5 ms·

Tangential Ask HN: For someone looking to get into film photography for the first time, what camera would you recommend? I prefer something as mechanical as pos

by dannyw 4y ago

Tangential Ask HN: For someone looking to get into film photography for the first time, what camera would you recommend? I prefer something as mechanical as possible (less electronics the better!), but a working light meter might be helpful.

greggeter 4y ago
Any Nikon from the 90s with a focus drive motor. Put it in manual and have a ball. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n55.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n55.htm
frostburg 4y ago
Olympus OM-1 (or OM-1n) if you can stand using silver oxide batteries for the light meter. There are many other great fully mechanical options but they can be somewhat expensive or have issues with finding lenses. The OM-2n is also great but the shutter requires a working battery and it's actually a very complex camera internally (it does real-time aperture priority metering by measuring the light reflected by the film surface while the shutter is open, if you want it to). A Nikkormat FT3 or Nikon FM would also be good choices, but I like the compactness of the Olympus.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Yeah, watch out for battery requirements. Canon A-1, AE-1, F-1 are also reasonable choices. (Basically any FD lens system camera.) The trick is probably finding something that is in decent shape but not "collectible" shape. Looking through KEH's catalog is probably a good start.
  - frostburg 4y ago
    The issue there is that the once very affordable FD lenses are now popular among filmmakers for rehousing, which makes them a lot less affordable. Pre-AI Nikon is cheaper.
    - skhr0680 4y ago
      > Pre-AI Nikon is cheaper No it’s not! Pre-Ai Nikon lenses are also made out of toxic metal that will break modern cameras!
      - frostburg 4y ago
        No, they'll break modern cameras due to their shape, but that's why I mentioned the FT3 and FM.
12xo 4y ago
Nikon FM2. The best beginner SLR ever made. Add a 85mm 1.4 or a 110mm and a 35mm 1.4 lens and you're on your way.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I don't really follow the used market that much, but I'm thinking the is the best answer if you've got a good budget to work with and the other post saying the Pentax K1000 is better if you don't. One potential advantage is the ability to use old Nikon lenses on newer digital cameras, but that's of limited utility when trying to use old manual focus lenses on modern bodies that aren't really designed for them.
  - frostburg 4y ago
    The manual lenses are actually better on modern mirrorless cameras than on older dslr ones, because those had viewfinders that made focusing manually rather hard, while the mirrorless bodies have good focus aids.
joblessjunkie 4y ago
There are many correct answers here, but I recommend the Pentax K1000. It is possibly the world's #1 most-manufactured camera, and was the standard camera for beginner photography classes throughout the 80s and 90s. There are vendors on eBay that specialize in this camera and have literally 100s of cameras in stock. Early models are all-metal, while later ones incorporate some plastic, but are consequently lighter. At this age, I wouldn't worry about the reliability difference of the two, and simply plan to replace the body if it fails. The Pentax K-mount has a lot of cheap, good glass. The 50/1.8 is standard and fabulous, the 28/2.8 and 135/4 are also amazing and can be had for under $50. The camera is entirely manual, with no autofocus or autoexposure available. Optionally, you can put a button cell battery in it to power a simple exposure meter, visible as a needle indicator in the viewfinder. I've been shooting these for 40 years, so I'm a bit biased, but I do recommend them just for their ubiquity and cheap replaceability.
- musictubes 4y ago
  The K1000 and the Canon AE-1 are some of the only model names that people still recognize. They were both basic cameras when new. Ironically, they are now frequently more expensive than better cameras from the same makers. The name recognition has driven search. I now recommend a Pentax MX, the same operation of a K1000 but better in every way. It was a more upscale all mechanical camera from Pentax. If you want a Canon, go for an Fb to Ftb for mechanical cameras or an A1 if you want more automated exposure options. The best deals are probably the autofocus cameras from the 90s. With a little looking around you can probably find a Minolta XtSI with a 50mm lens for $50 or less. It is small and the lens, like all 50mm, is great. It also has a built in flash and a variety of of auto modes to simplify picture taking. Yes, they are cheap, plastic cameras that will not last a very long time. But you can get then for so cheap it doesn't really matter. The lenses tend to last longer. You can get similar deals on other brands too. Pentax autofocus cameras are super cheap but you can find Canon Rebels by the truckload as well as many Nikon (the N/F80 is my favorite plastic fantastic from them).
cpsns 4y ago
Literally almost any working camera will be fine, just pick one you like and have at it. As a beginner your photos aren't going to be amazing, so you won't gain much from some crazy expensive/fancy camera, nor do you even know if you'll like working with film. You don't even need a light meter really (though they are very helpful), basic rules like sunny-16 will go along way and will help teach you how to judge exposure. 1950-60s rangefinders can be a fun place to start. They've got everything you need, nothing you don't, are full mechanical, and often very cheap. The most important thing is to get out, learn how film behaves and to learn how to take good photos. Don't get caught in the trap a lot of beginners do worrying about gear to the point they focus on that more than actually using it.
ruined 4y ago
holga or diana. it's a plastic box with a shutter. you will be forced to learn and get creative.
- frostburg 4y ago
  Those are bad in general and also specifically bad for learning since the results aren't repeatable.
mc32 4y ago
I think the EOS Rebels. Of course you could go back to all mechanical; but this is a decent compromise.
- frostburg 4y ago
  No EOS camera is mechanical because they all use EF lenses with electronic aperture control, I don't think that's what the parent post asks for.
  - mc32 4y ago
    I interpreted it as film. For mechanical the old Pentax K-1000 is a nice entry option.
hef19898 4y ago
I would recommend two cameras, both Nikon since I'm a Nikon guy since my dad handed me his F4 when I was 12 or so. First is a FA, fully mechanical and a nice camera. Not sure about availability so. The second, and already sporting stuff you also find on modern DSLRs, is a Nikon F4. At least over here more or less available, industructible (even half submerged in rain water pictures are great and the camera did not suffer). Benefit of both is that they work with every F-mount lense Nikon ever made. Not sure about the latest G series without aperture rings, could be the F4 accepts those. And those lenses, if you get the good ones, all work great on Nikon's DSLRs up to the recent D780 and D850. And those lenses are available cheap used since everybody goes mirrorless. With a F4 and a decent set of lenses it is easy to go didgital on a budget, e.g. with a used good condition D700. Full format, feels a lot like a F4, both are professional bodies, and not too expensive. Invest the difference to mirrorless into travelling to nice places where you can take nice pictures. Oh, and using film helps improve your photography, if a picture takes time and money to develop you are much more concious about what you shoot. Damn, now I'm motivated to break out the afore mentioned F4 again and some B+W film... Edit: If you can get your hands on a Canon EOS1 your good too. It's Canon's F4 equivalant and Canon lenses are great. Canon does have less lens downward conpatability so. Nikon cameras are hefty, you feel what you handle, Canons are lighter and feel, well, not flimsy in comparison but you get the drift. I like hefty, solid cameras, others don't, so ouck your poison.
xdennis 4y ago
If you just want to try, get a good Zeiss Ikon Contina. It's the cheapest camera (20-30 dollars for a good model) of a great quality that I have. Fully mechanic, no battery.
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I prefer the older TLR (twin-lens reflex) cameras — the "box cameras". They take amazing photos (I think). Most larger cities will still have a camera shop selling/processing 120 film. (Also easy to scan the negatives on a flat-bed scanner rather than having to make prints.) TLR's can be had fairly inexpensively on eBay (as long as you're not insisting on getting a Hassleblad or a Rollieflex, for example). Yashica's are still affordable and take excellent photos. Most models are purely mechanical — not even an exposure meter. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=yashica+120&_sacat=0 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m...
jeffal 4y ago
I just picked up a Nikon N80 off ebay for $40. Early 2000s camera so will shoot in full auto but also manual mode. Ironically can be had cheaper than the earlier semi-auto Nikons.
ninjin 4y ago
There are a lot of factors to consider and also subjective preferences. But I agree that a light metre is helpful, although one should remember that you can get a stand-alone one. There are even ones that fit in the hot shoe [1]! [1]: https://cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm https://cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm As for camera suggestions, this is where it gets difficult and I know that I did not find the “right” camera for me right away. Initially I shot a digital SLR for about half a decade and while I got better as a photographer, I could never love the device itself and how it “made” me shoot. Got into film with a fairly small 50s Leica that I inherited, moved its 1949 Summitar 50mm lens over to a Bessa R2 after about a year because it has a built-in light metre, had fun with an original (fairly cheap as well!) Olympus XA, and these days I can afford Zeiss glass and a Zeiss Ikon ZM to match. But it sure was a journey and I feel I became a much better digital shooter thanks to it. So, um… Recommendations? I like small cameras – preferably rangefinders – as they are easy to carry and forces me to work within the compromises they make in terms of flexibility for a given situation. If it was ten years ago, I would have recommended any of the Bessas (produced this millennia, built like tanks, and nearly purely mechanical) with a 50mm or 35mm cheap lens, but Cosina has either stopped or lowered production to a degree where you will struggle to find one at a reasonable price these days. If you like wide angles (I do not really, as I struggle with anything below 40mm for unknown reasons) there are plenty of fairly cheap consumer and prosumer cameras from the 80s and onward with built-in light metres. My original Olympus XA was cheap and plastic-y as all hell, but oh boy was it small and could pack a punch with some good black and white film (straight from the scanner on good old Neopan 400 [2]). Sadly, if you want a 50mm on such a camera you need to go into the 60s and 70s, where the electronics easily become a bit more iffy. If you are willing to largely forego manual focus, there is also a whole range of cameras like the Fuji Klasse W, Yashica T5, etc. Just beware that some of these goes for crazy amounts of money these days and they are of course packed with electronics. [2]: https://0x0.st/opC5.jpg https://0x0.st/opC5.jpg With all my rambling, I guess in conclusion what I am trying to say is that you perhaps should consider what you already know about yourself and your shooting preferences and go for what is affordable enough to be “a toy” to play around with to get your bearings towards “the right gear”. At least that is how I finally ended up loving the process of shooting both film and digital.
iNerdier 4y ago
Depending on budget, A Nikon FM or FM2 for a fully mechanical camera with a light meter. A Nikon F301 for an overlooked, very cheap but still really good camera. The Canon A/AE-1 and Pentax K1000 get brought up a lot and are now surprisingly expensive for what they are, there are much better cameras out there for less but that don’t have their name brought up as much. This is a huge rabbit hole to go down with how many cameras got made but if in doubt seek out someone in person and try to use one before you buy it!

