sinead_longden Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>I am a relative beginner hoping to buy my first film camera. I don't want to go digital. I am unsure which one to get, although I am a beginner I doubt I will be buying another camera for a while so this one has got to last while I become better. Which one would you suggest? And just because which one is better for a beginner? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisnielsen Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>I know nothing about those two, but I do know I adore my Olympus OM2N. Maybe add that to your list?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Seaman Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>My vote would be for the Pentax, it's small but very well made with a large, bright viewfinder and a vertical metal bladed shutter. Operating it is lovely and smooth. The Canon although an excellent camera, has a cloth shutter and is prone to something called the "Canon squeak" where lubricants in the mechanism dry out and cause problems. It can be fixed - at a price.<br /> What's just as important is to get a fully working camera in usable condition. Most cameras from this era used black foam plastic light seals which have deteriorated into a sticky mess over time. Try and get a camera which has had new light seals fitted. Be especially careful about the mirror bumper, a strip of foam at the top behind the lens which cushions the mirror as it flips up. If this has gone sticky it can seriously mess up the focussing screen. It can be replaced reasonably easily.<br /> About lenses - it would be good to get a camera with a 50mm prime lens rather than a cheap zoom. The Pentax uses the K-mount lenses which can still be used on Pentax digital cameras if needed (which has unfortunately pushed up their prices in some cases). The Canon lenses are somewhat less in demand, being something of an "orphan" system.<br /> There are of course many other choices, Olympus, Minolta, Nikon all made superb cameras and lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann1 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>The ME Super is my favorite slr. The only thing it doesn't have is the DOF preview, if you can do without it, go for it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stemked Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>Any particular reason why you are going with these two? Film cameras are dirt cheap now a-days. In Pentax IMHO its hard to beat something like a Pentax Super Program.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audun_sjoeseth1 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>I have these 135 cameras for film:<br> Pentax: ME-super, MX and LX<br> Olympus: OM-2n<br> Nikon: Nikonos V<br> Yashica rangefinder: Minister 700<br> My prefered camera right now is OM-2n and LX, followed by MX and the very silent ME-super.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laur1 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>If you're a beginner, you should make things easy for yourself and get a film camera. You'll learn the basics much faster that way and film won't go away if you later want to give it a try. But with film you're limiting yourself to a steep learning curve. You'll have no idea whether the settings you used were correct until you'll develop the film and by that time you may not remember what settings you used. Make it easy for yourself - learn with digital.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>I would suggest the ME Super. Both are good cameras; the Super may have a better selection of lenses because Canon changed their mounts as they opened up the EOS line. Pentax lenses from the 1950s will still fit on contemporary cameras. The screwmounts need an adapter; very inexpensive. Both are good cameras, but I favor the Pentax because I've used it.</p> <p>My ME Super served me well. After about 20 years and one too many repairs, it's retired to the bookshelf. It was the first camera I jumped out of a plane with. Excellent durability. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgredline Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 <p>I have both the ME Super and the Canon AE-1. Both are quite different from one another. One thing that is a huge thing to me is that the ME SUPER is Aperture priority and the AE-1 is shutter speed priority. Both Cameras meter very well...</p> <p>The Canon AE-1 has a very VERY loud shutter that annoys me very much. The MES has a very quite shutter...The AE-1 It has a max shutter speed of 1/1000, The MES 1/2000 that is most helpful for street shooting with fast films. The AE-1 is quite heavy and the MES is quite light and small. In the lens dept, I believe it is a wash. There are plenty of FD lenses as there are plenty of K mount lenses and both sell for close to the same. Both lenses are superb in the optical dept. The last thing is battery life. The MES batteries seem to last for ages where the battery on the AE-1 goes away in a hurry.</p> <p>All n all there is a reason why I have 3 ME SUPERS and 1 Canon AE-1. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewg_ny Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 <p>ME Super is a fine choice. Reasons one might prefer a Super Program: TTL flash support, full Program- and Shutter-priority auto-exposure modes in addition to manual and and aperture-priority on the ME Super. Depth-of-field preview available. Electronic self-timer is probably more reliable than mechanical timer. Includes comfortable finger grip.</p> <p>ME Super is a little smaller though, and viewfinder might be slightly brighter. I personally don't love the Super Program's LCD shutter display in the viewfinder. ME Super has a metal rather than plastic top deck but one reason you'll notice this is that many M-series cameras have little dents in their prisms while a plastic Super Program would probably shrug off some of these impacts.</p> <p>If a straight-forward, rugged, all-mechanical, manual exposure-only compact SLR camera appeals to you, the MX is a good choice. The battery only powers the built-in lightmeter--all shutter speeds are available with no batteries. It has a particularly nice sturdy feel while being compact like the ME. Has a full-info viewfinder including the ability to see what aperture is set on the lens. Includes depth-of-field preview. I think you'll find that a decent one will cost a bit more than a ME Super or Super Program.