I need your recommendations on real film cameras?

[pbs911]

It's my wife birthday next Saturday and she has wanted a good camera for a long time. A real film camera. A professional's camera. I know nothing about cameras, except point and click, so I need your suggestions. Try to limit the cost to around $2k.

She wants a camera that makes things far away look up close and makes very small things large.

Do they even make real film camera any more? Is digital the only way to go? It seems that digital cameras are going the way of computers - continously being outdated by next week.

[pwd72s]

Digital seems to be taking over, but in the 35mm format, I'd guess Nikon is still king. That said, I still dig my Olmpus OM1 SLR out of the closet from time to time, and I feel it yields good results. Extension tubes and various lenses will yield both the macro and telephoto results you desire, but I'd also suggest adding a tripod to your accessories list. No human can hold a camera as steady, and it's a steady camera that yields the sharp images.

[911pcars]

There's plenty of used and perfectly good film cameras available for not too much money nowadays since digital cameras are so popular. I'd go to a pro (or large) camera store in your area and look at a used Nikon F2 (body is around $200+) in good shape. They should throw in a standard 50mm lens, but try to get a 35mm (angle of view) lens as it's more versatile. If the body looks clean on the outside, it'll probably last a very long time. If the body looks worn, it'll still probably last a long time - longer than the life span of a typical digital camera.

Sherwood

[vash]

pbs, i am selling my nikon FM2 package on craiglist for $600. body, motordrive and 4 lenses. i just posted yesterday. i'll let it go to a pelican for $500.

i think digital is the way to go. that is why i am liquidating my stuff, plus all my film stuff is seems to be all leica anyways. but if your wife is hoping to learn photography, there is nothing more interesting than film. alot of manipulation, and stuff to learn. the camera i am selling is basic, it has a light meter built in, but no automatic features, just the way i liked it. but maybe as your wifes first camera, maybe a fully automatic unit would be the way to go.

cliff

http://www.craigslist.org/eby/ele/42936596.html

[djmcmath]

Nikon and Canon both have an excellent range of professional lenses. The body, ultimately, is just a container for holding and exposing the film -- but there's huge variation in what features are available. You need to decide if you're looking for something old-fashioned and all manual ($150ish good condition) or something totally brand new with all the whiz-bang gadgetry ($350-????? new).

Some gotchas:
- I'd recommend staying away from APS. The negatives are miniscule, despite the hype to the contrary. The support for APS hasn't showed up at the full-scale film level, and a lot of darkroom gear won't support something that small.
- Stick with either Canon or Nikon -- there are a host of other companies that make stuff that's either far nicer (like MF gear from Hasselblad, for example) or that's significantly lower on the quality chain than you'll be happy with (like Olympus, which is thoroughly lacking in high quality lenses, despite their awesome bodies).

As to the digital/film battle -- check photo.net; they re-fight that war about once a week.

Dan

[Rot 911]

Originally posted by pbs911
She wants a camera that makes very small things large.

Paul I can't help you with the camera, but I think your wife is trying to tell you something.

[Bill Verburg]

Nikon, Canon, Olympus

My 40yr old Canons still take great pictures, but are too bulky to take anywhere.

[cegerer]

Why screw around - go Leica! I just bought an M6. It's the 'Porsche of Cameras'. Might be able to find a nice used one for under $2K.

[RickC]

Nikon N-80 and a 28-200 Nikkor lens. Should be $1,000 or so (lens will be more than the camera). Camera is first rate, lens will allow wide-angle to telephoto shooting, and the Nikon/Nikkor lenses will fit on Nikon's digital camera's if you decide someday to go that way.

I have an N-70, the N-80's predecessor - it replaced a 24 year old Nikon FE [a semi-automatic exposure camera] and a 27 year old Nikkormate FT3 [a completely manual camera] as well as 5 old Nikkor lenses from 20mm to 400 [no zooms back then].

The biggish lens doesn't let in a lot of light, but my 8 year old daughter and 3 year old son can shoot decent pictures due to the computer exposure modes, and the built in flash (which you lose with the more expensive Nikon's) means you can get perfect lighting everytime for people/near scenes - and lighting in photography is everything.

It's kind of big, and I almost never use the manual modes anymore, but it is one camera/lens combo that can do almost everything I ever want. No switching lenses, no attaching a flash. It is essentially a point and shoot if you want it to be-but has the features and controls to satisfy a hobbiest or professional if you know what to do. Other big camera manufacturers have similar products with similar high points. I learned to do stuff in the 1970's, with Nikkormats and a friend's Nikon F2. I shot scenics with Kodachrome for years, and have no complaints about the great old cameras.

But my wife couldn't begin to understand the old camera controls/concepts (f-stop, ASA, etc.) The light bulb came on on a vacation with my family. A guy asked us if we could take each other's family picture. I framed the shot with my old camera (no zoom), set the shutter speed and aperture, and focused the lens - maybe 30-60 seconds - told the guy "don't move from here." He took the shot and handed me his camera (a modern 35mm, electronic exposure, zoom-lensed Pentax) I asked him what to do. He said "point and shoot." That was the moment when I realized I was missing something.

