First SLR... "Classic" SLRs vs Canon EOS

Quite. I recently had the misfortune of going to London to look at a Leicaflex SL, allegedly fully functional with accurate meter, from a reputable dealer too. I'm on the hunt for one to send to Germany to get CLA'd so I've got something to see me out!

It was in great shape, shutter speeds all good, clear viewfinder (rare), non-plastic lens release, all the good things. When I checked the meter against my D700, using the flat light brown pavement outside, it was reading at least two stops over, and more, pointing at a flat grey sky. ‘Oh, it’ll read differently to your DSLR’ I was told by the proprietor, who, one would hope, knows about these things. Oh really, I said. 'How’s that? Surely ISO is ISO (or ASA for old school), it’s calibrated to a known and world-wide standard, or should be'. I think at this point he realised I was, at least fairly familiar with such things and he retreated trying to con me into buying something that was billed as fully functional, but which was essentially, faulty. I didn’t get any sensible answer, because there is none – it was bust.

 

Needless to say I didn’t buy it, and I won’t be patronising his shop in the future.

 

That thing has Cds cell and uses mercury battery. I found Cds cells changed their characteristic quite a bit overtime. He may have wrong battery in it too..

That thing has Cds cell and uses mercury battery. I found Cds cells changed their characteristic quite a bit overtime. He may have wrong battery in it too..

Actually, to start with, he had no battery in it at all, but he put in a Wein Cell, which has the correct 1.35v.

Well, if the OP, SPMC, wasn't a little confused at the outset, I'm sure he is by now! We certainly have the ability to bloat our threads with masses of slightly irrelevant opinion and questionable "information"! To repeat an old quotation accredited to the Romanian photographer Vernon Trent:

 

"Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light, I just take pictures... "

 

Just get out there. Do it...

I ere toward an opinion that the OP has the ability to sort through 'slightly irrelevant opinion and questionable "information" ', so there's probably not all that much 'confusion'.

 

WW

 

Everyone else uploaded a gratuitous picture...

 

My counterbalance for a 40-year career as a computer engineer is to work on older, mechanical cameras. They are going to long outlast their digital and electronic counterparts. A little cleaning, occasional lube, clean the battery compartment, solder a couple of corroded wires, calibrate the RF, change the light seals- ready to go. There are still shops around that offer these services, and a number of DIY repairers that keep these cameras working. Eventually capacitors leak, tin parts grow "whiskers", electronic components blow-out. Replacing a gear using a parts camera is possible- replacing a blown circuit board is on a 30 year old camera is more difficult. With that stated- my Nikon N8008s still works, used to be a DCS420 DSLR. The Kodak Digital back blew out, bought a Nikon Data Back for $20 to use the camera with film.

 

Difference in exposure for film and digital? Growing less as sensors get more dynamic range. Digital is not as forgiving for blown highlights or shadows, but for those that shot Slide Film or Polaroid- not so different.

 

For someone wanting to pick up a first good film camera: I would avoid cameras with electronic shutters, such as the Canon AE-1, A1, Nikkormat EL series, even the Nikon FE. On the latter- a variable resistor going will ruin the exposure. On a manual-exposure camera, will just produce jumpiness when metering. Imagine the Jump being the exposure. That happened to me. I replaced the variable resister- lucked out, bought a lot of parts cameras.

 

For a mechanical camera: the cosmetic condition is often a good indicator of how the camera was treated. You do better to find one on a camera forum where the seller has used the camera. Ebay- buy from a camera shop that sells on Ebay. The last "tested" camera that I bought on Ebay- seller did notice that the shutter would not open, the RF was way off, and that the advance lever was crooked. They gave a full refund, told me to keep the camera. Good for parts.

 

I started with a fixed-lens rangefinder, a Minolta HiMatic 9 with a 45/1.7 Rokkor lens. Same formula as the Leica mount 50/1.8 Super-Rokkor that I bought for my Leica M Monochrom. You can get the HM-9 for ~$40.

 

I've had mine for over 50 years.

Pop Your Top- Cleaning the Viewfinder for the Minolta Himatic 9, also applies to the 7, 7s, and 11.

 

The equivalent lens in Leica mount goes for 10x the HM9.

