B&W Start

[al_wateen]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am a newbie in the world of film slrs, prior to that I always have been using my compact digital cameras and photoshop.<br>

I love Black and White Pictures and after hearing a lot of people talking negative about B&W in DSLR I am thinking to buy a good (forever) Film SLR only for Portaraits and Landscape works (not so much zoom) and the best Black and White Film (which I can get in bulk).<br>

So Please make me some recommendations for best Film SLR (it doesn't matter if it has so much features because I want to invest in the best which I can keep forever)<br>

I am looking forward to have replies.<br>

Regards,<br>

Wateen</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Hi!<br /> When I first started making black & white (B&W) photographs in the 1950's I had very little money. So I always bought fairly inexpensive equipment and it seemed to work just fine.</p>

<p>With that in mind both Nikon & Canon have reasonable equipment. I like the Cosina for a good price.</p>

<p>Here are some to look over:<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/269/35mm_Film_Cameras_SLR_TLR_Film_Cameras.html<br /> This one caught my eye as a good price:<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/571458-GREY/Cosina_CS1_C1s_35mm_SLR_Manual.html#reviews<br /> Pretty good price for a brand new camera. Check the two who reviewed the camera.</p>

<p>You could buy used but you gotta be careful as to how much the camera was used and how it was taken care of.</p>

<p>Hope this helps you get a start on your film journey!</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>a manual film slr and a medium speed B&W film.<br>

although some brands are touted and being excellent cameras,<br>

do not box yourself in with a camera that is hard to get lenses for,.<br>

look in closed auctions on ebay and see which one is most popular.<br>

the pentaxes which I like are messed up by the fact the lenses fit the DSLR's<br>

and this increases the price of lrenses .<br>

the canon FD a and t series is another line I like, but all are about 20-25 years old.<br>

the minolta sr and srt series is a good choice even tho I don't own one.<br>

the many screw mount slr's may sell for less but most have stop down metering.<br>

many highly touted brands and models seem to be undependable and trouble prone,.<br>

If you find a less popular brand or model and it is in working condition, it will be usable.<br>

even if you can afford it, buying another camera is less expensive than having a CLA.<br>

one last consideration or two a pentax K1000 is a "cult camera" overpriced because of the high demand. nothing wrong withn the camera. just that everybody knows that model number.<br>

many old cameras use a mercury cell, yoiu can use a hearing said cell but a slightly newer camera will use a longer lasting silver cell.<br>

practical considerations out weigh someone saying " that's a great camera"<br>

many here will make vaid arguments for this brand or that brand or model.<br>

they are usually right, but take ALL advice with a grain of salt.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Pentax K1000 for 35mm. The camera is indestructible. Over 3 million sold. The manual lenses can be used on contemporary Pentax DSLRs. Pentax K1000 or one of its variants.</p>

<p>For 120mm film, look up a Pentax 67. It's the King Kong of cameras. Indestructible. I ended up going with a Pentax 645 I found on a local consignment; yet, I am convinced that a 67 is a hardy choice.</p>

<p>I know you specified SLR; but, I would also consider a Leica Barnack; noted by the roman numerals in the name (Leica II, Leica III, and so on); maybe one from the 1950s that's still in good shape. Anything beyond that; the M series (M4, M6, and so on) and R series, is too pricey to justify the expense. The other Leicas I think, don't get my best favor.</p>

<p>The <strong>Barnack's</strong>, though, had a good reputation for durability; I saw a photo of one that survived a grazing shot during war. A Barnack design will probably have survived battle, or emanated from a model that did.</p>

<p>I have been unimpressed with the durability of most of the Canon and Nikon equipment (FD series and Nikon F's are good; newer cameras look like plastic paperweights to me); and unimpressed with the pricier Leica models. Haven't even considered any of the other brands; but, there are plenty of stout, short run off brands that use M42 lenses; also worth considering <em>if the individual unit looks sturdy. </em></p>

