Starter film camera? (Pentax vs Olympus vs Canon vs Minolta)

<p>Hello! I'm looking into buying my first film camera. I've taken a photography class at my school and have shot my own DSLR (Canon Rebel t3i) for two years, and used a borrowed film camera (Pentax K1000) for the class for a couple of weeks. No matter how much I shoot with my DSLR though, I keep thinking of how authentic and genuine film photography is-- not to mention exciting. I've been searching Ebay and doing research for a while now, and I think I've narrowed it down to a few cameras that I'm interested in and I was wondering if you all would care to weigh in? I'm not looking really looking for any flashy electronic stuff-- just a basic camera with good lens options that is sturdy and I can buy for relatively cheap. <br>

1. Pentax K1000<br>

2. Olympus OM-1<br>

3. Olympus OM-2n (not going to lie, as much as cosmetic appearance doesn't matter... The sleek black design is a major plus in my books! lol I'm also a big fan of the Zuiko lenses!)<br>

4. Minolta SRT 101<br>

5. Canon A-1 (once again the black design ;-) )<br>

If you guys have any more suggestions, I would be glad to hear them! Thank you! Would love to hear all of your thoughts!</p>

<p>You have been using No. 1 and today it is still the best place to start if you want to learn and understand film photography.</p>

<p>The OM-1D is the best handling camera I've ever used. The OM2-n should be excellent as well. With either, make sure the film advance is working properly, and that the shutter is in good shape. Also consider the Olympus OM4-T--the metering is amazing.<br>

<br />For a great camera with the best selection of manual lenses (available used <strong>or new</strong>) look for the Nikon FM2.</p>

<p>I've owned all but that specific Pentax, although I own other Pentax film cameras (Spotmatic and H1A). In the Olympus category I'd take the OM2n over the OM1 any day - IMHO a much better camera being 2nd generation. The Minolta, assuming everything works well, is a fine camera, although I prefer the 102 over the 101...make sure if you select either that you either have the light seals replaced or can do it yourself....the ones I've encountered either have them dried out like a prune or they've gone gooey. Replacing seals is a cheap process, with kits often on Ebay for 10-12 USD. Just another thought on Minoltas - a couple of years ago I picked up an XGM for pennies at a charity shop, cleaned it up and found not only an outstanding viewfinder but also the best of the Rokkor lenses to be truly outstanding for their consistency of coloration across the full range of focal lengths. Now the contentious one the Canon A-1. I used one for 10 years and after an initial love affair came to dislike it. Don't get me wrong, it worked fine and was quite reliable, but it just wasn't like others I had used and I was always getting settings mixed up. After a 7 year hiatus from the Canon FD side, I remembered how good their top of the line lenses were, researched some, and got a T90 which I dearly love. My only complaint about both is that Canon should have included a built in diopter like Nikon did - very important for glasses wearers as their eyes age. Yes, I have a clip on diopter, which wants to jump off the camera at inconvenient times. But I'd take the T90 over the A1 any day of the week. All subjective inputs.</p>

<p>I think one of the 'L' series Prakticas deserves mention and consideration. The ones with light meters have the same problems as all old cameras similarly equipped, of course. The plain-jane Ls proper, though, are rugged with a superb metal shutter. They are also very inexpensive and have good to superb lenses (avoid the Meyer Domiplan, however).</p><div></div>

<p>Since you already own Canon EF lenses, have you considered going with one of the newer-ish Canon film bodies that accept your lenses? Canon produced some awfully nice film bodies with the EF mount. Most affordable would be the EOS 650, 620, and 630. You can then save the money that would have gone into a new lens stable, and use that money towards film and developing. </p>

<p>If you like the idea of truly 'old school' cameras, such as those you listed, I would lean towards the Pentax K1000 (a fully manual camera) or the Olympus's. The lenses for both the Oly's and the Pentax can easily be adapted for use on your Canon DSLR, whereas the Minolta and Canon manual lenses are orphaned mounts, that can't (easily) be adapted to any of the newer DSLR's. Both Oly and Pentax made excellent lenses back in the day, and produce nice stuff on digital.</p>

<p>If Pentax, skip the overpriced (due to hype / tradition /"cult status") K1000. - Look at KX or maybe even an MX instead.<br>

