john_tran14

I have never said to use a digital camera to learn about film. In my previous post, I wanted to emphasize that the ASA on the box of the film roll + the metering system of the camera can only give a suggestion on shutter speed and/or aperture and it would be better if we follow our own judgement and preferences

I do like EVF because it gives us a quick feedback of what would be the result. The main thing that most of us still don't understand is that I also need a View Finder and EVF is not really a View Finder (reason given above). Besides it is possible to have both EVF and View Finder with mirror and prism (if you insist to have EVF)

There is no xenophobia here. The reason those cameras don't satisfy my requirement is given above.

I believe this topics has been discussed so many times, so once more I give my 2c opinion. Though I love all kinds of cameras including the Argus C3, I would not buy a MILC camera because I consider them as "lesser" cameras. Without a mirror and a prism, they don't have a View Finder. Of course they have EVF, in spite of their names, EVF is not a View Finder. I see these EVF are very useful but only to see quick (or very quick) review of the result instead of allowing the user to "view" the scene. These are two different things. I have not known (let me know if you know such a MILC camera that is not really really expensive) any EVF that gives what is close to (forget about exactly the same or very close to) the scenes as I see with my own eyes (maybe because they don't know anything about my eyes at the time I use the camera). For example, it may show a bright scene while I see the scene is dark and vice versa.

but it lost the aperture ring which I really want

There is a simplicity of the EF that I have not seen in any other SLR except one DSLR, the Panasonic L1.

This is true, hence you should also test it without batteries. Sure, and even if it works I should also check if the shutter speed is "correct". If not I also walk away because I don't want to buy it to send to a repair shop. This is also true. Though it can be used without batteries, it is no fun at all if the meter is dead, S-mode is not working right, and long speeds are not available.

I am no repair guy, but my guess is that the yellowish of the focusing screen is similar to your car headlight and cleaning needs some strong compound and often requires sanding and scratching.

As I remember, there are used E-1, E-3, and E-5 from Olympus and easy to get under $500. I really like the 4/3 format, but I don't want any mirror-less cameras, therefore micro-4/3 format is not for me. I also agree with other opinions here that using the 4/3 lenses on micro-4/3 cameras is not a good idea. So if your father does not want any of the E-1, E-3, or E-5, then you could sell those lenses to me (if the lenses are in good conditions and the price is good). I have a Panasonic L1 (in great condition and I really love to use it) and an Olympus E-300 (which was very poorly built and its card door was broken, though it is still working) and a few working lenses for them. However, I really want to have some other lenses in great conditions.

If for any reason I had a Leica MP, I would sell it right away. I had only a Leica III (which I bought from Goodwill at about $20) and I sold it for $300, because it was hard for me to put the film roll in. I believe the lens that came with that camera was not bad, but (for me) there would be a lot more fun to use an SLR and the final result would not be worse in anyway.

I have had many "compact film cameras", but I think the compact digital cameras are more compact. For example, I often used the Coolpix 3100 with only one hand. Well, but the compact film cameras are usually more valuable, and I sold them right away after I serviced them (at my best) because they don't satisfy my requirements but I could sell them very fast at a high price. My favorite compact film camera was my Agfa Isola I because at least it satisfied my basic requirements Simple + Fully manual Focus manually by scale.

With the cameras that I know, the red assist light is often not enough to assist and the camera would use the flash to assist focusing.

I don't worry about the prices of film cameras because I already have good enough film cameras to use for the rest of my life.

You know that any prediction is hard and may not be correct, but here is my prediction: The people who love film cameras will own the good ones and sell out the bad ones. So in the market, there will be more of the bad and the low-grade cameras, the mint and top cameras will be very rare. The bad cameras will be sold at a higher price, which is almost the recent price of good ones. So you may say the price is a little lower while it is actually a lot higher. And the mint top cameras will be almost impossible to get. There may be low-end, consumer cameras made new by Chinese (like Seagull "Hai-Au")

I don't mind the sound and in some way I even like the sound (like with P&S digicam, or in movies they don't really have any sound but want to create a sound for fun).. However, I have never owned an F2 because I have never seen one in mint condition, only something like below (which is for sale in Vietnam right now for about $200) http://C

You misunderstood me if you thought I didn't like the FM. I did love the FM, I bought my first FM at about $125 in mint condition while the Nikon 28mm F2.8 cost me about $200. I really loved it and used it happily mainly because before that I bought and used a lot of SRT-101, OM-1, OM-2, and each of those had some mechanical imperfection. The FM made me forget all my SRT and OM. But when I got an F3HP, I understood that the FM were not the top line of Nikon. I think the build quality of the F3 and Canon F1 are equally good, but they went on "different sides" of the road; i.e the dials, scales, lens aperture and focusing rings, lens mount were in opposite directions. To me, Canon's (and all others') direction is natural, and Nikon direction is unnatural. Hence, I prefer the F1. Then I find out that Nikon often has A-mode (Aperture priority) while Canon has S-mode (Speed priority) and I also think S-mode is more natural then A-mode. The following case made me think the F1 is better built than the FM: A guy sold me some FD lenses at a good price (by Craigslist), so we met and I was happy buying those lenses. Then he showed me a Canon New F1 that he said was broken. If I remember it right, the New F1 has a "special" feature that when the battery is weak, it won't release the shutter (you have to remove the battery). But the guy didn't know that and he used "brute force" on it until film advance is stuck. I think he also hit it hard against something and left a small mark at the bottom (otherwise, it looks mint). So he was happy to sell it to me for $20. I bought it, opened back and bottom, put things back at their correct positions, nothing broken or bent (I don't fix cameras), put new battery in, and it works perfectly until now after many years.

Relatively, yes. But IMHO, the FM series is still better than K1000, AE-1, A1, SRT-101, and X700. Even the Pentax KX, MX, and Olympus OM-1 often have similar mechanical problems that the FM series may have. Relatively, the FM series are not comparable to Nikon F3 or Canon F1. What I said is mainly based on my own experience with the old used cameras I saw and tried out at garage sales, estate sales, used camera stores, craigslist, goodwill, ... About 15 years ago, when I bought and sold a lot of cameras, the FM was about $100 and the F3, F1 are between $200-$400. Sorry if I said something not theoretically correct.

nobody said that the same algorithm can be used for anything. every model/algorithm has a limit (usually very restricted) like in the example they increase the resolution by 200%. But then you admit that they can predict your temperature tomorrow. Of course my wife (or even myself) can not predict whether I would buy another camera for this Christmas. I did not say what I have been told, I was just trying to tell you something (but maybe I should stop if you would not listen) matter can neither be created nor destroyed, though it can be changed from one form to another). The only hard thing (that the ingenious algorithms do) is to return to the original form.

I believe there is an exception (for any camera I guess) that B would work as B no matter what. I believe it is a broken linkage (which often is a cable).

I don't fix cameras (guess I am not handy), I only have seen a lot of old used cameras of all different conditions. I see there are not much difference between high leveled well built (expensive) cameras and cheap ones when they are in perfect conditions. But the cheaper ones often go "out-of-alignment", bent, or broken (which requires part replacement or even impossible to fix) while the better ones do not.

I don't know who (or what book) said that but they can recover past information that has been destroyed, they also can discover new information that nobody ever knows and they even can predict information about what will be in the future (not happens yet). Of course, they don't know everything and they are not always right. Need examples? : they know what is the temperature tomorrow where you live, whether you will have a white Christmas or not, was a 10 years old boy was conceived by Mr. X and Ms Y? and the examples can go on forever. You can delete your files and reformat your hard drive, but they can "recover" a lot of information that was in it. The only thing is how to improve the algorithm to be applied for more kinds of information and higher accuracy. A "lossy" compressing algorithm can create a much smaller data file; i.e throw away a lot of information, but it still can recover most of it. You have seen a lot by using JPG's and hear a lot by using MP3's and not many people can realize the difference.

Could you explain more about it?

1. I agree with many members saying that the student should ask the teacher first. An answer from the teacher would be most appropriate. Sometimes, the student did get the answer from the teacher but he/she does not understand or agree with that answer. In this case, we should know that answer before adding more comments. 2. Why teach photography by film cameras? There are different teaching methods/strategy/philosophy and it is hard to criticize without knowing exactly what is going on in the class. I taught myself, so I could say that there is no need of any photography class whatsoever, film or digital. But it is nonsense to suggest a way that only works for one particular person. I believe that even if the students will mainly use digital cameras, it is also easier to understand to start with film and film cameras. I know many people think the "memory card" is the "sensor" in a digital camera. Also many people say the "memory card" is similar to the "film" in film cameras. Using digital cameras, a student never "sees" the sensors and especially "touch" them. With films, the students see (and hold in hand) this is a roll of film of 200 ASA and the other is of 400 ASA. They understand exactly what it means by using "higher" or "lower" sensitivity film. With digital cameras, many students sees ISO is just a setting or a "dial" on the CAMERA. Obviously, the sensor, wherever it is inside the camera, is still the same, one and only, sensor, "therefore" its sensitivity does not change at all. I have talked with many beginners who misunderstood many things just because they used digital cameras.

Drive-by Shot?