 

Leica Showcase - Minolta 5cm F1.8, Leica Thread Mount

 

 

Pick a budget, pick what you want to do with the camera.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Brian

Ebay- buy from a camera shop that sells on Ebay

 

Doesn't always work in your favor for used items I'm afraid. Some shops can be trusted, others are best avoided.

I think it's wise to treat each ebay listing on it's merits no matter if it's a dealer or private seller listing. And of course,

street-wise experience helps when negotiating, the deal must be a win-win in the end.

I am now somewhat thinking that maybe I should keep playing with medium format and look into something a little more aperture and focus options than my box camera as my next step, since I like the pictures I am am getting. Maybe something like the Agfa Isola (Agfa Isola)? Baby steps?

Pretty bad idea IMHO unless you have a chance to borrow it for the (half?) dozen rolls, it might take, to grow tired of it.

Right now you have neither a distance ring nor apertures or shutterspeeds to select. The Isola will offer you all of that but it's 75mm lens generates not much DOF and might render sharper when stopped down. Since you have to guess your subject distance you'll be hard pressed to shoot somebody 5' away wide open with eyes in focus. Bottom line: You'll most likely continue shooting as you were with the box; not using really handholdable shutterspeeds (like 1/250 sec) to get rid of camera shake and basically wasting the extra real estate of MF film.

• What imaginable advantage is there in getting that camera instead of something slightly serious with a focusing aid, like a Lubitel TLR or any kind of Rolleicord knock off or even a cheapo SLR like Great Wall or a red window converted Pentacon or a view camera with roll holder? Kievs and rangefinders would bealternative options and yes the list describes the bottom level of the market.
  
• Film ain't cheap no more. OK, it is affordable in moderation but I fear you'll be quite hard pressed to successfully resell any unspectacular film camera, you might acquire now, via a trade in deal, when you 'll feel it is time to level up. - Prepare to stay stuck with everything you'll get, and scoop up keepers.
  
• How are you going to handle exposure determination? -Guesswork AKA "Sunny 16"? / App (sluggish!)? / Handheld meter?
  

I'm surely no fan of the distance guesswork. - I would carry a 35mm folder with fixed 50mm lens as the most extreme thing in that field but I know damn well that I'd be much happier in case I brought a rangefinder instead, when the light gets a little bit lower (& it becomes time to shoot wide open). Popular zone focusing cameras had lenses 40mm & shorter. (Rollei, Minox...) and got usually picked as a ligfht weight compromise.

 

I don't see many relevant dangers threatening slightly more expensive beginner cameras, compared to the multitude of drunk trees, likely to suddenly cross novice drivers' ways.

 

You also mentioned an interest to get into composition. For that purpose I recommend getting more lenses than just a fixed standard one. Something like a slightly wide and short telephoto combo (35 & 80-105mm in 35mm, maybe 55 or 65 & 120/135mm for a 6x6cm?)or classic 3 lenses kit or aiming for 2 bodies 4-5 lenses in the long run?

keep things somehow ballanced. At 5€/roll why plan spending your life with a 5 rolls camera? But yes, spending way more on that paperweight than the film you 'll end shooting with it, makes little sense too especially when you can't conveniently use the expensive glass up on something digital.

 

I'm reluctant to recommend anything enthusiuastically, since I see no guarantee for stamina, to carry heavier kits regularly.

Growing less as sensors get more dynamic range. Digital is not as forgiving for blown highlights or shadows

This is all based on well-outdated experience, or just hearsay.

 

Modern digital cameras can, IME, capture a far greater subject brightness range than even colour negative film.

 

I would never have been able to shoot this on film without using a grad filter, and then there'd probably be a visible division line across the picture.

Shot as a single RAW image on a Nikon D7200.

 

Anyway. The point I'm trying to make is that learning the ins and outs of shutter speed, aperture etc. can be done a lot quicker and easier using a digital camera, and it doesn't have to be a high end one, as long as it has manual exposure mode. Then after learning the basics, the OP, or anyone else, can make an informed choice about whether to use film, digital, or coat their own wet-collodion glass plates. Whatever.

 

Just bombarding the OP with different camera recommendations and giving a biased and rose-tinted view of 35mm film use isn't really that helpful IMO.

Along those lines the tiny Canon G9X is an excellent choice for value in a digital camera based upon what I have experienced with mine. It really is hard to believe the capability of this little camera.

 

You can learn pretty fast in manual mode.

For example you can set the aperture and with live view, scroll through shutter speeds on the touch screen observing the resulting exposure. It puts the whole lab at your fingertips. As you learn on the little digital you can get to know film a bit on line and make a more informed decision on older cameras and reliability/sources/market/process/cost.

When you decide to pull the trigger on the film thing, the little compact digital will continue to accompany you because you simply slip it in your shirt pocket.

Here is a pretty good overview.

This is all based on well-outdated experience, or just hearsay.

 

Modern digital cameras can, IME, capture a far greater subject brightness range than even colour negative film..

 

No- based on reading sensor data sheets for decades and understanding how a digital sensor works, and how film works. Digital sensors have linear response, film has non-linear response for shadow area and highlights. For work- used film for radiometrically calibrated data, and used digital sensors going back to 1982. I work in the same place- and have written a lot of image processing software to work with both.

Film vs. Digital: This is How Dynamic Range Compares

 

Interesting comparison. BLUF- film does better with overexposure, digital does better with underexposure. Of course there are tricks that you can play with film. Back in the early 70s, a company modified a Nikon F with small lamps to pre-expose the film to make more sensitive to underexposure. The small lamps basically gets the film past threshold to record an image, "kind of like" using a bias voltage for an avalanche photodiode. My Leica M Monochrom is very capable of pulling images out of the shadows, and has a reasonably good saturation count. I wrote my own DNG processor to add a gamma curve to pull details out of shadows.

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/adding-a-gamma-curve-to-a-digital-image-thinking-out-loud-and-experiments.38778/

https://cameraderie.org/threads/experiments-in-leica-m8-and-m9-conversions.38737/

 

I also played with using a yellow filter with the M8 and M9, wrote a custom monochrome conversion routine that merged channels. If one color channel saturates, use the neighbor in the interpolation. Using this algorithm, the M9 recorded images where the M Monochrom saturated. Also used an Orange filter with the M8 and a custom DNG processor. The Blue channel responds to IR as the orange filter blocks visible light in the blue channel.

Film vs. Digital: This is How Dynamic Range Compares

 

Interesting comparison. BLUF- film does better with overexposure, digital does better with underexposure. Of course there are tricks that you can play with film. Back in the early 70s, a company modified a Nikon F with small lamps to pre-expose the film to make more sensitive to underexposure. The small lamps basically gets the film past threshold to record an image, "kind of like" using a bias voltage for an avalanche photodiode. My Leica M Monochrom is very capable of pulling images out of the shadows, and has a reasonably good saturation count. I wrote my own DNG processor to add a gamma curve to pull details out of shadows.

 

https://cameraderie.org/threads/adding-a-gamma-curve-to-a-digital-image-thinking-out-loud-and-experiments.38778/

It used to be common to "flash" movie film to reduce contrast--a small controlled exposure done in a lab, not in the camera.

I also read of techniques to pre-expose plates to increase sensitivity. For astro-photography, my friend in High-School used a dry-ice back to reduce film reciprocity for long exposure. For work, we used cooled detector arrays to decrease noise. The Nikon F mod was interesting as it was built into the camera and engaged when the shutter button was being pressed. I'll try to find the article- I think it was in Modern Photography magazine, somewhere in the basement. The article showed a 2-stop improvement in performance for Tri-X. On the M Monochrom- I was impressed by the shadow detail, which was clipped by the "Black-Level" field set in the DNG file- and recovered by changing the value to 0.

 

In any event, film has a higher saturation count than digital. This means it is easier to recover features from overexposed portions of the image using film. Higher resolution sensors, means smaller pixels, and lower saturation count. My Nikon Df has a high saturation count, 16MPixels. 40MPixel cameras- not so much, you can only pack so much material into a pixel.

