First SLR... "Classic" SLRs vs Canon EOS

[spmc]

I'm not sure whether this belongs in Classic Manual Cameras, Modern Film Cameras, or Beginner questions...

 

I'm looking into purchasing my first SLR film camera. I've done lots of reading here and elsewhere about the many awesome recommended beginner classic manual cameras, e.g. Canon A-1/AE-1, Pentax K1000 or Spotmatic/SP500, Minolta SRT, Olympus OM-1, Vivitar 220/SL, etc. There are many for sale on ebay, KEH, and other places for ok prices, but are in ambiguous condition and untested. Then I see listings for Canon EOS models with a zoom lens (film-tested, with samples), for practically free. So I guess I'm wondering what will I be missing out on if I get an EOS 620, -650, -10S, etc. instead of one of the classic SLR recommendations? Thanks for your thoughts.

[ben_hutcherson]

One of the big downsides for me is that low end AF-era SLRs can often be difficult to use in manual mode.

 

In the Nikon world, the minimum "modern" SLR I'd want to buy these days would be something like an N90. I could potentially go as low as an N80, but an F100 would be far preferable to any of the others. The F4 is also a great camera. From what I know of the system, the EOS 3 would probably be the closest F100 equivalent.

[Moving On]

Short of enjoying the mechanical qualities of the classics, I have a Canon Elan II that came with a 28-80 AF kit lens that takes excellent photos. Not a high end offering but If memory serves they were once a pretty good buy on eBay if you don’t plan on going classic or accumulating a lot of second hand glass.

 

You can get pretty good results on film from the start letting the camera control exposure and focus, then if you choose, go to manual as you learn.

 

Here is an example of what’s out there....

Canon EOS Elan II E with Canon 28-80mm Zoom Lens w/ Camera Bag | eBay

 

Just do your homework on rep and such if you go the eBay route.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Moving On

[joe_hodge]

If you're new to film, one thing that you may not realize is that having a 'fast' lens matters a LOT more that with digital, because you can't just turn up the ISO when the light gets dim. I'd focus on finding a good deal on a quality lens (50/1.4 is a classic), and then buy a body to hang it on. I have or have had Olympus, Nikon, Canon FD and Canon EOS SLRs, and they're all fine.

[m42dave]

The older autofocus SLRs may lack the aesthetic appeal of the earlier classics you have mentioned, but they are still very capable cameras and can often be had quite cheap with a decent kit lens attached.

 

If you're just learning the fundamentals of photography, the more complex multi-mode electronic cameras (autofocus or manual focus) man not be the best first choice. Of the other models you mentioned, the Pentax K1000 is a popular student camera, but very overpriced for what it is. There are many screw-mount cameras available that will do the job just as well for less, with a wide range of lenses available. The Spotmatics are nice, but the majority I've come across tend to need service nowadays. The Vivitar M42 cameras like the 220/SL, made by Cosina, are an overlooked bargain with reliable metal shutters, as are the Praktica L-series. Fujica also made some nice models, and they seem to be pretty reliable. The nice thing about the screw-mount SLRs is that if you decide to change bodies, you can still use the same lenses.

 

Many vintage SLRs are likely to need at least some restoration, such as new light seals, and often were designed to use older mercury batteries, so just something to keep in mind.

Edited February 25, 2020 by m42dave

[James Bryant]

My favorite is the all mechanical Nikon FM2n. A Nikkor 50mm f 1.4 or 1.8 would be a good start. It also works well with Zeiss ZF lenses.

[Moving On]

I love the old classics.

The FM2n is top among them in the mechanical category.

That is what I prefer to use, but the new demand is pushing prices up a bit on the pristine no immediate CLA required stuff.

The OP can get great service and function for under a hundred dollars and learn all about the film process/cost on the plastic auto stuff.

A Tripod and remote will add considerable application to one of those consumer Canons from the mid-late 90s.

For me, going the mechanical route having shot film all my life, taking advantage of the RELATIVE cost of the new old stuff with a selection of great new old manual glass, was still a considerable commitment, because I avoided the dinged and dented hazards.

