I want to get started in photography. I've looked around

>>3102647
I have seen some incredible results from that camera. Generally, it makes a good camera for students learning film photography.

>>3102650

Agreed

You can get a Canon A-1 body for cheaper than an AE-1 on ebay. It has more features and better build quality.

>>3102647
the meter is hard to read, the canon ftb is a much better camera all around

I own this camera, the difference between AE-1 program compare to AE-1 is that the shutter uses batteries - which is shit. It's not fully mechanical

its a good camera, in the times ive had to use the auto exporsure its never missed the mark. Get maybe a 50mm 1.4, it'll make things more interesting

>>3102647
Now is the best time to buy it. Nobody wants it so it's cheaper than ever.

>>3102944
I got the AE-1/P with a bundle of an 80-200mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, carrying case, 2 rolls of Tri-X 400, 6 filters (2 polarizing, 3 UV and one that I can't figure out), lens caps and a case for the 80-200, and a flash, all with their original boxes all for $40.

what a bundle.

File: 6648b7e11eee48c34579d1fbe30cc8c5.jpg (77KB, 622x477px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 622x477px

>>3102647

Beware of squeaky shutters, it's a known issue but not a deal breaker. Get the seals done on it if they aren't done. It takes a weird 6v battery, PX625 I believe, some camera stores carry it. Batteries and Bulbs will have it.

If you are going to go all-in on an orphan system like FD mount, do it like a man and get pic related.

These lenses this guy got >>3102978 are breddy gud. The newer variants are optically identical to the current AF offerings brand-new from Canon.

The AE1 is not all metal, it is painted plastic on a metal frame. As long as you don't drop it you'll be fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2005:10:29 11:28:20

Starting with film is a bad idea. Get yourself a cheap digi point and shoot that offers full manual controls. You'll learn faster with the instant feedback, and any mistakes fall strictly upon you.

Film is more expensive, time consuming, and unless you also start developing and printing/scanning yourself you leave a 3rd party potentially responsible for errors. Terrible way to learn when there's the digital option.

t. filmfag

>>3102983
Yeah the AE-1/P i got had the squeaky shutter but eh who cares, that's a cheap fix. However the AE-1 I've had for a while has gone through rain, dust, drops and pretty damn harsh environments, but somehow that one only has 1 issue. A black dot on the viewfinder. Oh well.

>>3102988
This.
Film is good if you're semi experienced and can keep up with the dev/scan/etc. It's a good learning experience if you do it in a high school photog class. You will HATE film if you go into it head first and expect things to be fast. You only have average of 24 shots per roll, and you cannot re-do them. However the lenses for film are much cheaper (at least Canon's). So do what I did, got an SL1 (or other body) for cheap, and get an adapter. You lose AF but eh.

>>3102647
Which one should I buy? AE-1 or FM2 and why?

>>3103203

FM2 because dat titanium shutter and it's also built like a brick shit house

AE-1 is made of plastic the FM2 is brass. Nikkor glass is also legendary but you'll pay for it because I can still mount them natively on my FX Nikon, in my case ALL of them back to 1959, the FD is an orphan system no one but hipsters and Sonyggers uses.

>>3102647
you're a retarded idiot if you want to get into photography with an ae-1

Go buy a used dslr and learn to shoot first you wannabe hipster faggot

>>3102988
This is correct.

>>3102988
I started photography with film 2 years ago and I don't regret nothing. You just need to know what are you doing. Also, spending money with film makes you conservative and think more before pressing the shutter.

>>3103226
>m-muh edge

>>3103210
semi related question, why are nikkor 50mm 1.4 lenses like this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-NIKKOR-S-Auto-50mm-F1-4-Non-Ai-Lens-SN823886-/322566750365?hash=item4b1a7a009d:g:shEAAOSwMvtZPelq

so dirt cheap? i thought that 1.4 lenses would be the most expensive of the lot?