Well- for new vs old, I spent the last cold/windy weekends going through boxes of camera gear and doing some repair. No luck with the electronic shutter Minolta Hi-Shot and Yashica Super-Electro-X. Brought a few fixed-lens RF's back to life, flood clean the shutters. Most cameras needed new light seals and mirror bumpers. The Minolta AL-E: resoldered a corroded wire. Luck on a Pentax Spot-Meter with TTL viewing, corrosion in the battery chamber and electrical contacts needed alignment. I had given up on that one almost 20 years ago, could not figure out why it would not work. Odd meter: 9v battery for low-light reading, 1.35v button battery for bright. There were two set screws that aligned the battery contact with the lever that latches the battery compartment closed. The electrical contact has to be rotated to make contact when the latch is in the closed position. It had been set to be aligned with the compartment open- by someone else, not me!

The "dead" Minolta fixed-lens rangefinder is an "Electro-Shot", about the same size as the HiMatic 7 but features the 40mm F1.8 lens of the Minolta AL series.

I did try to track down the issue, power was getting to the board- just no life in it.

spmc, unless you have a VERY flexible budget to work with, the most logical least-expensive route would be to narrow down to your most important priority, then buy what you need to address that primary goal first. Later, when you have that goal nailed, you can gather more info and invest a little more to go a little further.

 

rodeo_joe and I drift in and out of agreement on several topics, but I'll second his suggestion of perhaps putting film aside for the moment and getting a better digital camera instead if your immediate goal is simply to learn more about exposure settings and effects in general. Film costs add up very quickly, and you'll make many mistakes at first. A decent entry-level digicam will let you experiment with various settings and effects thousands of times at no additional cost, with moment-to-moment feedback of results while you're still standing in front of what you want to shoot. This can be invaluable to gaining intuition about lighting and exposure in a general way. While film can be more demanding and strict about exposure when you want to get serious with it, the basic concepts you learn from digital would give you an excellent head start.

 

Older very compact aps-c DSLRs like a Nikon D40 or EOS 40D with kit lens routinely sell for $125 in good working condition, and can be used in auto or manual mode the same way as a modern digicam or EOS film camera (my D40 is nearing twelve years old, I don't baby it, and its still going strong for when I need a backup body). Work it to death, until you're confident you have a handle on how shutter interacts with aperture for different effects on lighting, lens sharpness and depth of field. While these will differ slightly or significantly as you move to a larger sensor digital or various film formats, the skills you learned will be scalable.

 

Of course you could learn much the same skills from a 35mm film SLR, but even 35mm film isn't cheap these days and you wouldn't get immediate feedback while shooting so you could try multiple approaches in the moment. The huge number of people posting their experiences with 35mm film SLR might be fun to interact with, but results from 35mm film are distinctly different from the 6x9 roll film you've used so far. A box camera can't demonstrate the full capability of medium format: as jochen mentioned, you'd need roll camera with accurate focus indication to compare fairly with 35mm SLR and decide which format advantages you prefer.

 

Unfortunately such minimally-decent roll film cameras are no longer as dirt cheap as they once were: expect to pay at least $150 for a basic TLR or folder with rangefinder, and getting something truly great to use would be closer to $250 - $300. If you'd rather not risk that much money on a hunch, start with a good cheap digital or 35mm film SLR. Fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder cameras are smaller and lighter to carry, but models with manual controls tend to cost as much as an SLR these days (and are more likely to be found with problems).

 

If it seems too hard to decide, just close your eyes and go with what your gut tells you: its only money, and still fairly cheap for the potential rewards in fun and knowledge gained! ;)

Edited March 3, 2020 by orsetto

Get an SLR that allows the lenses to work with a similar DSLR.

 

Mostly that means either Canon EOS or Nikon.

 

The Canon EF prime lenses don't cost all that much more than the FD lenses,

but can also be used with Canon DSLRs.

 

Nikon AI lenses work with most Nikon DSLRs, though not all will meter with them.

The D200, D300, and D700 are good choices to go with them. Nikon AF lenses

are also reasonably priced used.

 

That saves on lens cost, lenses to carry around, and you get used to working

with them both ways.

 

Unless you specifically don't want an AF lens, even when used only

in MF mode. In that case Canon FD lenses, and something like

the Canon FTb, are good choices together.

Pentax has great old cameras if you want to go full mechanical initially, great old glass, and the lenses are compatible with their DSLRs as well....But most folks do seem to prefer Nikon or Canon.

Pentax has . . . great old glass, and the lenses are compatible with their DSLRs as well ...But most folks do seem to prefer Nikon or Canon.

