# what camera to buy (beginner)



## CalebGGodwin (May 2, 2008)

So, I bought a decent digital camera a few months ago, nothing special, just a very compact camera. Anyway, I've been wanting for a long time to buy a 35mm (I assume) camera. Once that can take quick snapshots with great quality and good zoom. But, I don't want to spend a few grand on it. I'm not sure how much these things cost, but I'd like to learn about them before looking too much into it. So, what kind of specs should I be looking at? SLR vs. DLR, different types of mm film, lenses... etc. If anyone could help me out, I'd really appreciate it, because I would like to purchase one within the next few months. Thanks.


----------



## Overread (May 2, 2008)

Well I am no expert but here are my thoughts:
1) Both DSLR and SLR are able to get similar results with the same lens on a decent body - the big difference is that with SLR you really have to make every shot count before you press the shutter butten - every shot costs you in development. With DSLR (Digital) its much like your compact camera - you can shoot 1000 shots and only keep 10 - and it won't cost you anything to dump the others

2) SLR and DSLR cameras need more practice with to get good shots than a compact camera to start with - especially if you start playing around with the manual settings. This means that at first you might be slower and worse than your compact - but give it time and practice and you can get far better results - and far more control over how you shoot.

3) can you get to a local photography club? I ask this especially if you go down the SLR route as things such as developing the shots (I take it you are intending to have them developed at a store) need to be ironed out (ie which stores are the best and where are they) It would also give you a chance to have a try with some of the SLR kit.

4) Yoy ask what sort of films, lenses etc that you should get - to help here people really need to know what you are intending to use the camera for - wildlife, people, action (sports)


----------



## yellowjeep (May 2, 2008)

Hi Caleb, welcome. 

If you want to learn film photography, get your self a manual SLR from the 70s. The Pentax K1000 is the standard. But anything from the known makers would be good. Canon AE-1, Olympus OM series. Minolta Nikon Konica etc. Most of these can be found for little money (say $100 give or take) including a few lenses. 

For example the T3 in my sig was $80 dollars with 9 lenses. I sold 3 of them that were overlapping or that I wouldn't use for $45 so I wound up with a really nice camera outfit for $35.

That said the sky is the limit with film cameras just like digital. There are some auto focus 35mm SLRs that still sell for $500+ (Minolta Maxxum 9 or Nikon F5). It all depends on what you want to do.

One other thing. I think Passerby was telling you that because film was old technology that you shouldn't bother with it. Which is dumb. Just like the "push bike" to motor bike compassion is dumb. It is just a different way of working there is no wrong way to do it.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

Yellowjeep... you suggest I get a film camera from the 70's?? like... 1970's? lol.  I don't get it.  Also, how is a camera plus 9 lenses only like 80bucks.  I guess I just fail to understand.  If you could verify, that would be great.  Thanks... 

Oh, and I just plan on taking any type of shots.  People, scenery, close up, far away, nothing in particular.  I think it would be really cool to capture movement (like a car passing by in 5 shots... stuff like that) Taking good quality pictures (close up or far away) as fast as I can press the button.


----------



## Overread (May 3, 2008)

I think what Yellowjeep is getting at is getting hold of some older camera kit which will still work well, just that it does not have all the flashy buttens and features so that you can really have a play around with traditional photography kit before you start spending large amounts on more modern kit. The older kit (used right) can take very good shots, just that it will take you time to get used to the camera and film. 
But the skills you learn with the cheaper (remember its only cheaper because its old, not because it is bad) kit can be transfered direct to newer kit - photography is still following the same basic rules


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

so what would I be looking for when looking for a 70's-ish camera?  make, model, type, what lenses, features... as much info as possible plaease???  And where to get it.  E-Bay?


----------



## Early (May 3, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Yellowjeep... you suggest I get a film camera from the 70's?? like... 1970's? lol.  I don't get it.  Also, how is a camera plus 9 lenses only like 80bucks.  I guess I just fail to understand.  If you could verify, that would be great.  Thanks...
> 
> Oh, and I just plan on taking any type of shots.  People, scenery, close up, far away, nothing in particular.  I think it would be really cool to capture movement (like a car passing by in 5 shots... stuff like that) Taking good quality pictures (close up or far away) as fast as I can press the button.


That kind of shooting will cost you a quite bit more than $80 as you'll need at least a 3 fps motor drive, maybe even faster.  Then you're talking about a pro level.


----------



## christopher walrath (May 3, 2008)

If you hit it right, you could get a Minolta X or SR series camera, a good 28-200 MD mount zoom, a flash and bag and some film from eBay and other sources for about $250.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

Look dude... I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about...Minolta X or SR series camera, a good 28-200 MD mount zoom,  3 fps motor drive... 

how about this... 

What camera (along with motor drive to achieve a decent shooting speed), flash, film, and lens(es) should I buy, and how much SHOULD it cost me?  a 70's-ish camera is fine... but hopefully no more than 400 bucks.    I just need to know what to look for, ya know?  Thanks again.


----------



## kellylindseyphotography (May 3, 2008)

Are you looking for advice on a point and shoot?   No one here is going to be able to give you a link to exactly what YOU need.  Everyone has personal preference.

If you want a good point and shoot that can fit in your pocket check out the nikon coolpix series.  They are about 200, they're basically flat and take fine snapshots.

If your looking to be amateur, go the DSLR road and look at sometihng like the canon rebel XT (or XTi) series.  Nikon has a similar line.


----------



## Smith2688 (May 3, 2008)

kellylindseyphotography said:


> Are you looking for advice on a point and shoot?   No one here is going to be able to give you a link to exactly what YOU need.  Everyone has personal preference.
> 
> If you want a good point and shoot that can fit in your pocket check out the nikon coolpix series.  They are about 200, they're basically flat and take fine snapshots.
> 
> If your looking to be amateur, go the DSLR road and look at sometihng like the canon rebel XT (or XTi) series.  Nikon has a similar line.



