Recommendation for a film camera for beginning photography student

[Les Berkley]

Trouble is, would the student esteem or care for any camera that were absolutely free?

There are plenty of old film SLRs gathering dust everywhere. A rangefinder Argus "brick" can be found on eBay for under $100. Ned Ludd, the course instructor, may have one bolted inside his cranium, replacing a brain poisoned by darkroom potassium bromide.

Very irrational for any instructor to force students to buy stuff they are very unlikely to use and whose liquidation value may be nil. Too many elective courses exist simply to gratify or employ the instructors.

Really love quiet, logical arguments that attack straw men. I can sell my F4 or F3 for the same price I paid for it, or probably a little more.

Personally, I don't care if the course uses film or digital, as long as it places all of its emphasis on the blurry parts of students' images. THAT'S what really counts. In fact, I will volunteer both of my test cats to the instructor, so long as BOKEH is paramount in his lectures.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Are there any other good candidates that have both low price and good quality?

Two timeless classics:

Nikon Wide Angle 28mm f/2.8 AI

and:

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 H AI

By shopping around they can be had for around $200.- each. Both will perform flawlessly (in "assisted focus" mode) on the current Nikon digital FF bodies.

Arne

 

[Ed B]

And instead of spending time to study dinosaured film developing, the student should learn modern digital processing that he will use in his future.

And the student will, eventually, learn digital processing but won't (and shouldn't) learn it in a basic photography course.

Learning, at the college level, involves much more than starting in the middle. A good entry level course starts at the beginning and gives the student a sound foundation to build on.

Once a student learns the basics then they're ready to go on to more advanced or specialized courses. Kind of like the crawl, walk, run scenario.

If you're paying for an education you might as well get a good one and I'm sure that most of us who've graduated, with a specialization in any field, have taken basic courses we weren't really interested in and looked forward to courses that were more in-depth/advanced.

I may need to reread the OP's original post but I don't think he said anything about film developing. He simply said they needed an older 35mm camera for the course.

I don't see anything wrong with that and it's pretty typical for entry level courses.

 

[qianp2k]

Feel pain, right? No interesting into cartoon competition ;-) Still waiting to see how your real-world '645z' photos to make my A7R photos suddenly look as 'toys' in your word, certainly this one is not convincing at all, lol.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54405972

That shot is great, well done qianp2k, it has a very arty look and reminds me of old processes.

LOL. Maybe it's your 'film' taste, certainly not mine in typical blurry, soft, grainy and mushy photo, yank.

That's what aesthetics are all about, I didn't find it 'typical' certainly not of the oversharpened cookie cutter photos I see on the average digital site.

Here is another astounding work:

Something to be inspired by

Possibly not your taste, certainly not dull and contentless

First of all, those film's grain and noise are not advantages at least. If you really want film look, you can process your digital photos with software like DXO FilmPack anyway that simulates film look pretty well. Modern digital photos are better in every aspect of IQ that can be measured. The film taste is very subjective at least but I will not question your personal taste but only on pure IQ on common standards as we understand today. It's funny that someone (not necessarily you) that seem keep emphasizing in DR, colors and resolution (and at the same time bash Canon lacking of them) but then still prefer film that is not good in DR and resolution as well especially compared at the same format that contradicts each other. Someone is well known speak differently in different posts in different threads in different forums.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Hope1943]

Yes. Op's going to take a course in film photography, That's already been decided as indicated in his original post. Now do any of you have any additional suggestions for him about which film camera he should buy? I believe that was the question posed by the OP.

 

[PerL]

Buy a Nikon f100 it is a great camera with millions of good cheap lenses to choose from. Auto focus and an aid for manual focus.

Could you suggest some good cheap lenses that would work with a Nikon F100? I think that the most obvious one would be the 50mm f/1.8 AF/AF-S (about $100/$200 respectively).

Are there any other good candidates that have both low price and good quality?

I just want to say - its not plastic (maybe the film back is polycarbonate). Its a high end semi pro camera. You can use all modern lenses and Ai/AIS lenses as well. Here it is with the 50 1.8G AF-S.



I have both the F100 and the FE. I use the FE with old AI/AIS lenses for old style film photography with manual lenses (has better MF aid with micro prism/split image screen). The F100 is usually used with my modern AF lenses.

 

[The Incredible Hoke]

Film cameras have a high degree of automation just like digital. The difference is making sure you have the right film ahead of time for speed and white balance.

Claims that the instructor wanted students to use film so they wouldn't use autoexposure are ridiculous, if not just ignorant.

Are the students expected to buy a handheld light meter also?

*Some*film cameras have a high degree of automation. Some don't. My Hasselblad from the late 1990s is fully manual.

And yes, you have to use handheld light meter. That's a very useful tool for a lot of digital work as well.

