Amateur Photographer Looking for Advice

Hello there:

 

This is my first posting on this site. I'm an amateur photographer looking to

invest in my first serious camera. I have a Canon SD500 Powershot and an ok

Nikon film camera with a crappy lens. Most of my photography is either wedding

photos or travel photos (last trip to Nepal resulted in about 500 photos which

I will post a few of eventually). I've got a bit of skill but I think I need

to invest a serious amount of time and energy into really developing my

photography skills. I want to spend that time with a camera that I can use in

a variety of situations that will serve me well over the next 10 years, i.e., I

want to learn on the camera that I am going to use, not on the cameras that I

have currently. I've got quite a bit of capital to invest in a camera (about

$3000) and I wondering if you have recommendations for a 35mm film camera and

required lens(es) for someone in my position. I'm also thinking of taking a

class (I live in LA) and I was wondering if anyone had any leads on that

front. I work as an attorney currently but will likely be moving to the

foreign service next year. Photography has been my passion for the last 10

years but I've always felt that with a better camera and a lot more time

invested in learning the basics, I would be a much better photographer. I met

a photographer for National Georgraphic in Nepal who was lauding the merits of

a Leica but I'm not sure if it's versatile enough for what I am looking for.

The romance of it does appeal to me but I want to be practical about this

investment since I want this investment to serve me well for the next 10

years.

 

Advice?

The only 35mm film camera worth having is a Leica. I have tried most of the other brands, but when I came up with the cash for a Leica, it became clear that everything else was second rate. $3000. may not be quite enough for a new one with a lens. If that is an absolute limit, do not hesitate to get a used one. M6 is my favorite, M3 second. Any current or very recent generation Leica lens will be good. My preference is for the 50mm f2. Lower price, focuses closer, weighs less. The Leica reflexes are ok too, but these are better. Suggest you buy from a Leica dealer as opposed to Ebay so you have some recourse if you get a bad used body or lens.

Hi Ozge

There is no serious or better camera in the world, but photographer. If you would be a better photographer, invest in films, paper and travelling.

The only thing what you need is a box with a shutter and experience. Plastic or brass cameras have the same function.

good luck!

Here is link

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm

I would only consider camera systems who's lenses will let you transition easily into a digital SLR when the time comes, and it will. The Nikon F100, maybe Nikons best AF film camera, is selling in the $200.00 to $300.00 range now - a steal - and very similar in feel and control to current digital Nikon SLR's

Ozge, you want an excuse for new gear...

 

Now, let's skip that one.

 

First, think about the kind of photographs you do best. Are you elated when traveling? Of all the photographs, which ones do you consider your best and why? Examine those ones, see what's in them that leads you to think there's a photographer inside you. In other words, think, really hard, about the knowledge you have gathered already about composition, photographic expression and "tricks" or signs (the ones that allow you to see sadness or happiness in a photograph). Study the work of photographers you like, see what they have done and try to follow their steps before you take your own path.

 

And, most important, just take photographs for the sheer pleasure of taking them, looking at them, printing them and even framing them to hang in your place... but don't become obsessed with success or else you'll turn into a bitter man.

 

Of course, if you want to buy a new camera nobody will stop you, but keep in mind that you, and not the camera, take the pictures.

 

Start by buying or checking out books from your local library too! And enjoy the journey!!

For 35mm film rangefinder photography, the Leica M system is the best, and $3K is sufficient for a good used camera and lens. However, your post does not indicate that you've decided that rangefinder photography is for you. It's different from SLR photography. You need to understand the difference better before deciding whether to buy a Leica system. On the other hand, you could buy it and if it doesn't work out you can usually recover your investment on the used market.

A digital SLR would accelerate your learning, given that you get instant feedback. Why is it so important to have the camera for the next 10 years? If you don't mind getting digital, I'd suggest a Nikon D200 or a Pentax K10D.

Most everyone has gone digital and that is what the classes will tell you. I'm a film guy preferring the Leica because of its many attributes, compactness, lenses, reliability, unobtrusiveness, among others. Decide if you're film or digi...then take it from there.

 

classes: on the cheap your local community college or Tri-Community Photo Center in Covina, CA. [great teachers, very helpful].

