# Cheap 35mm Battery Independent Camera



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Hey everyone I am completely new to photography and am looking to learn from scratch.  Currently I want to learn on a camera that functions without batteries (mostly because of price and inconvenience of getting batteries).  I am looking for any model that is reliable and cheap (around $25 max on eBay, shipping included). I know this is a pretty tiny budget, but being in college its really hard to have enough disposable income for things like new hobbys.  I want a 35mm film camera with a basic 50mm lenses.  Any ideas?  Thank you in advance.  Oh and any tips you could pass on to a newbie would be most appreciated .


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Pentax K1000. Used as a student camera in photography classes for decades. Tank-like build, really good lenses, can be had cheap. It does take a battery but only to run a light meter - the operation of the camera is totally mechanical. I've had mine for over 20 years now and I still use it regularly.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Ok awesome. That sounds like one I need to look into.  What type of lens do you use?


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> Pentax K1000. Used as a student camera in photography classes for decades. Tank-like build, really good lenses, can be had cheap. It does take a battery but only to run a light meter - the operation of the camera is totally mechanical. I've had mine for over 20 years now and I still use it regularly.



Agreed. I still use mine, since 1980 and my meter still works perfect. But, they can cost up to $100 in good shape.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah now that you mention it all the models I can find for sale that don't appear broken have 80-100 price tags.  Any other brand recommendations?  I heard that canons are pretty cheap because they keep making their lens mounts obsolete, but finding out for sure what models were battery free was very near impossible for me.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Ok awesome. That sounds like one I need to look into.  What type of lens do you use?



Pentax has very nice lens. I use 3 lens the most a 50mm standard, 135mm telephoto and 28mm semi-wide angle.


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

webestang64 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Pentax K1000. Used as a student camera in photography classes for decades. Tank-like build, really good lenses, can be had cheap. It does take a battery but only to run a light meter - the operation of the camera is totally mechanical. I've had mine for over 20 years now and I still use it regularly.
> ...



I guess they can get up to that much, but I've also seen some pretty good ones sell on ebay for less than $50 (sold listings, not just asking price.) Just checked again out of curiosity and there really is a wide range of prices in the sold listings for cameras that seem to be in good shape. The higher priced ones often included more than one lens, or a flash unit, or even a second camera!



puthenveetilnoel said:


> Ok awesome. That sounds like one I need to look into.  What type of lens do you use?



I've got a few different lenses, but if you're looking for a 50mm prime (which is a good idea to start with), I've got an Asahi Pentax 50mm f1.7 that is one of my favorite things in the world. But the lens is definitely going to bust your budget. It's not a particularly expensive lens, but definitely more than $25. In general, look for the Asahi, Pentax, or Takumar name for lenses.

I would haunt ebay for a couple of days. I'm sure you'll find something you can afford.

Even if it's not a K1000, I'd say you might want to go a bit higher than $25 if you want something reliable enough to get you through your learning phase. Bring it up to $50 and you'll have a LOT more choices for better cameras.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Yeah now that you mention it all the models I can find for sale that don't appear broken have 80-100 price tags.  Any other brand recommendations?  I heard that canons are pretty cheap because they keep making their lens mounts obsolete, but finding out for sure what models were battery free was very near impossible for me.


I suggest saving up more funds. Also look at the Praktica MTL3. I had one, good basic camera. They sell for around $75.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Hmmm. Looking around it seems like my budget is too low for what I'm looking for.  I'll try and move some money around and I can maybe get up to $50.  Would any of your suggestions change at that prince range?


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> webestang64 said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


True....I'm going by the shop I work at, we sell used K1000's with Pentax 50mm lens for $125. Body only $75. They are in 7-8 out of 10 in shape. We just sold a MINT-in-box Pentax K2 body for $275. It was so pretty.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 5, 2014)

TBH i think batteries are a non issue, Ive got a Canon T-70 which takes regular AA batteries for the film advance/metering etc and it works fine with the cheap x12 for £1 ones, a set of two of these last me for 3-4 months, shooting 1 or 2 rolls a week, so very cheap indeed - ive been told mine also has some internal battery but its been in there 35 years and still works fine. The body is around £15.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Part of the reason I was looking battery independent to begin with is because I wanted a manual camera.  So I had to learn the basics of photography to be able to take good pictures.  Most of the manual cameras I've found are either prohibitively expensive of take weird specialty batteries.  If you can suggest a good manual camera that uses generic batteries (AA or AAA) that would definitely work too.  Thanks


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Hmmm. Looking around it seems like my budget is too low for what I'm looking for.  I'll try and move some money around and I can maybe get up to $50.  Would any of your suggestions change at that prince range?



We had a Nikon F2 body for $75. Meter did not work but it's manual. 

But deals are out there. I myself bought a Pentax MX off  shopgoodwill.com  for $125, with 50mm lens and motor-drive/grip. KEH valued it at $375 retail.