 

[Aaron801]

I think it is because there are no digital cameras that are manual only. The instructor doesn't want students using autoexposure. The students need to learn shuuer speed, ISO, and aperture, and metering. Using an automatic camera would be like using a graphing calculator in a basic algebra course.

How ridiculous. Most of the film cameras mentioned here have autoexposure and autofocus. I have one manual only camera that I learned on, but it is an Exacta from the 50s. You have to go back a long ways to get a manual only camera. Saying film doesn't make it manual only!

Actually only a few of the cameras mentioned here are autofocus as autofocus with film was rather short lived until digital came along. Lots of the cameras mentioned are only manual exposure as well. Like the Nikon FM, F, The Pentax k100 (and maybe the MX), the Olympus OM-1 and several others.

All manual, manual focus 35mm cameras were actually very typical, whereas digital ones aren't.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Feel pain, right? No interesting into cartoon competition ;-) Still waiting to see how your real-world '645z' photos to make my A7R photos suddenly look as 'toys' in your word, certainly this one is not convincing at all, lol.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54405972

That shot is great, well done qianp2k, it has a very arty look and reminds me of old processes.

LOL. Maybe it's your 'film' taste, certainly not mine in typical blurry, soft, grainy and mushy photo, yank.

That's what aesthetics are all about, I didn't find it 'typical' certainly not of the oversharpened cookie cutter photos I see on the average digital site.

Here is another astounding work:

Something to be inspired by

Possibly not your taste, certainly not dull and contentless

First of all, those film's grain and noise are not advantages at least. If you really want film look, you can process your digital photos with software like DXO FilmPack anyway that simulates film look pretty well.

Or just shoot film, drop it in the lab and get on with your life? I've used faux software for many years DXO is a very poor approx of film.

You obviously didn't read the linked BBC article where the photographer took pictures of silver miners; the images were made from silver these guys mined which the photographer then used to make the film and develop them on site.

You can't get that kind of workflow with a digital

Modern digital photos are better in every aspect of IQ that can be measured.

No doubt, but it's process is disconnected when compared to the story above–the photographer really made the images, rather than picking a DXO preset!

The film taste is very subjective at least but I will not question your personal taste but only on pure IQ on common standards as we understand today.

Image quality? That's very subjective when photography is an art rather than just a set of numbers.

It's funny that someone (not necessarily you) that seem keep emphasizing in DR and resolution but then still prefer film that is not good in DR and resolution as well especially compared at the same format that contradicts each other.

I don't care for your issues with other posters, they are not my concern. Mine is to use whatever medium that suits my pre-visulised idea.

Read the article, take it on board especially his reasons for using wet plate and the magic of the process of creation–you don't get that kind of hands on creativity with DXO presets.

 

[Greg A A]

Film cameras have a high degree of automation just like digital. The difference is making sure you have the right film ahead of time for speed and white balance.

Claims that the instructor wanted students to use film so they wouldn't use autoexposure are ridiculous, if not just ignorant.

Are the students expected to buy a handheld light meter also?

*Some*film cameras have a high degree of automation. Some don't. My Hasselblad from the late 1990s is fully manual.

And yes, you have to use handheld light meter. That's a very useful tool for a lot of digital work as well.

 

[The Incredible Hoke]

Film cameras have a high degree of automation just like digital. The difference is making sure you have the right film ahead of time for speed and white balance.

Claims that the instructor wanted students to use film so they wouldn't use autoexposure are ridiculous, if not just ignorant.

Are the students expected to buy a handheld light meter also?

*Some*film cameras have a high degree of automation. Some don't. My Hasselblad from the late 1990s is fully manual.

And yes, you have to use handheld light meter. That's a very useful tool for a lot of digital work as well.

--
Brooklyn, USA
Random Stuff on Flickr

Glad to be done with the bad old days of handheld light meters. For most of the mirrorless folks who think chimping is too much trouble and demand blinkies in their viewfinder a light meter would be out of the question.

When the camera can quickly evaluate the exposure and you can quickly dial in exposure compensation a handheld lightmeter is way beyond necessary. In special circumstances it may be useful.

Why punish students with unnecessary details of mechanics when the focus should be on understanding composition and aperture affect the image?

Totally understand that some may have limitations in understanding/ability. It's cool. Different strokes for different folks. Others may want a different experience. It's great that we can choose either way - OR even better - both if we so desire.

--
Brooklyn, USA
Random Stuff on Flickr

 

[lukaw]

Why some instructors keep running these ridiculous courses where new students are required to use film cameras is beyond me. It's completely pointless for new students - like requiring highschool students to use an abacus.

I'd suggest finding a different course if at all possible.

The OP's concern about keeping costs down seems rather out of place with using a medium that's liable to cost 25 cent to a buck every time the student presses the shutter release.

Hmm.

You must be buying the expensive film You can get Kodak B&W 36 exposure roll for about $4.75 these days, which is less than $0.15 per exposure. Still more expensive than digital, but not quite $0.25.

