# Bare basics of film photo



## Tom23 (Jan 6, 2014)

Hey fellas, I hope you got a minute for couple of my questions about film photography. I want to learn the basics and try to develop my first roll of film, not for nostalgia reasons, but due to mere fact that clicking away my digital cameras is getting out of hand, 150+ GB of photos, 45,000+ files, and only couple of dozen of them (at best) are photos I would print for some physical photo album of mine. I guess digital spoiled me and I want to rationalize my shutter actuation, and I think shooting film is the best way to force myself to think and rationalize before I press the shutter and control my urge to press it down every time I see something mildly interesting.

So, with that long intro out of the way, questions.

I shot film before,  as a kid, on my dad's Oly X2 and I even borrowed some Nikon SLR 10 years ago for a day of shooting. There's was no "half-shutter focus" on those things, just point and shoot and photos turned out fine. I guess that X2 probably has a slow lens so basically anything that's couple of feet away from the camera is in focus. But how did the SLR focus, I'm more than sure I didn't mess with manual focus on whatever lens that camera had, I didn't know anything about photography back then...but as I've said, all the photos I took with it turned out great.

Another dumb question - do film cameras have modes? With ISO being fixed, how do you tell your camera what ISO you work with and how do you get light metering, does the camera tell you if you're photo is blown up or underexposed? I want to know how do they operate, even though the technical part won't improve my photography one bit, but I'm curious.

I'm currently on a lookout for K1000 on local yellowpages, people sell these things dirt cheap over here, and I've heard stories about K1000 being the ultimate student camera.

Thanks


----------



## Designer (Jan 6, 2014)

Film cameras have light meters built in.  You watch the meter indicator through the viewfinder and make adjustments with aperture &/or shutter speed.  When the indicator indicates a good exposure, focus and shoot.  Film cameras usually have some means of evaluating focus, a split prism, or some other type of indicator.

Try B&W first, and maybe that is all you'll ever do.  I had a love affair with B&W back a long time ago.  B&W film can be developed at home, but instead of buying and setting up an enlarger, just scan the negatives and you can then print from the digital file.


----------



## Tom23 (Jan 6, 2014)

Great, thanks for your answer. About the light metering, so that means that film cameras need batteries too, or do they meter light in some analog magic way  

How do they autofocus? 

I love the idea of developing at home...I'll look into the scanning to digital, never met anyone who did that, I hope there's no expensive equipment involved, given that K1000 usually goes for 30$ in local yellow pages.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 6, 2014)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/348322-donating-fuji-ax-multi-program-dx-2-lenses.html


----------



## Designer (Jan 6, 2014)

Yes, film cameras have a battery for the light meter, usually a wafer type.  Lasts forever.

My Minolta has autofocus, I'm not really sure if the wafer battery does the autofocus, but uses a set of AAA batteries for film advance, and probably the focusing as well.


----------



## Tom23 (Jan 6, 2014)

@Tiller: I replied in your topic 

Another question is lens compatibility. Looking on ebay I see a lot of "mounts"...I presume they're not interchangeable  Did the film folks buy adaptors (just like I buy adaptors so I can put helios glass on my GH2)? Expensive?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 6, 2014)

Designer said:


> Yes, film cameras have a battery for the light meter, usually a wafer type.  Lasts forever.
> 
> My Minolta has autofocus, I'm not really sure if the wafer battery does the autofocus, but uses a set of AAA batteries for film advance, and probably the focusing as well.



My film cameras dont have a light meter and no auto focus and dont need batteries but they are not cheap to buy like most film cameras, i use a handheld meter shooting with HP5 that i can shoot iso up to iso1600 with good results and Orwo UN 54 iso100 film, there is more to think about when shooting film you may need to underexpose the film and over develope depending on light conditions

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timor (Jan 6, 2014)

Tom23 said:


> Great, thanks for your answer. About the light metering, so that means that film cameras need batteries too, or do they meter light in some analog magic way
> 
> How do they autofocus?
> 
> I love the idea of developing at home...I'll look into the scanning to digital, never met anyone who did that, I hope there's no expensive equipment involved, given that K1000 usually goes for 30$ in local yellow pages.