He's asking about film cameras.


Do some research to find out the differences between the many, many different makes and models of cameras that use the Pentax K-mount and then find the camera that fits in your budget (probably from eBay).


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

well, I'd like to hear my question answered by yellowjeep or overread... they're actually informative.  This is my 'do research'... and I can't research something if I don't know what I'm looking for.


----------



## Overread (May 3, 2008)

ahem - no need to get personal Caleb people here are trying to help.
As for ground work research - well we can help here, but you need to tell us more to let us help you

First things first 
1) budget - you have said nothing over 400 dollars so I take it this is your upper limit of investment

2) going back to your original post - (and I am not being condesending, but trying to work out how much you do and don't know at the moment)  are you dead set on a "film" camera or are you more after a comparison bettween film and digital (by digital I don't mean compact like you have, but DSLR)

3) you have given us a few ideas as to what you want ot shoot, but are there any specifics that you want to be able to shoot? Anything that really grabs your attention that you want after? This is important for SLR and DSLR cameras as lenses for these are often "best" only for certain things.

Also - plug in some search terms into google and wander the market a little as well - that will help you to understand some responces and opinions of people here. Please understand that we can't tell you the camera to get as there are many different models and makes and combinations so what you willl get is peoples suggestions as to what you could try.


----------



## Early (May 3, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Look dude... I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about...Minolta X or SR series camera, a good 28-200 MD mount zoom,  3 fps motor drive...
> 
> how about this...
> 
> What camera (along with motor drive to achieve a decent shooting speed), flash, film, and lens(es) should I buy, and how much SHOULD it cost me?  a 70's-ish camera is fine... but hopefully no more than 400 bucks.    I just need to know what to look for, ya know?  Thanks again.


Nikon FE 2 or FMn w/MD 12 motor drive.  (3 frames per second)
Nikon FA w/MD 12 or MD 15 motor drive (3 frames per second)
Nikon FE or FM w/MD 12 
Minolta XG M or X 700 or X 570 w/ MD 1 motor drive (3 frames per second)
Canon, Pentax, Ricoh, Olympus may have similar models, but I dont know them.  Im told Ricoh is especially durable.

You also have the professional models that take bigger and faster motor drives, like the Canon F1N, Nikon F2, F3, and Pentax LX (good luck finding that one)

Those were all manual focus models.  Theres also a slew of auto focus models to choose from that are probably in better working condition that just might be cheaper.


----------



## Smith2688 (May 3, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> well, I'd like to hear my question answered by yellowjeep or overread... they're actually informative.  This is my 'do research'... and I can't research something if I don't know what I'm looking for.



Maybe if you were a little more receptive you'd realize that I did tell you what to look for.  Find any old (working) K-mount camera and you have a great base to start from with a wide range of lenses to choose from.  There are way too many K-mount cameras for me to list the ones in your price range (and the vast, vast majority of them will indeed be in your price range), so, yes, you do need to Google "pentax k mount" to find some specific models.

Hint: Wikipedia will probably have some solutions.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 3, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Yellowjeep... you suggest I get a film camera from the W's?? like... W's? Lil.  I don't get it.  Also, how is a camera plus 9 lenses only like bucks.  I guess I just fail to understand.  If you could verify, that would be great.  Thanks...
> 
> Oh, and I just plan on taking any type of shots.  People, scenery, close up, far away, nothing in particular.  I think it would be really cool to capture movement (like a car passing by in 5 shots... stuff like that) Taking good quality pictures (close up or far away) as fast as I can press the button.




Hey, Yes the camera outfit I have was $80 total. To alot of people (passerby for instance) film is archaic you will hear the term "film is dead" if you stick around long enough. This type of thinking can lead to some very nice deals on older cameras. 

For some of the stuff that you are suggesting you would like to shoot you aren't going to be happy with a full manual camera like some have recommended. Like Early said you are looking at alot more modern equipment. But that doesn't necessarily have to be expensive either. To add to Early's list I though I'd add what I am familiar with. My Minolta 700si is auto focus, 1/8000 max shutter speed and has a 3fps (frames per second. What you need to "capture motion" the way you stated) motor ect. Cost me $60 shipped (no lens, ebay) when it was new it was around 700 bucks IRC. There just isn't a huge market for pro level film SLRs anymore. Just look around on ebay and you will see what I (we) mean.


Early did put a good list together, my working knowledge is limited compared to his.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 3, 2008)

One other thing, for terms you don't understand (fps, f stop, aperture, ect) www.photonotes.com has an extensive dictionary of terms. I learned alot by just hitting the random term button over and over.

For camera models that you are unfarmiliar with www.camerapedia.org is a good place to find info on most of the models mentioned so far.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

To Overread:

1) correct... for everything (camera, lenses, motor?, etc) nothing over $400.  around $200 or less would be great.

2) No, I am no set on film, cameras.  But what I was gathering from previous information is that digital isn't (without exceeding my limit) capable of taking quick motion snapshots that are in absolute clear focus as well as the interchangeable lenses.  So, as I had put the pieces together from what I heard, I figured film (35mm) is the best way to go for great looking photos for cheap (less than $400 for equipment).  Plus, I just like the idea of using film and producing some good clear quick shooting photos.... you know, take a little pride in your work.  (by the way, if I'm wrong in my assumptions, PLEASE let me know, I just don't think digital is capable of these tasks without spending large amounts of moolah...)

