# If I were to begin 35mm film...



## eric-holmes (Mar 31, 2011)

what would be a good starter camera? There are so many different ones and I know nothing about them! What would be a good beginner camera? I have an old Argus brick camera but it is a rangefinder. I may like to have something that could meter and autofocus. I would like to stick with Nikon as that is what I currently have and then I could use my D lens with it. Suggestions anyone?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2011)

Nikon N90s is good, and cheap. Nikon N8008s is cheap, has a great viewfinder.


----------



## KVRNut (Mar 31, 2011)

Derrel reccomended two dandy cameras but to tell you the truth, if I were you, I'd pop the extra money and try a F100 as it most likely has the same types of features you have on your D90.  At least the transition from digital to film would be an easier one for you if the cameras have much the same functions as far as metering, etc. are concerned.


----------



## ann (Apr 1, 2011)

Kvnut makes a good point as does Derrel. I have both the 90s and the f100. Always used them in pure manual mode as that is how i was taught in the old days and never crossed my mind to pay any attention to the f100 and all it's feature. If i had , it would have helped when i got a d100.  Too bad, i don't have a lens to put on one as they are setting around in a camera bag someplace waiting for me to finally sell them
.


----------



## raphaelaaron (Apr 1, 2011)

35mm is so much fun. yet so pricey. prepare to take on the charges of processing. if you can, then i say go for it!

so i'd recommend a canon ae-1. it's a very simple camera, with a light meter in its simplest form. combined with some good FD lenses, and you can churn out some decent images.

it's nice because fd lenses are cheaper, as they are not compatible with canon's newer bodies for digital as opposed to nikon.

however, if you already shoot a nikon, then i'd go with their Fm2. any of their F models is good, in my opinion. 

and lately, i've been using some pentax cameras. the glass is remarkable for the price it can be had. if you were to go that route, the LX and the MX are decent choices.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 1, 2011)

I'd stick with the digital for small format.  Since you already have that in your kit you'd be reinventing the wheel in reverse.

I don''t know your financial situation but why not look to trying medium format for black and white.  Large format if you're flush.

A B&W print printed on real B&W paper is something that no digital under $10,000 can do.  And you don't even have to print them yourself as there are labs out there which provide the service, there may even be one or two to wet print your work.

A quick look around will give you an idea of people's favorite cameras and they are all good choices but one thing to be mindful of is the focal length you like best in 35mm format.  If you go with a TLR you are mostly stuck with the focal length that the camera has.   Mamiya made one that you could change out the lenses but the availability and condition of the lenses might be problematic.  Buying a Hasselblad with it's standard 80mm lens would be a great thing unless you wanted to shoot wide angle, or even long, and then were unable to afford another Zeiss lens to go with it.

Then too you should consider which style you like to shoot.  In other words could you be comfortable looking down into a waist level finder?  Most cameras that use waist levels have prisms that can be attached but they add a lot of weight to the camera and IMHO don't do as good a job in allowing critical focusing or composing as a waist level finder.

There is also the consideration of only getting 10 or 12 or 16 or 8 shots per roll.  (6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x9 respectively).  If you want to bang away you'd still need to bring your digi and a couple of cards.



Good luck with it.






P.S.  if you just have to have a small frame film camera go with the F100 (or F5 if you like).  You can always put the camera into manual and they use AA batteries which can be found anywhere cheaply.


----------



## eric-holmes (Apr 1, 2011)

raphaelaaron said:


> 35mm is so much fun. yet so pricey. prepare to take on the charges of processing. if you can, then i say go for it!
> 
> so i'd recommend a canon ae-1. it's a very simple camera, with a light meter in its simplest form. combined with some good FD lenses, and you can churn out some decent images.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it is pricey, but let pricey than medium format. It is much cheaper to have 35mm frames scanned and developed. At least in my neck of the woods it is. 



Mike_E said:


> I'd stick with the digital for small format.  Since you already have that in your kit you'd be reinventing the wheel in reverse.
> 
> I don''t know your financial situation but why not look to trying medium format for black and white.  Large format if you're flush.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that informative post. It is just too pricey for me to shoot MF.


----------



## PJL (Apr 1, 2011)

Depending on how much work with film you plan on doing, you may want to invest in a scanner that can process 35mm negatives, that way you only have to pay for developing.  If you spend $100 on one, for examples, it's paid for in 20 rolls of film or less.


----------



## eric-holmes (Apr 1, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Nikon N90s is good, and cheap. Nikon N8008s is cheap, has a great viewfinder.


 
So I have been looking into these. The prices for body alone is quite reasonable. And it appears I can use my AF-S lenses but both of mine are G lenses. This quote has me confused...





> [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]lenses work perfectly  in  Program and shutter-priority. Since they have no aperture ring, they  work, but only at their minimum aperture, in Manual and  Aperture-priority modes.[/FONT]


Does that mean that if I try to use manual then it will keep the aperture at the lowest aperture like f/22 or the widest like f/2.8?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 1, 2011)

The question that begs to be asked and that no one has yet asked is: why?

Why do you want to shoot film?


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 1, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Nikon N90s is good, and cheap. Nikon N8008s is cheap, has a great viewfinder.


