Need camera recommendation

[jan_bremnes]

Hi!

 

I'm planning a trip around Europe this summer, and since I don't want to take my

regular equipment with me (yes, I'm paranoid about theft) I'll most likely buy

some new (used) equipment to go with me on this trip. Photography is not the

main goal of this trip, but I plan on spending some time photographing trying to

capture something else than the regular snapshots.

I'll be backpacking, traveling mostly by train or foot and therefore need

something small and lightweight, something that fits in a small camerabag so I

can carry it in my backpack without it taking up too much space. And sturdy

enough so that I can put it in a regular backpack or satchel without worrying

too much that something will break.

 

I first considered the Olympus OM-series, because of their small size, light

weight and sturdiness, and the fact that they're quite cheap. If I hadn?t been

so short on money at the time, I would have gone with an OM2 with three primes.

But seeing as I didn't have the money to spend, I had to wait a little longer

before buying. Before long, I discovered that Canon FD glass is incredibly

cheap, so is Minolta Rokkor. When it comes to Olympus and Canon, I don't want to

buy a zoom lens as I don't know if they made good zooms back in the old days.

But when I thought of Minolta, their Maxxum/Dynax series popped into my mind.

Checking out the prices on KEH.com I realized that the cost a Minolta Maxxum

body, a fast 50mm and a zoom covering the range I want (28 - 105/135) wasn't

that different from an OM2 with three primes.

I was intent upon buying a small OM-outfit, but now I'm totally at loss when it

comes to what I should buy. And therefore I'm asking for your help.

 

So, the bottom line is this;

I want a camera outfit I can use as my travel camera.

I will buy used, since I can't afford brand new equipment.

I do not want digital, I'll have a compact digi-cam to use as backup and to take

snapshots.

Brand is not important, as I will build my outfit from scratch, though please do

not make me more confused by bringing in any other brand than Olympus OM,

Minolta Maxxum/Rokkor or Canon FD, unless you have a really good reason.

 

The camera needs to be: Reliable, small and lightweigt, sturdy, quiet and

unobtrusive, aparture and/or shutter priority and as cheap as possible without

sacrificing any of what I just mentioned

 

Thanks!

[michaelging]

OLympus OM is a small camera with great lenses. I would take a wide angle 24mm range, and telephoto in the 180mm range.

[sam_thompson2]

The cheapest option is to get a Pentax K mount camera or one its clones and stick a semi-modern Pentax autofocus zoom lens on it.

[leicaglow]

The OM is a nice camera, but I never found the optics were that great for color. The Canon FD is a nice system, but very heavy. I've never owned a Minolta, except for using my dad's SRT 101. It too is heavy. You REALLY need to consider the Nikon, like an FM or FE series. Small and lightweight, similar to the OM, but Nikkor lenses are phenomenal.

[amol]

Hi Jan,

 

It sounds like a great trip you have planned. I backpacked in Europe about two years ago. I had a couple of questions for you, and a couple suggestions:

 

1.Is there a reason you are wanting to take older film bodies (OM, FD and Rokkor), that require Manual focusing?

I realize you want a cheap price, but honestly, there are lots of used film SLR's selling for cheap on Ebay. Unless, you strongly prefer manual focusing I would suggest looking at the Film SLR's that have auto focusing, there a tons of cheap Canon, Nikon, and Minolta (as you mentioned) really good quality film SLR's selling some going for about $30-90 on Ebay. On my trip I found auto-focusing was a must for candid/street type shot, not to mention that time was an issue, I didn't want to take time to manually focus, and since you are so paranoid,... it will make you look like an easy target, as you sit there, trying to manually adjust focus and settings. So, I recommend you stick with a Minolta Maxxum, which has auto-focus lenses. (also, those older film camera's might be small in size, but take into consideration weight (you are backpacking, trust me, after a couple of hours, a 40 pound pack can feel like an 80 pound pack)(The OM, FD & Rokkor's probably weigh more than the Maxxum.)

