# Help me choose/buy a (vintage) camera!



## jando (Feb 26, 2014)

Hi,

I'm new on here as can be and I must say I don't know a lot about cameras.

I'm trying to find a camera for myself. I have my iphone camera (that I can obviously use whenever) and I do have a good, new camera with great quality around me (it isn't mine though). The thing is, the cameras these days are too much for me, the quality is too good and so are the colours. There's too much to focus on in a photo! When I look at older pictures (60s, 70s, 80s) I find calmness in them. In nowaday pictures I just see a memory (if the photo's mine). I want both. I want an older camera that might not have the greatest quality or colours, maybe on or the other. I can't put my finger on it. I'd use it for trips or something specific. You know, you take one picture and that's that, these days you can check them on the digitals or you take so many, it's just a big fuss. 

p.s. I do have a soviet LOMO 135 M. so maybe I'll use that (but there are some problems).

please ask questions if needed!


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 26, 2014)

Hmm, I think you are looking at those snap shots from the family camera ... like the cartridge cameras, particularly 126 instamatics : Instamatic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are viewing the prints now, most will have colour fading due to the dyes in the paper.
Most of those cameras had limited shutter speeds and aperture size, so they tend to under or over expose.
Many had plastic lenses, or very low quality glass elements.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 26, 2014)

Agreed, the classic color is usually from degrading ink. If you looked at those same images you like so much 5 minutes after they were developed, you probably wouldn't like them as much. They would look distinctly more modern.
To achieve similar results now, you would most easily just take a nice crisp colorful image, and degrade it on purpose with a software filter in photoshop, or instagram or whatever.

As for more deliberate photos, just shoot film, and you'll automatically be more deliberate cause each shot costs you. Easy enough to solve. Film cameras cost like $30 and film is $5 incl. developing depending where you are. Cheapest thing to get into ever.

If the composition of the photo you feel is calmer or simpler, that's just an artistic thing you'll have to learn as your style. It probably has more to do with the psychology of your parents or whoever was snapping the photos from your past than it does equipment.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 26, 2014)

You probably want a Hasselblad. 


OK, fine, that's probably a really bad idea. Anyway, being newer to photography in general, I would recommend a good electronic manual focus SLR from the 1970s or early 1980s. The ones that come to mind are Minolta XG (make sure it has a good capacitor first), Nikon FG, and Canon A-1. All three have some incredible glass available and are reasonably easy to find at reasonable prices. 35mm is a pretty good starter film-easy to find, cheap, and easy to handle/load. Also much easier to find somewhere to develop.


----------



## jando (Feb 27, 2014)

Thank you all three of you! I was worried for a moment that no one had replied.

I'm a bit unsure now. You see the thing with intamatic is that I adore the designs and the photos too but I'm worried that I might feel that the photos I'd take may feel bit kitsch? (not as much with the newer models) But I guess this is more about preference?. The cameras suggested by minicoop are obviously a bit more professional and look much more sturdy, but the photos almost seem modern (you can still feel a bit of vintage though). I do take the thing about discolouration in consideration (now). Question: If I were to choose from the Minolta XG, Nikon FG and Canon A-1. How should I know which one to buy? Should I just get the one with the best price? (as I'm going to buy from ebay).

Is there anything else anyone might suggest? At the end I'll still most likely choose from anything mentioned here.


----------



## weepete (Feb 27, 2014)

The first ever SLR I used was an old 70's Pentax, used it for years when I was a kid and it was great. I still remember the old green light meter on the side of the viewfinder. If I was buying one I'd get another old Pentax.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 28, 2014)

The retro effect you describe is mostly caused by cheap or degraded film, or maybe an out of focus/cheapo lens.
The bodies themselves dont make much difference whatsoever to the image quality, its not like how one DSLR can have a better sensor/dsp than another.

Ive got a buinch of 70s Canon bodies and with good new (but inexpensive) film and canon lenses they take very sharp, modern pictures, equivilent to any DSLR.

 The only real differences I note are down to film brand (This affects colours), and speed (Grain).

Buy whatever body works for you. With the same film and grade of lenses, something like a 70s Canon F or A wont make your pictures any more "retro" than shooting with a late 80s model like a T , or even an EOS from the 2000s.

P.S I have a bunch of Canons. AMA.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 28, 2014)

Oh man, how did I forget Pentax? Yeah, a K1000 would be a safe bet too. They're indestructible. Ever get mugged, they make great weapons too.


----------



## gorilladiver (Feb 28, 2014)

If your looking for 35mm film try a Cannon AT-1, very simular to the pentax K1000, both good choices.  You might also want to check out the Holga cameras, they are really cheap and give a vintage look to photos, mainly do the cameras cheap construction.

examples of the holga Galleries &mdash; Holga Medium Format Camera - Microsite - Lomography


----------



## timor (Feb 28, 2014)

jando said:


> Question: If I were to choose from the Minolta XG, Nikon FG and Canon A-1. How should I know which one to buy? Should I just get the one with the best price?


From this trio I would choose Nikon FG. Minoltas have problem with shutter capacitor and cloth curtain, Canon A-1 also has problematic electronics plus is using expensive battery, not widely available. FG is very compact and reliable. The drawback - expensive lenses, but will work with anything modern except for G lenses - no aperture ring. I have on my FG a Sigma AF zoom 28-105. The viewfinder is still bright enough to work with this not that fast zoom.
The vintage zoom you are looking for comes mostly from processing of the film and prints. If you want that right in camera you should look in Lomography way or some old cheap cameras with plastic lenses and very little controls. Like La Sardina:
Lomography La Sardina DIY Edition Black 35mm Wide-Angle Camera ? Lomography Shop.

Edit. The funny thing is you can have the same look you are so much after with digital camera and a bit of twaeking in PS or, like this image:
http://beanievision.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/xprolablomo_huron_oh_rt6_zup70_cvs400-copy.jpg
in Gimp (LOMO effect).


----------



## 71M (Feb 28, 2014)

jando said:


> p.s. I do have a soviet LOMO 135 M. so maybe I'll use that (but there are some problems).
> 
> please ask questions if needed!


Well, you're spoilt for choice really. Olympus XA, (or XA2, if the rangefinder focus is too fiddly for you). Nice liittle _shoot-and-scoot_ camera; pocket-sized, sweet lens.


----------



## Pav10566 (Feb 28, 2014)

The choice of camera's is enormous...it will depend on what type of camera you'll be happy to "drag around" SLR or a point-and-shoot type. If you take an SLR, will you want it to have manual settings or still AE or TV facility? SLR will take marvelous sharp photo's...I have been a Canon user for 40 years now and have an extended range of FD Lens cameras. In that range I'd recommend a F1 N which combines automatic settings or fully manual or the A1. If you are interested check the models out on internet for reviews and Ebay for selling prices...don't hesitate to ask questions

For a Point-and-shoot there is a huge choice, personally I have a Minolta AF-C...35mm, mostly manual but with AF and a very,very good lens, it takes incredible sharp pictures and you can carry it around in your pocket, very small and the batteries last forever

Good luck in your choice


----------



## jando (Feb 28, 2014)

Yes, I have *a lot* to choose from. Thank you all once again for the help! I learnt quite a bit too.

I'm still a bit confused about the whole 'how a photo turns out'. So if I want a not so modern looking photograph it mostly depends on the film I use? (ignoring how comfortable, easy to use or durable a camera itself is). 

I'll probably have more questions but I'd firstly like to know about the film (what I'm asking above) then I'll do more research on the suggested cameras.


----------



## 71M (Feb 28, 2014)

jando said:


> I'm still a bit confused about the whole 'how a photo turns out'. So if I want a not so modern looking photograph it mostly depends on the film I use? (ignoring how comfortable, easy to use or durable a camera itself is).