 

Its about the photographers and not the gear, but if you ask I'd say go with the Leica M camera - the best ever made.

If you already have a Nikon body, spend $500 for a pair of Nikon primes, used off eBay, and you won't have "crappy" lenses any more. If you want opinions from strangers, this stranger will tell you spending $3000 on film Leicas in 2007 is stupid. Your photos will look exactly the same as the ones you took with your crappy lenses. My $500 lens advice will save you $2500.<p>Take the remaining $2500 and use it to fund yourself a full month off and to travel somewhere you've never been with a couple of bricks of film. You may come back with a dozen photos you never dreamed you could take. <p>Best of luck.

Thanks for all the responses. Very helpful. Of course there is some aspect of the "new toy" thrill in my desire to buy a new camera. I would think that most people on this site would understand that. I will likely invest in a digital SLR at some point as well -- it seems unavoidable. I love the photos that my little digital Canon SD500 takes so I am actually pretty happy with that for the time being -- it's great for times I don't want to lug around a full-size camera. Seems silly to get a second digital camera when I have one that serves most purposes relatively well.

 

I am not so happy with the quality of my photos from my Nikon which could be either that I am a crappy photographer or that the lens is causing issues. $3000 is more of a guideline than a cap. I want a nice film camera and advice on the best one available. Looks like the Leica M6 may be my best bet. I'll probably research/think for the next few months before investing regardless. I'll be leaving the country next spring for a 3-4 month trip through the Middle East so I need the camera well before then with enough time to really learn how to use it.

 

Andy, thanks for the advice on the Nikon. My father bought me the prior version of the Nikon I have currently. It broke after 2 years and I took it in to be fixed. The camera store said it would the same to buy a new one as it would to have the old one fixed. So I replaced the body with a new one but it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I expect that when I spend $400 a piece of equipment that it will last longer than the warranty. I guess I could invest $400 every two years and it will still be more cost effective than the Leica but for some reason that is less appealing to me. This is part of the allure of the Leica -- that I can fall in love with the camera and have it for a long time without having to replace it. I thank you all for your kind advice. I imagine I will be seeking more advice shortly.

"I am not so happy with the quality of my photos from my Nikon which could be either that I am a crappy photographer or that the lens is causing issues"

 

What lens is it and why do you suspect the lens rather than other factors? Part of photography is understanding and working around the limitations of your equipment- some equipment is more versatile than others but all are limited in one way or another.

I'm surprised Nikon gives you poor results, even the amateur lenses should be pretty

good. Getting a few prime lenses is good advice.

 

Leica concentrates on essentials: robust, quality gear that wil last and last. If you want the

latest tech and a huge range of zoom lenses, it isn't for you. But then some of the best

pictures have been taken with really simple gear, just a manual body and 50mm lens. If

you decide on Leica M, I second Leica M6 or M3 plus a 50, and also a wide angle (35 or 28)

for traveling.

 

Also, don't dismiss a really simple compact film camera with quality fixed lens for taking

along as well as a digital (it's unlikely to last as long as an M, though).

 

The trouble with virtually all digital gear (except, possibly the Leica M8) is that it is

outdated as soon as it is released and will be superseded by the next model. Leica Ms will

just go on and on. But you do have to factor in film processing costs.

 

But probably the best investment you could make for $100 or so would be to buy some

photo books, including National Geo's travel photography, and anything you can find on

composition and exposure.

Ozge wrote:

 

<< ... merits of a Leica but I'm not sure if it's versatile enough for what I am looking for. The romance of it does appeal to me but I want to be practical ... >>

 

Well put. And it points you squarely in the direction Andy described, rather than in the direction of the M6 (a camera I own and like, by the way).

 

If you want to go the all manual route, a Nikon FM2 (or FM2N) would do the trick. Compact and solidly built, in the Nikon line-up for about 20 years and thus easily repairable/adjustable if need be, and it accepts half a million quality lenses (give or take). Only the meter is battery dependent, same as on the M6. But unlike the M6, it goes to 1/4000 max shutter speed and flash syncs at 1/250.

 

If you're thinking about autoexposure, there's the FE2 -- similar to FM2 but with aperture priority AE and ttl flash. It uses batteries, but they're modern ones and readily available.

