[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
SLR advice.
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography

Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 5
File: 12.jpg (2 MB, 3072x2048) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
12.jpg
2 MB, 3072x2048
Hello all.

I like the way film looks in comparison to the way digital photos look. I would like to buy a decent SLR. However, I know nothing about film, cameras, lenses, or brands.

Can you guys help me out please? I don't want to use disposable cameras.

- Removable lenses
- SLR
- Not too expensive
- Good quality
- Reliable
- Things to watch out for, things to know.
- Film, what to know, where to buy.

Okay, thanks for any information you can give me, /p.
>>
>>2762118
I like olympus slr's because theyre small and the lenses are great for nice price. But i recommend just looking for a camera in a thrift store.
>>
>>2762118
> I like the way film looks in comparison to the way digital photos look
Cheaper option: Apply software filter to your digital photo in post.

Film looks without all the expenses.
>>
Old mechanical SLRs aren't differentiated in the way modern cameras are. Pentax, Mamiya, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta and even cheap shit like Chinon and Praktica are all pretty much the same and the 50mm 1.7~2 kit lenses are all great. The electronic ones (aside from a basic meter) are more differentiated but also generally lower quality and more likely to be broken.
>>
go to goodwill and get a canon ae-1 with the 50mm 1.8

I got two of them for 5 bucks each that both work flawlessly
>>
>>2762166
No, it never looka the same
>>
I really think OP is just a troll but I will give my honest answer.
If you like film and you see a great photo of someone that knows what s/he's doing, it is really hard to get there. Think camera, technique, good film stocks, a lot of darkroom magic, masking the shit out of the picture, etc. Then you need a really nice scanner. Post processing and trying to match your negative. You are in for a lot of time, money and studies.

But if you like that piece of shit hipsters do with consumer cameras, developing in a messy way, with scanner artifacts, dust, faded colors and other shit. Just buy any meme film camera with cheap leans from /p/ advice guerrila.
>>
Nikon N80 with 50/1.8d. Should run about $100. All the controls and ergonomics of a modern DSLR with all the grainy goodness of 35mm.
>>
File: image.jpg (611 KB, 2172x1448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
611 KB, 2172x1448
Closest thing to film is the original Fuji X100. Take a look at reviews; they're fantastic.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX100T
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X100T Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:18 14:36:26
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness7.4 EV
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length23.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2172
Image Height1448
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>2762232
Quit your bullshit
>>
>>2763113
I beg to differ. The Ricoh GR - The 'old' ones with the CCD inside - have been praised for years as being THE closest thing to film that digital has to offer. Especially at high ISO and turned into black and white, the CCD GR tends to emulate TMAX film 1:1.
>>
>>2763140
>>2763113

Neither one look anything like film.

CCD nostalgia is the weirdest digital meme.
>>
>>2763113
>>2763140
What film fags don't seem to understand is that digital isn't like film in that you can't just rely on it to emulate the look you want on its own. Any camera with sufficient dynamic range to capture the scene at hand is able to look like film. The only thing stopping it from happening is the lack of effort and understanding by the person driving photoshop. Which is understandable, since you're all used to just splashing some shit on your film and having it look finished for you.
>>
File: 1426621177902.jpg (122 KB, 1278x1181) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1426621177902.jpg
122 KB, 1278x1181
>>2763143
Don't you dare burst my bubble, anon!
>>
>>2763150

>someone posts this meme in every thread

cracks me up every time. i've never seen a convincing digital fake, and i've seen i don't know how many thousands of digital vs film threads in my nine years on this meme cartel.
>>
>>2763157
Because most people shooting digital aren't trying to emulate film, most likely.
>>
File: Yallniggas.jpg (37 KB, 806x806) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Yallniggas.jpg
37 KB, 806x806
>>
>>2763163

No, it's because it can't be done. Film (as well as chemical printing) is a very complex process that reacts in a nearly stochastic manner compared to digital. Kids who grew up with digital's easy math just assume that it's a matter of shifting RGB values up and down, but it's much more than that.
>>
File: Scan_2471.jpg (434 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Scan_2471.jpg
434 KB, 1200x800
>>2763165
Exactly this. There are things digital will never be able to do, and randomness of the grain, nd the handling of highlights are only a few of them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>2763173
>stochastic
Just double the resolution of your digital shot in photoshop, add noise in your favorite way, and resize to original resolution. It'll look shitty in exactly the way that film looks shitty.
>>
>>2762118
For the most part all brands offer the same thing. Nikon, canon, olympus, minolta, pentax, and konica all have high quality fast primes as well as a range of bodies. Cheap: Anything from the 90s because they dont look cool are always incredibly cheap. If you want fewer lcds and more knobs Minolta is also cheap
Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 504319



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at wtabusse@gmail.com with the post's information.