Starter 35mm SLRs

90s rigid MTB with slicks

>>1042378
Nikon F100

Minolta X700. Perhaps you can shoot some sick vintage bikes with it.

>>1042379
I kek'd like a madman.

>>1042378
Get something with common lens mount.
Anything that accepts m42 or pentax K, canon EF. Others will introduce unnecessary compatibility issues.

Also, if you really want to go analog, i'd get something 100% mechanical. Well maybe just a small battery for meter.

Yeah, get a Canon that can mount EF lenses, that way you don't have to buy more lenses if you go (or already are) digital.

I have a canon EOS 100 and a canon EOS 600 and they're wonderful and cheap cameras.

Also >>>/p/

>>1042378
Get a re cum bent, it's great for aero and taking pictures from it too

Any cheap nikon will do. Lenses all fit from early seventies to nowadays. Or pentax with k mount. Same there. See kenrockwell for every info you will ever need.

If you really want classy, get an Olympus OM-1. Otherwise, Nikon F2 for rugged reliability, a sturdy mechanical shutter and 1/2,000 sec max. Very modular camera, and it's my EDC 35mm of choice. Paired with a 50mm f/1.2 it's a solid bit of kit.

>>1042399
This or an N80 would do.

You can find relatively inexpensive ($30-50) used 35mm cameras on Goodwill. I suggest the Yashica TL Electro X or Electro 35 (G)SN, as the former looks like the first Nikon SLR from 1959. The only pain is getting your filmed developed for cheap, besides at drug / grocery stores (I do not recommend these places).

>>1043679

I say these two, because Nikon is what established the SLR as not only commercially viable, but practical, thus the SLR not changing much from 1959 up to the use of DSLR. The Yashica is cheaper, but just iconic as Nikon

>>1042379
old 10 speed

Pentax K1000 because they were mass produced and still work better than their price tag nowadays. Make sure the light meter and auto mode still works.

File: ae-1_program.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1042378
If you want to get hi-end gear for very cheap and don't have a setup already, then don't get a current lens mount like this guy >>1042575 suggests. If you get one with a Canon FD mount (the one that came before the current EF) you can get the same kind of glass at a fraction of the cost, just minus the autofocus which is gay anyway.

You can go for the classic, a canon AE-1. It's got all you need, they're mostly mechanical so not many electronic parts to rot like in later models with digital displays and whatnot, but recent enough to not have many problems because of age, extremely well built, so common you can get one in great condition for peanuts and you can get all kinds of FD lenses for very little money.

I've got a brutal AE-1 setup: 50mm f1.4 lens (bought this with body for 120 europoors, a new EF 50mm f1.4 lens costs like 350$), 28mm f2.8 which I got for 40 euros and a 100-300mm f5.6 which I got for 100$. I also got me a winding motor which runs on AA batteries. My whole setup cost me less than a brand new 50mm f1.4.

Sony AS200V + k-edge mount

File: d74b4d1afa20fcace4a08691cbb4999e.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1042971
>kenrockwell

>>1043735
Congratulations, you've discovered that better stuff costs more money. Not only is film less convenient it also performs worse, your manual lenses are just that, manual, and you've completely neglected the additional costs associated with film. First off you have to pay for the film (even a low end DSLR will last for the equivalent of over 1000 rolls), then pay for it to be developed (or buy the stuff to do it yourself), then pay for printing or scanning (or again buy more stuff to do it yourself).

>>1042378
What does this have to do with trains?

>mfw when I never lurk on /n/
>mfw when /n/ can have a more civilized, legitimately helpful thread about film cameras than /p/ can

good job /n/

>>1042378
GoPro and a helmet mount

>>1044858
this >>1044294 guy is already bitching that film is worse though

>>1044897
Exactly, that's useful advice. /p/ would just tell you that film is the master race despite the fact that it's inferior in almost every way.

>>1044900
>Starter 35mm SLRs Anonymous 01/19/17(Thu)00:12:45 No.1042378▶>>1042399 >>1042575 >>1042861 >>1043735 >>1044832 >>1044859
>Do you guys have any suggestions for a starter 35mm film camera?

>>1044294
>better stuff costs more money
>literally the same glass with literally the exact same optical properties
>only difference is AF which no self-respecting photographer ever uses (it defeats the whole purpose of an SLR which is to be able to focus through the lens)
>FD lenses do have auto aperture just like EF lenses so you can look through the lens without the image darkening
so how exactly are EF lenses better again? Oh, right, because you're dumb and blind and need autofocus.

>even a low end DSLR will last for the equivalent of over 1000 rolls
>I have to shoot the equivalent of over 1000 rolls to make a DSLR worth it
>I shoot like 20 rolls a year, even if I took pics all the fucking time it wouldn't be more than 100
>It will take me at least 10 years until the DSLR made economic sense
>by that time, if it's still in working condition, it will be more than obsolete
wow so economic I just need to shoot two rolls each week even though I'm not even a professional photographer

also printing is the biggest expense about shooting film, and who the fuck still prints photos nowadays? I just want them scanned, which costs peanuts. Maybe I'll print out occasional photos to frame them or whatever.

My whole 35mm setup plus all the film I've shot since I got it like 10 years ago wouldn't even amount to an entry-level DSLR with a shitty stock zoom.

>>1044832
let's just assume OP wants it to take pics of trains

>>1044901
And your point is? Mine is that film cameras aren't worth bothering with. As an /n/ comparison if someone asked for fixie recommendations for commuting I'd instead tell them to get a freewheeling bike.

>>1044941
>literally the same glass with literally the exact same optical properties
Not literally in most cases, but indeed you can get similar and in most cases the manual stuff will be cheaper. However the optical qualities alone are not the only factor.
>only difference is AF which no self-respecting photographer ever uses
1/10
>so how exactly are EF lenses better again?
AF, IS, more useful focal lengths if you use APS-C, better coatings and optical designs, different focal length options that may not be available in FD.
>Only shoots less than 1000 photos a year
Here's a tip, not everyone is like you. When you shoot digital you have the convenience to take more photos and more chances to get the photo you want. And no, taking advantage of that convenience doesn't make someone a worse photographer than you.

>>1044942
>And your point is? Mine is that film cameras aren't worth bothering with. As an /n/ comparison if someone asked for fixie recommendations for commuting I'd instead tell them to get a freewheeling bike.
my point is that OP literally asked for a 35mm film camera and you're telling him to get something else

if you reccomend something else you're an idiot basically and you should kill yourself

also that comparison is stupid, not only op didn't ask for a specific purpose but also there is nothing wrong with wanting a fixie for the sake of it being a fixie no matter what you use it for, just the same there is nothing wrong with wanting a film camera just for the sake of it being a film camera

op didn't ask "i want a camera" op said "i want a film camera"

why do i even bother

>>1044980
>OP literally asked for a 35mm film camera and you're telling him to get something else
Because film cameras are shit. They're only good for poorfag casuals (excluding MF and LF) and even then most would be better off with cheaper fixed lens digital cameras.

OP has just been brainwashed into thinking film is something good to start out with when it's not, it hampers your ability to learn compared to digital. Even once you do have some knowledge it limits you and you don't usually get benefits from it.

File: face_with_tears_of_joy.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1044950
>pretends to be the uber pro badass photographer
>cares about AF
>goes on about APS-C sensors instead of full-frame
holy fucking hell you can't make this shit up

File: sides_have_reached_orbit.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1044986
>Because film cameras are shit. They're only good for poorfag casuals (excluding MF and LF) and even then most would be better off with cheaper fixed lens digital cameras.
>fixed lens digital camera
>better than a 35mm SLR which allows you to actually learn to use an SLR, use interchangeable lenses, adjust focus and aperture and in general learn to take proper photos
>literally every course on photography will require you to use an SLR be it film or digital, with film being the poorfag option so long as you don't need to take a gorillion photos

>>1044994
>pretends to be the uber pro badass photographer
Nope.
>cares about AF
The only people that don't care about AF are studio shooters and macros (I do the latter and my macro lens is MF). AF is quicker and more reliable than MF, you'd be an idiot not to want it.
>goes on about APS-C sensors instead of full-frame
I mentioned it once. APS-C is perfectly adequate for a lot of stuff and even has advantage is some scenarios.

>>1044996
You act like there aren't fixed lens cameras with as much control as a D/SLR. A lot of people that get film SLRs to learn on don't even switch out the 50mm that comes with it or get a wide to shot tele zoom.

If you want to learn then being able to take a shit load of photos, review them instantly, and easily process them is a huge advantage. You just keep on believing that your self imposed handicap somehow makes you a better photographer.

>>1044998
>You act like there aren't fixed lens cameras with as much control as a D/SLR
there aren't

>A lot of people that get film SLRs do shit
>some people do shit, so I'll just assume you do, too

>if you want to learn then you should just take a shitload of pictures until by trial and error you get a good shot
>review them instantly
chimping is the first sign of a bad photographer. If you know your shit you don't need to review the pic you just took.