 

2. I hear your concern regarding taking you current gear. What gear do you have? How much does it cost?

I was faced with this dilemma when I was planning my trip, I had a film-Canon Rebel and a Digital-Canon Rebel. I have some thoughts you might want to consider. I was back-packing for 3 weeks in Europe. I live in America, and do not go to Europe often. So, depending on how much you shoot, that is a lot of film, you either have to bring, or eventually carry with you as you use the rolls, I ended up calculating 40-60 rolls for my 3 week trip, this takes up a lot of space in a backpack, (I don't trust buying film, because of price Euro to $, was not good at the time, and I wanted to use professional film, not readily available in most locations). Also, with all the new TIA/airplane rules, carrying aboard 40-60 rolls of film, to avoid x-rays might be difficult. Of course, I "checked" my big pack, and "carried-on" a small back pack, when traveling I either stuffed the small pack into the big pack, or just wore it in front of me, with the big pack on my back. Just things to consider/think about.

 

Also, I had the same fear of theft, regarding my Digital SLR, and I have heard the same concern from other people, when I asked their opinion. BUT, my point about I don't go to Europe often... It's a rare occasion, a "once in a lifetime" type thing (well, not really, I plan on going back, at least several times in my life before I die, but you get the idea). My point is, it is a moment/trip that may not come often (unless you're rich or something). Fear is not a reason to not take the best. (I refuse to let fear dictate, my life... that's another story) If I had to choose whether to take my "best" equipment, versus play-it-safe, I'm going to take my best equipment. So, what if my camera gets stolen, the memories & pictures are well worth the price/risk... So, I took my Digital SLR, if it had been stolen, I would have lost over $1,000 worth of equipment (Body and lenses). But my 3 week trip cost 8,000-9,000 dollars (for both, me and my wife). I didn't want to pay that much money, only to come back with out-of-focus or under/over exposed shots, overburdened backpacks (with 40-60 rolls of film) or fogged film. I took my DSLR with about 4 gigs worth of cards, combined, my wife and I took over 2300+ shots (that is more than 60 rolls of film), (she had a digital Point&shoot). Not to mention carrying a 10 memory cards, is a lot easier (lighter, and less space) than carrying 60 rolls of film.

 

Anyway, I just thought you might want to think about these things, along with your camera dilemma. We came back with tons of pictures,(Digital allowed to instant feedback, so we could make sure we got the shot "right", not have it developed, only to find it was blurry, out-of-focus, under/over exposed, or someone walked in front of the frame etc.) I'm not sure what your current equipment is, but if is the "best" you have, I say... Take it! Don't settle for less, because of fear.

 

Quote for the day... (actually more like the last 5 years, since 9/11):

"The courageous/brave may not live long, but the fearful, do not live at all."

 

For the record: We came back from Europe with all our equipment, nothing stolen, and no one tried to steal it, either, but you do need to be aware of your surroundings. (well, a watch was stolen from my wife, either that or it broke off, either way she didn't notice when it left her wrist. It was a cheap watch, we bought in Europe, so we left Europe with everything we came with, and much more, pics and souvenirs) I hope you have a safe and wonderful trip, just be aware of your surroundings, and be humble! Take care.

 

 

[angkordave]

I would be inclined to get an relatively cheap Autofocus film body Nikon or Canon and a new standard zoom 28 to 200 ideally as it would cover most circumstances.

 

Canon and Nikon digital SLRs will work with most a/f Lenses Older m/f lenses would not.

 

That way if you decide to go digital in the future you will have a lens you can still use. I have a couple of older Nikon zoom lenses which work well on digital SLR.

[alberto_c]

Olympus glasses (with an adapter) are compatible with modern 4/3 series and Maxxum lenses fit in 5D, 7D and alpha 100. So they wouldn't be a dead way, as FD and Rokkor are. Of course, that makes the prices of OM and Maxxum something higher. Actually, Maxxum primes are not very cheap. Anyway, Maxxum, OM, FD or Rokkor primes are very high quality, as you probably know, and you won't get disappointed.

