Student Seeking Suggestions/Advice From Advanced Photographer (35mm)

panastasia · Aug 23, 2007

ashlinimartini said:
My name is Ashley and I am a beginner with the art of photography in the most literal way. I am about to start introductory classes for digital and 35mm photography next week and hope to become a polished photographer in the future. At this point I really don't have the knowledge it takes to compare different 35mm cameras and purchase one that's best suited for my needs and level of experience. I have been browsing online now for several hours and I am getting pretty overwhelmed with all of it. I would be in a tremendous amount of debt to anyone with some experience that has some good recommendations on where to steer myself in the purchase of equipment. My goal is to end up with a 35mm camera that is reliable, has any features I will need for learning in a classroom environment, is not necessarily "top of the line" but is somewhat close and any additional things that I will be able to use throughout my career to enhance the quality of my work. I look forward to hearing what experienced artists think! Without the power of suggestion I don't think I will be able to make a choice! Thank you so much for your time, I greatly appreciate you.

For a 35mm camera, look for features such as:

- all mechanical (battery to run exposure meter only)
- depth-of-field preview (not stop-down-metering)
- mirror lock-up
- multiple exposure capability

The Minolta 102 comes to mind.

Regards, Paul

David H. Bebbington · Aug 23, 2007

Gary Holliday said:
Excellent quality and value for money, can be manual or automatic as you wish. Manual focus cameras are fine for landscape photography, but useless for almost every other application.

How did photographers manage from 1839 until the mid-1980s? How on earth do people manage to produce pictures with the millions of manual focus cameras still in use? I would think a camera with dumb single-point autofocus is the last thing a student needs!

Steve Roberts · Aug 23, 2007

For my money, the Pentax KX is both a great camera and great value for money, particularly as most beginners head straight for the K1000, not appreciating that the KX has all the facilities of the 1000 plus depth of field preview (vital IMHO), mirror lock-up (not vital, but nice to have occasionally) and it uses "silicon blue" cells rather than cadmium sulphide. The silicon cells are not so inclined to have a "memory" when changing between extremes of lighting and are more likely to be in good shape thirty years after they stopped making the KX. The KX also has aperture and shutter speed info in the viewfinder, which the K1000 doesn't.
And yes, I've got a KX - two actually. One I've had for a bit over 21 years and the other for a mere 19. They have different focussing screens, my preference being for the split image centre as I seem to end up doing a lot of my photography in poor light (or perhaps it's my poor eyes!)
Have fun with whatever you choose and please let us know what you go for.

Best wishes,

Steve

Ump107 · Aug 23, 2007

Whatever camera you choose you may wish to make sure a remote release can be used with it. Not all cameras will allow it. My Rebel K2 cannot use a remote release because it is not the date model. You may not need a remote release right now but you may someday.

Good luck in your endeavor.

Gary Holliday · Aug 23, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
How did photographers manage from 1839 until the mid-1980s? How on earth do people manage to produce pictures with the millions of manual focus cameras still in use? I would think a camera with dumb single-point autofocus is the last thing a student needs!

The guys in 1839 didn't take too many photographs of moving objects and the photographers in the mid 80s promptly dumped their cameras for auto focus systems.

Of course a student needs to learn how to focus using an auto-focus sytem! There is a technique in accurate focusing even with single/ multi point focus sytems.

An auto focus camera is clearly more versatile and will give him a greater number of successful images. Move with the times.

panastasia · Aug 23, 2007

Gary Holliday said:
The guys in 1839 didn't take too many photographs of moving objects and the photographers in the mid 80s promptly dumped their cameras for auto focus systems.

Of course a student needs to learn how to focus using an auto-focus sytem! There is a technique in accurate focusing even with single/ multi point focus sytems.

An auto focus camera is clearly more versatile and will give him a greater number of successful images. Move with the times.

A person who preferrers total control of image management or composition would have auto focus turned off. Auto focus is not always reliable depending on the circumstances, most notably, low light situations.

Gary Holliday · Aug 23, 2007

Not wanting to get into an argument, but an auto-focus system has absolutely nothing to do with composition, nor whatever image management is??

If you are photographing a grey sea with a grey sky, yes turn it off, but at least he has the option.

DBP · Aug 23, 2007

I see a lot of bad macro photography taken with autofocus, where depth of field has not bee considered. Learn to do the basics - compose, focus, set aperture, and set shutter, then you can start letting a computer do it for you. Besides, manual focus cameras and lenses are cheap, with a few minor exceptions.

filmamigo · Aug 23, 2007

I recommend either:

Pentax ZX-M (also known as the MZ-M) for manual focus, or
Pentax ZX-5 (also known as the ZX-5) for auto focus.

They are essentially the same camera, one simply comes with auto focus, and one doesn't.

The advantages of these cameras for learning are that they have very obvious controls. When you are learning about aperture and shutter speed, it helps to have those controls in front of you. Many modern cameras hide aperture and shutter speed behind a multi-function control wheel that abstracts the concept.

