need a film slr

[juan monino]

my son just started photography classes and his teacher wants every student to

bring a film 35 mm slr. My question is

 

The Fm10 will accept my nikon AF lenses? He will be able to shoot manual focus

with that camera with my lenses? I use my lenses with a d200 and d2x

 

Should i call the paramedics and send a medical team to psico/analize his

teacher? Do they still sell rolls of film? not :)

[photo5]

F3! F3! F3!

 

Dave

[ellis_vener_photography]

"The Fm10 will accept my nikon AF lenses?"

 

Yes. Just not G-type Nikkors (no aperture ring)

[ShunCheung]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JNEJ

[richard_cochran]

The FM10 will work with any full-frame autofocus lenses for Nikon that have an aperture ring. It'll also work with any manual focus lenses that have an AI coupling ridge (basically, any manual focus lenses made after 1977, or anything made earlier and modified to work as AI).

<p>

It won't work with G lenses (lenses without an aperture ring). More precisely, they'll be stuck at minimum aperture, since the body has no way of controlling the aperture.

<p>

DX lenses won't cover the whole frame, and so won't be very useful on film cameras, either. Some DX lenses can cover the whole frame at certain zoom settings, but they all at least have some zoom ranges where they fall short of covering the whole frame.

<p>

Many autofocus lenses won't be as easy to focus precisely as the equivalent manual focus lens would be, due to a loose focusing ring with a short focus throw. But they should be usable.

<p>

It may be worth finding a used manual focus series E 50mm f/1.8. That lens should be dirt cheap, will work perfectly on the FM10, gives a bright viewfinder image, is easy to focus, will almost certainly be lauded by your son's instructor, and works pretty nicely on the D200, as well.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, Juan. I agree with Ellis Venier's words. The best Nikon film SLR are, for me, Nikon F2AS, Nikon F3 and Nikon FM3A. All Nikon SLR 35 mm accept all Nikkor lenses, also AF, except the AF G series (because this lenses are without apertur ring) and AF G SX series (only for Nikon DSLR cameras).

Welcome in the analogic league.

Ciao.

[iancoxleigh]

I was recently in a similar position as your son. I would really consider buying a used FM2n or (if you have the money and don't mind loosing out on weight and flash-sync) a FM3a instead of the FM10.

 

Have a look at Thom Hogan's comments here: http://www.bythom.com/Bodies.htm

and

http://www.bythom.com/fm2n.htm .

 

On Ebay, the FM2n often undersells the FM-10 so keep an eye out!

[wj_lee]

Might also consider FE2, I think these go slightly cheaper than FM2N. Gives apperture priority and flash sync.

[lilly_w]

...c'mon dad...you're shooting a D2X and a D200 with how much invested in glass and are thinking of an FM10 for your Son?! There's a greater lesson here besides photography.

 

I barely knew Leica from lichen when my Father turned me loose with an M4 and 3 lenses. He sat me down, gave me the 1-2-3 on instructional use, 'don't touch this or that', etc. It was a lesson in 'cost' and more significantly in 'value'! The same gear is still with me. It was as much about respect for him and his gear as it was about the joy of putting the vision on paper in the form of a fine print.

 

Long ago, without regret, I granted my kids free reign to use whichever Leica or Nikon F 2SB 2AS 3HP 4s 100 E E2 M M2n M3a D200 etc. that they so desire with any lens provided they learn: most functions, these weren't toys and that their schooling would extend beyond the formal classroom into our home and beyond...that rough and tumble called for an M, 2 or 3; action the 4s or 100; lightweight / flash an E2, etc. Same with glass. They're better for it in many ways. Have we had accidents? Heck yes...some spectacularly memorable!

[blumesan]

"Should i call the paramedics and send a medical team to psico/analize his teacher? Do they still sell rolls of film? not :)"

 

For someone just starting out in photography an all manual camera (with a built in exposure meter) is the best learning tool. Since such a camera does not exist in the DSLR world, film is the way to go.

 

Cheers/Mike

[skellener]

I think that all the basics of photography could still be learned on a DSLR. In fact they could probably be learned quicker. I learned on my Nikon FM in high school photography class. It could be just as easy to just set the DSLR to manual everything. Things like exposure, etc. can actually be seen immediately after taking a picture. You can see what happens with bracketing right away rather than waiting to develop the film. I see it as a much faster learning experience myself.