I'm not buying any film. Even 15 cents a shot doesn't begin to include processing and getting one small print of each.

And instead of spending time to study dinosaured film developing, the student should learn

You're absolutely right.

modern digital processing that he will use in his future.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Greg A A]

Film cameras have a high degree of automation just like digital. The difference is making sure you have the right film ahead of time for speed and white balance.

Claims that the instructor wanted students to use film so they wouldn't use autoexposure are ridiculous, if not just ignorant.

Are the students expected to buy a handheld light meter also?

*Some*film cameras have a high degree of automation. Some don't. My Hasselblad from the late 1990s is fully manual.

And yes, you have to use handheld light meter. That's a very useful tool for a lot of digital work as well.

--
Brooklyn, USA
Random Stuff on Flickr

Glad to be done with the bad old days of handheld light meters. For most of the mirrorless folks who think chimping is too much trouble and demand blinkies in their viewfinder a light meter would be out of the question.

When the camera can quickly evaluate the exposure and you can quickly dial in exposure compensation a handheld lightmeter is way beyond necessary. In special circumstances it may be useful.

Why punish students with unnecessary details of mechanics when the focus should be on understanding composition and aperture affect the image?

Totally understand that some may have limitations in understanding/ability. It's cool. Different strokes for different folks. Others may want a different experience. It's great that we can choose either way - OR even better - both if we so desire.

For some, insulting responses seem to be the norm when facts run contrary to an opinion.

--
Brooklyn, USA
Random Stuff on Flickr

 

[lukaw]

This thread is about buying a FILM camera. You are the one busting in here and throwing insults around. If you don't like film then fine good for you but I don't think we need you interfering with a legitament thread about buying a Film camera for a school course with your childish attitude.

the tone and reactions of some are not nice............. but if you read the forum header you will understand why reactions can be like that.

the intended use of this forum is stated in the forum header for every one to read.

*Welcome to the Open Talk Forum, the place for threads related to digital photography. Threads unrelated to digital photography are not allowed here.

*

the OP's post should have been made in the Off Topic forum.

civilty towards each other could avoid certain reactions.

just my humble opinion

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

Here's the thing though: I'd say that film photography most certianly IS related to digital photography. There are all kinds of posts on DPR that relate to photography in a generized way and don't refer specificlly to any kind of digital tech. With all of that in mind, it seems that film photography is a valid topic.

I think I'm done here for a bit....between trolls, measurebators and haters....these forums have become a waste.

A parting film shot....

I believe we have a common standard in judging IQ. This photo that many have seen hundred times has nothing to boast of, blurry, grainy, mushy and terrible bokeh. It looks like shoot from a glass wall.

Even though it's a poor quality image, it's definitely ART, since it was captured with film.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Greg A A]

I think it is because there are no digital cameras that are manual only. The instructor doesn't want students using autoexposure. The students need to learn shuuer speed, ISO, and aperture, and metering. Using an automatic camera would be like using a graphing calculator in a basic algebra course.

How ridiculous. Most of the film cameras mentioned here have autoexposure and autofocus. I have one manual only camera that I learned on, but it is an Exacta from the 50s. You have to go back a long ways to get a manual only camera. Saying film doesn't make it manual only!

Actually only a few of the cameras mentioned here are autofocus as autofocus with film was rather short lived until digital came along.

If you consider 13 years short lived then you are correct. The first Nikon AF camera was the N2020 in 1986. The first Nikon DSLR was the D1 in 1999.

Lots of the cameras mentioned are only manual exposure as well. Like the Nikon FM, F, The Pentax k100 (and maybe the MX), the Olympus OM-1 and several others.

Hmm ... the F100, N90s and even an F5 were mentioned.

All manual, manual focus 35mm cameras were actually very typical, whereas digital ones aren't.

You are likely to find a good SLR with autoexposure and are just as likely to find one with autofocus since the AF versions are more recent. Certainly a Nikon FE would be a good choice for just autoexposure.

 

[Greg A A]

This thread is about buying a FILM camera. You are the one busting in here and throwing insults around. If you don't like film then fine good for you but I don't think we need you interfering with a legitament thread about buying a Film camera for a school course with your childish attitude.

the tone and reactions of some are not nice............. but if you read the forum header you will understand why reactions can be like that.

the intended use of this forum is stated in the forum header for every one to read.

*Welcome to the Open Talk Forum, the place for threads related to digital photography. Threads unrelated to digital photography are not allowed here.

*

the OP's post should have been made in the Off Topic forum.

civilty towards each other could avoid certain reactions.

just my humble opinion

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

Here's the thing though: I'd say that film photography most certianly IS related to digital photography. There are all kinds of posts on DPR that relate to photography in a generized way and don't refer specificlly to any kind of digital tech. With all of that in mind, it seems that film photography is a valid topic.

