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.
Youre on the wrong board. You belong on DPUG.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.
- Leigh
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
.
Your opinion is just that... your opinion. Quite probably of interest to nobody other than your image in the mirror.A film camera is a terrible tool to try and learn the basics on and see what is actually happening.
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.
Just as I was getting the jargon down they had to go and change it all.... Any other changes I should know about?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?
well sir, I get 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it! -grandpa simpsonDepends should be checked often and changed as soon as necessary.
Just as I was getting the jargon down they had to go and change it all.... Any other changes I should know about?
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. LOLYup! 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.
Yes, definitely.Will everyone think less of me if I continue to use exposure 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?