3) I'm not set on any particular thing.  But I suppose some examples could help.  Honestly, I enjoy taking pictures up close (sometimes) and also of landscapes and such, as well as things like trains/tracks.  I think the whole deal where the camera is focused on one particular thing/person and everything else is almost a blur is pretty cool.... just some examples.  And I don't expect to get a camera to do all of that, it can be weak in some areas.  Heck, I'll buy another one later with a different perk if I need/want.



To Early

I'll keep those models and such in mind, I appreciate it.  Though, I gotta ask, what are the (dis)advantages of manual vs. auto focus???  3 frames a second is perfectly fine.  I don't think I'll be taking pictures of very many speeding bullets, so I'll be good with that.  Also, the motor drives, you guys talk about them as though they come separate or you can just switch them out.  Is it just that easy?

To Smith2688

So the Pentax K-mount is just a good base of a camera?  what exactly is the base? basically a camera without a flash or lens (I would think)? And how can you tell what lenses are able to fit what cameras? are most camera bases fitting with most lenses, no matter what year the base is (like if I were to get a 70's-ish model camera like YellowJeep suggested)?

To Yellowjeep

For starters, what is the difference in shutter speed (1/8000) and the motor (3fps).  Do they both just play a different role in the quickness of the snapshots?  And just to clarify... you bought a Minolta 700si with a 3fps motor for $60(shipping included)??? And that's a 'pro level SLR'???  To me, that just seems insane if it's a good camera.  What's the catch???

Honestly, I really do appreciate all the responses, as I'm learned a bit about what I'm getting myself in to.   Thanks guys, and I hope you can continue to answer my NOOB questions. Thanks x4


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 3, 2008)

Also, when looking at lenses, what should I be looking for.  Actually, could someone give me a quick run through of what they are?  Like, I see on on ebay like "camera blah blah with '28-80mm lens'"........ and "camera blah blah blah blah 35-80mm zoom lens s"  any help on these things?

Thanks once again... you guys are great, and much needed, help.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 3, 2008)

I will take a few of these and I am sure others will chime in.

When Smith said base, he meant a good foundation or starting point to learn with. With SLRs there is the "Body" (what you were talking about) Then you have lenses. And then all sort of accessories that go on from there. But in the very simplest terms: to have an SLR camera capable of producing and image you need a body and a lens.  This is why he recommend the K mount system; body and lenses are plentiful and cheap. 

Motors drives. 


			
				 PhotoNotes.org said:
			
		

> A feature of most SLR cameras these days - an internal electric motor which automatically advances the film to the next frame upon completion of an exposure. A motor-drive camera usually cannot be wound manually.
> 
> Older manual-wind SLRs could often be equipped with external power winders, which do basically the same thing.






			
				CalebGGodwin said:
			
		

> To Yellowjeep
> 
> For starters, what is the difference in shutter speed (1/8000) and the motor (3fps). Do they both just play a different role in the quickness of the snapshots? And just to clarify... you bought a Minolta 700si with a 3fps motor for $60(shipping included)??? And that's a 'pro level SLR'??? To me, that just seems insane if it's a good camera. What's the catch???



Basically shutter speed one of the factors that determines correct exposure, along with aperture and film speed.

Quick and dirty version:

Shutter speed. Time film is exposed to light.

Aperture. Determines amount of light that the lens allows to reach the film. Higher number number= less light.

Film speed (ISO). The films sensitivity to light. Higher ISO number + "faster" more sensitive film meaning it doesn't need as much light to create an image. 


FPS determines how fast you can take sequential photos. It is how may frames the motor can move in a second. 

As far as my 700si goes. Here are some reviews (keep in mind the dates relative to the prices. The 700si was introduced in '93 if i remember right.)http://www.camerareview.com/templates/reviews.cfm?camera_id=116

Pro level maybe a slight over statement, top of the consumer range is probably more accurate. My Sony DSLR is a descendent of the Minolta Maxxum line. It has the same lens mount so it was a logical choice for a AF 35mm SLR.


Like I said before, there is a very low demand for film cameras anymore. All of the "serious" people have "upgraded" to digital. Thats fine with me let them sell there equipment to me for pennies on the dollar, I really don't mind.


----------



## Tiberius47 (May 4, 2008)

Caleb, if you are new to photography, have a look at the links in my signature.  They'll give you the basics about photography.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

Wow, those people writing the reviews in Yellowjeep's link have been using that camera for years... some 6-8.  That's crazy.

Tiberius47  - I'll glance at your signature links for a bit, and will definitely give them a thorough look at once I actually get a camera and such, I'm sure they're helpful.

Question (anyone) - manual focus vs. auto focus.  What are the (dis)advantages of both? and do cameras come with the option to have both? Is choosing one over the other really a big deal? or is it just preference?

Thanks you guys.


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2008)

I don't know about the older film cameras (only a digital user myself) but mostly all modern cameras have autofocusing as an option along side manual focusing. The older film though were all manual focusing (though I can't say at what age or which models autofocusing came in or if the early autofocusing methods were worth switching to)

As for the advantages, well auto focusing is often far quicker than manual focusing (especially when you are just starting out) and its very good for tracking moving targets such as sports or birds or planes where manually it would be much harder. However autofocusing even today is not always perfect which is where manual comes into its element. A good manual focus can in many cases be much sharper than an autofocus and you also have the advantage that you can get what you want in the shot in focus rather than what the camera thinks you should have. 
In the modern (again I don't know about older kit) cameras you can select which sensors to use or let the camera autodetect which ones - often the center focus is used as that is what the camera is aimed at, but there are times when its better or desirable to use the other elements (though it should be noted that the center sensor is often the best in the camera)

Also a short word of advice - its all confusing at the start, but I would read the beginners stuff even before I got the camera. It gives you an idea of what different things are and when people compare different cameas based on capacity you will be in a better position to understand what they are comparing and also what (if any) special requirements you have are going to need in a camera


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

Thanks Overread, that's about what I was getting out of the manual vs. auto focus.  