Hi man. I feel it's a good thing, if someone is looking in the old, film based, method of photography. Yet going back to film is maybe not so easy, as you would have to shed off many customs you learned with digital. The first one will be learning, that film camera is not taking care of everything with you only focusing, composing and pressing the shutter (that could be also automated  with dslr). If you are looking to shoot like with digital slr and have only the limitation of number of frames on the film, you have to look for camera very much different, than K1000. There are plenty of cheap and very good, when comes to exposure and modes Minoltas, there is the latest Nikon F75 (I picked up new body for $20) and if you want a camera with the size and noise and toughness of Tiger panzer get Pentax Sf1n. If your budget allows you can reach for high end and even get F5.
But if one day you will become ambitious and want to learn more about the film b&w photography, be prepared for catching up with a lot of knowledge. Which might be very satisfying.
Anyway, shooting big numbers of frames even with film is not that unusual, especially with 35mm format. Garry Winogrand left about 9000 rolls of unprocessed film, 1/3 had to be yet developed at that point. 

On the other hand maybe you should take advantage of Tillers offering. :thumbup:


----------



## limr (Jan 6, 2014)

Not all film cameras have light meters. The K1000s do, but as Designer said, it's not a meter that does anything for you, but just an indicator of how much light the camera is sensing. You are still the one who has to adjust the settings. It takes a small battery (LR44). If you don't have a battery, the meter needle will just stay at dead center and will not indicate anything, but the camera will still work perfectly fine. You can either learn systems for judging the metering yourself (Sunny 16) or you can get a hand held light meter. The cheapest and most convenient way to do that is to download an app if you have a smartphone. If you don't mind hauling your digital with you, you can use that for metering. But this is only if you don't have a battery in the K1000. 

Here's another recent thread where we were talking more about the K1000 as well as other basic mechanical SLRs: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...46-cheap-35mm-battery-independent-camera.html

As for mounts, the K1000 uses the modern K-mount system that will work on any Pentax camera after the K1000. Prior to that, Pentax used a M42 screwmount and you can get adapters for that to use screwmount lenses to K-mount bodies. 

But adapters between systems (i.e. Pentax to Canon or to Nikon or whatever) are tricky. I'm sure someone else knows more about this, but I'll say that lenses aren't necessarily compatible to other systems even with adapters. Has to do with distance from the lens to the film plane. And sometimes, the build of the camera interferes with the lens. I bought an M42 screwmount Zeiss lens to use with my Spotmatic. The lens fit perfectly until about half a twist away from being secured. At that point, the lens protruded into the body too far and the mirror in the Spotmatic couldn't clear it. So just because the mounts match doesn't mean the lens is compatible.


----------



## limr (Jan 6, 2014)

timor makes a good point about maybe getting a more automated film camera to ease the transition.

I can't help it though, I just love the K1000  And if your goal is to slow down, then the more things you have to do yourself, the more you will slow down.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jan 6, 2014)

Canon AE-1 would be a great camera to start with. Full manual,manual focus with available shutter priority auto. Needs a battery but they last awhile and availability is good. I did and still have 3 of the damn things. They still get used infrequently but they do get used. I've switched to Nikon but had so much fun with them I can't seem to get rid of them. Cheap,easy to use and glass is everywhere.


----------



## Designer (Jan 6, 2014)

Tom23 said:


> Another question is lens compatibility. Looking on ebay I see a lot of "mounts"...I presume they're not interchangeable  Did the film folks buy adaptors (just like I buy adaptors so I can put helios glass on my GH2)? Expensive?



Oh, yes, we often purchased third-party lenses and adaptors.  These days, those old lenses are cheap, and most will either come with adaptors, or thread-mount, for which you then purchase an adaptor.

My recommendation would be to purchase only the lenses that will work on your camera, because they are plentiful and cheap, so you can simply wait a little to find the one you need.  That will save you the expense and time of buying an adaptor.