 

If you have autofocus on your mind, there's the F100, a superb camera now available at a low price because .... it takes film.

 

For the manual cameras, there are outstanding mf lenses at 35 f/2, 50 (either f/1.4, 1.8, or 2.0), and the celebrated 105 f/2.5, and too many others to count. Comparable AF Nikkors are available for the F100, should you prefer autofocus. You can put longer zooms on the slr than you can on a rangefinder, should you find you're interested in wildlife. Macro photography is also easier and more convenient on an slr, should you go that route.

 

If you said you expected to concentrate on available light photography in poorly lit places, the rangefinder offers the advantage of having no mirror, and therefore no mirror slap, so it can be handheld by many at somewhat lower shutter speeds.

 

If you want the romance, the M6 is there. But how will you feel about yourself in the morning ? :-)

Above, "longer zooms" should have been written as "longer lenses."

 

(There aren't "long zooms" for the Leica M series cameras.)

The end of the world is at hand (end of film). What's this about 10 years? No camera with today's lens mounts will have any relationship to what any of us will want in 5 years.

 

Spend $1000 on a good OLD Nikon SLR and a couple of prime lenses, and put the rest into film, processing, bus fare, and fruit juice for the ladies. Shoot $2000 worth of film and high quality processing and scanning (if you can find it). Do this for the remainder of 2007 and you'll be a famous photographer in the New Year, like Al Kaplan or Weegee.

 

You won't be able to find film and processing for that 35 in a few years, and today's best digital cameras will be paper weights by 2010, so put your money into photography itself rather than into hardware.

Such depressing comments with regard to film cameras. I'm not swayed. The advantage of the Leica is really the portability for me. I like to travel light and I love taking shots of people in places I travel. My understanding is that I will lose a lot of travel convenience with the SLR. Perhaps I am wrong on that front and someone can correct me . . .

 

And I don't care about the new digital revolution. There is an art to film photography that will never disappear and I want to be a part of it. I can always keep the digital in my pocket to see how the shots may have turned out.

 

As with all romances, you never feel quite as nice in the morning but I always have an unabashed grin while brushing my teeth the next day. I cannot imagine that I will regret any amount of money invested in a good and practical tool.

 

I've ordered two books to start me off:

 

"Langford's Basic Photography, Eighth Edition: The guide for serious photographers"

 

"Leica M: Advanced Photo School (A Lark Photography Book)"

 

Thanks for all the helpful advice.

John K, will due respect, your doomsday stuff: "The end of the world is at hand (end of film)" is a boring 150 year old echo of what was said about painting and engraving when photography was invented.

 

Those in the mid 19th Century who said that etching and engraving would have no future, have been proved so wonderfully wrong, by the existance of artists' printmaking workshops flourishing around the world, with developments and improvements in ink supplies, and magnificent etching papers still made in mills in Europe and elsewhere, some who have been in continuos business for CENTURIES.

 

Portrait painters were supposed to all go and jump off cliffs because the camera had arrived.

 

Whilst engraving, was for the most part eclipsed by lithography in commercial printing, but not entirely, because some exclusive texts are still illustrated with copperplate photogravure, and stone lithography by zinc then aluminium plate for high volume photo lithography, it, like so many other print medium has made a place for itself, and stayed. So will film-based photography.

 

We are experiencing only just the beginning of a consolidation of the film industry. In one form or another it is here to stay, and will outlive you.

 

I recently had a friend ask if I still had the darkroom gear he was so keen to throw out when he bought his first pixel thing. Lucky for him I still do. Others have told me they regretted selling their film cameras. You do no one any favours with that stuff about "end of film", but it sure does seem to be your favourite hobby horse.

 

Read some history dear friend ... if you dare.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

Ozge, ignore the depressing stuff. I bought an M3 about 10 years ago, and have just used a hand-held meter. I would like another later body with a meter for colour transparency (slides) but have invested in additional lenses instead, all old and magnificent. I also have Minolta X-370 SLR. They have some excellent lenses, good enough that they supplied Lieca with the optics for some of the Leica R lense range.