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_2000406 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 <blockquote>If you're a beginner, you should make things easy for yourself and get a film camera. You'll learn the basics much faster that way and film won't go away if you later want to give it a try. But with film you're limiting yourself to a steep learning curve. You'll have no idea whether the settings you used were correct until you'll develop the film and by that time you may not remember what settings you used. Make it easy for yourself - learn with digital.</blockquote> <p>Did you mean <strong>digital</strong> in the first sentence?</p> <p>Sinead, both cameras are good but I suggest you consider a camera with depth-of-field preview such as the Nikon FE. Also consider whether you want aperture-priority automation (better for still scenes such as landscapes and portraits), shutter-priority automation (better for scenes with movement such as street scenes), or no automation at all (you always pick both aperture and shutter speed).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laur1 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <blockquote> <p>Did you mean <strong>digital</strong> in the first sentence?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, but by the time I realized my mistake, I couldn't edit the text anymore. Thanks for noticing. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_tran14 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>If you're a beginner, you should make things easy for yourself and get a film camera. You'll learn the basics much faster that way and digital will definitely not go away if you later want to "move on" to digital. Because with film you're putting yourself in a fast and straight learning path and you'll get a steep learning progress curve. You'll learn how to make correct settings instead of keep trying without a clue hoping to get it correct some day and by that time (after so many tries) you will not have a faint idea what settings you used and why they were wrong. Make it easy for yourself - learn with a film camera.</p> <p>I definitely will not involve in a F vs D war</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgredline Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>One of the best things I ever did for my self as far as photography goes, is get me a K1000 and Petersons book, understanding exposer. Those taught me more about photography than anything else. So I would humbly disagree that a digital camera is the way to learn. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laur1 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>I learned using a film camera too. But then I learned way more and way faster when moving to a digital SLR. Just to make it clear - when I advocate for a digital camera, I advocate for an SLR.<br> <br />If you want to learn something, you need to see the results. Film introduces a delay and also adds costs that make experimentation more difficult.<br> <br />This is not about film vs digital, but about which is a better *learning* tool.<br> <br />The only advantage of a film camera is that it is cheap up front and then you pay proportional to use. That's about it. If decent DSLRs would cost $50, we wouldn't see many people buying K1000s for photography classes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgredline Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>LC, It is hard to argue with that. Most photography schools are now using DSLR's which is why there are so many SLR's on ebay. But still, I guess I am a bit old school and prefer the SLR's which I still use today quite a bit. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_corbin Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>Javier, if I were to ever teach a beginning photography class I'd have everyone bring the DSLRs on the first day of class. I'd then take their DSLR bodies and lock them in a safe and hand everyone a K1000 with a 50mm on it. Halfway through the 6-8 week course, I'd give them their DSLRs back.</p> <p>It's true that there is a cost associated with film, but notes can be taken, and 1 hr photo places develop most things just fine. But that's part of the beauty of that learning curve; the cost to the user means that every shot MUST be better than the last, and forces you to become better. On digital I've seen people blast through 1000 shots and try to be better while 100 shots on film (done with more care due to $$$) would have made them a better photographer much sooner (proverbially).</p> <p>Laurentiu, you state a good point, but I'm definitely an advocate of SLR learning. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_b15 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 <p>This is what I would do - decide what kind of photography you want to do and see how available the glass type for the cameras. Meaning, if you're going to be shooting lots of telephoto shots, see what the availability of glass is around. I would also see how available bodies are because after investing in glass, if your body craps out, you'll be able to replace it. Those old 35mm cameras aren't worth repairing - why spend $200 to repair something you can buy for $20?</p> <p>Both are good cameras - although, the mount for the Canon is outdated. The lens on the AE-1 won't work on an EOS DSLR or a SLR. <br> You can use the Pentax lens on the new DSLRs - with restrictions. <br> On the other hand, if you're just going to use a 50mm lens, it really doesn't matter and as a matter of fact, they'r'e both so damn cheap now, you can get both for under $100.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 <p>Not sure why you are limiting yourself to these two. If you want something really basic, a K1000 has match needle metering which is a little more accurate than the MES led metering. Something more modern like an MZ 5N or MZ 3n are just as intuitive to use and provide a few more features and should be available fairly cheap.</p> <p>In Canon, I would go for an EOS camera as it will get you into their current system and give you all the room to grow as needed right up to becoming a professional one day if you wish. An Elan 7, Elan 2 or something simmilar is very versatile and easy to use, and the EF 50 f1.8 is a fast, sharp lens that can give pro results and costs $100 new.</p> <p>BTW you will learn much faster with digital.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now