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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--