 

A reliable and respected author on the M system is Jonathan Eastland, who has written a number of works, but if you are interest in the M cameras, I would suggest you get his "Leica M Compendium" http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Leica-M-Compendium-Handbook-of-the-Leica-M-system-Hove_W0QQitemZ270016755342QQihZ017QQcategoryZ712QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

 

I have this book as well as his Leica R Compendium. You can get them new from Hove Books direct or via the link above, and sometimes used on eBay as well.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

<< ... My understanding is that I will lose a lot of travel convenience with the SLR. Perhaps I am wrong on that front and someone can correct me . . . >>

 

That depends upon which slr, and which lenses. The FM2 and FE2 I mentioned are small cameras. An M6, for example, weighs 560 grams; an FM2 weighs 540. The AIS version of the 35/2 Nikkor lens weighs about 280 grams; the black chrome Leica 35/2 ASPH is about 255 (but the silver colored one is heavier, weighing in at closer to 340 grams).

 

In short, the Nikons and Leicas we're talking about are rather close in weight, but not in price. :-)

 

When people talk about carrying heavy, bulky slr gear, they're often talking about pro-level bodies and lenses, which are indeed large and heavy. But that comparison is not terribly illuminating. A pro-level autofocus body from Canon or Nikon shoots multiple frames per second (vs. ? on the manually advanced M rangefinder, or for that matter the manually advanced FM2), autofocuses terribly fast (vs. not at all on the M rangefinder or the FM2), and so on.

 

Of course you should get the cameras/lenses *you* want, whether you select on the basis of price, utility, durability, practicality, flexibility -- any criteria *you* prefer. I'm only posting so that other views are presented and explained.

 

The important thing is that you get equipment you'll enjoy using.

 

Whatever you decide to get, I do hope you post some photos with us here.

 

Best of luck.

As a lifelong and committed film photographer who shoots Leica AND dslr, my suggestion

would be FORGET Leica for now, get a DSLR, learn to photograph, THEN, once you built up

some skill get a Leica if you want.

If you can resist all the naysayers then it sounds as if you are a Leica M candidate!

 

Leica M Advanced Photo School is an excellent book, and very inspiring. The Nat Geo one

is good, and I can also recommend Brian Bower's Light Lens and Landscape and Roger

Hicks and Frances Schulz's Perfect Exposure.

 

Leica M is definitely A LOT lighter for traveling, and excellent in low light. Use it with 100

ISO slide film or 400 ISO print film and you will be very satisfied.

Amusing responses. There's a big difference between etching/painting and film photography. Guess what it is.

 

Film photography is 100% dependent upon the desires of shareholders of a couple of gigantic corporations that actually do have bigger fish to fry. The future of film has nothing to do with the desires of 35 mm camera operators. Etching/painting are not dependent upon any industry at all, the artists can keep their technology alive without any input from any industrial resource or financial market whatsoever...even without paper.

 

Perhaps Ozge should investigate Prokudin Gorskii. Glass plate photography, unlike film photography, didn't need Rochester. Coat em' yerself.

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html

Ozge, you present an interesting situation because while I moved to Leica M for the constant desire for more compact high quality photographic equipment options and was also attracted by the durability and legacy aspects, I did not think my previous images were crap. You can get a used Nikon AIS 50 1.4 for about $125, and find out if you are able to meet your photographic expectations.

 

For me, the rangefinder concept, perfected in the Leica M, is more of a photography touchstone than the quality of the Leica glass, but I came to that conclusion only after years of using many cameras, and as you acknowledge yourself, the rangefinder M is not as versatile as some of the SLR alternatives. While my Leica M6 and CL are essential to my personal enjoyment of photography, in many situations I still reach for my Nikon FM3a to deal with parameters I can not control when I need a predicatable result, and the FM3a is well suited to creative-control projects also.

 

Often when posters say, "Its the photographer and not the camera" I want to gag because they are attempting to dismiss any consideration of the incremental benefits that better equipment offers, but the fact is that fine photographs can be made with inexpensive equipment.

http://www.photo.net/photos/guzelsu

 

I uploaded a few photos. Couldn't manage to turn them all upright before uploading but I

hope to fix that shortly. Some are taken with the crappy Nikon (Cambodia, Laos) and others

with the Canon SD500 (Nepal). Peruse and comment.