I love old cars and old cameras and all the great mechanical things that are out there. But a camera that performs perfectly and records great images in the hands of a 3 year old is an advance of the highest order.......

[vash]

cegerer, i love my M6! what lens did you go with? i wish i got the silver/blk body, but i got the all black one. why not the M7?

[Vipergrün]

Paul, I believe Sam (swbsam) owns a camera shop.....may be a good place to start.

-B

[B D]

Paul don't know much but Cal's Camera on Newport Blvd. is a great shop that many of the pros use, so I have heard. Maybe worth a visit, I got an hour lecture on digital cameras when they were new and ended up buying one they recomended from Best Buy.

[jyl]

If she wants a "real professional's camera" that makes "faraway things look close" and "small things look large", she probably wants a high-end SLR with a good system of interchangeable lenses, including telephoto (for faraway things) and macro (for small things, like flowers and bugs). If she is into really small things (like the detail on a stamp, or the edge of a coin) then a good lens system will also include a bellows.

As she gets into this, the lenses will become the largest cost. She'll upgrade the camera body and keep the lenses. Switching between brands will become a real $$$ hit, as all the lenses will have to be changed.

So you want to pick a good brand to start with. "Good" for me means high-quality, a large range of lenses, and a wide range of new and used film camera bodies.

I would add another requirement, a wide and state-of-the-art range of digital camera bodies. High-end digital is rapidly becoming just as good as film, in terms of resolution, contrast, color, etc. Lots of people argue about this, and there are specific purposes for which film is better, but in general digital is very rapidly closing the gap. Digital is already more convenient (can shoot lots of images, see what you got, keep and discard what you wish) with lower on-going costs (once you have the full set of equipment, there's no more paying for film or processing or custom printing). Digital is the future and you don't want to pick a brand that is stuck in film. Admittedly the full digital setup involves a lot of stuff, including computer, printer, software. But so does a full film setup with darkroom. And you may already have a suitable computer and printer.

To me, the above logic rules out the classic rangefinders like Leica (no macro or long telephoto), the boutique high-end brands like Contax or Leica SLR (no assurance they will keep up with advances in digital technology), and the mid-range brands like Minolta and Olympus (lack the big lens systems and the digital technology). It also points her to 35mm instead of medium format.

I would steer her toward a Canon or Nikon auto-focus body. They both have huge lens systems (from consumer to prosumer to all-out professional), they've both been around long enough for plenty of used equipment to be available, and they are both at the leading edge of digital photography.

Canon tends to be offer slightly more features and to incorporate the latest technology a bit earlier, while Nikon tends to be more conservative. At the equivalent price, I don't think there's much if any difference in quality, ruggedness, etc. Again, people like to argue about this but it's like arguing over a sunroof versus non-sunroof 911. I personally like Canons, but its a matter of taste.

In your shoes, I would first go check out a not-too-old Canon film camera autofocus body, something like an EOS-3 or even an EOS-1V.

Then I would go check out the latest $1,000-1,500 digital camera body. Canon recently introduced the EOS-20D which has gotten excellent reviews. Note all the Canon digital SLRs use an image capture chip that is smaller than a 35mm negative, so the effective focal length of the lens is increased by 1.5-1.6. In otherwords, if she uses a "300mm" lens on a 20D, it will look like a 450mm lens. Handy if you like telephoto, not if you like wide angle. The exception is the top-of-the-line $7,000 EOS-1DS. The same is true in the Nikon digital SLR range.

Mark Wilson recently bought the Nikon digital SLR (D70?) and may have some feedback.

The main thing I would spend my time and money on, though, is the lenses. She'll upgrade from body to body, but she'll keep the lenses forever.

Check out www.dpreview.com for the digital camera stuff.

It would be handy if you have the time to buy the stuff used as there are some good deals on nearly-new gear.

I definitely would not buy a used manual focus SLR. Yes, you can buy cool old professional cameras, Nikon F4s and Canon F1s, for reasonable prices, but its is more of a "collectors" thing. The pros are selling them.

I'm not anti-film, I have older film cameras myself - most recent purchase was a 1950s Canon rangefinder. But I use the digital 10X more than all the film stuff combined.

[jyl]

Oh, here's a good online store. You might not have time to buy online, but anyway it is useful for browsing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[jyl]

You know, I re-read my posts and realized I didn't actually give you any specific suggestions. Sorry.

Here goes. I'm spending your money! Got the prices from BH, maybe you can find better prices.

Film: Canon EOS-3 ($880), Canon EF 75-300mm w/ Image Stabilization ($400), Canon EF 24-85mm ($300), Domke F2 or F3 (smaller) bag ($90), a nice sturdy (and heavy) Bogen tripod ($150).

