35mm Film Photography... ?!?

[chris00nj]

You're in luck. Lots of nice film gear is now cheap. I would start with 35mm film to begin with. The equipment is more available and less expensive. I like MF but start with 35mm.

What you should get really depends on your budget. First there is the rangefinder versus SLR debate which is covered well here. Rangefinders can be a bit more expensive these days due to collectors, so if you want a more economical camera, try a fixed lens rangefinder. I mostly use rangefinders, but SLRs are more economical and may be a better choice to start.

I wouldn't worry about lens compatibility. The old SLR gear is so economical, that it doesn't matter. It's also better to get a more mechanical camera, rather than switch off your auto-everything digtial SLR for an auto-everything film SLR. Learn exposure. Trade up your slow zoom, for a fast 50mm to learn depth of field.

I'd also second the Olympus OM-1. The OM-1 was the professional Wiki does a nice job of explaining the different models. . It's smaller, lighter, and quieter. Here's one with a

The Pentax K-1000 is another classic choice. Here's one with a 50/1.7 for $125

I've bought from both those dealers. I'd stick to an established dealer for now versus ebay. www.keh.com is another site. For an extra $40, you can have a lot more confidence it works.

Originally Posted by crackhead

If you want utmost sharpness, consider a tripod and cable release. Film shooting requires a good sturdy tripod in way that digital does not..

Not really. I hand hold almost all of my picture with great results. A tripod helps any photo, film or digital, but isn't not in any way required. Follow the recripocal rule and you should be okay. (Shutter speed should be at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. i.e., a 50mm lens, the shutter speed should be at least 1/50 second.)

Hope this all helps. Let us know what you get.

[cooltouch]

Welp, I too own an EOS Elan IIe, and I find it to be a very full-featured and useful 35mm camera. Plus, I'm amazed at how little they sell for used these days. Check out eBay or KEH (keh.com) and see for yourself. Why so cheap? I dunno.

Yes, I would recommend buying an EOS 35mm camera, but only if you have non EF-s lenses already. If you don't, then you're looking at having to buy full-frame EF lenses for your new 35mm EOS.

In which case . . . there are many great manual focus cameras out there that are worth consideration. You know, one of the things that fascinated me the most about photography when I finally got myself a good camera was having the ability to manually control focus. Sure, I can understand all about the convenience of AF, but it just takes a lot of the fun out of it all. I dunno, call me an anachronism, I guess.

I would also recommend that you get a camera that is not crippled in manual expousure mode. That is, when in manual, the meter works, and both the shutter speed dial or wheel and aperture ring affect meter readout.

[tropicpine]

I have developing tanks for $10 + shipping

[cooltouch]

Hey Lee, what brand? I'm guessing reels are included?

[tropicpine]

Originally Posted by cooltouch

Hey Lee, what brand? I'm guessing reels are included?

Not only are reels included but film clips as well!!
See lot #3 in this post.

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by crackhead

Film shooting requires a good sturdy tripod in way that digital does not.

WHAT???

[Flea77]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

WHAT???

Yeah, that is what I am wondering too. I find that a tripod is just as necessary in digital as in film given the same shot.

Allan

[KD5NRH]

Originally Posted by Flea77

Yeah, that is what I am wondering too. I find that a tripod is just as necessary in digital as in film given the same shot.

I would assume he's referring to the typical weight differences between comparable DSLRs and film SLRs. I know my 8000i is just nearly too much for most cheap tripods. Add a long lens and large strobe and it's likely to drift downward unless you really crank everything tight.

[utdbear]

I have my dad's 1974 Miranda TM2 sitting in my closet. Ya'll have me thinking I should take it out and play with it a little bit. Thanks a lot ;)

[crackhead]

ok, to the comments to my comments about a tripod:

-your mileage may vary
-horses for courses
-my opinion only, you don't have to agree with it
-u mad

[cooltouch]

Originally Posted by KD5NRH

I would assume he's referring to the typical weight differences between comparable DSLRs and film SLRs. I know my 8000i is just nearly too much for most cheap tripods. Add a long lens and large strobe and it's likely to drift downward unless you really crank everything tight.

