"I want a simple SLR" says my 15y/o son. Err, no you don't!

[OlyMan]

Thanks for all the suggestions and ideas, I have read every post, we now have a winner

 

[TheRook]

Most 15-year old kids can learn new skills very quickly if something interests them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to successfully operate a simple SLR camera. Unless your son has a learning disability, he should be able to master even the most basic, all-manual SLR camera within a few weeks. And there are plenty of tips found online to guide him along the way.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Photography itself isn't difficult, Hell a Gorilla (Koko) got a cover of National Geographic back in 1978, with a 'selfie'.

It's not hard but it takes time, experience, and alot of film, to get the hang of it. If they have a real motivation to use it then, sure they will undoubtedly succeed.

Sure there are kids that are interested in learning about film photography, but most of those kids have us for parents, so that's generally what would drive them to see how it works. Any sane parent would look at the cost of using a film camera and the costs behind it in developing and say 'no way'

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any sane parent would look at the cost of using a film camera and the costs behind it in developing and say it beats the cost of a digital camera!

 

[Pioneer]

Here's a completely contrary suggestion. How about giving him a mid-century German 120 folding camera with zone focusing and no meter, and a sunny-16 chart? This will take him completely cold turkey out of the digital era, remove the training wheels, and introduce him to a brand new world without electricity.

I did this to myself for a year, after realizing I was a terrible photographer who needed to relearn from scratch. It was very challenging and a lot of fun.

My 12 year old grandson does this regularly. His biggest problem is getting too close. He loves taking pictures of people and he wants to fill the viewfinder. With that old Isolette if you filled the viewfinder you are too close. When he thinks about it he takes a step back and then everything works. Sometimes he thinks about it, sometimes he doesn't.

If you want to know the truth, I'm the slowpoke. My grandson and granddaughter took to it like a duck to water and have no problem. I took forever (or it seems like it) to pick things up and I am still struggling with printing in the darkroom. I think too much and make it too complicated. My grandkids don't worry about it. If it works, great. If it doesn't, try it again.

 

[Alan Gales]

Any sane parent would look at the cost of using a film camera and the costs behind it in developing and say it beats the cost of a digital camera!

Yes, if you use it right. You just can't take 1,000 boring images a day like the digital camera and have it pay off though!

 

[Chuckwade87]

Any sane parent would look at the cost of using a film camera and the costs behind it in developing and say it beats the cost of a digital camera!

The learning curve for a kid to learn how to shoot film would be high. You can't
expect a kid who has never shot film before to be conservative when shooting. Between buying film and processing, it ends up costing more in the long run.

 

[pbromaghin]

Any sane parent would look at the cost of using a film camera and the costs behind it in developing and say it beats the cost of a digital camera!

Back about 10+ years ago I wanted to get into photography as a serious hobby and did the calculation. It came out exactly as you say and so I chose film. However, a Cambo 4x5, 3 Mamiya tlr bodies and 6 lenses, 6 Minolta bodies and 15 lenses, 3 Zeiss folders, 3 enlargers, and a large pile of tanks, reels, roller, temp control bath, trays, sink, print washer and drier, dry mount press and god knows what else later, it appears I neglected to consider GAS...

 

[cooltouch]

Hehe, me too. My first real DSLR was Canon's entry level model in 2008, the 10.1mp EOS XS. The kit, with 18-55 lens cost more than I'd ever spent on a camera before, and this includes many pro-level cameras like Nikon F3s and F2s, Canon F-1s, etc. I had trouble wrapping my mind around an entry level camera kit that cost over $600 (tax included). To me that was a huge outlay. And of course, I refused to even entertain the idea of paying much more for those digitals approaching pro-level capabilities. But a very interesting unintended consequence of that purchase was my diving headlong back into film photography. Only a few weeks after buying the XS, I discovered that, by means of adapters, a great many manual focus lenses could be used on an EOS. Well, I still owned an F2 outfit with about a half-dozen lenses. So immediately I bought an EOS-Nikon F adapter. And that was when the strange things started happening. I pulled out my trusty old F2, dusted it off, and loaded it with film! First time in years. As I began to reacquaint myself with film photography, I also realized how much I had missed it. So, slowly at first, but then with accelerating rapidity, I began buying film cameras, many of which I'd always wanted but didn't want to have to pay the high price for clean examples. But in 2008 and 2009, even these nice ones were just ridiculously cheap. So within a year's time, I had bought several Nikon film bodies, several more Nikon-mount lenses, and strangely enough, I had bought back into Canon FD, a system I had largely abandoned when I switched over to Nikon in 1989 (I'd always missed my F-1s after the switch). But it didn't stop there. I recalled an extended outing I'd had years ago with a Pentax KX and how much I'd enjoyed using that camera, so of course, I bought a KX and started accumulating K-mount lenses, and later, more K-mount bodies. And I also recalled a couple of Minoltas that I really liked (XD-11 and X-570), so naturally I had to add them to my collection. And along the way I was adding to my Tamron collection, mostly from a practical standpoint so I'd always have a variety of lenses, regardless of the camera brand I was using. My GAS was fueled extensively by the rock-bottom prices I was seeing everywhere. So naturally these crazy cheap prices caused me to jump back into medium format, which I did with something of a vengeance. I now own four excellent medium format folders, a great TLR, and two medium format SLR systems, 6x7 and 6x4.5.