 

If I were you, I would get something like Minolta X-700 + 24mm + 50mm + 200mm.

 

I think that I have a good reason to mention M42 lenses and cameras. You will keep reasonable compatibility with any other system that you could want to build in the near future (AFAIK), and there is a number of good M42 lenses in the second hand market, as well as quite good bodies with full manual control or aperture priority for a good price.

 

Hope that helps.

[machts gut]

I'm not very familiar with Olympus, but doesn't the OM-1/2 need quicksilver batteries?

I own a Dynax 800 with some lenses and a Minolta X-500 with some lenses. The quality of both systems is beyound question. Upgrading to digital is no problem. For the Dynax lenses you have the digital bodies, for Rokkor lenses you get an adaptor for the Olympus E-Series.

Just recently I bought a X-500 body with 1.7/50, 2.8/28 and 2.8/135 lenses for 60 Euro. Incredible little money for a very good equipment.

 

Stefan

[lheusinkveld]

The cost of an all-risks insurance policy will be far, far less than even an inexpensive second hand gear setup plus the huge cost of film. You can easily get it added to your homeowners/renters policy. Europe is a safe place, town centres are safer than most large American cities. Your major risk is always from pickpockets. Keep your wallet and money in inside, front pockets, use a backpack that does not open from the outside if possible. You already look like a tourist with the backpack, but I suggest you at least avoid using the highly tempting fannypacks that tourists seem to think are perfect for travel... A backpack that does not look like it is for camera gear is safer than one that shouts "look inside for expensive cameras!"

 

I agree with a previous poster, if this is a once in a lifetime trip, be sure you are giving yourself the best opportunities to bring the memories home.

[stephen_w.]

"...use a backpack that does not open from the outside if possible..."

 

Huh?

[stemked]

Sorry, I did read your concerns. But..

 

Rec:Pentax MX, ME Super, Super Program

 

Reasons: Dependable, Lightweight, AND you can use the lenses on a Pentax digital camera IF you ever want to go down the dSLR route.

[iwong]

There are backpacks that cannot be opened [easily] unless it is taken off your back. Crumpler makes this kind of backpacks, which I use to travel by air and walk around tourist areas. They might not hold the most stuffs/gears compared to the Lowepro's, but the Crumpler's don't look like camera bags which screams "expensive camera inside".

 

To answer the OP's questions, I wouldn't leave my familiar equipment at home and buy new (used) ones just for the trip. Yes I am paranoid about getting them stolen/robbed but there are benefits to using gear you are already familiar with, rather than learning how to use your new ones during your once-in-a-lifetime trip. Just use common sense when handling your equipment, i.e. don't leave them unattended and you should be ok.

[RaymondC]

IMO.

I been to EU in April last yr, v safe, I heard in Italy they clean it up, however I was not there. Many pple had camera's and it was obvious, Nikons, Canons Lowepro bags, Tamrac etc. You see a lens with red rings or a white L series. You see a camea backpack with a tripod strapped on. You see the occasional light meter.

 

I travel v light like 3-4kg without the cam stuff.

I think a travel tripod is useful for pix you otherwise cannot get and they are surreal than a daylight photograph that could be handheld. Some tripods can be 42cm or shorter folded and be "in" your bag.

 

I would say a dSLR with one lens, not sure on flash.

Some prosumer cams are just as near big and price as the dSLR body alone.

 

The problem with digital is that you may need 2 bodies with slow film and fast film such as indoors and outdoors when you go into museums and such. I personally found ISO 400 a bit slow. Using a film retriever is too much hassle and using ISO 800 all the time is not ideal for myself. To make it easy as, its really digital. dSLR one lens or a prosumer maybe not as big as the s9000, the s5000 is alright or a even smaller one, many have manual modes. I find the s5000 size fine and ergonomically, the smaller ones are bit of a fuss with small buttons and going via the menu often.

 

I found a superzoom is a good tradeoff, or you want to err on the wide side and the longer side for diff perspectives.

 

For the film camera's, Canons and Nikons, maybe you have one already now so it will be as a extra body. They can be had for under $50US and be around 350g or lighter. Add 2 or 3 primes or one superzoom. The MF are avail .. Nikon FG, FE, FA, FM. I think apart from the FM that is $100-150, the others are under $50US or close.

[RaymondC]

Nikon has a 28-200 with a aperture ring so it works on AF or MF bodies. Stopped down on tripod for night shots, great. I like single lenses as there are no fuss in lens swappings when you get to A site and then B and then ... ... ...

 

"I meant that film may need 2 bodies cos you have diff film speeds". That was apparent for me, even if you had ASA 50 or 100 when the sky turned bad you will struggle for shutter speed, perhaps unless you had a narrow focal length heavy 2.8 zoom or a 1.8 prime it won't be an issue. Sometimes you are going to walk inside a gallery or museum and then you walk outside and it might be afternoon, inside they may restrict flash use and monopods / tripods.

[ranong]

you should be able to get insurance for about 100-1500 per year that will cover like 12,000 or a bit more. that should be enough to replace your gear if it is stolen. and this way you have the gear you normally use so it is familiar.

 

i know you asked to stay with specific brands, but i shoot k=nikon. you can get an N90S auto focus body for about 100$ and it meteres with all the manual focus lenses. so you could get a bunch of great fast prime nikkor glass. what could be better than that? (an rb67 pro s would be better than that!)

 

have fun!

 

eddie

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>The camera needs to be: Reliable, small and lightweigt, sturdy, quiet and unobtrusive, aparture and/or shutter priority and as cheap as possible without sacrificing any of what I just mentioned</i></blockquote>

Sounds like you want (at least as an additional backup) an inexpensive 1970s rangefinder camera. Lightweight and excellent models are Yashica Electro 35 GX and CC, or the tiny Voightländer VF101 -- all with aperture-priority auto-exposure mode. If this is to complicated, you can also try full auto mode cameras like the Canon Canonet 28 or Agfa Optima 1535 Sensor. There are tons of other great camera models, but these are the ones I used with great success and can recommend. Most are fully made of metal and take quite a lot of punishment, have very quiet leaf shutters and are very easy in operation.

<p>

On the other hand, millions of Europeans use cameras every day, and I wouldn't worry about theft. For a trip like this I'd take the best equipment with me I could afford (like a Canon G7 digicam or a used <abbr title="digital single-lens reflex cameras">dSLRs</abbr>).<div></div>

[jan_bremnes]

First of all, thanks a million for all the advice and suggestions!

I haven't replied before now, as I've been busy reading up on the different cameras you've suggested and asking myself

what I really want.

 

First of, I'll answer some of the questions that were raised:

 

Yes, there is a reason why I chiefly consider(ed) older film bodies; it's what I'm used to, I love the sound and feel

of the film advance lever, the setting of film speed and aperture and I consider the camera bodies works of art

compared to newer cameras. But I've realized, after giving my problem a little more thought, that none of those reasons

can defend taking such a camera with me on this trip. When I'm at home, I photograph for the pure fun of it, and part

of that fun lies in using an old camera, if it suddenly falls into bits and pieces in my hands, no biggie, I'll just

come back another day. But the goal of the photograpy during my trip will not be to have fun, but to document the trip

and capture memories that I can come back to years from now, and I've decided I'm not going to trust a 30-year

old camera body with that responsibility.

 

The destinations themselves will probably not be a once in a lifetime event. I'm from Norway, Europe is just a short flight or

ferry-ride away and I've spent many weeks in central and southern Europe with my parents over the years.

But this time I'm going with some really good friends, some of them will move to different parts of the country when

autumn comes, so this is sort of a last big thing we do all together.

