Here's my 2 cents. While the K1000 is a good manual film camera to begin with (and a popular choice with this group), I think that the Pentax ME Super is also one to consider. It came out around the same time as the K1000 but has many useful features such as aperture priority, viewfinder information and a wide range of shutter speeds (the fastest being 1/2000). Other groovy features: The mechanical shutter allows you to continue taking pictures should your battery fail and it has a dedicated flash shoe. It is also lighter yet still a workhorse like the K1000 or OM1.
One thing to keep in mind is that whatever camera you decide to get, make sure it is something you feel comfortable working with. There is no sense getting a piece of equipment that you don't enjoy every time you pick it up!
Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Film Cameras ‹ Please help! What kind of camera should I buy?
Film Cameras
Please help! What kind of camera should I buy?
38 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
- Posts: 22
Mon May 16, 2005 1:48 pm
Yes it is a fact that the cost is zero for a digital camera's shots, but that does not include a hardcopy. To have each shot processed is anywhere from $0.23 to $0.29. This is over $5.00 for 24 shots.
The cost of film and developing (24 shots) is under $5.00. You find a shot you like and you can blow it up to poster size without diminishing the picture. You cannot say that for digital, unless you start talking thousands of dollars. Digital is in the toddler stage. Silver nitrate (film) takes a backseat to no digital at the present time.
I do not think a professional photographer would be caught dead with a digital. To get the best, you use the best. And in the last 10 years silver nitrate film has taken giant leaps forward.
I think that anyone is missing out if they don't start out with a 35mm SLR. And as I said a NEW $150.00 digital is more than adequate, takes nice shots, and you can learn.
The cost of film and developing (24 shots) is under $5.00. You find a shot you like and you can blow it up to poster size without diminishing the picture. You cannot say that for digital, unless you start talking thousands of dollars. Digital is in the toddler stage. Silver nitrate (film) takes a backseat to no digital at the present time.
I do not think a professional photographer would be caught dead with a digital. To get the best, you use the best. And in the last 10 years silver nitrate film has taken giant leaps forward.
I think that anyone is missing out if they don't start out with a 35mm SLR. And as I said a NEW $150.00 digital is more than adequate, takes nice shots, and you can learn.
- Posts: 292
Mon May 16, 2005 5:57 pm
Sorry, this is just full of incorrect information...
"Yes it is a fact that the cost is zero for a digital camera's shots, but that does not include a hardcopy."
With digital you print only those shots that deserve to be printed. And you get to perfect your shots before they are printed.
My cost for a 4" x 6" print is $0.19. That works out to $6.84 if one were to print 36 digital shots. A roll of 36 color film, developed and printed 4" x 6" costs me $8.99 (best local price I've found). Add another $3.00 if you want a CD of the film shots so that you can get them to your computer.
"The cost of film and developing (24 shots) is under $5.00. You find a shot you like and you can blow it up to poster size without diminishing the picture. You cannot say that for digital, unless you start talking thousands of dollars. Digital is in the toddler stage. Silver nitrate (film) takes a backseat to no digital at the present time."
Wrong. Eight meg digital cameras are the equivalent of 35 mm film. One can purchase an 8 meg dSLR for under $1kUS. And one can purchase a fixed-lens 8 meg digital for a lot less than a dSLR. And digital will print larger than film due to the lack of grain noise.
"I do not think a professional photographer would be caught dead with a digital. To get the best, you use the best."
This is very wrong. Just spend a little time on some pro forums.
Photojournalists switched to digital long ago as did magazines that publish weekly. Even Nation Geographic has begun using digital images in their publications.
Major studios have replaced their MF film gear with digital backs.
Many leading pros switched to digital long ago. Do some research and get up to date.
"I think that anyone is missing out if they don't start out with a 35mm SLR. And as I said a NEW $150.00 digital is more than adequate, takes nice shots, and you can learn. "
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to have one.
Mine's obviously different having been both places, tried both things. (And spent a few decades as an educator as well as photographer.)
