What is the best analog camera?

[Ces1um]

Funny, I would recommend the opposite: manual exposure and manual focus. Internal meter is helpful. I think you need to learn the basics first. Once learned, you can turn some aspects over to automatic, knowing why.

I could not agree more!

Without learning the basics (and they are very very easy to learn) you won't understand why your automatic camera isn't taking pictures properly in certain circumstances. I actually find using my k1000 easier to use than my wife's digital camera. Too many menus, memorizing which button does what and how that changes when you press a second button in conjunction with it. meh.

 

[Nick Merritt]

I just read through this thread and it seems to have gone off the rails somewhat. I think he had a $200 Australian limit, and wanted a camera that was manual (with auto exposure an option). Several have suggested the Nikon FM series, and that was what came to my mind as well. Can work without a battery, but the batteries are readily available anyway (unlike some of the cameras suggested). Very rugged and excellent ergonomics, and of course access to Nikon lenses is a big plus. I don't know the market in Oz but I'd like to think he can get one of these, maybe the FM, for around that with a 50/2 or 50/1.8.

Note that the FM-10 is not included in this recommendation -- a different design, and a decent camera, but made by Cosina and not in the league of the others.

 

[Luckless]

I find it very hard to suggest the use of a film camera in this day and age as a tool to learn exposure settings properties on. In an era with cameras supporting live view that have ready access to manual control over their exposure triangle settings and cheap f/2.0+ glass, then I feel like spending film and fiddling with notebooks while still trying to learn something as fundamental as exposure and basics of depth of field is misguided. We have better tools to learn such things with, and that general knowledge carries over very well to using film once you have the basics under your belt. It also helps avoid major pitfalls of disappointment that can drag down someone's level of interest in the field.

 

[Leigh B]

I find it very hard to suggest the use of a film camera in this day and age as a tool to learn exposure settings properties on. In an era with cameras supporting live view that have ready access to manual control over their exposure triangle settings and cheap f/2.0+ glass, then I feel like spending film and fiddling with notebooks while still trying to learn something as fundamental as exposure and basics of depth of field is misguided.

Youre on the wrong board. You belong on DPUG.

This is APUG. The entire site is about film photography.

Get with the program or move on.

Many million photographers learned their craft using film, including me, before digicrap was invented.

- Leigh

 

[Luckless]

Youre on the wrong board. You belong on DPUG.

This is APUG. The entire site is about film photography.

Get with the program or move on.

- Leigh

Or get with reality and accept that film is a poorly suited tool for initially learning and exploring some things in the realm of photography, and that the usage of other pieces of equipment will allow one to learn more, faster, and in greater detail, before someone gets frustrated with ruined film and shelves their 'crapy old piece of junk camera that can't take a good photo'?

Shockingly film and digital cameras can be used side by side, and in fact do NOT cause thermal nuclear explosions or anything if placed in the same gear bag, or owned by the same person.

 

[tedr1]

I have thought about this dilemma many times. I learned on film cameras. I found the transition to digital cameras easy because they use the same principals of aperture shutter speed framing and focus with the added benefits of adjustable ISO and instant results. Now that we have instant results on the display of the digital camera I think the use of film cameras to teach students the basics of camera craft is a kind of torture, but, it works, the film cameras have a focus ring an aperture ring a shutter speed dial and a depth of field preview knob and that's what is needed to learn camera craft. After this has been mastered each can chose to work in the medium of their preference, both are valid, but unless the basics are mastered the photographer is ignorant of the craft.

I wish there was a different choice for photography students, that would be a digital camera having no zoom lens and only manual controls for ISO aperture focus and shutter, that would be the best of both worlds for learning, allowing creative control and instant feedback. They probably exist, but also probably are outside the budget of schools and colleges and may be too delicate for the rough handling students give.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I find it very hard to suggest the use of a film camera in this day and age as a tool to learn exposure settings properties on. In an era with cameras supporting live view that have ready access to manual control over their exposure triangle settings and cheap f/2.0+ glass, then I feel like spending film and fiddling with notebooks while still trying to learn something as fundamental as exposure and basics of depth of field is misguided. We have better tools to learn such things with, and that general knowledge carries over very well to using film once you have the basics under your belt. It also helps avoid major pitfalls of disappointment that can drag down someone's level of interest in the field.

So miss guided. Grasshopper you have much to learn. Starting with you are on the wrong website.

 

[summicron1]

Or get with reality and accept that film is a poorly suited tool for initially learning and exploring some things in the realm of photography, and that the usage of other pieces of equipment will allow one to learn more, faster, and in greater detail, before someone gets frustrated with ruined film and shelves their 'crapy old piece of junk camera that can't take a good photo'?

Shockingly film and digital cameras can be used side by side, and in fact do NOT cause thermal nuclear explosions or anything if placed in the same gear bag, or owned by the same person.

film cameras poorly suited? Depends on what part of photography you are trying to learn. If you need to learn composition, or selecting color, or basic exposure then, sure, the instant feedback of a non-film electronic camera will be useful.