Maybe ponder a Mamiya C330. Yes its medium format.<br>

Whatever you are planning to buy: try to catch a well stuffed bag with a few interchangeable lenses instead of just a camera. - Might be cheaper than buying everything on its own.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Yashica / Contax is a nice orphan mount system with a few Zeiss lenses floating around for it.</p>

<p>Yes, I also recommend the EOS Canon models. They are available for about as reasonable prices as any of the other film SLRs. While you can't use the EF-S lenses on them, you can use the EF lenses on the Canon DSLRs. (Unlike Nikon, Canon modified the mount such that you can't mount EF-S lenses on EF cameras.)</p>

<p>With a little (sometimes a lot) of luck, you can find just about any film SLR for less than the price of a few rolls of film and processing. My favorite is the shopgoodwill.com auction site, and the eBay auction site of your local Goodwill store. That saves shipping cost, which will be a big part of your cost. I have an EOS 30 that I bought for about $25 (without lens). Maybe $10 for a lens. </p>

<p>Nothing against the other cameras you mention, but since you are already using Canon, you might as well continue. You could also go for FD Canons, like the FTb. You can't use the lenses on your DSLR, but they are easy to find for low prices.</p>

<p>If you don't need an electronic camera or autofocus lenses, Madison, a great choice would be a Canon FTb or FTbN, or, better still, an F-1 (if you can find one within your budget). Canon FD lenses are excellent, cheap, and plentiful. Nikon is another superb camera system manufacturer, but their bodies and lenses tend to be more expensive than the Canons. Pentaxes are also very good, but I would choose the Spotmatic over the K1000.</p>

<p>Of the five cameras on your list, the Minolta SRT-101 would probably serve you the best. But while Minoltas Rokkors (and Pentax Takumars) are outstanding lenses, both Canon and Nikon offer much more extensive lens selections.</p>

<p>Due to the cult status of the K1000 I can't recommend it.<br>

The OM-1 is great but the controls are not standards.<br>

The SRT-101 is fine camera.<br>

The A-1 while nice it's too complex for beginner. </p>

Olympus, Canon, and Minolta manual

focus systems all lack dSLR upgrade

paths so their lenses are dirt cheap.

If you have the money though I'll

second just getting a Rebel with

Manual mode so you can swap lenses.

There are times with trick shots where

it's really nice to be able to check

how the exposure might turn out by

sticking a sensor behind your lens and

actually checking your settings. It's

nice to not find out your exposure

compensation was wrong when showing a

contact sheet.

 

I personally like my A-1 and AE-1 but

be warned there are ways to manipulate

the controls on an A-1 that flat out

do not work! Read the manual, and

when you get the an error code

remember the double exposure system

clears it (which is f'ing strange!).

<p>If you are going to get a Pentax get the MX. It is a much better built camera and was aimed<br>

at the semi pro market. The K1000 was the bottom of the Pentax line and was popular as a<br>

camera for students because of its low cost. I have repaired and used both.</p>

<p>The OM-1 and OM-2 are excellent.</p>

<p>Any of the SRT-101, SRT-201 are great and so are the lenses.</p>

<p>Never owned or used a Canon A-1. The Canon FTb would be a better choice.</p>

<p>Just remember any 40 year old camera is not a new camera and will at the least new light<br>

seals to a complete overhaul.</p>

<p>Rod</p>

<p>I think much of this will depend on what you can get a bargain on.</p>

<p>I have not used the Olympus models listed, but have used a Minolta SRT (in this case a 102) and a couple of later Minoltas of the X series. They are all very good cameras, and if you get a good one, the meters are superb. Minolta made very good lenses and many as well as many third party lenses are bargain priced. The SRT uses an older type battery, making the meter a bit harder to get just right. I have used the X370 and X700, and they work beautifully, using modern batteries. </p>

<p>The Pentax K 100 works very well, but as others have noted it's overpriced by comparison, owing to its cult status. It also lacks a self timer and DOF preview. Nice if you can get one, but otherwise, I'd look for less popular Pentaxes if you're after one.</p>

<p>The Canon A1 is a bit odd in its ergonomics, as some Canons were, but it works extremely well. I had one briefly (gave it to my son who likes A1's) and it was very nice. Also in my opinion one of the nicest looking cameras ever, a close match to the Nikon F3. </p>

