Chosing your first manual film camera

[tom_buckley2]

<p>Hi there!<br>

I am a little new to photography, but I’ve experimented with it a bit, and lately I’ve wanted to get deeper into it. Currently I’m in my third year of college, and I have been looking at some spectacular photos from National Geographic for an elective course in conservation biology that seem to be drawing my interest deeper and deeper. As far as experience goes, I’ve used a small digital for formal occasions, and have some experience with a larger body Nikon that is film and not an DSLR, looks similar to a modern D80 with the body size. Most of the time I have used my dad’s first camera, an old(er) Olympus (OM-1 I think), old enough to have a leather snap on cover for the body, that’s all manual and love it! <br>

Anyways, I was watching the news one night earlier this week, where they mentioned there has been a resurgence in film shooters. I was a little surprised about this, but then again, I’m one of those who prefers vinyl to any digital format. Just looking for a little guidance for a solid first platform, I have been reading about the Nikon FM2’s and FM3’s, Olympus OM-1's and the Cannon AE-1. I have read some good reports on the Nikon FM2 being built like a tank that can take on a wide range of environmental conditions.( Nice to know as I do spend a lot of time in the backcountry where it can get quite cold.) Curious as what the consensus is to what a good manual camera for a beginner would be?<br>

<br>

Thanks<br /></p>

[SCL]

<p>Take your father's OM-1, very simple answer. Olympus made some very fine lenses, which can not only address beginner needs but those of much more advanced needs as well. Here's a link to give you a ton of background info: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/om1/ . Although I've used Leica & Nikon cameras for over 40 years as my principal cameras, My Olympus OM-2N gets plenty of exercise as well and is a joy to use.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Since you've used an OM-1 why not stick with it. Plenty of lenses and accessories.

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I agree with the responses above. Since you already love the OM-1, and it's a connection to your father, use it. It handles beautifully and, as Stephen said, there are great lenses for it.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>The OM-1 would be hard to beat. I owned one in the 1980s. Very fine quality.</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>A good manual camera is one that is in good working order.</p>

<p>All of the models you mention can be good cameras, but they are mostly thirty to forty years old, or more. If they have never been serviced, so is their lubrication, etc. Shutter speeds might be way off. Camera might lock up at 40 F. Light seals and mirror bumpers might be goo by this time. You won't know unless you check it all out. That's the bad news.</p>

<p>The good news is that most of these cameras are generally well made and can be put into as-new working condition by a qualified repair facility. Then you likely have years of trouble free photography ahead of you. </p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Longtime fan of OM also. It is good to remember that all of these cameras are by now getting a bit long in the tooth. So, check the foam light sealing for the back door (a job you can do yourself) and carefully check out any camera for proper function or have a friend do it who has long experience in manual 35mm SLR's.<br>

Old manual cameras can last for decades with a little TLC. </p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Never owned an OM-1 but always liked them. Good glass, lightweight. I went the other way back in the day, a big hulking Nikon F2, motor drive and everything. What a beast. I still have two of them, use them regularly. My favorite Nikon. Don't know your budget but you could pick up an F2, F3, FM series and several very good manual focus lenses from KEH for $6-700 easy and get a warranty. An N90s, F100, F4s, F5 all excellent autofocus bodies also available at good prices and they will run forever. AF and AF-d glass is also well priced, a little more than MF but still very affordable. I'm one of those people who has moved back to film for a lot of things simply because I wanted to. Still got a bag full of digital but I enjoy a darkroom as much as I always have.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>For me, a lot of cameras have come and a lot of cameras have left. The OM-1 has stayed. Simple, compact and rugged with a wonderful finder. See my post <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00XwuB">HERE </a>on mine. Sure there are a jillion choices, many good ones but the OM-1 is right up there. Have fun, Tom!</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>Have to echo the OM-1 recommendation for a number of reasons:<br>

1. Viewfinder is almost unequalled - IMO, this is the most important interface between camera and photographer, and the OM-1 is world class in this respect.<br>

2. If you're planning on some backcountry photography, your back will appreciate the jewel-like size of the OM-1 body and Zuiko lenses.<br>

3. Full system support - lenses, focusing screens, motors, flashes. <br>

4. If you already have the OM, ~$140 will buy it a complete CLA and conversion to modern silver cells. For less than the price of a used Nikon of unknown provenance, you'll have a great camera in like-new working condition.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe I read the post wrong, but I didn't get the impression the OM-1 was up fro grabs? What if the actual owner still uses it? Getting a OM camera all the same can still make sense - if you can share lenses, you'll probably have a nice head start while saving up for your own set of lenses.<br>

I don't have the width nor depth of experience of some here, but I do have the Nikon FM2 you mention - it is as nice a camera as people say. I also have a F3, which is also worth considering, even though it offers a shimmer of electronics and needs its batteries; the F2 can also be found at decent prices. The F2 and F3 are Nikon's old high end offerings, and they certainly can withstand some serious use. The FM3 is a much later camera, and usually still very expensive, so probably a bit outside of budget. As an allround package, though, the FM2 does it all without any serious downside; would be my choice for a Nikon.<br>

The bigger point, however, is lenses - most older Nikon manual focus lenses still work just fine on their digital cameras as well. A blessing and a curse; the curse being that prices for some lenses are and remain quite high. There are some bargains too, but the total bargain prices happen more with systems that are orphaned by their manufacterer - Olympus OM, Canon Fd. So if you start from scratch, those systems could save you a nice bit of cash, I think.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Maybe find anotherOM-1 on Ebay in good condition if your Father's has too much sentimental value to risk

losing it. Or if you don't intend to bring several lenses, an Olympus Stylus Epic Infinity or one of the many

Konica C35 variants would be a good smaller, lighter alternative.

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I have several of the Nikons (FM, FE, F3HP, EM) and several of the Pentaxes (MX, ME, MG, ME Super, Spotmatic). I have a range of lenses for both.</p>

<p>If I were going back to Nepal to the high country far away from everyone and everything, and wanted to bring back the best shots possible with the least risk, I'd probably stick with the FE and bring some extra batteries that cost and weigh just about nothing. It's light, rugged, has auto exposure for the rare action shot, effective Mirror Lock Up, Depth of Field Preview, exposes to 8 seconds by setting, and will accurately meter for many minutes, etc. It's 99% of the F3HP, without the bulk. If I were to supplement that, I'd take an FM just to make sure if everything went to heck, I could still shoot fully manually with no batteries.</p>

<p>My real worries would be about which tripod to take, which lenses, and how much film. The camera body is not such a big deal in comparison. I'm sure the guys above all have excellent advice about bodies too.</p>

<p>I'd take three lenses: (24mm or 28mm wide), (50mm 1.8 or 55mm Macro), and (105mm or 135mm). </p>

<p>I'd take a light weight tripod, assuming I have to carry it everywhere. I'd make sure the tripod can get down on the ground as necessary.</p>

<p>I'd take a LOT of film. For me, that's around 3 rolls per day. Most people shoot more than I do. I use Fuji Velvia 50 for things and Fuji Provia 100 for people.</p>

<p>If I took two bodies, I'd load that FE with the Provia and keep the 105mm on the front for action shots of people. I'd load the FM with Velvia and keep the 24mm on the front for landscapes. I'd be ready to swap either camera to the 50mm as necessary.</p>

<p>The Nikons in the FM / FM2 / FM2n / FE / FE2 range are all pretty much bullet proof. They use the same body (platform), and have improving generations of shutters and auto-exposure for the FEs.</p>

<p>Good luck, and have fun! Film is about enjoying the medium. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Use what you've got, if you've got it. OM-1 and its close kin were breakthrough cameras in their day (wonderful viewfinder, small size, and more). My report on one at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y2PJ</p>

<p>If you don't object to autofocus and autoexposure modern film cameras, the earlier AF Nikons and Canons are dirt-cheap and very reliable still (reports on some of these starting at http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00b7pQ ).</p>

 

[Troll]

<p>Think twice about starting film photography. Remember that you've got to develop it, and print it (or pay someone else to do it, and photolabs are getting scarce). So you'll be not only buying a camera and the film, but a developing tank with all the messy chemicals and either an enlarger or a scanner.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I saw a guy standing on a street corner, looking like a bum, with a $5,000+ Canon rig slung discreetly under his arm. Monster telephoto, top of the line body.</p>

<p>I pointed to the derelict, and told my partner "That guy has more money in camera gear under his arm than I have in my 30 film camera bodies and 50 lenses."</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>"Cheap" is relative. I can develop hundreds of rolls of film before my costs catch up to the guy with that rig. </p>

<p>And obsolescence / depreciation is very slow on old film gear. I wonder how many years until his "Top of the Line" camera is replaced.</p>

<p>< / film bigot ></p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>(Well, maybe not hundreds, but years .....)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you have one camera around your neck, people will ask about it or say "that's a swell camera"<br>

If you have two cameras, they ask "are you a reporter?"<br>

If you have three or more cameras and huge lenses, they avoid eye contact.<br>

(except in the Middle East where a helicopter sniper shoots you)</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Bill, those chemicals are not messy....they smell good! I always encourage folks to try film photography if they show an interest because it is a wonderful process, sure, not for everyone...but if you don't try, you will never know.<br>

Om1 is a top choice in my opinion as well.</p>

[tom_buckley2]

<p>Wow, thank you everyone for the many fast responses! Sorry for the delay in responding, I had a delightful series of midterm exams this week that kept any free time quite busy. I am happy to see that so many people love the Olympus OM-1! My father has loved his for many, many years and still loves using it, and it's fun to share. On Sunday night, him and I did get to talking about many of the older film cameras that came out, and a Nikon F series was not out of the question, and he had a fair amount of interest in one back when but chose the Olympus OM-1 (due to either the macro lenses being available or having the macro function). Its nice to see that the Nikons are also held in high regards, and as the topic of lenses came up, right now I'm leaning a bit more towards the Nikon as we have way more Nikon lens options at home than Olympus. We even have a Sigma 600mm f4 lens that fits on the Nikons. That's assuming that the new(er) lenses are compatible with the older cameras. I will keep the Olympus in mind as a potential second.<br>

I do have a few extra questions. For used bodies (and lenses, I suppose) I have been looking at KEH camera, curious as to what opinion/experience may be with them? <br>

Thank you all so much!</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>Tom, if you already have Nikon lenses,consider the 801/s -8008s bodies. Cheap now - big,bright viewfinders ( like the OM1,but without the prism de-silvering problem) go forever on AA batteries,reliable, all the manual/auto functions you need.</p>