complete beginner's SLR?

gnashings said:

The bottom line is this: the brand of the camera matters least.

But... you do have to choose one, right? Well, yes, you do. I would venture to say, that all the manufacturers make pretty damn good cameras (as can be attested to by the legions of loyal users). I would go further, to say that quality wise, there is little to differentiate a Nikon from a Canon, or Minolta, or Pentax (or whatever) of a similar level (meaning, don't compare a Nikon EM to a Canon F1).

Peter.

Click to expand...

I would argue against this - there are indeed differences between brands, and as you are buying into a system, what you get and how and if you get it directly derives from this. This can and will have an impact on what youcan do and how esaily. The Pentax system includes their MF cameras and extreme glass compatibility, Canon has an advantage in fast and long glass, Nikon supports the most arcane flash setups and proably has best overall glass lineup. The M mount system has probably the best overall glass in the normal supported range. Other systems have their own advatages.

Prolem is - to know which to pick, you need an oracle tell you what you will be using and doing in the next 10 years.

sanderx1 said:

I would argue against this - there are indeed differences between brands, and as you are buying into a system, what you get and how and if you get it directly derives from this. This can and will have an impact on what youcan do and how esaily. The Pentax system includes their MF cameras and extreme glass compatibility, Canon has an advantage in fast and long glass, Nikon supports the most arcane flash setups and proably has best overall glass lineup. The M mount system has probably the best overall glass in the normal supported range. Other systems have their own advatages.

Prolem is - to know which to pick, you need an oracle tell you what you will be using and doing in the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

These are good point - espescially the idea that you are buying into a "system" so whatever is your first camera sort of "marries" you to that company. I began with a Nikkormat FT-2 a million years ago and now have a stable full of Nikons both Manual and AF film as well as a D-70 and D-100. With some compromises - I can swap the "glass" between all of this gear so I am "married" to the Nikon system.

As a Nikon shooter, my knowledge of their gear leads me to recommend them - but therse is plenty of other fine out there - each of which offers a "system".

I guess my overall advise to a "newbie" would be to get a good basic SLR and either a normal or 35mm lens at a relatively "cheap" price. Thereafter, if you decide you prefer gear from a different manufacturer - you're no so "deep in" on the first kit that you cannot let it just gather dust.

Regards,
George

(I too need to get a signature here)

sanderx1 said:

I would argue against this - there are indeed differences between brands, and as you are buying into a system...

Click to expand...

Sanderx1:

But he's not. He's buying a starter camera, and I hope getting something solid, but not too expensive. I've noticed that many recommendations tend to veer off into the author's particular obsessions: sharpness, macro, zoom, etc.

Cloud9:

I'll go out on a not too dangerous limb and suggest that you should get a good used mechanical body with a 50:1.4 lens from one of the big five; i.e. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, or Minolta. My typical street iron is a Pentax Spotmatic with the 50:1.4 SMC Takumar, but any of the major Japanese manufacturers should provide a similar kit nicely. Bebbington's complaints notwithstanding, a solid mechanical SLR well handled should get you a sharp 8x10 print once you know your way around the camera. I've been working with one of my Spotmtic negatives on old TMAX 400 that as far as sharpness could go 16x20 no problem, but would fail in so many other ways as our large format bretheren are sure to point out. On sharpness: I made a glance through Magnum's "In Our Time," and so very few of the photos strike me as highly sharp, but nearly all strike me as amazingly good. Bill Pierce's quip about icecream cones and razors comes to mind.

If you are in the States or have ready access to the US market, look at KEH as perhaps the best source of solid mechanical cameras. I'd avoid a macro for now as there's a technical side (recip and bellows) to close-up that a beginner doesn't need to address. I'd also avoid the zoom as the most affordable zooms are poor choices for low light and shallow depth of field shots.

On the Pentax K1000: yes this is the first thing that comes to mind when people think student camera. Trouble is that for this reason and maybe a bit of nostalgia about first photo courses, the price on these is higher than other more capable bodies in the Pentax K-mount series, and I would prefer an MX or KX if buying a K-mount.

I'll also suggest something a bit more expensive now. If you've a school which offers a photo and darkroom class, I would spend a little money and sign up. There are too many things about film and the possibilities of the print that dropping a roll off at a one-hour place won't teach you.

sanderx1 said:

I would argue against this - there are indeed differences between brands, and as you are buying into a system, what you get and how and if you get it directly derives from this. This can and will have an impact on what youcan do and how esaily. The Pentax system includes their MF cameras and extreme glass compatibility, Canon has an advantage in fast and long glass, Nikon supports the most arcane flash setups and proably has best overall glass lineup. The M mount system has probably the best overall glass in the normal supported range. Other systems have their own advatages.

Prolem is - to know which to pick, you need an oracle tell you what you will be using and doing in the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

I am sticking to my guns on this one - as originally stated, it matters least. Not "does not matter" or "there is no differences", but "matters least".

And I still think it matters least, and by a pretty long shot. All the majour manufacturers offer you capabilities that are so close to each other that it takes a great deal of personal pereference, and a very discerning knowledge of your craft to actually be able to see a difference.

As such, I think you are 100% right about the ability to see ten years ahead - but by then, as I stated earlier, you have a much better knowledge of what you need, that you yourself obtained first hand through experience.

And remember, the question was about a starter camera - not the last camera you will ever need to buy. I have honestly never looked at my picture taking and though:"Well, I am screwed - should have bought a Nikon..." - conversly, I doubt I would say the reverse if I chose to go with a Nikon system, or any other brand. Its good to keep an eye open to the future, but its not like getting a sex change operation... you can change you rmind later

Hello Folks.

Is depth of field preview important to a student of photography? Should a "student camera" have this capability?

Some basic fundamentals centric cameras, and a lot of modern plastic ones, do not have this capability. Some now have no way whatsoever to determine or see DoF.

The Pentax K1000 does not have DoF preview, but its lenses will have DoF scales.

For the same money, I think I would seek out a solid metal SLR with the feature.

T42 said:

Hello Folks.

Is depth of field preview important to a student of photography? Should a "student camera" have this capability?

Some basic fundamentals centric cameras, and a lot of modern plastic ones, do not have this capability. Some now have no way whatsoever to determine or see DoF.

The Pentax K1000 does not have DoF preview, but its lenses will have DoF scales.

For the same money, I think I would seek out a solid metal SLR with the feature.

Click to expand...

DOF preview is a very useful feature. I would go as far as saying it is more important to a student than anyone as it will help you visualize (or rather have visual evidence) of the effects your chosen settings have. It takes a little practice to get used to the information it actually gives you (at first it just seems like your viewfinder gets dimmer... but keep looking - the info is there!). I would not go as far as saying its crucial and dismissing any camera without it, but I would definitely give preference to those that do have it.

Cloud9,

Welcome to APUG.org the one place where you will ask a straight forward question and receive an abundance of confusing answers and a plethora of useless debate about anything and everything. You will find that this organization is populated by very well meaning opinonated individuals with only one thing in common...They are dedicated to the craft of analog photography. It pretty much ends there.

I am sure that this experience has taught you to never again ask a wide open question on this or any other forum. Just go buy any 35mm camera that you can afford and then go out and take pictures and have fun.... Any camera that you buy will have strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes you just have to pick a spot in the water and just dive in...

esanford said:

... Just go buy any 35mm camera that you can afford and then go out and take pictures and have fun.... Any camera that you buy will have strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes you just have to pick a spot in the water and just dive in...

Click to expand...

Basically, that is really the wisest advice on this matter.

I would not go as far as condmening the APUG community, though. Like you said, it is a rather broad question, and this is a rather broad community. Perhaps in the process of the discussion our new friend will come across points that they were not initially taking into consideration. I look at this kind of thread as more of a brain storm/sounding board - especially since the question simply does not have a one right answer beyond the one that you provided and I quoted here.

I think some of us like to "bench race" their gear - its part of the fun

gnashings said:

I would not go as far as condmening the APUG community,

Click to expand...

For goodness sakes.... Please don't confuse sarcasm with condemnation. What I did was to read this entire thread and it was downright funny. A new member asks a simple question, and he gets sprayed with a fire hose of answers. I mentally placed myself in his position and I became hopelessly confused. However, it is typical of every thread in APUG. None of us are short on opinions; and we can't just let anything go (I am guilty of this in this response). We are all loveable/laughable people who can't shut up. The first couple of answers were sufficient, but no.... everyone had to weigh-in and then start a debate. I love APUGERs, but none of us ever met a debate that we can stay out of... or have an opinion that we can keep to ourselves. Man, I hope some kid joins and asks about the facts of life... it would be absolutely hilarious and mindboggling....

gnashings said:

I think some of us like to "bench race" their gear - its part of the fun

Click to expand...