----------



## peter27 (Jan 6, 2014)

If you buy a K1000 you won't be able to use autofocus, but with zone focusing or hyperfocal you should get quite good results after a little practice. Don't be afraid of manual focus, though! However, there are other very reasonably priced analogue cameras with autofocus and program modes out there: I ordered a Pentax Z-20 with power zoom lens for under 40&#8364; and had my eye on a Z-1 with zoom lens and grip for 99&#8364; (it was in Austria though, which meant another 20&#8364; postage to Germany, so I let it go in the end).


----------



## compur (Jan 6, 2014)

Tom23 said:


> I shot film before,  as a kid, on my dad's Oly X2 ...



Do you mean Olympus XA2?



> ... and I even borrowed some Nikon SLR 10 years ago for a day of shooting. There's was no "half-shutter focus" on those things, just point and shoot and photos turned out fine.



Half shutter focus? I don't know what you are referring to. Manual focus, maybe?



> I guess that X2 probably has a slow lens so basically anything that's couple of feet away from the camera is in focus. But how did the SLR focus, I'm more than sure I didn't mess with manual focus on whatever lens that camera had, I didn't know anything about photography back then...but as I've said, all the photos I took with it turned out great.



You didn't say which model Nikon SLR you were using. Many of them have auto-focus.



> Another dumb question - do film cameras have modes?



Many of them have modes, yes. Exposure modes, focus modes, metering modes, etc.



> With ISO being fixed, how do you tell your camera what ISO you work with and how do you get light metering, does the camera tell you if you're photo is blown up or underexposed? I want to know how do they operate, even though the technical part won't improve my photography one bit, but I'm curious.



Most film cameras (excepting the very simple ones) have an ISO adjustment dial for setting the desired ISO.


----------



## trythis (Jan 6, 2014)

And...whats your budget?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 6, 2014)

For an auto focus SLR, I'd have to say a Minolta Maxxum is a pretty good place to start. Tons of glass, and if you're a Sony user, that glass slips right on to Alpha DSLRs. Otherwise, the Canon EOS (not EOS Rebel, but just regular EOS) cameras are pretty good. I've used an EOS 10S and had pretty good luck with it. There are a few Leica point and shoots that achieve fantastic results, but allow zero control other than shutter.

If you're ok focusing by distance only and not seeing what you're doing, you could try a Rollei 35. It looks like it should be a rangefinder, but isn't. Also looks like a point & shoot, but isn't. Just throw in your best guess at distance, adjust exposure with the meter on top, and click away. Fun little gizmo.


----------



## Tom23 (Jan 6, 2014)

compur said:


> Do you mean Olympus XA2?



Yes, my bad, XA2, the eggshaped little camera 



compur said:


> Half shutter focus? I don't know what you are referring to. Manual focus, maybe?



I was trying to say that Nikon SLR didn't have focus like DSLR (press the shutter halfway to focus), I didn't do any focusing yet every image turned out sharp.



compur said:


> You didn't say which model Nikon SLR you were using. Many of them have auto-focus.



It was 10 years ago so there's no way I remember, but it was a hefty piece of camera, my friend bought it new, and it was probably same size as modern day DSLR's...

I remember the camera was 2 tone, grey-black 



trythis said:


> And...whats your budget?



I'm aiming for K1000 price, and I saw those go for around 30, 40, maybe 50 euros in local newspapers, with lens. At the moment there aren't any for sale so I'm waiting...my option B was SRT 101, one guy sells it for 50 euros, with Rokkor 55 1.7 lens.

I want a manual camera, but if there's an auto focus function, I won't mind.


----------



## timor (Jan 6, 2014)

compur said:


> Half shutter focus? I don't know what you are referring to. Manual focus, maybe?


I think AF cameras activate auto focus (and metering) when the trigger is depressed half way.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 6, 2014)

Another dumb question - do film cameras have modes? 

Some do. My  old Canon has Shutter/Apature priority, wide mode, telephoto mode, and  standard mode as well as manual of course. A slightly newer canon eos I  have has a sport mode and a portait mode too, as wel as flash modes.

ISO  isnt fixed per se. You tell the camera what ISO the film is  or it  detects using DX (and it meters accordingly) but you can tell it is  actually a different iso and push/pull the exposure in processing, or  use it to achive an effect

The light meter on my canons is in the viewfinder. I get the shutter  speed apature and a OK/Flash needed/blinking indication about the  lighting, and uses a split prism lens for manual focus (Easy to use once  you get the hang of it)

Buy a camera with a GOOD viewfinder, will make life easier.