 

Pentax has made some nice glass.

 

One SLR/DSLR Kit and one Mirrorless Kit of mine are Canon: one point that might be applicable to the OP, now, or in the future is to be aware of the Register of Lenses and Camera Systems (AKA "Flange Focal Distance").

 

There are some very nice Pentax K Mount Lenses usable on my EF; EF-S; and EF-M mount cameras. With a Lens to Camera adapter, it is mostly always all manual operation for the Lenses, but it appears that manual operation is not a sticking point for the OP.

 

BTW - the same applies to Nikon F-Mount Lenses and most of the 645 Lenses - all will mount on my Canon SLR, DSLR and Mirrorless cameras.

 

WW

Unless you specifically don't want an AF lens, even when used only

in MF mode.

Not all AF lenses are equal; i.e. some of them feel made with real manual focusing in mind, while others offer a way too flimsy undampened ring with what feels like too much focus throw to feel enjoyable. "Hands on"-shopping makes sense. Asking around too.

Pentax has great old cameras if you want to go full mechanical initially, great old glass, and the lenses are compatible with their DSLRs as well....

I'd call it "somewhat(!) compatible", maybe more than in Nikon's case but

• crippled k-mount forces to stop down meter with aperture ring using lenses (inconvenient!)
  
• manual focusing according to an AF SLR's ground glass sucks / is comparably hard to do.
  
• Pentax is currently a less vital system. The rest of the competition offers superior AF performance.
   
  
• Sigma discontinued k-mount
  
• "Pentax" lenses made by Tamron are comparably overpriced.
  

I own a bunch of their manual SLRs and (elderly) DSLRs too. I felt urged to (re)purchase AF verions of the lenses I like to use. Shooting manual ones on the DSLRs wasn't that nice an user experience. - It is doable in a pinch but... I recently started migrating to Canon EOS. Pentax have some strengths and are good enough for a couple of genres. OTOH I am not THAT(!) happy with them. As film and digital supporting systems I'd recommend EOS as the budget and Leica M as the "luxury" solution. Pentax have nothing like used EOS 5D (the old original ones; "full frame for less than $300") to offer. But yes you can get crop sensor workhorses with IBIS for little money. But those establish a need for at least 2 specific lenses not working on your film bodies.

About when the AF-S 60/2.8 (the first one) came out, I was looking at it and the MicroNikkor 55/2.8.

 

Partly because of the feel, and partly because I didn't have, and hadn't thought about buying,

an AF camera, I went for the 55/2.8.

 

So, yes, AF lenses can have a different feel, or otherwise be less useful

for MF use. The OP should consider this.

 

But AF cameras are much more popular now, especially for DSLRs, so the OP will

have to decide which way to go. Used AF Nikkor zoom lenses seem pretty

reasonably priced, non-zoom less so.

 

Note that you can mount Nikon AF-S (DX format) lenses on FX format cameras,

though the image might not fill the frame. (Some DSLRs will figure it out,

and crop appropriately.)

 

Canon EF-S lenses won't mount on non-crop sensor cameras.

(I believe that you can mount one on a telextender, and it might fill the frame,

since the extender uses only the middle of the image.)

 

I know Canon and Nikon much better than the others, though others do make

fine cameras.

Edited March 5, 2020 by William Michael

> About when the AF-S 60/2.8 (the first one) came out, I was looking at it and the MicroNikkor 55/2.8.

I have the AF-D 60/2.8, have used it on the N8008s, D1x, E3, and Df. I also have the 55/2.8 and 55/3.5. The 60/2.8 gets to 1:1 without extension tubes. I typically use manual focus lenses, but make an exception for the AF-D Micro-Nikkors. The AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, the 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom is one of the best Zoom lenses ever made. All have a good feel when using on manual focus, which I do quite a lot.

The one I was comparing was the AF-D, not the AF-S that I thought.

That is, the one that came out about 1989.

The point I'm trying to make is that learning the ins and outs of shutter speed, aperture etc. can be done a lot quicker and easier using a digital camera, and it doesn't have to be a high end one, as long as it has manual exposure mode.

 

Some folks just getting into photography may not want to learn techniques using a digital camera. They might just want to start with a manual film camera.