Help a 17 year old buy a 35 mm SLR

I want to learn photography because I plan to do alot of traveling

during college next year and in my life in general. What camera would

you recommend that I buy. I want something not to advanced, but not

too simply, where I would have to upgrade as I matured. I am looking

to spend less than $400.00

In an article on this site, The Nikon N65 was recommended.

Should I buy the body and the 50/1.8 lens.

Or should I buy the body with the 28-70mm Zoom Lens and the 50/1.8

lens?

The N65 or even N75 are not good choices if you are going to have the camera for a long time, and you expect to get more serious about photography. The reason is that these bodies do not allow you to override the automatic DX film speed setting. If that isn't a concern for you, then these are pretty good cameras. Hard to say which lens you should get. Maybe it would be wiser to start out with an N80 and just the inexpensive 50mm 1.8D (a great lens). The kit zooms that come with Nikons (28-80G or 28-100G) aren't really very good for travel photography due to severe distortion which become obvious if you photograph buildings. I've tried those lenses, so am speaking from experience. The most versatile consumer zoom for this use in the Nikon lineup is the 28-105D, but it's more expensive. In my book, better just a good standard 50mm lens than a cheap kit zoom.

Before you buy the N65, you might want to compare several other cameras first. Several others to look at include the Pentax ZX-5N, Pentax-L, Pentax ist, Pentax Zx-M, Canon Rebel Ti, Minolta Maxium 5, and Minolta X-370S. Each of these cameras will take lovely photos with the entry level Pentax's usually the better built generally smaller cameras often with the most accurate meters, the Canon and Nikons having access to the most accessories and Minolta Maxiums feeling to me the most techie. Ultimately however, it really comes down to what you feel comfortable with. Have some fun, try them out before you commit yourself to one camera.

 

The 50mm vs zoom (typically 28-80) confronts most new users. Most of us who first started more than 15 years ago typically started out with a fast 50mm lens. These optics are almost always superier to zooms typically sold with camera setups, but they do limit you to one focal length. There certainly are times when having a good zoom is prefered to a 50mm lens; particularly if you want to travel with just one lens (many wouldn't agree with this statement, but it has been my experience). The 50mm is likely still the better lens to learn with particularly if you plan to shoot mostly hand-held.

I would add that with Nikon I'd suggest jumping up to the N80 and in Canon I'd likely suggest moving one step up from the Rebel line. But that likely puts you out of your self-imposed $400 limit.

Thank you for the responses. I have a question. If you were buying a camera for your son/daughter and wanted to spend around $400.00 what camera/lens would you choose? I figure that I want to start off with a 50/1.8 lens.

 

Also, what do you think about the Canon Rebel 2000?

IMHO you can take very different paths:

 

1. Look for an older all manual SLR/rangefinder. OR

 

2. Go for a Rebel Ti + 50mm 1.8 and spend the rest on film and development. OR

 

3. Perhaps, look into a used pro-sumer digital (i.e. G2, Coolpix 995). That should allow you to shoot as much as you could possible want and have full manual control.

 

my 2 cents

I would get something like a Nikon FM with a normal lens, and save the other half of your $400 for college.

 

rick :)=

 

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com

Two people ahve now reccomended the Rebel Ti.

Des anyone have any reasons why this would be a bad camera? It fits into my price range perfectly.

Check out Shutterbug magazine. A gent (dealer) in Iowa has a Nikon FM2n body for $250, shipped. It will use less batteries than a rebel, uses a battery only for the light meter, and will likely last several years beyond the life-span of a 'more-or-less' plastic rebel. And you will likely learn more about photography having to set the lens for each shot you take.

 

 

But it is your money...

I have a Rebel Ti as a backup body (I use a Elan7E), and for its price, it is a nice little camera.

 

There are only a few points that I don't like that much: you can not choose how the autofocus should work (the camera decides if it focuses on a static object or a moving object, and this can sometimes cause trouble if you have both static and moving objects in your viewfinder, but is no problem in most cases), you can not use every metering method in every camera mode (P, TV, AV etc.), but if you understand which metering method in which mode the camera uses, that is not a big problem too. You have no thumb wheel on the back of the camera which lets you adjust exposure compensation or -in manual mode- set the aperture. On the Ti you have to press a button on the back and use the wheel near the shutter release, which is not that comfortable but works quite well because the button now has a better placing than on the Rebel 2000.