[SCL]

While you said you are interested in purchasing your first SLR, does that preempt a DSLR? I ask because learning basic photography is simpler if you have instant feedback instead of also learning to develop your own fil or the cost and wasted time of sending it off for somebody else to develop and print.Have you ever used a SLR ? Do you wear eyeglasses,,,if so you may want to consider one which has a built in diopter adjustment rather than having to seek add-on diopter lenses. Don't let your enthusiasm get ahead of good sense., do your homework before jumping in.

[orsetto]

A lot depends on your budget and risk tolerance: if you tell us the maximum you can comfortably spend, you might get more specific recommendations. Arguably, the best deals are in the newer electronic AF film cameras: nobody wants them, because they've become a bit pointless in the digital era (too similar in operation and feel to DSLR). Most people wanting to use film today want the "vintage" early-1970s experience of solid metal cameras and fully manual focus lenses, so advanced AF film SLRs sell for almost nothing by comparison. If you don't mind using a film camera thats indistinguishable from a DSLR, the AF film bodies are typically far cheaper and more likely to be found in fully operational condition.

 

As others noted above, if you never used film before the limitations in low light can be an unpleasant surprise. The typical slow kit zoom commonly sold with AF film SLRs is practically useless in anything but broad daylight, and zooms for manual focus film SLRs were often slow and poor quality compared to today. For maximum versatility, you'd need something like a 50mm f/2.0, f/1.8 or f/1.4, or perhaps a 35mm f/2.0 or f/1.8 for street shooting and interiors. Portraits, travel and stage require an 85mm f/1.8 or 105mm f/2.5, etc.

 

The biggest issue/risk with vintage manual-focus film cameras is their meter circuits. The overwhelming majority of "classics" used CdS meter cell "eyes", which have a tendency to age out or die, leaving the camera with inaccurate or dead metering. Repairing them isn't cost-effective. If you want a film camera mostly to learn exposure technique and don't mind using a separate handheld meter or phone meter app, you can save a lot of money by choosing a well made, reliable mechanical-shutter body with bad or dead meter. But most people do want a working TTL meter: these can be harder to find and a bit more expensive. Getting a vintage camera with still-good CdS meter requires careful shopping: make sure the store or eBay listing distinctly specifies "working accurate meter" and includes a return for refund guarantee if it doesn't.

 

Of the many used "classic" SLRs out there, the one with lowest risk of defects combined with lowest price is the original Nikon FM. It came out just as cameras were transitioning from fragile CdS cells and needle gauge displays to more durable silicon meter cells and electronic displays. It has a rugged metal mechanical shutter. The meter uses modern non-CdS eyes, powered by modern battery available everywhere, with a triple LED meter display that is easily visible in any light. The lens mount has a switch allowing it to use every manual focus and AF lens Nikon ever sold that includes a manual aperture setting ring.

 

The later, much more popular FM2 is twice or thrice as expensive but its cost isn't really justified for most users: its biggest new feature was a top shutter speed of 1/4000 vs he the FM 1/1000 (and faster flash sync shutter speed of 1/200 or 1/250 vs the FM 1/125). If you are a heavy duty film user who plays around with high speed film in broad daylight and does a lot of fill-in daylight flash, the faster shutter of the FM2 is worth the higher price. Otherwise, the original FM is a much better value that will allow spending more of your budget on a good lens. The specs of the FM match almost any other manual focus camera of its era, but with the benefit of modern metering that is usually a definite yes or no question in a sales listing: it either works perfect or it doesn't work at all.

 

The Nikon FE is often available for the same or lower price than FM: the cameras are identical twins, with the difference being the FE includes an AE option (you set the aperture, camera auto sets the shutter speed). Due to the AE feature, the meter display uses a shutter speed scale and needle instead of the simple traffic light LEDs of the FM, but otherwise has the same meter circuit.

