I've had my Nikon N70 for 6 years now, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. It's like a trusty weapon. I know it inside and out. I can handle shooting bands playing live in bars and couples playing in a park with it.

Now the body cost more than $200 at the time and it has some fancy feautres, which I never use. I'm mostly spening my time in Apeture or Shutter Speed priority mode when shooting moving objects or in Manual mode when I have the time to compose a shot. I've used a few SLRs in my day. Older model Pentax, Nikons and newer Canons. Not to slag the older models, I took some beautiful shots with them, but the built in light meters were worse than guessing in my experience.

The Canon EOSes I've used felt very... well... plastic. The physical interface, placement of buttons and knobs, was unnatural, and I was less than impressed with the quality of the lenses that were available to me for use with them. I assume there are better out there, but they weren't sturdy and a little flakey when zooming too far in or out.

My Nikon I love and take pretty good care of. I've used lenses from a few manufacturers, but I've only been happy with the Nikon lenses I've actually purchased. Be careful, though. Some of the newer models are pretty poorly manufactured, ie. mostly plasic. But, the older AF Nikkor lenses are still built the same way and are a pleasure to shoot with. They've just introduced a lower end line intermixed with with the mid-level line they had. You'll know because they will encompass a much greater X mm. range and be cheaper.

As for the digital vs. film debate, there's a lot more to it than just price, etc. My girlfriend just got to borrow the Cannon digital Rebel, and although it was the nicest digital I'd ever used, it still was an overpriced piece of crap. F-Stop, shutter speed, etc. are located all on the back of the camera, which is unnatural and causes the phtographer to have to pull the camera away from their face to get their fingers in there entirely too often. The quality was good, but it still had that digital effect that I can't stand.

Ok, I'll go more into this. For certain things I'll pick a nicer Fujii film. It picks up those greens and blues so well, and for others I'll go with a Kodak, to get skintones, etc. Sometimes I like shooting black and white (like a nice 1600 or 3200 for shooting bands or photojournalism style work). I like being able to choose whether I want clear/grainy, black+white/color, slide/negative, etc. I just don't have that flexibility with a digital camera. And my scanned negatives work (usually) better than any digital photo, for when I want to play in photoshop. I often get my girlfiend to just develop the nagitives (she works in a camera shop if you haven't picked up on that) and scan them to a CD for me. Then I may print one or two off a roll. Overall it would cost me about $7-$10 per roll.

But anyway, it almost doesn't matter so much about what is a "good" SLR. Run around to camera shops, talk to your friends. Borrow a few and shoot a roll with them. See which one feels good to you. You'll get to know and love the camera over time. You'll know all of its quirks and then you'll get to know how to handle different films. Technical shit only matters so much in the field. 2D cameras are, by nature, limited. It's what you do with those limitations that makes a snapshot a photograph. I've taken great (and horrible) pictures with a Kodak I have circa 1930something.

Future-proofing (Nikon FM-10)

[Squeamish Ossifrage]

I agree with essentially everything in the above, but I want to add a few things:

Cameras are a lot like computers, in that the accessories make or break their usefulness in the long term. If you end up enjoying photography, you'll probably acquire a whole host of lenses and gewgaws, of which the camera body is possibly the cheapest part. Just as with computers, you can find yourself growing such a collection without intending to, and it sucks to wake up one morning and realize that you're heavily invested in the wrong system.

Practically, what I'm getting at is that you should pick a starting camera based not just on the body itself, but also on whether there are a good range of accessories available for it, and whether you'll want to keep using those accessories if you decide to be serious about this whole thing. My feeling is that there are dozens of perfectly fine SLR camera manufacturers, all of whose products look about the same on paper, but Nikon and Cannon have much more complete Camera Accoutrement Systems, including 3rd party products, than anybody else. So while an Olympus or Pentax or Minolta would be just as good per se, I'd steer toward a Nikon or Cannon anyway.

I personally started out using the Nikon FM-10 camera body, and I've been very happy with it. It cost me about $250 new with an OK lense. I've bought better lenses and way too much other surrounding gear, but I've never felt the need for another (35mm) body. The older cousins (FM, FM-2) are also supposed to be very good, and are widely available used.

Whatever cameras you buy, there are a few features which I think are worth looking for:

1. Manual everything. If you want to learn about photography, you need to understand and make all the decisions yourself. If the camera won't work without batteries, you've got the wrong one.

2. Interchangeable lenses. This is pretty much a given with SLRs, but make sure. You'll eventually want other lenses. Here's where picking a Nikon or Cannon comes in handy: There are just a lot more lenses, especially used ones, in circulation for those brands. It sucks to find a great price on a nice old lense, and then find out that it won't fit your camera.

3. Tripod mount. For pretty much everything but photojournalism, you'll want this: Tripods make moderate-length exposures sharper, and long exposures possible.

4. Mechanical self-timer or cable release. Both help reduce camera shake for steadier shots.

5. Multiple exposures. I'm going out on a limb, but I personally find this important. Sometimes, you want to expose the same frame of film repeatedly. Normally, when you re-cock the shutter, you simultaneously advance the film, making this impossible. Some cameras have a little button or lever you can push to let you re-cock while keeping the film in place.

I like Canon, but I skipped over the 35mm rebels.

[dbirchall]

For my first 35mm SLR, I bought an Elan (specifically an Elan 7). Yes, you can get any Rebel for less than an Elan, but the Elans are better-built and more capable (faster, etc), so you won't find yourself saying "gee, I wish this camera could..." until you've gotten very serious (and hopefully very good).

Zone System

[Chazmati]

Aarrgh, I'd love to mod this up but I want to expand on this as well.

IMHO, the Zone System was a CRITICAL part of understanding one technical part of photography: exposure. I have a Nikon FE2: manual focus, manual exposure (although there's automatic exposure via shutter speed control if you prefer). I've done some B&W developing and printing at home with a Beseler 23CIII enlarger. I don't do much now that I have kids (no free time, and our digital Canon S400 is just so damn convenient).

Anyway, I had owned this Nikon for ten years before learning about the Zone System. Most of the time I shot with the shutter set to "A" for auto exposure. I trusted the built-in metering. Then one day I took some film to a better lab (I wasn't developing my own at this point) and they said "Hey, your exposure on this roll was all over the map." Basically, the camera was exposing everything to a medium grey because it had no way of knowing if you're shooting a white horse or a black horse. The labs had been correcting this silently for all those years...

To really do the Zone system well, you want a spot meter. I found a used Pentax V Digital spot meter, but many cameras have a spot metering mode. Once you learn the Zone system--really just a system for understanding exposure--you will find spot metering invaluable. Also, check out Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop" or Ansel Adams' "The Negative" for info on the Zone system. Heck, get all three of Adams' Photography Series books.

Nikon FM10

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nikon FM10 is all-manual and will allow you to grow into another Nikon system in time. bhphoto.com currently has it for $210 with a zoom lens.

Pentax ME-Super

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice combo of auto and manual.
get a 28-105 zoom and you'll be all set.

SHOOT! I don't agree with anyone

[NeedlessVoyager]

Camera: buy a Canon G III QL17 or a Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Take the $150 you saved from your budget and buy Black & White film by the brick (thats 20 rolls at a time.)

SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

Print proof sheets in your darkroom. Print the pictures you like as straight as you can. Look at them for a good long time and then go out and...

SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

Go look at the work of other photographers at the library and then on the way home...

SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

The world is full of people who take pictures and most of them aren't worth the paper they are printed on. You have to SHOOT pictures in order to develop an EYE for the pictures that really are all around us. You will learn this for yourself if you SHOOT lots of pictures. You will see a very few that you really like in your first proof sheets. But the more you SHOOT the more you will find pictures that you like. In about a year you might have 4 or 5 pictures that you are really pleased with. (You get harder to please as your EYE develops.) You will see pictures in print and most of them will go by unnoticed but once in a while you will say to yourself, "Wish I'd shot that."
Your EYE is the most important tool! Don't think that equipment is what matters. The world has plenty of people who own great stuff and shoot crap!

Remember what is important.

SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

canon rebel 2k

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in a similar spot a few years ago. I wanted a camera that allowed total control over the picture when i wanted it, or completely automated for getting my feet wet or for point-and-shoot photography. I had only used point-and-shoot cameras previously and I thought I was ready for something more.

A friend recommended the Canon EOS Rebel 2k. I got it at www.keh.com because it seemed to be a little cheaper than from the local camera shop. It came with a 28mm-80mm zoom lens which i have found to be a decent general purpose lens. It has a completey automated mode where it determines all the settings for you, and five (?) presets for action shots, landscape shots, portraits, etc.

One nice thing is that it has 2 modes for semi-automatic photography. These are settings were you control the exposure time and it figures out the aperture value needed and a setting for the converse. Of course there are settings for being completely manual. There is a plug in the side to use an external triggering mechanism (which I put to the test with a night of astrophotography which you can look up on the Internet when you're ready). I've even taken the lens off and taken pictures through my microscopes at work, but that's a different topic I suppose.

One drawback is that the camera is slow. The fastest repetition rate you can get is about one picture per second. There are a few other little issues that have come up, and the camera was about 400 dollars (including lens) when I bought it. It has been worth it for me because it's kept up with my experimence level and there are still plenty of interesting things I don't know about it which should keep me busy for a while.

SHOOT! I don't agree with anyone

[NeedlessVoyager]

Camera: Buy a Canon G III QL17 or a Yashica Electro 35 GSN

Take the $150 left in your budget and buy B&W film by the brick (that's 20 rolls at a time.)

Then go out and
SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

Develop the film and print it as a proof sheet. If you see any pictures you really like on the proof, print them. Look at these pictures for a good long time and then go out and
SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

Go to the library and look at the work of famous photographers. On the way home be sure to
SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!

You see the equipment really isn't the most important thing here.
Developing an EYE for shooting great pictures is.
Most of the pictures that people take are not worth the paper they are printed on.

So save money on equipment because you should spend it on film. You will only be able to create great images if you do a lot of shooting. After you have developed your EYE you will be able to choose the proper camera system to buy into. And then you will still take that old RF along with you when you go out to shoot.

that's bad advice

[penguin7of9]

Modern photography is about as much about manual exposure and film as modern computer science and software engineering are about assembly language programming. Yes, you could spend years becoming an assembly language jockey, but the skill isn't all that useful.

Digital imaging is great for learning photography: it lets students concentrate on composition and content and it gives them immediate feedback.

Furthermore, automatic exposure is a fact of life: whether it is better or worse than manual exposure, you have to learn how to use it effectively. And using automatic exposure correctly is just about as hard as using manual exposure correctly.

So, I think people should start learning photography with digital cameras because it lets them concentrate on the stuff that photography is really all about: content, not gadgets or chemistry. If they later want to start using film, they can pick up its intricacies and idiosyncracies then.

eBay

[SuperKendall]

You can get a D60 kit (includes some lenses) for $600-$700 on eBay... still more than the target price given, but with developing supply costs (given that he would use his own darkroom) you'd probably make up the difference in just a year with a lot of shooting. You do have the CF card cost too, of course... but that's about it.

I've taken around 4500 pictures since I bought my digital SLR last year (Sigma SD9). Let's say I would pay $10 for a roll of 24 to be developed (sounds about right from what I can remember). That comes out to around $1875 for development costs alone, never mind film!!

And I am not even a student, or able to do photography full time. I can easily imagine 4000 shots a month if I were in study mode and able to take whole weeks to devote to photography.

Even so I can't really speak out against learning with film, as it's really cheap to start with and see if he really likes photography. I just think people seriously underestimate the film/development savings when making choices.

There are only 2 35mm digital slr cameras...

[Anonymous Coward]

... in existance, right now.

The Canon 1ds (8,000.00) and the Kodak DC14n (4,000.00). All other digital cameras have sensors smaller than 35mm.

This introduces "magnification" factors to lenses and other nefarious problems like equal-lighting across the image.

A great place to look is..

[annisette]

a Pawn shop, I was in Panama City FLA and found a PENTAX SPOTMATIC II A GREAT CAMERA!! you can auto or manual the exposure, if you practice you can rewind the film to where is is tight, take a picture, hold the rewind so it (the film) does not move, press the small button (on bottom) that relases the gears that wind the film and then crank the wind lever and get double exposures. I had one of these back when they were new in early 70's THEY ARE GREAT!! I also saw a post about the pentax 1000, all the early ones are great, a small problem with finding additional lenses for they are thredded not baynoet(sp) the one I got in PCF was in great condition and cost $80.00

it really doesn't matter

[penguin7of9]

In terms of quality and performance, you can't go wrong with the name brands. Even the cheapest SLR zooms from Nikon and Canon are decent, and the fixed focal length lenses are almost uniformly excellent.

The real question is: why bother with film? Photography is about content and composition, and you can learn that much better with digital: you get immediate feedback and much easier handling. Traditionally, photographers had to spend a lot of time on film and chemistry before they got to the real stuff because they didn't have a choice. These days, you do.

My recommendation: get yourself a nice 5+ Mpixel digital camera and learn about content and composition. Don't even bother with digital SLRs--they are unnecessarily bulky, cumbersome, and offer little advantage. But you should pick a camera which goes out to 28mm equivalent at the wide angle.

If you later still feel that you like the "look" of film, you can then spend a couple of years learning all its idiosyncracies. Frankly, after 20 years of film photography, I'm glad to resign it to the dustbin of history, alongside vinyl records, mechanical typewriters, and library card catalogs.

Re:it really doesn't matter

[calyphus]

Traditionally, photographers had to spend a lot of time on film and chemistry before they got to the real stuff because they didn't have a choice.

That is the best reason to go with film. When it takes time to see your results, you learn better to pre-visualize. When you can't just shoot-review-delete ad infinitum until you get a good photo, you learn to take your time to see the image first. After 20 years of photography, you've forgotten that you learned (I hope) to pre-edit, to take a moment to see the final image before releasing the shutter. There is value in the 'inconvenience of film.'

Re:it really doesn't matter

[penguin7of9]

That is the best reason to go with film. When it takes time to see your results, you learn better to pre-visualize. [...] There is value in the 'inconvenience of film.'

Whatever you want to "pre-visualize" you can still do as an exercise. If you want to learn to walk blind, you don't have to poke your eyes out, a blindfold will do. In different words, if you want to do that exercise, just turn off the LCD and/or review function on the digital camera.

In any case, the preview you get with a digital camera is pretty close to what a MF waist level finder gives you anyway. Do you think MF cameras are bad cameras for the same reason? I don't think so.

keep it simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's *hugely* important to spend some time with a fully manual camera or at least using it in manual/shutter priority/aperture priority mode.

This will get you used to thinking about exposure, depth of field etc so you can not just point and shoot, but really *take* beautiful photographs.

My first real 35mm SLR was a Canon OM30 - not expensive, nice optics and a good range of lenses. But the Pentax models mentioned below are great too. Pretty much any decent brand will do.

Avoid autofocus and too many bells and whistles - you just don't need them, they reduce battery life, and you will take a lot longer to learn anything.

One thing you might want to consider if you really feel like getting some strange looks, is buy an old large format camera. I picked up a twin-lens reflex Mamiya C330 for about 50 dollars and whammo - you're into the world of 6X6 rollfilm, detachable lens pairs, no internal metering and a whole bunch of fun (and the enlargment ability of 6X6 negs has to be seen to be believed).

On this topic, it's also a fine idea to spend some time taking black & white images and developing them yourself. I know this is a whole different topic - but it's excellent for your knowledge of composition and exposure.

Anyway, good luck and have fun.

go for a Ricoh...

[mantera]

if you want a manual camera as a student that'll be good enough for a long time as you learn, just go for a ricoh manual SLR... great cams, i had one in the late 1980s, highly dependable and just sweet..

Why 35mm?

[velo_mike]

Have you considered Medium Format? With more working pros adopting digital, the prices of MF has gone way down - I got into my Hasselblad kit earlier this year for about $500us, vs 1,500 for the same kit a year ago. The 500CM is the k1000 of the MF world, but largely bulletproof and accessories are almost 100% backwards and forwards compatible.

Nikon FM-2

[Zog The Undeniable]

If you can find a secondhand one of these for your budget, it's a very good buy. There is a vast range of secondhand lenses and even the Nikon AF ones will fit (although they won't AF).

The other manual focus systems, with the possible exception of Leica (your wallet wouldn't like it), aren't properly supported any more.

high-end digital is better than film

[spage]

digital cameras still come nowhere near the resolution of regular film

Uh, no. 11 megapixels is higher resolution and overall much better quality than film. The myth you're repeating was comprehensively shot down by the Canon 1Ds field report last year: "There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior". Read the entire report, ignore the largely clueless commentary that greeted it on Slashdot. (Key point: yes, film is analog, but the grain of film causes worse artifacts than a high-res digital sensor.)

However, that particular camera still costs nearly $7000!

35mm SLR for beginner

[Anonymous Coward]

Many good comments in the thread. I'll emphasize this:
What you see is not what you get (on film or digital medium); that difference is where the art is, potentially.
You have to understand how light works on film (or any medium), so buy slide film and shoot it in lots of different situations. It's the least forgiving and teaches you the most, because you NEED to be able to read contrast. After creating black holes where there was originally detail, the usefulness of a flash -- or reflected ambient light -- comes home.
Buy a _real_ camera, not something with a built-in flash that guarantees no interesting image will ever result.
I had Pentax stuff and thought it was OK. Then I bought Nikon and I saw after the first roll or two that the Pentax was really not OK. Buy Nikon or Canon. B&H Photo in NYC was the best retailer I dealt with.
I did 12 years of professional work and many more before turning pro. "Get the right tool for the job" Mr. Natch sez. 35mm for journalism, 4x5 for architecture and still-life - and protraits if you have the light, other formats for other stuff. Eschew dogma.
Have fun.

Digital Darkroom..

[hughk]

In former times, color film and processing was complicated and expensive. Amateurs went for B&W and invested in a darkroom. The tricks that you learned such as 'dodging' (selectively varying the exposure given to parts of a print), cropping and so on, you can do with digital.

Digital gives you the facilities of a darkroom but without the toxic chemicals and the smells. Post-processing is normal and is still a skill worth knowing. Personally, I think a *good* digital with decent metering is quite usable, however they don't come cheap. OTOH, you save a lot on emulsion.

FWIW, I learned with Kodachrome 25 and 64 in Olympus bodies. That is about 1/3 stop lattitude. Sure, the OM4 had a very nice auto exposure system but you were forever tweaking it by averaging between spots or nudging the exposure up or down. When I had a chance I would bracket shots. Expensive.

WARNING Anonymous posters PERSECUTED tsarkon

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING, SLASHDOT NOW TIES AC COMMENTS WITH USER
(Use a disposable account from a disposable IP before moderating this up. Editors generally watch and see who moderates controversial things like this up.)

When you are logged in, /. ties your user account to any Anonymous Coward postings you make... Thus they know who posted it. To demonstrate this:

1. Get mod points.
   
2. Post an AC comment while logged in
   
3. Change your dynamic ip, clear all cookies
   
4. Log back in and try to moderate your AC comment... you can't!!!
   

Please *log out* AND use another browser before making your AC comments.
Your UID is being tracked, it's not Anonymous. Lots of people post lots of things to Slashdot as AC only because they believe it is really anonymous - it isn't. They hunt "trolls" (non-karma whores and non-group thinking bots) down.

This is true. I used to be a bit more freestyle and witty AC and be a nice guy logged in [basically a karma whore]. After a short while, I could no longer moderate. Slashdot does brand AC posts with IP and then map them back to users. They lie about AC, AC doesn't exist if you re-use ip addresses.

Big brother is watching. So while I might be a "troll" a lot of the AC things I said were to protect myself from Slash-bot groupthink. They punished me for voicing my opinion freestyle.

They also revoke moderation FOREVER - $rtbl it is called, for any moderations of any post that have been secretly flagged annoying [Slashcode has hidden flags viewable by editors]. If you *EVER* mod up something an editor secretly marked annoying you NEVER moderate again, ever - ever even if your karma is capped.

Also, Slashdot uses the friends system to track "trolls." Mark a troll you find funny as a friend *bang* $rtbl never to moderate ever again. My real account had many many good friends who had good karma, and a few funny trolls later, no more moderation for that account. Again, Slashdot is spying on its users to make the people who find certain things funny uneligible to moderate. You will never moderate again if you are a friend of a "foe or freak" of an editor.

FACT: This is in Slashcode CVS

Revision 1.7.2.5 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Thu Feb 8 13:12:32 2001 UTC (2 years, 9 months ago) by pudge
Branch: bender
CVS Tags: v1_1_3_0
Changes since 1.7.2.4: +18 -7 lines
Diff to previous 1.7.2.4 to branchpoint 1.7

log more AC info

So AC is a scam here. Hitler-Malda screws AC posts in the caboose. So now all you can do is go 100% AC, or , as they expect you to, KARMA WHORE. And it is so lame and unfair and probably illegal as they lie about anonymity.

Also, sometimes when certain information becomes an active thread, they bitchslap the thread much later so that people think its "safe" to participate and the whole thing gets slapped.

There is a presumption anonymous means something. They lie like rugs to the posting public by using the word anonymous. It is not. They brazenly lie though and the un-assuming poster is having everything he says correlated with him and stored in a computer just waiting to be subpoenaed by the people that Slashdot claims to hate but works for. They work for the fascist forces and components of the US government. I like the US and other Western governments but they have good and bad components - there are things you need to do to protect yourself from the bad components. Basically "covering your ass" so to speak. At Slashdot, in lying about AC, un-protects its posting public (seeding a de-anonymizing privacy stripping pandemic in their own "little" way). This makes Slashdot a very dangerous target for you the posters to have your "anonymous" information subpoenaed and you to be chased down and persecuted for speaking your mind. I think that it is a joke Slashdot editors post about SCO, MSFT, RIAA, MPAA, TIA, FBI, etc. They do the same fascist big-brotherly things that those companies do the public at large as they do to the Slashdot posting public.