 

I cannot compare it to cameras of other brands, but for me the Rebel Ti has a very good value for its price, you can do almost everything you ever want to do (I upgraded to the Elan7E because my Rebel G didn't have a depth-of-field preview button, but that was all what I was missing, and the Ti has such a button. Of course the Elan7E has more features and I enjoy having them, but you have to pay a lot more money for it. I would spend the money on good lenses, film and maybe a tripod)

 

After all, the camera is just a tool you use.

Sean,

 

If you want to really learn photography look for a camera that has a mode where you have full manual control. At the same time autofocus and auto-exposure are very useful tools when you just want to take some pictures and don't have time or want to fiddle with the camera.

 

To stay within your $400 budget I suggest you get a 50mm f1.8 lens and look for a used autofocus camera body. You don't have the money to buy a good flash yet so you will need a fast lens like a 50mm f1.8 to shoot with indoors.

 

My experience is with Nikon so that is all I can comment on. For a current camera in the Nikon line I suggest you consider getting a used N80 from a reputable dealer, KEH camera brokers www.keh.com is selling used N80's in excellent condition now for $286. I bought my wife an N65 a few years ago and while it is a fine little camera for snapshots (what my wife wants) you can not override the DX setting for the film's ISO and manually controlling it is cumbersome in my opinion.

 

I wear glasses and find the viewfinder on the N65 and N80 to be on the small side (I shoot an N90s and love its big viewfinder), other AF camers with bigger viewfinders to consider are the N8008s and N6006 but both have considerably slower autofocus than newer cameras. For manual focus bodies consider the FA (has matrix metering) or the FE2.

Sean,

 

I recently purchased a Sigma SLR with two zoom lenses for $300 U.S. from b&h. I don't think anyone else can touch the price for a body with this feature set, and focal range (28mm wide angle to 300mm tele, and everything in between). Some people will sneer at the lenses, but I think they are very decent optical performers for the money, that have been rated similar to their nikon counterparts (i.e. autofocus, with the same zoom ranges and apertures). The camera is all-auto (focus, exposure, film advance & rewind), but can be easily set -- and used -- to part/all manual. I think cameras of this type can be excellent for beginners, and I like it after having used 'traditional' manual SLRs for thirty years. I posted a review of it <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005NYq">here</A>. There are also links to 'image quality' test photos I've taken with it.

If I were buying an SLR for my son I would get him a Nikon FM2n and a 50mm 1.8 lens. I have the F80 and F100...they are great cameras...but nothing beats a reliable manual camera in my opinion for ergonomics, fun, and learning factor. I tend to use my AF cameras only for weddings, action, and wildlife now, and with everything else, I am gravitating towards my Bessa R rangefinder (all manual...simple as can be, only an aperture dial and a speed dial). I would love to pick up an FM3A, FM2A, or F3, but don't have the cash right now. So, my two yen...MDB, Okayama, Japan. Oh, ps...after a year, I wanted to upgrade my F80 for something more "advanced"....after a year with my F100, I wanted to "upgrade" to something more "simple"...not that the F100 is difficult to use, it's not...but I wanted something that lets me feel more in control. (I almost always use my AF cameras on manual mode btw, but then I start wondering why I'm carrying such a big, heavy camera. And the feel of that metal...so nice....jusy a thought. Of course, then soon you're going to be telling yourself, like me, that you what you REALLY need is a Leica M7...and THEN you're just in trouble! a little tale from the dark side...:)

I have to add my voice to the chorus of people who are saying if you really want to learn photography, find a nice used all-manual camera with the 50mm prime lens and spend the rest on film and having fun with the camera. You'll spend less money, get more experience and results that are just as good, if not better.

 

I've always been a fan of the Olympus OM system myself, but there's a lot to choose from. Go to the stores - especially if they sell used cameras - play around and see what feels good to you.

 

Good luck and have fun.

I don't know if you are insisting on buying new, but if used in good condition is an option; The Canon A2/A2E is an excellent camera. It was at the bottom of Canon's pro lineup for many years. It can be used like a point and shoot (as can all EOS camera if you use one of their "scene" modes) yet can also be used fully manual and tweaked using custom functions.

 

I just did a quick check over at www.keh.com and they have some in the low $300's, add a 50/1.8 lens and your right near your $400 budget.

 

As others have mentioned, I'd stay away from any of the bottom of the line cameras (Rebel 2000, N65,ect..) because they all lack many functions that you will sorely miss later.

 

I know many people recommend Pentax cameras to beginners. I've never owned one so I can't comment on their quailty. I can only tell you why I chose not to go with Pentax when I was a beginner: The Pentax system is limited, there is only so far you can go with it. Look at how extensive the Canon and Nikon lines are, then compare that to Pentax, and you'll see what I mean.