The light meter on these cameras is very easy to understand, with digital readout and large bar graph in the viewfinder.

Being almost-new cameras, they use readily available batteries, and will have accurate meters. (That's not always the case with 30 year old cameras.)

Plus, any lens you buy for these cameras will go nicely on any Pentax digital SLR you might buy. There are some great deals on Pentax DSLRs (new and used) and you really can't go wrong with any of them.

panastasia · Aug 23, 2007

Gary Holliday said:
Not wanting to get into an argument, but an auto-focus system has absolutely nothing to do with composition, nor whatever image management is??

If you are photographing a grey sea with a grey sky, yes turn it off, but at least he has the option.

No need to argue.

My experience with auto-focus systems made me realize that they don't always get the keeper - many times they do, but there are those shots that could have been focused better, manually.

Some of the older systems would try to focus on more than one spot simultaneously and continue to focus in and out slightly until the camera position is changed. I turn it off for those important, must have, shots. Most all.

It's good for moving subjects, though, such as sporting events.

Gary Holliday · Aug 23, 2007

I started off with a Pentax K1000 and yes it was great for learning aperture/ shutter speeds and the light meter, but I quickliy grew out of that camera and was frustrated and not being able to photograph certain subjects.

Concert/ gig photography became almost impossible with people moving around so quickly and sports photography was out of the question.

So for all-round photography an auto-focus camera which of course can have all it's auto feaures turned off, (for macro work, landscapes and anything else mentioned above) will benefit all his photographic possibilities.

Black Dog · Aug 23, 2007

I did briefly wonder about getting an AF camera-I asked myself how many times would I have actually needed the AF? How often would it have been really essential?....and after thinking some more concluded not many (I mainly do landscapes, portraits and still life).I still can't say I miss it but I'm sure it has its uses (anyway LF AF systems are a bit scarce)....

film_guy · Aug 23, 2007

Manual focus has its benefits, and auto focus has its benefits too. I don't see why one cannot exist without the other. If you're doing landscapes or still life only, then I would recommend using manual focus. But if you are doing concerts, news, sports or any other types of photography with a lot of movement my suggestion is to go with auto focus.

Why not get a camera which has the best of both worlds? Some pro or semi-professional SLR (Canon's EOS 3 or the higher-end 1V) have an option where you can switch the viewfinder screen so you can do manual focus better. And if you want to shoot in manual settings? Set the camera in Manual mode, and learn to use the spot meter.

You want to shoot using manual focusing only? Set the lenses to manual focus and don't use the auto focus at all. You want all auto focus only? Well, use the auto focus. What's so hard about that?

David H. Bebbington · Aug 24, 2007

No offense to anyone who loves autofocus, but it is my experience that "dumb" autofocus (only one focus spot, no means of limiting lens focus movement) is more trouble than it is worth and will spend most of its time turned off. There are so many situations, such as studio still lives, portraits where the focus spot is not on the subject's near eye, macro work, and situations where max. DOF is required, meaning that you focus 1/3 in but actually on nothing, where autofocus is totally useless. Even sports can be problematic - point the focus spot at something it can't lock on (like a panel on a race car) and the lens will "trombone" merrily until your subject is long gone. Don't forget the Novoflex follow-focus system, a manual concept which could give autofocus a good run for its money!

As for concert work, unless performers are running around VERY fast, the main problem is going to be changing light levels - if your star is suddenly bathed in a deep red spot, your autofocus will more than likely quit. Still, a lot of autofocus cameras have been sold, so somebody must like them!

Regards,

David

johnnywalker · Aug 24, 2007

I'd recommend either an FM10, which is Nikon's entry level camera. They are made by Cosina, not Nikon, but under license. They are relatively inexpensive and take most of the Nikon glass. I had one for years, used it in many foreign countries in difficult climates and never had a problem. My son still uses it. The other end of the manual scale is the Nikon FM3a, which has aperature priority shooting. This can be very hand in some situations. The FM3A is quite pricey however.
I second the recommendation of going to a reputable dealer (like KEH) if you end up getting a used camera, as opposed to ebay for your first used camera purchase.
Good luck with it, whatever you decide to buy.

Jim Jones · Aug 24, 2007

The FM10, like the much earlier Nikkorex, certainly does not have the construction quality of a real Nikon. My experience with both was unpleasant, and I used neither very long.

laverdure · Aug 24, 2007

"Manual focus cameras are fine for landscape photography, but useless for almost every other application."

Oh, Sweet Lord! If only I'd known!

DBP · Aug 24, 2007

While I will agree that the FM10 is not as tough as a Nikkormat, for example, I get good use out of my pair (long story) as travel cameras because they are small and light, and have every feature I usually need. When travel weight is not an issue I carry an FE2 or an FG, or occasionally a Nikkormat (when I need mirror lock-up).

Richard Kelham · Aug 24, 2007

I use a Nikon FE10 as my go-anywhere knockabout camera. No, it's not as tough as an FE2 (or my F3) but it is light and cheap...and the glass is the same (it comes with a terrible 35-70 zoom that is fit only for the rubbish bin, so use proper lenses).