 

Some of you asked me what equipment I already had and why I don't just get insurance. It's not the

loss measured in money I'm concerned about, as insurance would be cheaper than me buying new equipment. The thing is

that I use old Pentax equipment, K-mount & M42, some of which are my dad's old equipment, and both bodies and lenses are getting harder to find,particularly the lenses, at least those in a

reasonably good condition. So it's not about the financial loss, it's about me losing equipment which I may not be able

to aquire again, and which I'm quite fond of. That was my reasons a week ago, but now the above also applies.

 

I also thank you for the reassurances regarding risk of theft. As said before, I've been to Europe several times, and

know that you don't often experience theft, so I'm not that concerned about thieves when strolling in the cities and

stuff like that as I won't be traveling alone. But hostels, overnight trains, train stations and that kind of thing

is what gets my paranoia going. I've read somewhere that disguising my camera, by placing gaffer tape or something over

the logo and model name is an easy way to avoid the thieves' attention, so I'll be doing that to my camera, and probably

add a few strips of tape somewhere else on the body to make it look even less attractive.

Hopefully I won't be looking to much like a tourist, excpt for the "oh's" and "ah's" when visitng the St. Peter Basilica and such,

and that's why I wanted a sturdy body. When walking about in the cities, I plan on carrying my camera in a regular

satchel, along with other things like a bottle of water, some snacks, a guidebook and stuff like that. The camerabag will

be in use when on out of the more populated areas, like when I'll hopefully be hiking in the Alps.

 

To those suggesting digital, rest assured; I'll be carrying a digital P&S (probably a Fuji F30),

but generally, I prefer film over digital. Before I go digital (except for P&S), I'll go B&W and get wet in the darkroom

I don't have yet =)

 

As to those concerned about me taking unfamiliar equipment with me, I can only say that I intend it to be familiar by the time I

leave, as I plan on buying it at least two months in advance. Those two months I'll spend shooting, with and without

film until I now the camera inside and out.

 

And to Bueh; I've got a Yashica Electro 35G, and it's a really nice camera, but I feel a bit limited by the fixed lens

and I don't want to carry that big a camera as a backup when I've got a digital P&S backup.

 

Now, that should cover the questions I think.

 

On to what I've decided on:

I now believe that the Nikon F80/N80 might be the right choice for me. There's plenty of used lenses to get for it,

it's relativley new, has AF but also give me the option to focus manually, it's got built-in flash, reasonably good build quality and finding a replacement if it breaks down

will be easier than with ay other brand except Canon. If I later want to get a manual body, the FM3A seems like a safer choice than any other. And I can easily

go the other direction, getting a more advanced body, as used F100s go really cheap, even here in Norway.

 

Feel free to come with any further advice, but I think I've made my decision. Come August and I'll know if that decision

was a wrong one, but I hope it won't be.

 

Again thanks for all your help!

 

- Jan Bremnes

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>I've got a Yashica Electro 35G, and it's a really nice camera, but I feel a bit limited by the fixed lens and I don't want to carry that big a camera as a backup when I've got a digital P&S backup.</i></blockquote>

The Electro 35G is a big camera, agreed. All cameras I listed are noticeably smaller, and the VF101 and Agfa Optima 1535 are really tiny. These fixed lens, manual focus camera have one big advantage over digital compacts: They take a picture when you press the shutter release -- no autofocus hunting in low light. And I thought you wanted a camera that is inconspicious, quiet and sturdy.

<p>I find Nikon gear too expensive to start building a kit nowadays. In fact, I sold most of my equipment and went the Canon <abbr title="digital single-lens reflex camera">dSLR</abbr> route (which works with manual focus lenses on adapters, by the way). Here in Germany PK and M42 stuff can easily be acquired on that big internet auction site, so unless you have some collector's items in your possession I guess that your lenses are not unreplaceable. I don't think that trick with the gaffer tape will fool any thief. Don't look like a victim and keep your eyes open, this will protect your equipment better.