If you are trying to learn the nicer points of exposure, of tonal range, of light and dark and balance and why are my shadows so dim, then film is your place to be because trying to manage exposure with a non-film electronic camera, mostly, involves figuring out how to override their controls, which gets in the way of doing what you want.

Really, this is not a mac vs pc thing. there is no right or wrong. learn how you want to learn.

 

[summicron1]

I just read through this thread and it seems to have gone off the rails somewhat. I think he had a $200 Australian limit, and wanted a camera that was manual (with auto exposure an option). Several have suggested the Nikon FM series, and that was what came to my mind as well. Can work without a battery, but the batteries are readily available anyway (unlike some of the cameras suggested). Very rugged and excellent ergonomics, and of course access to Nikon lenses is a big plus. I don't know the market in Oz but I'd like to think he can get one of these, maybe the FM, for around that with a 50/2 or 50/1.8.

Note that the FM-10 is not included in this recommendation -- a different design, and a decent camera, but made by Cosina and not in the league of the others.

Or an FE -- also great basic, can use earlier lenses that are non-AI. I just found one at the thrift store for $15 someone thought was broken.

 

[fstop]

Or get with reality and accept that film is a poorly suited tool for initially learning and exploring some things in the realm of photography, and that the usage of other pieces of equipment will allow one to learn more, faster, and in greater detail, before someone gets frustrated with ruined film and shelves their 'crapy old piece of junk camera that can't take a good photo'?

Shockingly film and digital cameras can be used side by side, and in fact do NOT cause thermal nuclear explosions or anything if placed in the same gear bag, or owned by the same person.

HAHAHAHAHHA! I agree.
I cringe when someone suggests apertures are merely used for exposure. Depth of field is part of composition. The shutter controls exposure after you obtain exposure values after adjusting aperture for your desired depth of field. This is where electronically controlled stepless shutters really come into being.
A simple exposure is 2 dimensional, you can enhance it with depth of field control to give it the effect of being 3 dimensional.

 

[Luckless]

film cameras poorly suited? Depends on what part of photography you are trying to learn. If you need to learn composition, or selecting color, or basic exposure then, sure, the instant feedback of a non-film electronic camera will be useful.

If you are trying to learn the nicer points of exposure, of tonal range, of light and dark and balance and why are my shadows so dim, then film is your place to be because trying to manage exposure with a non-film electronic camera, mostly, involves figuring out how to override their controls, which gets in the way of doing what you want.

Really, this is not a mac vs pc thing. there is no right or wrong. learn how you want to learn.

That was kind of my point. A film camera is a terrible tool to try and learn the basics on and see what is actually happening. I should know, I started out with borrowing film cameras growing up. It was an annoying and frustrating experience given that I didn't have anyone on hand to teach me while trying to learn out of simple manuals.

Learning the basics of all the mechanics on a camera that lets me take a photo, see the results, adjust things, see the results, and continue working away at various points and concepts with zero thoughts or cares given to the number of exposures taken? I learned so much more about photography in the first week of holding a modern dslr than I ever did when trying to use my father's old film camera.

That in turn has translated into such a smoother process and better visualization of what I'm doing with film. Since getting back into working with film the only bad exposures I have gotten have been:
- Taking a shot and then realizing I had bumped my settings. (no ttl meter in my c330)
- Shutter mechanical issues.
- I once let a sync cord work lose while working with flash and didn't notice initially.
I have never once developed a roll and then had to wonder: "Why is that out of focus." "Why isn't that so over exposed?" "Why is that so dark?" - I was very well aware of why the images with technical faults were that way, because most of them were due to me pushing the boundary of my exposure envelope. (Such as pushing things to see just how low of a shutter speed i could actually reliably handhold with a heavy TLR - answer: At least a stop or two lower than I would have with a non-IS lens on my SLR.)

Learning the initial basics on a digital camera with instant feedback as to what impact your decisions had means that you can move on to more advanced topics of expression when you pick up a film camera, and are far less likely to hit frustrating or confusing problems with regards to basic concepts.

But to bring things more back inline with the direct topic of the thread: The issues of how good a film camera body is to learn exposure is probably a moot point for the most part. Learn exposure, and then learn to use the metering systems you choose to work with, whether those are in camera/through the lens, automated systems, or external metering of whatever kind you prefer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most of us will disagree. One camera, one lens, one film, one developer, one stop bath, one fixer, a good book and a friend. One step at a time. The C330 may be too much camera to start from. Find a simpler camera in the beginning.

 

[Ces1um]

That was kind of my point. A film camera is a terrible tool to try and learn the basics on and see what is actually happening. I should know, I started out with borrowing film cameras growing up. It was an annoying and frustrating experience given that I didn't have anyone on hand to teach me while trying to learn out of simple manuals.

.

well, just as a point of fact, the original and direct topic of the thread was that they wanted to buy a film camera. They specified they wanted a fully mechanical film camera. They didn't actually state they didn't know anything about cameras and photography. They could be an absolute photography genius able to teach a masters class but wanted a film camera simply because they wanted to try out film. I've copied and pasted the introduction below. I think we all definitely got off topic. It's funny how these threaded conversations tend to degrade as time goes on and the thread gets longer. I think it's an indicator of how passionate we are about the topic though, so it's not necessarily a bad thing.

as to what camera? Well, this person already has a pentax camera with a broken shutter. That means they should already have one usable lens and it's very likely a pentax ka-mount. It would work with the k1000 so this person only needs to spend money on a camera body, thereby saving $$$ which given their budget is advisable and the balance can be put towards film and processing. The k1000 is fully mechanical as they stipulated was a requirement. To me, this seems like a no brainer.