by dannyw 4y ago

greggeter 4y ago

Any Nikon from the 90s with a focus drive motor. Put it in manual and have a ball. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n55.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n55.htm

frostburg 4y ago

Olympus OM-1 (or OM-1n) if you can stand using silver oxide batteries for the light meter. There are many other great fully mechanical options but they can be somewhat expensive or have issues with finding lenses. The OM-2n is also great but the shutter requires a working battery and it's actually a very complex camera internally (it does real-time aperture priority metering by measuring the light reflected by the film surface while the shutter is open, if you want it to). A Nikkormat FT3 or Nikon FM would also be good choices, but I like the compactness of the Olympus.

ghaff 4y ago
Yeah, watch out for battery requirements. Canon A-1, AE-1, F-1 are also reasonable choices. (Basically any FD lens system camera.) The trick is probably finding something that is in decent shape but not "collectible" shape. Looking through KEH's catalog is probably a good start.
- frostburg 4y ago
  The issue there is that the once very affordable FD lenses are now popular among filmmakers for rehousing, which makes them a lot less affordable. Pre-AI Nikon is cheaper.
  - skhr0680 4y ago
    > Pre-AI Nikon is cheaper No it’s not! Pre-Ai Nikon lenses are also made out of toxic metal that will break modern cameras!
    - frostburg 4y ago
      No, they'll break modern cameras due to their shape, but that's why I mentioned the FT3 and FM.

