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.
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
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:
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.
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.
tons of them around.
tons of lens' for them around.
proven to last.
Photography is expensive.
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 :-)
One of the most rugged budget SLRs ever made, and great value for the money.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
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.
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!
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
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 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.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
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 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!
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.
...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
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.
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).
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.
...
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.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
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.
;) 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.
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!
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!
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...
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
--- I'd love to go out with you, but I have to study for a Turing test.
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.
For the rest of us, the acronym-impaired, SLR means "Single Lens Reflex".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLR
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.
moo.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
moo.
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.
...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.
Tcl my Pico! There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
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).
LoRider
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.
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. ;-)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
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
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
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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.
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.
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*-
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.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
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!
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.
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.
Two pieces of advice:
r -n ikon.shtml
- 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/whithe
... 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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.