Way OT - film camera recommendations

[caffeinator]

Hi All,

If you'll forgive a Way-OT question, I am thinking of taking a basic B&W photography class.  One of the class pre-reqs is to have an all-manual film camera (I'd read that mean including cameras that can be operated in all-manual mode).  They recommend a 35mm SLR.  I'd sincerely appreciate recommendations of good used cameras to fit the bill.  As this is a bit of an experiment, and I might try to find two copies of said camera (my daughter might take the class along with me), I'd be looking for recommendations under about $150.

TIA,

David

[galyons]

Good for you!!!  I still shoot film 35mm to large format 8x10. (although the 8x10 camera is seeing little use as 8x10 sheet film  is now $3-5 per sheet!)

There are really two world's in high quality 35MM SLR's the Nikon F* series, (F2,F3) and the Canon AE1.  Both are built to pro usage quality.  There is a huge range of lenses readily available.  Both support a vast system of accessories.  At this point is in the "digi age" they are dirt cheap, given the relative quality.  Look for a camera(a) from a hobbyist, it is likely far less worn than the typical pro usage camera.

I own a Nikon F2.    Have had it since 1976. They are a real bargain on the used market. The FE Series is smaller and lighter, but still a very good camera. 

Here is an article about buying used film cameras.  http://canon5d.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/best-6-places-buy-used-camera-equipment-online-0129519/

I have had good experience with Midwest Camera Exchange and KEH.  Their ratings are very conservative and they stand behind their sales.

Always thrilled to evangelize film cameras.  Feel free to email through the system.

Cheers,
Geary

[Wanderer]

With all flim SLRs on the used market currently depressed in value, might as well go for a Nikon product.

What I had in college lo many decades ago ...and still have in the closet...is a Nikkormat FT2.

There are a ton of them out there. They mount very good Nikkor glass.  Careful shopping should get you a low mileage nice working Nikkormat with a circa 50 mm Nikkor lense for about the $150 you want to spend.

Reason for a Nikkormat over a Nikon F, F1, etc. is the Nikkormat was the semi-pro/amature SLR so less likely you will get a high mileage unit thats been hammered by a photojournalist.

Nothing wrong with Canons and Pentax either, but I'm a Nikon fan myself.

                             

       

[Doc B.]

Used to be fiim cameras were expensive and film and processing were cheap. Now it's the other way around.

Used to be you would have to spend $150 for an FT2 and lens, but I suspect you could get that for almost nothing these days. In fact I just gave away a mint FT2 body after seeing some for around $35. I agree that going Nikon or Canon is probably the most sensible approach. Other brands just dont have the depth of accessories and some lack the ruggedness. Nikon has a slight advantage in compatability through the years, that is some later lenses will work with the Nikkormats and FEs (IIRC an FE is better suited to later lenses). If you go that way read up about AI mounts vs. pre-AI. Can save you some money but avoiding buying a version of a lens that doesn't fit. And if you decide to get a newer digital body chances are you can use the lens on it too.

[Grainger49]

I started with an Argus fully manual camera.  You guess the distance, shutter speed and f setting.  That is fully manual. 

My Minolta SRT-101 is match needle for exposure (f setting and shutter speed) and has a split prism from an SRT 102 for focusing.  That is not really manual in either mode.  This is what a Nikon FT 2 is like.

Then my Minolta XG-M is even more automatic. 

What I'm saying is that there are all different gradients of manual cameras.

[Hank Murrow]

Dear Grainger; Don't you love that SRT-101? I have had one since 1974 which belonged to a dear friend who died too young. I still love it, but Canon Digital has captivated me for all but the most critical work.

Some see it and recall that Vietnam photogs called it "The Rock".

Cheers, Hank in Eugene

[adamct]

I've shot with a ton of film cameras. I've used Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax, and a host of others. I have 3 favorites:

Nikon F3 - an incredibly versatile camera, you can set it up however you want. It is built like a rock, and probably has the best film advance lever I've ever felt, including Leica cameras. The primary drawback, in my view, is that it is heavy. Note that the difference between the HP and non-HP finder isn't huge, and even with glasses I preferred the non-HP finder.

Nikon FE-2 - Lighter, less robust, but in some ways more convenient than the F3. And I like the meter in the FE-2 better, since it is a match-needle design, rather than the small LCD in the F-3.