 

The Nikkormat EL was the older bigger brother of the FE: once an extremely popular camera, today people give them away. Very nice, but a bit riskier than FE because most ELs have the older CdS meter eyes that go wonky. Nikkormat FTn and FT2 are the older larger brothers of the Nikon FM: indestructible, beautifully made, but make sure you get a guarantee on the meter functionality. If you want a nice fast f/1.4 lens, Nikkormat FTn with 50mm f/1.4 is widely available for about $70: an amazing bargain even if the meter is dead or off (about 50% still work perfect).

 

Olympus OM1 (manual) or OM2 (AE) are fantastic compacts with very quiet shutter, but baseline more expensive than the cheapest Nikon alternatives. The OM1 meter is often malfunctioning today, and the OM series has an issue with aging foam in the eyepiece damaging the viewfinder optics. Very very nice cameras and lenses, but be sure to get return guarantee in case of problems.

 

M42 screw mount cameras are plentiful, many are cheap, and available lenses are limitless. But beware dead meter syndrome: they all use fragile CdS cells and many classic Pentax models need weird batteries. Pentax Spotmatics are beautifully made with some incredible Takumar lenses. Second-tier brands like Chinon, GAF and Vivitar are often better M42 body bargains, with some offering AE.

 

Pentax K-mount is excellent, but the popular K1000 is overpriced for what it is and later batches are not as well made. The older Pentax KM and KX are the exact same camera with more features and better build for less money. Smaller k-mount bodies like MX and the ME series have even more features but are more prone to needing repairs that may not be worthwhile: shop these carefully.

 

Minolta made great lenses, and their manual focus cameras were excellent when new. But the bodies are a bit of a crapshoot today. The mechanical SRT series can have aging issues with film advance, meter and shutter. The electronic AE bodies were groundbreaking forty-plus years ago, but many are not working well today. It is worth shopping carefully for a good vintage Minolta body just to have access to some lovely lenses.

 

Konica Autoreflex A3 & T3 SLRs were built like tanks, the smaller TC almost as nice, the Hexanon lenses superb. Bodies have the same indestructible Copal shutter as Nikkormat. But the CdS AE meter is dead or off in most Konicas now, and the lenses have become a bit pricey and scarce as mirrorless digital users have discovered what optical gems they were.

 

Older pre-AF Canon is largely similar to Nikon. The original F-1 rivaled Nikons F/F2, the FTb was Canon's Nikkormat FT2, the EF was Canon's Nikkormat EL. Same caveat about old meter cells applies (the EF uses modern silicon cells, but dodgy electronics). Scads of excellent FD lenses to choose from. I would, however, avoid the once insanely-popular AE-1 and A-1: these often turn up today with lens linkage and shutter issues. Some sellers specialize in restoring these with a functionality guarantee: if you want one, buy from such a seller.

Edited February 25, 2020 by orsetto

[m42dave]

they all use fragile CdS cells

 

The Fujica ST models and the Chinon Memotrons use silicon cells, so perhaps a better choice in that regard than some of the other screw-mount SLRs.

[stuart_pratt]

I echo the comments about dead meters. Unless you buy from a reputable dealer and can check the meter against a modern DSLR or an accurate hand held meter, I would steer clear of anything from the 70s or 80s as they are all pretty long in the tooth now. At least unless you want to run the risk that the meter doesn’t work (quite likely) is inaccurate (very likely) or is accurate now, but dies soon after you bought it due to the whole shock of it being used again!

 

Beware any ebay sellers who tell you the meter works. Sure, it might react to light, but is it accurate? Ask the right questions.

 

My money would be on a Nikon F100. Made as late as 2000, more likely to have a decent meter, and a whole lot of camera for the money. Canon no doubt have equivalents, but I don’t know what they are. Canon, who are they?

[rodeo_joe1]

So I guess I'm wondering what will I be missing out on if I get an EOS 620, -650, -10S, etc. instead of one of the classic SLR recommendations?

You'll be missing one heck of a lot of unreliability, and years of wear and tear or neglect.

 

Almost all mechanical cameras these days will be suffering from light-seal rot, shutter issues, dusty and dull screens, loss of silvering in the prism, obsolete batteries, and a host of other less common issues.

 

So unless you're willing to sink a fair chunk of money into having the camera professionally looked over and restored, or paying a high premium for a 'mint' model, I'd steer well clear of anything over 35 years old. And even then the condition needs careful inspection.

 

Get something more recent that gives you half a chance of putting a film through it without wondering if it's you, the camera or the processor that's screwed up your first film.

 

BTW, I'm curious about what you hope to gain by using film?

Edited February 25, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Jochen_S]

I'm wondering what will I be missing out on if I get an EOS 620, -650, -10S, etc. instead of one of the classic SLR

• re-purchasing your assorted glass' AF version(s) for the DSLR later or
   
  
• the questionable joy of struggling with old manual lenses adapted to a MILC with horrible menu structure.
  
• The chance of having an independent local repair shop (that'll close down or retire in 2 years) work on your mechanical gem (that will according to Murphy's law last 3 years until it needs professional TLC) for comparably little money.
  
• Not having to buy an oddball non-rechargeable Lithium battery once in a while. (but hand held meters feeding on common rechargeable 9V blocks aren't cheaper...
  

Seriously: I do still own and kind of like fully mechanical manual film cameras. But(!):

Maybe look at the contemporary big picture?

While you said you are interested in purchasing your first SLR, does that preempt a DSLR? I ask because learning basic photography is simpler if you have instant feedback instead of also learning to develop your own fil or the cost and wasted time of sending it off for somebody else to develop and print.

+1!

While EOS film bodies are cheap, older EOS DSLRs are no longer expensive either. I'd firmly recommend getting a matching digital body to accompany your film kit,

• for testing out flash light setups,
   
  
• for anything requiring instant feedback
   
  
• for online & pre-press used images
   
  
• and for inexpensively spraying & praying.
  

IDK what "film" is meant to mean to you.

1. Some folks might like to dabble with the medium in an own wet darkroom.
    
   
2. Others hope for kind of magical results? (From film given away for processing)
    
   
3. Some simply enjoy shooting quainter feeling cameras.
   

I expect case #2 to wear off quickly. - I suspect most of that "magic" could be found in a digital Fuji's presets too or could be postprocessed somehow anyhow.

I am case #3 and dare to say: I get my share of that fun quite completely out of a digital Leica M too. Case #1 has it's place, but honestly: A 35mm SLR won't get you very far. Scoop some EOSes (film & D!) up, to get your feet wet and save your pennies, to go for something bigger! (<- I do not tell that to case #2!)

[joe_hodge]

 

IDK what "film" is meant to mean to you.

1. Some folks might like to dabble with the medium in an own wet darkroom.
    
   
2. Others hope for kind of magical results? (From film given away for processing)
    
   
3. Some simply enjoy shooting quainter feeling cameras.
   

I expect case #2 to wear off quickly...(<- I do not tell that to case #2!)

 

Not the OP, but #1 is why I shoot film. OK, in my case its a community darkroom, but I enjoy the entire process of making wet prints.

 

FWIW, for my 35mm film shooting, I have gone the route of an EOS film body (630) sharing glass with my EOS digital kit. At least that way, if I do get tired/bored of film, I'm only out the cost of the body (~$30-50).

[orsetto]

The Fujica ST models and the Chinon Memotrons use silicon cells, so perhaps a better choice in that regard than some of the other screw-mount SLRs.

 

Don't know why I didn't mention the Fujis: I had it in mind to recommend them over other M42 for this very reason, then forgot and left them out. In their day all were considered the top alternatives to the Pentax, but if shopping today the ST801 is the pick of the bunch (very bright viewfinder, takes modern battery, great LED meter display, can meter at open aperture with the standard Fuji lens). ST701 is similar but has meter needle instead of LEDs and stop-down metering only, uses oddball battery. ST901 has electronic shutter AE but isn't as usable in manual mode as ST801, elderly electronics are riskier.

 

While I'm adding to my list, Nikon FG is a fantastic little SLR with huge viewfinder and reliable modern electronic metering, typically sells for $90 with the compact 50mm f/1.8 lens.

[orsetto]

The idea that all vintage film cameras are on the verge of falling to pieces is a bit exaggerated. Yes, they are old, and quite a few are past their prime (esp the pro models and larger than 35mm formats). But many are still perfectly usable: it depends on what/how you like to shoot, and just how much functionality you need.

 

If you geek out and do your own separate metering or use your own instincts or the zone system to set film exposure, the meter system in a mechanical camera will be totally unimportant. Since thats the main thing that ages out or goes wrong in that type of camera, it will be irrelevant to you so you can shop for bargains with impunity. If you DO want the TTL meter to be in good working order, make the extra effort to look for a camera in that condition sold by a store or eBay seller with a good reputation and clear promises. Remember everything on eBay (and KEH) is returnable: its better to deal with a seller who explicitly accepts returns, but even if they don't eBay will make them refund your money if they said the meter works properly but it doesn't when you get it.

 

All the other variables fall under the same common sense: you also want a clear viewfinder, smooth mirror action, properly functioning film advance, and reliable accurate shutter speeds. If these points aren't mentioned in a description, ask the seller: once you have their promise in writing, you're covered. If they hide behind "d'oh, I'm a moron from Mars who can't even imagine how this camera I'm selling works, so can't test" - walk away and look for another seller. There are thousands of perfectly good affordable vintage film cameras on eBay and reputable dealers like KEH, so no reason to get stuck wih a lemon unless you really enjoy ultra bargain hunting with the attendant risks.

 

The whole issue of decayed door seal foams isn't as big of a deal as it sometimes seems. About half the cameras out there are light tight even without the foam: a cheap test roll of film will reveal this right away. If the foams do need to be replaced, you can do it yourself with a cheap repair kit. Not that complicated: 90% of vintage film SLRs just need the old foam scraped out of the door seams with a toothpick.

 

Popular mechanical 35mm SLRs were made in the millions during the '70s and '80s, many were incredibly sturdy and hold up quite well. Huge numbers of them were barely used and/or very well taken care of. Do some research to narrow down what lens line you might prefer, choose a camera body you like to go with those lenses, and read up on whether those cameras have any tendency toward serious faults to look out for.

 

If it all seems overwhelming, stick to models known to almost always be found in good working condition like Nikon FG, FM and FE or a Pentax K. Not the most elegant or inspiring choices, but rarely found with problems like filthy viewfinder, bad advance or dead meter.

 

If you mostly shoot digital Canon or Nikon DSLR, don't get a thrill from the looks and handling of metal thumb-cranked cameras, and just want to dabble in film from curiosity: buy a matching modern Canon EOS or Nikon AF film SLR body. The lenses will be compatible and the investment in the film body will be very small if you get bored with the whole idea. Vintage manual focus cameras and lenses team up better with mirrorless digital cameras like Sony A7 or the latest Nikon Z or Canon R, which can use almost any lenses ever made via an adapter ring.

Edited February 25, 2020 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

For an all mechanical reliable SLR with a good meter, I don't know that the Nikon FM can be beat(except perhaps by an F2, although many of the Photomic and F2A models suffer from sluggish, jumpy, and otherwise just plain inaccurate meters-the less common and much more expensive F2sb and F2AS are better in this regard). The Canon FTb is similar in a lot of respects and I actually prefer its meter read-out to the FM and FE, but it's handicapped by needing mercury cells. The FM, FE, and F2 are perfectly happy on a pair of LR44 alkalines, SR76 silvers, or if you want to go to the trouble of finding them(I bought a bunch cheap on Ebay) the 1/3CRN lithium.

 

As a modern camera goes, back in its heyday the Nikon F100 was a top-selling "prosumer" class camera. The EOS 3 is in a lot of ways more advanced(eye controlled focus, etc) but the F100 is just a great all around camera. Aside from the bad rewind fork design, which was later improved/refined, the F100 mostly just keeps on trucking. It has the same AF module as the F5, which is good by late 90s standards, although it lacks the "oomph" for screwdriver lenses that the F5 has. A modern DSLR user will feel right at home for the most part using either the F100 or EOS 3, and I'd decide based on whether you have other lenses in that mount.

[James Bryant]

You'll be missing one heck of a lot of unreliability, and years of wear and tear or neglect.

 

Almost all mechanical cameras these days will be suffering from light-seal rot, shutter issues, dusty and dull screens, loss of silvering in the prism, obsolete batteries, and a host of other less common issues.

 

So unless you're willing to sink a fair chunk of money into having the camera professionally looked over and restored, or paying a high premium for a 'mint' model, I'd steer well clear of anything over 35 years old. And even then the condition needs careful inspection.

 

Get something more recent that gives you half a chance of putting a film through it without wondering if it's you, the camera or the processor that's screwed up your first film.

 

BTW, I'm curious about what you hope to gain by using film?

 

Buy a Nikon FM2n or F2as in excellent condition from KEH and avoid the problems. It is worth the differerence. I have been successful 3 times in row in the last 3 years.

[rick_drawbridge]

spmc said :

So I guess I'm wondering what will I be missing out on if I get an EOS 620, -650, -10S, etc. instead of one of the classic SLR recommendations? Thanks for your thoughts

 

It really depends on where your interests lie, in the practice of photography or an interest in old cameras. If you want to create great images with a minimum of fuss and hassle, then by all means buy a Canon EOS. They're great to use, reliable, full-featured and have a huge selection of lens on offer from a variety of manufacturers. On the other hand, if you have an interest in the history of photography and the development of cameras, you might well do what many of we members are doing, learning old skills, acquiring old manual cameras and trying them out, and forming opinions as to their merits. Discovering the tricks and traits of a variety of old cameras is both expensive and time-consuming, and it's not necessarily a partner to the process of creating great images.

 

So, it really is a matter of personal choice. I'm principally a photographer at heart, but the collector in me has accumulated several hundred film cameras. Of these less than a dozen get regular use, and I could probably get by with half a dozen favourites. In your case, I think I might go for the EOS option until you're at home with the skills and practices of shooting with a SLR and, when you're ready, graduate into the more complicated and demanding realm of older, more manual cameras.

[Moving On]

Buy a Nikon FM2n or F2AS in excellent condition from KEH and avoid the problems. It is worth the differerence. I have been successful 3 times in row in the last 3 years.

No question there are still some high quality examples of the two mentioned above. I found a particular guy on eBay that has been 100% reliable on particularly good Nikons. The feel and function of these two are flawless. The FM2n body was new in the box. You can get very good for less coin. I rounded up some good Nikon stuff over a couple of years anticipating getting time to finally slow down after 40+ years at work. Starting to get to where I can enjoy them.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Moving On

[William Michael]

. . . I'm looking into purchasing my first SLR film camera. . . I guess I'm wondering what will I be missing out on if I get . . .

 

Why? [are you looking into purchasing my first SLR film camera]

 

I mean, specifically why? What is the purpose? What do you want to achieve?

 

rodeojoe and rick_drawbridge have both kinda put/implied similar questions, other assume you want a tool to learn - basically we're in the dark answering what you might be missing out on, until you explain, why you want an SLR.

 

WW

[William Michael]

Noted this is an aside question, but it stood out like ... etc:

Why are there two White Queens? More importantly why is the Chessboard set wrongly, with the double white in the bottom right corner?

Is it a trick to see if anyone notices, or is it a mistake?

[Moving On]

Wife just dusted.....

There is a second Queen for Pawn promotion.

We have been playing each night for the last three.

Good catch, we just had a laugh about it.

She sat the white Queen on the corner border of the board but the other extra is sitting on the dust cloth to the right out of frame.

[William Michael]

Sensational answer! Thank you. I know that exact situation, but I don't have a second Queen(s)

[Moving On]

We have a nice box for the pieces but it is in Missouri with the other set.

She was complaining about how dusty the tops of the Rooks were last night.