Good, cheap, older equipment for nature photography

An adendum to my previous post. I have since added a Nikon SB-16A flash as a replacement for my Vivitar 283, bringing my investment to a bit over $1000. I plan on accquiring either a 300/4.5 or a 105/2.8 Micro in the near future.

I wish to comment on the Nikkormat models as having intermittent

meter readings due to dirty or cracked carbon ring under the aperture

ring on the front of the camera. I dont think this part is available any more.Check this out by turning the ring while observing

the needle for dropping off or irratic behavior.Input from old camera collector.

I have a question: does Canon have any manual bodies which work with EOS-mount lenses? I already have an EOS body and a few lenses, and I'm not well inclined to sell them and buy anew.

 

My alternate plan, which I may pursue, is to just buy a Rebel X body - essentially the same UI and quite inexpensive - as a backup, or even as a primary body for hiking. (As I've said many times, I'm a much better hiker than a photographer.)

Another vote for the Minolta MD system. The only real limit is the difficulty of finding non-mirror lenses longer than 300mm, but since over half of my lenses are 55mm or wider I'm not disappointed.<P>Nikon and Canon both have excellent manual focus systems, but they're not exactly what I'd call inexpensive. My 16mm fisheye was less than $400, which is hundreds of dollars less than Nikon's or Canon's, or even Pentax's or Olympus'. The Minolta used market has by far the best bang for the buck for buyers. Had I chosen a Canon or Nikon system, I'd have either bought half as much or paid twice as much as I did for Minolta gear.

There seems to be a lot of people not likeing used gear. I personally bought a used Minolta X-570 for $100 in good condition with a flash and 50/1.4. I got a steal on this one and it is in perfect mechanical and interior condition. A little brassing and a few scratches on the outside but other than that great.

 

Another option though is to buy a Minolta X-370 grey market brand new. This is a great beginner camera and you don't have to worry about the condition. Minolta is still making brand new lenses for these allthough the selection is not great. The used selection is real good and Minolta's APO tele's were amazing. The X-370 doesn't have DOF preview but you can learn to live without it, as I did before getting my X-570.

 

Just my 2 cents

Chad

I have been using the older Canon Cameras for years with awsome results. Both my AE1, and my AV1, cost me 130 bucks apiece in mint condition. all my lenses, from the 28-70mm zoom to my 75- 205mm zoom coct me 20.00 a piece in excellent condition from pawn shops, and second hand stores. My old aluminum tripods, 4 bucks, 20 bucks, and free. The free one also has a removable leg to use as a monopod. My Aluminum Newton Neu View View Camera was 120 bucks with a heavy duty tripod from a local antique shop, and my TLR was 21.50 on ebay. I use them all for nature photography. I am a student at LCC in Oregon, and will be tranfering to the UofO in the winter to pursue a Bachelors in Photography. Between my wife and I we have 5 kids, and I am recovering from serious back surgery and my only source of income comes from school. All you have to do is be patient, see a bargaain and grab it. I have found Canon's A series cameras to be tough, take better pictures than modern professional grade auto focus cameras( compared to my freinds who works in photography) while also being extremely versatile, and easy to maintain.I prefer Canon over Nikon due to better availability, and higher quality optics.

Well, I'm 14 years old and someday I hope to be a professional nature photographer. I have always dreamed of owning a F100 or f5, YEAH RIGHT!!

Like me, a 14 year old student would be able to afford such a camera. It would take me 2-4 years. Finally I got a wonderful camera by the name of the nikon fe. It has a mirror locke up. It is a very nice camera, but I just can't seem to focus it fast enough. I mean for stationary subjects it's fine, but for a subject such as wolf in yellowstone... well you get the idea

I think the replies here are very good in general but a comment higher up regarding the Olympus OM-1 poor performance in cold is entirely inaccurate. The Olympus OM-1 and OM-3 were fully mechanical cameras renowned for their performance in the cold; often being a camera of choice for cold weather performance. I think the comment comes from a confessed Nikon user and smacks of some bias.

 

The OM-1 is certainly a great camera for all mechanical operation. For macro work however the OM-2 would be a better choice. Olympus pioneered TTL flash photography and was decades ahead with this technology. It makes macro photography a snap and moreover is great for general photography too.

 

The Zuiko lenses were designed/made in a time when there wasn't a distinction between professional and consumer grade lenses. Their best measures up to the likes of Zeiss and Leica.

 

Enjoy.

On sept 11, 2001 (yes, that day....), I was at the top of Mt Rainier, at around 7am, with some RMI guides. The weather was so cold that all the batteries in my equipement stop working. Even my watch was dead. The only thing that worked that day was my reliable Pentax MX. I couldn't use the meter, but I shot a roll at f11, 1/125, with a M-50 f2.0, Kodak 200 ISO, and they all went wonderfully. There is such a large tolerance when developping this film... I've been doing Nature Photography for quite some times now, mostly in very rugged conditions in the North Cascades, and I can tell you I would never bring up there a fancy camera. Just battle proven gear. It's more important to invest in very good lenses and a very good tripod.

My choice for a beginner:

Pentax K1000 (or MX if you can find one...), $100

SMC-50mm f1.7, undefeated Sharpness/Price ratio, $50

SMC-40mm f2.8, "pancake", super compact lense), $180

Takumar-135mm f2.5, $80

and a used Gitzo tripod. NEVER buy anything but a Gitzo, even used.

I have been driven by similar needs when building my system and this is what I ended up with:

 

Cameras:

Ricoh XR1 (DOF, double-exposure, working meeter) - $150

 

Lenses

Vivitar 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 - $120

Vivitar 19mm 3.8 - $110

Rikenon 50mm 1.4 - $40

Phoenix 100mm 3.5 macro - $120

 

Bogen tripod + ball head - $130

 

Sunpack 144 flash - $40

 

The whole system is about 750 bucks and its so light (due to small apertures) that I can (and do) take it anywhere.

Someone mentioned the Pentax ME Super. This has got to be one of the cheapest ways of getting seriously into nature photography, in fact any type of photography. I think I'm right in saying that the ME Super was the biggest selling body of all time? (Calm down nerds. It's a retorical question, noone cares if I'm wrong!!! The point is the same.) The point is, that there are millions of the things floating around for next to nothing ($50 with SMC 50mm 1.7 lens). The Pentax SMC lenses are reknowned for being good quality. Lenses are around in numbers to match the bodies. Certainly in the shorter focal lengths anyway (up to 200mm is "shorter" for the purposes of this nature discussion). Extension tubes are easy to come by and cheap. You can get a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO for $100. You can get a Pentax SMC 100mm f2.8 macro lens for under $200!! Reversing couplers cost next to nothing. Teleconverters are almost free ($10)!!! You could own an ME Super with 2x 50mm f1.7 lenses (reverse one), a 100mm f2.8 macro, 1.4 and 2x teleconverters and a 400mm apo f5.6 and extension tubes, all for less than $400. You could take a good picture of anything from a snails face to a soaring eagle, or anything in between. The ME Super is small (portable), made of aluminium (hardwearing in the field), has aperture priority and a self timer (use instead of cable release to reduce shake when using a tripod). Motor drives are available cheaply which improve handling, save time and take regular batteries. If all the batteries fail, it can take pictures mechanically at 1/125sec. No depth of field preview is not really a problem, due to an ancient technology called experience. After shooting and viewing a couple of rolls of macro shots, you rapidly get a feel for how the DOF is affected by different apertures and lens/tube combinations. A modern system that can do all this, with even marginally better results, would cost a fortune in comparison. I found that out the hard way! Autofocus is irrelevant on Macro subjects.

 

In my opinion the ME Super does have one drawback: Contrary to the views of the person who also suggested this system above, I find that for extreme macro work, (snails face, aphids etc) this camera suffers badly from mirror slap vibrations. However there are few non digital cameras that don't.

 

One guy made a good point earlier about going back to the older equipment. Every serious photographer knows that lenses are crucial. You can normally get an old set up with FANTASTIC glass for less than a modern set up with poor quality lenses. I would recommend people on a budget (less that $5000) to go for an older system for nature photography. You can spend the four and a half grand you saved travelling to places worth taking pictures of!

 

Oh one last advertisement for the quality of the ME Super, I seem to remember something about ME Supers and the Pulitzer prize for photography. What was that??? (Go for it nerds!) :)

 

Nick

NATURE photography, huh? well, i think there are lots of different demands. if i shoot birds, my issue is length vs. chromatic aberration. if i shoot macro, my concern is working distance. if i shoot small mammals, i need fast autofocus, fast shutter speed, and intelligent metering. if i go to the tropics, i need something i'm willing to destroy. and mostly, i need something small, light, and self-sufficient in the field. wow, no wonder i don't get out of the studio much!

 

so here are some thoughts. i still take a k1000 se into harsh conditions. the small smc-m 135's, 50's, and 28's seem well-designed for the outdoors. i used to travel with an mv and an mv-1 which can fit back-to-back AS A PAIR in most one-camera bags, or one in each pocket. but i did find i grew tired of turning the ISO dial to fool the meter for exposure compensation. i liked what i can only describe as their petite ruggedness and utter disposability. in fact, i shed this pair just because i end up doing a lot of portraits when i travel and need to LOOK a little more serious.