"Yes it is a fact that the cost is zero for a digital camera's shots, but that does not include a hardcopy."
With digital you print only those shots that deserve to be printed. And you get to perfect your shots before they are printed.
My cost for a 4" x 6" print is $0.19. That works out to $6.84 if one were to print 36 digital shots. A roll of 36 color film, developed and printed 4" x 6" costs me $8.99 (best local price I've found). Add another $3.00 if you want a CD of the film shots so that you can get them to your computer.
"The cost of film and developing (24 shots) is under $5.00. You find a shot you like and you can blow it up to poster size without diminishing the picture. You cannot say that for digital, unless you start talking thousands of dollars. Digital is in the toddler stage. Silver nitrate (film) takes a backseat to no digital at the present time."
Wrong. Eight meg digital cameras are the equivalent of 35 mm film. One can purchase an 8 meg dSLR for under $1kUS. And one can purchase a fixed-lens 8 meg digital for a lot less than a dSLR. And digital will print larger than film due to the lack of grain noise.
"I do not think a professional photographer would be caught dead with a digital. To get the best, you use the best."
This is very wrong. Just spend a little time on some pro forums.
Photojournalists switched to digital long ago as did magazines that publish weekly. Even Nation Geographic has begun using digital images in their publications.
Major studios have replaced their MF film gear with digital backs.
Many leading pros switched to digital long ago. Do some research and get up to date.
"I think that anyone is missing out if they don't start out with a 35mm SLR. And as I said a NEW $150.00 digital is more than adequate, takes nice shots, and you can learn. "
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to have one.
Mine's obviously different having been both places, tried both things. (And spent a few decades as an educator as well as photographer.)
- Posts: 22
Mon May 16, 2005 8:12 pm
I have been a student for decades, have "award winning photos" and stand by everything I wrote!! I too have used both digi and film.
Thanx anyway teacher.
Thanx anyway teacher.
- Posts: 96
Tue May 17, 2005 4:02 am
I think both the Jim Panzee and Bobtrips options have merit.
With respect to the sub-debate bebween blaised and bobtrips, I do agree with blaised concerning poster-sized prints, but then I say...so what. I beieve that you will get a better poster-sized print now from a 35mm negative (assuming the negative is sharp to begin with) than from an 8mp digital image. At a certain point you are going to see the pixels, which I find unattractive. I am a grain junkie. On the other hand, I have made (or had made) around 5 poster-sized prints in nearly 30 years, of which 2 are actually on the wall. I prefer smaller prints. Robert Frank and Alvarez Bravo, not Jeff Wall, are my gods. In the last 10 years, 90 percent of my prints have been 8x10, the rest mainly 11 x14, and toddler stage or not, digital, even in the budget proposed by OP, can do very well thank you at these sizes.
With respect to the sub-debate bebween blaised and bobtrips, I do agree with blaised concerning poster-sized prints, but then I say...so what. I beieve that you will get a better poster-sized print now from a 35mm negative (assuming the negative is sharp to begin with) than from an 8mp digital image. At a certain point you are going to see the pixels, which I find unattractive. I am a grain junkie. On the other hand, I have made (or had made) around 5 poster-sized prints in nearly 30 years, of which 2 are actually on the wall. I prefer smaller prints. Robert Frank and Alvarez Bravo, not Jeff Wall, are my gods. In the last 10 years, 90 percent of my prints have been 8x10, the rest mainly 11 x14, and toddler stage or not, digital, even in the budget proposed by OP, can do very well thank you at these sizes.
- Posts: 292
Tue May 17, 2005 1:55 pm
One should never see pixels, even in a billboard-sized print. You've got to learn how to properly up-size the file.
Digital has a learning curve and some parts of it can be steep. But making a good print in the wet darkroom took quite a bit of learning, so that part of photography hasn't changed.
