hey /p/ I've got $80 and I'm looking to buy a vintage

well, it doesn't necessarily seem like a terrible idea.

but first things first - why are you trying to buy vintage gear like this when you have "0 knowledge" about cameras? are you trying to get into film photography for the first time? or would this be more of a cool conversation piece that you could display?

>>3025993
I want to get into 35mm and have no knowledge about film cameras, especially vintage
I have some knowledge about dslrs, shot composition and what not

>>3025988
>currently looking at a 1947-1951 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
get a kodak retina iia. might be exactly what youre after. ive seen these go for $30 or $40 on eebay.

>>3025993
>but first things first - why are you trying to buy vintage gear like this when you have "0 knowledge" about cameras? are you trying to get into film photography for the first time? or would this be more of a cool conversation piece that you could display?
why cant you give a straight answer you fucking mong.

>>3025995
in that case, i would definitely not buy a weird little unpopular camera like this Kodak 35 RF. it looks like it might be fun to play around with, but not as your main workhorse cam.

get an interchangeable lens SLR. that way the skills you learn will translate easily to most other SLR systems, and you're buying a camera that can be the basis for an expanding collection of glass & system accessories & shit like that. If you buy that Kodak 35 RF and you want to start trying to shoot portraits, you need to get a whole new camera. If you get an SLR, on the other hand, you just need to borrow or rent a lens from somebody for the day.

Plus an SLR will likely have a light meter (Kodak 35 RF does not), some sort of wysiwyg thru the lens composition and focusing and shit, and other bells and whistles. this camera doesn't have that stuff.

>>3026001
man why you gotta be rude when I'm just tryna help OP? sage

Buy what you like. Look for features that you want aperture priority or metering if you're a pleb, advance lever if you're a cripple, what kinda weight you're looking for and finally what kind of focal length you want to shoot and what sort of light you're going to shoot in.

>>3026012
unsaged.

>>3026012
This, an SLR will suit your needs far better than a rangefinder to begin with. Get a Pentax (M42 or PK) and learn on it. If you really want one of those old Kodaks, go for a Retina. It's a no-frills but sincerely beautiful piece of machinery.

What are some pathfinders for under 50 dollaroos that i should consider for my first film?

>>3026087

Any rangefinder under about £150 ($250) sucks dicks.

For a learning camera, an slr is a much more affordable and much more reliable option. Look for a model that still uses batteries available today (that excludes most Pentax iirc), the olympus om10 and manual adapter is a great way to start.

If you're mainly interested in film as a medium, I'd also recommend an slr.
If you want something practical with a bit of a vintage look, Canon fd mount cameras or nikons from the same era (1970s, early 1980s) are a good choice. For the canon at least, the lenses are bit pricey because they can be used with mirrorless via adapter, but that probably also makes them keep their value.
If you don't care about looks, consider a film eos, in particular if you have or are likely to get a canon dslr. The film eos bodies are cheap and the analogue era lenses are interchangeable with the modern ones (both use the full frame EF mount).
If you are on a very tight budget try Praktica MTL. They are fairly primitive gear but with OK optics and have the metering / controls you will need.

So I've ended up looking at the Olympus OM10
is this a good buy for like $50-$80
I've heard praise for Olympus stuff on /p/ before

>>3026087
I don't think you want to go cheaper than a Bessa or a Canonet for a proper rangefinder and those are probably closer to $150ish.

You might be able to find a cheap Olympus XA but it's not the same form factor at all and there's probably a bigger hipster tax on those than I remember

>>3026320
is the Olympus OM10 any good?
I've found a pretty cheap one that includes a 135mm lens

>>3026325
Once it gets that specific, it is probably best to check out some youtube reviews or google for text reviews. I would be surprised if a classic Olympus slr is not at least adequate, but for a detailed discussion you will have to take look at detailed reviews. (There are usually some by enthusiasts out there.) Ask yourself if a 135mm is a good starting point though. It will do for portraits, being a tele lens. For landscapes I would at least add a 50mm lens.

File: om10.jpg (397KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1000x667px

Yes. Pic related, mine.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:19 22:31:59
Exposure Time	13 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3026092
Neat, I found a om10 for 20 euros and im now considering buying it.
Though it doesnt come with a lens so i found a Olympus 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 S Zuiko lens for 30euros, you think thats a good starting kit?
Also w2c adapter in EU?

File: film-2.jpg (165KB, 451x667px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 451x667px

Pictures I've taken with the OM-10 and Kodachrome 200 iirc

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1228
Image Height	1818
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:09 13:20:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	451
Image Height	667

File: film-10.jpg (265KB, 940x667px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 940x667px

>>3026343
The OM 50 f/1.8 is the single best lens bang for buck lens you can buy. It can be easily adapted to a DSLR mount too, and the pictures are REALLY good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1648
Image Height	1170
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:09 13:20:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	940
Image Height	667

File: film-9.jpg (151KB, 440x667px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 440x667px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1198
Image Height	1818
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:09 13:20:38
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	440
Image Height	667

File: A010677-R1-16-16A.jpg (2MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1818x1228px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:16 21:06:47

File: A010679-R1-01-0.jpg (788KB, 1228x1818px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1228x1818px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:16 21:06:43

File: A010678-R1-24-23-2.jpg (377KB, 1000x675px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1000x675px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:16 21:07:01

just got an OM10 for 50$
65 with shipping since I bought the lens and camera separately

thanks for the help /p/

>>3026304
OM10s are pretty meh. Think of it as the AE-1 of Olympus.
Get an OM-1 or OM-2 if you can.