<p>My own preference among the ones listed would probably be for the Minolta. Minolta took some care in keeping all its manual lenses compatible. The later ones can use earlier lenses in some but not all modes, and the earlier ones can use later lenses, and there are tons of good lenses out there. Because of the broad compatibility, not only can you pick up lenses with little worry, but if one Minolta body dies, or if you find a better one on your travels, you can use all your old lenses. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Madison,</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of screw-mount (M42) cameras and lenses. A large number of lenses are available, which are adaptable to many other camera systems, including DLSRs.</p>

<p>If you're on a budget, Chinon, Mamiya, Ricoh, and Yashica all made good models, and their lenses are often excellent. I particularly like the Chinon Memotron series. Fujica also made some good M42 cameras, such as the ST801, though the Fujinon lenses are not so common and can be pricey on the used market.</p>

<p>My first SLR system was an Olympus OM-1, which is a fine camera, though I'm not so keen now on the small body size which was a trend once. I've found that larger, heavier bodies fit my hands better and balance better with heavier or longer lenses.</p>

<p>Of that list, the Minolta offers the best combination of build, optical performance and reliability for the dollar. They all have their good points of course. But the SRT is easily the most robust of that group. Failures are not unknown but apart from some metering issues, are rare.<br>

Jochen is spot on concerning the K1000. Over priced and over rated. Not only are there better SLRs to start off with, there are better Pentaxes, that won't cost you more, for the privilege of forfeiting a depth of field preview or self timer. Apart from a reasonably bright viewfinder, the K1000, assessed objectively, has very little else going for it that cannot be found in any number of other cameras, for a fraction of the price they presently fetch. Against my better judgment I bought one a few years ago, purely to see what all the fuss was about. Hands down, the most boring and unengaging camera I have ever used. I gave mine away in disgust. No, I'm not a fan at any price, but at today's prices? You'd have to be very one-eyed to purchase one when so many better cameras are available, if only from Pentax, let alone any other makes, for less cost.</p>

<p>Who decided the K1000 was a cult camera? It's really just a Spotmatic with a bayonet, and full aperture metering, and, if I recall, a meter that stays on all the time, so you need to keep the cap on to deactivate it. I think the meter was the same as the Spotmatic, at least that is where I got my new Spotmatic meter parts from some years ago, according to the technician.</p>

Olympus 35EC - zone focus no fuss cheap starter compact light weight camera with a sharp lens. It's not in your list though. :)

<p>Since you've used the K1000, I'd suggest getting a Pentax, but not the K1000. Instead get an MX: they're cheap, very well-made (I have owned one of my MXs for 26 years and it's just fine), and a much better camera than the K1000, which has an entirely undeserved cult status about it, simply because many students learned on it (so, lots of good-looking young people carried them in the 90s). The MX was the pro/semi-pro option, the K1000 never was.</p>

<p>If you feel brave get an LX: this was Pentax's serious pro camera, and is a really lovely thing. They can go wrong in elaborate and expensive ways however, and sometimes do.</p>

<p>Don't get an ME or an ME super: they are fine, but setting exposure is by two buttons not a dial, which is a pain. I think the Program A / Super Program have the same system.</p>

<p>If you can find the Pentax 50/1.4 lens (lots of MXs were sold with this as a kit I think, and probably all LXs that were part of a kit were) then get that: it's all the lens you really need. The 40mm pancake lens is not as good and has a slight culty thing about it so tends to be expensive, but an MX with this will pretty much go in your pocket, and if you can find a brassed black one, well, it looks seriously cool.</p>

<p>I have all of these, and the MX/50mm 1.4 is probably the thing I would keep in a fire.</p>

<p>The OM-1 is one of the greatest cameras ever. Small but with an amazingly large viewfinder image, bigger than any other SLR I own, and I have over 50.</p>

<p>If it's in good working order, go for it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you guys have any more suggestions, I would be glad to hear them!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Here are the two bodies I selected when I was in a situation similar to yours:<br>