Well that can depend on how _old_, or 'faux old' you want it to look. To state the obvious: no auto-focus, you'll manually focus, and if the camera lacks a rangefinder or lens-reflex system, you'll be guessing distance and setting the lens in an imprecise manner, using its distance scale to zone focus. Many cheaper cameras just had an even more primitive near/far focusing mechanism instead. What were you used to, in the past? The pressure plate inside the camera, that keeps the film flat for an exposure, will be less reliable on some older, cheaper compacts, than higher quality ones, and can affect sharpness across the image. A wide range of B&W and colour films are history and unobtainable now. If you're nostalgic for Kodachrome colours, it's over with.

Maybe go to the store and buy some disposable film cameras. They will give you 'the snapshot look', and a fairly decent image if you use them carefully.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 28, 2014)

Nikon F2 and Nikkor Glass.  2nd choice Canon AE-1 and good Canon FD glass.


----------



## jando (Mar 2, 2014)

This is oh so complicated. All the cameras suggested (I excluded a couple as they just werent really my thing):

-Instamatic series (PaS)
-Minolta XG (SLR) 
-Minolta AF-C (PaS) 
-Nikon FG (SLR) 
-Canon A-1 (SLR) 
-Pentax K1000 (SLR) 
-Canon AT-1 (SLR) 
-Canon F1 N (SLR) 
-Canon AE-1 (SLR) 
-Olympus XA/XA2 (PaS) 
-Nikon F2 (SLR) 

Honestly all the cameras except the instamatics are so similar to me. It's quite hard to choose. Also all of the pictures that were taken with them (I checked all) looked so similar, sharp, so it goes down to the how easy to use, comfortable etc they are. I'm guessing the thing why the pictures are so similar is because of the 35mm film as well as how similarly good overall the cameras are (because if they weren't I'm guessing nobody would comment about them)

With the instamatics however the pictures looked more soft, maybe more what I was looking for initially. I'm guessing soft because of the film and the cheap body. But the 126 film is expensive, the pictures are square, it would be quite hard or maybe impossible for me to find a place to process them where I'm living at the moment. So I guess this one won't work. I'll add a link to a set on Flickr that I found (pictures made with instamatics) so you get the idea: *[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/derohlsen/sets/72157615628538726/page3/*[/URL] (I really love the pictures with the views) Any other not so good cameras that may take picture like this? Is it possible to get pictures like this from the other cameras listed? 

Don't think that your suggestions meant nothing, because I'm a bit torn now between the softer and the sharper photos (like the ones taken with the instamatics and the ones taken with all the other cameras). It would be great If I'd have like 2 options at the end. Everyone suggested their favourite camera so I'm guessing it will be up to me which ones to exclude. But maybe someone could help? I'm obviously a bit difficult haha


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2014)

Leica M2 or M4


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 2, 2014)

I dont understand why people reccomend the canon A or F over the T, other than in terms of looks. The T has much better metering, and the same functionality or more, with auto wind, and more common batteries, and uses the same lenses.


----------



## jando (Mar 2, 2014)

Thank you both. That is helpful! Anyone else?


----------



## limr (Mar 2, 2014)

Well, I of course would vote for the K1000 because I am totally biased.  I like that it's totally manual but still has a light meter to help with exposure. But if the battery runs out, the camera is still totally functional. 

As for which ones will help you gain the look that you want...well, first let me as, what do you mean by "soft?" The pictures on that flickr feed all seem fairly sharp to me. If you want the slightly washed out colors, then that's going to be more down to the film than the camera, I'd say. If it is about focus or sharpness, then it's more down to the lens than the body.

Essentially, choose the body that you feel suits you the best, but then look at lenses and film to get the look that you want.

I normally wouldn't suggest something like this, but you might think about getting something like a Holga (they make both 35mm and 120 format). Here's a picture taken with a Holga that I thought of when you said "soft":




Birdhouse by limrodrigues, on Flickr

If that's the look you really like, then consider a toy camera with a plastic lens. Here are some I took with a Konstruktor (which is also made by Lomography, but it's a 35mm camera that you have to put together yourself.) Konstruktor - a set on Flickr

Like I said, I would first suggest you stick to 'proper' cameras - choose one and really test its limits. Experiment with different films or even filters for the lens. Filters don't have to be limited to the ones manufactured specifically for cameras. I once got a really nice softened effect by pulling a sheer curtain tight over the lens. Wish I could find that picture, actually. But the point is, you can experiment, or you can go to plastic lenses if you really have your heart set on a soft, vintage, washed out sort of look.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 2, 2014)

jando said:


> Question: If I were to choose from the Minolta XG, Nikon FG and Canon A-1. How should I know which one to buy? Should I just get the one with the best price? (as I'm going to buy from ebay).



I didn't see this until now. I agree with Timor. The XGs have issues with capacitors, and through eBay, there's no guarantees you'll get one that works. The A-1s, when they're working, are great, but the moment something goes wrong, they go all to hell. Some Olympus OMs might be a good choice as well as the FG. Someone mentioned an XA-those are interesting cameras. The lens has a longer focal length than the distance between the lens and film, and they're VERY well received. Look up Ken Rockwell's review of them-my god he just keeps going on and on about their praises. Otherwise, another, probably more expensive option is a Rollei 35. Fantastic little cameras with incredible lenses-a lot had Zeiss Tessars.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

jando said:


> *instamatic - a set on Flickr* (I really love the pictures with the views) Any other not so good cameras that may take picture like this? Is it possible to get pictures like this from the other cameras listed?
> 
> Don't think that your suggestions meant nothing, because I'm a bit torn now between the softer and the sharper photos (like the ones taken with the instamatics and the ones taken with all the other cameras). It would be great If I'd have like 2 options at the end. Everyone suggested their favourite camera so I'm guessing it will be up to me which ones to exclude. But maybe someone could help? I'm obviously a bit difficult haha



Jando, many/most of those flickr pictures look to me like they could've been similarly shot on 35mm colour negative film, with say a 38mm or 45mm lens; a typical focal-length of sorts, on lots of 1960s-1980s point-and-shoots. The key difference would be that, if so, the pictures wouldn't be square, they'd be 3:2 format. I'd be suprised if you found the sharpness unappealing from such cameras tbh, the characteristic _look_ is more about the vignette/fall-off at the corners.


----------



## 71M (Mar 2, 2014)

imo, you actually want a thrift store, _rummage basket_ compact, with AF and with something akin to a 3.5/38 lens. Miranda, Olympus, Canon etc.


----------



## jando (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm glad that the camera list is getting shorter with all of your help. However the thing about 'soft photo camera' isn't getting clearer. Personally I find the vignette look not my thing, with that being said holga may not be the right camera (judging by it's photo samples), but it's going there, it was a good suggestion! (thank you). Maybe the whole flickr set I gave was a bit too much. Here are a few examples:


 
the flickr set/source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/derohlsen/sets/72157615628538726/page3/


And it was suggested that I should try experimenting, which is true, but now wouldn't be the right time for me. Probably in the future!

71M - I hear what you're saying about the colour negative film, but not sure how the photographs looks.

(i'm confused why there is a thumbnail)


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 3, 2014)

As I said, the body makes little difference.

If you want the low-fi look you just need to use cheap lenses or poor/expired film.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> I dont understand why people reccomend the canon A or F over the T, other than in terms of looks. The T has much better metering, and the same functionality or more, with auto wind, and more common batteries, and uses the same lenses.


The reason is simple.  The Canon AT-1 was an entry level camera made for export.  It was a slimmed down version of the AE-1 with no shutter prioety mode.  It was made for export and to be a cheaper camera than  the AE-1.  

Frankly, with the prices of AE-1's  and Nikon F2's I would pick one of them.  They were made like tanks, had larger production runs and the likelyhood of finding parts or getting repairs would be a benifit.  Personally I would go with an F2, oh wait, I have three of them still.


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 3, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> vimwiz said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why people reccomend the canon A or F over the T, other than in terms of looks. The T has much better metering, and the same functionality or more, with auto wind, and more common batteries, and uses the same lenses.
> ...



To be clear, I dont mean the AT-1, I mean why reccomend the Axx or Txx range over the later Txx range.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 3, 2014)

How "vintage" a camera are you looking for? Do you plan to do your own developing? Do you have to have a camera with auto modes?


----------



## jando (Mar 3, 2014)

vimwiz - Well I mean are there any lenses you could suggest? Or what I should be looking for in a lens? I have to think about lenses too at this point. This is getting more and more complicated haha

pixmedic - hm I'm looking for just a film camera i guess. But I'm more drawn to 60s-80s. I'm open to anything that would just give the photo look I'm looking for!


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 3, 2014)

I only ask because I have a minolta sr-1 with a 55mm f/2 on it in a nice leather case in my closet. Circa 19-I have no idea.
Camera is clean, lens is EX condition.

I would be willing to give it to you if it isn't missing some features you really want.
Some downsides....

SS up to only 1/500.
No hot shoe mount.
No auto features.

Anyway...it's old so...it qualifies there.
Other than that, it's up to you to decide if it fits the bill. I'll be more than happy to send it to you if it's something you will actually use. I will cover shipping costs. 
If you want something newer with more features, I sure don't blame you, just don't let me send this camera to you if you won't be happy with its limitations. 
I'm sure you can Google it's other specs.

let me know.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2014)

It's not the camera that will give you the look.  It is the choice of film, of processing, printing and a bit of time that gives that look.  If you are looking for lens selection then I would definitely recommend either Nikon or Canon.  At least in my area in the used film market there are more good lenses available for Nikon or Canon than Minolta or Pentax.  Minolta would probably be my third choice as there seems to be more good Minolta glass then Pentax. They generally will have more accessories available as well such as winders, motor drives etc.  You may have to pay a few dollars more for say an F2 or AE-1 but they were top of the line cameras in their day with the finest of builds.  What ever you choose make sure to check out the meter and make sure it works as well as the shutter.  A good used camera shop will have gone over all of that and will either have fixed any problems or let you know what problems it has.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 4, 2014)

What Gryphonslair said. Here's an illustration:




Trout Museum by longm1985, on Flickr




Like a kid on christmas by longm1985, on Flickr

Both of those photos were taken with the same camera, same lens, and similar settings-I think both were 1/25, f4, or something close. The difference: the Trout Museum was taken on Kodak Tri-X (Thanks Limr, you got me hooked), while the kiddo was shot on Kodak T-Max, both 400 speed films. There may be some processing differences-not sure here, I didn't process them.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 4, 2014)

Another thing you may consider: a soft focus filter, AKA Softar in some camera brand lingo (I forget which one), and some Kodak ProFoto XL 100. Not sure if it will get exactly what you're looking for, but the colors would be a bit washed compared to other films I've used and it's got a good, lo-fi high-grain look. Here's an example shot with an Olympus OM-1n, Zuiko 50mm f1.8:




R1-04325-0002 by longm1985, on Flickr


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 4, 2014)

Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.

Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing?  If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.

On the other hand if the desire to experience some of the history of photography runs a little deeper an SLR is in order.  Nikon made (still does) some great gear but it's somewhat expensive due to everything being compatible with most everything else in their line.  Canon killed off their FD line when they went to auto-focus so you can find some good bargains there.  Then there are the usual suspects like Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Konica and so on.

You even might like a rangefinder which is a whole other can of worms.    Canon again, Minolta, Yashica all made good ones of varying controls.  There are several old Russian copies of Leicas or Contaxes (both of those are very good and very expensive).

So, How far do you really want to go?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 4, 2014)

Mike_E said:


> Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.
> 
> Question, do you want this look for the life of your relationship with film or at some point would you like to explore what it's fully capable of doing?  If it looks to be just a summertime thing then I wouldn't spend too much money on it and a thrift shop point and shooter should get it out of your system.
> 
> ...



You can get into Leica for cheaper than you think, an M4-2 is one of the cheapest ways and they are a joy to use and there are more lenses that will fit than any Nikon or Canon and there are also Nikon and Canon lenses that will fit


----------



## table1349 (Mar 4, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Listen to minicoop on the filters, in fact were I you I'd spend a good bit of time looking around the net getting a handle on which do what.
> ...


