12 Things Not To Do When Buying Your First Film Camera

Regarding film type to start of with and maybe use forever: Buy slide film instead of negative for awhile. It will reveal so much more about the state of your exposure and any problems with your camera mechanics and lens problems if any. And it will teach you far more than negative film because what you shot is what you get. With negatives you rely on labs and printers to correct all of your concerns. Most problems are with exposure, contrast values that can/can't be recorded overall and color balance. Labs correct for a lot of these but slides are what they are and you sink or swim with each exposure. And learn.

Just looking back to when I started in photography, of course back then it was pretty much all BW. Many years later I went through the military school of photography and well remember the instructor telling us, disregard for now what you think you know, we are starting from scratch.

After months of theory of light and sensitometry, we actually touched a camera, 4x5 DeVere monorails and Speed graphics, and again after months of use we graduated to medium format with an assortment of high end cameras.

The final format we used was 35mm, since it was felt that if you knew how to handle the other formats you would be well qualified to use the miniature film. We used hand held exposure meters if needed. Film days were good days but once I switched to digital it has been my preferred format, after 60 years of photography and retired I enjoy the ease and compactness of the new generation of cameras, Well done to those that want the analogue experience, highly recommended.

First thing: Don't assume your new film camera will be used. It probably won't be used, and it definitely shouldn't be used.

Don't buy anything. If you can't find some family member with an old SLR that isn't being used you aren't trying very hard. My daughter wanted to try film and we just pulled out our old Nikon and then my wife's even older Pentax. The Nikon was a newer one with auto everything and the Pentax was all manual with a 50mm F1.4 lens. Then my sister gave her another Nikon, and everyone was volunteering their old cameras. None of them were the cool cameras she imagined but they all worked. She took a few rolls of film, discovered how expensive it was, and went back to her Lumix M43, with an adapter for that 50mm Pentax lens.

That was a fun read and good advice! :)

I'd agree with most of this advice except avoiding an all manual camera. A manual camera was what many people started with because a) there were not that many automatic cameras around and b) they were more expensive. My first SLR camera was a Yashica FR and being all manual isn't the drawback it first seems.

Quite often the light doesn't change that much. That exposure setting you set five minutes ago will still often be valid. I remember the metering was more often used to check what was set was valid rather then constantly used to determine the setting.

You also quickly learn what exposure to set based on the light. In contrast auto exposure cameras of an earlier era can get the exposure wrong due to far less sophisticated metering than today's cameras. Latitude of print film also helps. Dead accurate exposure is not necessary. Not so with slide film of course.

My advice to myself in 1975: Don't buy the Olympus OM-1. Buy the Nikkormat FTn. It will save you starting all over again in 1978.

Good article but you shot past the battery issue too fast. Does the camera even work without batteries? Some of the more electronic ones won't.

Light seals rot out. Oddly I find that a bigger problem on metal bodied cameras.

Here's a fun one: shutters. Leaf shutters can stick at low speeds. Listen to that 1 second speed. You may never use the 1 second setting, but if it's binding the slow speed mechanism needs to be looked at. If it's a focal plane shutter, look for wrinkles in the fabric. The metal shutters can bind, but I haven't seen that much.

I wouldn't discount medium and format so easily. Medium and large format film is a bit easier to hand develop at home. 35mm is best on reels. You can contact print medium and large format negatives and have small, but nice prints.

All cameras wear out eventually and all cameras have inherent design faults.

I could easily draw up a list of issues with cameras made by Nikon, Minolta, Praktica, Chinon, Fujica, Contax, Yashica, Canon, Miranda, Olympus and other film cameras that I've owned over the years.

It's useful to know what the commonest faults are on any camera, when buying secondhand, but the most important thing is to draw up a checklist of potential faults and test the camera prior to purchase.

Among other things, I'd check:

- shutter actuation at all settings
- aperture stopping down correctly
- metering working OK
- film transport and rewind operation
- condition of lens mount
- felt/foam light-sealing
- signs of damage to shutter curtains
- signs of camera or lens having been dropped or knocked.

Good luck with whatever you eventually buy!

I miss the big artwork of records, and the joy of spinning them. But would I go back from CD? No. I fail to see what DP’s sudden obsession with film is all about. Photography is photography.

This is a very good article. I have found the journey fascinating watching the thoughts on film an digital go around in circles. Its not that long ago that all the professional photography magazines were asking: "Should you go digital now or stick with film? Personally I love both. I am a retired wedding photographer and I really enjoyed that transitionary period where I wasn't convinced about digital and shot both formats on a wedding. Then the results assured me I could run with digital. The first few times I did that I still had my film cameras in the back of the car with enough film to shoot the wedding.What a great time to be a photographer.

The ONLY time I recommended buying film over digitial I was BLASTED. This was not on a photographer oriented site, however.
Everybody said 'Digital is easier'. to which I'd agree and add that once you have 500 shots taken on holiday, how are you going to know the good from bad?
Film, I argued, slowed the how thing down and made it more....cognisent, if that's the right word.
I even went so far as to recommend a Prime lens. Normal or 'other', didn't matter to me.

I’m enjoying this film photography content. All the comments about how digital is easier miss the point. Of course it’s easier. I happily ditched my film camera as soon as I bought my first digital - And my old eos100 sat in an old drawer for about 20-years until a few months ago. It never got the use it should have in those days because I couldn’t afford much film and processing.

But now, when I have the wherewithal, there’s something tremendously rewarding about the physical nature of film and the process of taking and developing it - of doing something in the real world rather than the digital - but then I’m a fan of mechanical watches too.

Not sure if it is because pretty much my entire work world exists on a screen that there is a yearning for something real, more tangible. Who knows. I’m enjoying the resurgence of film anyway.

I thought I'd weigh in on the recommendation to start with 35mm. I completely agree with this recommendation. To be more specific, I recommend 35mm SLRs. Most of them have not achieved collector status, so the prices are much more reasonable. If I'm looking for super high resolution, I shoot my D850. When I shoot film, I'm not so worried about ultimate resolution. I've printed 35mm film photos at 13 x 19 inches and gotten excellent results. The tradeoff of size and weight always holds me back on medium format. Perhaps it's the imperfections in the 35mm format that I gravitate toward.

I agree with most everything you wrote, with the exception of not starting with a completely manual film camera. I'm not saying you should absolutely only get a completely manual film camera to start out, but I don't think you should shy away from one. Often times the first camera available to you is one that's been sitting in a closet with someone in your family. It might just be a manual camera. I do believe that an ideal first film camera would include aperture priority metering mode. I'm less a fan of shutter-speed priority. I also believe that an ideal first film camera would make it easy to meter manually strictly looking through the viewfinder. That's a situation where the Canon AE-1 falls down, that and it's shutter-speed priority.

Dont buy a film camera

Hmmm. I'm waiting for Motor Trend magazine to publish "12 Things Not To Do When Buying Your First Horse Drawn Carriage". This is supposedly a website for DIGITAL photography news and interests. Please keep it that way. Personally, I still have my Nikon FM with several lenses that I bought in 1978. It is in perfect condition but I haven't been interested in using it again since I got my first digital camera in 2002.

I laugh when I read the nostalgia for film and vinyl. Growing up with Vinyl, we got accustomed to scratches and pops that would inevitably deteriorate our records. Now the younger crowd is drawn to Vinyl.

Film took beautiful photos. But we took much fewer photos. You sometimes got decent negatives, only to be disappointed by the often inept local photo labs that gave you slightly blurry photos. ISO was limited to 200 to 400 if you wanted photos that were not destroyed by grain. Photos often were bad because the camera settings were off, the lens was bad or the subject moved. We welcomed digital, software enhanced lenses, photoshop, Lightroom. Now we could see our instant results, cameras set ISO automatically, ISO wentto 3200 and beyond. Smartphones cameras became ubiquitous and everyone became a photographer.

Photography has come a long way. But I have to grin when I see nostalgia for vinyl and film. I

Not going back to film but nevertheless enjoyed the article with valid points

Many comments say buy medium format, not 35mm. I do think the advice in the article is correct, however. Begin with 35mm and see where it leads you. Smaller camera, easier to operate, greater variety of lenses and focal lenghts, probably cheaper, etc.

The advice I wish someone had given me when I started developing my own film in the early 80 is “ignore 35mm, it will never match medium format”.

I wasted a lot of time chasing the “best” 35mm results when I could have blown away any Leica with a Yashica 124.

Today’s liquid concentrate developers make black and white film easier than ever. Get a decent scanner for medium format film (v700) and you can have the best of both worlds, digital and analog.

Hehe, my personal take is:
1. shooting film only worth it if I'd also develop myself
2. I'd only buy a late model camera - 1990s to current; too much risk with older cameras and lenses, any number of electronic, mechanical and optical failures; often impossible to find repair facilities today
3. I'd go with 120 film / 6x6 - ideally a Mamiya "New 6" (not 6 MF, not 7) plus the 3 lenses or
4. if I'd really want to learn all about Scheimpflug and take full control of the focal plane a 4x5 field cam - eg. Intrepid 4x5 Mk. IV
5. I'd only shoot the very best films available, primarily B&W, not cheap film and I#d never touch expired film. Enough possibilities for experiments with fresh film stock. 6. instead of scanning I'd digitize my negatives using digital camera + makro lens to get decent raw files, better quality and faster workflow

But I will never ever go back to film chemistry. Will have to wait until cheap 4x5 digital backs for Intrepid field cam become available. :-)

Choose a camera you can get serviced in your country at a reasonable price. Just because everything feels like it works doesnt mean light seals arent perished and shutter speeds are accurate. It could be running over a stop slow and full of dirt and dried lubricants.

I would disagree with the medium format statement. Cameras like Mamiya 6 or 7, especially 6 are small MF RF cameras that are portable and easy to use and shoot.

Results are miles better than what you can get from 35mm camera and usage/ease of use is the same like any other RF 35mm camera.

Would agree that going for MF SLR (Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ/RZ...) is more difficult to start with.

Also scanning larger negatives/slides at home would yield better results than scanning 35mm film.

I did start long time ago with Practica, then Zenit then Leica M6 and then I moved on to Hasselblad (also had digital back for it) but Mamiya 6 was the same fun as smaller format cameras without the drawbacks of MF SLR cameras (better to be used on a tripod)

About TLRs, from the article "They offer limited creative control but can make beautiful photos."
What limited creative control? Most have dials for shutter speed and aperture, that is full creative control. Helmut Newton made may unforgettable photos with his Rolleiflex. Diane Arbus used a Mamiya TLR (if I am not mistaken).
TLRs are actually very cool MF cameras. No mirror slap, no vibrations - better for handheld photos. Silent as well.

I am years long hybrid shooter (film + digit). Reading this article was enjoyable. Remarks very true. Thank you to the author.

Excellent advice with this one addition, avoid cameras like the canon ae1 with expensive, hard to find batteries.

Tom

Anyone contemplating a film camera should consider buying the same brand with their DSLR to take advantage of their current lenses.
As for me, coming from film era my F3HP is ready - batteries loaded, a few rolls of film in the fridge. The F3 is very easy to use, even has a tiny LCD in the view finder, great metering system. Shooting modes include aperture priority and manual - can operate without battery,
Nikkors AI, AIS and AF-D lenses are usable, but newer G lenses are no good.

Just about any 120 format cam will easily outperform a 35MM cam, even an old folder with a good lens.

Some pretty poor advice here on several points.