Which camera to get

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I am in the market for a 35mm film camera. I want to learn more about cameras and so I want to start with a film camera and not with something digital. I was looking at some products by Nikon, Canon, and Leica. Does anybody have any info on what they think would be the best camera to get?<br>

I'm looking to spend under $400.<br>

I was looking at the Canon AE-1, the Nikon FM10, the Leica R3, and some other products.<br>

I'm not sure that I trust buying a used camera. If anybody has any thoughts on their experience with buying used cameras, that would also be helpful.</p>

<p>I know the FM10 is the only one that they still make new, but I am open to other ideas.</p>

<p>$400 is tight for Leica. There are other rangefinder possibilities but I'm guessing you're not looking specifically for a rangefinder. Lots of good possibilities in the pre-AF world. For keeping it cheap, something like a Minolta XE-7 or an XD-11 are very nice little bodies and there are a lot of Minolta MC/MD lenses for bargain prices. Good choices in Canon and Nikon too, but I don't know them very well.</p>

<p>For a kind of wild choice, there is something like the old Contax RTS II. Good reliable camera, very nice to use, and there are lenses which are not priced too high.</p>

<p>The Nikon FM10 is still in production. You could pick up a new kit for $239 at B&H Photo, for instance, and have a new camera warranty. Older film bodies might now have expensive repair issues or be without replacement parts and not be a savings in the long run.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want to learn more about cameras and so I want to start with a film camera and not with something digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you explain your logic behind this reasoning? Digital's immediate feedback and advanced tools (i.e. histogram) IMO significantly speed up the learning process.</p>

<p>I think you should think about getting a nice and cheap body on any make with a nice meter and spend the rest of the money on getting good glass. In film the body means a little less than digital as it is merely a light tight box. I would keep away from Leica and Nikon as the body would be expensive and the glass even more. Think about brands like Pentax or or Minolta or even the early Canon EOS bodies. If you are happy to go manual focus there is even more at your disposal for very little.</p>

<p>Hey Starvy, can you recommend the Canon AE-1? My thinking is that Canon lenses are easier to find than minoltas. My hesitation is that I want something that I can keep and, if I get better, still use down the line. Most articles make the point of saying some of the cheaper cameras are not professional grade, so I'm wondering if I will have to buy a better camera to take more serious photos down the line, or if I can just buy good glass and keep something like an AE-1 indefinitely. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>You can get a Nikon D3100 with lens for $469.</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/INKD3100KA.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflAID021866</p>

<p>I understand the thoughts on starting with a film camera and there are certainly some good choices out there, but the instant feed back of a digital camera really speeds up the learning process. If the above setup doesn't float your boat, check out the camera lens combos are KEH:</p>

<p>Auto Focus Nikon<br>

http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Camera-Outfits?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=1&cc=82837&r=WG&f</p>

<p>Manual Focus Nikon</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Manual-Focus/category-Camera-Outfits?s=1&bcode=NK&ccode=1&cc=82838&r=WG&f</p>

<p>You can get an FM10 with 35-70mm lens in "EX" for under $100 ! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can go for a lot less, very much less, for a modern film camera. Most early AF Nikons and Canon cameras still work well, and often sell for less than $50 for a clean, working body.<br>

Many of the older AF models (ca. 1987-92) are slower AF than newer ones, but they frequently go for under $20. (e.g., <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vv2v">Canon 620</a>, Nikon N2020 or better, the <a href="../modern-film-cameras-forum/00abnh">Nikon N8008s</a>). If you're not doing sports or other fast-moving subjects these still work well enough.<br>

There are lots of later AF film cameras in both lines that are much more sophisticated and cost only around $100-150 (e.g., one of the most sophisticated EOS film cameras - the <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WyuM">Canon EOS 3</a>)<br>

Lenses are a little more, since in most cases these are still AF lenses used on current models (and I would suggest that buying one for which the lenses are still current is a good way to start to build a kit that will be usable with digital cameras as well). However, both Nikon and Canon still produce some excellent, but cheap, prime lenses like their 50mm f/1.8 AF ones, that sell new for as little as US$100. You can find them used in KEH or B&H for usually under $80, and with patience, for as little as $50 on eBay.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I looked into the EOS but I want something manual.</p>

<p>It hard to keep using a film camera forever as you may not be able to find film or processing in the future. <br>

The Canon AE-1 is definitely not professional grade but then you don't need pro grade camera.<br>

I think you picked the 3 cameras I would not want. The FM10 is definitely bottom of the line. I have found many AE-1 with problems and by its nature it's not a good camera to learn on. The Leica R3 is a Leica but it's not good among the Leica's</p>

<p>Actually there's nothing wrong with the AE-1. The match-needle metering is very nice to use, once you get the hang of it. A pro-grade camera of that vintage is only going to be bigger and heavier, to stand up physically to professional use, so for regular use an AE-1 is just fine.</p>

<p>The only problem is that the AE-1 is fairly old by now, and will need a professional cleaning, speeds adjustment, lubrication, and changing of the foam seals (called a CLA). Say about $65, depending on your location. Also you might want to have your local camera tech check the camera out to spot any hidden problems, if you have the option to buy on approval.</p>

<p>Bebu, can you tell me what kind of camera would be good and higher-end but still somewhat affordable for somebody looking for a 35mm manual?<br>

I can't spend in the thousands and buy an F6 or something ultra-professional.</p>

<p>You can't buy any new cameras except the F6 and the FM10 so you would have to buy used. <br>

I would suggest Nikon F3HP which is a professional camera. The Nikon FM which is not but much nicer than the AE-1 and quite inexpensive. The Nikon FM2, FM2n are nice cameras but I don't recommend due to the current going price and so is the FM3a. The Pentax KX or MX and not the Pentax K1000. </p>

<p>K M - welcome to PN. The three cameras you mentioned are certainly available in plentiful quantities, but only as used cameras, about which you expressed concern. Based solely on finances, I would forget the Leica line (I've owned a number of them including the R3), the lenses are wonderful but much more expensive than you need or would be able to discern the differences between them and their counterparts by other manufacturers. Understand that with the Canon AE-1 (or any other Canon body camera using FD lenses), the FD production was halted in the early 1990s as Canon switched to the EOS mount, they are not interchangeable (some exceptions which I won't go into here). Some of the FD lenses themselves are great, but, as I've said...perhaps not the best place for you to start. The AE-1 series is a manual focus camera, but the exposure system is automatic (that's what AE stands for - automatic exposure). Nikon was smart and basically has used the same mount for over a half century, so most older lenses, starting with the Ai (automatic indexing) are usable on modern film and digital bodies. There are lots of places to begin...even rangefinders, but given your parameters and what you have shared about your experience level...I'd go with the Nikon line, because of interchangeability and upgradeability. Of course you could also look at the Olympus OM2n (used), and use everything in the fully manual mode. Good luck with your choice </p>

<p>Fred Latchaw, the AE-1 doesn't have a match needle metering system. In auto mode it indicates the aperture selected by the camera. In manual mode it indicates the aperture recommended by the camera. There is no manually set aperture display in the camera viewfinder. If one wants to use the meter in manual mode then one has to read the aperture recommended by the camera in the viewfinder and then taking eye of the viewfinder and set that aperture on the lens. </p>

<p>The AE-1does have a match needle panel display , its the AE-1 Program that has the Led dsplay.</p>

<p>Totally my personal opinion: buy a reconditioned Nikon FG off Ebay for $50, then get an AF-D 35mm or 50mm lens for it. Use it until you learn what you want to learn, then buy a digital Nikon.<br>

The advantage of a Nikon over Canon in this case is that Canon has changed lens mounts at the drop of a hat, and their modern lenses won't work on their old cameras. With a Nikon, you can buy an AF-D lens for the FG and it will still work fine on the better contemporary Nikon digitals.<br>

The FG is a sophisticated camera, sort of parallel with the AE-1, which was a fine camera but the Canon won't use modern lenses.</p>

<p>Michael, the reverse of Nikon's advantage is that the Nikon lenses are in much greater demand and cost much more. Frankly, the cheapest systems are Canon FD and Minolta MC/MD, and they're both every bit as good as anything Nikon or Olympus or Pentax put out. Depends entirely on what you want.</p>