Whether film or digital, a good tripod is important. I'm thinking specifically of Canon F-1s with Motor Drive MFs attached that I've owned, and my current Nikon F2 with motor drive MD2/MB2 attached. These are heavy, all-metal outfits. Add a long telephoto, and you've got a n outfit that weighs 10 pounds or more. This requires a sturdy tripod, obviously.

My DSLR is a featherweight by comparison. With its nifty little kit lens, the pair weigh less than an average 35mm format lens does. But I consider my digital to be in just as much need for a tripod as my heavy manual-focus 35mm gear does, albeit for different reasons.

With a heavy SLR outfit, the weight of it damps out the small vibrations caused by tremor, and can in fact be used without a tripod at relatively slow speeds when panning and shooting at a moving subject (I've done this many times with great results). With a light DSLR outfit, it is more prone to experiencing blur caused by minor tremors that would be damped out by a heavy outfit, and these tremors might still be a problem when doing things like panning. Sure, IS is great if you have an IS lens, but if you don't, then what?

Bottom line, the old rules for using a tripod apply regardless of the camera you're using. Shutter speed should be equal to 1/(focal length) or faster. To be conservative, double the focal length. And even in these cases, using a tripod is still likely to improve performance.

[panda81]

if i were you, i would go for something like this:
Nikon Manual Focus FE CHROME WITH 50 F1.4 AIS (52) 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS CAMERA OUTFIT - KEH.com

to me, there's something special about these older cameras that the modern film cameras with extra gizmos just doesn't have. the Nikon FE has metering and can even shoot in aperture priority, so nothing to worry about there. manual focusing only, but when you look through the viewfinder, it's so big and bright with a nice prism in the middle that you won't worry at all if you were able to focus or not. very cool, very retro, and pretty cheap compared to some other film SLRs out there. i know this is a nikon and your profile says you shoot with a canon, but personally i don't think the discrepancy is a really big deal yet until you want to start investing in more expensive lenses later on...in which case you still have a lot of leeway to figure out if you really want to go with canon or nikon.

oh, and when ordering from KEH, their rating system is usually so conservative that most people are really happy with the BGN quality. i ordered a BGN quality lens from them once, and the lens i received had just the tiniest nick on the body, but the rest looked pristine.

[toverman]

My film SLRs are much lighter than even my lightest digital SLR. That said, tripods are useful only if you use them, have them with you and then use them correctly. One special benefit of setting up a tripod is that slows down your pace. I try to find the "best" composition before I put my camera on the tripod, though, because usually the first spot isn't the best one for a photo.

OK, back to the thread!

[dmora]

I'd say look for an old Olympus or old Nikon. For between 100-250 you can get a classic with more than likely a 50mm f/1.4

[cooltouch]

Originally Posted by panda81

if i were you, i would go for something like this:
Nikon Manual Focus FE CHROME WITH 50 F1.4 AIS (52) 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS CAMERA OUTFIT - KEH.com

. . . i know this is a nikon and your profile says you shoot with a canon, but personally i don't think the discrepancy is a really big deal yet until you want to start investing in more expensive lenses later on...in which case you still have a lot of leeway to figure out if you really want to go with canon or nikon.

Actually, this need not be a drawback. I own a Nikon outfit and an EOS DSLR outfit. Shortly after buying my DSLR, I bought a Nikon F-to-EOS lens adapter that allows me to use all my old Nikon manual-focus glass on my Canon DSLR. Sure, the aperture is manually operated, but that's not really a big deal once you get used to it. It's a real pleasure using Nikkors that were built back in the 60s and 70s on my EOS. And the image quality is great. So if you go with an old Nikon film camera like the FE (which is definitely a cool classic), you need not feel limited.

Incidentally, one can enjoy the same sort of flexibility with Olympus OM, Pentax K and screwmount (M42), Contax/Yashica, Leica R, and probably some other mounts I've forgotten with their EOS SLRs. Infinity focus is retained. Unfortunately Canon FD is not one of the lens mounts that will work with EOS without a special adapter with an optical element to correct for infinity focus. And the element does degrade the images somewhat.