Gentlemen, start your motordrives NOW!

gnashings said:

I own some Nikon gear, have shot Minolta, Zenit, etc. - and frankly, I have made great pictures with all of them, my favourite being with... the Zenit. So it really does not matter Just get one and go out and use it.

Click to expand...

Just to explain this minor point to the (probably by now) confused newbie, Zenit is a Soviet/Russian camera brand. Zenits are known for being simple and very basic cameras (although a few have features like auto exposure and even motor winders). They're also known for being, shall we say, quirky. Some people love them but most photographers wouldn't pick them above other brands, all other things being equal. Most Zenits use M42 lenses, but very old ones use M39 and a few modern ones use K-mount lenses. Gnashing's point, I think, is that you can take great photos even with very oddball and basic gear. (FWIW, I've also got a few photos taken with Zenits that are near the top of my personal favorites list.)

srs5694 said:

(snip!)...Gnashing's point, I think, is that you can take great photos even with very oddball and basic gear. (FWIW, I've also got a few photos taken with Zenits that are near the top of my personal favorites list.)

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

And esanford, sorry if I seemed like I jumped down your throat - I think I misplaced an emoticon or something Damn computers!

Cheers everyone,

Peter.

gnashings said:

EXACTLY.

And esanford, sorry if I seemed like I jumped down your throat - I think I misplaced an emoticon or something Damn computers!
Cheers everyone,
Peter.

Click to expand...

No offense taken... My point is that we need to stop and look at our behavior now and then. And most importantly, we need to learn to laugh at the absurdity that we create when we go overboard with knowledge sharing and useless debate... Most people here are experienced photographers. Most of us have owned a number of cameras and we have likes and dislikes. When a Newbie asks a question, we should be straight forward and concise. Most of all, we should read the other posts before jumping in and adding to the confusion. That is my point....

esanford said:

No offense taken... My point is that we need to stop and look at our behavior now and then. And most importantly, we need to learn to laugh at the absurdity that we create when we go overboard with knowledge sharing and useless debate... Most people here are experienced photographers. Most of us have owned a number of cameras and we have likes and dislikes. When a Newbie asks a question, we should be straight forward and concise. Most of all, we should read the other posts before jumping in and adding to the confusion. That is my point....

Click to expand...

There has certainly been some information overload here, but the fact remains that making high-quality sharp prints with good tonality from 35 mm at sizes larger than 8x10" is one of the hardest and technically most demanding tasks in photography and that some cameras are better tools to this end than others. Simple test - take any of the "great" pictures that you have taken with a cheap camera and make a 5x7" print. A neg from almost any 35 will look great enlarged to this size. Then make a 12x16" and look at the two prints SIDE BY SIDE. There will inevitably be some sharpness loss and also a rise in contrast due to reciprocity law failure of the printing paper. Ask yourself - can I live with this quality? The simple fact is that the answer is more likely to be "no" if you used a Zenith or Praktika or a worn-out example of any other make.

Here are a handful of my thoughts on the subject, from a fellow SLR beginner, in no particular order.

1. It doesn't matter what camera you start on, since you have no previous experience on which to form a meaningful opinion about what you want.
Be sure to feel comfortable with your purchase, but get what you can and begin the learning/experience process.

2. Buy used only if you are comfortable with the buying used process. Otherwise avoid the potential ripoff and buy new. I spent about a month and a half with the SLR camera that I bought for my mother for this past Christmas. It is/was the Nikon N75/F75. I bought it new and I bought a 50mm 1.8 af lens for it, new, plus a bag, for $300. It's a good little camera and would be perfectly fine to start out on. Surely Canon and every other worthwhile 35mm SLR manufacturer offer something similar at this price point.

3. Don't fret about getting all the features ever offered into one body. Not going to happen (at least not until you are ready to pay several grand). If you are really into this hobby/craft, you will grow out of your first body AND/OR you will want a second body for various reasons AND/OR you will crave more cameras because cameras are very, very cool. There are PJs and artists out there using cameras that would make you laugh a little and smile in the other direction. Just get one and begin enabling your personal VISION, the point of it all?

4. I prefer fixed focal length lenses over zooms, and for beginners with limited budgets this seems like the most cost effective way to get good glass while also getting good visual training. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, but EVERYBODY makes a cheap 50mm lense that stands among their better lenses.

Good luck!

Shawn

David H. Bebbington said:

There has certainly been some information overload here, but the fact remains that making high-quality sharp prints with good tonality from 35 mm at sizes larger than 8x10" is one of the hardest and technically most demanding tasks in photography and that some cameras are better tools to this end than others. Simple test - take any of the "great" pictures that you have taken with a cheap camera and make a 5x7" print. A neg from almost any 35 will look great enlarged to this size. Then make a 12x16" and look at the two prints SIDE BY SIDE. There will inevitably be some sharpness loss and also a rise in contrast due to reciprocity law failure of the printing paper. Ask yourself - can I live with this quality? The simple fact is that the answer is more likely to be "no" if you used a Zenith or Praktika or a worn-out example of any other make.

Click to expand...

David,
I don't question your knowledge or expertise - and I am sure that on a pretty elevated technical level what you are saying is dead on the money. But, I don't think what you describe is the aim of this exercise. You have to learn a lot before you have the knowledge necessary to say what it is you like, dislike and how to fix it. By then, you will have shot a lot of film and learned a great deal, and probably laugh at all the unknowns that you faced in the start.
Also, I think that the aboslute technical perfection does not a great image make. There is a lot more to it, in my humble view - and it all begins with taking the photo in the first place. Not with second guessing your abilities and those of your gear. Its a mute point that better gear is... well... better. But the worst pictures are those you never got around to taking - especially when you consider the learning aspect of it all.
And one more thing. Simple, limited, etc. does not mean BAD. My Zenit happens to get the film behind the lens, and the lens is actually of a pretty decent quality - no bells and whistles, a woefully inaccurate meter - but really not bad at all as long as you realize its limitations and work within them. Its semi-retired now, but I can always count on its simple, mechanical nature to give me an image no matter where and when I ask for it.
Again, the wisest bit of advice here is to just get out there and start. Its hard to make a bad choice, and as Shawn said, you really can't go that wrong with a simple SLR and a 50mm prime. And although he makes an excellent point about the perils of buying used, there are many ways of doing it that are very, very reputable and a safe bet.
I am going to try to stay away from this thread now... I know I am just enjoying the discussion and not helping that much

Peter.

... and the beat goes on

I teach intro photography every month and generally find that the camera is not terribly important, much more important are the vision and dedication of the student.

That said, one thing I have noticed is that there are some cameras that give very little information in the viewfinder and others that tell you more. That information is very useful. After working with a couple of beginners with Canon AE-1s which basically require you to repeatedly remove your eye from the finder to set the shutter speed and aperture I helped out someone with a Nikon FE2. The FE2 was a joy, the aperture and shutter speed both show in the finder and you can work much more quickly.

I also find that the auto focus cameras are harder to learn to use and many people fall right back into using auto exposure quickly because of the hassle of having to turn dials while pressing buttons and the like.

Any way you go, have fun, that is most important.

I strongly agree with Paul about viewfinder information. I divide viewfinders into three classes:

1) insufficient information finders, like the AE-1 mentioned, that keep your eye moving between finder and controls on the body to set the exposure

2) sufficent information finders, which tell you whether your settings are correct, but may not tell you exactly which f-stop or shutter speeds you've selected

3) full information viewfinders, which tell you when you've got the correct exposure and display both your shutter speed and f-stop settings

If you have questions about which specific cameras are which, there are repositories of manuals on line that can help. Google is your friend. Older cameras also evolved to include more or less information in the finder (FT-FTb-FTbN, SRT-101, -102, -202, etc.) and sometimes without any model designation change. So you have to know some details before drawing conclusions if you don't have the camera in hand.

For a beginner (or for anyone else for that matter) the full information finders are the fastest to use and easiest with which to learn. Sufficient information finders are OK if you have a good memory and are used to the camera. I never use or recommend insufficient information finder cameras to anyone who wants to learn what they're doing. They are OK for snapshooters who'll only use automated modes and don't care about the details.

Lee

As I mentioned, I have a nice Konica A3 kit w/macro zoom that I could sell to you. PM or email me if you're interested.