<p>My recommendation to the OP would be for a Minolta X-570. Add a bagful of lenses and he'll get in well under his $400 limit. Plenty of lenses available at KEH.</p>

<p>I was thinking about getting a Nikon F3HP like a commenter offered. I'm looking into the Minoltas, but I'm skeptical about their price. They seem way cheaper than the F3HP. Also, KEH does not have any X-570s, so I'm looking at the X700. Is that a step up? And do you think it would be a bad move to go with the F3HP over the Minolta?</p>

<p>The F3HP is an awesome SLR - my favorite all round camera. As others have said, going with a Nikon means that your investment in lenses will not go to waste if you decide to move to digital in the future. <em>That being said</em> - no-one has yet mentioned the Olympus OM-1n. For the beginner wanting to learn film photography, this bare bones manual mechanical SLR is, IMO, beyond compare. Basic match needle metering, full system support, very small and light, yet with a viewfinder that remains a gold standard. You could pick one of these up for ~ $50, then ship it to Camtech (NFI) for a CLA and conversion to modern silver cells for ~$110, and you'll have an SLR for a lifetime. The Olympus/Zuiko lenses are also great.</p>

<p>I recently bought a brand new Nikon F75 (N75) for € 150 (US$ 180) - new old stock: a truly superb little camera. I'm sure you can find another one - or another of the latest generation of Nikon cameras - for the same price or a used one in excellent condition for a fraction of this price.<br>

Add a Nikon 50mm f1.8D new lens for US$ 135 and use the spare cash for filters / case etc.. There's a massive amount of nice cheap new or like-new lenses around you can choose from.</p>

<p>If you want Canon manual focus, but don't mind a lot of automation, the Canon T70 is often very inexpensive. KEH had used ones for under 20 USD. It has multimode automation plus manual mode. You could pick up quite a few lenses to go with it and stay in budget. <br>

If you don't mind the possibility of a CLA, the Nikon FM might be an option. Match diode exposure and the ability to use both AI and non-AI Nikkors.<br>

The other suggestions (from Minolta, Olympus, etc.) are also good. The Olympus IMHO, is the easiest to focus, even with slower lenses. I can focus my Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro more easily with it than I can any of the f1.4 lenses I have for other cameras.</p>

<p>Remember that any of these fully AF, AE cameras can be shot entirely manually. Switch off the AF on the lens (or body, depending) and set the camera to M. They have the advantage (and disadvantage, as I said) of using current lenses.<br>

The AE-1 Program is a fine camera, but aside from manual focus, it's no less automatic than the newer cameras, except that it is difficult to use its lenses on any more modern cameras.</p>

 

<p>Okay guys, so I think I have decided on the Nikons for a lot of the pros listed here. I'm looking at the Nikon F2 and F3 variations on KEH. I am confused by some of the pricing and grades though.<br>

Can anybody tell me why the F2 Photomic in EX+ condition is listed at 269 and the F2S Photomic in EX+ is listed at 327, while the F3 in EX+ is listed at 275 and the F3 HP in EX+ is listed at 238? That makes the F2 variations more expensive than the F3HP in the same condition. And why is the F3 more expensive than the F3HP in the same condition? The pricing and condition ratings on KEH have me skeptical. As I have never bought anything from there, can you guys tell me if you have had good experiences with them. And just how good is EX+ condition really? I do not care about cosmetic damage to the outside of the camera at all, I just want it to shoot like new. Do EX+ cameras shoot like that? Have you noticed any difference in the performance, not cosmetic appearance, between LN- and EX+?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you noticed any difference in the performance, not cosmetic appearance, between LN- and EX+?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the most part, KEH grades conservatively and for cosmetic appearance. You are thinking about buying cameras that could be 30+ years old - so expecting them to "shoot like new" might be over-reaching a bit.</p>

<p>Also, the F2 cameras you are considering have finders that pre-date Ai (introduced in1977) - not necessarily a restriction I would consider unimportant in light that you may want to use newer (AF) lenses on that camera.<br>

The F3 has a metering system that broke with Nikon tradition to some extent - in my experience, it takes a little doing to master properly.</p>

<p>You didn't answer my question from above - and hence I don't have a good idea what you are trying to accomplish. The cameras you are considering are all over the place and don't give me any indication either.</p>