Protect yourself. Try and use proxies or a super good second browser with proxies that you never log into such as Opera (which makes it very easy to delete all private data). Thank you.

Nikon FM

[whitelines]

The first of the Nikon F series, I still use mine. Learning curve which is practically vertical, everything, I mean everything is manual, the only electronics are the light meter, which means batteries last at least a few years. Once you understand how to use it, then learn how to take good photos you'll be a pro with anything.

Re:Nikon FM

[YourFaceHere]

Right on with the Nikon FM. If you read the original post, he requested a MANUAL camera, for under $200 if posssible. That just ruled out about half the cameras people have suggested. The other half said Pentax K-1000, though a good camera, it is discontinued. You could find one used, but I perosnally would go for the Nikon. You can get a brand new really great manual camera complete with a lens for around the $200 mark. This is the ideal learner's camera. Of course, when you get more serious about it you can buy a really nice lens (and spend much more). And, in the future you can upgrade bodies to osmething like the N80 (or even some of Nikon's mor eprofessional oriented camera bodies) and still use your Nikon Lenses.

Nikon FM-10 also good enough for starters

[little_prince]

have had it working fine for almost five years now, having survived a few falls (not at the lens end) on ground. as a hobbyist i found reasonably affordable as well as with no auto features, to spoil the fun of taking the pictures, saving the temptations. a picture looks more amazing and beautiful when it is a result of your control on various settings. later on managed to get 70-210mm lens for it (Vivitar make, Nikon label was costing almost as much as the 35mm FM-10 bought initially). That also has given amazing results, except that over the years, there is surtle problem in getting sharpness towards the endpoints of range 70-210.

Re:Nikon FM-10 also good enough for starters

[vogt]

I've started out using an oldschool Pentax handed down from my dad, but as those are getting both hard to find and expensive, I've got nothing but good things to say about the FM-10. My base model came with the 35-70mm zoom and I've consistantly produced excellent photos with great contrast. The body is rugged and has undergone lots of travel and abuse unscathed. The only down side is the lack of a very large f-stop, it only opens to 2.8, but this can be dealt with easily with some practice. The fully manual opperation is a joy to work with as you have complete control over your final product and the reduced possibility of damage to any electronic components. This body will serve you well for years to come.

Sharpness

[ids]

... I think the pictures it's taking now aren't as sharp as they used to be.

The sharpness of your pictures shouldn't be affected by the age of your camera body, unless the viewfinder/focusing screen/mirror/prism have some kind of fault which affects focusing.

The camera body is responsible mainly for exposure - making sure the shutter speed you specify is accurately achieved, as well as getting right whatever built in metering the camera has.

Picture sharpness is down to the qualities of the lens you are using, and any camera shake.

Yashica FX-3 and Contax

[cdegroot]

If you *really* want to learn photography, go manual. Use slide film - that'll teach you to learn how to assess various ligthing conditions, because slide film is unforgiving (in fact, it's just as forgiving as negative film, but you don't have the printing process to correct mistakes).

I'm heavily into Yashica and Contax gear - the Yashica FX-3 is a dead-cheap fully manual body (but good quality), and the great thing is that you can put Contax Carl Zeiss lenses on it. $200 would get you quite a way towards an FX-3 with a CZ 50mm lens (second-hand, of course), and you will make everyone absolutely jealous with the quality of the resulting pictures. There's nothing more frustrating than really trying to make a nice shot and then discovering that the camera+lens isn't up to your expectations, so go for the best glass available.

Disadvantage: the upgrade path is a bit expensive. There's a lot of good quality Yashica and Contax gear, including even digital, but you'll quickly blow a lot of cash ;-).

Second disadvantage: maybe you won't like all-manual. In that case, go for any consumer-level SLR from one of the big names - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta; it doesn't really matter, the quality is mostly similar in the consumer lines, so just surf websites until you see blue in the face and - most important - go to a big camera store (if you're near NY, B&H Photo) and TRY THEM OUT! You can't make pictures with rave reviews, you need to be able to handle the thing as well as possible. Oh, and try to buy at least one 'real' lens - if only a 50mm/1.7. You will appreciate the difference with consumer-grade zoom lenses.

Re:Yashica FX-3 and Contax

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Yashica and Contax are great cameras, which are often overlooked. I've had my FX-7 and Zeiss lenses for nearly 8 years now, and have used many other camera since, but it is still my favourite (film) camera.

asking /. for photography?

[obot]

Are you sure asking photography at slashdot?

Photography is an art, so you better watch out since the geeks tend to concern about the equipment than the picture.

But here's my two cents:
0. don't believe whoever say: get this brand! get this model!
it's the man and not the machine after all. Try some camera and take with the most feature/price ratio and the feel in your hand AND the viewfinder.

1. get a (camera) system instead of a body
AFAIK, canon eos lenses fit with ALL eos body (except one lense), this is good if you want to go digital later, your lense will not be a waste, AND canon cheaper body tend to have more feature. DO your research on other brand.

2. forget the 'must have all manual body to learn photography'.
this is nonsense. you can learn lighting, DOF concept, and everything with autofocus body!

what i've use..? old Nikon FG-20. still my favourite. light and reliable. i will invest on canon system though.. someday..

Re:asking /. for photography?

[Little Brother]

forget the 'must have all manual body to learn photography'.

Depends on to what extent you want to learn photography. If your desire is either to get above average pictures quickly, or to work inactive shots only, this may be true. (i personaly don't think so, but I'm unsure enough to give the benifit of the doubt.) But if you are willing to take some time to get the best photos possible, or if you want to shoot action on an inexpensive camera, go manual focus only.

First, you can do things with manual focus you just can't do with autofocus without major cheeting, and the cheeting generaly requires knowledge of how you SHOULD take the shot on a manual. Shots of this type are where you have three items, a middle subject, a foreground and a background, all approximently equidistant. If you want to set your apature wide and get a large focal tolerance and then get two parts in focus and leave the third out (setting the focus between the two) you can do this easily on a manual focus, but this is difficult on an automatic. However, this is fairly advanced technique, if all you desire is the ability to take above-average (though not perfect) shots of what's going on around you.

Secondly, on action, inexpensive autofocus cameras just can't hack it if your subject changes distance in relation to you rapidly. If you're good, damn good, you can do much better than all but the most expensive autofocus cameras with your manual. So if you want to shoot sports events, especialy things like American Football, football/soccer, or basketball where people move rapidly and spuraticly, your autofocus just won't track fast enough. (Side note, in order to get good at manual focus, sit near a highway and track moving cars, then start shifting from a car comming one direction to a car comming from the other direction. You'll be a focusmaster in 5-10 rolls of film)

Another reason for going with all manual, is that it is easier to go from all manual to autofocus/autoexposure, than it is to go from autofocus to all-manual.

Religious wars in photography

[ids]

Wow, what a lot of photographic religious wars seem to be hidden away in this question. Lets list a few:

• Film vs Digital
• Canon vs Nikon (vs Pentax)
• Auto vs Manual
• Negative film vs Slide film

Now I think of it, I might even have actually spotted:

• 35mm vs Medium Format

You can find all these wars being fought anywhere that photography is discussed, especially the first one. I'm so sick of reading about film vs digital that I could puke.

Fortunately, it mostly doesn't matter. If you have a beginning interest in photography then I think the most important thing is that you get something you can use immediately which can give you decent results. Whatever that is should also allow you room to grow as you become more knowledgable and experienced.

There's much more to correctly exposing a picture than modern cameras would lead you to believe (well, that was my experience anyway). There's a huge amount of reading to be done on the subject. Zone systems and f/stops and grey cards abound - it's a topic to be approached gradually.

The person who suggested that you get a completely manual camera and use it to take pictures on slide film was bonkers, I think. Slide film is very exposure intolerant, so you would need to get the exposure exactly right most of the time. This approach would punish you for every mistake by delivering a picture which didn't come out. That way lies a very unrewarding feeling of expensive frustration.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that you get something which enables you to take pictures which mostly come out. Then, by reading up and tuning your approach, you can adjust your technique and start to understand what's going on with the science of it all. To that end I would recommend something with autofocus and autoexposure, and I'd recommend 35mm negative film. If you look on eBay you should be able to find something appropriate.

Personally I use and understand Canon kit, so I'm thinking of something like an Elan II (EOS 50 in non-USA speak). Getting a 50mm prime lens (Canon's f/1.8 is about $100 brand new) instead of a zoom would help teach you composition (and only punish you by making you move around a bit), and the wide aperture lets you take pictures in far less light and helps to reduce camera shake. Oh, and prime lenses (non zoom lenses) are always much sharper than zooms, especially lower end consumer zooms.

Finally, remember that the end product is the picture. Photography is an art form which happens to have a very great deal of science in it. The right camera will help you with the science, but ultimately it's the art which will motivate you and give you and other people pleasure. Nobody is going to reject a beautiful photograph because you used auto exposure or autofocus!

Re:Religious wars in photography

[statichead]

May as well keep the war going in full glory...

I feel the need to add Nikons Nikormat to the slew, this was probably the first pro-(con)sumer model ever.
here is a link:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwa res/cla ssics/nikkormat/elseries/index.htm
the nikkormats are built like a tank, most nikons are, personally I think the ELs offer the best value.

On the other hand take a look at a bronica RF645 www.tamron.com, while this camera is a bit more than $200 is looks to be a pretty slick medium format system that is lighter then a pro 35mm slr. The deals on this system are very good right now, under $1000 on ebay, With the current rebates you can get into a new system in the neighborhood for a bit more then $1000. You will need to do a little research on what a rangefinder is. For instance for close-up work a RF camera is not the answer, however, for portraits, you will know if people blink when you take your shot because you will see it durning the exposure, something impossible,through the viewfinder anyway, with an SLR camera.

I recently purchased a horseman 6x9 camera, the funny part is I can shoot that as fast as my olympus 5050 when it is shooting high resolution tiffs. The horseman is a totally manual camera meaning I have to wind the film and cock the shutter between shots, oh yea don't forget to remove the darkslide, just love that digital speed.

I have missed far to many shots with my digital because of the lag time between when you hit the button and when it actually takes a picture.Also it takes forever to write a large file to the flash, this is why I can shoot my horseman just as fast,and no shutter lag.

To continue with the war, if you are set on 35mm don't listen to the cannon dude above, go with nikon and get a professional outfit;-) just kidding, all cameras have their strengths and weaknesses, you really need to handle them for yourself and find out what suits you. A trip to NYC could be very helpful in your endevor, that city has more camera gear then you could imagine.

Re:Religious wars in photography

[statichead]

Oh yea, cheap lenses are no bargin, you can get some real nice older lenses from the big manufacturers for reasonable prices. The lens is probably the most important thing in photography, besides your brain. Good lenses will give you much better results on film, this really will make a difference especially with 35mm.

There's no such thing

[Flu]

as the best camera. Just stay with the larger brands such as Pentax, Nikon, Minolta or Canon, and you can't make a bad purchase. Most of the entry-cameras lack some features only found on the higher end ($600 and upwards) cameras, but you won't miss those features until you're good enough to consider the cost worth it.