Film  camera need batteries often (not some ancient ones) - These are for  motor winders (if any) some apature and shutters (electromagnetic) and  the computer/light meter which they may have. Mine takes regular AA and  some watch battery and lasts for ages (Months/years/decades - my watch  one is 30+ years).

Some cameras have AF which uses TTL metering  i.e. the film EOSes, the AF operates the same as on the equivilent  digital versions.

Do your negs at home and scan if you get into it, if you shoot 1 or 2 roll a week it will pay for itself easy.

Mounts are per make/range

i.e.  Canons take FD (old, cheap, manual focus, but GREAT) or EF Autofocus  lenses (Same as some higher end EOS DSLRs do so expensive!). DO NOT USE AN ADAPTER,  they all suck.

To give an idea of budget, my canon and 3 EF lenses and a bag and flash came to well under £100 from ebay.


----------



## timor (Jan 6, 2014)

xxx Mistake :blushing:


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 6, 2014)

Tom23 said:


> Another dumb question - do film cameras have modes? With ISO being fixed, how do you tell your camera what ISO you work with and how do you get light metering, does the camera tell you if you're photo is blown up or underexposed? I want to know how do they operate, even though the technical part won't improve my photography one bit, but I'm curious.


Some do, some don't.  Typically, anything from the 90's or newer will be very similar the the DSLRs you're used to.

Most film is DX coded (that pattern of silver squares on the canister) - the camera has electrical contacts that read that to determine ISO, dynamic range, and number of exposures.

Some are full manual, and that's it.  Some are manual, or aperture priority.  Some are like "Pro" digital bodies - M, Tv, Av, P - but none of the "picture icon" modes: portrait, action, etc.  Some are just like an entry level DSLR, green box mode and everything.


Usually (almost always), you can override the DX coded ISO.  In case the film you're using is not DX coded, or maybe you want to use it at a different ISO.


Metering depends on the camera.  Older camera may not have a meter, or just a very simple meter.  Newer ones are no different than the metering in the DSLRs you're used to.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

Dont buy a camera just because it is cheap, get one that is a pleasure to use

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Dont buy a camera just because it is cheap, get one that is a pleasure to use
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



Well good thing the K1000 is both cheap AND a pleasure to use


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

Leonore, I have to agree with you. The K1000 was a pleasure to use when I had mine. I had the SP then the K. 
Bare bones, no frills. Just a sling it over your shoulder and go camera that took excellent photos. Imagine that, there wasn't even 6 dozen focus pionts and a good exposure could still be made.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

I've got other cameras that I really love shooting, but nothing feels like my K1000. She'll always be my first love!

Funny thing is when my brother-and-law gave me his SP500. It's a much older camera than my K1000, which I bought new in 1993, but it is pristine. Not a scratch, everything in perfect working order (well, except for that battery door!) and it looks like the newer camera. The K1000 is...well, you've heard of _The Velveteen Rabbit_? The one with the stuffed bunny that got all raggedy with love and use before he became a real bunny? Yeah, I've got the velveteen K1000. Definitely raggedy with love and use, but the difference is that it's always been a real camera.  No matter how worn it looks, it always takes great pictures.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> I've got other cameras that I really love shooting, but nothing feels like my K1000. She'll always be my first love!
> 
> Funny thing is when my brother-and-law gave me his SP500. It's a much older camera than my K1000, which I bought new in 1993, but it is pristine. Not a scratch, everything in perfect working order (well, except for that battery door!) and it looks like the newer camera. The K1000 is...well, you've heard of _The Velveteen Rabbit_? The one with the stuffed bunny that got all raggedy with love and use before he became a real bunny? Yeah, I've got the velveteen K1000. Definitely raggedy with love and use, but the difference is that it's always been a real camera.  No matter how worn it looks, it always takes great pictures.



Have you tried a Leica M that would change your mind

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I've got other cameras that I really love shooting, but nothing feels like my K1000. She'll always be my first love!
> ...