12xo 4y ago

Nikon FM2. The best beginner SLR ever made. Add a 85mm 1.4 or a 110mm and a 35mm 1.4 lens and you're on your way.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I don't really follow the used market that much, but I'm thinking the is the best answer if you've got a good budget to work with and the other post saying the Pentax K1000 is better if you don't. One potential advantage is the ability to use old Nikon lenses on newer digital cameras, but that's of limited utility when trying to use old manual focus lenses on modern bodies that aren't really designed for them.
- frostburg 4y ago
  The manual lenses are actually better on modern mirrorless cameras than on older dslr ones, because those had viewfinders that made focusing manually rather hard, while the mirrorless bodies have good focus aids.

joblessjunkie 4y ago

There are many correct answers here, but I recommend the Pentax K1000. It is possibly the world's #1 most-manufactured camera, and was the standard camera for beginner photography classes throughout the 80s and 90s. There are vendors on eBay that specialize in this camera and have literally 100s of cameras in stock. Early models are all-metal, while later ones incorporate some plastic, but are consequently lighter. At this age, I wouldn't worry about the reliability difference of the two, and simply plan to replace the body if it fails. The Pentax K-mount has a lot of cheap, good glass. The 50/1.8 is standard and fabulous, the 28/2.8 and 135/4 are also amazing and can be had for under $50. The camera is entirely manual, with no autofocus or autoexposure available. Optionally, you can put a button cell battery in it to power a simple exposure meter, visible as a needle indicator in the viewfinder. I've been shooting these for 40 years, so I'm a bit biased, but I do recommend them just for their ubiquity and cheap replaceability.

musictubes 4y ago
The K1000 and the Canon AE-1 are some of the only model names that people still recognize. They were both basic cameras when new. Ironically, they are now frequently more expensive than better cameras from the same makers. The name recognition has driven search. I now recommend a Pentax MX, the same operation of a K1000 but better in every way. It was a more upscale all mechanical camera from Pentax. If you want a Canon, go for an Fb to Ftb for mechanical cameras or an A1 if you want more automated exposure options. The best deals are probably the autofocus cameras from the 90s. With a little looking around you can probably find a Minolta XtSI with a 50mm lens for $50 or less. It is small and the lens, like all 50mm, is great. It also has a built in flash and a variety of of auto modes to simplify picture taking. Yes, they are cheap, plastic cameras that will not last a very long time. But you can get then for so cheap it doesn't really matter. The lenses tend to last longer. You can get similar deals on other brands too. Pentax autofocus cameras are super cheap but you can find Canon Rebels by the truckload as well as many Nikon (the N/F80 is my favorite plastic fantastic from them).

cpsns 4y ago

Literally almost any working camera will be fine, just pick one you like and have at it. As a beginner your photos aren't going to be amazing, so you won't gain much from some crazy expensive/fancy camera, nor do you even know if you'll like working with film. You don't even need a light meter really (though they are very helpful), basic rules like sunny-16 will go along way and will help teach you how to judge exposure. 1950-60s rangefinders can be a fun place to start. They've got everything you need, nothing you don't, are full mechanical, and often very cheap. The most important thing is to get out, learn how film behaves and to learn how to take good photos. Don't get caught in the trap a lot of beginners do worrying about gear to the point they focus on that more than actually using it.

ruined 4y ago

holga or diana. it's a plastic box with a shutter. you will be forced to learn and get creative.

frostburg 4y ago
Those are bad in general and also specifically bad for learning since the results aren't repeatable.

mc32 4y ago

I think the EOS Rebels. Of course you could go back to all mechanical; but this is a decent compromise.

frostburg 4y ago
No EOS camera is mechanical because they all use EF lenses with electronic aperture control, I don't think that's what the parent post asks for.
- mc32 4y ago
  I interpreted it as film. For mechanical the old Pentax K-1000 is a nice entry option.

hef19898 4y ago

I would recommend two cameras, both Nikon since I'm a Nikon guy since my dad handed me his F4 when I was 12 or so. First is a FA, fully mechanical and a nice camera. Not sure about availability so. The second, and already sporting stuff you also find on modern DSLRs, is a Nikon F4. At least over here more or less available, industructible (even half submerged in rain water pictures are great and the camera did not suffer). Benefit of both is that they work with every F-mount lense Nikon ever made. Not sure about the latest G series without aperture rings, could be the F4 accepts those. And those lenses, if you get the good ones, all work great on Nikon's DSLRs up to the recent D780 and D850. And those lenses are available cheap used since everybody goes mirrorless. With a F4 and a decent set of lenses it is easy to go didgital on a budget, e.g. with a used good condition D700. Full format, feels a lot like a F4, both are professional bodies, and not too expensive. Invest the difference to mirrorless into travelling to nice places where you can take nice pictures. Oh, and using film helps improve your photography, if a picture takes time and money to develop you are much more concious about what you shoot. Damn, now I'm motivated to break out the afore mentioned F4 again and some B+W film... Edit: If you can get your hands on a Canon EOS1 your good too. It's Canon's F4 equivalant and Canon lenses are great. Canon does have less lens downward conpatability so. Nikon cameras are hefty, you feel what you handle, Canons are lighter and feel, well, not flimsy in comparison but you get the drift. I like hefty, solid cameras, others don't, so ouck your poison.

xdennis 4y ago

If you just want to try, get a good Zeiss Ikon Contina. It's the cheapest camera (20-30 dollars for a good model) of a great quality that I have. Fully mechanic, no battery.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I prefer the older TLR (twin-lens reflex) cameras — the "box cameras". They take amazing photos (I think). Most larger cities will still have a camera shop selling/processing 120 film. (Also easy to scan the negatives on a flat-bed scanner rather than having to make prints.) TLR's can be had fairly inexpensively on eBay (as long as you're not insisting on getting a Hassleblad or a Rollieflex, for example). Yashica's are still affordable and take excellent photos. Most models are purely mechanical — not even an exposure meter. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=yashica+120&_sacat=0 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m...

jeffal 4y ago

I just picked up a Nikon N80 off ebay for $40. Early 2000s camera so will shoot in full auto but also manual mode. Ironically can be had cheaper than the earlier semi-auto Nikons.

ninjin 4y ago

There are a lot of factors to consider and also subjective preferences. But I agree that a light metre is helpful, although one should remember that you can get a stand-alone one. There are even ones that fit in the hot shoe [1]! [1]: https://cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm https://cameraquest.com/voivcmet2.htm As for camera suggestions, this is where it gets difficult and I know that I did not find the “right” camera for me right away. Initially I shot a digital SLR for about half a decade and while I got better as a photographer, I could never love the device itself and how it “made” me shoot. Got into film with a fairly small 50s Leica that I inherited, moved its 1949 Summitar 50mm lens over to a Bessa R2 after about a year because it has a built-in light metre, had fun with an original (fairly cheap as well!) Olympus XA, and these days I can afford Zeiss glass and a Zeiss Ikon ZM to match. But it sure was a journey and I feel I became a much better digital shooter thanks to it. So, um… Recommendations? I like small cameras – preferably rangefinders – as they are easy to carry and forces me to work within the compromises they make in terms of flexibility for a given situation. If it was ten years ago, I would have recommended any of the Bessas (produced this millennia, built like tanks, and nearly purely mechanical) with a 50mm or 35mm cheap lens, but Cosina has either stopped or lowered production to a degree where you will struggle to find one at a reasonable price these days. If you like wide angles (I do not really, as I struggle with anything below 40mm for unknown reasons) there are plenty of fairly cheap consumer and prosumer cameras from the 80s and onward with built-in light metres. My original Olympus XA was cheap and plastic-y as all hell, but oh boy was it small and could pack a punch with some good black and white film (straight from the scanner on good old Neopan 400 [2]). Sadly, if you want a 50mm on such a camera you need to go into the 60s and 70s, where the electronics easily become a bit more iffy. If you are willing to largely forego manual focus, there is also a whole range of cameras like the Fuji Klasse W, Yashica T5, etc. Just beware that some of these goes for crazy amounts of money these days and they are of course packed with electronics. [2]: https://0x0.st/opC5.jpg https://0x0.st/opC5.jpg With all my rambling, I guess in conclusion what I am trying to say is that you perhaps should consider what you already know about yourself and your shooting preferences and go for what is affordable enough to be “a toy” to play around with to get your bearings towards “the right gear”. At least that is how I finally ended up loving the process of shooting both film and digital.

iNerdier 4y ago

Depending on budget, A Nikon FM or FM2 for a fully mechanical camera with a light meter. A Nikon F301 for an overlooked, very cheap but still really good camera. The Canon A/AE-1 and Pentax K1000 get brought up a lot and are now surprisingly expensive for what they are, there are much better cameras out there for less but that don’t have their name brought up as much. This is a huge rabbit hole to go down with how many cameras got made but if in doubt seek out someone in person and try to use one before you buy it!