 
Both good suggestions; however, I would opt for a F100 now that they're selling for only around $150 on ebay.  IMO it is the best film camera nikon ever made (next to the F6) 

If you want something more retro, a Nikon FE/FE2 would be another suggestion.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 1, 2011)

G-series lenses will default to minimum aperture in Manual and Aperture-priority, so that would be either f/16 or f/22; I thought you had a D-series lens all picked out; if you want to move into newer lenses on a film body, then the F100 would be a newer choice, more appropriate to use with G-series lenses in ALL exposure modes.

The N8008s and N90s have a more "film era" ethos than does the F100; I never liked the F100 and its newfangled feel and design...so I suggested the N90s and N8008s as affordable "beginner film bodies" for a Nikon user. If you have G-series lenses, then the earlier camera like the FM and FE series are pretty much useless, due to their inability to do much with G-series lenses. The F100 is a  little bit more than a beginner body, but since the advance of digital, prices on F100 bodies have really gone down.


----------



## eric-holmes (Apr 1, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> The question that begs to be asked and that no one has yet asked is: why?
> 
> Why do you want to shoot film?


 
Why is that a question begging to be asked?

Because I like the timeless feel of film, because I enjoy a new challenge, because I want to.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 2, 2011)

eric-holmes said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > The question that begs to be asked and that no one has yet asked is: why?
> ...


 .
In view of this answer I'd suggest something total other.  Start looking at a fully manual body and manual focus and a different brand all together.  Something that you won't cross pollinate so to speak so that you either take one or the other.

The Minolta SRT 101/201s are good performers still and are very intuitive to shoot for instance.  Again, you didn't give a price range so it's hard to point out a specific system but it sounds like you'd be happier going old school.


----------



## Alex_Holland (Apr 2, 2011)

I know it's kind of late, but I wanted to add that I own a Mamiya C220. The TLR with changeable lenses. I've got an 80mm and a 135mm set of lenses. Both are in great shape and well taken care of. I chose the TLR because I can't afford a medium format SLR, like a Bronica or a Hasselblad...Anyway, if you can stand to have those stupid bellows and something a bit more clunky, the C220 and C330 model Mamiya's are great TLR's.


----------



## Alex_Holland (Apr 2, 2011)

Also, I own an SRT-201 (Minolta). Great camera. Still a lot of good lenses for it out there too, if you're an eBay hound. I recently got a Minolta-PF 135mm 1:2.8


----------



## molested_cow (Apr 2, 2011)

Why would MF be "pricy". IMO I learn a lot shooting with MF. It forces you to be more specific on your composition and forces you to slow and think more about what you are about to shoot.


----------



## Stoogley (Apr 2, 2011)

First off, kudos to you for choosing the film path!

Not knowing what you're shooting for a DSLR, I'd say an F100 would be a nice fit as it has a similar "feel".

If you want some different then I'd suggest/second the FE or FM models if you have the D lenses.


----------



## Proteus617 (Apr 3, 2011)

eric-holmes said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > The question that begs to be asked and that no one has yet asked is: why?
> ...



Timeless feel, new challenge, and just for the hell of it.  It really sounds like you need to put a few rolls through the C3.


----------



## eric-holmes (Apr 3, 2011)

I have. The c3 has a bit of a light leak so if I don't take the roll up in one sitting then it will end up overexposing. And getting your focus with that thing is one hell of a problem. The pictures look cool, when they are in focus. But still fun none the less.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 3, 2011)

eric-holmes said:


> Why is that a question begging to be asked?
> 
> Because I like the timeless feel of film, because I enjoy a new challenge, because I want to.


 
Some people seem to think they are going to do something magical by using film, learn something totally different but they won't and film today doesn't make much sense except for personal work. Clients (mine anyway) don't want to deal with prints or transparencies.

I do love film but I don't see shooting any today if I didn't have a darkroom to do my own work in. To me, the darkroom is where the magic happens. The differences in the shooting of film vs digital are not enough to make the switch very interesting but if you're going to set up a darkroom, B&W of course as color is a bit harder with its tight temperature control, then, YES, go have a blast. And when you hold a beautiful fiber base print in your hands, you may never go back to digital except for paid jobs 

And to get started, just pick-up any cheap Nikon body that fits your lenses.


----------



## jhermes (Apr 4, 2011)

Alex_Holland said:


> Also, I own an SRT-201 (Minolta). Great camera. Still a lot of good lenses for it out there too, if you're an eBay hound. I recently got a Minolta-PF 135mm 1:2.8



I agree that the SRT-201 is a fantastic camera.  I bought one from a flea market for $15 (with a 50mm f/1.7 lens!) and some photos I just got processed from it are sharper than anything I do digitally!


----------



## Dajuan (Apr 11, 2011)

I second (third, or forth) the F100.  It's an outstanding camera, built very well and works with all your Nikon lenses.  Heck, the camera's manual mentions the SB-800, which isn't THAT old   I just left my local camera shop and they had a near mint F100 on the shelf for $229!  You might find one on Ebay for less, but there's nothing like holding one in your hands before you buy!  As already mentioned, many believe the F100 is the second best film camera Nikon has made.  A great value for the buck.


----------



## deudeu (Apr 12, 2011)

There are tones of choices. 
I think that one of the best price for buck on the 35mm would be the Yashica electro 35
It is a rangefinder, light, fast quality lens, and it can be found for next to nothing if you are a little patient.


----------