 

if i want to reach for my nature subjects, i take an old canon a1 and a 200/2.8 that is fairly beat up ($250 for the pair). they can be tiring to carry, but they are a nice bit of kit. interestingly, i still won't risk my nikkor 180/2.8 ed or pentax smc-a* 200/2.8 in the field. perhaps the true definition of a pro is that he's willing to bang up his best equipment, and i'm not there yet. i just got a minolta apo 200/2.8 that looks like it would love being in the field, though i can't say the same of any af minolta bodies. still, it's $50 to replace a nice minolta 7000, so perhaps i will sacrifice this pair to the gods of dust and mud. i have a nikon n5005 with a short, light tokina 70-210/4-5.6 that mates well to a sony 1.4x front converter (no loss of light -- 72mm front and 52mm rear). i'll take that anywhere and show the results to anyone! now WHY WOULD I ADMIT to such a shameful thing? because that's the "nature" of going into the field for me. i'm not willing to carry anything that is big, expensive, beautiful, needs to be pampered, is hard to use, or is difficult to replace. in fact, the 5005 is sort of heavy, so if i could stand the weaker electronics, i might grab a lighter 4004 instead.

 

as for macro, i just did a formal comparison. pentax smc-a 100/2.8, minolta 100/2.8, minolta 50/2.8, canon fd 100/4, tokina 90/2.5 atx, tamron 90/2.5 mf, tamron 90/2.8 af, vivitar s1 90/2.5, reversed 50, etc. i would easily choose the tamron 90/2.5 mf or tokina 90/2.5 atx for a nature jaunt, based purely on ruggedness, compactness, and versatility. both are legends, can be replaced for $100-150, and feel right for the task. a canon b-55 hood almost fits right on the tamron (the version with the longer front flange), and looks pretty good.

 

what if someone were guaranteeing me replacement costs of equipment in order to get a great nature shot? then everything is different. i might take the bigger glass. i might go 645 or digital instead. and i might, surprise surprise, take my canon fd 135/2 because it is so good and so compact, and is the right length if you ever find yourself close to what you want to shoot.

 

btw, finding a used, cheap, excellent, small, sturdy wide angle is no problem in any mount...

 

i'd love to have an old canon rebel outdoors, but what cheap lens would you hike around with? maybe something 3rd party... and i love the idea of old nikons in the rough, but again, what glass would be a good match? i think mf pentax, olympus, and konica were really the friends-of-the-outdoors brands. that's what makes the question so clever -- it forces one to step away from the canon/nikon mafia.

I come from South Africa, and you know what? I STILL use an old Ricoh manual camera with a 210 lens. It takes THE most stunning photo's that you would swear had come out of a professional photography magazine, and the fine tuning on the lens in awesome. I sometimes feel that my Canon EOS 1 sort of takes out the joy of real photography, as I personally like the total control and the artistic challenges that you are faced with when taking photo's from a camera like the Ricoh. I have found that I take more interesting and beautiful photo's in the game reserves South Africa is so famous for than with my EOS1. But hey- that's just me, and my oppinion. Don't shoot me down guys if you dissagree! ;)

I had to get in on a forum that has been going for almost 10 years!

All of my Nikons were purchased used. FA, N70, D1x. Great values and still going strong. I

had a similar experience on the summit of Mount Washington, NH. My Olympus C2000z

batteries were too cold and the camera died after 2 shots. I also had the frame of mind to

carry my Nikon FA with a 24mm lens. The Nikon worked fine and even if the batteries died

it would have fired manually at 1/250. I'm now looking for either a Minolta SRT-202 or a

Nikon FM2 type camera. In a hiking or mountaineering situation. I want full manual control

for the eventual reality that the batteries won't work in the cold. I would rather use "sunny

16" and bracket then not get the shot with an electronic camera. I recently carried a Koni-

Omega Rapid 100 6x7 up Mount Elbert, CO. Totally manual, I didn't even bring a meter on

a sunny day and my shots turned out great.

 

For general 35mm nature work, I would recomend the FA highly, my camera with the

matrix metering has turned out some great images. I have read some reviews that did not

agree but I love the FA. It has mirror lock up (sort of) DOF preview and excellent

ergonomics in my opinion. I just want a manual back up too. Praise Sunny 16, long live

film.

There is nothing wrong with good, old stuff, if you can do away with the newest bells and whistles. I know my Nikon 200/f4 AIS wouldn't even meter with D50 at all. Last weekend out of curiosity I hooked it up and took a shot with sunny 16 rule. The result turned out to be tack sharp and very satisfying. Good lens optics doesn't get aged. You can still find bargains if you know what to look for.