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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
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.
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
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).
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.