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Aside from the Pentax K1000, there are also the earlier Spotmatics, though those will probably be in about the same price range or harder to find in good working condition. Not sure - haven't looked for one in a while.

There's also the Olympus OM-1 or 2. You said you already looked at Canons. 

Early Nikons might be found, but it would probably be harder to find one in your price range. Their prices are somewhat inflated because of the brand recognition. Great cameras, but much higher profile than Pentax or Olympus and thus higher prices.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah I looked at canons mostly because ppl said the obselete models would be easy to find cheap, but I ran into the issue of not being able to tell if they were fully mechanical or needed their batteries to function.  So canon suggestions are very welcome.


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

Check this out, check it for different models. 
shopgoodwill.com -- Search Results


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

Yep, I was just going to suggest the Pentax SP1000. It was the model before the "K". There's a lot on Ebay now for around $50. They are getting older, but just as rugged as the K1000. Shop carefully and I'm sure you can get a good deal. The SP used the M42 screw mount lenses, which can be gotten fairly cheap these days


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Part of the reason I was looking battery  independent to begin with is because I wanted a manual camera.



But by setting the apature ring off A, focusing manually, and specifying a shutter speed using the buttons, is essentially a fully manual mode, and a lot of cameras with computers in still let you do that, providing only metering?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

webestang64 said:


> Check this out, check it for different models.
> shopgoodwill.com -- Search Results



Good call :thumbup:


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Looking at goodwill and taking in Rick's advice I found an Sp500 with what looks to be a 50mm lens. shopgoodwill.com - #15170094 - Honeywell Pentax SP 500 Film Camera - 1/9/2014 5:30:00 PM
What do you all think?


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jan 5, 2014)

Here's a K1000 w/1.2 lens for $50 on eBay.

I got a working Nikon F for $16 shipped. Got a 50MM 1.8 lens for $6 shipped. Keep yer eyes open and do a little research,you'll be surprised what you can fin d in 35MM nowdays.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Huh.  See this is the kind of info I need to know.  Like I said completely new to all photography that isn't on a smartphone.  I'll have to widen my net.  Do you have any suggestions of cameras that take cheaply found batteries?  I will look into the canon you suggested.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm going to say Olympus OM-1. Yes, they have meters that require batteries, but they're great cameras and function without the battery just fine. Otherwise, I had good luck with a Kodak Retina Reflex III, Shneider-Kreuznach 50mm I think. Metered, but was a selenium cell and didn't require a battery.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Do you have any suggestions of cameras that take cheaply found batteries?


I don't have anything off the top of my head - I just wanted to add something.

Cameras that only use a battery for the light meter (and really, a lot of film cameras in general) draw very little power from the battery.  I mean that a year or more between battery changes is not uncommon.

I wouldn't worry too much about the cost of the batteries (unless they're just insanely expensive).


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

The SP500 will limit your high end to 1/500 compared to 1/1000 with the SP1000. That lens looks a little rough, but for 5 bucks...


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah that's what I was thinking.  With shipping and everything (assuming no one else bids) I could get it for around $17.  Can you tell me what the benefit of being able to shoot in 1/1000 is?


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Yeah but trying to get these batteries will turn into a pain.  That's why I'm fine with double and triple A's but weird button cells I'll have to order in and things like that.  Personally I'd rather just avoid all the hassle.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

Stopping motion
Using and wider aperture on brighter days for shallow DOF


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Can you tell me what the benefit of being able to shoot in 1/1000 is?


It will be better for stopping action, and it will allow the aperture to be opened more in bright light.

edit
What Rick said, haha.


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Looking at goodwill and taking in Rick's advice I found an Sp500 with what looks to be a 50mm lens. shopgoodwill.com - #15170094 - Honeywell Pentax SP 500 Film Camera - 1/9/2014 5:30:00 PM
> What do you all think?



If you can get that and it works, it would be a great starter. The SP500 is essentially the model that was replaced by the K1000. The lens mount changed, but that was probably the biggest difference. And here's a little-known fact about the SP500. The shutter dial goes to 500 so you might think that 1/500 is the fastest shutter speed, but it will actually go to 1/1000. There's one more step it will go but it's just unmarked.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > Can you tell me what the benefit of being able to shoot in 1/1000 is?
> ...



So it will be better at taking shots of moving targets?


----------



## webestang64 (Jan 5, 2014)

I would like to suggest you find a few old photography books on "taking better photos" and the like. Your public library, old book store or auction site. Look for books specific to shooting SLR 35mm cameras. There are a ton of them out there. And for sure find and buy a manual for your new 35mm camera.
I only say this because I'm a self teacher. Books, any books on photography will help you learn.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > puthenveetilnoel said:
> ...