<p>Pentax K1000, Pentax 67, and Leica Barnack Rangefinders. Four stars.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I know that plastic paperweights comment was a little inflammatory of me; but, if you want to know if the camera is good or not, look at how photographers used it five and ten years after it came out. At five years old, all of the pricetag chasers will have gone away. At ten years old, diehard users remain. Do they complain? Are they proud of their camera?</p>

<p>Pretty much all contemporary cameras will be digital bodies; but, this same type of hype and drop off phenomena was around before, when all of the cameras were for film. If a fair number of people are still using the camera and praising its durability ten years out, chances are it was well made. If it's probably unusable; "plastic paperweight."</p>

[andylynn]

<p>What do you mean by "best"? Consider: The image is made by the film and the lens. The camera is there to hold the film and lens and operate the shutter, and everything else is "features". So what sort of lenses and features do you want?</p>

<p>Personally I feel the best film SLR is a Minolta manual focus - and SRT, X-700 or my favorite, the XD11. They're extremely well built and I really like the Rokkor lenses, and the metal ones have a nice "vintageness" to them. I've got an XD11 that I replaced the leather on and is in excellent condition, with an MC 50/1.4 lens and some Vivitar Series 1 zooms, that is perfect for my tastes.</p>

<p>But somebody who really loves Nikons might say the best film SLR is a Nikon F100, with its excellent meter and AF system and generally the best newer technology - most of what's in an F6, in a smaller package at much less cost. If you've got the money a Nikon FM3a, F5 or F6 are all spectacular.</p>

<p>Now, as for film, there's no "best", each has its own characteristics. I've been having some fun with Arista Premium films from freestylephoto.biz - the 100 is relabeled Kodak Plus-X and the 400 is Tri-X, only at $2 a roll. At those prices, bulk doesn't seem to make much sense to me unless you've got film loading equipment already.</p>

<p>Don't bother with the inexpensive cameras you can buy new - the Nikon FM10 and Vivitar V3800N, for example - they're plastic.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I'll step out on a limb and make a recommendation:</p>

<p>A Nikon F100 with a 50mm f/1.8D lens.</p>

<p>Although the 50mm will work for portraits, for a dedicated portrait lens add a Nikon105mm f/2.5 AI or AIS manual focus lens.</p>

<p>For flash add the SB-28.</p>

<p><em></em><br>

<em></em></p>

[kari v]

<p>Take a good look at medium format gear like Mamiya RB 67 and Pentax 67, these were practically made for landscapes and portraits. They are pretty different from 35mm cameras (and Big) but when you see the results... the leap from p&s digicams is so huge that you'll faint seeing your first 20x24" print that is just perfect even up close. :)</p>

[nbg90455]

<p>As others have said, the camera is the least important part -- it's all in the lenses. My suggestions would be that it if says Zeiss or Leica on it, you got the best, and then the camera is somewhat secondary.<br>

If you are on a budget, get a late-model Yashica, otherwise get a used Contax SLR body, plus a few lenses. The f1.4/50mm Planar is/was the best SLR lens in the 50mm range. The usual suspects (e.g. keh.com) have them all the time...</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>Really, the camera is just a light-tight box.</p>

<p>Personally, when I went back to film I picked up a 28 mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a 105 2.5.<br>

So far, I've had everything I've wanted to shoot covered. IMO, whatever system you end up with, just make sure you get out and shoot and learn. It's easy enough to pick up some cheap film gear, I often see a manual body and 50mm lens go for $50 on craigslist. I'd start with one of those and see if you like shooting film. Very little money invested and it gives you a chance to see if it's really "for you".</p>

<p>But use caution: Old Camera Aquisition Syndrome (OCAS) is rampant. One body leads to another. And another. And Medium Format ... and it goes on :) </p>

<p>I now own 4 film bodies, 2 SLR's, one rangefinder and I just picked up a Holga to get into medium format and lomo. I actually had to force myself to go out with my D300 and shoot some digital last weekend because I felt guilty in not having picked it up in a couple of weeks.</p>

[SCL]