I know you've got your love affair with your Leicas, and I'm sure I would enjoy using the M, but that doesn't mean I would love my K1000 any less.  It's still a pleasure to use even if I also get pleasure from using other cameras.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

Gary, I have to say, I picked up a nice Leica III at a tradeshow once. Took it out one day and put it back in the closet. It was propbably my least favorite camera I ever owned. 
It went back to the next trade show and used as Trading material.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> For an auto focus SLR, I'd have to say a Minolta Maxxum is a pretty good place to start. Tons of glass, and if you're a Sony user, that glass slips right on to Alpha DSLRs. Otherwise, the Canon EOS (not EOS Rebel, but just regular EOS) cameras are pretty good. I've used an EOS 10S and had pretty good luck with it. There are a few Leica point and shoots that achieve fantastic results, but allow zero control other than shutter.
> 
> If you're ok focusing by distance only and not seeing what you're doing, you could try a Rollei 35. It looks like it should be a rangefinder, but isn't. Also looks like a point & shoot, but isn't. Just throw in your best guess at distance, adjust exposure with the meter on top, and click away. Fun little gizmo.



Rollei 35 is fantastic fun a produces wonderful results


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Gary, I have to say, I picked up a nice Leica III at a tradeshow once. Took it out one day and put it back in the closet. It was propbably my least favorite camera I ever owned.
> It went back to the next trade show and used as Trading material.



I don't know how you could do that


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, I have to say, I picked up a nice Leica III at a tradeshow once. Took it out one day and put it back in the closet. It was propbably my least favorite camera I ever owned.
> ...



I guess it's a matter of taste. If not, I suppose everyone would own leica's and all the other manufacturer's would go under.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> For an auto focus SLR, I'd have to say a Minolta Maxxum is a pretty good place to start. Tons of glass, and if you're a Sony user, that glass slips right on to Alpha DSLRs. Otherwise, the Canon EOS (not EOS Rebel, but just regular EOS) cameras are pretty good. I've used an EOS 10S and had pretty good luck with it. There are a few Leica point and shoots that achieve fantastic results, but allow zero control other than shutter.
> 
> If you're ok focusing by distance only and not seeing what you're doing, you could try a Rollei 35. It looks like it should be a rangefinder, but isn't. Also looks like a point & shoot, but isn't. Just throw in your best guess at distance, adjust exposure with the meter on top, and click away. Fun little gizmo.



Rollei 35 is a great little camera and fun to use and when you get the hang of using it you can get some very sharp results


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

Hey Gary, I really like that one. Maybe just a tad dark?


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Rollei 35 is a great little camera and fun to use and when you get the hang of using it you can get some very sharp results


Which one you've got ? Three element lens or four ?


----------



## compur (Jan 7, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Gary, I have to say, I picked up a nice Leica III at a tradeshow once. Took it out one day and put it back in the closet. It was propbably my least favorite camera I ever owned.



I don't care for screw-mount Leicas either. The M models are a different story but I don't find the early Leicas to be pleasant to use. Also, when found, the early Leica lenses are almost always too hazy to use, requiring cleaning (unless this was already done recently). It's a trait of the glass Leitz used for many of its lenses. Leica screw mount bodies often need shutter work when found as well.  The people selling grandpa's Leica usually have no clue about any of this and often price the camera way too high without realizing that a buyer will likely have to invest a sizable amount just to get the thing working properly. Explaining the facts to them is often futile, "... that's what they sell for on eBay," they will insist and will regard you to be a con artist trying to rip them off.  

Anyway, for Leica thread type RF cameras I much prefer the later Canon RFs or the Bessa R.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

compur said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, I have to say, I picked up a nice Leica III at a tradeshow once. Took it out one day and put it back in the closet. It was propbably my least favorite camera I ever owned.
> ...



I wouldn't have been surprised if this one didn't go through a recent CLA. It was really in NICE condition. I would say a strong 9+ out of 10. I think a paid about $400. A Leica was something I never owned and always wanted one. I never had the urge since. Now the only camera I always wanted and never had is a Hasselblad.


----------



## compur (Jan 7, 2014)

Before giving up on Leica entirely, I suggest trying an M. They're completely different from the earlier cameras, though not the "Holy Grail" that many seem to think, IMO.

