Film Camera Recommendation

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Anything requiring mercury batteries, apart from the inconvenience of futzing with ill-fitting zinc-air cells, is also verging on being a relic with a good chance of age-related problems affecting reliability/functionality. After the usual chorus of counter-claims, testimonials and CLA recommendations dies down, remember you'll still be relying on a 40-50 year-old camera whose reputation for toughness will be cold comfort when it breaks or produces poorly-exposed negatives. Forget about retro fashion statements. Get the newest, most reliable gear you can. There seems to be budget enough according to the OP.

Rubbish... The only cameras that have ever left me completely in the lurch were electronic marvels...

Meters can be very easily tested for accuracy at home and a roll of film can guarantee that a shutter is operating normally.

Classic cameras go *slowly* out of adjustment with age, whereas electronic marvels can drop dead suddenly and without warning.

 

[guitstik]

I may have missed it but where are you located? If this is just for a project and you mainly shoot DSLR then you might consider borrowing equipment. For example, if you lived near me I could lend you any number of Minolta bodies with a 28mm, a Nikon F with a 24 or an Olympus OM-1 with a 24mm. Unless you are going to continue on with film, which is a big possibility, after the project ends then either renting or borrowing makes more sense. It would give you the ability to try different makes and models without making a financial commitment until you figured out what you like.

 

[spacer]

On my shelf, I have a few that would seem to fit the bill, but only one (other than the dSLRs) that has a wide angle lens at the moment: my X700. I have a 28/2.8 hanging around somewhere for it. The camera is a joy to shoot, and I'm learning to love it despite a poor set of test shots I made the mistake of taking to CVS. It is electronic, however, so I'd probably use my K1000 as a non-electronic 3rd world camera. I've used 'em quite a bit my whole life, so I'm familiar with the meter, and it just feels good in the hands.

Or... if you're looking for something newer, within your budget, (though I may get a few crosseyed looks) there's the Nikon FM10. It's made by Cosina, and probably won't take a beating like some of the other cameras mentioned here, but I've made some of my favorite images from my faux Nikon. Add a decent wide angle lens and stir.

 

[elcabezagrande]

The Nikon FM10 and the Yashica FX-3 are like cousins.

 

[CGW]

Rubbish... The only cameras that have ever left me completely in the lurch were electronic marvels...

Meters can be very easily tested for accuracy at home and a roll of film can guarantee that a shutter is operating normally.

Classic cameras go *slowly* out of adjustment with age, whereas electronic marvels can drop dead suddenly and without warning.

Give it a rest. Mechanical cameras aren't immune to breaking, jamming, and otherwise failing suddenly. If I want reliability for a project, I won't be asking to borrow an elderly SRT 101 or Spotmatic for fear that something 40-50 years younger and electronic just might possibly fail. I also won't be losing any sleep over a possibility that remote.

 

[cjbecker]

I want to know more about this project?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Give it a rest. Mechanical cameras aren't immune to breaking, jamming, and otherwise failing suddenly. If I want reliability for a project, I won't be asking to borrow an elderly SRT 101 or Spotmatic for fear that something 40-50 years younger and electronic just might possibly fail. I also won't be losing any sleep over a possibility that remote.

Then I can only question your real-world experience....

Mine is quite different.

 

[rolleiman]

Have you ever thought that with the rate of digital depreciation, some of the classic manual cameras recommended (such as the Nikon F), might actually be MORE valuable that your digi SLR? (depending on the level of digi that you own or course).

If you're nervous about shooting in "poor" areas, then maybe an automatic exposure SLR such as an old Nikon FE might be better..(less time spent standing still fussing over exposure)....Another tip, cover up the name "Nikon" with black tape.

 

[Two23]

My vote goes to a used Nikon D5000. This is now one generation old and much cheaper than a Nikon D5100. The beauty is it has a fold out screen that you can use as a waist level finder. If you intend to take photos of people, I really like waist level finders. They are unobtrusive and don't attract much attention. I use my 1937 Voigtlander Bessa this way with the waist level finder. I shoot ISO 3200 b&w film in it and love the big 6x9 negs. It does have scale focus which doesn't bother me, and I use an incident light meter to get an exposure. It's a "normal" lens though. A Bronica ETRSi body with 50mm f2.8 lens and a waist level finder would be better, again using an incident light meter. You can carry different magazines along with different kinds of film.


Kent in SD

 

[BrianShaw]

After the usual chorus of counter-claims, testimonials and CLA recommendations dies down, remember you'll still be relying on a 40-50 year-old camera whose reputation for toughness will be cold comfort when it breaks or produces poorly-exposed negatives.

I should probably take the hint and not chime in given your adament statement of your opinion/experience... but I still shoot with a 1982 F3 and a 198? FE and a 1958 Retina and a 1940 Anniversary Graphic and a 196? SuperGraphic with excellent reliability and quality. The key is not just the age of the equipment but the condition of the equipment. Oh, and my images are generally metered by a WestonIII or a LunaPro, but with a Gossen battery adapter to avoid being disappointed by kluged batteries. The difference that you may be alluding to is that someone buying older gear from whatever source may or may not be getting equipment that has been properly maintained.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

Nikon FE, FE2 or F3 if you want aperture priority, FM or FM2 if meter is all you need. That's less than $100 (FE, FM) or $200 (FE2, FM2, F3). A Nikkor 24/2.8 in excellent condition can be had for $150 or even less.

 

[Sundowner]

...equipment that has been properly maintained.

That's the great equalizer for any and all. Anything that functions can cease functioning...it all depends on whether or not they're kept up.

 

[Sundowner]

A Nikkor 24/2.8 in excellent condition can be had for $150 or even less.

See...someone agrees with me.

 

[CGW]

Then I can only question your real-world experience....

Mine is quite different.

OK, so what electronic cameras have failed you and when? Share your specific experiences.

 

[CGW]

I should probably take the hint and not chime in given your adament statement of your opinion/experience... but I still shoot with a 1982 F3 and a 198? FE and a 1958 Retina and a 1940 Anniversary Graphic and a 196? SuperGraphic with excellent reliability and quality. The key is not just the age of the equipment but the condition of the equipment. Oh, and my images are generally metered by a WestonIII or a LunaPro, but with a Gossen battery adapter to avoid being disappointed by kluged batteries. The difference that you may be alluding to is that someone buying older gear from whatever source may or may not be getting equipment that has been properly maintained.

Fair enough. My point is simply that older is not axiomatically better. I've got low-mileage FE, F3, F90x and F100 bodies I trust that were bought as NOS or from original owners.

 

[BrianShaw]

Fair enough. My point is simply that older is not axiomatically better. I've got low-mileage FE, F3, F90x and F100 bodies I trust that were bought as NOS or from original owners.

Great... but I'll go one step further than you do. Anyone who buys old stuff and then gets cheap about having it overhauled is foolish, even if it is NOS or from original owner. Old stuff is still old and needs to be maintained if one wants reliability.

 

[BradleyK]

If cost was not a consideration, I would suggest an M series. To most, these things look like toys; folks generally ignore you when you are out shooting, irrespective of where you are. However, since cost is an important consideration, an additional vote here for a Nikon FM/FM2/FE/FE2 with either a 28mm or 35mm Nikkor. And again, opt for a chrome body if possible. A final word: Comportment. Dress down when shooting on the street: blue jeans, old sneakers, shirts/sweaters/jackets sans labels, no sunglasses (i.e. look to "blend in," not make a fashion statement). Be aware of your surroundings and DO NOT SHOW FEAR (pigs, crooks, thieves, junkies and other assorted members of the underclass can smell fear and will act accordingly...). Happy shooting!

 

[rolleiman]

Give it a rest. Mechanical cameras aren't immune to breaking, jamming, and otherwise failing suddenly. If I want reliability for a project, I won't be asking to borrow an elderly SRT 101 or Spotmatic for fear that something 40-50 years younger and electronic just might possibly fail. I also won't be losing any sleep over a possibility that remote.

No camera is totally immune to breaking or jamming, but on the balance of probabilities, I'd back my 40 year old Nikon F, or my slightly "younger" FM2n's against the latest electronic stuff anytime.

A further point. some years ago whilst covering a violent demonstration that turned into a full scale riot, it became necessary to defend myself. My all metal Nikon FM2 with MD12 motordrive attached, made rather a mess of the attacking rioter's face with just one swing, yet still continued working afterwards....a testament to the solidity of Nikon engineering in the 1970's-80's........If I found myself in the same situation again, I wouldn't feel half so confident that the current crop of complicated electronic wonders would come through a similar situation completely unscathed.

 

[Sundowner]

I second the notion for dressing inconspicuously. My usual wardrobe is a ball cap, sunglasses (I have to wear them, outside), untucked, low-key solid or flannel shirt over a t-shirt, khaki cargo pants, and comfortable hiking shoes...basic clothing in my neck of the woods. I wear a black jacket with a very small logo when it gets cold. I am noticed the least with a smaller or silver camera...the Nikon F is basically unnoticed, and the Rollei 35 is invisible. However, due to another important aspect - MOVEMENT - I can carry my big Pentax with little notice. Movement can't be underestimated...if you stand around looking like you're doing something out-of-the-norm (which you are, when photographing) then people will notice you. Blend with the crowd; find your image in advance, compose as you approach, and trip the shutter as quickly as possible with as little fuss as possible. Then move away. Do this properly, and you're a ghost.

 

[removed account4]

find and use a yashica T4
you will be using a p/s camera
but it will be worth the $,
fit in your pocket, has good optics
has a good built in meter and flash
and has a viewer so you can look down, instead
of through the lens ... i wish ours still worked ...

 

[CGW]

No camera is totally immune to breaking or jamming, but on the balance of probabilities, I'd back my 40 year old Nikon F, or my slightly "younger" FM2n's against the latest electronic stuff anytime.

A further point. some years ago whilst covering a violent demonstration that turned into a full scale riot, it became necessary to defend myself. My all metal Nikon FM2 with MD12 motordrive attached, made rather a mess of the attacking rioter's face with just one swing, yet still continued working afterwards....a testament to the solidity of Nikon engineering in the 1970's-80's........If I found myself in the same situation again, I wouldn't feel half so confident that the current crop of complicated electronic wonders would come through a similar situation completely unscathed.

Cheer up. If you'd been packing an F3+MD4, you'd probably still be in the slammer. The F4 and F5 weren't exactly petite.

 

[rolleiman]

Cheer up. If you'd been packing an F3+MD4, you'd probably still be in the slammer. The F4 and F5 weren't exactly petite.

Probably, but if I'd had the rather flimsy AF 35mm f2 attached to a D300, instead of the older all metal manual 35mm lens + FM2 & drive, I doubt it would have survived.

 

[laroygreen]

I apologise for not replying sooner, but my internet was out for most of the day! Plus the website kept telling me I had to wait 20 seconds before I could post again :confused:

Thanks for the suggestions and tips!

This project is just getting some establishing shots from various places for a short documentary (strictly personal) I'm doing, which focuses on crime ... hence my paranoia. I live in the Caribbean, so I'm not really able to rent or borrow any gear.

As I mentioned, probably nothing would happen, but I just rather not attract any unnecessary attention, and people do get robbed often for cellphones and cameras. Ultimately, my strategy is to just be straight up with my intentions if confronted, and not hide the fact that I'm trying to take photos. But, I'm also not particularly interested in taking photos of individuals, just wider scenes showing how people make a living, the condition of public infrastructure, that kind of stuff (but, I still want to be able to take each image as quickly as possible). I will exercise all the necessary precautions before going out to shoot so thanks for all the advice in that regards!

Also, I'm not pro-digital or pro-film ... I like them both, and I use them both (not so much film and darkroom but I want to get more into it).

One question: All the cameras being recommended seem to have pretty basic meters compared to modern SLR cameras (the Minolta XD-11 seems barely ok from reading the user manual), such as a led turning green, or disappearing +/- signs, or needles (!). I know the idea is to zero your meter off something close to 18% grey in the same lighting condition as your subject, but when using my dslr, I typically look at the scene and use my spot meter to meter off skin tones (when doing a portrait) or a highlight I don't want clipped (under most normal contrast lighting situations), and use the exposure bar to set my exposure to say -3 for black with detail or +3 for white with detail. Given that these film slr cameras don't tell you how much you are over/underexposed by (for 18% grey), is it fair to assume that I can't use this approach, or am I missing something?

For me, it seems like the fastest way of working, and based on what I normally shoot, I've never really had any issues and its served me well. I don't claim to be an exposure guru, so any advice (please no flame wars!) would be nice, and ultimately, good exposures and good focus are my primary concern as we all know that film is rather expensive, especially if you have to import it yourself!

 

[John Austin]

Just get a Kalashnikon

This violence stuff has gone on too long on this thread - The best advice was to look so invisible as to be harmless, to which I add fast feet and faster thinking - Someone may already have said this, but the thread is getting boring with everyone pushing their own favourite camera - I won't go down this track except to say there are a lot of cheap cameras out there so pick something you feel comfortable with

Forget your Kalashnikon thread - (I love my old Nikon Fs, but I now use them with care, they are old)

Probably, but if I'd had the rather flimsy AF 35mm f2 attached to a D300, instead of the older all metal manual 35mm lens + FM2 & drive, I doubt it would have survived.

 

[Les Sarile]

One question: All the cameras being recommended seem to have pretty basic meters compared to modern SLR cameras (the Minolta XD-11 seems barely ok from reading the user manual), such as a led turning green, or disappearing +/- signs, or needles (!). I know the idea is to zero your meter off something close to 18% grey in the same lighting condition as your subject, but when using my dslr, I typically look at the scene and use my spot meter to meter off skin tones (when doing a portrait) or a highlight I don't want clipped (under most normal contrast lighting situations), and use the exposure bar to set my exposure to say -3 for black with detail or +3 for white with detail. Given that these film slr cameras don't tell you how much you are over/underexposed by (for 18% grey), is it fair to assume that I can't use this approach, or am I missing something?

For me, it seems like the fastest way of working, and based on what I normally shoot, I've never really had any issues and its served me well. I don't claim to be an exposure guru, so any advice (please no flame wars!) would be nice, and ultimately, good exposures and good focus are my primary concern as we all know that film is rather expensive, especially if you have to import it yourself!

If you prefer spot metering then the Olympus OM-2s and OM-4 have it.

If you use negative film, most of them have so much latitude you will be hard pressed to clip it even if you try. B&W film the same if not even more. Slide film more like digital in latitude. However, keep in mind that Steve McCurry shot the Afghan Girl photo on Kodachrome (narrow latitude slide) using only an averaging meter in an FM2. Rest assured people have been properly exposing narrow latitude slide film since the 50's so it can be done without much technical assistance.