If you're a 'grain junkie' then you may prefer a grainy large print to one without grain. But that's a personal preference and not one that's likely to be shared by the larger viewing population. Grainy pictures (IMHO) are on the way to being considered "old fashioned". We may, in the future, make 'grainy' prints from digital capture to create a 'look' as we now make sepia prints.
35 mm color film and 8 meg digitals are roughly comparable in their ability to resolve fine detail - within their print limits. Film is limited by grain distortion. Eight meg digital runs out of sufficient 'marker' pixels at about the same print size. Above that size 35 mm film prints become grainy, digital prints start becoming 'soft'.
Of course the solution for larger prints is to capture more information. One can use larger hunks of film, move to MF. Or one can use a larger pixel camera or (much less expensive and pretty easy) stitch multiple digital frames together to make huge, highly detailed prints.
Digital has a learning curve and some parts of it can be steep. But making a good print in the wet darkroom took quite a bit of learning, so that part of photography hasn't changed.
If you're a 'grain junkie' then you may prefer a grainy large print to one without grain. But that's a personal preference and not one that's likely to be shared by the larger viewing population. Grainy pictures (IMHO) are on the way to being considered "old fashioned". We may, in the future, make 'grainy' prints from digital capture to create a 'look' as we now make sepia prints.
35 mm color film and 8 meg digitals are roughly comparable in their ability to resolve fine detail - within their print limits. Film is limited by grain distortion. Eight meg digital runs out of sufficient 'marker' pixels at about the same print size. Above that size 35 mm film prints become grainy, digital prints start becoming 'soft'.
Of course the solution for larger prints is to capture more information. One can use larger hunks of film, move to MF. Or one can use a larger pixel camera or (much less expensive and pretty easy) stitch multiple digital frames together to make huge, highly detailed prints.
- Posts: 4
Film and digital, both have their uses
Tue May 17, 2005 8:48 pm
Digital gives you instant feedback, so you know right away if you captured the image the way you wanted to. Sorta. 
The small LCD screens really don't tell the full story, and the time you spend reviewing each shot is time you are not, CAN not be shooting.
Film has one huge advantage over digital - exposure latitude. You can err far more with print film that with digital cameras - or even slide film, notorious for it's narrow exposure latitude. What this means is that if you have a scene that has brightly-lit areas and very dark areas, with print film, you'll capture at least SOME detail in both areas. With a digicam or slide film, you'll lose one or the other depending on how you expose.
Film is dying, but it's not dead. You may buy a film camera and ten years from now not be able to use it, or, you could buy a film camera and be using it for the next 50 years. Nobody knows how things will go.
Cameras aren't investments. They're tools. When a tool becomes obsolete, broken, and no parts are available to fix it, you move on to the next tool.
Do what feels "right" for you. I love my Canon 20D. I also love my elderly (5 years old!) Minolta X-700 film camera. And ya know what, BOTH still take excellent pictures.
The small LCD screens really don't tell the full story, and the time you spend reviewing each shot is time you are not, CAN not be shooting.
Film has one huge advantage over digital - exposure latitude. You can err far more with print film that with digital cameras - or even slide film, notorious for it's narrow exposure latitude. What this means is that if you have a scene that has brightly-lit areas and very dark areas, with print film, you'll capture at least SOME detail in both areas. With a digicam or slide film, you'll lose one or the other depending on how you expose.
Film is dying, but it's not dead. You may buy a film camera and ten years from now not be able to use it, or, you could buy a film camera and be using it for the next 50 years. Nobody knows how things will go.
Cameras aren't investments. They're tools. When a tool becomes obsolete, broken, and no parts are available to fix it, you move on to the next tool.
Do what feels "right" for you. I love my Canon 20D. I also love my elderly (5 years old!) Minolta X-700 film camera. And ya know what, BOTH still take excellent pictures.
- Posts: 292
Re: Film and digital, both have their uses
Tue May 17, 2005 10:48 pm
wolfeyeofiowa wrote:Digital gives you instant feedback, so you know right away if you captured the image the way you wanted to. Sorta.