I had an M2 which I loved but sold it some years ago. Now, I have a Retina IIIs, Canon L1, Bessa R and other RFs which I'm just as happy with.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

I might not like either Leicas or Hasselblads nearly as much as I think I would, but I sure would like the opportunity to be disappointed  If I could only have one of those, however, I'd probably go with the Hasselblad.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

Another camera that I thought I needed was a Linhof Press 23 that I saw at a show. Beautiful German built camera with a 100mm CZ Sonnar. Bought it, put a couple rolls through it, and it sat. That was the only time I remember making a killing on a camera. I paid about $400- $500 for it back in the 80's and sold it last year for $1,200 on Ebay.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> View attachment 63863
> Hey Gary, I really like that one. Maybe just a tad dark?



No all my lovely tones have gone now


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Rollei 35 is a great little camera and fun to use and when you get the hang of using it you can get some very sharp results
> ...



Its the one with the worst lens (Rollei 35B) Triotar lens


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 7, 2014)

A Leica is a nice camera.  If you're in the market, you might borrow someone's Contax ll/llla though.    You'll find the lenses are quite nice too.

You can actually shoot into the sun with one without burning the shutter curtain.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 7, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> I wouldn't have been surprised if this one didn't go through a recent CLA. It was really in NICE condition. I would say a strong 9+ out of 10. I think a paid about $400. A Leica was something I never owned and always wanted one. I never had the urge since. Now the only camera I always wanted and never had is a Hasselblad.



I will say that Hasselblads are incredibly rewarding. (You all knew I'd chip in about Hassies, didn't you?  ) That being said, they require a lot of patience. My 500EL decided to jam on me, thus requiring $300 worth of service, and probably hasn't been serviced since it was new in 1967. :er: My 1600f, on the other hand, is going strong, and only required a good strong smack into a car door to work properly  The mechanical cameras are more fun and, if they jam, are easier to unjam. Also cheaper to have serviced. Parts are plentiful for 500/V-series lens shutter stuff, though I'd beware of 1000f/1600fs because of scarcity of parts, and there's just about nobody willing to work on them.

Another thing to recommend (I've ripped apart and restored one and my second is coming tomorrow or the day after) is a Rolleiflex. The early ones had no issues with meters or electrical stuff-they were all mechanical and fantastic cameras. A lot of fun to use, and the early Automats are just as good as the 3.5s (in my opinion) and MUCH cheaper.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 9, 2014)

By now I guess the OP got questions answered! lol Just in case, the ISO is determined by what film speed you use, you'd need to set the dial to for example 100 or 400 ISO, or ASA/DIN if it's an older camera (same type standard of light sensitivity, renamed from American to International with DIN being in German).

I use mostly all mechanical cameras so as mentioned you'd just need a battery for the meter; the camera may have a button you push/hold in to release and activate the meter's needle - you'll know you have a proper exposure when the way you set the aperture and shutter speed is showing the needle in the middle, between + or - which indicates too much or not enough light. And as Leonore I think said, a camera is still usable w/out a working meter, I've sometimes metered with another camera that I had with me.

I found when I first got a rangefinder that it took some learning, and I use a rangefinder differently than I do an SLR. I do some sports (hockey) and w/a rangefinder by the time I got set and focused the game might be over! not really, but the action might move out of range before I got set, I find the framing is really different with a rangefinder and use SLRs for sports/action. I like rangefinders when I'm out shooting something architectural or scenic or whatever. I have one of the 'new' Voigtlander/Cosina Bessas which I like, but when I haven't used it in awhile I have to remember when metering to frame to see the projected numbers since it's not a needle like in all my old cameras. I got a Leica M3 because it was an offer I couldn't refuse... area camera store had one marked down, the guy said he couldn't believe it hadn't sold, neither could I - the price was what just the lens usually goes for and it's one gorgeous chunk of glass with beautiful aperture blades...

Anyway you might want to look at  Film Photography Project | An Internet Radio Show & On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide  they have videos on topics including how to load film etc. Hope you (the OP) enjoys whatever film camera you buy, the Pentax K sounds like a good choice.


----------

