# Looking for a new (old) camera for Landscapes and Travel



## brettz92 (Sep 6, 2016)

Hi everyone,

I've been putting a lot of thought into buying a new camera over the past couple of months. Currently I own a Canon 60D which serves me well, but its bulkiness and weight make it a pain to bring along on trips, especially when hiking. I also have access to film SLRs that I use occasionally, but I prefer not to bring them on trips because of their sentimental value.

I want to find a light camera that I can just toss in my backpack and go, and it will be mostly used for shooting landscapes and some street photography while I travel. I'm specifically looking for a film camera because I want to experiment more with film in spare time as well. The ability to shoot with fully manual controls is a must, and I prefer wide angle lenses, though I can be a little lenient with this. My budget is around $200, so I'm not exactly looking for a top of the line camera, though I do want good, sharp results nonetheless.

While researching this purchase, rangefinders have caught my interest, as I have no experience with them and am quite curious. In particular, I'm currently considering the Olympus 35 SP, but I'm open to any suggestions, SLR or rangefinder that anyone might have.

Thanks!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 6, 2016)

I'd suggest a compact / mirrorless.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 6, 2016)

If you are looking for film then I would visit a brick and mortar camera store that has used equipment.  If they are a real camera store they have used equipment.  Take a look at their selections of range finders.  I have a Nikon S2, but it would probably be out of your price range.  You might look for a Yashika Electro 35.


----------



## compur (Sep 6, 2016)

brettz92 said:


> While researching this purchase, rangefinders have caught my interest, as I have no experience with them and am quite curious. In particular, I'm currently considering the Olympus 35 SP, but I'm open to any suggestions, SLR or rangefinder that anyone might have.



There were many very good fixed lens rangefinders made in the 1960s-70s by Olympus, Canon, Konica, Minolta and others. In my opinion the Olympus 35SP is the best of that breed and fairly compact as well. Another popular one is the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII.  I've used both and like them both but the Olympus is a more versatile camera IMO.

Another possibility is the Kodak Retina series of cameras. These are high quality folding 35mm cameras made in Germany. Some models have rangefinders and some don't but they are all compact and easily slipped into a backpack or bag.

Of course there are also a number of fine _interchangeable lens_ rangefinder cameras as well but they're going to cost more.

Whichever camera you choose make sure it is in good condition before buying it as most cameras from that era will need some service to get them back into shooting form. New light seals and cleaned up shutters being the most commonly needed work. There are sellers who specialize in refurbished cameras on eBay and elsewhere.


----------



## JoeW (Sep 7, 2016)

I think you may have competing priorities here that are at odds.  Experiment with film--laudable.  Small, portable camera you just throw in your backpack and pull out now and then...sometimes to shoot a landscape, others a sunset, then some street photography under a range of light conditions.

Here is the deal with shooting film:  it's a major ball buster if you shoot 2-5 pics, then put the camera away and pull it out in a different setting with different lighting.   The solution is:  carry around multiple roles of film, shoot what you want and then remove the film (even if you have another 20 exposures left over), wait till you get to a setting, choose the right canister, insert, then shoot, then remove and so on.  Otherwise, you insert a roll of B&W for that great street photography where there are a lot of cool lines and forms, and get to a magnificent sunset.  And then you come across a landscape in darkness that really calls for that Fuji ISO 1600 color film.  I'm not against shooting film--I did it for a couple of decades and was a late adaptor to digital.  It's just that shooting film (if your MO is to load the camera, carry it around for a week, and then pull it out to take a couple of shots and then in the backpack it goes...and you're shooting some stuff that is low light, some very direct light, some you want color, some you want B&W)....that really benefits from targeted shooting (plan a shoot...like a sunset or a street scene, select film, get your camera and then go to the location and start composing) vs. a camera in the bag that you pull out now and then.