$1,000.00 is cheap???  Quick check of the prices they were going for was $1,000.00 +  You can buy a lot of Nikon f2's & glass for $1,000.00.  At least you can in my area.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 4, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> It's not the camera that will give you the look.  It is the choice of film, of processing, printing and a bit of time that gives that look.  If you are looking for lens selection then I would definitely recommend either Nikon or Canon.  At least in my area in the used film market there are more good lenses available for Nikon or Canon than Minolta or Pentax.  Minolta would probably be my third choice as there seems to be more good Minolta glass then Pentax. They generally will have more accessories available as well such as winders, motor drives etc.  You may have to pay a few dollars more for say an F2 or AE-1 but they were top of the line cameras in their day with the finest of builds.  What ever you choose make sure to check out the meter and make sure it works as well as the shutter.  A good used camera shop will have gone over all of that and will either have fixed any problems or let you know what problems it has.



Exactly, the 2 shots below are the same film HP5 but the first is shot at iso800 and developed accordingly







This is HP5 shot at iso400 and stand developed in the fridge which gives a smoother look


----------



## pondball (Mar 4, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Exactly, the 2 shots below are the same film HP5 but the first is shot at iso800 and developed accordingly  This is HP5 shot at iso400 and stand developed in the fridge which gives a smoother look


HP5 .. Brings back some memories! Had to give up my darkroom when we moved to our house in the country close to 30 years ago... Which also giving up the B&W photography I enjoyed so much... Just got back I to it now with a recent purchase of "my new" D700... Most recent SLRs before that were two canons, probably from the late 60's to early 70's... Used them right up to '86 when we moved and gave up the darkroom, then only after that for some trips etc... But they were still very functional well into this millennium... Canon TL  and FtB... Some prime lens, a macro and one tamron 70-210... Oh yeah, also had a Bunch of filters
One thing I'm learning is that it was a whole lot easier getting a shot with the old bodies than it is with my new nikon... Not complaining as I'm sure I'll enjoy this one too once I figure out the first 100 functions/settings... But the two old canons were about as manual as you could get and I kinda liked them for that reason... And yes they still worked even after the battery ran out!


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 4, 2014)

Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home.
Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)


----------



## pondball (Mar 5, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home. Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)


Didn't know HP5 was still available. Sadly, all the photo stores have closed down within a 40 minute drive of me. I used to roll my own film and could get upwards of 70+ shots on a single roll. Probably still have so,e of the old stuff hanging around including the dark bag and film roller. Definitely have the cameras and lens sitting around. Good point about scanning though... Never thought about that... Duh! Ilford was always my choice of paper, matte or semi matte, but don't think I ever touched glossy as I don't like shiny things.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 5, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Mike_E said:
> ...




Thats not too expensive search for my other on ebay M4P 70 year Anniversary


----------



## jando (Mar 5, 2014)

well the list is getting shorter. however there are 2 cameras i found: olympus pen ee2 and minolta sr-1. I like them because some photo examples actually are that mix between sharp and soft (I couldn't choose which one I'd prefer more). And at this point understand it's the lens and the film. Also filters were suggested (thank you!, I'll look into that). But it's just that I saw proof that you can take pictures like the ones I'd want, as opposed to just trusting you guys (but I do, don't get me wrong haha). The picture were taken with colour negative film (mentioned by 71M). I don't know the lenses for the cameras, but I think in this case they're important because some pictures taken with the same film looked much sharper. But I'm guessing it would be possible to take exact same looking pictures with the cameras already on my list (the ones you all suggested)? Two examples (L: Minolta Sr-1 / R: Olympus Pen EE2) :

 
sources: film is- going down | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and Grans Magatzems | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Mike_E asked what was I planning to do. As I said to pixmedic privately I guess I'm just planning to document my life but in a more personally tasteful way, hence not getting any camera or taking picture with any camera I have around me. So that means I'm not gonna be going too far with this I just want a camera that could take pictures like the ones I want. It's a big possibility that in the future I'll experiment and buy/try new things, but I have to start first ha.

But I think there's not much more all of you can help, I think I'll just have to choose.


