# I'm here To Learn



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

*Warning: Long read ahead...*

I'm a 22 year old complete beginner and for a long time now i have been wanting to learn photography and how to become a real photography.

The problem is I have no idea where to begin at all. I literally have no knowledge of the type of camera shots, terms & phrases, nada. The only thing I kinda know is a wide shot and even then I don't fully understand the concept of that. The realization of how much I don't know and how much there is to learn is honestly intimidating/overwhelming but I can't let that stop me. 

I've already decided that I'm going to use a film camera and there's no convincing me. All the photos that I love are on film plus it's the original way. And it just looks better.

I have my eyes on two films cameras that are within my budget right now and I want you guys to help me choose...

*The Argus C3 Brick *

I can get this right now for $40







*The Yashica FX3*

I can get this right now for $50






Which one do you guys think I  should get?

I decided to go with these two before I save up for a Nikon FM because they are in my budget right now. And because I've learned the hard way with other things that it doesn't matter if you have the latest and greatest if you don't know how to do ****.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 6, 2015)

Welcome to the site and congrats on your decision to pursue photography.

I could not give you an opinion one way or another about these two cameras, but I will ask you one question.

You said that the FM isn't in your budget now, so have you thought about the expense of film and developing and scanning them to digital (if that is what you want to do with them)?

I'm not trying to talk you out of a film camera, I have two. I just thought I would bring this to your attention. (note: you can make digital photos look like they were film photos.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

ronlane said:


> Welcome to the site and congrats on your decision to pursue photography.
> 
> I could not give you an opinion one way or another about these two cameras, but I will ask you one question.
> 
> ...



Yes I have fully considered the cost of all of that. The FM isn't in my budget because I don't have $450+ to spend. Even if I did I wouldn't cause like I said before, having the best & priciest doesn't mean jack **** if you don't know how to do anything. You just end up getting frustrated and not using the equipment anyways.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 6, 2015)

Well if it were me I would buy the one that works.  Buying a used camera is like buying a used car.  Look them over for condition, check them over for functionality.  Buy the one that is in the best shape.


----------



## dennybeall (Aug 6, 2015)

I'd go with the Yashica because I like the layout of the controls better.


----------



## Designer (Aug 6, 2015)

May Baby said:


> The problem is I have no idea where to begin at all. I literally have no knowledge of the type of camera shots, terms & phrases, nada.


Learn the art first.  That is the hardest to learn.  The camera technology can be learned fairly easily, but if you don't know what makes a good composition, then it does't matter about the camera.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> I'd go with the Yashica because I like the layout of the controls better.



Can you explain why you like the layout better? I was thinking the same thing but the Argus is a nice vintage camera and I googled how photos taken with it looks and I really liked them. I'm gonna see how photos taken with the Yashica looks shortly. 

Also do you think any type of film will work in these old cameras or will they need something special? 



Designer said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is I have no idea where to begin at all. I literally have no knowledge of the type of camera shots, terms & phrases, nada.
> ...



Can you lead me in the right direction of learning the art?


----------



## ronlane (Aug 6, 2015)

May Baby said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go with the Yashica because I like the layout of the controls better.
> ...



1) It's the photographer not the camera that takes photos.
2) There is a ton of information on this site, plus you can use sites like youtube, google, kelbyone, creative live.com and Cambridge in Colour.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 6, 2015)

I'm not familiar with Yashica and an SLR with a good lens would probably give you more options long term - but it depends on condition. Looks like it's been taped up, and I use cameras that looked like I've dragged them around for years, but if it's beat up I'd make sure it's in good working condition. I'm not sure from the looks of it if it's even worth 50 bucks but I'm not up on the current value.

The brick probably wouldn't be a bad choice either. I don't have one but I use other rangefinders. I have different expectations using a basic viewfinder with not many settings, compared to using an SLR, or a rangefinder. I use them in different ways, and agree it takes learning how to use a particular type camera to get good results.

I'd suggest you try running a roll of film thru whatever you get and write down what you do, so later you can see what worked or what didn't.

You can find the instruction manual for just about any film camera on Mike Butkus' website Free camera instruction manuals camera instructions free film camera user guide camera manual camera instruction manuals Canon camera manual Nikon camera manual Ricoh camera manuals Sears Camera Manuals camera instruction manual replacement cam . (Good grief that came up long on here!)

You might want to look at Film Photography Project An Internet Radio Show On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide , they have videos, a Flickr discussion group, do a podcast, and are a little wacky.


----------



## Designer (Aug 6, 2015)

May Baby said:


> Can you lead me in the right direction of learning the art?


Oh, man!  You're not wanting much, are you?

Seriously, put the camera down and start learning about art.  Composition, terminology, history, etc.  Learn as much as you can about art in general.  Borrow books from your local library, take a class in art history, learn to draw, read about art in photography, learn about light and how light renders a scene.

Then when you pick up a camera, you should know what makes a good photograph.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

ronlane said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > dennybeall said:
> ...





vintagesnaps said:


> I'm not familiar with Yashica and an SLR with a good lens would probably give you more options long term - but it depends on condition. Looks like it's been taped up, and I use cameras that looked like I've dragged them around for years, but if it's beat up I'd make sure it's in good working condition. I'm not sure from the looks of it if it's even worth 50 bucks but I'm not up on the current value.
> 
> The brick probably wouldn't be a bad choice either. I don't have one but I use other rangefinders. I have different expectations using a basic viewfinder with not many settings, compared to using an SLR, or a rangefinder. I use them in different ways, and agree it takes learning how to use a particular type camera to get good results.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much both of you. Am definitely going to look into everything.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2015)

I owneed a Yahica FX-3 and 50mm lens back in the 1981-1984 era! I've owned two C-4 "bricks"...the brick is crude and awkward...left-hand knob advance, manually cocking shutter, weak rangefinder system, slow top shutter speeds...it's 1938 technology. It has no light meter. The Yashica looks absolutely thrashed on. and is in NO WAY worth $50. Whoever is selling it for $50 is ripping you off. Seriously. It once was a nice, match-diode camera, but it's really not worth $50 in today's depressed 35mm film SLR market. A nice AF Nikon that's 15 to 20 years newer can be had for the same price.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 6, 2015)

Honestly, if it were me? Ok, I realize I'll probably be run out of town on a rail for this, but my advice would be to buy a dirt cheap, old used DSLR (yes,, digital SLR) first.

Look for something like an old D50 or something in that range, just some dirt cheap digital SLR. Learn on it first. Figure out the exposure triangle, take hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of photos to see how ISO, shutter speed and aperture settings affect your end results.

Then get rid of the DSLR an buy a vintage film camera if that is what your heart truly desires. I would be willing to bet you'll save 2-3 times as much in film and developing costs that way figuring out the basics than what you spend on a dirt cheap used D50 or something similar.

Hey, just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2015)

My local pawn shot had an IMMACULATE Nikon D40 last month, for $99 body only. Slap a cheap lens on there and BOOM.

FILM is $5 to $9 per roll. Developing and printing is $10.99 to $14.99 per roll.

I bought a 6-megapixel d-slr a few years ago, and shot $75,000 worth of pictures with it at $5.99 per roll of Ektachrome slide film and $7.99 developing...on a Fuji S2 Pro 6-MP d-slr camera that in 2002 cost me $2,400. Today, the SAME quality of SLR camera can be had in a $349 Nikon 3xxx refurb....or the same 6-million-pixel Nikon D40.

Learning on film makes no sense at all. Not to me. Not to most people.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

Hmmm 

I see you guys think that buying either of those cameras are a bad idea cause they are a little beat up but I'm not sure if I'll find much better. Here are the ads for both...

Vintage Argus C3 Brick 50MM Film Rangefinder Camera w Leather Case

Yashica FX3 35 mm SLR Film Camera with 50 mm Lens

But tell me what you guys think of this Yashica Dental-Eye 2 and Canon Eos

Yashica Dental-Eye II 35mm Camera

Canon EOS Film camera


----------



## table1349 (Aug 6, 2015)

Well like most newbies you didn't list you location in your profile.  If you have a brick and mortar store anywhere near you that would be an excellent place to go looking.  Usually a good place to get older film gear at good prices.  Plus any decent brick and mortar will have completely checked their used film stuff out and either make sure it is in good working order or will let you know if there is some issue with it.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well like most newbies you didn't list you location in your profile.  If you have a brick and mortar store anywhere near you that would be an excellent place to go looking.  Usually a good place to get older film gear at good prices.



My bad, I'm in NYC.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 6, 2015)

Ought to be at least one or two brick and mortars in that town.


----------



## dennybeall (Aug 6, 2015)

If you consider your first 500 pictures:
-- film - 500 shots = 25 rolls @ 15$(buy film & develop it) = $375 + $50 camera = $425 and toss out 35% of the pictures.
-- digital 500 shots = $0 + $425 Camera w/lens  - next 500 shots = $0 = Next 500 shots = $0 etc.

Can you tell I'm 100% digital now after many years with film.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 6, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> If you consider your first 500 pictures:
> -- film - 500 shots = 25 rolls @ 15$(buy film & develop it) = $375 + $50 camera = $425 and toss out 35% of the pictures.
> -- digital 500 shots = $0 + $425 Camera w/lens  - next 500 shots = $0 = Next 500 shots = $0 etc.
> 
> Can you tell I'm 100% digital now after many years with film.









Ehh, still gotta go with my heart.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 6, 2015)

I'd take opinions into consideration but do what works for you. It's not like eventually you can't have both; I have a digital camera that works with lenses that I use with film rangefinders.

Seeing more pictures of that Yashica didn't exactly help it any. Looks like it should be thrift store bound (if even that). The Argus maybe, I don't know; pricing where you live for many things is probably higher than a lot of places but those are pretty common. On Craigslist people can describe an item any way they want but if the thing doesn't work you're out the money.

You're in NYC - go over to Adorama, or try B&H - both reputable, both sell used and have vintage film cameras. Or try KEH online, I've even bought their bargain condition and it may not be as pretty but works fine.


----------



## wfooshee (Aug 6, 2015)

I gotta say go with digital, too. I'm 58 years old, have been shooting since 1980, so I grew up with film. Comparing what I went through to learn photography "back in the day," I would have KILLED to have some way to just toss the experimental shots that didn't work, without having to pay anything for them.

I have a Nikon F4 that I gave less than 200 dollars for, and it's functionally perfect. It shows wear, the labeling on some buttons is worn, things like that, but it's an incredible camera. If you HAVE to have a film camera, an F4 or an F100 would be a great option, about a thousand times more camera than anything you've listed for only 2 or 3 times the money.

Going back to FD-mount Canons might be an option, too. A T90, the most advanced pre-autofocus camera Canon made, is about a hunnert bucks these days, and Canon FD lenses are cheap, too. Probably cheaper than Nikon's legacy glass, because Nikon's legacy glass is still useful on Nikon's modern cameras.

The whole tone of your first post is "This is what I'd like but the funds aren't happening, gotta do it on the cheap!" You are NOT going to save money shooting film!!!!! Not gonna happen!!! A C-note for film and processing for every 4 rolls? And you could shoot four rolls in an hour's walk through a city, easily! You haven't spent money on scanning, yet, either, if you want to scan the images for archiving, uploading, or posting. Film scanners (that work) are $$$EXPENSIVE$$$. Scanning film with the adapters on flat-bed glass scanners absolutely sucks.

The other prominent tone in your first post is, "I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but dammit I wanna shoot film!" It's because you don't know what's in store for yourself that you ought to pay attention to those "older and wiser" folks when they say start digitally. There's no lack of romance or art in shooting digital images! You have INSTANT feedback on your shots. You try something and you know right away if it worked or not, rather than 2 days or 2 weeks later, depending on where you have to take or send your film to be processed (by which time you've forgotten everything you did, probably.) Film is fun to shoot, and the old cameras are a joy to hold and operate, but when you're new, neither of those statements will be true. You will be frustrated, discouraged; you will expect the shots to come back one way and when you see them you'll think your film was mixed up with someone else's at the lab, it'll be so far off what you thought you did. Maybe two months, six at the outside, you'll put it all away and never look at it again.

Get an older digital SLR for a hundred fifty bucks somewhere. As you can afford it, buy lenses. Eventually upgrade the camera - your lenses will still fit it if you stay in the brand. And you won't have ANY per-shot continuing expense. Why should you spend the better part of a dollar _EVERY TIME YOU PRESS THE SHUTTER BUTTON _when you (by own admission) don't know what you're doing???!?!?!?!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 6, 2015)

I'm thinking my point may have been missed.  I'm not telling you not to shoot film.  What I am telling you is that you will be doing yourself a huge, huge favor by getting an old DSLR first and using it to master the basics.

Ok, when you shoot film you take a shot.  Then you take another, and another - eventually you use up the whole roll.  Then you go and have it developed.  Then you see what the end results are, usually weeks after the fact.  Your not going to remember what camera settings you used unless you write them down for every single shot.  Even then you probably won't remember too many details about your shooting situation, etc.. unless you took copious notes.

Now,take that same shot with a low end DSLR - you can take it home and view the results on your monitor that night.  Your going to remember a lot more about your shooting situation, and as a huge bonus all of your camera settings are recorded in the pictures EXIF data.

So you can look back through those shots and see, this was my shutter speed. This was my ISO.  This was my aperture setting.  You can compare that to similar shots with different settings.  You can see the effect those settings have.  You can experiment and learn at an exponentially faster rate.

So get the DSLR.  Experiment.  Learn.  Figure out the exposure triangle.   Metering.  How various conditions affect your shot.  Then, once you have the photography basics mastered, then if you feel the desire to shoot film get a vintage camera.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 6, 2015)

Nikon D50 ,$89 in Excellent condition, with battery and charger. HAS built-in focusing motor inside the camera body...NIKON D50 6.1 M P DIGITAL CAMERA BODY - KEH Camera

That FX-3 body's covering looks molded and THRASHED....utterly thrashed. The seller is a gold and silver pawn shop...it's a junker, priced at $50. The Argus C-3 is 60 years old. Looking at the case, I would say it's been used a LOT. The viewfinder and rangefinder are likely cloudy--from the tanning agents in the_ neverready case_ leeching out the tanning products since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president...

KEH.com has newer, better Nikon autofocus bodies for $35-$50. The FX-3 was the cheapest 35mm SLR I could afford the summer I got out of high school...$50 for it today with the stock f/1.9 50mm lens *in that condition* is highway ROBBERY. I bought a newer, BETTER Canon EOS Rebel XT for $29 at Goodwill with a Sigma 70-210mm AF zoom lens...which is about what it's worth, $29 with a telephoto zoom lens. The Rebel you have from CL at $35 is an okay deal, but within a week you'll spend the price of it for 72 clicks of film and developing...

The batteries for the Rebel are $7 each.

I understand the romance of film, as misguided as it is.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 7, 2015)

I learned shooting film; so did plenty of other people. You don't need to use a digital camera starting out (you can but you don't need to); you don't need to see immediately what you did, you need to learn to see what you're looking at.

You need to learn how to frame shots; you could do that with a midcentury viewfinder w/no glass in it, or cut a rectangle out of piece of cardboard (til you get a camera) - just learn how to frame what you see and what you want in your picture. You can practice without film in the camera. Learn how to move around and change your vantage point. Learn and understand how cameras work. Learn how to get a proper exposure.

I can get a good film photo, or a good digital photo, or a good Polaroid. I've gotten some of each accepted into juried exhibits; just shipped one across country, this time a digital image. Last time it was a Polaroid. Good is good.

I'd suggest taking some time to keep looking into what camera you'd like that fits in your budget for now and go from there.


And taking notes is not just a way to refer back to something, but the act of writing something down helps remember it (metamemory).


----------



## dcbear78 (Aug 7, 2015)

I couldn't imagine learning on film. Digital makes it so much easier to learn on. And cheaper. You will most definitely get better faster in digital. I'm now picking up film cameras for my own benefit now I know how to take photos. 

But if you must.... 

Check out Pentax cameras. There are plenty around but they are slowly increasing in price. Something like an ME Super would be good with its semi auto mode.


----------



## vfotog (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> *Warning: Long read ahead...*
> 
> I'm a 22 year old complete beginner and for a long time now i have been wanting to learn photography and how to become a real photography.
> 
> ...



you've been given a lot of good advice here, but I suspect you aren't hearing it. Back in the day when I managed camera stores, I helped hundreds of students buy their first film cameras. I wouldn't pay $10 for either of these cameras. But I don't think you should buy ANY camera until you do some reading first. Go to the LIBRARY or read online; there are thousands of books on film photography. If you think you like the photographs these cameras take, then you don't understand how the cameras work. It is the result of the photographer, not the camera. Film cameras, especially old ones, are nothing like digital in that any idiot can take a technically passable image with a digital camera. With a film camera you have to learn about film speeds, shutter speeds, f stops, depth of field, etc etc Once you have a grasp on how film photography works, and you are still interested, then you should start looking for a camera. Really popular student cameras back then were the Pentax k1000 and the Canon AE-1P. They were cheap, sturdy and had all the basics. I just looked on eBay and saw dozens of decent to mint cameras of these models in the price range you are looking at. If you want to go more modern and go autofocus, the film camera that was my favorite of all the ones I ever owned (YMMV) was a Canon A2E. You can find that on eBay with a lens VERY inexpensively too.

While we are talking dollars, I have to reinforce what the others here have said about money. Once you have a digital, it's really cheap to shoot as many images as you want. With film, you have to buy the film. C-41, E6, B+W? Selections are limited now. You have to make sure you've loaded the camera properly or you won't have any images. You can't check the images while in the camera; you have to wait until the film is processed. So while you are learning, expect to go through a lot of film while making mistakes. Then you have to find a place that will develop your film. Hopefully you'll find someplace near, but you may have to send it out. Either way, it'll probably be days before you get it back. The instant gratification of digital is absolutely gone. But with your budget issues, understand that with digital, you can see your images for free. With film, you pay for the film. You pay for the processing. You pay for either prints or a proof sheet and then prints. And while you are on the learning curve, you are paying for a lot of stuff that will really suck. 

Instead of film, you can always buy an earlier model digital camera, (Canon 10D, 20D, etc) and you won't pay a lot, shoot manual, and make your mistakes for free while you are learning. And  if you still love photography, then invest in a film camera.


----------



## Designer (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> Ehh, still gotta go with my heart.


Go for it!  Yes, I learned on film.  

I agree with Derrel's post about finding a better deal.  Film cameras are not that expensive, and most of them still work.  You just need to keep looking.


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> Yes I have fully considered the cost of all of that. The FM isn't in my budget because I don't have $450+ to spend.



$450?  That's (very) high for any 35mm film camera.  You can pick up an FM from Keh.com in "excellent" condition for about $150 -- if that was what you really wanted.  There is a vast number of 35mm film cameras that are less than $100 in "excellent" condition.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 7, 2015)

There have been people who have posted images from their first roll of film and they turned out pretty good, they seem to have gotten decent photos in 24 shots (or maybe 36). Of course how much preparation or learning may have gone into it I don't know. I think it's quality not quantity, it's not necessarily hard it just takes learning what to do.

I tried pottery, took a class which was fun, but throwing a pot on a wheel is hard! lol Like a lot of things it would take liking it enough to stay with it, have a knack for it, keep practicing, etc. etc. I didn't like it _that_ much. (And wasn't that good at it either!)

Your original choice of a Nikon might have been a good option if you find a better priced one. Then you could have lenses that would work with a digital camera in the future. Which - is not free!! lol


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2015)

I think if you are on a budget, and you want to learn, that film is a "very bad idea".

Unlike when a dinosaur like me started, a "very small investment" will get you a phenomenal camera and infinitely reusable film.  What is a "very small investment"?  Well film is going to run you $20 a roll bought, shipped, developed and printed.  if you shoot only one roll a week (and I used to shoot 3-4 rolls a DAY when learning),with the right $200 starter camera you are ahead on cost in less than 6 months.

So _I_ would suggest a used LX5 or G12 for around $200, and the Grimm book basic book of photography for $20.

Either of those digital camera will let you learn exposure, aperture, shutter, film speed (iso), focus, depth of field (somewhat), composition, etc.  Plus, you can literally shoot 10 rolls a DAY and then go home and review and STUDY what you've done IMMEDIATELY, rather than waiting a week to get your film back and then try to remember exactly WHY you took 3 frame of the dog and what you were trying to accomplish.

I love film  and mourn it's loss, and I truly hope you eventually come to film as an artist.  However, there is a much better way to learn the basics of the art.

Just my honest advice.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 7, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> I gotta say go with digital, too. I'm 58 years old, have been shooting since 1980, so I grew up with film. Comparing what I went through to learn photography "back in the day," I would have KILLED to have some way to just toss the experimental shots that didn't work, without having to pay anything for them.
> 
> I have a Nikon F4 that I gave less than 200 dollars for, and it's functionally perfect. It shows wear, the labeling on some buttons is worn, things like that, but it's an incredible camera. If you HAVE to have a film camera, an F4 or an F100 would be a great option, about a thousand times more camera than anything you've listed for only 2 or 3 times the money.
> 
> ...





robbins.photo said:


> I'm thinking my point may have been missed.  I'm not telling you not to shoot film.  What I am telling you is that you will be doing yourself a huge, huge favor by getting an old DSLR first and using it to master the basics.
> 
> Ok, when you shoot film you take a shot.  Then you take another, and another - eventually you use up the whole roll.  Then you go and have it developed.  Then you see what the end results are, usually weeks after the fact.  Your not going to remember what camera settings you used unless you write them down for every single shot.  Even then you probably won't remember too many details about your shooting situation, etc.. unless you took copious notes.
> 
> ...





Derrel said:


> Nikon D50 ,$89 in Excellent condition, with battery and charger. HAS built-in focusing motor inside the camera body...NIKON D50 6.1 M P DIGITAL CAMERA BODY - KEH Camera
> 
> That FX-3 body's covering looks molded and THRASHED....utterly thrashed. The seller is a gold and silver pawn shop...it's a junker, priced at $50. The Argus C-3 is 60 years old. Looking at the case, I would say it's been used a LOT. The viewfinder and rangefinder are likely cloudy--from the tanning agents in the_ neverready case_ leeching out the tanning products since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president...
> 
> ...





vintagesnaps said:


> I learned shooting film; so did plenty of other people. You don't need to use a digital camera starting out (you can but you don't need to); you don't need to see immediately what you did, you need to learn to see what you're looking at.
> 
> You need to learn how to frame shots; you could do that with a midcentury viewfinder w/no glass in it, or cut a rectangle out of piece of cardboard (til you get a camera) - just learn how to frame what you see and what you want in your picture. You can practice without film in the camera. Learn how to move around and change your vantage point. Learn and understand how cameras work. Learn how to get a proper exposure.
> 
> ...



Hey what's up everyone, I only quoted a few but I read all of you guys replies. But anyways...

1. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, it honestly just slipped my mind but my best friend and his sister have a non fancy digital camera that they'll let me use.

I'm still going to buy a film camera to learn on but I just wanted to let y'all know that the option is available to me so I can end up having the best of both worlds.  And honestly,  after reading what you all have said, I'm leaning more towards actually learning my basics on the digital. If nothing more than to be able to quickly upload on here for critique. 

2. Adorama's website lists that they have an Minolta X-700 for $60 on their website. I have done my research on this camera already and decided that it's what I want but only one thing is bothering me. The grade for the X-700 is E- on Adorama. 







Given the description of that grade rating, do you guys think I should go for it? Or do you think the camera will be bad and not worth the price? 

Keh has an X-700 for $65 listed as an Ex grade but I don't know how different that will be from Adorama's E- grade. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> wfooshee said:
> 
> 
> > I gotta say go with digital, too. I'm 58 years old, have been shooting since 1980, so I grew up with film. Comparing what I went through to learn photography "back in the day," I would have KILLED to have some way to just toss the experimental shots that didn't work, without having to pay anything for them.
> ...



Haven't bought used from Adorama, but I've bought more than a few used items from KEH - there rating system is pretty stringent.  Most of the stuff I've bought in EX grade or better you'd be hard pressed to tell from brand new.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 7, 2015)

I have three film cameras I could give you for free today...

using tapatalk.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 7, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > wfooshee said:
> ...



Hmmm good to know. That's a plus for KEH as of right now. 



Braineack said:


> I have three film cameras I could give you for free today...
> 
> using tapatalk.



*I'm listening...*


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 7, 2015)

That's my thinking, which ones? lol I do not need another camera, I was just looking at Adorama because I can't remember their ratings off hand and decided I need to click on sell, not buy.

Can't remember but probably from Adorama I went with E or E+, and KEH usually about the same, Ex Ex+ or LN, but I have bought bargain. The only thing now is that KEH uses I think stock photos, you aren't seeing the actual camera you're buying (they used to do that but don't anymore).

Film is like $3 or so a roll, cheaper if you get expired film to experiment with. If you want Portra or specialty films it's more but even a 5 pack of Portra is like $30. Try FPP, they sometimes have specials; a 9 roll sampler B&W or a 6 roll color film sampler is around $30.

Developing was about 10 bucks a roll from The Darkroom (San Clemente) but it went up some, more if you want hi res scans or prints etc. Or try Dwayne's (Kansas) or Blue Moon Camera (Portland). Or people develop their own B&W and now there are actually kits to do color (but I don't know how good they are). 

There's no need to go out and shoot a lot of rolls at one time, try taking pictures when going someplace or doing something where there will likely be something worth photographing. Shoot one roll, get it developed then go from there, take time to learn what you're doing. It takes some time either way, it did for me going from film to learning digital (I didn't give up film, just added a digital camera) and Polaroids, and alt. processes.


Now you see what happens when you ask a simple question. Or a longer question! lol


----------



## vfotog (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> wfooshee said:
> 
> 
> > I gotta say go with digital, too. I'm 58 years old, have been shooting since 1980, so I grew up with film. Comparing what I went through to learn photography "back in the day," I would have KILLED to have some way to just toss the experimental shots that didn't work, without having to pay anything for them.
> ...



either would be fine. I learned on a Minolta-X370, the 700 would be fine. A much better option than the original two you posted.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 7, 2015)

vfotog said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > wfooshee said:
> ...



You really think so? I guess I'll take your word for it. And I really don't know what I was thinking with those first two cameras. 

Since you learned on the X-370 would you mind giving me some first hand tips when I buy the X-700?


----------



## vfotog (Aug 7, 2015)

May Baby said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > May Baby said:
> ...



if you post them here, I'm sure you'll get a lot of help. I'll do what I can too.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm buying my X-700 tomorrow. Does anyone have any lens recommendations? I have $100, the camera body is going to cost $60-$65 so the most I can afford is something 30-$40. I want to at least be able to buy two rolls of film.

Should I get a 28-70mm lens first? Or should I get something that's 70-200mm?

I'm also open to donations haha.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2015)

LUCKY FOR YOU, the Minolta manual focus lens mount is a dead mount...there are no new lenses being made in the mount, and no new bodies, and Minolta is out of the camera business entirely, so...the bodies and lenses turn up at Goodwill and Salvation Army, and in thousands of pawn shops across the world. The X-370- and X-700 were pretty good sellers for Minolta, and many were sold with 50mm lenses, or 35-70mm zooms; as far as what you will likely find on the pawnshop-level, it would be mostly inexpensive zooms like 35-70mm f/3.5~5.6, stuff like that...smallish, fairly compact zoom lenses, many in "store" brands, mostly manufactured by small Japanese lens makers and re-badged. Quantaray, Rokinon, Asanuma, and other names you've probably never heard of. There are often 70-200 or 70-210, and similar lenses, roughly 3x ratio tele-zooms, with f/3.5 to f/3.8 maximum apertures, sometimes f/4, available very cheaply, like $15 or so from pawn shops. These lenses were CHEAP when sold initially, like $79 or $59.

I would suggest that the 35-70mm lens is the best buy, and the most-useful with a 35mm film SLR. Look at KEH.com and Adorama, places with large used lens inventories. If you go to pawn shops, let the store management know that YOU KNOW that Minolta lenses are "dead mount"..and that over $20 for almost ANY non-Minolta lens is too much money to pay. if you notice, the vast majority of pawnshop lenses are dusty,and have sat inside the box or case for 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 years, and have not sold.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> LUCKY FOR YOU, the Minolta manual focus lens mount is a dead mount...there are no new lenses being made in the mount, and no new bodies, and Minolta is out of the camera business entirely, so...the bodies and lenses turn up at Goodwill and Salvation Army, and in thousands of pawn shops across the world. The X-370- and X-700 were pretty good sellers for Minolta, and many were sold with 50mm lenses, or 35-70mm zooms; as far as what you will likely find on the pawnshop-level, it would be mostly inexpensive zooms like 35-70mm f/3.5~5.6, stuff like that...smallish, fairly compact zoom lenses, many in "store" brands, mostly manufactured by small Japanese lens makers and re-badged. Quantaray, Rokinon, Asanuma, and other names you've probably never heard of. There are often 70-200 or 70-210, and similar lenses, roughly 3x ratio tele-zooms, with f/3.5 to f/3.8 maximum apertures, sometimes f/4, available very cheaply, like $15 or so from pawn shops. These lenses were CHEAP when sold initially, like $79 or $59.
> 
> I would suggest that the 35-70mm lens is the best buy, and the most-useful with a 35mm film SLR. Look at KEH.com and Adorama, places with large used lens inventories. If you go to pawn shops, let the store management know that YOU KNOW that Minolta lenses are "dead mount"..and that over $20 for almost ANY non-Minolta lens is too much money to pay. if you notice, the vast majority of pawnshop lenses are dusty,and have sat inside the box or case for 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 years, and have not sold.



Great advice, thank you! 

I was planning on going with this since it's ready available and I can be sure of quality...

Used Tokina Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f 3.5-4.5 SZX270M

But now you've got me wanting to go on a manhunt to pawn shops around the city. It's definitely something I'm going to do.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2015)

Yeah...see, there you go...a "name brand" third party lens, Tokina, and it's a 28-70mm, so you have wide, semi-wide, normal, and short telephoto all in one lens that's $34.95. So, you end up with about a $100 Minolta 35mm SLR kit.


----------



## Designer (Aug 8, 2015)

If you don't pay ENOUGH then you're not serious.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Yeah...see, there you go...a "name brand" third party lens, Tokina, and it's a 28-70mm, so you have wide, semi-wide, normal, and short telephoto all in one lens that's $34.95. *So, you end up with about a $100 Minolta 35mm SLR kit.*







Designer said:


> If you don't pay ENOUGH then you're not serious.



Jesus Designer you don't let me off easy lol.

But nah I definitely understand where you're coming from. It's just that I'm so eager to jump in this and get started. My budget is my budget and I'm just trying to get the best within that budget.


----------



## limr (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm late to the party but am going to comment anyway.

Things I concede: It is more convenient to shoot digital because you're not paying for each shot and you get instant feedback. It's also true that film developing costs can add up.

BUT...I think learning on film can just mean a much steeper learning curve because you are motivated to learn faster (so you don't waste money) and so you pay closer attention. You'll still make mistakes, of course, but because those mistakes cost you, it might mean that you learn your lesson faster and are less likely to make that same mistake again. As for the cost, I notice many people add in the cost of printing, and that certainly drives the cost up. However, unless you are going to wet print the images yourself in a darkroom, then chances are you will be getting the negatives scanned. If you are, why bother with the prints? Just have them scanned and view them on a computer. That way, if you do want prints, you have a chance to print only the ones you want. This cuts down on the cost. You might also want to consider finding some money to buy a film scanner. It's more money up front but it will save you money in the long run because then you're paying a lab for develop only, not scanning, and the developing itself is not bad. You're in NYC so you've still got a lot of local options without having to send it out. 

KEH is a pretty solid place to get used gear. Even the stuff rated "Bargain" is usually very good quality. And if you ever do have a problem, their customer service seems to easy to deal with.

Use the tools that you need to help you learn. You are the one who knows how you learn, so listen to yourself. Sometimes it does help to take a few test shots with digital, but that doesn't mean it's going to be too difficult or a mistake to do a lot of beginner work on film. The first few rolls might be disappointing, but the shots that do come out well are going to be *so* exciting, and that right there is going to be your motivation to keep going. 

There is a Film Photography forum here in case you haven't found it yet. When you have questions, let us know and we'll help you out! 
Photography Forum


----------



## May Baby (Aug 8, 2015)

limr said:


> I'm late to the party but am going to comment anyway.
> 
> Things I concede: It is more convenient to shoot digital because you're not paying for each shot and you get instant feedback. It's also true that film developing costs can add up.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much. 

And you read my mind about just scanning the negatives. The place I plan on going to will put them on a CD for just a few bucks more.  And I'm definitely going to invest in my own scanner when I get the money for it. Was already checking some out and it seems like a top quality one will run you about  $250+.

And I will def be in the film photography forum soon.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 8, 2015)

Tell me, what do you guys think of this?...

Minolta X-700 Camera

Need some feedback by the afternoon.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 9, 2015)

I'm not that familiar with Minolta, but the ad makes me think the seller may not know that much about cameras - it doesn't describe if/how well the camera works and instead lists all these filters, etc. (which you don't really need necessarily but maybe the seller thinks that sweetens the deal??).

I'd want to know it was used/tested with film and I'd want a good lens (a Minolta 50mm might be, I don't know about the Vivitar).


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> I'm not that familiar with Minolta, but the ad makes me think the seller may not know that much about cameras - it doesn't describe if/how well the camera works and instead lists all these filters, etc. (which you don't really need necessarily but maybe the seller thinks that sweetens the deal??).
> 
> I'd want to know it was used/tested with film and I'd want a good lens (a Minolta 50mm might be, I don't know about the Vivitar).



I shot and email to the seller but yeah you're right.  Still most likely going to go with the body from Adorama just to be safe. 

I'd be a liar if I said I didn't want some of those lenses and that flash though. When I get a response  (lord knows when) I'm going to ask if they're willing to sell separate.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 9, 2015)

Adorama has that camera in E- condition for $60. They have a 50mm f2 also in E- for $20. They have a Rokkor 45mm f2 E- for $35.

They're open on Sundays. It shows a 49mm lens cap size if you need one of those, which you should be able to find cheap enough.


And - they have a 50mm f1.7 E- for $39. Did I say they're open on Sundays?? lol 

If I ever went to Adorama in person they'd never get me out of the place (out of the used/collectible dept. anyway).


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Adorama has that camera in E- condition for $60. They have a 50mm f2 also in E- for $20. They have a Rokkor 45mm f2 E- for $35.
> 
> They're open on Sundays. It shows a 49mm lens cap size if you need one of those, which you should be able to find cheap enough.
> 
> ...



Lol 

I would get a prime lens but since it's my first lens I want something adjustable so I can practice different shots. 

I'm just crossing my fingers and praying that the E- body will be good.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 9, 2015)

Depends on the lens; some zooms aren't so sharp. Learn to move your feet instead! lol


Uh-oh I found something... never should've stayed on there.


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2015)

vfotog said:


> X


vphotog; my post was partly intended to be sarcasm (yes, I know sarcasm never works on the internet, but sometimes I just have to try) and partly to show the OP that his intention to spend more money than he has to is ridiculous.  It's as if he cannot be realistic about what film cameras cost these days.

But at least you read it.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

I really need some quick feedback for this right now. 

Lot of Vintage cameras including Minolta x-700

Seller got back to me this morning.


----------



## limr (Aug 9, 2015)

May Baby said:


> I really need some quick feedback for this right now.
> 
> Lot of Vintage cameras including Minolta x-700
> 
> Seller got back to me this morning.



What did the seller say? Do you know more about the condition of the camera? How are the light seals? How do the shutter speeds work? What is the lens that comes with it?

Are you interested in this because it includes the Minolta and the brick? What about the other cameras in the lot? The Argus Seventy-five takes 620 film so that's a different format that you'd be getting into. And 620 isn't made anymore. Film Photography Projects respools it from 120 to 620 spools (they are slightly different sized spools, though the film is the same) or you can modify your own 120 spools, but it's fussy. If you are just getting into 35mm, it might be a while before you're read to start messing with other formats, and when you are, there are better things to start with to get into medium-format film.

I suppose if you're willing to pay the money just for the two things you're interested in and then get rid of the others, then it's not a bad deal. Just remember that the Argus Seventy five and Instamatic will get you almost no money at all if you want to resell it. Maybe $5 each? 

I dunno, I don't mean to sound discouraging or anything, but it seems like for your first camera, you want to make sure you have something that works, that is somewhat reliable, and you're more likely to find that from a known seller like Adorama or KEH than on Craigslist.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

limr said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > I really need some quick feedback for this right now.
> ...



Yeah I know.  I just got off the phone with Adorama and I'm going to pick up my camera in the next 2 hours. 

Just trying to explore every option.


----------



## limr (Aug 9, 2015)

May Baby said:


> Yeah I know.  I just got off the phone with Adorama and I'm going to pick up my camera in the next 2 hours.
> 
> Just trying to explore every option.



I get it, I'm the same way. I like to look at lots of options before I settle on something.

And don't get me wrong - if you really get into film and vintage cameras, then a lot of old cameras like that is a pretty good deal, especially if you like tinkering and will make use of the cameras. I actually have that little Argus 75 and it can be fun to shoot with sometimes. And I know some folks who love their Instamatics. But if you get it and then decide you want to either go digital, or stick with film but use new cameras, then you're left with a box of "junk" that you then have to unload somewhere, y'know?


----------



## otherprof (Aug 9, 2015)

May Baby said:


> *Warning: Long read ahead...*
> 
> I'm a 22 year old complete beginner and for a long time now i have been wanting to learn photography and how to become a real photography.
> 
> ...


I don't know about the Yashica, but the c3 makes it easy to take double exposures when you want to do so.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

otherprof said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > *Warning: Long read ahead...*
> ...



We're way past that now. 

Truth be told I'm still considering getting both of them one day. More so the Argus cause I want to see what type of vintage looks I can get out of that.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 9, 2015)

Since you want an Argus you might take a look at ShopGoodwill. Kind of a crap shoot, the cameras are as-is, usually no returns. The store that listed it may not know working condition and from the pictures you can't always tell.

I like midcentury bakelite, etc. so if I get one and it doesn't work I'll display it or tinker with it.

Was just thinking of Pacific Rim Camera, they aren't necessarily the cheapest (but have some fine cameras) but it looks like they have a bazillion C-3s in varying conditions. Good to buy from, you'd probably have it in a few days.

Pacific Rim Camera test


----------



## limr (Aug 9, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Since you want an Argus you might take a look at ShopGoodwill. Kind of a crap shoot, the cameras are as-is, usually no returns. The store that listed it may not know working condition and from the pictures you can't always tell.
> 
> I like midcentury bakelite, etc. so if I get one and it doesn't work I'll display it or tinker with it.
> 
> ...



Well, it's also true that just about every single "antiques" store (I tend more towards the junk shops rather than the "real" antiques, thus the quotation marks  ) has a C-3. It's almost a requirement. It's become a game that Buzz and I play every time we go into an antiques place (and we go into a LOT of them.) "Did you find a brick yet?" "Yeah, it's in the back corner on the 3rd shelf." There's always a brick.


----------



## wfooshee (Aug 9, 2015)

May Baby said:


> .... And you read my mind about just scanning the negatives. The place I plan on going to will put them on a CD for just a few bucks more.  And I'm definitely going to invest in my own scanner when I get the money for it. Was already checking some out and it seems like a top quality one will run you about  $250+.
> 
> And I will def be in the film photography forum soon.



Make sure the files put on the CD are high enough resolution. I sent a roll off and stated "negatives only - no prints" on the envelope the film went off in. They returned a CD with 1.5-mp files and NO negatives.The files were less than 1500 pixels on the long edge, when my camera files are almost 5000! I literally threw the package at the clerk and hit him in the face with it, then left before store security could show up. Not the best behavior, but there was NO recovering those shots! Those CD files might have been adequate for a 4 x 6 print but I don't think so, and I obviously had NO control over the scanning parameters.

Everything I said in my earlier post in this thread about losing control of the process applies to getting CDs from the processor. They, or their machine, decides how it should look.

I would very strongly recommend that you make SURE the CD files are at least 10 MP, which would be about 4000 pixels on the long edge. If they can't do that, go elsewhere.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> May Baby said:
> 
> 
> > .... And you read my mind about just scanning the negatives. The place I plan on going to will put them on a CD for just a few bucks more.  And I'm definitely going to invest in my own scanner when I get the money for it. Was already checking some out and it seems like a top quality one will run you about  $250+.
> ...



Duly noted. Although I'm a little confused so I'll reach out to you for more info when that time comes.


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> Make sure the files put on the CD are high enough resolution. I sent a roll off and stated "negatives only - no prints" on the envelope the film went off in. They returned a CD with 1.5-mp files and NO negatives.The files were less than 1500 pixels on the long edge, when my camera files are almost 5000! I literally threw the package at the clerk and hit him in the face with it, then left before store security could show up. Not the best behavior, but there was NO recovering those shots! Those CD files might have been adequate for a 4 x 6 print but I don't think so, and I obviously had NO control over the scanning parameters.


Go ahead and publish the name and address of that store.


----------



## limr (Aug 9, 2015)

I have to say that throwing a CD in someone's face was definitely an overreaction and poor behavior. 1.5MP is ample resolution to print much larger than 4x6 and even moreso considering most images these days never make it off the computer. Insisting on 10MP per file is like shooting at a fly with a shotgun.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)

*Welp here it is, my 35mm film starter kit...*

















*The glass has a lil bit of dust which kinda worries me but they say it shouldn't affect picture quality.*





















*Couple of scratches n scrapes but nothing too serious.*











*Once again, more dust on the view finder that worries me a bit.*
















*More details of the body. *































*Now the lens, a lil bit of dust and some wear but looks fine to me I guess. *































*And last, the two rolls of film I was able to afford. *







Overall I feel like it was worth $54 and perfectly matches the description of the E- grade that Adorama gave it.  Will definitely purchase from them.

Now I'm going to read the manual, play with it without film in it, and continue to read some more on beginners photography before I start to shoot.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## limr (Aug 9, 2015)

Nice! Congrats!

Don't worry about dust in the viewfinder. Doesn't affect the pictures at all. If you're worried about the dust on the inside, use a bulb blower (Amazon.com PWOW Super Blower Dust Cleaning Tools Air Pump Cleaner Squeeze-Bulb for Camera Lens UV CPL Filter CCD LCD CMOS and Other Electronic Devices Black Camera Photo Be very careful especially with the mirror. Some cleaning fluids can take the coating off, so you want to just blow it or use a gentle brush.

Now read that manual and get shooting! 

As for developing, as mentioned, you have local option in Manhattan, so you're luckier than a lot of people who have no choice but to send their film out. Wherever you go, make sure they will give you your negatives back. And please don't throw anything in anyone's face, yeah?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2015)

I'd worry more about the condition and state of repair/fitness of the foam light sealing matrial around the inner back area more than ANYTHING else...


----------



## wfooshee (Aug 9, 2015)

Designer said:


> wfooshee said:
> 
> 
> > Make sure the files put on the CD are high enough resolution. I sent a roll off and stated "negatives only - no prints" on the envelope the film went off in. They returned a CD with 1.5-mp files and NO negatives.The files were less than 1500 pixels on the long edge, when my camera files are almost 5000! I literally threw the package at the clerk and hit him in the face with it, then left before store security could show up. Not the best behavior, but there was NO recovering those shots! Those CD files might have been adequate for a 4 x 6 print but I don't think so, and I obviously had NO control over the scanning parameters.
> ...



Not sure any more. I used to use Walmart and Walgreen's pretty much interchangeably, just marking the envelope "Negatives only, no prints." I always got my negatives, ready to scan, and it was much cheaper than their useless prints. One day that package came back with the CD and double prints. The clerk told me they don't return negatives any more, just the CD. I said my instruction on the package were negatives only, and if they weren't willing to do that they should have simply returned it unprocessed, because obviously I didn't want prints. When I went to show him where I'd written the instructions I saw that the package wasn't even in my same envelope!!!!

Both locations now have a sign on the box saying they don't return negatives, so they both are _photolab non grata_ for me. I know that Walmart is not the king of photo labs, but when all you're doing is developing negatives, which is formulaic and has no judgement involved, how can they possibly screw it up? Yet they found a way!!!


----------



## May Baby (Aug 10, 2015)

Well now I've managed to get a ****ing fingerprint on my lens!











Please give me some help on to clean it cause I'm pretty sure this will end up affecting my photo quality.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 10, 2015)

I use a microfiber cloth made for lenses or eyeglasses. I try to_ not_ use it dry especially if it's dust or debris that could scratch the lens if spread around. I get cleaner made for lenses and squirt on the cloth not the lens. Or in a pinch I do what you're not supposed to do (who knew, I find out after years of doing this) - I breathe on the lens and then use the cloth. Or the tail of my Tshirt (probably very bad bad shame on me! lol).

For dust I use a soft brush made to use on a lens. In the viewfinder, I just ignore the dust spots! lol Used to looking thru/around them I guess. But I do usually carry a microfiber cloth with me, in my camera bag in case I manage to get a smear on a lens.


----------



## Designer (Aug 10, 2015)

Not as much as you imagine.  Just get some lens cleaner.  Any optometrist has the stuff.  Get a microfiber cloth (same place) and put one or two DROPS on one corner of the cloth.  Wipe from the edges toward the middle, and when all the liquid is gone, trade corners and lightly buff the lens.  

Check the rear element too.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 10, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> I use a microfiber cloth made for lenses or eyeglasses. I try to_ not_ use it dry especially if it's dust or debris that could scratch the lens if spread around. I get cleaner made for lenses and squirt on the cloth not the lens. Or in a pinch I do what you're not supposed to do (who knew, I find out after years of doing this) - I breathe on the lens and then use the cloth. Or the tail of my Tshirt (probably very bad bad shame on me! lol).
> 
> For dust I use a soft brush made to use on a lens. In the viewfinder, I just ignore the dust spots! lol Used to looking thru/around them I guess. But I do usually carry a microfiber cloth with me, in my camera bag in case I manage to get a smear on a lens.





Designer said:


> Not as much as you imagine.  Just get some lens cleaner.  Any optometrist has the stuff.  Get a microfiber cloth (same place) and put one or two DROPS on one corner of the cloth.  Wipe from the edges toward the middle, and when all the liquid is gone, trade corners and lightly buff the lens.
> 
> Check the rear element too.



Googled optometrist near me, found one that's literally like only four blocks away, called and said he'll give it to me for free.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 10, 2015)

Mine gave me some free - with my glasses! lol

Or for future reference you might try ROR (Residual Oil Remover). Sounds weird I know (and will you stop asking about things that get me looking at these websites before I end up spending some money?).

ROR Lens Cleaner Oil Reisude Remover 2 oz. Spray Bottle ROR2 

B&H has it too.


----------



## May Baby (Aug 10, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Mine gave me some free - with my glasses! lol
> 
> Or for future reference you might try ROR (Residual Oil Remover). Sounds weird I know (and will you stop asking about things that get me looking at these websites before I end up spending some money?).
> 
> ...



Lol money is meant to be spent.


----------



## vfotog (Aug 10, 2015)

May Baby said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > Mine gave me some free - with my glasses! lol
> ...



you can buy an entire camera lens cleaning kit inexpensively. even Walmart carries them. They have them as low as $5.  Opteka 10 Peice Deluxe Lens Digital Camera Cleaning Kit - Walmart.com


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2015)

HUFF of breath + clean, laundered, 100% COTTON T-shirt... lens cleaning kit...


----------



## limr (Aug 10, 2015)

A fingerprint is really not that big of a deal. I can't find the article - I saw it here on TPF so maybe someone else will remember it? - but it described the effect of varying sizes of scratches of the front element on picture quality. Basically, it wasn't until the thing was smashed up that you saw significant effects.

Now, that's not to say, 'Sure, beat the lens to hell, it makes no difference!"  Treat your lenses gently, but they're also not eggshells. I'm in the "breathe on the lens, clean it with a microfiber cloth" camp of lens cleaners. The front element can handle it, though be more careful with the rear element - scratches or dust on the rear are much more likely to show in the image - and with the mirror.


----------



## BrickHouse (Aug 12, 2015)

May Baby said:


> Googled optometrist near me, found one that's literally like only four blocks away, called and said he'll give it to me for free.


 
I'm just here to say that I appreciate your use of GIFs.


----------