>>3026380
looked at those and they were a little over my price range

>>3026092
>Canonet, Olympus 35 series, Minolta 7SII, Konica C35 and S3
Hell, you can find LTM Canon rangefinders like the P, 7, and VT for under $250.

I'm gonna sell my Canonet ql17, it works just fine - but I've sort of grown to hate rangefinder style cameras.

>>3026362
An OM-20/OM-G would have been a much better choice. Vastly superior metering system, and doesn't need a gimped plastic attachment to let you shoot manual.
Also, unless this shit is LNIB condition, $65 is meme pricing for these.
They are literally as low as OM-mount cameras go.

>>3026408
Agreed, I paid £15 for mine w/ manual adapter

Zenit is pretty lit.

>>3026440
kys
F
A
M

I go to those vintage shops and I see a plethora of """"vintage""" rangefinders that are frankly landfill fodder. The neither work right, or dont have the capability of producing a halfway decent photo.

My conclusion is that they are great for props and decoration, but for general use - forget about it.

If you want to get into film and git gud, you need something that isn't a fucking ballache to use, and is a bit forgiving.

Canon AE-1
Pentax K1000
Olympus Om-1
Minolta- X700

All very affordable, reliable, and very easy to use. Not to mention the glass is quite cheap too.

Then after you've taken babby's first steps and developed an understanding of how basic photography works, consider upping your game and getting something like:

Canon F-1n
Pentax LX
Nikon (This is basically in my opinion the holy grail of film cameras, because they are built like tanks, the old glass is superior to anything of it's time and is still relevant, and most Nikon film bodies are going to shoot for another 50 years).

So in summary, if you're after the AESTHETICS, and need a rangefinder, consider the fact that they are a pain in the dick to use, and are a dick when you're trying to learn. SLRs are the way forward.

>>3026440
Only if your copy isn't a total piece of poo.

I went with a Spotmatic so can't really say anything.

>>3025988
Kiev 4AM, plenty of guides and parts

>>3026520 /2
and OM10 is a sweet starter too

>>3026440
I'm looking at the Zenit-e right now on eBay, comes with a nice industar lense, I love the exposure meter on it.

>>3026682
If you're set on buying a Zenit (for whatever reason I'm not sure) at least get one with the Helios 44-2.

>>3026682
What exactly do you love about a depreciated barely sensitive to begin with selenium reflected light lightmeter with a very imprecise and wide readout field of view? Permanently built into a heavy body with few shutter speeds (1/30-1/500, stellar choice for an slr) and a bare ground glass viewfinder with no focusing aid that only shows you 2/3rd of your actual final picture?

>>3026717
Apart from better flaring control/coatings, there is physically zero difference in the structure, design, build and optical characteristics of the different helios models. 44-2 gives an identical "swirly bokeh" as a 44-3, 44-4 or 44-5 or -6. I am saying this because I had all these models side by side to check that. Bet you a fiver you wouldn't be able to tell which shot was done through which lens. The 44-2 meme needs to stop being mindlessly repeated and die.

>>3026682
What the fuck. I can understand the guy buying an OM-10; if it's been CLAd and has the "manual adapter", it could be worth using. Especially given that Olympus glass is rather nice. Probably it isn't, and he's being ripped off. That's what idiots get.

But don't get a Zenit for your 35mm introduction. Those are bad cameras for people who don't know a proper japanese SLR can be had for about the same, kit lens and all. They fucking give away trash-tier m42 Chinons and what-not that're miles better than any Zenit. And fuck the SLR industars; the only true industar is the 52mm f/2.8 in glorious m39 for bastard Leica.

That being said, it's nice that the plebs aren't driving up prices for proper hardware yet (still).

>>3026343
I'm the guy that gave the om recommend, does it come with the manual adapter too? They're super common, just keep an eye on ebay, loads of om10's are sold every week.

I'd say skip the zoom lens, the 50 1.8 is cheap, common and a great performer.

I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a nice condition body, with manual adapter and 50mm for €50, you may also need a battery, these aren't commonly used anymore so may set you back €5, but will last for years.

>>3026380
The 1 and 2 offer very little over the 10, especially to a newbie.

>>3026682
The exposure meter no longer works btw. Oh, and they're clunky pieces of shit.

>>3026748
No need to sperg out, I mentioned the 44-2 because it's by far the most commonly available and is a much better lens than the Industar.

>>3025988
I would advise visiting garage sales, flea markets,thrift/antique shops and estate sales for a few weekends, if you have the time to spare. It's not uncommon to find something much below it's ebay going rate, and the hunt itself can be fun.