Slashdot Mirror
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!
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.
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.
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.
Three Squirrels
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.
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.
You are SO on the wrong forum.
/. is one of them.
:P
There are many places where you can get intelligent answers to this question, and somehow I doubt
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
.sigs are for post^Hers.
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
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.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
...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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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!!
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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
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.
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
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.
:-) to shoot. Nikon accessories tend to be more expensive, I believe.
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
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.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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.
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.
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.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
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.
... 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!
Er, that should be "that doesn't at least have a manual mode".
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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).