As for autofocus (I have an F90X) it seems to be more trouble than it's worth most of the time....

Richard

DBP · Aug 26, 2007

Did we overwhelm the original poster?

mabman · Aug 27, 2007

My suggestion would be to get a K-mount camera (any of those already mentioned will do) and get an adapter for M42 (a.k.a "Universal Screw Mount") lenses.

I say this because there are a lot of good-to-great M42 lenses out there going for peanuts, including the standard line of (Super) Takumars, and some of the Soviet/Russian lenses (which are entirely manual). I'm particularly partial to the 85mm Jupiter-9 for portraits, and the Volna-9 50mm macro has come in handy a few times.

A lot of older K-mount lenses are also going cheaply, so with this arrangement and a US$15 adapter (or US$30 if you want a genuine Pentax-branded one and want to wait a couple of months), you can have the best of both worlds. And, I believe Pentax's digital SLRs are also K-mount, so you can reuse the adapter on that as well.

I'm currently using an M42-to-K-mount adapter on a Pentax ME Super with great success (although this particular camera has aperture priority as well as a manual mode, so I don't think it quite meets the specs if the prof wants an all-manual model. It is, however, surprisingly small and light.).

gospeldj · Aug 30, 2007

One suggestion I haven't seen yet: a Minolta SRT 101. Very durable, reliable, and user friendly. It has mirror lockup, manual focus, through the lens metering, and is a great camera to learn with. (plus there's a vast selection of lenses that will fit)

I still use it (and an SRT 201) and really enjoy it.

Mike

Richard Kelham · Aug 30, 2007

gospeldj said:
One suggestion I haven't seen yet: a Minolta SRT 101. Very durable, reliable, and user friendly. It has mirror lockup, manual focus, through the lens metering, and is a great camera to learn with.

One possible reason its not been suggested is because it is old and therefore likely to be unreliable, and difficult/impossible to repair. Errr, that's two reasons.

wheelygirl · Aug 31, 2007

One suggestion I haven't seen yet: a Minolta SRT 101. Very durable, reliable, and user friendly. It has mirror lockup, manual focus, through the lens metering, and is a great camera to learn with. (plus there's a vast selection of lenses that will fit)

I still use it (and an SRT 201) and really enjoy it.

Thank you, Mike for suggest my all-time favorite camera--Minolta SRT101!!

To Ashley: I, too, am starting a course in Photography level one---2 points for you to consider:
1) here on APUG you will find a whole lot of delightful folks who want to help us newbies with film photography;
2) always ask your instructor her/his recommendation for entry-level cameras--if he/she is worth their "salt" as a photographic teacher, he/she will recall their own days as a newbie!!

And about that comment of the SRT 101 as being old, and unreliable--ha!!
I genuinely don't how people may have owned my "minnie" before I got her, but she operates in the most pristine manner!!

Bandicoot · Sep 2, 2007

filmamigo said:
I recommend either:

Pentax ZX-M (also known as the MZ-M) for manual focus, or
Pentax ZX-5 (also known as the ZX-5) for auto focus.

MZ-5n is what you meant to type (this is the sort of mistake I make all the time.)

Another one to keep a weather eye out for is the MZ-3. This is more or less identical to the MZ-5n except it has a better shutter: slightly faster X-Synch. speed and, more importantly, a much longer rated life. They are not common, but you might find a bargain because not that many people have heard of them. (I have one as the backup/lightweight alternative to my MZ-S and like it a lot.)

Gary Holliday said:
I started off with a Pentax K1000 and yes it was great for learning aperture/ shutter speeds and the light meter, but I quickliy grew out of that camera and was frustrated and not being able to photograph certain subjects.

Concert/ gig photography became almost impossible with people moving around so quickly and sports photography was out of the question.

There are things for which AF is useful, but I have never felt it was a necessity for concert work. I've used LX and MX bodies, rangefinders (both 35mm and Medium Format), and a Ricoh GR1v with no problems for everything from heavy metal to The Wurzles via mediaeval, dance and African drumming - only the little GR is AF.

Sports isn't ruled out by manual focus either - look at all the great sports pictures from the 'pre-AF' era. It just needs some forethought to anticipate the action, which is not that hard with most sports - motor-racing being an example where it is especially easy, cricket, rugby and football only a bit harder, tennis and fencing more challenging. (But even then there are the obvious 'set-piece' shots, like the tennis serve.)

AF has its uses certainly - last week I was photographing a falconer with a peregrine, a bird that makes a Formula 1 car look like a tortoise - but few are the pictures for which it is really an essential. Even for the falcon I probably only needed AF for two out of the dozen or so different compositions I shot, the others being about working out where the peak action would happen and being prepared for it.

By all means learn to use AF as a student. But don't learn to depend on it, and certainly don't let anyone tell you that there are more than a very few subjects that you really can't tackle without it.

Peter

Student Seeking Suggestions/Advice From Advanced Photographer (35mm)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency