Choosing my first camera

[MaggieSz]

Hello everyone. I recently decided to get into photography as I'm doing a lot of bike trips (Australia) and thought it would be great to capture my adventures on the film. I have never used analog camera.
What's the best vintage film camera in your opinion?
I've heard Pentax K1000, Canon AE-1, Leica M6, Olympus OM-1-2, Minolta X-700, Nikon FM2. Some of them are out of my budget (150AUD) and also as I travel by bike, I think something like Pentax K1000 is just too heavy.
I was about to buy Pentax Me super, but someone outbid me. I've read some good reviews about this model and was wondering if there is any equivalent?
Was about to buy Minolta XE-1, but someone just bought it..
Read also good review on this forum about Minolta XD-11.
Nikon EM seems to be affordable as well.
To sum it up: I though Pentax Me Super could be good, same for Olympus OM 1 or 2, but I am wondering what are the alternatives in this price range? Seems like Canon and Nikon are popular, therefore pricey. Maybe you could suggest something else? I'm really confused after reading many forum and blogs.
Any help would be much appreciated, thank you.
Maggie

 

[abruzzi]

If you don’t have any experience with film and are not familiar with exposure, you’ll probably have an easier time with a camera that gives you some kind of auto exposure. The simplest is “program” mode, where the camera chooses your shutter speed and aperture. For that you could get a Pentax SuperProgram (also called Super A in some markets), Minolta X-700, or Nikon FA. (There are others but those three I’m familiar with.). One step more manual is a camera with either aperture priority or shutter priority, which requires that you set one, and the camera chooses the other to make a correct exposure.

Something like the K1000 requires you set both shutter speed and aperture, but it will let you know if you are under or over exposed. This is fine, but might frustrate a beginner, depending on your knowledge of exposure.

I’ve used the three cameras I’ve mentioned above, and they’re all good cameras. I bought my X700 for $40 with a 50mm lens, the SuperProgram for $100 with a 28mm lens, and the Nikon to $125 with no lens. I don’t know if the prices I got are similar to the current market.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

G'da Mags, from a fellow suburbanite.
I thought I saw an Olympus OM10 in the used equipment window of Michaels Cameras (cnr Elizabeth and Lonsdale Streets in the city) a week or so back, additional to a few other film cameras. That is auto exposure, but the camera itself, along with a few others you have mentioned, is now quite old (the K1000 by Pentax very much so). The older the camera is, potentially more of a liability to breaking down, so you don't really want to go too far back in time!

The OM1 and 2 are very, very old cameras and not often seen in used equipment line-ups. They are either still in the clutches of devoted owners, or wrecked out in the shed somewhere. Not to say good examples (probably) do exist, but finding good ones with life and reliability in them is the tricky part. Which brings me to the next point...

...I would advise that, when purchasing your first camera, to go through a proper street-level retail facility where the camera and/or lenses have been tested and come with a warranty. There are some quite good, reliable (and properly tested!) film cameras in the window of Camera Lane (cnr Little Bourke and Hardware Streets in the CBD).

If I was still involved in bicycle touring (I commenced in 1979 and finished in 1998) my analogue camera of choice would be the venerated Olympus XA. For some years when touring Ialso had a Nikon FE2 and a miserable bicycle touring/bushwalking co-existence with a none-too-smart Minolta Dynax 9000i which quickly went in favour of the Canon T90 (a beautiful camera for its time). There's a lot of stuff out there to investigate, so take your time!

 

[baachitraka]

- Olympus OM-1/OM-1n (I like it and I have few of them) and paired with 28 f/3.5, 50 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.8 will given you enough coverage.
- Olympus XA (only) 35mm f/2.8 lens (need not worry about batteries) and it has near quite shutter.

- Olympus OM-2n (need to depend on batteries but I call you a pair will last longer)

- Olympus OM-2sp (spot metering in manual mode, but consumes batteries like crazy)
- Olympus OM-4ti (bit pricey and it seems the problem of over consumption of batteries was solve with this model)

 

[benjiboy]

Hello everyone. I recently decided to get into photography as I'm doing a lot of bike trips (Australia) and thought it would be great to capture my adventures on the film. I have never used analog camera.
What's the best vintage film camera in your opinion?
I've heard Pentax K1000, Canon AE-1, Leica M6, Olympus OM-1-2, Minolta X-700, Nikon FM2. Some of them are out of my budget (150AUD) and also as I travel by bike, I think something like Pentax K1000 is just too heavy.
I was about to buy Pentax Me super, but someone outbid me. I've read some good reviews about this model and was wondering if there is any equivalent?
Was about to buy Minolta XE-1, but someone just bought it..
Read also good review on this forum about Minolta XD-11.
Nikon EM seems to be affordable as well.
To sum it up: I though Pentax Me Super could be good, same for Olympus OM 1 or 2, but I am wondering what are the alternatives in this price range? Seems like Canon and Nikon are popular, therefore pricey. Maybe you could suggest something else? I'm really confused after reading many forum and blogs.
Any help would be much appreciated, thank you.
Maggie

Hi Maggie, it's very rude to shout, but welcome to Photrio anyway

 

[John51]

Do you want to carry extra lenses? If not, a fixed lens camera will do. Maybe one of the later film cameras with a fixed zoom?

 

[guangong]

For really light and small, nothing beats an XA.
In New Jersey, I frequently pass though an area very popular with cyclists dressed as if participating in the Tour de France with eyes and noses aimed at the road. I doubt if any of them even glance at surroundings. And the scenery is fascinating and beautiful. You must be a throwback to the time when we used our bicycles as a slower way to get to places and better enjoy the view.

For a little more weight and match needle exposure, there is nothing more rugged than a Rollei 35, at one time the smallest 35mm camera made.

I would not be shy about an older camera from Nikon, Canon, Leica (even Leicas from late 1930s are still going strong). Pentax Spotmatics are light and quite durable. Lesser camera brands are less desired for a reason. Cameras without automation are best for travel, especially when traveling light are more dependable. Nothing worse than a dead camera because of a dead battery.
As for proper exposure, everything you need to know is included with film box.
As for price, shop around,...there are bargains to be found.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

What's the best vintage film camera in your opinion?
I've heard Pentax K1000, Canon AE-1, Leica M6, Olympus OM-1-2, Minolta X-700, Nikon FM2. Some of them are out of my budget (150AUD) and also as I travel by bike, I think something like Pentax K1000 is just too heavy.

Hello there down under, Maggie!

You will get an avalanche of replies to a question like this, some of which completely nonsense, others disregarding the requirements/limits of your first post, others based on an extremely narrow (if any) personal experience, so as you already have some cameras in mind I'll limit to these.

There is no such thing as an absolute "best vintage film camera", as almost any camera does some task better or more conveniently, and other tasks with more difficulty. In any case you don't need the "best camera" now, you need a camera that won't make you regret choosing to try out film.

The Pentax K1000 is a very nice fully manual "training ship", but as you said it's too heavy we'll rule it out. The Nikon FM2 is again a fully manual camera, definitely lighter than the K1000, and really amongst the finest cameras ever made, but it's also pretty much looked after and thus expensive, so we'll rule it out. The Leica M6 is also definitely a very fine camera but also amongst the most expensive and we'll rule it out without even considering that it's a non-reflex camera.

In your list, the Canon AE-1 really stands out for a beginner. It's not too heavy, it's cheap, it looks terrific, has all the classic controls exactly where they usually are, has an almost infinite assortment of excellent (and affordable) lenses, and it is usually sold at very affordable prices. It also has a semi-automatic exposure mode ("aperture priority") that you will find expecially useful at the beginning, and very convenient also later. I owned it for many years and I warmly suggest it as a very good choice.

Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 are also cameras that might fit your needs but, as others have said, are in my (and other's) opinion harder to find in fully functional state and at prices as fair as the Canon AE-1.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not sure when you on taking your trip or what weather will, but a Pentax IQ weather resistant is a good option. Small, auto exposure, functional zoom range. When traveling I find it an ideal third camera.

 

[MaggieSz]

Hello everyone, and sorry for shouting, didn't mean that. Seems like I'm really excited to get my first slr camera (only used gopro and digital sony in my life)

First at all, thank you all for your quick and valuable responses, I really appreciate it.

@Poisson Du Jour thanks for your local tip. I'll definitely check those shops in CBD as I already lost 4-5 auctions on e-bay.

Hmmm I think it's difficult to choose and @Marco Gilardetti you're right, it's very subjective what's 'the best camera'.

Maybe I should specify a little more. I think I don't really want rangefinder camera. So Olympus XA maybe not for me. I really would like to learn a little bit, how to set things manually, but would be great if there are also some auto settings. After looking at all the cameras (watched many youtube tutorials) I really love those from the end of 70's and especially those from 80's. That's why I thought Pentax Me Super would be great because it was a bite better and lighter version of Pentax K1000 (read it somewhere, could be wrong). And I don't like plastic body. I think also Olympus was pretty small comparing to the older versions. Talking about Olympus, could anyone tell me what's the difference between OM-1 and 2 and those OM-10, 20, 30? For some reason I read that 1 and 2 are the best for beginners? Also Pentax Me Super and Spotmatic? And last what are your thoughts about Minolta XD-11 and XE-1? Which ones are less dependent on batteries as well?
I know so many questions! I really have been reading for the past week and tried to ask some friends, but no success!

One more thing I have to explain. I live in Melbourne which is the most hipster city in Australia. All good 35mm cameras are selling within minutes. I know Canon AE-1 is recommend by many, but here I see prices between 300-500 AUD, same goes for Nikon F versions and Minolta X-700 (maybe this one slightly cheaper).. It's crazy, because I know these cameras aren't really worth that much, but they're high in demand over here. I'm currently a student, so would like to stick to my 150 AUD budget, and see what I really like to invest later (when I have a real job )

Thank you again, really excited to start learning!

 

[MaggieSz]

Also, I forgot there are brands like Praktica and Fujica, which seem to be a bit less popular.

Is any of those classic cameras specifically good at night photography?

 

[narsuitus]

I recently decided to get into photography as I'm doing a lot of bike trips (Australia) and thought it would be great to capture my adventures on the film.

Here are the 35mm film cameras I have used under the circumstances you describe:

Leica M6 rangefinder

Contax G1 rangefinder with 45mm f/2 lens

Canon Canonet QL17 G-III rangefinder with 40mm f/1.7 lens

Nikon EM SLR with 50mm f/1.8 Series E lens

Pentax ME SLR with 50mm f/1.4 lens

Any of these cameras are good for night photography if you use them with fast film, a fast lens, a tripod, or a flash.

 

[CMoore]

How much heavier could the K-1000 be compared to every other SLR.....1/2 pound...does it really matter.?
Anyway. They are all good.
If you are going to get a Canon AE-1 i would get the AE-1 Program.
Olympus OM-1 is a good option also.
ANY camera of this age might need to be sent to a tech for service. It is just a fact of life.
After my son was born, i took a Few Hundred frames with a Canon Sure-Shot 80. It is known as a Point and Shoot camera. The pictures are just fine for a 3x5 size print.!
You might want to consider a camera like that. They are very Inexpensive, simple, small, light, and take photos that are good enough for most purposes.
Good Luck

 

[4season]

Maggie, if weight is a concern, then plastic is your friend! Nikon FG (circa 1982) has plastic outer parts but still relies on a die-cast chassis, it's small, light, uses common batteries and tends to get overlooked, so you may be able to score one at a good price. Nikon 50/1.8E was commonly sold with it, and it's a swell match as it's one of the smallest Nikon 50mm lenses but likewise tends to get overlooked. FG20 was similar, think it was a more budget-conscious model.

 

[MattKing]

The suggestion to use the services of a retail store that sells used cameras is the best one.
You might end up paying a bit more, but it is almost always money well spent.
One point though that may serve as a bit of comfort - there is a good chance that after you become comfortable using your new camera you will learn things about your likes and preferences that will lead you to the conclusion that another camera might be slightly more suited to your needs.
If that happens, it isn't a disaster. If you decide to try something else, you can probably sell or trade in your first choice without losing too much money.
As for your Olympus questions, I have been using Olympus OM cameras since they first came out in the 1970s. I currently own and use an OM20 (aka OM-G), an OM-2s, (aka OM-2Sp), an OM-2n and an OM-4T (aka OM-4Ti).
The single digit bodies - OM 1, 2, 3, 4 are system camera bodies (compatible with many of the exotic accessories) that are more robustly constructed than the amateur market oriented OM-10, 20, 30 and 40 bodies, but the single digit bodies are also heavier.
With the exception of a small and somewhat strange detour into an early attempt at auto-focus, all the OM lenses fit all the OM cameras.
All the Olympus options are worth considering for a first camera. Condition will be more important than features. The OM-1 uses a no longer available battery but there are workarounds. There are a lot of OM-10s out there, but without the manual adapter they are a bit restricting. I have a fondness for and use the OM-20, which I have heard described as an OM-10 with the manual adapter built in, and a couple of design improvements to make them more robust than the OM-10.

 

[abruzzi]

How much heavier could the K-1000 be compared to every other SLR.....1/2 pound...does it really matter.?

The K1000 is the size of an average SLR of its time, however after the Olympus SLRs showed you could make a compact SLR, Pentax went all in to the compact SLR market. The MX may be the smallest full frame 35mm SLR (not counting those half frame models). The ME, ME Super, and SuperProgram are just a tiny bit larger.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Konica off road. Full auto, dust and shock resistant.
If you want to learn about exposure, Smena-8m. For 150 you could get three of them and bulk of film.

 

[Wallendo]

Although you are leaning towards a SLR, your needs are probably better met with a rangefinder. On long bike trips, your SLR would probably need be kept in a backpack or similar device. I would consider a compact rangefinder, there were many manufactured in the 60's and 70's and many of them have very good lenses. They are small and often lightweight and take very good photographs. I like the Olympus 35RC, but there are many similar cameras out there

Manual SLR's can be a lot of fun to use, and if your intent is to make frequent stops for rest and photography, the extra time required to get out the camera and make settings changes may not be a hassle. Keep an eye out for a Nikkormat with a working meter and a Nikkor 50mm lens. It is a great solidly built camera which is quite durable and can be used as a weapon if attacked by a kangaroo.

 

[wahiba]

I would look out for a Rollie 35. The basic type with a Triotar lens is more than adequate for general use, but of course a Sonnar or Tessar type has wider shutter speed range. Usually the meter is duff so you will need off camera metering. I noticed new Kodak Colour has one of those guide charts inside and these are fine for colour prints. Being mechanical no need fo batteries.

I recently picked up an Olympus iS10 28-110 Zoom and found the lens is as good as the much sought after mu_II. See my none scientific comparison here: CAMTEST

The iS10 cost me 99p plus postage off ebay, less than a fiver and it looks mint. OK no interchangeable lens and limited features, but easy to use from around ones neck on a bike.

Gerenally though if you take an automatic requiring batteries take a manual as well that does not. This lack of need for electricity is the one area where analogue beats digital every time.

 

[macfred]

Why not the Nikon EM - ''The SLR camera for women'' : https://www.35mmc.com/01/03/2019/nikon-em-review/
or more serious : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_EM
Camera body and 'Serie E' lenses are quite cheap these days.
The lady of the house still has one (her first SLR she bought in the early 80's - still in use).
For the budget one can get a camera body and a 2-lens kit (the Series-E 100mm f 2.8 is such a nice lens! and the 50mm pancake lens isn't bad either).

 

[macfred]

Maggie, if weight is a concern, then plastic is your friend! Nikon FG (circa 1982) has plastic outer parts but still relies on a die-cast chassis, it's small, light, uses common batteries and tends to get overlooked, so you may be able to score one at a good price. Nikon 50/1.8E was commonly sold with it, and it's a swell match as it's one of the smallest Nikon 50mm lenses but likewise tends to get overlooked. FG20 was similar, think it was a more budget-conscious model.

Another good solution!

 

[CMoore]

So...basically...Every camera ever made.

 

[runswithsizzers]

There is no single best for your purpose; any one of several smaller, lighter, SLRs from a reputable manufacturer will do.

Having said that, some Pentax and Olympus models from the late 1980s are a bit smaller and lighter than most Nikons and Canons from the same era.

The Pentax MX was the all-mechanical version of the Pentax ME Super. The MX is about the same size as the ME Super, but a few grams heavier. Being a mechanical camera, the MX will work without a battery; I don't believe the ME Super will work with a dead battery, tho it might work at 1/125th second shutter speed, only? I've used both, and I prefer the MX because it works more like what I was used to - but the ME Super offers automatic exposure, it that is important to you. (Auto exposure requires "A" series lenses.) Fortunately, batteries last a long time in these cameras (unless you forget to turn off the meter when you are not using them), and they are quite small, so carrying spares is not a hassle.

Personally, I have carried Pentax MX bodies and Pentax lenses on bicycle trips totalling about 6,000-7,000 miles - never had any problems with them.

My advice for anyone who wants to buy a classic, film-era SLR for a big adventure would be to have a CLA (clean, lube, and adjust) done by a reputable service person before you leave.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hello Maggie,

If you are developing a love for photography, be it analog or digital, you would be doing yourself a wonderful favor by spending a little time learning the basics of exposure. This will not only help you in your camera choice, but will help you evaluate eventual problems you see with your photos and will contribute to having more successful photos.

Regardless of how complex a camera is, exposure always consists of two things: choice of aperture and shutter speed. It isn't difficult to learn how to choose the appropriate aperture and shutter speed combination for the photo you want to make. You will also need to know how to compensate for certain situations like overly bright or dark backgrounds so that the actual subject is correctly exposed. The investment of time in learning this is well worth it.

As for a camera, many good suggestions were given; I think a Nikon FG or FG-20 has useful features that will accommodate your growing knowledge of photography and is also lightweight and compact, especially with a 50mm/1.8 series E lens.

 

[ciniframe]

You have a budget for the camera but have you also considered how much film and processing will cost. Over the course of a couple of years that could, depending how much you shoot, run into an amount 2 or 3 times your budget for a camera.
Just saying.
As to camera choice, a simple, all mechanical, all manual and light weight SLR is a Ricoh KR5 or KR5 Super. Not sure if any were available in your country but the Sears KS500 is a rebadged KR5 but often cheaper on the big auction site.