Original introduction and thread topic:
Hi
I would really like to get into film photography and am wondering what is the best camera to buy? A friend gifted me their Pentax p30 but it didn't survive the journey in the post. It had an electric shutter which the camera repair man explained often cause problems. So I would like to buy a fully mechanical operating one.
Ideally I wouldn't like to spend more than $200 Australian dollars.
Your thoughts are much appreciated!

 

[Leigh B]

A film camera is a terrible tool to try and learn the basics on and see what is actually happening.

Your opinion is just that... your opinion. Quite probably of interest to nobody other than your image in the mirror.

Fortunately, a whole army of classic photographers, who produced libraries full of excellent images, would disagree.

The students that I taught had no problem grasping and applying the basic concepts of exposure control.

- Leigh

 

[Chan Tran]

I find it very hard to suggest the use of a film camera in this day and age as a tool to learn exposure settings properties on. In an era with cameras supporting live view that have ready access to manual control over their exposure triangle settings and cheap f/2.0+ glass, then I feel like spending film and fiddling with notebooks while still trying to learn something as fundamental as exposure and basics of depth of field is misguided. We have better tools to learn such things with, and that general knowledge carries over very well to using film once you have the basics under your belt. It also helps avoid major pitfalls of disappointment that can drag down someone's level of interest in the field.

You're certainly on the wrong board. You're talking the "Triangle" you must be on the dark side. By the way do you know that the "Exposure Triangle" is now the "Photographic Triangle"?

 

[Ces1um]

By the way do you know that the "Exposure Triangle" is now the "Photographic Triangle"?

Just as I was getting the jargon down they had to go and change it all.... Any other changes I should know about?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just as I was getting the jargon down they had to go and change it all.... Any other changes I should know about?

Depends should be checked often and changed as soon as necessary.

 

[fstop]

Well the Beatles broke up.Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.

 

[Ces1um]

Depends should be checked often and changed as soon as necessary.

well sir, I get 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it! -grandpa simpson

 

[mooseontheloose]

To the OP: I started with a film camera back in 2001 - I first bought some automatic Canon SLR, but I quickly exchanged it for something completely manual as I wanted to learn the ins and outs of photography without automation. I ended up with a Nikon FE, and I still shoot that same camera today. Even though I've tried other cameras in the Nikon line, it remains my favourite. It's simple to use, can take every Nikon lens, has mirror lock-up on the self-timer (few cameras have this option), has a great meter, and is solid as a brick. And it's cheap. You could get a used FE and a 50mm lens together for less than $200 and that would get you started very nicely.

In reference to the conversation above, when I started learning, I had to learn by myself. I was living in Japan and did not have a computer at home or work, so I taught myself from books I bought from Amazon. Luckily, there's a lot more information on the internet now that there was then. I also shot with slide film - I didn't want any developing or printing variables to get in the way, and it was easy enough to look at a slide to figure out what worked and what didn't. Of course, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this route now, as slide film and development is probably hard to come by/expensive, depending on where you are. Usually I got things right, but when I didn't, I really had to think back and reflect on what I did and didn't do wrong. I understand that for some people, doing that in the moment can be quite useful, but I actually learned a lot this way because I had to internalise the insights I gained, rather than just rely on what the camera was telling me in the moment. That said, every one is different. Good luck with your camera search.

 

[Chan Tran]

Just as I was getting the jargon down they had to go and change it all.... Any other changes I should know about?

Yup! According to the 4th edition of the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson (which I believe is the one who invented the term) has changed the "Exposure Triangle" to "Photographic Triangle". I think because of so much criticism about it because exposure doesn't resemble a triangle.

 

[Ces1um]

Yup! According to the 4th edition of the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson (which I believe is the one who invented the term) has changed the "Exposure Triangle" to "Photographic Triangle". I think because of so much criticism about it because exposure doesn't resemble a triangle.

Will everyone think less of me if I continue to use exposure triangle? I have three kids and my ability to retain any new knowledge is extremely limited these days. If I remember this I'll probably have to forget my children's names or how to find my way home just to make room. LOL

 

[Leigh B]

Will everyone think less of me if I continue to use exposure triangle?

Yes, definitely.

You will be permanently banned and ostracized. Tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

That's terrible, because virtual feathers really mess with your nose.

- Leigh

 

[Chan Tran]

Will everyone think less of me if I continue to use exposure triangle? I have three kids and my ability to retain any new knowledge is extremely limited these days. If I remember this I'll probably have to forget my children's names or how to find my way home just to make room. LOL

Yes! When someone uses such a term it means that person doesn't understand exposure well.

 

[MattKing]

Digital cameras are a lousy tool for learning, if what you are trying to learn is how to expose for prints.
They aren't bad if you are learning to expose for the web.