<p>In terms of camera durability the Leica rangefinders seem to hold an edge, and their compliment of lenses have shown to be incredibly durable as well...you will pay for the priviledge of owning them, but you may not want another camera after trying them. OTOH, when it comes to durability of SLR gear (I'm thinking manual with a long history), Nikon F gear stands out as does some Leica R gear (notably the Leicaflex SL and SL2). More modern stuff hasn't really had the test of time, IMHO...but some of the early Pentax (Spotmatic) gear and more recently the Nikon F100 seem to frequently rise to the top of people's list. Although I've owned and still own a number of classic cameras, I think for you, I'd probably recommend the F100...inexpensive, great ergonomics, wonderful metering options, uses readily available batteries and can autofocus etc.</p>

[tim_emeritz]

<p>for 35mm manual focus cameras, go with a nikon (i have an fm2 and i love it) i used to shoot on an fe2 and have used an f3 and i have NEVER been let down. nikkor lenses are pretty good (although, i personally don't like the g-series).</p>

<p>if you want to go the medium format route (and you should at least look into it), a bronica etrsi or mamiya 1000s would be my recommendations for 6x4.5 (645). if you want to shoot square (6x6) rolleiflex (NOT rolleicord) - albeit a tlr system - is the way to go, no question about it. that said, you should decide if you want an old model or a newer (marked as 'rollei') 6000 series, all of which are slr cameras (i like the 6008). if you are trying to go larger, while still remaining in the realm of medium format, the mamiya rz67 (6x7) is a great cameras, but they may take a second to learn what everything on it does (once you do, you're good to go).</p>

<p>if you want to go all out, there are some (not many) large format slr cameras. there's a graphlex 4x5 slr that works very well, but is massive in comparrison. gowland makes a 4x5 tlr camera (i've never used one), but they seem to be targeted for people who really love tlr's and want to shoot larger negatives.</p>

<p>as for film, plus-x is hands-down my favorite film of all time. any non-delta (t-grain) ilford films (pan-f, fp4+, hp5+) are great, for certain applications, tri-x is still a really good, very flexible film and lastly, efke 25. sometimes you'll run into issues with the coating on efke's film, but when all the stars are aligned, it competes with the best of them and costs half as much. i kind of like the imperfections (sometimes) and i would suggest trying it out at least once.</p>

<p>if the camera is too small, too bulky, too heavy, too light, too anything...you're not going to be happy with it and THAT is going to be your biggest set-back.</p>

<p>in the end, it really comes down to a couple key elements: 1) what format/ratio do you find most appealing and conducive to the work you do; 2) what are you hoping to do with the images (enlargements, projections, light boxes, etc); 3) how does the equipment feel while you're working.</p>

<p>hope this helps. good luck.</p>

[marek_fogiel]

<p>Nikon FM3A, Zeiss Distagon 21 and 35 ZF for landscape, Planar 85 or Makro Planar 100 for portrait. This is the best you can have in traditional MF SLR 35mm gear.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>In the reasonable department: Go for an slr where you can reuse the lenses on a current type of DSLR.<br>

That pretty much narrows it to a Nikon, Canon or Minolta(with sony being the partner DSLR). For canon steer clear of the non Eos older FD mount camera's. Brooks' recommendation for a F100 is a good one. It has an excellent meter, fast auto focus and the camera allows for the latest Nikon lenses including the latest G series.<br>

In Canon the EOS 3 is a similar camera.<br>

The problem with some of the proposed leica's is that they do not have a meter. Also the lenses for these Leica's can be very expensive.</p>

 

[photo_galleries]

<p>A couple of posters wrote: "a body is just a light tight box." That statement is about as true as: "you can zoom with your feet." A body is the "user interface" and as such, affects how one frames, composes, etc... just think about viewfinder brightness, meter bias or accuracy and other things. So, the body is part of the total solution and choosing the right body is important.<br>

<br /><br />The OP asked for the BEST film SLR without any mention of AF or MF, so I'm surprised with the whole slew of suggestions for MF bodies. I'm also surprised that there was only one mention of the Nikon F6. The F6 is without peer when it comes to film SLR's. So, if you have the money and and the fastest AF in an SLR sounds good, then this is a no brainer.</p>

