which film slr camera to buy

[vijay_veeraraghavan]

<p>hi all,<br>

this may be a repeated question but still I didnt come to a conclusion. I'm now doing digital photography, but I feel more concerned about the film photography. particularly b&w in the films. to experiment a lot, Im thinking of buying a film slr. and also I wish to learn to make develop film prints using the internet knowledge. coming to the question, which film slr shall i buy (more good if low budget)? FYI: I have now the nikon d90 with 18-105mm... anymore info?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>You might buy a recent Nikon AF SLR that works in a very similar way to the d90 and can share lenses (though not the 18-105, which is a DX lens that doesn't cover the whole 35mm film frame). Two possibilities are the F100 (absurdly cheap for what it is), or the F80 (aka the N80), a smaller and lower end (but still very capable) model that can be had for very little money. Or you might choose a manual Nikon more like the usual subject of this forum (the FM2 is a solid choice). If you don't care about compatibility, there are dozens of good and usually very cheap options from various manufacturers, several of which are about to be suggested!</p>

[vijay_veeraraghavan]

<p>thanks Mr. Williams<br>

I saw the review of the cameras you have suggested. the manual lenses are OK, it puts all responsibility of choosing the aperture, shutter speed and others on me. Mr. Williams, (and others too) kindly can you provide info on other brand models too, it will help me gain comparative knowledge on the film slrs. it will help me somewhere as i go along.<br>

thanks<br>

with regards</p>

 

[mark f]

<p>A camera that is quite different and worth considering is the Olympus OM-1 (or OM-2). They are very simple, small and have wonderful ergonomics. The OM1 takes an obsolete battery so it would need to be converted to a modern battery or use a hearing aid battery (OM2 battery is common).</p>

[bueh]

<p>If you still want to shoot film in this digital age, shoot a bigger format! Medium format SLRs are excellent tools for black and white photography. Mamiya M645 cameras are very beginner-friendly, and if you can get a nice kit of a M645 Super + AE prism and motor grip you have a very easy to handle camera that shoots just like an oversized automatic 35mm SLR. Other options included the bigger Mamiya RB/RZ67 cameras. If you are adventurous, you could also try to find a working <a href="../photo/7308897"><strong>Kiev 60</strong></a> or vintage <a href="00PX8K"><strong>KW Pilot Super</strong></a>.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>So you're looking for manual cameras? Older Nikons are usually good cameras - FM2 or F3 for example, which can share some but nor all lenses with a D90 (AF lenses that are not G should be fully functional on both, but of course the manual cameras use them in manual focus).</p>

<p>The other manual cameras I like are Minoltas, which you can find for peanuts and most of the lenses are excellent. Rokkorfiles.com has articles on most of the models. The SRT is the classic choice for all-manual use.</p>

[gene m]

<p>The Canon AE-1 is hard to beat. Cheap and reliable. If you need help processing B&W, let me know.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I would think if you're already involved in Nikon AF, and want to stay there, you consider a Nikon F100. Of course some of the lower end Nikons would work too, but the F100 is a cut above in quality, and current prices are shockingly cheap. </p>

<p>If your only expected Nikon AF lenses are DX, and you would rather start another system, I second Andrew Lynn's suggestion of Minolta. There are lots of good deals in Minolta manual focus cameras out there, and they kept lens compatibility for many years. Minolta lenses are good, plentiful, and often very cheap to buy. and third party lenses for Minolta, both good and bad, are often so cheap you can take a chance. In my experience, Minolta X series meters are very accurate too.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I would recommend a Nikon F100 or FM-2n.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>If you want to try manual controls, your D90 has it all. If you have nothing against AF, go for the Nikon F5, Canon 1V or Maxxum 9 (depending on the brand you want) and the F5 is most appropriate for you and cheapest now too. You shouldn't consider manual control is for film camera and auto is for digital. If there is such a distinction, it should be the other way around</p>

[andylynn]

Why an F5? It's larger than an F100, maybe uncomfortably large for somebody who's used to a D90, doesn't do anything an F100 doesn't and is more expensive. A nearly perfect F100 is under $200 these days.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I second the Canon AE-1 or <strong>AE-1 Program</strong>. Very nice cameras, <strong>very inexpensive</strong>, a full system of lenses and accessories that are excellent and also very inexpensive. One of the reasons is they are very plentiful and the lenses don't generally adapt well to other cameras. Easy to find just about anywhere.</p>