Allmost all new cameras today are equipped with manual and autofocus, as well as manual and automatic aperture and shutterspeeds.

Personally, I own a Canon EOS 300, purchased a couple of years ago.

Yashica and Zeiss

[archiDORK]

Yashica and Zeiss

I picked up a Yashica FX-3 and a Carl Zeiss Planar T 1,7/50 last year for about $225 used. This is a great general use combo. The Planar T is fast and gives silky images. Most of the time one can do with out a flash. I usually shoot slide film and have them scanned to CD. This results in much better quality images that I could afford in a Digital Camera. Plus the color is spot on and lush.

Good Luck.

Forget the camera. But get a good lens!

[Compunerd]

I've been photographing for 15 years or so, and I still see people purchase a nice Canon EOS 1v with a shitty 28mm/2.8 or something. What's important is:
- Get a decent camera
- Purchase one good, fixed focal length lens
- DO NOT use zoom until you know how to use at least one of the following (and have used it for 6 months+ alone): 35mm, 50mm, 80mm

roy

Minolta SRT-202

[kyosuke]

Like the camera mentioned in the first post (the Pentax K-1000), this one is fully manual. One of the best benefits of a full manual is that it will still work even without a battery (of course, the exposure meter won't work, but after a bit of experience, you'll learn what exposures to use...hence the original posters comment about understanding photography better. Granted, you typically keep a good battery in it so you have the exposure meter, but it's really nice when the camera will at least work without it rather than shutting down completely).

I recommend the Minolta SRT-202 simply because it's a workhorse/tank....I bought mine in 1978 and it's still going strong with NO problems.

Re:Minolta SRT-202

[kyosuke]

I'd also mention that it has a self-timer, depth-of-field preview, hot-shoe *and* jack for external flash, a wide selection of high quality lenses still available, through-the-lense view of exposure meter, f-stop, and shutter speed, as well as two different focussing aids (split screen and the little fresnel-like one [can't remember its name right now]). Not as important, but useful as heck, it has a little bracket on the back which holds the end-panel from a box of film....really useful to remember what kind of film you have in at the moment.

Sigma SA-5, Sigma anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quiiite get all these K-1000 posts. It's a great camera, but so is an old Canon AE-1 or anything else... Once you've actually *learned* photography, you'll probably want to upgrade to something better anyway.

That said... I slogged through HS photo with an AE-1, and when I did my research, at the time, the Sigma SA-5 would've given me the best bang for the buck as a 'modern' autofocus upgrade. Nothing magic, but a lot of 'pro' features in a relatively cheap camera... what most interested me was the availability of mirror-lockup, which, at least then, was usually reserved for annoyingly expensive 'pro' SLRs, despite being a simple mechanical linkage handy for anyone who likes playing with long exposures (which you'll probably want to do a bit of while learning, too)...

They've since supplanted it with the SA-7 (if not other models), and I'm sure those are quite nice too. As much as anyone may complain about "third-party" glass, it'll be a lot better than the hell-and-back 52mm that came with my twenty year old Canon, or most used K1000s (didn't they discontinue them recently, and Vivitar now makes the same thing under their brand?), and what starving student has money for more than one piece of 'brand name' glass, anyway??

Rollei B series

[tree_frog]

I have a Reollei B series (and an S series) - tiny little 25mm camera. Great lens - utterly manual (the focusing mechanism consists of

1. decide how far away subject is
2. turn focus ring to that distance

I have never had a camera with which I take such consistantly good photos. The reason is, it forces me to think about what I am photographing.

They are expensive. My B series cost me 60 about 7 or 8 years back. My S series cost me $200 18 months ago (In a camera chop in Oak Park, Chicago).

regards, treefrog

Any Minolta M/MC/MD series will do.

[Pow.R Toc.H]

I don't know how difficult they are to find in the U.S., but I think that any Minolta M/MC/MD camera is great to start with.

There is plenty of great lenses at bargain price -for instance, 50 mm f:1.4 costs less than US$ 30 here in Brazil. There are also other lenses that are hard to find in most AF systems (Minolta Maxxum included), like a 135mm f:2.8. I've seen great Kalimar lenses of this kind for M/MC/MD for US$ 50-75. Try to find a comparable lens for your AF system and just see how much they cost.

I've got my SRT303b (minimum shutter speed 1/1000, DOF preview, with optional aperture-priority mode) with a 28mm f:3.5, 50mm f:1.4, 80-200mm f:4, flash, tripod and case for less than US$ 200.

Finally, this camera is built as iron tank, so it will withstand all kinds of weather - something that won't happen with modern SLR's, digital and film. And it will shot even without batteries.

Recommended cameras

[ader]

(Don't know what the visibility of this post will be now. Seems like everyone has an opinion.)

You seem to know what you want and few should quibble about buying a manual body. Here are some straight model recommendations, but it's up to you to research them and decide your needs. None of these is a total dog.

• Nikon: FE, FE2, FM, FM2, FA, F2. Price may be an issue with the later models. If you can't afford the AI lenses, look for the Series E ones instead. The 50mm f/1.8 is usually a bargain (people who say it's "boring" mean that they themselves produce boring images). Note that upgrading to an AF body later means you will have to buy a high end model such as F100 or D1H to keep using your lenses; other bodies can't meter with MF lenses.
  As I usually add, if you're looking at Nikon then you must join Nikonians.
  
• Canon: I know very little about Canon other than a good lens range and that everyone raves about the AE-1 as a manual body.
  
• Olympus: OM system has many fans, lenses are good value. No upgrade path.
  
• Something older, like Pentax K-compatible or Eastern European brands like Praktica that accept Pentax screw-mount (M42) lenses. Not the greatest mount but the gear is capable and lenses are cheap enough to throw away when you upgrade to a modern system later.
  

Desirable features: DOF preview; match needle on meter; self-timer; thread for standard cable release; large ISO (film speed) range.

Ade_
/

Nikon FM2n

[pointbeing]

IMO the best student camera out there. Light, fast, outstanding lens availability (between adorama.com and eBay I don't think I've ever spent >$75 for a lens).

I decided to branch out from point-and-shoot digital to film about a year ago - and after doing much research had narrowed the field to the Pentax K1000, Olympus OM-1 or Nikon FM2n.

Everybody's gonna recommend their favorite camera, but if you want to learn about photography, IM frequently les than HO a fully manual camera is the way to go. The Nikon is faster and lighter than either the Pentax or Olympus, has a much faster flash sync speed and will take pictures if the batteries are dead since they're only used for the light meter - everything else is mechanical. (To be fair, the K1000 will also take pictures with a dead battery.) As mentioned earlier, lenses are plentiful and cheap. Any Nikon AI or AIS lens will work just fine on an FM2n - older non-AI lenses can be converted for about $35.

I bought mine with a 50mm f1.4 lens for $175 - and you can find them all over eBay. If you're a responsible buyer you can find great deals in camera gear there.

Most of my pictures still suck mightily - but they get a little better with every roll :)

Re:SHOOT! I don't agree with anyone

[Rocketboy]

There's something to be said for this approach (depending on what you want to get out of photography.) IF you can find batteries for the old cameras. :)

Rb

50 rolls?!?!?

[Christopher Bibbs]

First off, 50 rolls of film is nothing. I can easily shoot two or three rolls a week and that's between working full time, taking a night class, and spending time with my wife. That said, a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X is only $2.

Besides, the camera body isn't the expensive part of photography. Quality prints and lenses are the expensive part and that doesn't change between digital and film.

Nikon manual

[stevenbdjr]

If you intend on making this a life-long hobby, I would seriously consider this from the perspective of building your equipment base. You don't want to start with a Pentax and find that in 2 years you want something better and have to scrap everything and start from scratch. In my mind, there are only two choices: Nikon or Canon. I'd go with Nikon.

Pickup a used Nikon FE or FE2 off of eBay (I've also had several good experiences with KEH), get yourself a 50mm 1.4/f or 1.8/f lense and go to it. I spent a year learning with an FE2 and a 50mm before I even considered another lense. I fell in love with manual focus and match-needle metering.

The nice thing about a Nikon system is that you can use all of their AI lenses developed since the 70's with just about any of their bodies, including some of their digital SLRs. So when you decide you're ready for a more automatic camera, including one of with autofocus, you can still use your manual kit with it. You can't do that with a Canon. Don't get me wrong, Canon's USM lenses are the bomb, and their digital gear is simply amazing, but you can't use their older (thus, cheaper) manual kit with their newer automatic cameras. This puts you in the position of either starting with an automatic system and possibly not learning as much, or starting with manual gear, and then having to buy everything again when you go automatic.

Finally, stop over to Photo.net and start reading. Phillip's a bit of a zealot, but he gives excellent advice with a solid foundation of knowledge.

Strengths and Weaknesses

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a fairly new Casio digital camera and a Pentax PZ-1 SLR. I enjoy each for the advantages they give and wouldn't give up either yet. Here are some strengths and weaknesses.

Diffraction limited aperature:
Many 35mm SLRs normal lenses deliver their best clarity at about F5.6. This is where lens aberations meet the diffraction limit. Since the imaging plane of most digital cameras is much smaller than 35mm, you get diffraction effects much earlier so you wind up with a slightly unclear image even if your lens is perfect. This is why you see normal 35mm lenses go from F2 to F 22, some 120 cameras go to F32 or F64 while few digital cameras go beyond F8, they're up against the diffraction limit.

Exposure latitude:
This is where digital shines, your exposure can be off by several stops before the picture can't be corrected by photoshop magic ;-)

Shutter Delay:
Most digital cameras aren't very good here. There is a delay of .5 second or more between when you press the button and when the photo

Processing Accuracy:
I predicted several years ago that digital wouldn't improve to match chemical photography, chemical photo processing quality will decline until the average person can't tell the difference. This appears to be exactly what happened. 35mm print lab quality control has been abysmal in the past 5 years, and it appears to be getting worse. Slide processing is more consistant (there is less for the processor to screw up.) This is why I'm still using Kodachrome and the like for keepsake photos.

Resolution:
A photograph from an expensive digital camera still doesn't approach the pixel resolution of a cheap Pentax K1000.

Artistic Configurability:
I don't know a better word for this. Basically, whichever you get, try to make sure it has manual controls. Can you quickly turn off autofocus, autoexposure and set your own shutter speed and aperature?

Fully Automatic Manual

[EmagGeek]

I bought a Minolta STSi a few years ago. Granted, it was a bit more than your $200 figure, but it was well worth the money. It's a fully-automatic manual camera, which means that you can choose to either set the exposure time and aperture manually, or have the computer do it for you. It also has built-in light metering that actually works really well, and will tell you if your current manual settings will be over or underexposed. That feature is great for beginners who may not have the intuition just yet. After a while, you probably won't even use the computer settings.

Alternatives

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Based on the way you've phrased your question, I'm assuming you really want to learn *photography* as opposed to learning how to work gadgets. If you want to learn perspective, exposure, composition - if you want to learn to *see* pictures and you succeed in that quest, any cameras you use in the future will be essentially interchangeable. They all do the same thing, if you've learned the fundamentals.

If those assumptions are wrong, stop reading. If they're correct, here are my thoughts.

Yes, you want an all-manual camera. It should have a single-focal length lens of good quality. The more limited the equipment, the more you'll have to learn the basics. As for 35mm SLRs, I see a few choices.

1. Pentax K1000 - I've got one and think it's the bee's knees. But the upgrade path for lenses is, from a pro perspective, limited. They're also *the* classic teaching camera, so on the used market (they aren't made any more) they're overpriced. Take a pass.
2. Nikon, something old, used, and manual - You could get an old F, F2, FM, or something similar. Most of those would blow your budget, but if you can get a good deal, go for it.
3. Nikon, something newer - The FM-10 (which, to a lot of folks, isn't really a Nikon) has that wonderful, takes-all-the-old-lenses mount and is a decent camera. The lens and system upgrade path is wonderful, assuming you don't envision yourself, someday, consumed by a long-lens lust that only Canon can truly satisfy. New, the FM-10 is in the low $300 range with a slow zoom lens that would need to be replaced. Perhaps you could find something used.
4. Canon, something old - Not recommeded. The Tlb and Ftb were classics. I loved them. But Canon abandoned that lens mount and their newer EOS cameras are all automated up the wazoo, not a good situation for someone who wants to learn, old school. Of course, if the Canon system and those gorgeous long lenses it contains are irresistible, you can get a Rebel cheap and just accept that you'll need to pay attention to making decisions for yourself instead of letting the camera do it for you.
5. Odds 'n ends - There are a bazillion cameras on the used racks for cheap that can reasonably be considered disposable. A fair quality, unpopular discontinued manual SLR with an F2 or faster 50mm lens can be had for under $100 if you do a little digging. Checking bhphotovideo.com for used, manual focus, off-brand SLRs, I see a Ricoh for $139 and a Vivitar for $89. Throw on a decent $50, 50mm lens and you've met budget. Just resign yourself to the fact that you'll sell it back to a local dealer for $35 at some point in the next couple of years when you outgrow it. At that point, you may have decided you truly love photography and you'll move on to a current Nikon or Canon. Or you may have decided that you've learned enough and aren't really serious about photography, anyway, so you'll move on to a digital point and shoot. Either way, for the rest of your life you'll take better pictures than most anybody else in the room just because you took a little time to learn the basics.

I vote for option 5.

Right not to go digital..

[wfberg]

I recently bought a very nice digital camera (Fuji FinePix S304/3800), and though it makes gorgeous snapshots, it's not teaching me much about photography. The S304 (like the 2MP 2800z) has great automatic white balance correction, which means that indoors shots just come out right, unlike a lot of other digital cameras - there's often no need to use the flash. It also has 6x zoom, which is nice.

But the control over aperture, flash, "shutter/exposure" time, etc. is rather limited. It's hard to figure out how much it's adjusting automatically, and what those corrections actually do (without shooting brackets (in asfar as the auto stuff can be turned off), which can be tedious). And figuring out what settings where actually used in the end can usually only be deduced from the EXIF info in JPEG files (note that that's a lossy format btw); if you did have full control, you'd know the settings, and could write them down. Also, manual settings are easier to set on a mechanical SLR (no menus).

Note that the ISO ratings on many, many digital cameras (including well known brand ones) can be quite misleading. And cheap-ass Dell cameras claiming to be 400 ISO are nothing of the sort.

And another thing, the viewfinders on digital cameras can be rather dinky, unless you go for the expensive stuff. The S304 I mentioned has an electronic viewfinder, so if you put the camera to your eye you see the same thing as you'd see on the LCD screen (which is pretty darn nice compared to most digital cameras with their optical viewfinders or hard-to-look-at-while-shooting LCDs) - still, it's not quite like the end result.
In the case of the S304 you often see a picture that seems underexposed, but when you've taken it, it's not quite as dark as you'd expected. (Not that SLRs are perfect, but they're better than even an electronic viewfinder)

So, I've got a great digital camera.. But I find myself looking for a mechanical all-manual SLR to learn to be a better photographer, though the snapshots come out nice almost all of the time.

Re:Right not to go digital..

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of an all manual SLR, go one step further and get an all-manual TLR... medium format is the best! and you can get a used Rolleicord for relatively cheap, compared to a modern medium format SLR.

plus, you can enlarge your photos up to poster size...

2325 in two months

[Anonymous Coward]

I have _saved_ 2325 of the pictures I've taken since I bought my digital two months ago. I regularly take a few hundred pictures in an afternoon. This would never have happened if I was using film. I could have afforded a camera with better lenses and would probably have taken some better pictures as well. But I could not have afforded a thousand pictures a month.

Manual Focus

[Benjim]

I'd definately use a manual focus SLR, auto focus is the absolute death for really good pics. You get much more depth, and feeling in pics rather than just an average approximation.

f/1.4 50mm lens & 400ASA film.

[wiredog]

"not good for existing light photography"? Huh? You don't need a light meter for that. Figure 1/1000 (the max speed IIRC) at F11 for sunlight, F8 if it's weak/hazy sunlight, 5.6 for cloudy, 4 for heavy clouds, 2.8 or 1.4 for well lit interiors. Adjust speed/F-stop as needed for depth of field control.

Minolta X-700

[carcass]

I have a Minolta X-700 and a Minolta SRT-100. Both are exceptional camera bodies. The X-700 allows various combinations of manual and automatic aperture and exposure from full manual to full auto. Focusing is manual, but that's a plus in my opinion. There are some very useful features in this camera (make sure you get the manual with it). Accessories that you can get include a time/date imprinter, an aperture/exposure imprinter (I think), an auto-winder (supports up to 5 fps, I think), and some others I don't remember. This camera has an excellent reputation and it has served me very well.

The SRT-100 is an older one (early 1970's tech) but it takes great pictures. If you can find one, make sure that the light meter/exposure system is working properly--I've heard that some cameras out there have malfunctioning ones and are mainly good for parts. The exposure system on this camera takes into account horizons and backlighting to a fine degree.

Both of these cameras will produce extremely high quality images.

Why not digital SLR?

[wiredog]

He said he wanted to spend around $2,000. A digital SLR that's equivalent in resolution, versatility, and toughness to, say, a Pentax K-1000 or Nikon FM2 will cost around $5,000. So he could buy the manual camera, a decent selection of lenses, and shoot several thousand frames, for the price of just the digital SLR body.

That's why.

Film resolution

[wiredog]

Actually, some digital SLRs do have 35mm film resolution. IIRC, there's one from Kodak/Nikon. Costs about $12,000. Bit pricy.

But if all you're doing is snapshots, a 5mp digital is adequate.

Digital better than Film? Crack Smokers everywhere

[NixLuver]

But the high-end digi-cameras now (10MP) are finally better than any film.

In a word, Horsehockey. While 10MP is getting close enough for most purposes, there is a bit of a misconception involved. First, we need to understand the difference between "film" resolution and "digital" resolution.

Most mid-range color films in the early 90s (when I was a professional commercial photographer) would resolve 110 to 125 lppm (that's "line pairs per millimeter", or successive lines of white and black), with some of the high-resolution black and white films going as high as 425 lppm (Kodak Technical Pan in Technidol developer). To make the math easy, we'll compare that to at 3000x4000 (12 MP) digital camera.

Initially, 125 lppm x 25 (the approximate width of the 35mm format's picture taking area in mm)= 3,125 line pairs per inch, or 6,250 resolvable edges. Already twice the 'resolution' of the 12 MP digital cam, without moving up to any of the 'pro' films, and certainly not addressing medium/large format, like the 6x6cm that my Hassy ELM takes.

Lenses, on the other hand... In the 90s, some of the best 35mm lenses in the world would only resolve some 125 lppm in a ~1cm paraxial region; most Japanese glass had poor contrast (by comparison to various Bavarian competitiors, like Leica, Rollei, Hassy, etc) although they were acceptably sharp.

So, before this turns into a book; if you're shooting for personal record (snapshots), a digital camera will probably be as good as any point-and-shoot, if not better. In some cases, a 10 MP camera would be good enough for professional use, depending on the final print size of the image; but nothing digial exceeds the quality of decent 35 mm, and nothing digital even comes close to exceeding the image quality of the medium format machines.

Any network that is completely understood is obsolete.

Re:SHOOT! I don't agree with anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a Nikon F2 that I've had since 1976. I can walk into any Walgreens and buy batteries for it.

Nikormat

[b0bby]

I have an old Nikormat, and I've known a number of other people who did too. They are fully manual, and I think were made by Nikon as a lower end brand. They are solid as a rock, and you can get one with lens for around $100 on ebay. If you just want a light meter & to set everything else yourself, I'd give it two thumbs up. And if you later want to get some fancy autofocus number, you'll get most of your money back easily by reselling it.

Re:SHOOT! I don't agree with anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I would amend your method to:
THINK, Shoot. THINK, Shoot, THINK Shoot.

Digital & Learning

[careysb]

I learned alot more when I switched over to digital because I wasn't worried about how much each click of the shutter was costing me and I got relatively instantaneous feed back. I was using Nikon's upper end Coolpix cameras which had manual over-ride for all of the controls. I recently switched over to a Canon EOS 10D digital SLR camera because I felt I couldn't control the focus well enough with the Coolpix cameras.
See some pics

"I think I want a manual focus camera."

[mwood]

I think you are right. If you care about more than "it's cheap and it makes pix," get something you can control. Auto-this'n'that is okay sometimes, but get something you can take command of in those situations where you are right and the robot is wrong. Some of the world's greatest photos would've been ruined by a fancy camera.

That said, my main camera's 30 years old so I couldn't say what's good today. Grab a couple of magazines such as _Popular Photography_ and dig through the ad.s in the back to see what's sought by enthusiasts.

Easy

[djmcmath]

Both Canon and Nikon made about 10 million manual 35mm cameras, back in the day. Canon's A-1, AE-1, or similar have absolutley no features, but make great beginner's tools. Typically they start at about $100 for a "just usable" condition up to a little over $200 for "like new." Lenses run from about $20 for a 50mm to over $500 for a good condition wide angle lense. Best of luck.

FWIW, "photo.net" runs a lot more photography related stories than Slashdot. It always blows me away when Slashdot runs photography stuff, because the exact same issues are discussed (except in more detail, by people who know what they're talking about) over at photo.net.

Have fun with your new hobby,

Dan

No Digital for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I wont buy a digital camera no matter how good they get, unitl they can fix the printing process. It sucks right now.

Who wants to spend time and money adjusting image files for each picture on their home printer? not me

Who wants to waste ink and paper trying to output a standard size 24 or 36 images for archives? not me.

Who wants to re-print these images over and over (with trial and error), because friends and families request copies? not me.

I'll stick to film based cameras for now, less hassle.

Here's an Idea: For someone to create a Linux based, stand-alone Memory card reader and CD burning device for digital camera users.