Much better


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Both the K1000 and the Spotmatic use LR44 batteries to run the light meter. You can get a 10-pack from Amazon for less than $5. That would last you a long time. And as I said, they only run the light meter. If you are learning about Sunny 16 or using a separate light meter (you can get free apps on your smartphone for that), then you'd have no reason to worry about the battery.

My brother-in-law gave me his SP500 kit about a year ago. It had been sitting in the camera bag for so long that the foam in the bag was disintegrating and the battery door was sealed shut with battery corrosion. Tried everything to get that battery door open and nothing worked. It made absolutely no difference to the operation of the camera, though, and I've been using it with no issues at all.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at goodwill and taking in Rick's advice I found an Sp500 with what looks to be a 50mm lens. shopgoodwill.com - #15170094 - Honeywell Pentax SP 500 Film Camera - 1/9/2014 5:30:00 PM
> ...



It's true about the unmarked stop, but the accuracy is questionable


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

Hold on a second. You sound like you truly are interested in getting a descent  film camera. Two members of this forum have generously each given me a lens. I have a Nikkormat upstars that I picked up somewhere, and I can probably scrounge up a nifty- fifty to hang on it. I'll be back...


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Y'know, Rick58 made me think of this thread that still seems to be open: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/348322-donating-fuji-ax-multi-program-dx-2-lenses.html

Edit: The Fuji takes a 6V battery but they are readily available on Amazon for less than $10.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Hold on a second. You sound like you truly are interested in getting a descent  film camera. Two members of this forum have generously each given me a lens. I have a Nikkormat upstars that I picked up somewhere, and I can probably scrounge up a nifty- fifty to hang on it. I'll be back...



Wow that would be amazing.  Don't feel any obligation to but this would be a tremendous gift.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

Ok, this isn't how this donation thing normally works, but I doubt if anyone was going to write me a 3 page thread on why they need a Nikkormat. I've had this body for decades, wrapped in a soft cloth, in a box, in my closet. Never used it, but it appears to function properly and is very clean and purrdy. It also has the flash shoe accessory.  The lens? Who know where it came from but it's been in another box marked "Huh? Maybe I'll use that sometime" stuff which has never happened. This also has been lugged around for decades. It appears clear with only exterior dust, but will require cleaning...carefully please. It's a 50/2. If you want it, it yours. Send me a PM with your info. There's only one condition. You post some shots of your first roll.

BTW, for all you Df haters. ..That photo is ASA 10000, unedited other then balanced and cropped.


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

You are awesome, Rick!

And yes, OP, we'll need to see pictures!


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

Thanks Leonore, This board is an "awesome"place. Twice members have given to me, now this is my chance to pay it forward


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> View attachment 63735
> Ok, this isn't how this donation thing normally works, but I doubt if anyone was going to write me a 3 page thread on why they need a Nikkormat. I've had this body for decades, wrapped in a soft cloth, in a box, in my closet. Never used it, but it appears to function properly and is very clean and purrdy. It also has the flash shoe accessory.  The lens? Who know where it came from but it's been in another box marked "Huh? Maybe I'll use that sometime" stuff which has never happened. This also has been lugged around for decades. It appears clear with only exterior dust, but will require cleaning...carefully please. It's a 50/2. If you want it, it yours. Send me a PM with your info. There's only one condition. You post some shots of your first roll.
> 
> BTW, for all you Df haters. ..That photo is ASA 10000, unedited other then balanced and cropped.



That is absolutely a deal man!  Just don't be upset if the roll is a little embarrassingly bad.  But that would be amazing. I will message you my details . And thanks for all the help from everyone else.  I will def be back on this thread to ask you all questions!


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks Leonore, *This board is an "awesome"place.* Twice members have given to me, now this is my chance to pay it forward



Agreed. I just got the Olympus OM-2 from pixmedic. If I ever have something I'm not going to use and someone else here wants it, I'd be happy to do the same. It's nice to see this kind of spirit spreading


----------



## limr (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 63735
> ...



Yes, definitely come back, though don't be afraid to start new threads when questions arise  It's nice to see someone so enthusiastic about getting into film photography. When I first started, I had the same attitude - get something totally manual and mechanical and start from the beginning. It's definitely a great way to start and I for one am happy to help if I can.

Just a word of warning: this might be the start of a serious addiction


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Leonore, *This board is an "awesome"place.* Twice members have given to me, now this is my chance to pay it forward
> ...



Yep, I got my fantastic zoom from medic.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jan 5, 2014)

I bought my D90 from pixmedic.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Wow this medic guy seems to have everything


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

limr said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



Oh trust me I have heard about the obsession that old film cameras turn into.  Luckily I think my college fees should keep that in check for a while at least .


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 5, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Wow this medic guy seems to have everything



Lets just say that a year ago a team of explorers were sent to find the back of his closet and they haven't returned yet


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 5, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > Wow this medic guy seems to have everything
> ...