1. Pentax Spotmatic ($73 usd)<br>

2. Fuji ST705 ($70 usd)</p>

<p>I also purchased these screw-mount lenses:<br>

50mm f/1.4 ($40 usd)<br>

135mm f/3.5 ($80 usd)<br>

28mm f/3.5 ($80 usd)</p>

<p> </div>

<p>The simple fact that the K1000 was listed as "required equipment" on photography class syllabi for 30 years has pushed the K1000 into cult status. That, and the fact that it represents the perfect "baseline" for what a modern manual camera should be. We don't even think about the features of the K1000 as "features" anymore (rapid return mirror that doesn't black out permanently when the shutter is fired; integrated shutter cocking/film winding; internal light meter; open aperture metering.)</p>

<p>I actually think for learning about photography, the limits of a classic Spotmatic might actually be slightly better. Excepting the more-rare Spotmatic F and ES, the Spotmatics all forego open aperture metering. Having to use stop-down metering makes the student think about BOTH exposure and depth-of-field implications of every aperture adjustment. It also hammers home the concept of "higher F-stop number = darker image." For that reason, I recommend a good clean Spotmatic II, SP500 or SP1000. These cameras are super cheap and offer similar experience to your loaner K1000. Screwmount (M42) lenses are also cheap, and you needn't worry about any of the variations/generations that support open-aperture metering, because these cameras will use all of the lenses regardless.</p>

<p>If you want to stick with the newer bayonet mount (Pentax K) then I recommend a newer camera altogether. The Pentax P3n is a very sturdy, very well spec'd manual focus camera. It doesn't have the classic chrome looks, so it goes for a song (I've seen them in the 5 dollar to 30 dollar range, regularly.) It offers a bit of automation if you want it (turn the shutter speed dial to A, and the lens aperture to A) or ignore those features and use it just like the K1000.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't need an electronic camera or autofocus lenses, Madison, a great choice would be a Canon FTb or FTbN, or, better still, an F-1 (if you can find one within your budget). Canon FD lenses are excellent, cheap, and plentiful. Nikon is another superb camera system manufacturer, but their bodies and lenses tend to be more expensive than the Canons.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon AI lenses are often reasonably priced. The less popular AF lenses aren't all that bad.<br>

<br>

It might be that some are using the Canon FD lenses on the new mirrorless cameras with adapters. They are pretty cheap, but not always as cheap as you would think. And many EF lenses, especially the non-Canon brand lenses, but even some Canon lenses, aren't all that expensive. There aren't so many people buying old EF lenses for their new DSLR. <br>

<br>

I will second the FTb or FTbN (I am not sure which one I have). They are tough, and work fine with alkaline batteries. (The meter is close enough for me.) When you buy a $10 camera, you don't want to pay a lot more to get it to work.</p>

<p>Having sold all of those cameras back in the days that they were new, I would have to say go with the cameras that do not rely on electronics to function. K1000, OM1, FTb - all fine cameras. My first SLR was a Minolta SR1s. If you wanted a meter for it, it was a clip on. All of the SR series cameras would be good choices. I wouldn't worry that Nikon and Canon made a wider lens choice. Do you really need an 85mm f1.2? All of the above made more than enough lenses to suit your needs. What would concern me the most now is, which brand of lens is more available on the used market. Canon, Nikon, and Minolta lenses will be a little easier to find. </p>

<p>As someone who wasn't around for the heydey of mechanical cameras and has taken a photography course since the 90s I'll counter that: If your film camera is at least as advanced as an A-1/AE-1 or OM-G or XG-7 and doesn't have a motor drive, you will probably not expend more than one fresh camera battery over the course of a semester (unless you forget to lock it). And electronic shutters probably are more stable with less adjustment than fully mechanically timed ones. Repair shops are in much shorter supply than batteries these days. Also mechanical bodies are heavier which can reduce your ability to handhold shots at lower speeds. The ability to shoot a camera without a battery is kinda cool but nearly useless for a less experienced user. I'd lean heavily towards late 70s cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And electronic shutters probably are more stable with less adjustment than fully mechanically timed ones.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might have thought so, too, but it doesn't seem that way. Well, the failure modes for electronic cameras tend to be to not work at all, where the mechanical ones tend to stop working on the high or low shutter speeds. </p>

<p>I will guess that, for the cameras of interest, the mechanical ones were made when the technology was well developed, and the electronic ones near the beginning. Also, some of the popular electronic cameras were mass produces in larger quantities, possibly with less quality control. </p>

<p>Ones from the time frame of the Canon FTn and Nikon FT2 keep working pretty well without any CLA. </p>