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 5, 2014)

pondball said:


> vimwiz said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I use HP5 as my main B&W film, pushes/pulls well from ISO 100-800, and easy to develop at home. Tbf if you have a film scanner you can develop with no space in i.e. a kitchen (darkness just for loading, or use a bag)
> ...




Yeah Ilford film and supplies is very common here in the UK, HP5 is still probably the best widely available/easy to process/cheap b&w film.
Yeah, use a scanner, much cheaper to get started with!


----------



## jando (Mar 16, 2014)

Well I still haven't bought a camera haha, but the list is not that long anymore and I have been doing extra research, checking prices etc (pros and cons). I now have a small question about Minolta Sr-1's lens or maybe just lenses in general. The picutre below was taken with a 50mm Rokkor f/1.4 And I wanted to ask if I were to get the body with a 55mm lens, let's say f/1.8. How different would the image look? Or if I got a 50mm f/1.7? Just curious. Had a hard time understanding when reading articles so I thought I'd just ask as everyone's very helpful.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 17, 2014)

I vote Rokkor 50 1.7.




Someone's pride and joy no more by longm1985, on Flickr

50 1.7 Rokkor-X, XG-SE body, testing out the in-camera metering.


----------



## jando (Mar 17, 2014)

I see! But the thing is I'm wondering how different the picture would've looked if it was taken with rokkor 50mm 1.7 or 55mm 1.8 (examples) ?


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 17, 2014)

Now THAT I can't help much. Here's my theory, and I'm not being sarcastic: why not try them both?


----------



## jando (Mar 18, 2014)

hm, well I wish I could _try_ them if anyone I know had them or if I felt like spending more, but I'm trying to get the best deal so getting 2 lenses is a bit too much for me (at least now) haha. 

Well I guess if I am going to get the Minolta Sr-1 (because as I said at this point I still have a list of cameras) I'll just have to take a risk with I can get or maybe find a 50mm 1.4 (the lens that the photograph was taken with so I get the same results).


----------



## timor (Mar 18, 2014)

jando said:


> I see! But the thing is I'm wondering how different the picture would've looked if it was taken with rokkor 50mm 1.7 or 55mm 1.8 (examples) ?


 I think you guys are just walking in a circle. There is a big advantage to Minolta manual Rokkors. They are all very good and nowadays very cheap as they don't fit any DSLR. I know, they can be adopted on mirrorless, but that's always is a shooting with telephoto lenses. My point is I was buying those lenses in bunches for a few bucks. Only 20 mm was little more, but Vivitar Series 1 19-35 brand new, in sealed box, only $40. There is a lot of third party lenses to.
There will be no difference in image characteristics from any of that lenses accept little different view angle (50/1.7 55/1.8). Not until you print real large. I would say; go with 50/1.7 as it is more modern design of optics and coatings. Everything with MD in the name should be better. Should be.


----------



## jando (Mar 18, 2014)

Well as you both suggest the 50mm 1.7 I might get that! (if I'll choose the minolta). But timor did you mean there's no difference between all three lenses 50mm 1.7 , 55mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 (with which the photograph that I added a page before was taken)? Or just the 50mm 1.7 , 55mm 1.8? Because I'm more concerned about getting a different lens than the the picture was taken with and getting completely different results.


----------



## timor (Mar 18, 2014)

jando said:


> But timor did you mean there's no difference between all three lenses 50mm 1.7 , 55mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 (with which the photograph that I added a page before was taken)? Or just the 50mm 1.7 , 55mm 1.8? Because I'm more concerned about getting a different lens than the the picture was taken with and getting completely different results.


Look of a photograph is more dependent on film and processing used. This lenses you are listing are very close to each other in performance. Off course you can count, that 1.4 lens should be better, than 1.8. But honestly, until you print above 16x20 you will see no difference.
More about Rokkors please read here:
The Rokkor Files - Minolta Lens Reviews
The Rokkor Files - Ultimate Normal Lens Challenge

 I got your messages. 4 or 5 of them. That's OK. I have trouble with this TPF's SMS to.


----------