 

It is important when purchasing a new camera to realize that you're really buying into and entire camera system. Choose wisely.

Another vote for the manual camera. I am an Olympus OM user and can fully recomend this system. Try to get an OM 4 if you can with 50/1.4 lens to begin with. That is well within your budget and much better image and build quality than any plastic box with 50/1.8.

 

And when you want more lenses, you can buy a second hand 28/2.8 (or 24/2.8), 100/2.8 and 200/F4 for the price of one Canon prime lens or inferior, slow, zoom. And I know what I am talking about because I have an EOS system as well! (I too got sucked in by the bells and whistles and buttons, but guess which system I take my best pictures with?)

I feel uncomfortable buying a used camera.

I ahve noticed a couple people recommend an all-manual camera - Wouldn't I be better off with a camera that can be all-manual but also automatic?

I understand why a metal frame would be better than a plastic frame.

 

I am starting to size things up and I'm figuring: Metal Frame, 50/1.8, any suggestions?

I suggest that you read the thread a little below this one entitled "Good Manual Camera for a Beginner".

 

You could get a GREAT manual camera for well under $200 2nd hand. And, BTW, that camera will out-last the NEW automatic camera. And it will be MUCH better to learn on. Start with a camera and a 50mm f1.8 lens. Save the rest of your money until you start shooting and figure out what ELSE you wish you had. Then you can buy more lenses for MUCH cheaper than newer AF lenses cost. And you'll buy them based on your OWN needs, rather than what people on this BB tell you to do.

Take Doug's advice. In addition to the advantages he gave you I might add that a strictly MANUAL camera is much better for a beginner to LEARN on. Use a hand held meter and use incidence metering and your photography will be the better for it. Good luck.

Tough question. Lemme start by the lens. If you really want to "learn photography", 50/1.8 is really the way to go (it's fast, sharp, light, and cheap). If you want to do some "travel photography", you're going to need more focal lengths, and a zoom along the lines of 28-80 sounds more reasonable (50, being the "normal" length, is neither wide enough for sweeping landscapes nor narrow enough for portraits).

 

On the camera side, remember that the camera only has little influence over the picture quality.

 

The one specification that really matters is the top flash sync speed, and that is only if you plan to do flash photography. In the Nikon range, your budget will only let you have 1/90s sync speed, so it's not even a concern here.

 

You'll want to skip the N55 because the price difference with the N65 is so small, and the N65 brings you TTL flash with external flash, support for AFS and VR lenses (room for growth into future lenses), and depth-of-field preview. Beyond the N65, your money will be better spent on lenses or filters.

 

I'd suggest an N65 with the cheap 28-80 zoom that is often sold with it (it's not as bad as people say, I have one myself, and it's very light which is a blessing if you want to travel a lot). Get a polarizer in 62mm (and a 58-62mm adapter) (this way, you'll be able to use the filter on bigger lenses, like the 70-300). This way, you have some money left to buy some film and use your camera (or, if you had factored it out already, you have some room for growth if you want to buy another lens like a 50 or a 70-300, or a lightbox and a loupe if you decide to shoot slides, or a set of B&W filers if you want to do B&W, or a set of close-up lenses if you want to try some macro...)

I would probably shoot for a nikon fm2 and a good 50mm, 85mm, and 28mm. I use those lenses more than any of the zooms I have in the bag. I used to have that body when I was in college. It served me well.

I have heard alot of people say the body isn't all that important.

What is the difference between a completly manual camera and a camera that has both modes auto/manual?

Does either take better pictures?

How much better/important is it that your camera is metal as opposed to plastic?

-------I am really confused right now. I am reading so many different things, and alot of the advice contradicts itself. I can understand why a "manual camera" would be better. I also understand why metal is better. But do these "old" cameras take as good pictures as the new modern snazzy ones?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2939308476---------

Pleae check this link asap because it is an ebay auction and tell me what you think. Sounds like a good deal. The FM2 is manual and metal if I am correct. Also, I can still buy different lens if I wanted to correct?

Sean, you seem to be asking the same question until the answers suit your wishes. If you really don't want to buy a used manual camera, don't; get the rebel or whatever, you'll find plenty of entries above to support whatever way you choose.

 

My personal opinion remains that it is much more in your interest to get a good quality, well built, durable camera that will let you work the controls and learn what changes produce what effects more directly than is likely to happen with autoexposure, autofocus, autoflash, zoom lenses, etc. But as mentioned several times, it is your money and your choice.

 

rick :)=

rick- Can u check that ebay link and tell me what you think about the fm2 offered.