I did finally buy another digital a few years ago -- a clean, used Sony NEX 7 with 18-55 kit lens. It's expansive 24.3 mp opened new horizons for me. But I bought that camera with two main purposes in mind -- 1) I could use any of my manual focus lenses on that camera, especially Canon FD, 2) I could get superior slide and negative duplicates made with that camera with image resolutions of 4000 x 6000 pixels.

So here it is, some nine years later and I look at where things started -- the EOS XS, an Elan IIe I'd bought for the wife with a few lenses, and my old Nikon F2 and about a half dozen lenses for it -- and I now have four shelves of a good sized cabinet stuffed to overflowing with camera gear. Some 40 cameras and at least that many lenses. And I'm still looking for the odd piece that will fill a gap here or there. When will it ever end? Probably about when I've begun to assume room temperature, I suspect.

So, when I ask myself, which is the cheaper way to go, film or digital, and I look back at what happened to me over the last nine years, I'm not so sure anymore that film is cheaper than the initial high outlay one must make to buy a good digital camera. Regardless, though, it sure has been fun!

 

[Pioneer]

The learning curve for a kid to learn how to shoot film would be high. You can't
expect a kid who has never shot film before to be conservative when shooting. Between buying film and processing, it ends up costing more in the long run.

This isn't necessarily true. Old cameras and lenses can be picked up pretty cheap. Minolta cameras are a great example. If you watch the classifieds on various forums you will occasionaly come across good buys on large batches of expired black & white film. Chemicals, development tanks and reels are also inexpensive. If you keep the GAS under control and focus only on exposing and developing film, evaluating the negative on a light table with a loupe (easier for a beginner with medium format film) and printing selected negatives (expired paper can also be had for ridiculously low prices) young people can learn a lot very fast. Heck, I have learned a lot.

My costs are much higher because I have a terrible problem with GAS. I impulse buy lots of things that I realize later I actually don't need, and I really don't use much, if at all. But that doesn't help you learn, it just fills up space. Learning works best with one camera, a large box of film, and time spent evaluating and printing negatives. You don't need a lot of expensive gear for that to happen. Don't take my word for it, schools have been teaching photography this way for decades.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

I started when i was 8 years old with what is now my Minolta X-700.
I in fact regularly stole the camera from my dad and took photos of my toy cars and airplanes, it has P mode so it was not hard to learn that i simply had to turn it on, focus and shoot, my dad always liked to have it loaded with film so in fact i still have some prints of my earliest shots, a lot were blurry and not properly focused but i was 8...

The only time my dad got mad at me is when he had a roll of Kodachrome 25 Professional in it, and guess what when the slides came back about half of them were blurry poorly focused pictures of out Golden retriever and my toys haha, ofcourse being K25 PRO it was significantly more expensive than the Kodak Gold he usually had in it...

 

[macfred]

Here's a completely contrary suggestion. How about giving him a mid-century German 120 folding camera with zone focusing and no meter ...
.

+1
My first camera was a ``mid-century German 120 folding camera´´ with zone focusing (Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/16 with Novar-Anastigmat 75mm f/6.3 lens) - nothing wrong with this to learn photography.
I used the Zeiss Ikon for several years (also with slide film) and I guess I would still use it, if it wasn't stolen.
My -now- fourteen years old daughter started with my Polaroid Land 250 (a quite expensive but interesting way to learn).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, if you use it right. You just can't take 1,000 boring images a day like the digital camera and have it pay off though!