If you are willing to look at non-film options, then the mirrorless cameras are a good place to start.  The Nikon D3xxx series is good b/c there is no autofocus motor in the body (so it's a smaller and lighter body).  A used D31000 would be pretty cheap.  Combine it with a Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX lens and you have a very light, small, hardy lens that is good for landscapes, good in low light, no zoom capacity (it's a prime lens) but otherwise fine at street photography.

If you're determined to go the film route and don't want to carry 2-3 bodies, then I think you're better off focusing on the lens.  A wide angle with a GNDF for sunsets will set you up for landscapes.  A mid-range zoom good in low light would be excellent for street photography.  But that's not exactly a light and compact arrangement.


----------



## limr (Sep 7, 2016)

I'm sorry, but shooting film does NOT have to be so fussy. I have never once felt the need to switch films in the middle of a roll, and only rarely do I carry two bodies so I can have one for color and another for b&w. 

It's true that there are some limitations to, say, having 400ISO b&w film when you see a shot that would be awesome in color, but who says you have to get ALL THE SHOTS, ALL THE TIME!  






It also doesn't address the fact that you could still do something really great with the same scene if you can approach it in a different way with different expectations. In other words, it might not be the great shot you first envisioned when you saw the scene, but it could be something equally great if you put away that initial expectation and look for something different in the same scene that could be captured with the equipment at hand.

And speaking of equipment, I second the recommendation of an Olympus 35 compacts. I have an RC. Great sharp lens and easy to use. As for SLRs, I'm totally biased towards the Pentax K1000. A good working body and a 50mm f1.7 will definitely be in your budget. Pentax glass is very good.


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 7, 2016)

limr said:


> And speaking of equipment, I second the recommendation of an Olympus 35 compacts. I have an RC. Great sharp lens and easy to use. As for SLRs, I'm totally biased towards the Pentax K1000. A good working body and a 50mm f1.7 will definitely be in your budget. Pentax glass is very good.



And if a K1000 is too big for ya, get the smaller Pentax M body.....LOVE my MX.


----------



## maris (Sep 7, 2016)

I'd recommend a roll film camera for landscape. 35mm is the smallest common film format and it gives the worst image quality in regular photographic production. That's fine for quick candids or casual scenes but good looking landscapes, I reckon, deserve something better. A twin lens reflex or a folding camera on a tripod can give stunning results as good as or better than a pro DSLR.  And you have only 8 to 12 shots on a roll depending on format so you are not stuck with one kind of film for an extended time.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 7, 2016)

JoeW said:


> ..........Here is the deal with shooting film:  it's a major ball buster if you shoot 2-5 pics, then put the camera away and pull it out in a different setting with different lighting.   The solution is:  carry around multiple roles of film, shoot what you want and then remove the film (even if you have another 20 exposures left over), wait till you get to a setting, choose the right canister, insert, then shoot, then remove and so on..............



It _is_ possible to reload a partially exposed roll back into the camera and finish it up.


----------



## JoeW (Sep 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > ..........Here is the deal with shooting film:  it's a major ball buster if you shoot 2-5 pics, then put the camera away and pull it out in a different setting with different lighting.   The solution is:  carry around multiple roles of film, shoot what you want and then remove the film (even if you have another 20 exposures left over), wait till you get to a setting, choose the right canister, insert, then shoot, then remove and so on..............
> ...


Of course it is and I've done that a number of times.  But I thought the OP was looking at convenience (small, light, easily portable camera) while experimenting with film.  So the idea of then having to reload a partially used film roll is feasible but probably not what the OP had in mind in terms of ease of use.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 8, 2016)

JoeW said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > JoeW said:
> ...


No the OP specifically said they were looking for a film camera.


----------



## compur (Sep 8, 2016)

JoeW said:


> Here is the deal with shooting film:  it's a major ball buster ...



I've shot film for many years and mine are not the least bit busted.


----------



## jubilee (Sep 24, 2016)

I love and still love my Olympus SLRs. Glass is great and they are small, simple, reliable, and fully manual.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Oct 19, 2016)

If you're looking for a srsly compact camera, I'd say the Konica Big Mini or Leica Mini are good choices. The Konica's a bit tougher.


----------