Film has one huge advantage over digital - exposure latitude. You can err far more with print film that with digital cameras - or even slide film, notorious for it's narrow exposure latitude. What this means is that if you have a scene that has brightly-lit areas and very dark areas, with print film, you'll capture at least SOME detail in both areas. With a digicam or slide film, you'll lose one or the other depending on how you expose.
Don't quite understand why the first paragraph is important. If the shots are coming fast and furious just bang away. You might check once to make sure that everything's OK.
(And you don't have to stop every 24/36 and reload.)
But the second paragraph.
It's true that small sensor digitals have limited DR. It's about the same a slide film so those of us who shot primarily slide for many years caught on how to correctly shoot those cameras quickly.
But larger frame digitals have as much or more DR than print film.
And with small sensor digitals you can shoot blended images if subject conditions permit and get far more DR that you can use.
- Posts: 96
Wed May 18, 2005 12:55 am
Bobtrips, which larger frame digital has as much or more DR than print film?
- Posts: 292
Wed May 18, 2005 1:20 am
MF digital backs for sure.
And I'm fairly certain that full-frame dSLRs do as well. Do a bit of digging on Luminous Landscape or Rob Galbraith's site and you can find more exact info.
I'm not sure how the new Nikon D2x checks out but the one sample shot that I saw on LL was danged impressive.
And I'm fairly certain that full-frame dSLRs do as well. Do a bit of digging on Luminous Landscape or Rob Galbraith's site and you can find more exact info.
I'm not sure how the new Nikon D2x checks out but the one sample shot that I saw on LL was danged impressive.
- Posts: 252
Wed May 18, 2005 1:29 am
There are obviously lots of experts here on photo gear, but as a person who is fairly new to photography - and hence, quite close temporally to where the original poster currently is - I've found that a manual film camera is the best way to learn about exposure and composition. The beauty of these cameras is that you're down to the very basics of photography: no matrix metering, no autofocus, no cropping and no stack of how-to books on photoshop.
A few questions:
1. Didn't the original poster say that he/she was interested in possibly taking a photography course? Most college photo courses I've seen require you to have a film camera (preferably a manual one). They also usually include darkroom modules. It would be pretty embarrassing if everybody else showed up to the darkroom with negative film and our friend here arrived with a compact flash card...
2. What serious photographer doesn't have an old manual camera kicking around that he/she pulls out every so often to just get back to basics? As I said, I'm no expert, but every pro I've met has an old manual camera kicking about: when I ask them about these cameras, their eyes light up...
3. At a $100, where is the harm in suggesting that he/she invest in an old manual camera? Of course, our lives would be complete if all our bags were filled with Mk IIs, M7s and F6s, but let's try to remember that this person is a BEGINNER to photography, not a pro who makes a living out of it.
I harbour no hostility toward either autofocus or digital - I often shoot in digital myself - but I can't believe that I'm the only person here who gets a kick out of heading down to the photolab and picking up a freshly-developed set of prints. Somehow, downloading a CF card just ain't the same.
A few questions:
1. Didn't the original poster say that he/she was interested in possibly taking a photography course? Most college photo courses I've seen require you to have a film camera (preferably a manual one). They also usually include darkroom modules. It would be pretty embarrassing if everybody else showed up to the darkroom with negative film and our friend here arrived with a compact flash card...
2. What serious photographer doesn't have an old manual camera kicking around that he/she pulls out every so often to just get back to basics? As I said, I'm no expert, but every pro I've met has an old manual camera kicking about: when I ask them about these cameras, their eyes light up...
3. At a $100, where is the harm in suggesting that he/she invest in an old manual camera? Of course, our lives would be complete if all our bags were filled with Mk IIs, M7s and F6s, but let's try to remember that this person is a BEGINNER to photography, not a pro who makes a living out of it.