If it's not too difficult, you guys who have been posting on my thread (yellowjeep, overread, early, smith, tiberius) and anyone else who has read kinda what I'm looking for.... could you guys just type in what YOU would get in my situation?  Base, lens, etc (because I don't know what else is involved), and a little reason as to why you would get that one.  If you want to put a few down, cool.  I would just like to research a few preferred cameras.  Again, keeping the price low-ish, and older models.

Thanks.


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Also, when looking at lenses, what should I be looking for.  Actually, could someone give me a quick run through of what they are?  Like, I see on on ebay like "camera blah blah with '28-80mm lens'"........ and "camera blah blah blah blah 35-80mm zoom lens s"  any help on these things?
> 
> Thanks once again... you guys are great, and much needed, help.



The biggest thing with lenses that you should be looking for right now is the mount, all the technical information can wait, if you buy a lens that does not fit your camera you are flat out screwed, honestly. 

Once you decide on a body, (the camera it self) find out it's make and mount, Make id usuallu is huge text on the camera someplace, that part is simple. the lens mount it used is slightly harder to find, you will need to have one of two things, a lens on it alredy or the owners manual. If you don't get a manual when you buy the camera, you can usually down load them if you need to, if you can't find one just let us know, some one is bount to know of a place or two. If you do get a lens for it with the body, the mount is usually on the inner ring of the front of the lens shown here. 

For example below you will see a Canon AE-1 camera body





Note the *FD* on the inner ring

Below you will see a Canon EOS rebel




Note the *EF-S* on the inner ring

One uses the Canon *FD* mount lens and the other uses the Canon *EF* mount lens. Despite being made by the came manufacturer the lenses are not interchangeable for the most part. FD lenses can be used on newer EF mount bodies with adapters but I know of no such adapter for the reverse, but that is beyond basics and not to be worried about at the moment. 

Make sure you know the lens mount before anything else. the rest will come as you go


 however this generally applies only to lenses made by the camera manufacturer from my experiance. I have not to this day seen a third party lens with the mount information on it.



CalebGGodwin said:


> Wow, those people writing the reviews in Yellowjeep's link have been using that camera for years... some 6-8.  That's crazy.
> 
> Tiberius47  - I'll glance at your signature links for a bit, and will definitely give them a thorough look at once I actually get a camera and such, I'm sure they're helpful.
> 
> ...



I use Manual Focus almost exclusively, I find I don't have issues with subject searching. Manual Focus is also a necessity for very lowlight situations such as night shooting and the like, Even Modern AF can not function properly in the dark. 

Manual focus is considerably harder to learn and use than Auto focus but I find the results far more consistant because I have complete control.


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2008)

Well if you are after film I can't comment as I have no understanding of it - also being in the UK I have no idea about US prices or what is a good or bad deal.
One thing I can say though is that if you are intending of going on e-bay always make sure that you deal with people with over several 1000 sales and with a rating of 98% ish = that way you a minimalising your chances of a bad product or dodgy deal. Also check the dealers location, there are many camera dealers based in Hong Kong which sell very cheaply, but you can get caught with having to pay import tax (then things are not so cheap anymore).


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Thanks Overread, that's about what I was getting out of the manual vs. auto focus.
> 
> If it's not too difficult, you guys who have been posting on my thread (yellowjeep, overread, early, smith, tiberius) and anyone else who has read kinda what I'm looking for.... could you guys just type in what YOU would get in my situation?  Base, lens, etc (because I don't know what else is involved), and a little reason as to why you would get that one.  If you want to put a few down, cool.  I would just like to research a few preferred cameras.  Again, keeping the price low-ish, and older models.
> 
> Thanks.



If you are willing to learn manual focus, the Canon AE-1 is a deisent starting point, it's not my personal preference but it's inexpencive, it can be bought on E-bay for anywhere from $20 to $100 (USD) and lenses are also inexpencive.

If you want Auto focus an EOS rebel should do fine....I have no exoperiance with modern film cameras but I figure it is a safe bet that the last Generation of film cameras will suffice. they range anywhere from $200 to $400 (USD) but lenses are going to cost a fortune.




and please read this thread


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

Being a Sony/Minolta guy I am going to say something from the Maxxum line and since my experience is limited to the 700si I'd say look for that or the 800si if you can find one. The drawback to the Minolta's is that they lack a lot of aftermarket support.

Here is a similar camera to the 700si, its newer. This is also a pretty ok lens.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Near-Mint-Minol...ryZ43493QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I would possibly look in to a Canon or Nikon, if for nothing else but wider support, but somebody else is going to have to give specifics. Looks like somebody already did.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

YellowJeep... I was looking at that camera link you gave me on ebay.  From what I read (and what very little I know) I really like it.  Though, one thing caught my attention... "*All AF SLR cameras experience a minute delay when taking pictures because the mirror must be lifted out of the optical path" *now... does that mean minute as in '60 seconds' or minute as in 'very small'.  Probably the latter, but heck, I don't know, lol.

Also, does that camera have an option to use manual focus? How could I tell.  Another also... which part makes it a manual/auto focus? is it the lens, or the base???

Ohh, and another thing I want a camera like this for is to take pictures at my friend's shows (he's in a band).  I think it'd be awesome to have some high quality shots of that kind of thing.

Here's another question, simple for you guys I'm sure...  when it comes to film cameras, how do you keep the great quality and put them onto the computer?  is that part of the development stage in which you can have them put onto a disc?  And what company/store is good for doing that sort of thing (developing film)???


Edit----------------

By the way.  Battou, I really appreciate your response, it was helpful... much.  Thanks.


