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.
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]
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.
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!
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
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
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.
...
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!
/. really isn't the best place to go to find answers about this question. You may want to try the following websites:
Photo.net
THE professional photographer's website with TONS of information about different cameras, tips, whole articles on how to get that perfect picture, and learning how to get the most out of whatever camera you have. I've found it to be the diffinitive starting point for any information about photography.
Digital Photography Review
If you plan on getting a digital camera, this site is considered the digital camera authority.
Hope these help you and any other would-be amateur photographers out there.
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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!