I can see it now, Just dump your shots to this device and when the data folder reaches 650-700 mb... Pop-in a CDR or CDRW and burn. Then Mail this CD to a mailorder printshop or Photoshop for real Kodak prints.

Minolta X-370

[{tele}machus_*1]

I bought this model used when I started my photography hobby about nine or ten years ago. It still works wonderfully. The camera can operate entirely manually or on aperture priority (you set the aperture, the camera chooses the right shutterspeed). You should be able to find one for around $200 with a basic 50mm lens (I bought mine for about $250, and I figure they are less expensive now with all the other options out there), and lenses are readily available on eBay (and are inexpensive).

I highly recommend a fully manual camera (focus, aperture, and shutterspeed) for a beginner. You can take great pictures with automatic cameras, but you won't know why or how you did it. I also recommend The Basic Book of Photography by Tom Grimm (check Amazon). I have an older (1970s) edition of this book, and it has been invaluable in learning and understanding f-stops and exposure. My last recommendation: take a little notebook with you and write down how and why you took every shot. There is no other way to figure out why some shots are successful and some aren't, because you will not remember what you did or why after you get your film developed. One more thing: take tons of photographs.

As an alternative to the Minolta, search eBay for a Rollei SL35. It's a fully manual camera with an old-style needle light meter (you center the needle along the side of the viewfinder to get the exposure). You might want to read up a bit on this camera before getting one, because it uses an older battery that can be hard to find these days. However, the SL35 generally comes with an outstanding lens (Carl Zeiss, 1.8 or 1.4, I think). People love the camera for its simplicity and good construction and its great lens. I have seen them sell on eBay for around $150.00, pretty consistently.

If you want an automatic SLR, I recommend the Minolta Maxxum 5, which is my second SLR. You should be able to find it in the $250-350 range depending on which lens(es) comes with it. It is small, light, easy to use, has lots of useful functions, can be switched to completely manual, completely automatic, shutter priority, or aperture priority. It uses a very advanced autofocus and metering system for a camera in its price range.

As usual YMMV

[jotaeleemeese]

I just used 10 films (36 pictures each) during my last holidays.

I used SLR because all the reason you mentioned. Now that I have the money I will cerainly buy a Digital SLR.

Nikon FM / FM2

[boydweyser]

I've been shooting for some time now & have a serious love for Nikon's. The FM series is older (came out in the late 70's I believe), but is a fully manual camera (no batteries needed unless you want to use the light meter - like the Pentax K1000). Having sunk a few Nikons in lakes (they dry well after a few hours), dropped them down multiple flights of stairs (Nikon's look better w/a few dings & scratches anyhow), I've found they just don't fail. This model can be had for @ $125~$150 used (adorama.com is where I just bought one for my stepson taking his 1st photo class) and can use any brand of lens, as long as its the Nikkor mount. Tamron lenses are good for a 3rd party lens (and cheaper), but I'll still prefer Nikkor glass for best image quality.

Nikon F2 or FM

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same lines as the K-1000, no auto anything!

But at the same time you get a "professional" camera

I take my best photos with a...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rolleicord Twin-Lens-Reflex (TLR) made in 1955.

eat your heart out, 35mm-people!

You asked a photo question on Slashdot?

[cygnus]

...isn't that like asking about sex in a junior high boys' lockerroom? :)

possible gotchas

[Anonymous Coward]

If you decide to go with an old mechanically controlled/fully manual camera (which tend to be much better built than the modern plastic crap), you should be aware that a lot of them require mercury batteries for metering the exposure. Those batteries are effectively outlawed and thus unobtainable in several countries for environmental reasons.

Unless you plan on developing your films yourself (which takes time, more money, and effort, and may be problematic when it comes to properly disposing of the used chemicals), you might be better off with a digital camera. It is getting increasingly hard in many places to find someone locally who will develop your films without scratching or mutilating them in other ways. This happens routinely even with big brand name labs. Classic film cameras are still capable of much better image quality than digital - but only with proper film processing. I suspect for many amateurs, that's the real reason for swithcing over to digital.

Consider a Pentax ME Super

[Anonymous Coward]

An alternative to the (IMHO over praised/priced) K1000 is the Pentax ME Super. Same tank-like construction. Aperture priority, which means you set the f stop (exercise of judgement) and it sets the shutter speed (mechanical calculation in most cases). The Asahi f1.7 lens most of them come with is right up there with the classic Leica Tessar. For non-Pentax lenses, consider the Vivitar Series 1. I don't think anybody made a sharper zoom lens.

get a Nikon FM-10

[jldrew]

I took a photo class in college, and I bought a Nikon FM-10 for it. In my experience, it was an excellent choice. It's completely manual and inexpensive.

If I remember correctly, mine cost around $200 (maybe $250) new. That was four years ago. I see that there are quite a few FM-10s listed on eBay, for around $200.

Originally, I *think* I bought mine at filmshop.com, but their site is a redirect now, and the page that loads doesn't look familiar at all... but it's been four years.

Anyhoo, the Nikon FM-10 is a good camera.

Nikon F Series

[kc0dxh]

My father was a professional photographer for 30 years. His favorite is his Nikon F2. Put any Nikkor lens on it and it's a jem indeed. Of the 20 or so photographers who worked with that company there was only one that didn't use a Nikon; he used a Cannon.

While Cannon, Olympus and Minolta may all produce good cameras, none have the universality of the Nikon with the F mounts. And Nikkor optics can't be beat. The only thing I've ever found off with the Nikons is that some of the automatic lenses can be noisey.

Pentax K-1000

[abaddon314159]

the Pentax K-1000 is cheap, durable (you can kick it around a bit and it will still keep going), supports lots and lots of lenses, the K-mount style of lens is named for this camera but is made by many manufacturers (read as cheaper). And its picture quality is very good for the money.

pentax zx-7

[jonnyfivealive]

the zx7 is an excellent camera. as all others have said, their lenses are massively compatible. not only that, but this particular one has a metal bayonet connection. i dont have my 28-300 yet, so im constantly switching my 28-80 with my 75-300(macro) and having a plastic mount would really scare me.

as far as cheap lenses, sigma makes decent lenses for pretty cheap. i cant remember the brand right now, but i think its ritz camera has an in-house brand that is nothing but a sigma with different stickers. cheap, reliable, but the zoom action isnt so smooth(focus is fine, but af on a long lense is usually a little slow).

having said all that, canon now has a digital that uses the eos lenses the rebel does. THAT would be cool. one set of lenses for your film and digital.

Are you married to 35mm?

[Hooptie]

If not, you might want to consider an older medium format camera. Two years ago I got a Rolleicord V off of eBay for ~$175 (that includes shipping). Yes the camera is older than I am but it still has LOTS of years left in it. It is a Twin Lens Reflex camera with an excellent lens. The film it uses produces a negative that is 6x6cm. These cameras all ALL manual, most don't even have a light meter in them. And don't think that just because something is old that it is no good. Cameras made in the 50s (like my Rollei) anr constructed with a degree of skill and craftsmanship that is simply unavailable these days.

Hooptie

Beginner's camera

[Anonymous Coward]

My first SLR camera was a Canon EOS 500 (I think it's called EOS Rebel in the US). I've had for 10 years and it is still working perfectly after having gone through snow in Latvia, desert in Dubai and sailing in Norway. IMHO, the best points about that model are:

• it can go from full auto to full manual
• it is very intuitive to use and when you know the camera, you can change mode and settings in the dark with a couple of dials
• it is one of the lightest available on the market, invaluable when you're carrying it for hours on end

However, I would agree with other posts here, if you end up facing a choice, go for the cheap body and good lenses rather than the other way around.

Why no digital?

[carlos_benj]

I'd like to know why you've opted out of learning on digital equipment? Prices are dropping and you can get some great buys on stuff that's been superceded (not obsoleted) by later models. Additionally you can get tons of EXIF info from the files and look at histograms that will help you to learn why one picture looks so much better than another (when the problem is more than being in or out of focus).

I've moved to digital for a number of reasons and can't see why anyone who's just getting in to the field would opt for film at a time when companies like Kodak are announcing no new development on film-based technologies to concentrate on digital.

The only reason I can see for it is if you intend to make huge prints. Most everything else you can do with film is available (and even huge prints if you've got the budget for a medium format with a digital back) in the digital realm now and it's only going to lean more in the direction of newer technology.

FM*

[PONA-Boy]

I would second that emotion!

FM2's should be relatively easy to find second-hand...esp. for the budget you have set for the camera body. Old Nikkor glass would be your stumbling block there. Fortunately, you can blow your wad on just about ANY recent Nikkor glass and it'll mate to the FM2 body just fine...sans the CPU features.

I personally own an FM3a with 20-120mm zoom and 50mm D-type lenses. Manual everything just like the old FM2 but with the convenience of aperture-priority and TTL metering for your Speedlight.

My wife has an N75, which gives her point-and-shoot and she can steal my lenses.

There are many...

[trailerparkcassanova]

The Pentax K-1000 was mentioned but there are other choices in the K-series like the KM which is a all manual camera and the professional K2 which has manual and automatic modes. These have interchangable focusing screens along with an assortment of other accessories. The prices on these are right around the cost of a K-1000. There is also the Pentax MX which is a all manual camera with all of the above features but in a smaller size. The Olympus OM-1 is a very nice camera and some good deals can be had on those also. Keep in mind a lot of the metering systems in these old cameras depended on the steady voltage of mercury cells which are no longer available. I have both a K2 and MX and haven't experienced any problems but I also had a Canon F-1 which was sensitive to this but is still an excellent camera. You can always get a handheld meter to overcome this. Manual Nikons are excellent of course but they're a bit overpriced I think.

I recommend the Pentax K2 and MX, both with a Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 for starters. Avoid the temptation of cheap zooms. Instead get an assortment of fixed focal length lenses. I dislike Vivitar lenses mainly because the focusing ring turns in the opposite direction of the Pentax lenses. If these lenses were any good I could probably overlook this.

Why learn the fundamentals first?

[grahamsz]

There's no need.

That's akin to saying that all users should start linux with the command line and build their way up to a graphical environment.

I challenge you to find a midrange digital camera that can match the sharpness that i get with a slow film and an f/1.8 prime lens. I'm sure you could get the camera and a 50mm f/1.8 for under $200 on ebay.

I think it's better to start automatic and if it doesn't meet your needs then you can easily learn how to tweak your shutter speed and f/stop to get the desired results.

No midrange digital offers the flexibility of any film-based SLR. Though i'm desperate for a digital rebel and would kill for a 1ds :)

Photo.net rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Photo.net is one of, if not the, best photo site on the InterStateWebNetThingy. Go, learn, view, rate, ask questions, check the resources. You'll find yourself wandering around the site for hours...

Fast shooting with all manual SLR

[plsander]

I was always taught to trade some shutter speed for a higher F-stop, giving a deeper depth of field. Set the focus so the depth of field covers the likely distances you will encounter your shot.

Re:Fast shooting with all manual SLR

[carlos_benj]

So, what about lower light conditions when you can't afford that tradeoff? (Sorry about the late post - I've been away....)

Spend more money on glass....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, the differences between bodies are usually trivial -- stick to a pentax K1000/spotmatic/what have you, but by and large most of those "built like a tank" manual SLR's all come with roughly the same feature set.

However, all the body does for you is hold film, give an exposure reading, and actually expose the film. The body has absolutely zero effect on image quality (in the scientific sense; obviously I don't mean artistic value/composition).

In the end, the better your lenses, the sharper your photos come out (assuming you focus correctly!), the larger range of apertures you have (enables you to shoot in lower light/with sharper [lower ISO] film), the less lens flare you will have (it looks neat in photoshop but it's considered a photographic boo-boo), etc...

Another thing to think about when buying lenses is that fixed (aka 'prime') lenses are often much better and cheaper than zoom lenses for the same focal length.

My personal recommendation (and that of many photography teachers, although I am not one myself) is that you get yourself a good fixed 50mm or 35mm lens. You'll get top-notch image quality, and often these lenses can be had cheap (ebay) for the manual bodies you'll think to get. If you're just starting out, it is instructive to start with a fixed lens so you hone your composition skills instead of playing with the zoom all the time.

Just my $.02 -- I personally had a spotmatic and a 50mm that was passed on to me by my father, unfortunately it was stolen from me during college. It was a wonderful camera and one day I'll probably get myself another; even with today's "manual capable" automatics there is something lacking compared to the minimal simplicity of the manual blocks-'o-metal from back then.

Although it isn't in the price range, I do love my current camera, a canon Elan 7 -- it's more expensive, but it has a nice balance of features for the price, without having absurd pro features that kick the price up a lot. Plus, it's very usable in manual mode -- if you decide to go up a step in spending, take a good look at that camera.

-Idan

Exerimenting with film...

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital is the best choice for a beginner because you can do a lot more experimenting without spending a fortune on things like film and developing.

Sure, it may cost a few bucks to have your film developed (assuming you're not going to do it yourself, which isn't hard BTW). But, if you're really into experimenting with photography, then film is THE way to go.

Experimenting with photography isn't just about tricks with the shutter speed, light, aperature, etc etc. It's also about taking advantage of the characteristics of certain films. Some films are more sensitive to light, some are less. Some films are extremely sensitive to infrared light, and make for some truely awesome pictures.

Furthermore, certain films offer advantages when taking "normal" pictures. If you look at the requirements for a National Geographic photographer (professionals for sure), you'll see that they primarily use 35mm cameras. Here's a link: click!

Saying 'film is dead' is like saying that Apple is dying -- it just isn't true...

Canon EOS Rebel TI 35mm SLR Camera

[nxs212]

Yeah it's analog and it's under $200. You will not find any current digital SLR cameras for less than that. So buy analog now and use it until Canon Rebel Digital comes down in price (probably 2 years from now) Lenses that you'll buy can be reused with Rebel Digital so it makes sense to invest in Canon. (Lenses, filters and flash will cost you as much if not more than your camera)
I made a mistake by buying a Sony F-717 for my girlfriend last year. I cannot add any lenses to it. She had a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (that I did not know about) with nice telephoto, wide and normal lenses. Guess which camera gets more use?
The moral of this story is buy modular - that digital Sony will be a very expensive paperweight few years from now where Canon body would have been shelved but lenses reused.
Canon review on Epinions
http://www.epinions.com/content_94306209 412
Canon Rebel Digital review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30 0d/

No cheap lenses

[cyclist1200]

I also recommend the Pentax K1000, and any other completely manual camera body. Just a word of advice. As long as the camera body works, it doesn't have to be expensive. If you are looking to save money, look here. DON'T buy cheap lenses. Skimp on the lenses and you may end up with scratched or hazy lenses, or lenses with fungal growth on the glass. If you really want to save money, you can buy a used 50mm lens for not a lot of money, rather than buying a cheap, crappy zoom. The 50 will give you better image quality, and will force you to work at one focal length - I think this forces you to become a better photographer.

Can't go wrong with a Canon

[dspyder]

I absolutely love my Canon EOS Elan II. There are a range of Canon's that would fit your budget, but the Elan series is where you start getting more solid bodies with metal lens mounts. The packages they offer with a 28-80 lens or whatever it is are a fine start, but you'll want better glass sooner or later.

Canon has a new entry-level Digital SLR that will be able to use all of your EOS lenses (and a special short-style lens that may or may not be the future for Canon). It's not the best body, and is missing a few features that I consider essential, but it's certainly a good choice if money is an object.

I buy all my cameras and lenses from CameraWorld.com in Oregon. They have been good to me, and their prices are comparable to other reputable stores.

Of course, another option is to pick up something cheap (maybe used) and spend the money just on lenses then upgrade to whatever body you want later. I'm finally starting to run out of features on my Elan II, but I probably wont move to one of the pro-sumer level bodies I'll just spend the big bucks for a pro Digital SLR.

As mentioned before, check photo.net for all info!

--D

What about development?

[olethrosdc]

I took some nice shots this summer. I gave the negatives to a shop. When I got the pictures, the colour was all wrong. Why? Because what they do is they *scan* the negatives and then print them out. However, someone had changed the colour balance in their image processing software. They had also put the digital scans on a CD and I could definitely see the difference with the printed material.

So, my question is: What do photo shops do these days? Do they all scan the negatives and print them out? How can you tell the difference? At least I hope they scan them at a relatively high resolution. Which brings me to an interesting point: Can I scan the negatives my self? How do I turn change them to true colour? (I guess just inverting the colour will not do... it must depend on the film, right?)

style, mold and fstops

[aquamon1]

If you just want to learn, learn to play, get any SLR body and lens, Nikon Cannon, Minolta whatever, just make it cheap. Sharp pictures primarily depend on the lens. Most beginners are often initially interested in telephoto- zoom lenses. This tends to be a artistic mistake. Compositionally wide angle lenses offer a more powerful perspective. (e.g. Sebatiao Salgado) So I would recommend you start with a decent quality wide angle lens. But it depends on what you will be shooting, and what kind of style you are interested in. Sally Mann uses her hand as the shutter, the first point being; the camera does not take good pictures. The camera captures what you let it, and what you think is a good shot just depends on what you like e.g. blurry, sharp, overexposed..etc. hence the lens is only relevant to composition and a capacity for sharpness. And sharpness may not be what your interested in, so don't spend money on sharpness if your not going to desire it. The second point is play, learn to control but don't get carried away with it, you can learn more from playing. If you want sharp pictures get a good lens: where good = capacity. Good lenses have a small fstop. A 28mm lens with a fstop of 1.4 is better than a 28mm with a f2.0. The smaller the fstop the less light you need to take a well lit shot. Since you are starting it is best to experiment and ignore rules. See shutterbug magazine for camera conventions. If you buy a used lens check that all the fstops function, and look through the lens at the border of metal to glass for mold. Mold means lens went swimming. Swimming bad for lens. Also mount it on an appropriate body and confirm is mounts and doesn't wiggle excessively. Focus should barely exceed infinity, but it should exceed it.

Best 35mm SLR for beginners

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the others posters saying to start with a manual camera. The ordeal to learn from your mistakes with F/stops, shutter speeds, flash problems, along with learning lighting, composition, and social engineering skill(i.e. interaction with subjects to making them look their best, etc.....)will be your experiences to draw upon when you decide to move on to the next level, be it film (35mm, medium format, large format)or digital. That being said, brand of camera is dependent on what brand fits your style, philosophy of how to do things to get your your desired result. The nitpicking of how a brand doesn't do this, or how another brand has a particular feature is the same as the discussions(?)about which OS is better! (OS X, Linux, Solaris, QNX, and yes, Windows) So, the Pentax K1000, the earlier Nikons, and Canons, Olympus, with a normal lens (50mm), wide angle(28mm to 35mm) portrait lens (100mm, 135mm) and telephoto (200mm and up) with flash units, telextender (1.5x-2x) a good tripod, filters to fit the wide, normal, portrait lens, exposure log book(lots) Plus-X film (B&W) Slide film (64-100ASA)Kodachrome, Fujichrome. The condition of the camera body and lens on the mechanical side should be in good to better, cosmetically the lens and body can show some worn paint and metal, but, the mechanicals are important. Learn and Enjoy!!!!

Using film and being digital...

[ivanmarsh]

I've been an avid photographer for quite a while.

Being disappointed with digital (mostly the price for a professional quality camera) I prefer film but still wanted to be able to do digital.

What I do is shoot slide film that can be processed easily in the home without a dark room.

Slides can be easily transferred to prints by just about any photo processing house and with a decent scanner that has a transparency light (top light) you can just as easily transfer to digital files that are of a MUCH higher quality than all but the most expensive digital cameras.

Plus slides are easy to store in large numbers.

Nikon FE

[bs_02_06_02]

This camera has been in my family for over 30 years, still works like a champ, and has all of the manual features, plus the capability for aperture and shutter priority. The mounts haven't changed for the lenses. Here's a link:
http://www.photo.net/nikon/fe
The nice thing about this is that if you want manual features, it's got em. If you want to use some automatic features, it's got 'em. The only thing it doesn't have is auto-focus. This camera will hold its' value too.

Another data point

[spotteddog]

I have a Pentax K-1000. I've had it since 1989. I works great. One small issue I noticed about a year ago. I was asked to shoot my brother-in-law's wedding, and wanted to get a wide angle zoom (something like 28mm-70mm). For the price of a new 28mm-70mm manual focus Pentax mount lense, I could almost buy a new camera and lens. Also, there were fewer manufacturers and lenses to choose from compared to Nikon, Canon, and Minolta. (Don't get me wrong, I love my K-1000 - I just wish Pentax had more pull in the third party market.)

I ended up buying a Nikon N-80 kit with 2 zooms ( 28mm-70mm and 70mm-300mm both Nikon G series). Yes, it cost more than one lens for the Pentax, but if I had purchased the same lenses for the Pentax I would have spent much more and still have only one body.

In short, look to the future when selecting a camera or you will end up spending lots of money two or three different times.

I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you said you don't want digital, but I just got a Canon Powershot A60 which is digital, and I'm really pleased with it. It cost $199, right at what you wanted to spend, the pictures are clear, and you don't have to wait for stuff to develop, or drive to the developers (hey, time is valuable - that time wasted driving to the developer could have been time taking pictures of my wife, or developing another OSS project.). As an added bonus, it'll take short movies in AVI format, which gxine does acceptably well with on linux (segfaults sometimes, but just rerun it and it's fine the next time). Oh, and don't underestimate the value of being able to conveniently e-mail your photos or put them on the web without scanning.

But how long will it last?

[Axe]

So, before this turns into a book; if you're shooting for personal record (snapshots), a digital camera will probably be as good as any point-and-shoot, if not better. In some cases, a 10 MP camera would be good enough for professional use, depending on the final print size of the image; but nothing digial exceeds the quality of decent 35 mm, and nothing digital even comes close to exceeding the image quality of the medium format machines.

But how long will it last? What is the advantage of learning anything but digital photography and processing nowdays?

My answer is: NONE.
Resolution is one, small part of a good shot. A beginner (or even a professional) will get NOTHING even remotely close to the abilities and flexibility of digital processing.
You also completely skipped over the issue of noise. Digital has less noise, period. 10Mp on a good digital chip is far more usable information then a 35mm film.
With upcoming formats like 4/3, chips will easily scale to 30MP+. Few GB of storage is already easily available in a camera. More will come soon, but you easily can carry around a 100Gb in you bag with a small notebook. When you need to make 1000s of shot to get one good one, nothing beats the convinience of digital storage.
Get over it. Film is yesterday. Whatever perceived advantage it has - it will be gone in a decade. Why waste your time on learning how to use it?

I was shooting and processing film for more then 20 years by now, and finally made a switch last year. Incredible sense of liberation from cumbersome and obsolete technology.

Re:But how long will it last?

[deacon]

Well, it depends on your outlook..

And I am not saying your outlook is wrong, it is just different from mine..

I use a film camera for the same reason I build my own PC, work on my car, ride a BMW R71 (Yes it is a death-trap)

:)

It depends on if you are interested in the product or the process. I get enjoyment from the second more that the first.

Re:But how long will it last?

[Axe]

Amount of tinkering that digital photography allows is orders of magnitude higher then anything you can achieve in a lab. Photoshop can do everything film postprocessing can do and then some. It is an entirely different world.
So both product and process in digital photography is richer and simpler for anything short of specialized medium/large format work. And that exception will also dissapear soon.

Yeah people still listen to vinyl, and you can argue CD quality is worse. But not DVD-audio or SCD. They kick vinyl ass so badly, it is not even funny.

Rebel

[metamatic]

The best feature of the Rebel is the automatic hyperfocal setting. Lets you do all the artistic stuff you'd do with manual focus, without the pain.

I really don't see any reason to go with manual focus at this point. I mean, you might as well demand manual film advance for all the difference it'll make.

If you really want to learn photography....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to sound like a commercial, but I have to tell the crowd about my experience.
I've always loved photography and wanted to learn, but couldn't find a decent place to do it at my own pace in my hometown (being in college takes a lot of your time, you know?). Then I discovered a great mail-order course from the New York Institute of Photography (www.nyip.com). Anyone interested in photography should check them out, and get it if he/she can afford it. I did (years ago) and I've never regretted it!

Happy with my Canon

[dchaos]

I bought a Canon Rebel 2000 some time ago and have been really happy with it. The shop where I bought it gave a two night class on SLR cameras for "free". I spent more than I could have on the camera but the class was a nice value add for someone like myself who had never used an SLR.

I can pretty much do as much or as little as I like in terms of setting the time, aperature, whatever but my wife can use the "green box" mode and point and shoot. I really like the flexibility. I got pretty excited about it for a while but the cost of film development cooled my jets after a while.

I now find myself doing a lot more web work and after seeing the comments about a digital SLR body, I'm intrigued. It might be easier (and cheaper in the long run) than developing film and scanning since I don't own a flatbed scanner either.

Anyway, For what it's worth, I've been very happy with it. I've never used a Nikon or Pentax so I can neither recommend nor disparage them.

Re:Happy with my Canon

[deacon]

I see a lot of people talk about the cost of film and develop...

I pay about $2.64 to get 3x5 prints of 24 exposure fuji film at sams club..

The fuji film (asa 100) is about a buck a roll at sams.

Now, this could add up, but with my fully manual camera, setting my exposure on a grey card, I have not had a bad exposure in a long, long time.

Re:Minolta Maxxum 5 - I love mine

[Wilk4]

In sept, I bought a minolta maxxum 5 to replace my older minolta 500si. (and a 3xi before that) So far I love it. It's light, very fast in auto-focus and responsiveness, great pics, and various auto and manual modes. It also has spot metering and spot focus, which I think the Canon Rebels don't have.

I got a nice 28-90mm zoom lens to go with the fixed length 50mm I had before and I'm good to go. works great for all sorts of situations from fast shots of the kids, close-up of florals, scenary, other...

I've had 3 minolta mid-range cameras now and I've been very happy with all of them.

FWIW, my mom and aunt both love the Canon Rebel's they have. My mom just got a rebel ti (2000? whatever is current) and, while she's not a camera geek, loves it. It weighs about 3 lbs less than her old dog of a camera that she was replacing.

Re:Minolta Maxxum 5 - I love mine

[Wilk4]

BTW, many of the reviews of the maxxum 5 body mention that it's small and the controls can be difficult if you don't have small hands. That was a concern for me when I bought it, (particularly when I had the option of repairing my old 500si body that was definitely larger) so I got it from a store where I could get a feel for it (and where they had a 30-day return policy).

So far I can say it's no problem to handle, even with my big hands.

Re: you can go with cheaper lenses for minolta

[Wilk4]

I have had 3 minolta bodies over the years and have been very happy with each. (3xi, 500si, maxxum 5)

I have found lately that, while minolta-made lenses can be very expensive, the 3rd party lenses are quite good. (sigma, promaster, etc).

I got one when someone (wife, cough) dropped my minolta zoom on the brick porch... I've been quite happy with it so far. Very sharp, short and lightweight.

Canon FTb

[DeanOh]

I learned photography on this model more than 20 years ago. Match needle metering, depth of field preview combine for consistently good exposures...much better than I ever got in any autofocus "upgraded" model (including digital) later in life. Very forgiving and rugged: I schlepped mine all over the western Pacific, Mideast and parts of Africa while in the navy....it made multiple cat shots and arrested landings too. About 150$ on ebay.

Is a camera what you really need?

[oh]

I've been thinking of getting into photography, but want to stay with 35mm film instead of going digital. Used 35mm SLRs seem to be the best bet, but which ones should I seriously consider?

This is going off topic, but are you sure you should be thinking of getting a camera now? Photography is much more then the equipment.

Personally I have a Nikon F60, about 5 years old and now since superseded. Don't get me wrong, I like my camera, and I pretty much use most of the features, and even wish for features it doesn't have (oh for a depth of field preview!). But I have to admit that my skills as a photographer don't match the quality of the camera, not by a long shot.

If you want to get into photography, just start taking photos. Doesn't matter what sort of camera, even if you use those disposable cameras, just take the photos. When you get them back, look at them objectively and figure out how you could have done better. If you can honestly say that aperture control (for dept of field), or a filter, or a larger zoom, or whatever feature would have made a big difference, go out and buy that camera. But if you are like me the single biggest thing you can do to improve your photos is learn composition.

Of course if all you want is a geek toy so you can play with three or four lenses and a couple of dozen different filters and talk about F-stops and colour saturation, go knock yourself out. Personally my aim is to produce good-looking photos, and the reason I can't do this consistently isn't the equipment I'm using.

How is this off-topic? [nt]

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

nt

Canon EOS Rebel G or 2000

[Bopheenee]

I started out with and still use my EOS Rebel. It's not too basic but not too complex either. $280 tag on it with a load of 400 or 800 speed film and one is set for a while. The fact that third-party lenses can be acquired for decent prices helps also. More often than not, the camera will come with a 35-80mm lens, which is about par for the course in Wally-World high-end deals. Spend a few extra to get an external hot-shoe flash sez I. The basic on-cam one provides only marginal effectiveness.

canon a40 digital

[GiMP]

I know you're looking for an analog camera, but the Canon A40 is a great camera for about $200 or less these days (I got mine for $240 a year ago + a free 32meg cf disk).

At the time it was the only digital camera with SLR-like functionality available in the price range. There are only 3 lenses available (closeup, telephoto, wide-angle), but they are fairly inexpensive. There is also water-submersion kit available.

It has 3 modes: Automatic, Program, and Manual - where program is something in-between the difficult of Automatic and Manual.

good review.

K-1000

[Anonymous Coward]

The K-1000 is a good starter but if you want to get off cheap take a look at Zenit a Russian built camera which can be had for ~85 bucks. You'll also have to toss in 15 to 20 bucks for shipping

- reporters without borders - [www.rsf.fr]

[falconwolf]

Reporter Without Borders puts out a good mag. All of the articles are in both French and English. Some of them will be facing each other, so it's easy to compare them if you want to brush up on your French. I've been thinking of subscribing to it just for this reason, but I'm afraid with how my memory is if I'm going to use French again I'll have to takes classes in Fench again.

cannon rebel 2000

[falconwolf]

I've got a similar though cheaper model, the Rebel G. The manual that came with it is for both. One difference between them is that the 2000 can stamp the tyme and date while the G doesn't.

One thing I really like about the older camera lens is that they have a depth of field indicator whereas the new ones don't.

I've been thinking of getting the Digital Rebel as well, but think I'll hold off a few months as this new Rebel will put pressure on other camera manufacturers to come out with their own models to compeat with it thus driving the prices down.

Eos 300

[falconwolf]

What about the Eos 300D?

Re:Eos 300

[grahamsz]

i'd love one - but they are a bit pricey for me just now

Re:Eos 300

[falconwolf]

i'd love one - but they are a bit pricey for me just now.

Same for me.

photo.net

[falconwolf]

Yea, I love Photo.net myself.

The difference then is about 50 rolls of film

[falconwolf]

I don't think I've shot that many in my life.

Because I get trigger happy behind the camera, I could burn through 50 rolls of film within a few weeks, maybe 3 months easily. I've gone through 4 rolls of 36 exposures in two days, never mind 24 exposures. I recall when I went to Alaska years ago for 3 weeks I took 11 rolls of 24 and exposed them all in the first week. Like I said, I'm trigger happy, and in this case it fits as I went there with my unit while I was in the army.

You're really choosing a lens system, not a camera

[James Youngman]

I've used manual-focus Pentax cameras for about 15 years. I've been very happy, but I used to get a proportion of poorly-focussed exposures. That was laziness, but it has to be said that the split-prism focussing mechanism often works poorly with small aperture lenses. I borrowed someone's short Pentax zoom and was very impressed; the pictures were coming out much more visually pleasing than the ones I had taken with my own (third-party Pentax-fit) lenses.

This convinced me that what I really needed to do was to have the option of auto-focus for convenience but that I also needed to make more sensible choices about who I bought the lenses from (the Pentax own-bran lenses are very good indeed, far, far better than the 'generic' lenses I was using). Since I would have to replace all my existing lenses anyway, over time, my existing investment in Pentax KA-fit third-party lenses was moot. Therefore I decided to switch to either Nikon or Canon (although Pentax probably has the best availability of second-hand lenses at good prices, there is a wider selection of new lenses for Nikon and Canon cameras).

What it came down to in the end was that I tried the Nikon and Canon cameras out and chose the one whose user interface I preferred. While my choice was not without drawbacks (the camera I have ended up with won't accept manual-focus lenses) I'm happy with it. My photographs have improved, certainly.

In summary, I would say that I've found auto-focus to be very useful, and I'd also advise you to buy the lenses made by your camera's manufacturer (e.g. buy Pentax, Canon or Nikon lenses and try to avoid buying third-party 'equivalent' products).

I'll buy a digital camera eventually, but I'm waiting until the cameras with full-size sensors are affordable (they exist currently but are too expensive for me to buy).

__

[Anonymous Coward]