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2008)

I think all SLR cameras offer manual focus as a feature. 
As for the time dely its not anything like a minute, mostly a second in time, but when you are dealing with fast shots this can be all the difference. There is a method called mirror lock-up which locks the mirror up and that removes this waiting time (something I have not tried) and it also can reduce camera shake as well - so you can get sharper shots.
Further I think all SLRs offer manual focus as a standard - more common is that some lenses won't offer autofocus in some cases, but manual is a standard.
As for hte band, considering that gigs and such are often dark places you will be after a "fast" lens - a quick read of another thread on this site (can't remember where) and someone stated that an f2.8 would be the ideal fast lens for poor lighting. Also most performances won't let photographers use flash either.
Also just a caution - remember that before one can get wonderful shots one must practice first - lots - so when you get your camera (whatever it is) get out and shoot with it and get comments on the results (forums are a good place as you get more of a chance of a good review - friends can sometimes be a little too nice at times)


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

All SLR cameras have a Mirror that must move before a picture can be taken, this is a quick snap, it is not a prolonged thing, from my experiance.

What part houses AF?

To be honest it varies, older AF cameras had AF moters in the bodies, but most modern AF SLRs it is housed in the lens.

As for putting Film imagery onto the computer all you need is a film enabled scanner, they are readilly available, price can rangnge anywhere from 80 (USD) up into the thousands. You can find them at Office supply stores, E-Bay, B&H Photo and whatnot, all you have to make sure is that it is film enabled. It will have a slide holder that holds the film negitive and a back light for scanning, if you ask a sales rep for one that is capible fo scanning negitives they should know what you mean.

I use an older Canon Dedicated scanner MSRP $1159 that I bought in new condition for just short of $200 on E-bay for mine.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 4, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> To Overread:
> 
> 1) correct... for everything (camera, lenses, motor?, etc) nothing over $400. around $200 or less would be great.
> 
> 2) No, I am no set on film, cameras. But what I was gathering from previous information is that digital isn't (without exceeding my limit) capable of taking quick motion snapshots that are in absolute clear focus as well as the interchangeable lenses.


 
FYI: in the long run, a $200 film camera will cost you more then a $500 digital, due to developing costs. You are also NOT likely to find a good, fast, reliable autofocus SLR film camera for less then $200. 

For $400 you should be able to find a used nikon d70 digital slr with a inexpensive zoom lens on ebay. That's my recommendation for your price range. Anyone that has owned a d70 will tell you that it's an awesome camera. It should cover your snap shot needs, it shoots 3fps, and there's no delay between turning it on and taking pictures.

Here's a review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/

Here's an example of one on ebay right now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D70-Camer...yZ107912QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## djacobox372 (May 4, 2008)

BTW: if you can stretch your budget to $500, a nikon d40 + kit lens is the way to go!

If you insist on film, then take a look at a nikon f4, it's a great camera and can be had for about $400 with a lens. 

The nice thing about classic cameras like the f4, is that they are somewhat collectible, so you should be able to recoupe most or all of your $400 if you should decide to sell it in the future.


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> FYI: in the long run, a $200 film camera will cost you more then a $500 digital, due to developing costs. You are also NOT likely to find a good, fast, reliable autofocus SLR film camera for less then $200.
> 
> For $400 you should be able to find a used nikon d70 digital slr with a inexpensive zoom lens on ebay. That's my recommendation for your price range. Anyone that has owned a d70 will tell you that it's an awesome camera. It should cover your snap shot needs, it shoots 3fps, and there's no delay between turning it on and taking pictures.
> 
> ...



You are incorrect, on many counts, all of the last generation film SLR cameras use the same AF lenses as their digital counterparts. 

The point of buying film SLRs due to a budget is specifically to spread out cost over time. As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time. Further more there are modern AF lenses for both of the major names that exceede the total I have spent on film processing in my entire life. Not to mention, if one gets into self processing all that processing expence gets dropped considerably.

Such closed mindedness is irritating.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

Hey. Yes its the latter, your not going to notice and I'm willing to bet it will take pictures faster than any digital P&S. 

Now that you mention it I don't see that that camera has the option to MF. At least not in a way that I am used to, my camera has a AF/M button right below the lens that you would push with your left hand when holding the camera.

You can clearly see the AF/M button on this 600si.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Near-Mint-Minol...ryZ43493QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Both the body and the lens make it AF, The body has to have sensors to know when something is in focus as well as a motor to drive the lens. The lens has to be build as such that it can be controlled by the camera.

You can get film developed at Walgreens/CVS or at Costco or Sam's club or most any grocery store.  Some offer a disc with your pictures but they scan them at pretty low res. An actual photo lab, or camera store offers the option of high res scans on a disc.

You could also pick up a scanner that will scan film and do it yourself, which is what I'm planning on doing. Then you just have any one hour lab develop your film but no prints.


Looks Like Battou beat me again.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

Battou said:


> Such closed mindedness is irritating.



Word. 

And not to derail the thread but what Canon model do you have?


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

haha... thanks Overread, yeah I suppose friends can be too nice and thus I wouldn't get the criticism I need.

Anywho, here are a few cameras I found on ebay... Honestly, I don't know why I chose 'these', i guess because they come with multiple lenses.  Anyway, what do you guys think?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-2-Pentax...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


not used in a year or so, but he/she seems to know a bit about the lenses and appears to take well care of them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-K1000-wi...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-SF10-35m...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



I got really excited about this huge lot... after reading, I figured there would be a few items in there at least to start and learn with... what do you guys think???
http://cgi.ebay.com/HUGE-35mm-STUDE...ryZ43486QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


I think I really like this one too... looks promising.  but what do I know.. lol. Opinion on this one???
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...ndexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting


i don't know if this is good for the price, but otherwise, it looks good.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-ME-Super...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


and I'm still looking on ebay, but those are just some of the ones I found that I kinda like...


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

alrighty, well I understand the auto/manual focus a good deal more now.  Thank you Battou and Yellowjeep.

About the development, Yellowjeep, you said "Then you just have any one hour lab develop your film but no prints".... what does that mean?

I'm trying to weigh my options for development as well... 

1) allow cvs/walgreens/etc to develop them and put them in low res on a disc as well as prints

2) camera store developed with high res on disc and prints

3) buy a scanner that scans film negatives

... if I do the third option... how does that work?  you have your roll of film in which you took the pictures, and you have your scanner.  I know there's more to it, but what?


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2008)

to me they all look fine purchase wise, except this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/HUGE-35mm-STUDE...ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
if it were me I would not bid. There is a lot of kit there and it certainly would keep you busy for ages, but I wonder about creadability. Firstly he does not list all the contents (if he can't be bothered to list them how is he at bothering to package?) also the rolls of film displayed are expired - which I take to mean almost usless.
I just think it might be too good an offer to be true or as good as you might think. Were I you I would get one of the other deals (one working camera is going to be plenty enough for you to start learning on anyway - 6 is overkill)


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

actually Overread... I started to think the same thing.  I figured had I gotten that, IF they were all in working and good shape... what would I really do? I'd probably be lost using one camera then another, blah blah blah... so yeah, ruled that one out.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

so as of now, I am looking at one of these three.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-2-Pentax...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...ndexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-ME-Super...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


I'm not sure how to explain it... but how can I be sure I get a camera that I don't have to 'wind' every time after a shot?  for instance, i want to take motion snapshots... so I just want to be able to 'press the button' so to say.  I don't want to take one picture, wind it, take another picture, wind it, etc... (somewhat like a disposable does) how can I be sure to avoid that???


----------



## Smith2688 (May 4, 2008)

I'm not sure if it's been said in one of the previous posts (I've skimmed through them, but haven't read all the posts), but, do you want a camera capable of auto-focus?  If so, then you need to get lenses and a body that support this.  I'll be able to further direct you then in regards to a K-mount camera since the field narrows a bit.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

Not particularly Smith.  Though I was asking how the autofocus works and such, I would prefer a manual focus, even though it's just another thing to learn.  Thanks


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> so as of now, I am looking at one of these three.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-2-Pentax...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...ndexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting
> ...




All 3 of cameras you have posted the film has to be advanced manually (you have to wind it). There is a lever on the top of the camera to the right side when holding it dead give away.

Here is an example of a manual focus camera with an intagrated motor drive.

http://cgi.ebay.com/KONICA-FS-1-CAM...ryZ15236QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And one with an aux. drive.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-LX-SLR-c...ryZ15240QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> alrighty, well I understand the auto/manual focus a good deal more now.  Thank you Battou and Yellowjeep.
> 
> About the development, Yellowjeep, you said "Then you just have any one hour lab develop your film but no prints".... what does that mean?
> 
> ...



They can simply process the film with out making prints then you just have a roll of negs.

To scan them you need A) a scanner that will scan transparencies that is to say, it has a light on the top that shines down though the neg (or slide). $. or B) A dedicated film scanner. $$$ 

http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html

This site is slightly out dated in terms of the models listed but its full of good info on scanning film.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 4, 2008)

ooohhhh, well that makes sense, lol.  So I'm wanting something without a 'lever' near the snapshot button.  Got it,  haha...


Edit=================

what can I search for to get something that I don't have to 'wind' after every shot?  it seems that all I see is that kind of camera...


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

yellowjeep said:


> Word.
> 
> And not to derail the thread but what Canon model do you have?



I currently own a Canon AE-1, Personally I do not much like this camera, it does not suit my needs very well. It's exellent for beginners with an extreamly easy to read viewfinder, but falls short in night photography with no mirror lock and shutter speed ranging from 2s to 1/1000.

I own, use and prefer the Canon EF, it uses the a similar view finder as the AE-1 but it is far more capibale after dark with Shutter speeds ranging from 30s to 1/1000, however it does not support auto wind like the AE-1, but I don't use auto wind anyways. Night ability is increadibly important to me as a third shift employee who maintains a work scedual during off time.

The Photos in those threads are of my cameras and are *not* google finds.



CalebGGodwin said:


> ooohhhh, well that makes sense, lol.  So I'm wanting something without a 'lever' near the snapshot button.  Got it,  haha...
> 
> 
> Edit=================
> ...



There are a handful of cameras with Auto wind features that do just that. Just include Auto wind in your search. I think that should work fairly well.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 4, 2008)

Battou said:


> You are incorrect, on many counts, all of the last generation film SLR cameras use the same AF lenses as their digital counterparts.
> 
> The point of buying film SLRs due to a budget is specifically to spread out cost over time. As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time. Further more there are modern AF lenses for both of the major names that exceede the total I have spent on film processing in my entire life. Not to mention, if one gets into self processing all that processing expence gets dropped considerably.
> 
> Such closed mindedness is irritating.


 
Who's being closed minded? You are totally misrepresenting my advice, THATS very irritating. Nothing I said is incorrect! I shoot film and digital, and process my own film. But I'm giving the TS adviced based on the needs he outlined.

The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangable between brands! If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future. 

Does the TS sound like a home darkroom type to you? because he sure doesn't to me--my advice is based on HIS needs not yours! Film processing is expensive!

A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick. It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$. 

For $300 he can buy a nikon d70 body, that's in his price range and would be the best choice for him IMO.

If he's really into film I'd reccommend a nikon fe, or canon ae1 manual focus body, but with the motor drive--that will run about $200.

I think an extra $100 is worth autofocus, advanced metering, etc etc, and that $100 would be made up within a couple of weeks of shooting film and processing it.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

Battou said:


> I currently own a Canon AE-1 SNIP
> 
> I own, use and prefer the Canon EF



I knew that, I should have said what Canon scanner do you have. My bad. :thumbup:


----------



## djacobox372 (May 4, 2008)

If you want the ease of digital. Here's what you should get, the camera cost about $300 + lens: 








If you insist on film, and can afford to process it, look for one of these.  They can be had for about $300 + lens:






I'm bowing out of this conversation because of the unavoidable and annoying flame ware that occurs whenever someone posts a picture of a digital slr in a film forum.  I just want to make sure the TS is fully informed of all his options.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 4, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangeable between brands! If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future.
> 
> 
> A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick. It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$.



I agree with the first part. As I stated earlier this is why I have the 700si.

Deals can be found on film also, past date film is not by definition bad film. I picked up 24 rolls of run of the mill Kodak Gold dated 10/07 for $11. It is fridge fodder, something quick and easy to grab for me. Processing can run anywhere between $4-12 from my experience. Caleb didn't say he wanted to shoot film exclusively so costs don't have to add up that quick.

And as Battou said 
"As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time.". 
$200 is the highend of what is needed for a good working film SLR even with a motor drive. Sure its not going to be a 9 or an F5 but it will be a good workable camera.


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> Who's being closed minded? You are totally misrepresenting my advice, THATS very irritating.  I shoot film and digital, and process my own film.  But I'm giving the TS adviced based on the needs he outlined.



With your first post on the forum, You walk in to the film discussion spouting anti film retoric and say FYI every one else trying to help you is full of **** and spending your money unnecessarily and then suggest a camera that is out of the stated budget. 

You came off as very closed minded as you had no real background information available at the time.



djacobox372 said:


> The brand of the body matters when it comes to lens mounts, because once you "pick" a brand you're somewhat committed, they aren't interchangable between brands!  If you really like the design and style of a certain line of DSLR's you should try to by that same mount in your budget film camera so your lenses will work if you upgrade in the future.



I am well aware of that, that is why I stated that the mount of a lens is more important to a beginner than the focal range and aprature information.



djacobox372 said:


> Does the TS sound like a home darkroom type to you? because he sure doesn't to me--my advice is based on HIS needs not yours! Film processing is expensive!



No, they do not seem like a home processing type right now, but the potential is always there.



djacobox372 said:


> A typical day shooing involves about 3 rolls of film, that's at least $30 of processing and film costs! adds up quick.  It's great if you can afford it, but I take issue with anybody claiming film will save you $$.



I don't know where you get your film done but I pay half that. I take issue with people claiming digital is cheaper. If you want prints of any real quality...guess what you are paying the same twenty or thirty cents per print that you would with film, and that is after the thousands you just spent on the gear to take the pictures.



djacobox372 said:


> For $300 he can buy a nikon d70 body, that's in his price range and would be the best choice for him IMO.



You seem to have forgotten, the OP stated they zoom cpibility and changable lenses. Yeah the D70 has the ability to have variable lenses but at what cost beyond the initial $300. I am not a Nikon shooter, I honestly do not know what a deicent third party lens on a Nikon mount goes for.


----------



## Battou (May 4, 2008)

yellowjeep said:


> I knew that, I should have said what Canon scanner do you have. My bad. :thumbup:



Oh ....I have a Canoscan FS2710.



yellowjeep said:


> And as Battou said
> "As money comes in and becomes available as opposed to having to drop more money than one has at any one given time.".
> $200 is the highend of what is needed for a good working film SLR even with a motor drive. Sure its not going to be a 9 or an F5 but it will be a good workable camera.



I paid for my cameras

$17 - Signet 40 (fixed lens rangefinder)
$35 - Minolta XG-1  W/50mm lens
$37 - Yashica T3D (point and shoot)
$75 - Canon AE-1 (over paid)  W/50mm lens
$112 - Pentax H2 W/55mm lens
$256 - Leica IIIf Black Syncro W/lens (variable lens rangefinder)
$295 - Canon EF W/50mm lens

I have yet to pay more than $100 on a lens for any of the mounts I have in my posession


----------



## Corry (May 5, 2008)

Stay on topic and stop bickering, please.  

This is the film forum, and he is asking about film cameras.  No need to start a digital v. film war.


----------



## Battou (May 5, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> alrighty, well I understand the auto/manual focus a good deal more now.  Thank you Battou and Yellowjeep.
> 
> About the development, Yellowjeep, you said "Then you just have any one hour lab develop your film but no prints".... what does that mean?
> 
> ...



Sorry I missed this post....

Buying a film enabled scanner is prolly your best bet at the moment. Here is Why:

1) _*cvs/walgreens/etc*_ - Places like that have a tendency to not print images exactly as they appear on film often times blowing out skys and whatnot ( in other words even a clear blue sky could get printed as white.) Given that modern commercial processing digitizes the image from the film to print the prints the imagery contained on the disk will be exactly as it looks on the print. There is no guarantee that the printed image is what you took.

I can provide images for comparison to prove this if you like.


2) _*camera store developed with high res on disc and prints*_ - The old saying "you get what you pay for" applies here, or in this instance you pay for what you get. The higher rez disk and quality prints are going to cost you more than you need to spend, but in many cases can be worth it. However as a beginner you should anticipate some lack luster pictures, We all went threw that stage and trust me, you are not going to want to pay twenty or thirty dollars for 24/36 unusable pictures.