I harbour no hostility toward either autofocus or digital - I often shoot in digital myself - but I can't believe that I'm the only person here who gets a kick out of heading down to the photolab and picking up a freshly-developed set of prints. Somehow, downloading a CF card just ain't the same.
- Posts: 292
Wed May 18, 2005 2:10 am
Here's some data on digital/print and slide film....
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
- Posts: 292
Wed May 18, 2005 2:21 am
Taking 'em one at a time...
"There are obviously lots of experts here on photo gear, but as a person who is fairly new to photography - and hence, quite close temporally to where the original poster currently is - I've found that a manual film camera is the best way to learn about exposure and composition. The beauty of these cameras is that you're down to the very basics of photography: no matrix metering, no autofocus, no cropping and no stack of how-to books on photoshop."
I learned on fully manual film cameras. When I started learning there was no other option.
But I learned a lot, a tremendous amount, when I got my first digital. I could see improvements pretty much daily. The ability to shoot and see (on the monitor - not the LCD) is a tremendous tool.
A few questions:
1. Didn't the original poster say that he/she was interested in possibly taking a photography course? Most college photo courses I've seen require you to have a film camera (preferably a manual one). They also usually include darkroom modules. It would be pretty embarrassing if everybody else showed up to the darkroom with negative film and our friend here arrived with a compact flash card...
Many photography schools/classes have already switched to digital. It's fairly common to encounter a post from someone asking for the best equipment for their school.
I'm sure that there are some film hold-outs. One should check before enrolling.
2. What serious photographer doesn't have an old manual camera kicking around that he/she pulls out every so often to just get back to basics? As I said, I'm no expert, but every pro I've met has an old manual camera kicking about: when I ask them about these cameras, their eyes light up...
Not me. I gave my film SLRs away. I was not shooting them, or interested in shooting them. Nor was I interested in scanning another frame of film (after scanning ~ 12,000).
My eyes light up when someone starts about farming with horses. Nice old memories. But I ain't going back there.
3. At a $100, where is the harm in suggesting that he/she invest in an old manual camera? Of course, our lives would be complete if all our bags were filled with Mk IIs, M7s and F6s, but let's try to remember that this person is a BEGINNER to photography, not a pro who makes a living out of it.
It's not $100. It's $100 plus film and developing. And slow turn-around which hampers the learning process.
IMHO the worst thing that a beginner should get is a film camera.
I harbour no hostility toward either autofocus or digital - I often shoot in digital myself - but I can't believe that I'm the only person here who gets a kick out of heading down to the photolab and picking up a freshly-developed set of prints. Somehow, downloading a CF card just ain't the same.
Don't know if you've discovered it yet but the photo lab will make prints from your memory card.
I harbor no hostility toward film. But I do get a bit annoyed at people who insist that the only way to learn something is to learn it the way they did.
"There are obviously lots of experts here on photo gear, but as a person who is fairly new to photography - and hence, quite close temporally to where the original poster currently is - I've found that a manual film camera is the best way to learn about exposure and composition. The beauty of these cameras is that you're down to the very basics of photography: no matrix metering, no autofocus, no cropping and no stack of how-to books on photoshop."
I learned on fully manual film cameras. When I started learning there was no other option.
But I learned a lot, a tremendous amount, when I got my first digital. I could see improvements pretty much daily. The ability to shoot and see (on the monitor - not the LCD) is a tremendous tool.
A few questions:
1. Didn't the original poster say that he/she was interested in possibly taking a photography course? Most college photo courses I've seen require you to have a film camera (preferably a manual one). They also usually include darkroom modules. It would be pretty embarrassing if everybody else showed up to the darkroom with negative film and our friend here arrived with a compact flash card...
Many photography schools/classes have already switched to digital. It's fairly common to encounter a post from someone asking for the best equipment for their school.
I'm sure that there are some film hold-outs. One should check before enrolling.
2. What serious photographer doesn't have an old manual camera kicking around that he/she pulls out every so often to just get back to basics? As I said, I'm no expert, but every pro I've met has an old manual camera kicking about: when I ask them about these cameras, their eyes light up...