Wow I can only imagine. I really like how generous the members of this site are.  Hopefully one day I can pay this forward


----------



## timor (Jan 5, 2014)

Don't forget Minoltas. SrT series are  very reliable cameras, and cheap. Lenses are cheap to as they cannot be used on any modern dslr and Minolta glass is excellent.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 5, 2014)

Well then... never mind! LOL Rick took care of that didn't he! (nice of him too) Only thing I was going to add (besides suggestions you no longer need) is that you might be interested in Film Photography Project | An Internet Radio Show & On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide . 

If you do ever look for anything photography related on Shop Goodwill there's no guarantee of its working condition, but I've gotten some nice cameras on there. Have fun with your 'new' camera.

P.S. Not sure which model that Nikkormat is but Mike Butkus' website has copies of lot of camera manuals, he doesn't charge for usage but accepts a nominal amount if you'd like to do that.
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/nikon.htm


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm gonna buck the trend here and say MINOLTA SRT-101, -102, OR SRT-201 OR 202.Plenty of these around at Goodwill type prices, a bit larger and I think better-made than the K1000. "bigger feel".

GO here for a modern review of a couple of these old-timers.  Minolta SRT-101

Minolta SRT-102 Review

Here is a DIRECT link to e-Bay

http://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw...udhi=&_sop=12&_fpos=&_fspt=1&_sadis=&LH_CAds=

There's a decent-looking SRT-102 with the very good Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 standard lens for $19, Buy-it-Now priced. There's a sample with a BUNCH of accessories, including three flashes, and external light meter, a long tele-zoom, probably a wide angle, bag strap, cases, currently one bid, of $20, with 4 days left. A 102 recovered in brown leather is $25 Buy-it-Now.


----------



## trythis (Jan 6, 2014)

I dont know where you are but I know where a few $10 Slrs with a lens are in a St Louis thrift store.  They are Sears brand or something like that.  They work fine, you can learn on anything, so maybe post in your local craigslist. Sorry didnt read all 4 pages.


----------



## compur (Jan 6, 2014)

limr said:


> Both the K1000 and the Spotmatic use LR44 batteries to run the light meter.



All original Pentax Spotmatics (except the Spotmatic F) use PX400 batteries. The Spotmatic F uses either a PX625 or PX13.

The Pentax ES (aka the Electro-Spotmatic) uses a PX28 battery and the ES II uses four LR44 or S76 batteries.


----------



## limr (Jan 6, 2014)

compur said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Both the K1000 and the Spotmatic use LR44 batteries to run the light meter.
> ...



Ah, I suppose I would know that if that battery and battery door weren't well and truly attached to the camera! I had just assumed they were the same because the two cameras are so similar in every other way.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2014)

limr said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Leonore, *This board is an "awesome"place.* Twice members have given to me, now this is my chance to pay it forward
> ...



me and the wife have been hoping for an epidemic.  :mrgreen:


----------



## limr (Jan 6, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



I'll do what I can, mana--  wait! You're a bunny now, pix!


----------



## georgeisabamf (Jan 6, 2014)

I would suggest a Holga 135, but that might not be the style of photography you're looking into.  Fun little cameras though.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 6, 2014)

A 50mm 1.8 lens is usually a good lens for learning.  It's fixed focal length and wide aperture, and typically low cost, makes it a good start.  

Jake


----------



## Designer (Jan 6, 2014)

To find a camera without any kind of battery, you're going to have to go a little earlier.  Visit some thrift shops and look for a 35mm rangefinder that is clean and that the mechanicals appear to function.  You might have to pay around $10, but if that one doesn't work, go get another one for $10.  If you return it to the store where you bought it, they should allow you a second camera choice for the same original purchase.  Or find one at another store and pay the $10 again.  

Cock the shutter and release it.  Try several different shutter speeds.  It might not be exact, but then your whole experience is not going to be exact either.  Look into the front of the lens and try to see if the aperture blades move.  Open the back and see if everything is still in good shape.  Purchase said cheap camera and go get some film.  

Have fun!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 6, 2014)

Rick58: Awesome! This place has a great community spirit going. Once I get my hands on just the right thing to do this with, I'll be putting something up for donation.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 29, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Hold on a second. You sound like you truly are interested in getting a descent film camera. Two members of this forum have generously each given me a lens. I have a Nikkormat upstars that I picked up somewhere, and I can probably scrounge up a nifty- fifty to hang on it. I'll be back...



How about that? This guy never came back. There goes my faith in humanity. :???:
I knew he was new, but I thought I'd help him out.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 29, 2014)

Hey rick I'm still here.  Don't worry.  I have just bee. Slammed with work and had no time to get that first roll done.  As soon as I'm a little more free its first thing on my list.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 29, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Hey rick I'm still here. Don't worry. I have just bee. Slammed with work and had no time to get that first roll done. As soon as I'm a little more free its first thing on my list.



...My faith in humanity has been restored...