<p>If you do want a manual focus body, I would recommend an RF rather than an SLR. I've also found that when it comes to manual focus, I prefer focusing an RF versus an SLR. In fact, I've only recently sold my FM3A, since I do all my film work with RF gear. If you choose to go with an RF, you can't go wrong with the newer Leicas (such as the M7), but what I would recommend is the Zeiss Ikon (ZI).</p>

<p> </p>

[mischakoning]

<p>Maybe my post comes a little late but I just saw your question.<br>

There are a lot of possibilities here. When you buy a second hand camera you may always sell it for about the same price you bought it for. The question really is: are you willing to use an all manual camera or do you also want to have the possibility to set it to auto. when you're entirely new to film-photography and new to black-and-white and also want to develop your negatives yourself, be prepared for a very steep learning curve.<br>

So before you go out and spend a lot of money, I would suggest to start as simple as possible. Buy yourself a simple Canon EOS or Nikon (or whatever) SLR camera, using standard 35mm film.<br>

When you want to toy with black-and-white film and want to develop your own negatives, just buy yourself some D76 developer, some basic dark room equipment and try to develop a few film. It's all very easy and it's best not to start buying the best and most expensive equipment finding out later you don't like black-and-white.<br>

That's the way I did it, found out I really like it and bought better equipment when I was ready for it and I knew what I needed.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Pentax K1000 for 35mm. The camera is indestructible. Over 3 million sold. The manual lenses can be used on contemporary Pentax DSLRs. Pentax K1000 or one of its variants.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look out for the KM too. it's the same as the KK1000 but has an additional depth of field preview lever. due to the cult status of the K1000, the KM is usually cheaper.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For 120mm film, look up a Pentax 67</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to put my pedantic hat on (as if it ever comes off!) it's 120 film not 120mm film.</p>

<p> </p>

[kurt_driver]

<p>Hi Al, you asked about film SLRs for B&W, and indicate inexperience with film SLRs. I take this to mean that you are new to film photography and that perhaps you asked about SLRs because you were unaware of other types of cameras. So excuse me, please, if I got it wrong. I would suggest looking at alternative types as they can offer many advantages. A medium format negative is around four times the size of a 35mm film (which is not 35mm, these numbers are just formats) and provides better resolution, sharpness of images and enlargements. If you want large prints 35mm isn't really the way to go. Medium format cameras come in three main varieties, SLRs, TLRs, and rangefinders. You might want to read this:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm<br>

MF SLRs tend towards the heavy side, they're best used with a tripod, although some people manage to get clear pics handholding them. Your options here include those made by Mamiya, Bronica, and Pentax, amongst others. Avoid the very cheap ones made by Holda, Diana, and Lomo, these are $30 and up Brand new for a good reason, poor quality. TLRs, or twin lens reflex has a separate viewing lens, and cannot, except for one model, have a lens longer than 150mm. Consider this page<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera<br>

And rangefinders I know nothing about, really, they tend to have smaller negatives with 120 film, often they are 6x4.5 rather than the 6X7 that is considered the ideal size for a negative. Rangefinders lack the mirrors. found in SLRs and TLRs and thus are quieter and have less vibration. Also, like with the TLR, you're not looking through the shooting lens and therefor your view of the image won't disappear (briefly) as it does with an SLR. Medium format cameras are very reasonable on ebay, make sure there are lots of photos, and that it's in good condition. I would suggest giving a seller who writes "I don't know anything about cameras but it looks good" a wide berth. Stick to people who regularly deal in camera gear or someone who used the camera for many years and can answer your questions. I just bought this:<br>

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=250429416320<br>

and am very happy thus far.<br>

For portraits and landscapes, two subjects that usually can sit still for a second or two, you don't need a fast shutter, or auto anything. Get a separate meter, used ones go for next to nothing on ebay. You might even consider a larger negative 4x5 film is widely available, but that's a topic for another day, again wikipedia has a useful page:<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format<br>

Lastly, you might consider devloping you own film, not only is this a moneysaver, but also gives you control over the entire process. Don't be hasty, study the situation, and please report back to us what you finally decide. Kurt</p>