<p>The <strong>Canon FD</strong> system represents one of the best bang-for-the-buck systems available in a manual focus 35mm SLR. It's so good, Photo.net created it's own forum for it. The many knowledgeable and helpful forum members there can help you every step of the way.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Since you already have a Nikon, it does make sense to consider a compatible AF film Nikon.</p>

<p>However, if you just have the one lens, there are alternatives such as a number of Canon EOS film bodies, as well as other marques. The older FD Canon (not compatible with the EOS series and with MF lenses) are mostly bargains. The T90 is one of the best cameras ever made, though not so cheap to get as the Canon AE-1P already mentioned. The older FD lenses are usually very reasonable on eBay, etc.</p>

[k5083]

If you want to stick with AF Nikons my suggestion would be an N90 or N90S. You think under $200 for an F100 is

shockingly cheap? Try under $50 for an N90S, under $40 for an N90, and there is not much an F100 will do that they

can't. We're talking extremely painless entry into film shooting with very capable and advanced cameras for pizza

money. They are well made and solid feeling machines as well.

[mukul_dube]

<p>All the major manufacturers made cameras with pretty much the same features. Those made in the 1970s and earlier are perhaps the most sturdy and long lived, but most of them take the 1.35V mercury cell. The Canon AE-1 mentioned by Gene M would be a good choice.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>For the best B&W in film nothing beats Leica and their lenses however if you want to stay with SLR try the Nikon F3HP. It has an excellent viewfinder. To go to the F4 or F5 you need to decide if you need the autofocus and the motor drive built into the camera. With the F3HP the set of lenses that you should look for are the Zeiss ZF f2.0 35mm & the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 Ai-S. After that there is the 50mm f1.4 6th issue...It has a high serial number. From there it becomse problematic. At the wider extreme are the 24mm f2.8 and the 28mm f2.8 with the 28mm being rated slightly higher but it is close to the 35mm. Both are excellent lenses. Above 50mm there is the 85mm f2.0 and the 85mm f1.4. The f2.0 is good with the f1.4 appreciably better (though the 85 is certainly good enough at f2.0) but the cost is also appreciably higher. The next decision is do you want a 135mm if you have a 105mm? Then there is the 180mm. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>If you want a camera that's not a "lens mount orphan", consider any post-AI mount Nikon, or any K-mount Pentax. If you do want one that's a "lens mount orphan", consider Minolta, Olypmus OM-series, or Canon with FD-mount.<br>

You will never have trouble finding any Nikkor lens you want for the Nikon camera, and many of them are very reasonably priced used. But your D90 is a "consumer" Nikon DSLR, which means that it's deliberately crippled to not meter with old manual-focus lenses. So you will have very limited <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm">compatibility</a> between your D90 and old lenses. (More expensive Nikon DSLRs are not crippled in this way.)<br>

A Pentax MX is a wonderful camera, as are K1000, KM, and ME. The K1000 is overpriced on the used market, the KM is a better camera, and usually cheaper. Nice thing is that no Pentax K-mount camera needs the unavailable mercury batteries, they all use "76" cells. Pentax made a lot of good lenses, the Pentax-M (and earlier) K-mount lenses are most reasonably priced used, but a few are hard-to-find. The Pentax-M lenses have limited metering capabilites with the Pentax DSLR cameras, but the Pentax-A and later ones have full metering. This makes used Pentax-A lenses pricey and hard-to-find. On the other hand, there's gobs of really cheap third-party K-mount lenses, quality varies, but many are $10 to $20 a pop!<br>

Of the orphans, the Canon models are a good choice, because there are adapters to M42 (Contax/Pentax screw) mount (common) and Exakta mount (adapter is rare) lenses. The Canon FD lenses are great, and cheap used. AE-1 is a nice camera, incredibly common, doesn't need mercury battery.<br>

Olympus and Minolta are also fine cameras, the lenses good and cheap, but some lenses are rare and pricey. You need to be aware with the mercury battery issues with models from both vendors.<br>

Any other film SLR, there's just not enough lenses in the used market to make it a smart investment. So leave Topcon, Konica, Miranda, Fujica, Alpa, Ricoh, Petri, etc., for the collectors. (Much as I love my Topcon.)</p>

[mdma]

I've used an Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM-2 and OM-1, and I prefer the Olympus system mainly for the better standard

focussing screen; by comparision I felt like was guessing focus everytime with the FE2. Furthermore the OM-2 in

particular has simply fantastic ergonomics. Where it's let down is build quality - The Nikon felt like it was created out of

lighting and sheer willpower on Mount Olympus by Zeus himself; The OM-2 on the other hand feels like it was made

by someones enthusiastic uncle in his shed during long Saturday afternoons....I doubt it'll fail on me though, it was a

pro level camera and doesn't have a reputation for unreliability ( The later OM-2sp and OM-4 have been known to have problems though).

 

In terms of AF cameras, I can heartily recommend the entry level Canon EOS 300 and EOS 1000 models - very very

cheap, fairly cheerful. Just pair them with a decent lens ;)

 

Im currently using a Nikon F801s, the father to the F90x (and I suppose grandfather to F100). While cheaper, It doesn't have as many features as those later ones, and much slower AF, but I like it. I think it's the best 'Modern' camera designed by Nikon, and like the OM-2 it has brilliant ergonomics, so I simply love using it :)

[bj_larsson]

<p>If you're really wanting to experiment, why not start with a Holga. Why does it have to be an SLR?</p>

<p>Holgas are great for experimentation. </p>

<p>If not, what type of experimentation are you looking for? Just to play around with film? Are you going to print as well, or just develop? Personally, I develop my own B&W film and then scan it after. Lately I have found myself drawn much more towards medium format and ended up buying a Holga and also a Pentax 645. Note that I also own and shoot with FM2n's and a Canonet QL17. All good cameras, all with their own charm and worth owning if you can pick them up for a reasonable price, depending on your location.</p>

<p>Best of luck, enjoy the new workflow and approach that will hopefully come working with analog :)</p>

<p>Bjorn</p>

[mdma]

<p>Les, I think 2 things have occurred - <br>

1. I over-exaggerated to make my point clear,<br>

2. I didnt make my point clearly!<br>

My OM-1n was CLA'd and my OM-2n is near mint, and I'm 100% sure they could last at least as long as the FE2, but that they just dont <em>feel</em> like they would - The fit and finish of the construction is not on par with Nikon's equivalents, and of course the Olympus's weigh less due to their smaller size, lending the heavier Nikons a more "soild", well, <em>feel</em>. <br>

Of course what I'm trying to convey is purely subjective, but I think it serves to highlight some of the differences between cameras from that era. </p>

[starvy]

<p>Get yourself an Olympus OM body, preferably 2, 3 or 4 as batteries still available. Manual lenses but Zuiko optics would hold its own against anything by other Japanese manufacturers. Don't waste money buying newer Nikon or Canon bodies. Spend that money on film.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't waste money buying newer Nikon or Canon bodies. Spend that money on film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I only had to pay less than $50 and usually much less for any old Canon EOS film camera with the exceptions of only the EOS 1 and the EOS 3. The latter were only around US$100 or a little more. A nice, well-working EOS 620 is usually around $25. You might eventually need to replace the light seals (say, circa $8).<br /> The OM film cameras usually sell for rather more, which is why I don't already have one.</p>

[andylynn]

A lot of those Nikon and Canon bodies are inexpensive. In Nikon, I have an F75 bought new for $70 (that I'll probably offload soon - I never use it since getting the F100) and an F3 from Keh for $99. About $100 would also buy an FA, FE2 or FM10, and there are a lot of AF bodies that are much less - even an F90X or N80 is $60, and those are pretty high end models. Those prices are actually comparable to OMs and the better Minolta and FD models. (But my Minolta hardware was cheap on Ebay.) The only Nikons that you can't find cheap are the FM3a and the F6.

[andylynn]

Those Ti P&S cameras have a bit of a "luxury" mystique to them. Values them above where you'd put them in term of function. Personally I wouldn't pay what they cost, I'd take an XA instead, but I also wouldn't pay $600 for an FM3a when I've been able to snipe a perfect-except-the-peeling-covering XD-11, which I think is just as good, with 4 lenses and a flash for $25 on Ebay.

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to stick with AF Nikons my suggestion would be an N90 or N90S. You think under $200 for an F100 is shockingly cheap? Try under $50 for an N90S, under $40 for an N90, and there is not much an F100 will do that they can't. We're talking extremely painless entry into film shooting with very capable and advanced cameras for pizza money. They are well made and solid feeling machines as well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that. I have both an N90S and an F100. The F100 is a really nice machine, but the N90S is just as good for my purposes. I really like mine. The only thing I miss on the N90S is the adjustable viewfinder diopter. With my eyesight, it's handy; but if you can see the finder image clearly with the stock N90S eyepiece you're golden.</p>