 

Shooting and developing your own film can be fun (if the school still supplies all the chemicals, paper, enlargers, etc.). I just don't know if there's really a practical use for all of that these days. Maybe if you want to have your own darkroom at home?

 

Things like color correction can be learned in Photoshop where many of the same ideas apply (color balance. etc) and can be tried many times over.

 

Most young people would probably just as soon see their pictures right away and see what they did right or wrong right there. Why wait?

 

I don't think the teacher is crazy, but I think you can spend more time out shooting pictures and less time in the lab if you were to learn on a DSLR set to manual over a film SLR.

[nolan_ross]

The FM10 would be fine. It comes with a 35-70 kit zoom lens which would be fine. Most any other manual film camera would be fine also. Even a rangefinder. Yes they still sell film and there are many film shooters out there. I think the colleges will continue to offer photography (film) classes as long as there is a demand for them. I shoot digital and film myself and see a need for each format for my own purposes. My daughter took a B/W class a couple years ago and had a blast with it. She loved the darkroom..

There would be no reason to call a medical team on the teacher..Who wouldn't want to be paid for teaching a photography class..To me it seems fun and profit all in one...Call the paramedics cause I want the job to..

[pablito_pistola]

The teacher is not "psycho" - the teacher is right on target. The kid deserves an FM at

least. FM10 are prone to breakdown mid-semester! (I've seen it happen more times than I

care to mention.

 

While it's true that students can learn the basics of exposure, DOF, etc. by putting a dslr

into

manual mode, there is, nevertheless, no substitute for learning photography through film.

Shooting film develops a certain discipline that students just don't get through digital. In

film, the photograher is much more likely to try to make every frame count and to try and

pre-visualize

the image. These skills are useful. They make students into better photographers, even in

the world of huge capacity memory cards and ultra fast cameras. There are photographers

- world famous photographers - who turn off the displays on their dslr's and shoot as

though their dslrs were loaded with film. They do this precisely because this method of

working allows them to live more in the moment and focus their attention clearly on their

subject without the distraction of "chimping".

[Uhooru]

Oft times the first class calls for a manual film slr and a 50mm. Can't you just get him a nice fm2, or Fe2 or even an F or F2 and used 50AIS or AI.

 

Any of those are a great, rugged,essential kit that can be used long after he's simply learning. And if he's gonna stick with it, he might as well start saving his pennys for Hassy when he takes the intermediate and advance classes.

[skellener]

I don't buy that Pablito. You can learn on a DSLR the same as an SLR.

 

I guess if you want to do it your way you could turn off the screen and wait until you filled a memory card with only 36 images. Go home. Wait a few hours or days if you want and then look at what you shot. I think it's waste. Digital ain't going away. Eventually, film will be going away. I don't see any benefit of learning on an SLR over a DSLR. I do however see a benefit the other way around. Mostly with the speed of the learning curve being better with a DSLR.

 

I hope your son enjoys the class Juan! He may never get a chance to use photo chemicals ever again in his life time!

[runkel]

It is easy to fixate on digital's two advantages for learning— instant feedback and zero marginal cost for do-overs—and overlook the potential disadvantages, which have a lot to do with psychology.<p>

 

It shouldn't be so hard to understand that we learn better when there is some cost to failure. Saying you can learn just as well with digital is somewhat like saying you can learn just as much if you take a course pass/fail. It's not strictly false, but it seldom ends up being true.<p>

 

Learning with film supplies a discipline that doesn't naturally exist with digital. Digital is about endless do-overs and casually deleting whatever doesn't work. The learner can always supply his or her own discipline, of course, but that seldom happens in practice. Nor is a novice in the best position to recognize how and why the nice advantages and temptations of digital can undermine the learning process. With digital, the costs of not thinking things through in advance are always well hidden from the novice, who might conclude that eventually getting a good shot is basically the same as figuring things out in advance.

[ShunCheung]

If one has no discipline, you'll have no discipline with either film or digital. The big problem with film is that by the time it is processed so that you finally see some results, which is typically hours or even days later, the shooting environment such as lighting is long gone and how you achieved each frame is difficult to remember. That was why in the "old days," people use Polaroids to check lighting effects and review potential results, before they make the final shot on film.

 

Shooting film can still be great for experienced photographers who know what they are doing, but it is a major handicap for learning.

 

As I mentioned recently, all but one short course I have taken in the last few years use digital as a teaching and learning tool.

(We used Polaroids in the other one.) That includes some big names such as Monte Zucker who is in his 70's (and unfortunately terminally ill). But unfortunately not every instructor has picked up on the new tools today.

[harvey_edelstein1]

An Fe2 is a good start. It does manual and AE auto, has TTL flash at 1/250 sec. Its compact and all metal. One can be had for a reasonable price. I think its a fun camera, has a good feel and controls are well placed. You can resell it in a few months since its still popular, meanwhile its a nice camera for learning.

[g-man1]

Send him to a different class.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Since the teacher insists on film, an FM, FM2, or FM3A would be best; that's how I started out (FM in 1979). You want the best for your son, get him an F2AS. Would be great if the classes would start using DSLR as well as film, there are some advantages there; the main one to me would be the almost immediately available feedback. I feel with a DSLR I have to learn photography all over again, since some considerations differ from using film, not to mention the possibilities the digital darkroom offers.

[ShunCheung]

I always find it strange that most people recommend manual-focus SLRs for beginners. To me, a very important tool to learn and check exposure as well as contrast is the spot meter, which is available on pretty much all DSLRs today (at least among the Nikon ones). A spot meter is particularly important on film SLRs because you cannot check any histogram or blinking highlights.

 

To me, for beginners (and everybody else), a spot meter is a must have feature, but that requirement immediately rules out all manual-focus Nikon film SLRs.

 

My first personal computer in 1987 had 640K of RAM and a 20M hard drive (please don't laugh; those are not typos). If anyone wants to learn to use a computer today, you wouldn't want to start with a 20-year-old computer like that one. So why should anybody learn photography today with a camera similar to the all manual, center weighted metering only one (Minolta SRT-101) that I used back in 1970's?

[runkel]

There is a version of the old "Weston shot with a Coke bottle" argument to be made here. Obviously learning with film can't be that much of a handicap since until very recently every photographer learned with film. They did just fine. The chances are that every iconic professional photograph any of us can name was made by someone who learned with film. As Shun points out, digital can be a fantastic teaching tool. So can PowerPoint, however, and you would never want to learn to write using PowerPoint.

 

In my opinion, students pay a price for digital's cost-free, instant results. Failure is cheap, and failures are typically discarded instantly, not studied, forgotten. With film it is just the opposite. Few things will get your attention as a student more than getting back a roll of film with nothing but failed shots on it. Yes, the shooting environment is gone. That's kind of the point.

[ShunCheung]

Matthew, I cannot disagree more with your comments. Yes, until recently, pretty much all photographers started with film. Some certainly go on to become great photographers, but a lot more are mediocre or even really bad photographers. The key is not whether you learn from film or digital; the key is whether you are willing to learn and improve. If you are not, no camera, medium or instructor can make you a great photographer. You can throw away any bad slides and poor prints as easily as deleting a bad digital file.

 

Have you ever learn to play a musical instrument one on one? You play in front of your teacher, who immediately gives you feedback and you adjust and play again. I think that is very effective.

[runkel]

Shun,

 

I think you are dead right when you say "[t]he key is not whether you learn from film or digital; the key is whether you are willing to learn and improve." As I've said, individuals can discipline themselves to avoid the easy shortcuts digital allows. But I think that many will not do so in practice, and, being novices, many are not equipped to decide how important it is for them to learn certain things in certain ways. It's human nature to be lazy, to cut corners and want to get away with things. Digital makes it very easy to give in to those impulses. Yes, you can delete or discard anything, but with digital it is so easy to do that it becomes part of the work flow for most people.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Must say that Shun has a point here; learn on what is available today because that is what you are going to use so why not start off learning its strengths and handling and measuring characteristics. The instant feedback would be a plus to me; mistakes I can see pretty much while I am making them are easier to correct but I don't see why I would forget them more easily. I have looked at slides 1-2 weeks after I took them and usually have a hard time remembering what the exact lighting conditions were when I took it. I enjoyed learning with an FM but have to admit that once I had the aperture/shutter speed thing and the exposure characteristic down, I yearned for something where I did not have to adjust them manually every single time. Modern DSLRs offer the best of both worlds, you can use them manually, you have the spot meter (I agree that is a very nice but not so easily learned tool), and you have the automatic features too. <br> <br> In my previous answer I was too focussed on the "usual" way to learn photography that I overlooked the strong points of more modern camera. Thanks, Shun, for getting me thinking about this.