>>3103247
because it's shit

>>3103247
Because they are non ai(1959-1977).

It will only mount some film bodies and entry level DSLRs without metering.

They aren't shit but are generaly soft. I have one from 1962/63 myself.

Alright anons I need your help. I wanna get into photographying good. Get a good camera and stuff, but i'm too much of a cheap fuck to invest more than $100 into it. What the hell do I do?
Phone camera is broken and it sucked anyway

>>3104090
It's a great lens with gorgeous rendering, especially in B&W, but it gets real soft at 1.4.

>>3102647
I started on an AE1 and a K1000, both similar cameras with similar specs, both beloved by students. Really, you should just look for a metal/manual camera body and three lenses, long, medium and short. Doesn't matter specifically what you get, really it doesn't. Shoot B&W (Arista EDU is cheap and decent) like crazy. If you want to get started in photography, you should grab the nearest camera and start shooting.

>>3104100
I only shoot at wide open. Because indoors and muh bokeh.

>>3104074
>>3104090
ah i see. i fucked up then

>>3104095
Oly 35rc for rangefinders
Any compact like the XA or Mju
Literally tons of Minolta or Nikons you can have for under 100 but the lens will up the cost a bit more

idk, photography and being a cheap fuck don't really work together, but you can use a

>>3102647
>it fits my budget

No anon, this is not digital photography where the camera body and lens are the biggest money hurdle and SD card is just an afterthought.

In film photography, the real expense is in the film infrastructure you'll need to support your hobby. Camera body and lens is not what you plan your budget around. You need to plan your film photography budget around film processing. Will you have a lab develop and scan for you? This is the easiest option but hopefully you will not be surprised by ~13 dollar cost per roll for processing. Budget like 60 dollars for 4 rolls per month or per paycheck, whatever's more convenient.

If you develop yourself, you'll need your own equipment, then your own chemicals. Then you'll need a way to digitize, a flatbed scanner or dedicated scanner. This is hundreds of dollars right there if you want your 35mm to not look worse than an old phone picture. Or what if you want to make your own prints. That's more specialized equipment you need to buy.

The only time that it's acceptable to use a film camera to get started in photography is if you are taking a photography course and the school provides you with access to the equipment and chemicals needed to process and print your film. In this situation all you need to buy is camera, film, and photo paper. But if this infrastructure isn't being provided to you, film photography is NOT for beginners.

If you really want to start out with film, I would suggest enrolling in a photography course at your community college, the tuition you'd pay for a class is still cheaper than buying all this shit yourself and of course, you're also paying for the education too and a professor to judge your snapshits and hopefully get good.

>>3102938
The AE-1 is electronic as well. You have to go to the F1 for fully manual and even the newest version is electronic for half the shutter speeds.

>>3102938
the AE-1 batteries are just 6V tho, very ubiquitous and can be had just about anywhere and last years

>>3102983
Sugar, you clearly know literally nothing about the FD mount.

Stop advising people to buy your shitty, late mount life plasric babby camera when the new F-1 exists and is clearly the best body for the FD mount.

> It takes a weird 6v battery, PX625 I believe, some camera stores carry it. Batteries and Bulbs will have it.
The battery is the LR44(Energizer) or 28L(Duracell) and is not very difficult to find. Most convenience stores stock it.

>orphan system
Like, what are you even basing that on? Do you just mean that they no longer make new stuff for FD or are you saying that it's a bad system to buy into for some unknown stupid sugar gearfag reason?

>The newer variants are optically identical to the current AF offerings brand-new from Canon.
Also not true, the FD glass is usually optically better that current Canon offerings. (source is that I have owned a number of lenses on both FD and EF and actually did a few tests.)

>>3102647
OP, the FD mount is great for beginners.