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Jan 29, 2014)

Whew was worried there.  Any recommendations on film anyone?  Like what film speed and should I use b&w or color?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 29, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Whew was worried there. Any recommendations on film anyone? Like what film speed and should I use b&w or color?


Color or B&W is obviously a personal choice. I'd probably go with a 200 (color) ISO for general daylight shooting for your first roll.
One thing to remember is, the faster the film, the grainer the pictures...but.... also the faster shutter speed you can use. It's all a trade off.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 29, 2014)

Fuji Superia, Kodak Ektar, Kodak Profoto XL 100. Those are my favorites. Superia's cheap too at Walgreens.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 19, 2014)

Hey just posting an update.  Finally dealt with some big personal issues  and have found a little time to working with the camera.  Finally  loaded up some film (cheap 400speed color I got at Walgreens) and took a  few sample shots.  I've been using a light meter app on my phone and  just trying to eyeball certain shots.  Hopefully I will finish the roll  in a week or two and I will upload the pictures then.  Once again big  thanks to Rick for the amazing camera.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 19, 2014)

Hey thanks for the film posts.  I have been looking into different choices.  I live in a very small town, so our photo center at walgreens is a little sparse.  I'm settling for some generic 400 speed color, but I really want to find some good cheap B&W film.


----------



## limr (Feb 20, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Hey thanks for the film posts.  I have been looking into different choices.  I live in a very small town, so our photo center at walgreens is a little sparse.  I'm settling for some generic 400 speed color, but I really want to find some good cheap B&W film.



Your best bet is online. Check B&H, Adorama or Freestyle. Kentmere 100 is a very nice black and white film and it's fairly cheap. Freestyle has got its Arista brand, also black and white, which is really rebranded film from other sources. I'd stick to the Arista Premium. Sometimes their sources for the Arista EDU is a bit dodgy.


----------



## Rick58 (Feb 20, 2014)

The faster your film, the more grain your prints will have. Like almost everything in photography, it's a trade off. For average outdoor shooting, I tried to stay with 200 or under unless speed was an issue, then 400. For landscape stuff you could go down to 100 for nice fine grain, but then your shutter speed suffers...trade offs.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 20, 2014)

limr said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > Hey thanks for the film posts.  I have been looking into different choices.  I live in a very small town, so our photo center at walgreens is a little sparse.  I'm settling for some generic 400 speed color, but I really want to find some good cheap B&W film.
> ...



I believe I have heard of the Arista brand.  Another one I had heard was Illford (not sure if I butchered that spelling). 
But yeah I will def look online to see of there is a good deal on film.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 20, 2014)

Yeah I remember you warning me about that grain with faster films.  My test roll is 400 simply because that was the only speed available.  But now that I have heard of some good online alternatives I think I can experiment with film Speed a little.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 20, 2014)

Yep, I use 400 for birds and fast stuff, and indoors, 200 when shooting under good conditions.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 20, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Yep, I use 400 for birds and fast stuff, and indoors, 200 when shooting under good conditions.



Do you shoot B&W or color?  Also do you have a specific brand preference?


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 21, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> vimwiz said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, I use 400 for birds and fast stuff, and indoors, 200 when shooting under good conditions.
> ...



For colour (General photography, birds, landscapes) I use Kodak UltraMAX  400. This has consistently given me good sharpness and natural colours.  As a "war" film, I use Agfa (I think its actually Fuji made) Vista Plus  200. This is a *very* cheap film at ~£1 a roll and gives  warm "retro" colours and feel. For B&W (Street, portraits, artistic  stuff) I use ilford HP5+ (ISO 400 but has a wide exposure latitude so  you can shoot it at say 100 or 800 and push/pull if you develop it at  home) . This is a sharp, contrasty film. I have also used the Kentmere 400. This is made my Harman Tech (Ilford) but is like 1/2 the price. Slightly different process, less contrasty, but still a great B&W film for the price. In terms of what I dont like, I never got on with Ilford XP2 and found the Kodak to be superior to the comparable Fuji in terms of colours.

As am example, the body in my avatar was shot using HP5+.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 21, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> puthenveetilnoel said:
> 
> 
> > vimwiz said:
> ...



Thanks for the detailed film review.  Might I ask where you source your B&W.  That cheap Kentmore seems right up my ally.  Thanks.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 21, 2014)

Im based in the UK.

The Agfa Vista+ you can get in the £1 shop, or online for about double
Boots (What in the US would be called a drugstore) does a buy-one-get-one-half.price on the Kodak, so works out about £5 each
The HP5, buy it in packs of 10 online, works out about £4 each.
The kentmore singly on line is about £3 each.

Online, I dont use amazon/ebay, but the mail-order style photorraphic sites.

I also intend soon to bulk load spools of HP5 in my darkroom.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 25, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Im based in the UK.
> 
> The Agfa Vista+ you can get in the £1 shop, or online for about double
> Boots (What in the US would be called a drugstore) does a buy-one-get-one-half.price on the Kodak, so works out about £5 each
> ...



Hmm.  Yeah I'm definitely gonna have to look online for film.  Its so expensive (relatively) and I am stuck with only one choice of film type.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Im based in the UK.
> 
> The Agfa Vista+ you can get in the £1 shop, or online for about double
> Boots (What in the US would be called a drugstore) does a buy-one-get-one-half.price on the Kodak, so works out about £5 each
> ...



I get 100 feet of HP5 direct from Ilford for £50 delivered with my discount code, pm me if you want the code 10% of everthing and free delivery over £50


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 26, 2014)

pm sent.
Thanks. All of you have been a huge help with this starting out process.
Update. I am about halfway done with that first roll of film.  Found an old scanner in my attic, and made a makeshift negative scanner to hopefully get some good scans uploaded.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 26, 2014)

Whether your budget is $25, $50 or $100, I'd still say a Pentax K1000 would be a great choice. Back in the day, when I bought mine, it was simply one of the best basic, no-nonsense cameras for a student, and I think the same holds true today. 

EDIT: Never mind the rest of that drivel I wrote earlier. Evidently I didn't have enough coffee this morning. I thought there was only one page of comments, so I posted some thoughts, only to discover there were already 3 more pages of comments that addressed everything I'd said quite well.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 28, 2014)

If you're ever in the market for another one, I came across this thing and it's absolutely battery independent. It's metered, but via a selenium meter and not a powered one. Haven't shot with it. It's an SLR, but not an interchangeable lens one, oddly enough, and is probably worth all of $5.




IMG_4025 by longm1985, on Flickr


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 28, 2014)

Huh. That looks relaly interesting.  It kinda seems like a rangefinder.  I think one of those will be my next camera purchase.  I am finding those pretty cheap on ebay (with a little hunting lol) but yeah I think my next purchase will be a yashica minister D.  Supposed to take excellent pictures and is dirt cheap.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 28, 2014)

Well that or a good TLR.  I was just blown away by some of the pictures I have seen shot with really inexpensive TLRs.  They see. To be the best image quality per dollar spent.  Least as far as I can tell.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 28, 2014)

TLRs have an advantage for slower speeds: no big ol mirror flappin all over the place. The mirror on a TLR is stationary. They're definitely different and attention getters, but they're a lot of fun to shoot. 6x6 is where it's at, if you ask me.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Feb 28, 2014)

Well I'm not shooting for the attention (though it is a pleasant side effect). Do you shoot TLRs?


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 28, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> TLRs have an advantage for slower speeds: no big ol mirror flappin all over the place.


I just realized that I do not regularly use a single camera that has a moving mirror, lol.  Even my SLR, a Canon 1N RS, has a stationary mirror.  The rest are rangefinders.

I can always hand-hold at longer shutter speeds than I really should be hand-holding at, haha.  Subject motion blur is the limiting factor for me.

And, yes - 6x6 is definitely where it's at.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 1, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Well I'm not shooting for the attention (though it is a pleasant side effect). Do you shoot TLRs?



I've shot with a few of them. I never did it for the attention either, but I always get some oddball questions like "Is that some strange surveying equimpent?" "What on earth is that thing?" "That's not a weapon, is it?" "You've been randomly selected by TSA for a special, more thorough search." But the Zeiss and Schneider lenses in all the Rolleis I've used are absolutely INCREDIBLE.

 Waist level finders are by far my favorite. I shoot medium format SLRs more than TLRs, but the way I hold my cameras makes them very, very stable.

There's one HUGE advantage to 6x6, btw. No rotating the camera.  No need for grips, weird hand positions, yoga, etc.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 1, 2014)

Throughout the years I had Mamiya, Rolleiflex and Yashica TLR's. The TLR with a waist level finder is just a fun camera to shot with. It's hard to explain, but for me it "just felt right". 
   I have to say out of the 3 brands, I'd buy another Yashica 124G. The photo quality was outstanding in sharpness and contrast. Be it the modern coatings or the glass itself, it even put the Rollei away with it's 1950's CZ "taking lens".
This goes back so far it makes my brain hurt, but if memory serves me right, Yashica went from metal to plastic gearing during it's 124G run. Talk used to be that the plastic never held up as well as the metal and was more problem prone, although I never had the plastic gears to prove or disprove that.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Mar 8, 2014)

Quick update.  The roll is moving a little slower than I would have liked but my town has been snowed in the past few days and there are only so many snow cover tree shots I can do lol.  I'm gonna try and go to a nearby antique store and see if I can find some good pictures there.  Also on the film side I found Walmart is selling 4 rolls of their 200 iso Fujicolor film for $10 and that seems to be the best deal around for me right now.  
Yeah I've heard great things about the older yashicas.  Rollei seems like you're paying a lot for the name and not necessarily that much better quality.  Oh well. I'm not in a position to be drooling over new gear anyway lol.
Though I did pick up this cheap diy TLR kit on eBay.  Cheap plastic construction, single element miniscus lens, and probably pretty trashy pictures but it was a lot of fun to build and get a working understanding of the inside of these devices. 
Recesky DIY Twin Lens Reflex TLR Holga LOMO for 35mm Film Retro Camera | eBay


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 8, 2014)

I have one of those.  Fun camera, just make sure your expectations aren't too high, lol.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 8, 2014)

There's something about a TLR that's just right, like Rick said. That thing actually could be quite educational, I imagine. Even if the photos suck, you got the experience of building it, right? That's still something to be proud of.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Mar 8, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> There's something about a TLR that's just right, like Rick said. That thing actually could be quite educational, I imagine. Even if the photos suck, you got the experience of building it, right? That's still something to be proud of.



My thoughts exactly.  From what I've seen online there is a lot of vignetting and its tricky to get in focus but hopefully in the right conditions I can get some artsy (if blurry) shots. But first things first I gotta finish my first roll in the Nikkormat that rick was nice enough to give to me.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 8, 2014)

You can definitely get some cool shots with it, just don't go in expecting the same quality as a "real" camera.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

OK sorry for this incredibly late post.  I've had some difficult personal problems, but I finally finished my first roll.  As promised here are the shots.  Sorry for some of the poor quality but some of them turned out well i think.  These were processed at my local


----------



## limr (Apr 16, 2014)

Would love to see them, but can't for some reason.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

darn...
im gonna upload them on flikr and then repost them i guess.


----------



## limr (Apr 16, 2014)

Huh. They're showing up now. Might just be me - I'm on my netbook at the moment and sometimes it goes a bit wonky.

The indoor ones are too underexposed to really see much - looks like you were in an antique shop or something? I love haunting the junk shops and am always tempted to take pictures, but I've learned that indoor light is never as strong as it looks, at least not as far as a camera is concerned. But the outdoor ones look like they're good exposures. It's definitely a start!


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

Yeah the indoor ones were way too dark.  I'm gonna go back there with the next roll and lower the shutter speed and up the aperture.  I was kind of just guessing with the settings.  Im gonna use a light meter app on my phone.

I have 14 more shots that I will be showing from my flickr account.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

Ok here is the link with the full list of pictures.  
There are some better indoor pictures and some "artsy" photos. lol

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123465849@N08/


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

A little later this week I'm to try my best at scanning the negatives at home and see if I can save a little money getting them developed without needing to buy a photodisc.


----------



## limr (Apr 16, 2014)

I really like this one:  https://flic.kr/p/n9SPPx

and the shadows look great in this one: https://flic.kr/p/nbVowV

:thumbup:


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

Yeah the shaving one was definitely the best of the set.  Some of the random ones outside looks ok I thought, but just basic scenery shots.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 16, 2014)

What speed film were you using? I usually use 100 outdoors and 400 indoors (although in low light that still might be dark). I think too it can work better to shoot a whole roll either indoors or outdoors to avoid extremes in lighting that you took photos in, depends on where you get it developed if or how much  they'd adjust.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 16, 2014)

This was 400 speed generic film from walgreens.  I have 4 rolls of 200 speed and and going to use a light meter app next time so my indoor pics aren't so underexposed.


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 17, 2014)

Welcome back Noel! 
    It looks like you are off to a good start. Your first roll served it purpose well showing the camera does work properly and you know the basics to get a photo out of it. You've laid the foundation. Now for the first brick....
    I would take a good solid roll of sunny, outdoor shots of things you find interesting. Watch your framing to make sure the bits don't get cut off before snapping the shutter.  Look in the viewfinder and ask yourself if others might find the photo interesting and why. 
    In film photography, every photo counts. You only have a limited number of frames on each roll and unlike digital, each of those frames costs money. Film makes you slow down and look into the viewfinder and say "Do I really want to pay for this?" If so, is everything perfect before pressing the shutter.
    Indoor photography without flash is tough. Slower shutter speeds, wider apertures and higher ISO films all throw in variables that are tough while learning the limitations of film photography.
   Good luck and keep them coming. Film can be very rewarding.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 17, 2014)

Yeah the camera works great. Thank you again.  I am going to take your advice and already have the next roll loaded up.  This time I'll also be bringing my phone to act as at least a basic light meter.  Hopefully this roll will be done a bit sooner and I will post my results on here.  Thanks again for all the advice Rick.


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 17, 2014)

Doesn't the meter in the camera work?