3) _*buy a scanner that scans film negatives*_ - Again there are some things to learn with it but, you are in control of the digitization process. That may not mean much to you at the moment but down the road it may. To start with you can leave the scanner set at it's defaults and it will scan the image that is on the film, nothing more nothing less. This way any error you made with camera settings are more likely to be visible. If you underexposed the shot, the scan will be under exposed, if you over exposed it the scan will as well, if you took a perfect shot it will be perfectly presentable, maybe lacking some of the pop of some of the other displayed images, but you can learn how to make that happen as you go as well as learning how to fix errors like over and underexposing. Also at this stage in the game you will prolly want a Film enabled _flatbed_ scanner, that way if you grow disenchanted with photography the equipment is still usable as a regular scanner (the same can not be said about the more expensive dedicated scanners like mine, I stop taking pictures it's useless). The scanner is not likely to cost you a fortune, Like I said, at your level ask a sales rep for a scanner that can scan negatives, the cheapest one with that feature will suit your needs for now, or if you wish you can save up and get a more expensive one that you feel you would like better, that one is up to you. When I got back into film after nearly a decade, it was almost a month before I had pictures that where worthy of being put on public display.


_*how does that work?*_ - Well...to Be honest with you, I am not sure how much variation there is on the basic element of doing it but, from my experience, _Send your film out for processing _cvs/walgreens/etc will suffice for this, but you can also go camera store developed too, just don't worry about the disk with it that is a couple few extra bucks a pop. When it comes back negatives are _generally_ cut in strips of 4 or 5 frames. With the film scanner there will be a holder for the film, you just put a strip into the holder, place it into the scanner, tell the scanner what it's doing and go from there. More detailed instructions are generally going to be included with the scanner. In other words the instruction booklet will be far more informative than I can be at this time, but I can give the basic jist of it.


----------



## Early (May 5, 2008)

A Nikon N90s with or without a hand grip in excellent condition is going pretty cheap these days.  It's an autofocus film camera, but there's a whole slew of both manual and autofocus lenses available for it.


----------



## yellowjeep (May 6, 2008)

Caleb Any news of a camera, or at least are you leaning towards something?


----------



## Smith2688 (May 7, 2008)

I would personally seek out a camera like a Pentax MV, Pentax ME Super, Pentax Super Program, or Chinon CE-4 (that's what I use but I thought you might prefer a Pentax brand camera, if not, there are plenty more options) with a fast (low f-stop number) 50mm lens to start with.


----------



## CalebGGodwin (May 10, 2008)

No news of a camera yet.  Money situation got twisted against me, so it will be a few weeks before I can buy one.  But I have definitely learned a lot, and will keep learning while I wait, and continue to post questions and concerns that I may have.  I really do appreciate it, especially to those of you who have taken the time to really answer my questions...


----------



## Renaissance Man (Sep 2, 2008)

Dude,

Go to Amazon and get a "Photography for Dummies"-like book to START.  You do not know enough to even discuss this on a forum yet.  Buy some magazines too.  Better yet, go to a used book store for same.  You need to understand the basics of photography:  light, film and how if works, optics, exposure, etc.  THEN you can frame your questions and understand what people are trying to say.  For example:  You should KNOW the mirror delay on a SLR is a small fraction of a second; any photography of moving objects would be impractical otherwise!

Second, everyone assumes you want to know how all the photography fundamentals relate to "film" based photography.  But the essentials are the same in digital, so why the quick jump to film.  I have done both, and I would recommend you start with what you have - point and shoot digital - take a TON of pics of subjects you care about, then figure out what limitations the point and shoot has that prevents you from creating images like you want.  Like - can't shoot in low light situations, shutter delay is too long for sports photography or candid portraits, etc.

And nobody has mentioned the processing costs for film!  It you only want to spend $200-400 bucks on gear, can you even comprehend $100 per MONTH in processing costs if you are really serious about learning to create exciting quality images???  

Stay digital, wear out the camera you have before buying another, then assess if you really have a strong desire to be serious.  

READ and LOOK AT PHOTOS a lot for the next 6 months while you shoot as much as you can with what you have.


----------



## anubis404 (Sep 2, 2008)

CalebGGodwin said:


> Yellowjeep... you suggest I get a film camera from the 70's?? like... 1970's? lol.  I don't get it.  Also, how is a camera plus 9 lenses only like 80bucks.  I guess I just fail to understand.  If you could verify, that would be great.  Thanks...
> 
> Oh, and I just plan on taking any type of shots.  People, scenery, close up, far away, nothing in particular.  I think it would be really cool to capture movement (like a car passing by in 5 shots... stuff like that) Taking good quality pictures (close up or far away) as fast as I can press the button.



The movement photography will cost you large sums of money. The rest cam be achieved with a 70s setup.


----------



## anubis404 (Sep 2, 2008)

Renaissance Man said:


> Dude,
> 
> Go to Amazon and get a "Photography for Dummies"-like book to START.  You do not know enough to even discuss this on a forum yet.  Buy some magazines too.  Better yet, go to a used book store for same.  You need to understand the basics of photography:  light, film and how if works, optics, exposure, etc.  THEN you can frame your questions and understand what people are trying to say.  For example:  You should KNOW the mirror delay on a SLR is a small fraction of a second; any photography of moving objects would be impractical otherwise!
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that not everyone has the time to sort through thick "for dummies" books to find what they're looking for. It is much faster, easier, and a better learning experience to talk to real humans. This forum is for everyone, and it is encouraged that beginners ask questions.

A couple months ago when I came to this forum I knew nothing. Now, I've been taking some great pictures thanks to the friendly and informative members of this forum. 

I do however, agree with you on the digital part. Caleb, if you can, save your money and go digital. Film is for far more advanced users, because with the astounding cost of processing you really want to know what you're doing when you press that button. Digital is the way of the future, and if you get serious you're going to go that route anyhow. The best way to learn everything is to take tons of pictures, look at those pictures, and adjust your setting accordingly. Digital makes this possible at nearly no cost. Post processing also does not require a darkroom, tons of time, and expensive equipment. It can be done with great expertise for a computer and a $100 dollar program, if even that.


----------