Pentax MX - my all-time favorite camera hands down. By a mile. A small, light, versatile jewel of a camera with a viewfinder that still makes me go weak in the knees. I can't recommend this camera highly enough. The typical cycle for a photographer is this: start with a simple camera, get enamoured of gadgets and features and upgrade, then upgrade again and again and again. Then you finally realize that simple cameras are best, and you have no desire to lug some heavy all-purpose behemoth around with you when all you want to do is take pictures. The MX is the camera to start and end with. The camera is so small and light, I can palm it. No need for a camera strap -- how liberating!!! And the viewfinder...mama Mia! The viewfinder is your window onto the world...it is how you see your pictures. The MX viewfinder is big, bright and beautiful. It trounces everything else I've seen, except one or two Olympus cameras, but their displays weren't as good. Also, Pentax makes some lovely lenses that can be had dirt cheap.

One more piece of advice: skip split prism focusing screens.  They feels safe, because they give a sense of mechanical precision. But I don't find them more accurate than a simple ground glass screen. And a split-prism is always in the middle of your viewfinder, blocking your view of your subject. I actually found that I could focus faster with a ground glass screen - I didn't obsess over lining up the split prism, yet my results were just as good -- I tested.

One more piece of advice...there is a guy on ebay called Luigi who sells "soft releases" designed primarily for Leica cameras, but they work just as well with old manual focus film SLRs, and improve the picture taking experience more than you would ever believe possible.

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Adam

P.S. if you decide to go for a Nikon, let me know. I have a ton of Nikon film SLRs I would be willing to sell, would be happy to give you advice, and I also have a big collection of lenses I would be willing to sell. But go for a Pentax MX and one of their 50mm f/1.7 lenses....trust me! 

[4krow]

I know it's just me, but I traded my Canon AE1P for Pentax K1000 and never regretted it. So simple, so manual, and now a days, so cheap.

[2wo]

I still love my Canon A1, mostly because I have had it so long that I don't have to think about it, it just becomes an extension of my eye. Plus it has been under water twice, came off the back of a motorcycle, at speed and has generally been knocked around the world and keeps on clicking.

I am glad to see film still alive, especially having worked for Kodak for 15 years. I was in Hellmart the other day and was surprised to see they still have a film processor.

Don't tell anyone though, they will lump you in with those Dinosaurs that still use Vacuum tubes, some of them still play those  old records. I mean really, this IS the 21st Century  ...John     

[Grainger49]

Hank, You bet!  I have had mine for ages.  I think I got it a couple of years before you got yours.  I took a number of friends' weddings with it and a Vivatar 783 flash. 

[4krow]

I forgot about the Vivitar flash. It sure does make a difference compared to the cheap ones. Went through a few batteries at a wedding though.

[Maxwell_E]

I second the recommendation for a Nikon F2. I had my dad's from 1972 with the original wide angle and it was a blast to shoot with. The light meter even worked after 40 years. Very rugged with titanium shutter curtains that don't stretch/warp and keep true shutter speeds. I recently sold it as I needed to pare down my hobbies. I ended up getting more for the lens than the body. I guess good lenses never go out of style. Like Doc mentions, AI vs non-AI is worth considering. Here's an FAQ from Nikon.

http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5366/~/what-is-the-difference-between-an-ai-lens,-an-ai-s-lens,-and-non-ai-lens%3F

[Doc B.]

Truth be told after owning and using using a s**t ton of film cameras from Minox to 4x5 I have kept only one. That is a Kiev IV that I restored. Nice, quiet, sharp shooting conversation piece that presents just enough of an old school operational challenge to be interesting. For me the current generation of digital is as good if not better, particularly when you consider it's most common to scan film negatives to digital anyway.

[Chris]

Gotta go with Doc on the digital comment. However, Your class sounds like fun, just dont spend a ton of money... I sold my Rolleiflex with a few zeiss lenses and my Leica a few years back and havent missed them at all.... BUT, only now have I seen digital cameras that have the same photo quality that those 35mms  had.... But again, Sounds like you will have fun with your class, enjoy...

[Doc B.]

Yes one should absolutely learn to work with film! It's a truly magical process, particularly if you also do analog prints with an enlarger. Wagging a little dodging tool over part of an exposure while you count out the seconds and then waiting for the developer to work is quite a bit more challenging than farting around with the brush size and opacity in PS over and over until you get it the way you want it.

I've only had three digital cameras that I thought outdid 35MM. First was a Hassy with a very early 12MP digital back. Very crude, it took three separate passes and was just for still life/product shot stuff. But it had astounding dynamic range because of the huge pixels on the CCD. With my D300 I could take shots that were pretty much equal to my 35mm shots, and with stitching you can take two or three frames and get very close to 4x5 film resolution. And the D5100 I am now using shows a definite maturity of the technology, really fine, creamy detail and great dynamic range in a really lightweight package.