>You just keep on believing that your self imposed handicap somehow makes you a better photographer.
it's funny because I never implied anything like that, in fact I use film precisely because it's just a hobby and I can use professional gear from 30 years ago instead of some faggy digital point and shoot

but please, keep being salty, it's so funny how butthurt you get because people like to use film cameras for teh lulz

>>1045027
>there aren't
Yes, there are.
>some people do shit, so I'll just assume you do, too
I didn't assume anything about you.
>chimping is the first sign of a bad photographer. If you know your shit you don't need to review the pic you just took.
There's a difference between chimping and experimenting, and checking to make sure the photo turned out how you wanted it instead of finding out when you develop the film and it's too late.
>I can use professional gear from 30 years ago instead of some faggy digital point and shoo
And yet that faggy point and shoot is capable of so much more. Want to shoot something that moves about? Too bad, you only have MF. Lighting conditions get worse? Have fun wasting the rest of your roll to switch to a higher ISO and being shit out of luck if you forgot to bring extra film. Speaking of rolls, enjoy missing shots as you have to reload every 36 shots.

File: bait destroyer of threads.png (98KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 625x626px

>>1042971

>kenrockwell

>>1042379
excellent post

Just found my grandpa's ftb QL. Gonna clean it up and use that.

File: sl66.jpg (9KB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x264px

>>1042378
>35mm

Step up to god-tier medium format.

>>1042378
Pentax ME
Handy, cheap and very starter.

But generally, just make sure you get a camera without light leaks and don't buy cheapo film.

Also >>1042379

>>1042379
/thread

I happen to be a very experienced photographer. Over about 10 years I've used everything from 35mm SLRs, medium format SLRs, large format field cameras, digital point and shoots, DSLRs, and mirrorless cams.
I question why you want to shoot 35mm film, but I assume it's either for the low cost of entry (sub-$100usd old DSLRs arent worth it btw) or the
A e s t h e t i c
Look.

Whatever it is, just keep in mind that 35mm isn't very good all things considered. If you want film, I do recommend at least 6x7 for impressive detail and depth. But I would still choose digital today.

Anyways, AE1 is a great camera, and FD lenses are nice. I would not turn you away from collecting FD (or K) glass because they're all usable on Sony A7s (and A6000s if you aren't excited about spending a thousand dollars on photography)
The best things about the AE1 are the good build quality and smooth controls. Mine was very snappy and fast to use. Much more so than my Pentax ME super. But the ME super is an awesome choice if you like the look of Pentax K lenses more than Canon FD. That's what it really comes down to.

Last thing, make sure you use good film. Shoot portra 160 and you'll think wow, this is the best thing ever! But shoot Ultramax 400 and you might be left wondering where your picture is in all the noise and mud.

I don't know who still thinks that autofocus is bad but this isn't 2004, get over yourself.

>>1048728
>who still thinks that autofocus is bad

It has its place. But if I want to focus on a particular part of a scene and the AF picks something else it takes me longer to fiddle with the software than just flipping it into manual. And that happens often enough.

>>1049286
You're backwards. MF has it's place, for the occasional tripod shot, during studio/macro/landscape/architecture.
But, the vast majority of shots are much faster and easier with AF.
>If AF selects the wrong thing
If you allow your autofocus engine to select points for you, you're doing it wrong. Refer to your manual for more details on taking control of your AF.

>>1049286

When was the last time you used autofocus and on what camera?

The only time I ever really need to use MF is for macro or really low light stuff.

>>1049286
>change AF to only use the center dot for focusing
>point to where you want to focus
>focus
>point to where you want to shoot
>take picture
>???
>profit
Just because you're a strong independent man who needs no manuals doesn't mean AF is shit.

>>1049403
Normally I don't recommend this, but I doubt he had a lens fast enough for it to matter desu.

>>1049397
>When was the last time you used autofocus and on what camera?

Canon EOS 70D. I probably use AF about half the time. When I'm not trying to compose anything with depth. I think the camera has about half a dozen AF modes. Even if I practice and get god with all the buttons and knobs, I'm much faster just twisting the focus ring.

>>1049664
You don't need to use all the modes. It's pretty fucking simply, use the joystick to select a single point or focus and recompose if you're not using continuous AF. The fancy modes are for people shooting sports and other such fast moving things, in which case MF isn't a viable option any way.

>>1049664
>get god
*get good

>>1049668
>use the joystick

Slower than MF.

>>1049671
Then focus and recompose.