I think I'm done here for a bit....between trolls, measurebators and haters....these forums have become a waste.

A parting film shot....

I believe we have a common standard in judging IQ. This photo that many have seen hundred times has nothing to boast of, blurry, grainy, mushy and terrible bokeh. It looks like shoot from a glass wall.

Even though it's a poor quality image, it's definitely ART, since it was captured with film.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

At least with digital in an instant you can hit the delete button and it was never there. With film you pay for your mistakes up front and then have to shred to get rid of the evidence. Even with the best photographers the keeper rate isn't very high. How many photos are taken to get one into National Geographic?

 

[lukaw]

This thread is about buying a FILM camera. You are the one busting in here and throwing insults around. If you don't like film then fine good for you but I don't think we need you interfering with a legitament thread about buying a Film camera for a school course with your childish attitude.

Forum rules state digital photography topics only in this forum. Just saying.

These are the same trolls, two of them, jump into every thread that mentions the word 'Film'.

They will troll the thread to death.

 

[lukaw]

This thread is about buying a FILM camera. You are the one busting in here and throwing insults around. If you don't like film then fine good for you but I don't think we need you interfering with a legitament thread about buying a Film camera for a school course with your childish attitude.

the tone and reactions of some are not nice............. but if you read the forum header you will understand why reactions can be like that.

the intended use of this forum is stated in the forum header for every one to read.

*Welcome to the Open Talk Forum, the place for threads related to digital photography. Threads unrelated to digital photography are not allowed here.

*

the OP's post should have been made in the Off Topic forum.

civilty towards each other could avoid certain reactions.

just my humble opinion

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

Here's the thing though: I'd say that film photography most certianly IS related to digital photography. There are all kinds of posts on DPR that relate to photography in a generized way and don't refer specificlly to any kind of digital tech. With all of that in mind, it seems that film photography is a valid topic.

I think I'm done here for a bit....between trolls, measurebators and haters....these forums have become a waste.

A parting film shot....

I believe we have a common standard in judging IQ. This photo that many have seen hundred times has nothing to boast of, blurry, grainy, mushy and terrible bokeh. It looks like shoot from a glass wall.

Even though it's a poor quality image, it's definitely ART, since it was captured with film.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

At least with digital in an instant you can hit the delete button and it was never there. With film you have to shred to get rid of the evidence.

This poster must be blind. To put on display such bad image, just proves my point.

 

[Ed B]

And now 645z - I will not hold breath until we see real-world photos with full size and full EXIF. So far I have not seen DL's single photo would need high-resolution and high-DR that he keep bashing Canon lacking of.

DL claimed he has processed hundred and hundred RAW files from virtually all major cameras in the market so he knows all of them well enough, and therefore he claimed 5D/5D2/5D3 files suck and how his Nikon and Fuji files are better. But again no any evidences and no single photo he can post.

I'm not part of this discussion about DL's images so please don't take this the wrong way but there is no way to post EXIF data for a scanned film image.

EXIF data didn't exist (at least not in the way we know it today) with film.

The only EXIF type data possible from a scanned image would be information about when the image was scanned and, possibly, some information about the scanner, but even that is doubtful.

 

[Greg A A]

This thread is about buying a FILM camera. You are the one busting in here and throwing insults around. If you don't like film then fine good for you but I don't think we need you interfering with a legitament thread about buying a Film camera for a school course with your childish attitude.

the tone and reactions of some are not nice............. but if you read the forum header you will understand why reactions can be like that.

the intended use of this forum is stated in the forum header for every one to read.

*Welcome to the Open Talk Forum, the place for threads related to digital photography. Threads unrelated to digital photography are not allowed here.

*

the OP's post should have been made in the Off Topic forum.

civilty towards each other could avoid certain reactions.

just my humble opinion

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

Here's the thing though: I'd say that film photography most certianly IS related to digital photography. There are all kinds of posts on DPR that relate to photography in a generized way and don't refer specificlly to any kind of digital tech. With all of that in mind, it seems that film photography is a valid topic.

I think I'm done here for a bit....between trolls, measurebators and haters....these forums have become a waste.

A parting film shot....

I believe we have a common standard in judging IQ. This photo that many have seen hundred times has nothing to boast of, blurry, grainy, mushy and terrible bokeh. It looks like shoot from a glass wall.

Even though it's a poor quality image, it's definitely ART, since it was captured with film.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

At least with digital in an instant you can hit the delete button and it was never there. With film you have to shred to get rid of the evidence.

This poster must be blind. To put on display such bad image, just proves my point.

Agree. It seems that film flaws are art. Dust is beautiful. Water spots on B/W prints prove even more that it's a quality print done by hand. On the other hand, a minuscule dust spot on digital irritates the heck out of many, even though it can be corrected quickly in post processing.