Yes, one needs to use ones brains when shooting film and the same applies to digital. Spraying a camera around is not taking photographs

 

[Sirius Glass]

The learning curve for a kid to learn how to shoot film would be high. You can't
expect a kid who has never shot film before to be conservative when shooting. Between buying film and processing, it ends up costing more in the long run.

I always expected my children to think. Would you expect less of your children? Besides it comes out of their allowance.

 

[pbromaghin]

$50-100 camera and lens, Kentmere 100ft comes out to $2 per roll, $1 to process at home. A kid can do an awful lot of learning with film before reaching the cost of a digital camera.

 

[Chuckwade87]

$50-100 camera and lens, Kentmere 100ft comes out to $2 per roll, $1 to process at home. A kid can do an awful lot of learning with film before reaching the cost of a digital camera.

Did you forgot you have to buy a bulk loader?
(Arista bulk loader new $79.99)

Did you forget the bulk film cassettes?
(Bulk cassettes new 25 pack $27.99)

Did you forget the developing tank?
(New Patterson tank $30.99)

Did you forget the film ?
(Arista EDU 100ft $37.99) (one of my favorites)

Did you forget the chemicals?

Arista 76 developer, 1 gallon $5.99

Arifix 1 gallon $5.99

Stop bath makes aprxs 3 gallons 5.29

Hypo clearing $4.99

Photo Flo $7.39

Total= $29.65

Where do you put all these chemicals?
(1 gallon jugs for chemicals $7.99 x 5= 39.95)

How do you share or view your photos?
(Epson v500 flat bed scanner 129.99)

Want to really go retro?
(Beseler Printmaker 67 enlarger $389. 99)
(No lens or bulb included)

Should I keep going???????? Don't Forget paper, and paper developing chemicals.....


Don't Forget you have to pay the Post Man...
Shipping & Handling minimum of $60

Tell me how cheap shooting film is again?

 

[Chuckwade87]

I always expected my children to think. Would you expect less of your children? Besides it comes out of their allowance.

No, I'd rather they learned how to save money. Film is a niche in the photography world. The future is undeniably digital. I'd rather they cut their teeth on digital, learning the basics. Then jump into film and learn more, and hopefully with as little investment in it as possible, unless of course they really enjoy it. As long as they enjoyed it I'd keep supplying.

 

[removed account4]

Did you forgot you have to buy a bulk loader?
(Arista bulk loader new $79.99)

Did you forget the bulk film cassettes?
(Bulk cassettes new 25 pack $27.99)

Did you forget the developing tank?
(New Patterson tank $30.99)

Did you forget the film ?
(Arista EDU 100ft $37.99) (one of my favorites)

Did you forget the chemicals?

Arista 76 developer, 1 gallon $5.99

Arifix 1 gallon $5.99

Stop bath makes aprxs 3 gallons 5.29

Hypo clearing $4.99

Photo Flo $7.39

Total= $29.65

Where do you put all these chemicals?
(1 gallon jugs for chemicals $7.99 x 5= 39.95)

How do you share or view your photos?
(Epson v500 flat bed scanner 129.99)

Want to really go retro?
(Beseler Printmaker 67 enlarger $389. 99)
(No lens or bulb included)

Should I keep going???????? Don't Forget paper, and paper developing chemicals.....


Don't Forget you have to pay the Post Man...
Shipping & Handling minimum of $60

Tell me how cheap shooting film is again?

i see what you are suggesting but ...
i process my film for a penny a roll ( that's 1¢ )
i get my film short date and it works fine, it doesn't run into
the hundreds of dollars a 100 foot roll, and people sometimes sell
allegedly expired rolls of film and 100 or 50 self roll cassetts for like 20¢ each.
developing tanks and reels people sometimes GIVE AWAY here on photrio
or cost like a drive 10 mins away off of craigs list.
people give away enlargers
trays can be purchased as "faux tupperware" stuff from the dollar store ....
paper well, that might cost a little bit ..
that is all for "35mm or 120 format" ...
its kind of funny but a LF camera or even 120 camera ( or 35mm ) can be loaded with
paper and paper negatives can be made for a fraction of the cost of film.
you can make a LF camera or a pinhole camera or a ULF camera for like
the price of a museum sheet of foam core and some tape ( like 5$ + tape )
a pinhole lens can be made from scratch in IDK 6 mins from a tin can ? or
a "real lens" can be made from a plano convex flint purchased from someplace like
surplus shed or anchor optical for like ummm 1.20+shipping.
you can make your own emulsion for less than it costs to buy paper, its not hard, i did it as a TEENAGER,
or you can buy a bottle of emulsion for cheeps, much less than paper, or paper ... rc they say lasts longer than
FB if processed "correctly" and not framed with glass in front to trap gases in ... im still tryng to figure out
how chemical photography is so expensive ? a cellphone with a nice camera sometimes costs $700... a PS digi came
sometimes costs 200$ that's a lot of paper !

seems the difference between film and digital being " so cheap and the future"
is ... well, often times film made images become a tangible thing
whether it is a negative or print or paper negative or whatever .
a digital camera or cellphone, well that stuff often times, never gets printed it just gets
viewed through a phone or online sharing situation.
i like tangible stuff .. even ephemeral retina or sun prints they exist and are sometimes short lived
but they existed and were made / created ...

and regarding exposure ... at least with film
the little pictogram that explicitly explains SUNNY16
is printed on every box of film or can be easily downloaded off the internet.
the idea that it is so hard to focus or manipulate the ISO (don't even need to if using sunny16)
or figure out that below 60th S might be blurry if you drank too many sugary caffinated "monster" drinks
and the FSTOP dial clicks and once you set it and the daylight hasn't really changed
in 4 hours or 6 hours you just need to point focus and shoot.

all that said, i see where you are coming from .. and it is right sometimes

 

[Chuckwade87]

i see what you are suggesting but ...
i process my film for a penny a roll ( that's 1¢ )
i get my film short date and it works fine, it doesn't run into
the hundreds of dollars a 100 foot roll, and people sometimes sell
allegedly expired rolls of film and 100 or 50 self roll cassetts for like 20¢ each.
developing tanks and reels people sometimes GIVE AWAY here on photrio
or cost like a drive 10 mins away off of craigs list.
people give away enlargers
trays can be purchased as "faux tupperware" stuff from the dollar store ....
paper well, that might cost a little bit ..
that is all for "35mm or 120 format" ...
its kind of funny but a LF camera or even 120 camera ( or 35mm ) can be loaded with
paper and paper negatives can be made for a fraction of the cost of film.
you can make a LF camera or a pinhole camera or a ULF camera for like
the price of a museum sheet of foam core and some tape ( like 5$ + tape )
a pinhole lens can be made from scratch in IDK 6 mins from a tin can ? or
a "real lens" can be made from a plano convex flint purchased from someplace like
surplus shed or anchor optical for like ummm 1.20+shipping.
you can make your own emulsion for less than it costs to buy paper, its not hard, i did it as a TEENAGER,
or you can buy a bottle of emulsion for cheeps, much less than paper, or paper ... rc they say lasts longer than
FB if processed "correctly" and not framed with glass in front to trap gases in ... im still tryng to figure out
how chemical photography is so expensive ? a cellphone with a nice camera sometimes costs $700... a PS digi came
sometimes costs 200$ that's a lot of paper !

seems the difference between film and digital being " so cheap and the future"
is ... well, often times film made images become a tangible thing
whether it is a negative or print or paper negative or whatever .
a digital camera or cellphone, well that stuff often times, never gets printed it just gets
viewed through a phone or online sharing situation.
i like tangible stuff .. even ephemeral retina or sun prints they exist and are sometimes short lived
but they existed and were made / created ...

all that said, i see where you are coming from .. and it is right sometimes

Don't get me wrong I enjoy film, but it's not cheap either. A nikon D3400(entry level) with kit lens (cheapo 18-55) is $359.00. And to suggest its cheaper than digital i don't get.

I wish more people would give me cool photo stuff for free...

 

[removed account4]

Don't get me wrong I enjoy film, but it's not cheap either. A nikon D3400(entry level) with kit lens (cheapo 18-55) is $359.00. And to suggest its cheaper than digital i don't get.

I wish more people would give me cool photo stuff for free...

its not hard to purchase film based stuff for pennies on the dollar
you just need to look ..
yeah it is cheaper than digital sometimes ..
if people who have that ultra cheap $360+shipping camera ( that was $5+change recently )
actually PRINTED their photographs it might be about the same cost .. but they don't bother,
its stuck on the card or in their computer never to be looked at again, mostly because people who
might buy that $360+ shipping, formerly $5+change camera haven't figured out how to edit.
i went to a family thing IDK 5-6 years ago ? used a digi camera and film,
had maybe 3000 exposures and 10 rolls of 120, 10 rolls of 35mm and maybe
a dozen or 3 sheets of film ...
i mailed a CD to the 2 family groups, 2 different CDs each containing *30* images ..
sure $3 and change isn't much, a pinhole camera is nearly free.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, I'd rather they learned how to save money. Film is a niche in the photography world. The future is undeniably digital. I'd rather they cut their teeth on digital, learning the basics. Then jump into film and learn more, and hopefully with as little investment in it as possible, unless of course they really enjoy it. As long as they enjoyed it I'd keep supplying.

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One of my 15 year old twin boys has taken an interest in photography since I resurrected the use of my OM's this past summer. So the other day he suddenly announced that he wants 'a simple SLR' that he can use to learn photography. But truth is, he doesn't want a simple SLR as we know the term: born of the iPhone generation, I had to try to explain that the 'simple SLR' he thinks he needs won't do any thinking for him, and he'd have to set the focus, shutter speed and aperture. "What the heck's an aperture?!". Long talk ensued, as you can imagine. And that's the baseline we're starting at.

After which we've decided what he wants is a program camera that initially will do all the thinking for him (except probably focussing, for the reason given below) and allow him to take control at his own pace while rewarding him with good results that will motivate him to learn.

So I'm looking for ideas. Essential features are:

- Program mode to initially use to gain confidence
- Aperture priority and manual mode for when his ambitions branch out
- Split-image viewfinder to make MF easy (so I think that probably excludes most AF cameras except for a few oddities like the quirky Olympus OM30)
- Genuine manual controls on the lens/body for aperture and shutter speed, not hidden in menus or multipurpose dials and switches. (Again that alienates many AF cameras, so I think it's likely we'll be looking at purely MF cameras).
- Cheap, so $100 / £100 or less for a working example with a lens, on the assumption this will turn out to be a flash in the pan (but if it isn't, no harm done and I've kickstarted a hobby for life for him)

On the radar already is of course the excellent Minolta X700 and the underrated Olympus OM40 / OM-PC.
Pentax / Canon / Nikon must surely have had equivalents? Yet I can't think of them!

All ideas welcomed.

I vote for a Nikon FE; And S modes plus manual; a camera to grow with for this clever boy.

 

[AgX]

Did you forgot you have to buy a bulk loader?
(Arista bulk loader new $79.99)

-) one does not a bulk loader at all for bulk loading
-) if one buys a camera used, one should by the other stuff used too

 

[Chuckwade87]

It is not a photograph unless you can hold a print.

That is a matter of opinion.

 

[cooltouch]

No, I'd rather they learned how to save money. Film is a niche in the photography world. The future is undeniably digital. I'd rather they cut their teeth on digital, learning the basics. Then jump into film and learn more, and hopefully with as little investment in it as possible, unless of course they really enjoy it. As long as they enjoyed it I'd keep supplying.

Seems to me, saving money is still very much on the film side of things. You can buy a decent SLR with a normal lens, like a Pentax K1000 (and a host of others), for less than $50. Budget B&W film from Freestyle is only a couple dollars a roll. Darkroom chemicals, another $20 (e.g. D-76 and Rapid Fixer). Storage containers, a thermometer, and developing tank, maybe another $50 -- less if buying used. So you can be all set with a film and darkroom setup for less than $150. The cheapest, bottom of the line new DSLR is gonna set you back at least three times that amount.

While it's true you can learn the basics of exposure (the inverse relationship between shutter speeds and aperture values, plus the ISO of the media) with digital, to me and to many other "old-school" photographers, the basics means film. Learning how to work with a fixed ISO. Developing your own black and white, and maybe even C-41 and/or E-6 (hey, why not? It isn't difficult). Printing with an enlarger and developing trays. This gives a photographer perspective and a greater appreciation for the history of photography that just can't be as easily had if starting with digital.