Not me. I gave my film SLRs away. I was not shooting them, or interested in shooting them. Nor was I interested in scanning another frame of film (after scanning ~ 12,000).
My eyes light up when someone starts about farming with horses. Nice old memories. But I ain't going back there.
3. At a $100, where is the harm in suggesting that he/she invest in an old manual camera? Of course, our lives would be complete if all our bags were filled with Mk IIs, M7s and F6s, but let's try to remember that this person is a BEGINNER to photography, not a pro who makes a living out of it.
It's not $100. It's $100 plus film and developing. And slow turn-around which hampers the learning process.
IMHO the worst thing that a beginner should get is a film camera.
I harbour no hostility toward either autofocus or digital - I often shoot in digital myself - but I can't believe that I'm the only person here who gets a kick out of heading down to the photolab and picking up a freshly-developed set of prints. Somehow, downloading a CF card just ain't the same.
Don't know if you've discovered it yet but the photo lab will make prints from your memory card.
I harbor no hostility toward film. But I do get a bit annoyed at people who insist that the only way to learn something is to learn it the way they did.
- Posts: 252
Wed May 18, 2005 2:59 am
bobtrips wrote:But I do get a bit annoyed at people who insist that the only way to learn something is to learn it the way they did.
I got a dslr for all the reasons you've outlined above. My point was only that we have a total beginner here, and a $100 investment is nothing compared to dishing out $1000 or more for a dslr. I'll most certainly agree with you on the issue of scanning prints - it drives me batty. But this is assuming that he will want to scan them, and this may not necessarily be the case. On the issue of cost: there are other costs associated with digital. If he already has a computer with a decent processor and harddrive, and photo-editing software, then no problem. But if he doesn't then it will cost a great deal more, at least in the short run. A hundred bucks is nothing - if, after a few rolls he decides its not for him, then he can just head down to the pawn shop, ditch the camera and all it cost him is the cost of developing a few rolls of film. But if he runs out and picks up a dslr, he'll be stuck with a bag of gear which will resell only for a great deal less than he paid.
I'm not insisting that he learn the way I did and I apologize if my comments annoyed you. I'm only suggesting that a smaller investment at the outset may be the way to go.
[sorry for not using gender neutral language - the whole he/she thing was getting a little unwieldy...]
- Posts: 292
Wed May 18, 2005 3:54 am
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that your comments had annoyed me.
It's a more generic thing. ;o)
That said, one certainly doesn't need a dSLR to learn photography. All one needs is a camera with sufficient manual controls to give the photographer control over the product.
The Canon 'A' series are great little cameras. One could pick up an A60 or A75 for under $200 and have a good learning platform. Or even get an A95 for under $300 and have a camera capable of making very nice 8" x 12" prints.
It doesn't take much of a computer. I did a lot of editing on an old 486. It would have been very slow with larger meg files, but with a 2-3 meg camera it was quite adequate.
Software is inexpensive and free. I recently picked up a used copy of Picture Shop Pro 9.01 for ~$30. GIMP, for example, is very powerful and costs nothing. And some editing software comes with almost any digital.
It's a more generic thing. ;o)
That said, one certainly doesn't need a dSLR to learn photography. All one needs is a camera with sufficient manual controls to give the photographer control over the product.
The Canon 'A' series are great little cameras. One could pick up an A60 or A75 for under $200 and have a good learning platform. Or even get an A95 for under $300 and have a camera capable of making very nice 8" x 12" prints.
It doesn't take much of a computer. I did a lot of editing on an old 486. It would have been very slow with larger meg files, but with a 2-3 meg camera it was quite adequate.
Software is inexpensive and free. I recently picked up a used copy of Picture Shop Pro 9.01 for ~$30. GIMP, for example, is very powerful and costs nothing. And some editing software comes with almost any digital.
38 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Film Cameras ‹ Please help! What kind of camera should I buy?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests