back to film

[alisha_liker]

<p>Hello everyone.<br>

Film was the very first thing I held in my hand. But not for long and not long enough to really appreciate my grandpa's Leica. *( I gave it to my older sister in 1989ish. Digital it was after Nikon got me hooked with it's D60 about 10 years ago.<br>

I am at a point of my own experience to do more film. I do love my full frames and all the comfortable stuff it comes with BUT FILM is a joy ! <br>

Where I live we have some great local camera stores that sell a bunch. Different ones. <br>

Manual film lenses are beautiful. <br>

The Nikon FM10 is only about $400- $500 - does anyone have experience with it? Are there better more common ones? <br>

It is just for the fun of it and I enjoy to learn and experiment </p>

<p>Thank you guys </p>

[Member69643]

<p>The FM10 is Nikon's only current film body. Not really made by Nikon; it's a copy of a cheap, inexpensive model designed several decades ago. I have never had nor held one, but similar bodies like the Yashica FX-3 seem to perform well enough. You can buy several dozen Yashica FX-3's on eBay for that price. </p>

<p>As far as new cameras, no, there aren't really any, not any more. On the used market you can spend anything from a 20 dollar bill up to a grand, and typically get what you pay for. The pricier and more recent AF cameras like the Minolta Maxxum 9, Nikon F6, and Canon EOS-1V are all $400-1000. In manual focus, Nikon's F series (F2, F3, FM2 FM3) are solid performers, as are Canon's A series (AE-1, A-1, AT-1, etc)</p>

<p>I'd buy used. You can get a lot more camera for your buck. Even if you do end up spending more doe.</p>

<p>:)</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Patrick is right: avoid the FM10! It's overpriced and under-featured. You can buy really good Nikon bodies for as little as $25.</p>

<p>I got a decent AF SLR for $10 at an op-shop recently. And lots of manufacturers make F mount lenses, so you can get a lot even for $100. Yes, $100. Heck, even $50 can get you a zoom lens and a camera body. These prices are so low that it's almost sinful. ;-)</p>

<p>There are lots of good manufacturers that made 35mm SLRs, so do some online research and see what takes your fancy. I don't own that many cameras, but I have cameras from four brands, and lenses from a dozen brands.</p>

<p>Of course film isn't necessarily cheap but then again some films are really cheap and good, like Fuji Superia. If you develop yourself it's even cheaper.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I agree with Patrick. I bought an FM10 kit new for $399, in around 2005. It was built by Cosina, very lightweight and over-priced. The 35-70 kit lens wasn't the best, either. If I were looking for another film camera, I'd go with something made a bit earlier with good light seals and mirror bumper, from keh.com, or another reputable dealer. Some of the really older cameras have liquefied or missing seals by this time. If you really like the FM10, you can find one for less than $400-500. That's outrageously high in today's film camera market.</p>

[yann1]

<p>Nikon FM10 was made by Cosina, the company that makes the Voigtlander Bessa. It was my first camera, I still use it sometimes, it's very reliable more than what people say. Still i wouldn't bother to buy one for such a high price, and yes, the kit lens isn't very good. For $400 you can have Nikon's best camera ever made , the F3, and a nice lens.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

The FE-2 is often a bargain and offers aperture priority or manual with shutter speeds up to 1/4000 second.

[bgelfand]

<p>KEH is selling used F100 in EX ($228) to EX+ ($268) condition. https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-f100-35mm-slr-camera.html</p>

<p>The F100 can use most of the current Nikon AF-S and VR lenses as well as almost any manual AI lens. It cannot use the new Nikon "E" lenses.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The Nikon FM10 is an overpriced cheaply made product. Nikon is just cashing in on their good name selling junk for a high price. It's the stick it to the consumer program. Anyway forget that camera. The good news is there are many nice used models out there to choose from. KEH is well regarded and you can pick up a camera without spending much at all. The Nikon FG is an electronic camera that can be had for around $40.00 to 75.00 at KEH. A 50mm manual focus lens and a SB-15 flash and your good. You can also pick up a FG on the Goodwill auctions with a lens for probably $40.00. If you want to service it then google up Garry's camera and he will do a CLA for about $50.00 and he will do it quick. That would put you into a good user camera fully serviced for less then $100.00. The SB-15 flash usually runs around $10.00. Also consider the FM, FM2, FM2n, FM3a. Good camera's all of them and of better quality then the FG.. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>One of the nicest things about film is that you can use exceptionally good cameras for little money. A Nikon FM10 for $400 is not among those, though, as the others said.<br>

I'd second getting a F3 if you like manual focus, or a FM or FM2 (the FE2 is usually cheaper, and definitely an option too). If you're not tied to Nikon lenses, of course the number of options grows a lot, but if you already have a Nikon DSLR, being able to share the lenses (as long as they're not G) sure is nice.<br>

The F100 is a great choice if you'd want/need compatibility with newer lenses as well, in which case also the F80 (N80) may make sense. Or, if you want to spend little money, something like a F65 - with a good lens and good film, it delivers the same magic and they cost nothing and weigh even less.</p>

[robert_bowring]

<p>See if you can get the Leica back from your sister. If you can't I would have to agree with buying a good used Nikon. One of the advantages today is that good film cameras are so inexpensive. Nikon has made a lot of really good cameras over the years and if you look around you can find some real bargains. F2, F3, FM, FE and others are really good cameras you can buy for less than that FM10.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I agree with Robert -- try to get the Leica back as a first step. If not, buy a real Nikon like an F2 or the original FM. My "work" cameras are a D200 and D7000 but I still have my original F2 (the first of four), an FM and a dozen or so manual focus lenses. The old stuff just keeps going and going and going.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>I agree in general with everyone. There are enough cameras available used at good prices, that there is no excuse to not get a well-built, well appointed machine.<br>

Buy from somewhere trustworthy like KEH, B&H or Adorama. If you want manual focus, go for any of these:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon F3 -- the king of professional manual focus cameras. The last camera before professional bodies became oversized and automated.</li>

<li>Nikon FE-2 -- gives you more exposure automation, in a nice lightweight manual focus body, still built like a real camera.</li>

<li>Nikon FM-2/FM-2n -- basically the FE-2 with simple meter and no auomatic exposure. The purist's all-mechanical dream machine.</li>

</ul>

<p>These are all recent enough to likely still work without requiring cleaning or service. They all deliver the same basic experience as the FM-10, but using top-grade parts that are reliable and feel much nicer to use.<br>

Series E lenses will work with any of these cameras. Same for AI / AI-S lenses. Get a few and enjoy!</p>

[skip_kempe]

<p>Please do yourself a favor and don't buy a new FM10. As everyone is noting, there are <em>so many</em> good used film cameras out there—in fact, I'd say that's one of the benefits of shooting film: you can buy a wicked-old camera, throw some fresh Portra 400 into it, and you're taking some seriously good pictures.</p>

<p>I'll throw in a plug for the <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/index.htm">Nikkormat/Nikomat cameras</a> Nikon made from 1965-1977. These are rock-solid workhorses in my opinion. Manual focus, so if you're set on AF, never mind. Bodies are on KEH from $25 to $50 (at the high end—I know!). I used an FTn as old as me for ten years or so, then moved mainly to an EL five or so years ago to relax a bit with that modern convenience of auto exposure. These things are solid, reliable, indestructible. Lenses for these cameras can be especially cheap, since they can take NAI (non-exposure-indexing) lenses that have a limited market now as the FMs and beyond can't take them without possible damage. (There is a pin and horse-shoe type design that you have to manually set with two quick twists when mounting the lens to tell the camera meter the lens's aperture range.)</p>

<p>That being said, I'll also add that you should ask your sister if she's actually using the Leica, and if not, offer to help keep it in good working condition by giving it some use.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I recently got an FE2 from Goodwill auctions for $61, local so no shipping charge.<br>

I also have an EL2 from them for even less. The EL2 is older, but more solidly built. (That is, heavier.)</p>

<p>Nothing against the FM10, but the price is too high. They are also available used for reasonable prices,<br>

and not so used as they aren't that old.</p>

<p>Used AI lenses are affordable, too! I got an AI 80-200 for $10, again as above. </p>

<p>If you use a Nikon DSLR, the N80 is interesting as it works in a similar way. <br>

The shutter speed and aperture settings work the same way, so you will be used to them. </p>

<p>But the older ones like the FM2 and FE2 are more fun to use.</p>

<p>You might also look at some rangefinder cameras. The Canon rangefinders are reasonably priced, and usually work without problems. Old Leicas might need a CLA, but it is probably worth doing for them.</p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<p>The extremely lightweight FM10 has its place - I like it for simple outings such as trail running or as a backup on backpacking trips. However I agree with the previous posters in that it is almost certainly not what you want. I had no idea they were over $500 these days - the quality just isn't there. Get any of the used models that have been mentioned instead. I can vouch for KEH's grading system and customer service.</p>

[andylynn]

Go to keh.com and get an FE2, FM2 or F100 with a high condition rating. An F100 is great if you prefer the modern DSLR

type design. (It's basically a film D700, but with a better grip.) It can use any lens tech except pre-AI and the newest E

lenses.

[johne37179]

<p>The camera and lens are less than half of what goes into using film. What are you putting into you darkroom. One of the things I learned many years ago (nearly fifty years now) from Ansel Adams was the film and paper photography is much more about the print than it is about the camera and the film. We tend to concentrate on the front end of the process, but without the backend of the process the front end is pretty meaningless.</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>I get the feeling that Nikon"s film cameras are now a think of the pass, but please don't beat the FM10 to death</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Or pick up a Nikkormat FT-3 and have a manual camera that takes both AI and non-AI Nikkor lenses. </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p> get an FE2, FM2 or F100 with a high condition rating. An F100 is great if you prefer the modern DSLR type design. (It's basically a film D700, but with a better grip.) It can use any lens tech except pre-AI and the newest E lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 FE2 for manual focus and F100 for AF.</p>

 

 

 

 

<p > </p>

 

[robert_bowring]

<p>I agree with the comments on the Nikkormat/Nikomat cameras. If you can find one in really good condition they are a pleasure to use. All of the older Nikons and Nikkormats are from an era when cameras were still made of metal. They are solid and reliable and with care will last a lifetime. They have a "feel" that the newer plastic cameras just can not equal.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!! Too much danged fun.</p>

<p>NIKON FE<br>

I'm totally scoring Nikon FEs (my favorite model) with 50mm 1.8 AIs lenses for about $60. Got two over my left shoulder right now that I'm looking at. That camera has everything I could ever want in an SLR. You could really work at it and spend $120 to make sure you get a good copy from a good vendor. If you spent over $150, you're being taken. </p>

<p>The Nikon FE is superior in features and durability to the FM10, which I also have. The FM10 has the advantage of having been built 20+ years later, so if anything is ever going to gum up the works, it'll happen to the FE first.</p>

<p>CANON P<br>

What I can't get in an SLR is the rangefinder sharpness and experience. I can't afford much here either, but I've totally scored on a Canon P, as described in the links here: </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00dlI8</p>

<p>I swear that older (1959) rangefinder lens defeats all my Nikon (1980s) primes. And the camera is flat out cooler. It's also less than 5% the price of an equivalent Leica, and I dare anyone to tell the difference from the results.</p>

<p>FILM<br>

I've done the Velvia 50 thing, where all colors are turned up a couple of notches higher than reality. I'm so over that. Provia 100 gives you more accurate colors that are saturated about 1 step higher than reality. </p>

<p>For example, take a picture of a person. With Velvia, the effect has most accurately been described as converting their nice skin tones into the equivalent of "raw meat" colored. You can turn down saturation all you want, and Velvia still sucks for people. </p>

<p>Provia makes people look good. You can turn down saturation just a notch to get extremely realistic and good looking skin-tones. Or, you can turn saturation up a notch, and hit Velvia saturation levels without the odd color-shift. So I see no downside to replacing Velvia with Provia. I've surely ordered my last roll of Velvia.</p>

<p>On to B&W! I'm currently a fan of TMax400. It has MUCH finer grain than does Tri-X. There were some Ilfords I dabbled with, but they weren't much different (read: any better) than the normal Kodak TMax. So, I'm sticking with that for awhile.</p>

<p>The key to outstanding B&W must be to develop your own. No single roll of any type that I've sent to a good lab (NCPS) has come back looking anything like what Tony Lockerbie or Rick Drawbridge accomplish. Their development techniques make all my shots look like they came from a troll's den. They have tonal gradation that is beautiful. There is no grain. Everything looks smoother and more beautiful than your eyes ever see in reality.</p>

<p>I ran into a guy at an arts and crafts fair the other day. He had a booth of his photographs. I had my Canon P slung across my shoulder. We chatted about costs of photography. Compared to my Canon P (total cost, ~$250), I asked him how much he spent on his last digital camera. "$2,500," he said. Let me tell you, I cannot in any manner spend $2,250 on film and processing. I'm down in the $30 per month range for as much as I can get out and shoot. It would take me around 5 years to catch up to him in costs. Will he buy another camera within 5 years? Probably. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I have Gear Acquisition Syndrome pretty badly. I've acquired about 30 cameras in the last 2 years. Fortunately, I'm paying around $50 each. Pretty limited cash outlay for a hobby. They are jewels of craftsmanship I enjoy. Someday, my widow will have to dispose of them for pennies on the dollar. I'm saddened for her eventual work. But I'm quite happy now!</p>

<p>Welcome back to film. It is its own art and joy. Happy Weekend!</p>

 

[skip_kempe]

<p>Your post was fun to read, Brad. Thanks!</p>

<p>(And regarding Velvia, I once read somewhere on the internet a less kind description of its effect— "as if clowns vomited all over the negatives.")</p>

[donbright]

<p>Those of us that use and Love Velvia 50, do so with landscape work in mind. Never have used Velvia 50 with people, it's just obvious there are other films meant for that. The beauty and enthusiasm for film are the choices and purposes and their variances. So, no, there is no film in my view to beat up on unknowingly their functions and intended purposes.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I have been on a buying frenzy lately. First up was a like new Nikon FG for $39.00 at KEH. That camera looks and works as new. It was a cheaper model but yet here it is decades later working just like it was made yesterday. Then I got a Yashica MG-1 rangefinder for free from my son who bought it on the GoodWill auction site for $9.00. I shot a roll of Delta 400 a couple days ago and it meters well, glass is sharp and because it has a copal shutter it is virtually silent. Kind of odd having a quiet camera as you cannot hear the shutter tick unless you are paying attention. The rangefinder is kind of dark and there is no diopter eyepiece adjustments. Yesterday I was looking at KEH and I noticed that they had some Nikon FM2n camera's available so I bought one for $159.00 in EX condition. It will be a while before it arrives. Before all that I have been shooting a F100 and it is everything it should be. I do not like the look of the F100 and do not like the look of DSLR camera's. To me they are all ugly looking beasts. </p>

<p>I just started feeling that camera's are getting very old now and every day some are tossed out. I just wanted to have a little stash of camera's that will keep me going. The Nikon FM2n is my mechanical camera and should keep on truckin over the decades. Electronic camera's are getting hard to find a repair even today. Parts and circuit boards are not being made as far as I know. . I think the FM10 is a low quality camera but at least it's not 40 years old already. And of course Leica still makes new camera's for the rich and if you have a lens you can get a beater M6 for a thousand dollars. Leica camera's can be repaired. In 10 years I can see myself buying a Leica M6 to take me on in to the finish of film or me whichever comes first. </p>