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Welcome back Noel!
> It looks like you are off to a good start. Your first roll served it purpose well showing the camera does work properly and you know the basics to get a photo out of it. You've laid the foundation. Now for the first brick....
> I would take a good solid roll of sunny, outdoor shots of things you find interesting. Watch your framing to make sure the bits don't get cut off before snapping the shutter.  Look in the viewfinder and ask yourself if others might find the photo interesting and why.
> In film photography, every photo counts. You only have a limited number of frames on each roll and unlike digital, each of those frames costs money. Film makes you slow down and look into the viewfinder and say "Do I really want to pay for this?" If so, is everything perfect before pressing the shutter.
> ...



This ^^^ a hundred more times!


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 17, 2014)

In all likelihood the meter does work, but I have been using it sans the battery.  So that's why I'm using an external meter right now.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 24, 2014)

OK roll two is done.  All in all, it looks a lot more consistent.  They are well to over exposed.  I took your advice, and all but one were brightly lit outdoor pictures.  These were all taken in Washington Il (where a tornado hit less than a year ago), and the recovery is still going on.  I have been volunteering at a local church and this gave me to opportunity for some great shots.  I'm pretty pleased with the roll.  Tell me what you think.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123465849@N08/sets/72157644274945942/


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2014)

You're right - the exposures are a lot better. They're good documentary shots. I think the ones that have the most impact are the ones that are shot at lower angles, or have clearer subjects.

For example, I like the starkness of this one that really highlights those bare trees and the destruction around it:


R1-04318-0008 by puthenveetilnoel, on Flickr

But this one seems to lack purpose:


R1-04318-0010 by puthenveetilnoel, on Flickr

Perhaps it has more purpose knowing the area or what things to pay attention to, but that's why I say "documentary" shots - pictures of the scene for recording it for some practical purpose. But that top one I linked to gets closer to a more artistic purpose I think. The angle is unusual and it conveys something more than just the physical objects in the scene. It conveys the sense of loss.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 24, 2014)

Thanks for the comments.
Yeah a lot of the shots were meant to capture my experience volunteering and not really be artistic.  Well that and practice using the meter on my phone so I can be confident in my exposures.  The shot with the trees was about as artistic as I tried to get.  I'm going to try and make more artistic shots on my next roll, starting with another trip to that antique store and getting some proper exposures.


----------



## limr (Apr 24, 2014)

puthenveetilnoel said:


> Thanks for the comments.
> Yeah a lot of the shots were meant to capture my experience volunteering and not really be artistic.  Well that and practice using the meter on my phone so I can be confident in my exposures.  The shot with the trees was about as artistic as I tried to get.  I'm going to try and make more artistic shots on my next roll, starting with another trip to that antique store and getting some proper exposures.



What's really great is that you are got what you intended to get. You wanted good exposures and focus on the documentary shots, and to try something more artistic with the trees, and that's exactly what you accomplished. That's a big thing


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 25, 2014)

Definite improvement there. I missed it in the thread, but are you using a meter or are you using a phone app? I used a phone app for a while, but find that a real meter's a bit more convenient.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (Apr 25, 2014)

Yeah hopefully I'll be able to do what I want with the more artistic shots I wanna take.
And coop I am using a meter on my phone.  Its not the most convenient but I usually just meter once for a light condition and then mess with the settings if I think its darker or brighter.  Not the most precise I suppose, but it has worked out so far.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 25, 2014)

I saw this yesterday but found I got more caught up in what the pictures were about, the amount of destruction, than thinking about critiquing the photos - other than noticing that you seemed to have gotten a handle on the exposures. So I guess that accomplished something in documenting the devastation and the recovery process.


I agree that with some I'm not sure what you're trying to show the viewer. In some it would help I think to show a particular house from a slightly closer or different vantage point, to eliminate distractions like part of another building or part of a car etc. I usually like to either have something in the frame if it's part of the picture or keep it out of the frame altogether (or if part of something will be in the picture I think about where it would look best cropped off). 

edit - For example #0007 could be straightened a little, probably it was the perspective/angle you were shooting from; and I'd eliminate that black post leaning into your picture to the left - I find something distracting when I'm looking at it wondering - what is that?? lol That one might have worked framed a little higher to not cut off the top of the tree, or even shooting vertically. I agree, the trees were to me striking in showing the devastation.
Some of these might benefit from a little cropping, but shooting film of course I usually try to frame a shot the way I want it - so what's in my viewfinder is what the finished photo will be. I think it takes practice and learning and then you might find your creativity could start to come out more in your photos.


----------



## puthenveetilnoel (May 10, 2014)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123465849@N08/sets/72157644200321547/

Hey everyone.  Finished my third roll.  Tried to get some more artistic shots.  Some of them turned out really good i think. (though I did get a little too excited with some and moved the camera too soon I guess.)  Oh well, you live and learn.  Hopefully the next one will be better.  Let me know what you think.  Oh and let me know if you still want me to post my new rolls.  I have enjoyed getting the feedback.  Thanks.

Oh and I haven't edited any of my pictures.  I think after my next roll I'll do a batch of edits on the better photos and then make an updated album with the corrected shots.


----------