Digital: Canon EOS 20D ($1500) if you can find one, or 10D ($1400) if you absolutely must, Canon EF 28-200mm ($350) which will look roughly like a 56mm-300mm on the 10D, Domke bag ($90), Bogen tripod ($150). A real shame to get the 10D now, I'd give her a raincheck for the 20D if at all possible, or demand a stunning deal on the now-supplanted 10D. Sacrificing the wide-angle end, but I'm assuming she won't mind.

I'm sure a really good photo store will be able to suggest a better combination of gear, maybe just consider this a starting point. $2000 is a nice chunk of change, you shouldn't have to go higher.

[cegerer]

vash - I've got the 35mm F2 Summicron and a Voigtlander 21mm F4 (very nice and inexpensive!). Went with the M6 (all black) because I got a really good deal. It was 3-4 years old but brand new in box, never used. -- Curt

[djmcmath]

Better philosophy -- spend less on the body and more on the lenses. The body is just a dark box for holding the film. Think of the relationship between horsepower and seat-time. No matter how much horsepower you have, without skill you will drive slow laps -- same with the body and lenses. Further, wide angle lenses are more useful than long lenses, for virtually every type of casual photography. If I could only have one lense, I'd shoot with either a 24mm or 35mm fixed. Next on my list would be the 50mm f1.4 -- unbelievably fast, incredibly quality. Finally, the long lens -- I often don't even carry the thing, as it's bulky, heavy, and doesn't come in handy too often.

EOS-3 is probably overkill. That'd be like you buying a GT3. For a first camera, you probably want something more like an Elan-7 or even a Rebel. I shot with a Rebel for several hard years before eventually getting the Elan-7; great cameras, both, and way way way cheaper than the -3.

The 75-300IS isn't a bad lens, but it isn't fantastic, either. (I have that lens, paid $300 for it used a few years back...) If you're serious about shooting stuff that's far away, you want something longer. In fact, if you're serious about shooting distant stuff (like wildlife), you'd be way better off with a dedicated long lens, like a 500mm f4.0 IS, or something. However, I think you'll find that, in practice, with a real camera, you'll spend more time with a wider lens mounted. Unless you do work that requires a long lens -- like shooting wildlife -- the 300mm end of the band is mostly useless.

For the rest of the lens range, Canon's 50mm f1.4 is simply tops. Can't beat it for quality or price (about $300), and it adequately covers the "normal" range. Finally, add a wide angle -- I shoot a remarkable number of things with my 20-35mm, though I probably would have been just as well off with a single 24mm f2ish lens. The extra speed of a fixed focal length lens comes in way more handy than the flexibility of focal length.

One other lens I don't see on your list is a closeup-type lens. I'm using a 1:1 macro converter that works beautifully. Good solid closeups of flowers, coffee beans, or whatever else. I believe "making little bitty things big" was on your initial specs. You can cheap out on this one and get a lens that has a "macro" capability, but you won't be very happy with it.

I'm not really qualified to talk about bags -- I've never spent more than about $10 on mine. Pawn shops have great deals on these things.

Tripods -- I use a Bogen/Manfrotto, and I love it. I can look at the model numbers when I get home, but it's the shortest of their 'pods, and it has a ball head. Weighs about 10 pounds, which is a lot to haul around, but I've carried it overseas, been backpacking with it, hiked it off into all kinds of crazy remote places ... I love that tripod. The Bogen tripods are engineered like our Porsches are -- every detail is carefully thought out by people who really use tripods hard.


(shrug) There's my $.03. Remember -- lenses are more important than bodies. Wide angle is almost always more useful than a long lens. Fixed focal length is almost always more useful than zoom, and used is usually cheaper than new. I know you don't believe me now, but when you've used the gear for a couple years, you'll understand.

There's my thoughts, having shot with Canon gear for a few years. You've got an envious setup there, but you could definitely save some coin with a few changes.

Cheers,

Dan

[Bill Douglas]

Leica are the Porsche of Cameras.

I use an old Canon AE1, which is about 30 years old I guess. But like the guys said above, it's the lense that takes the photo, in fact it can be the difference between "wow" and "****ty" photos on the same roll of film. So an idea is to go for a number of fixed length lenses other than a handy zoom. Nikon is great stuff. If you choose a modern camera with a "program" of effects and features she will spend forever learning how to use it, then will got to a different camera and her efforts will be wasted, a better route to go is to get a camera that does manual and she go to a few night classes and learn about shutter speed, depth of field, and how they work with light. A few of the digital brigade could do with a grounding in this too.

[928ram]

Canon Elan7NE, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5, EF "L" 100-400 Image Stabilizer.

That'll cover from wide to supertelephoto, should eek in under $2K; have to add a macro lens later.

Definatly B&H Photo, great outfit.

[pbs911]

Wow, thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I have alot of reading to do. We do plan on going to Cals Cameras as they are local. I'll let everyone know what we choice. Any other suggestions of imput let me know.