Depending on what you want to do and what your budget is there are dmany options when it comes to bodies. The AE-1 is probably the single best all around feature set to price ratio on the system. The FTb is all mechanical but extremely heavy and it takes a battery that is no longer in production and the replacements available only last for a few months while the 28L for the AE-1, A-1, AE-1P, and New F-1 can and does last years and is available in most convenience stores.

I would not recommend the AE-1P because it's a little over valued right now and I have never had great results with auto modes on cameras with center weighted metering systems.

If you want the nicest body for the mount, it's the New F-1 which has an amazing feature set, is weather sealed, all shutter speeds over 1/60th can be used even with a dead battery, has a built in method for double exposure, max shutter speed of 1/2000th, and in general was built to never break.

Good luck.

>>3106114

I know you're arguing for the sake of trolling or a (You) but i'll bite since we have rookies here.

>New F-1

I've shot all 3, the New F-1, the T90 and the AE-1, the T90 is objectively the better camera in every single way except for muh manual batteryless operation. T90 takes AA batteries, has PASM, feels like a 5D in the hands and weighs more than both. It has built-in motor drive and accepts the same EZ flash system the early EOS EF film cameras took.

Muh nostalgia and hurr manual operation doesn't make it the better camera I liked the F-1 and it's built like a brick shithouse I would put it against an F3 any day of the week but it is not objectively better than the T90.

>LR44

Sure if you want to stack 4 of them in that tray, but there's a single battery offering that makes life easy.

>Orphan system

You must be new here. Orphan systems are systems the general consumer public doesn't use anymore. Minolta MD, Canon FD, Lolympus OM mount all of these are orphan systems. Doesn't make them worse in some cases optically they are better than current offerings.

Also the optics on the 50 1.8 FD are identical to the EF version, same as the 50 1.4 SSC, and I believe the 35/2 source I owned them both dumb ass.

>>3102647
Be wary of most Film camera's though. A lot of them have a fucked light sensor.

If you want to reliably shoot film then get a Leica R4, lots of support for those things around.

>>3103236
This. Photographers got along just fine for decades without the instant feedback digital gives

File: _dsc0653.jpg (450KB, 1980x1320px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1980x1320px

>>3106169
>objectively
Okay, Sugar. I believe it is *Your* favorite camera but I don't need P, A, or S modes. I don't want something that feels like a 5D and "weighs more". I don't need a motor drive or the EZ flash sysem. In general, almost no one needs that shit. If I wanted it, I'd get the EOS 3 and just use AF EF lenses and shoot full auto.

That, however, might not be the best for learning which was what OP was looking to do.

>Muh nostalgia and hurr manual operation
Yeah, definitely no reason to distrust 30+-year-old electronics and no user serviceable parts. How long do those 4 AA batteries last, btw?

>LR44
Meant A544. Again, they're available everywhere and last in the camera for years. Most AE-1 examples I come across at flea markets have 10+-year-old batteries in them that still have charge.

>Orphan System
Okay, so literally all manual focus film systems. So what you are recommending to OP is that if he's going to buy into a manual focus film system, that the camera he should buy is one that looks, feels and functions like a modern DSLR minus the AF? You know, maybe that defeats the purpose of even getting into a system with manual only lenses.


Look OP, if stuff like 4.5 frames a second, shiftable program modes, 1/4000th of a second shutter speeds, 1/250 flash sync, and random electronic failures are important to you, then by all means, get a T90. These things do not matter to me, or rather, things like long battery life, backup mechanical operation, weather sealing, and simplicity of operation matter a lot more to me.

I will recommend though, that if you decide you do want a more modern canon film body, that you shouldn't be looking for the FD mount. The EOS-3 is the camera for you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6300
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:22 15:38:06
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Brightness	1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>3106225

EOS-3 is the god-father of the EF 35mm system, do it. They're cheap too, about the same price as the F-1.

>dat Eye Control focus system

literally you look at something, focus and the camera focuses to it, you have to calibrate it first though. Some nifty shit, a shame it never caught on in digital cameras.