Thanks,A lot to take in with your response,I'm a novice,some of your terminology,honesty,I don't know,So,could you tell me exactly what Camera and lens I should go go? without breaking the bank.
Not really! That's the point!
Film was around for a century, before digital came along, in which an enormous number of different film formats existed, and different designs of cameras to take them offered, of which the 35mm format, whilst the and more dominant format, was only one, and 35mm SLR only a small part of even that part of the film world. Which unhelpfully brings me back to the top, and why 35mm? and why 35mm SLR? What do you hope to get from 'film'? what do you think you are likely to do with film? and answers one question with SO many more!!! and that's the point; there's no 'prescription' solution to
"I have an itch to get into film photo!"
You say some of my terminology, I presume things like TTL or Through The Lens metering, or meter coupled automatic exposure, are new to you; and I probably compounded your confusion talking of such as being 'transparent' on a camera like the OM10. But this is where your question leads. A modern DSLR with auto-focus lens, is very sophisticated, but it contains so much automation, it's almost as easy to use as 'point and press', all the 'operation' of the camera is transparent and automatic, and you don't need to do very much apart from point it at your subject. a trait inherited from the last of the line auto-focus film cameras; which is why they are less likely to feel much different or offer a 'different' photo making experience.
Moving back in time, to the 'Manual focus' film cameras; they still contained a lot of automation; usually in their metering systems; measuring the light level falling ;'through the lens' but making exposure settings for you based on that metering. Older still camera's, then begged more and more 'user involvement'; the automatic exposure systems reading TTL light levels, but only setting shutter speed or aperture setting for you, whilst you selected the other. Less sophisticated cameras still had TTL metering, but only offered you a hi/lo indication in the view finder and left you to make your own aperture and shutter settings on it. Older or less sophisticated cameras still, didn;t offer any metering at all; you had to use a hand held meter and transpose incident or reflected meter readings into settings from a calculator dial or chart; or you had to assess light levels by 'eye' or guess work!
So, how much of that sort of 'involvement' do you want to actually engage in? How much can you handle?... more and more questions, and ever less answers.
If you want to dodge all that and just suck it and see; then its a question of how far can you go with any particular choice; and what choices would offer best value; which without doing your shopping for you, we cant answer, and which when you get to it would probably still need some pretty specific research on any particular candidate, to check things like lens compatabilities; battery availability, as well as 'reliability' and 'useability', irrespective of any issues of potential image quality or camera durability.
If you want to push me to give you a '
I dont want to have to think about this, just give me an answer, tell me what camera to buy!" answer... then as they are still so 'cheap' and hence a lot less risk than suggested Pentax spotties, I will say
OLYMPUS OM1O & 50, and be done. Its as good a place as any, for as little money as you can get away with.... BUT, it is ignoring so much of what film could offer, and leading you into the arena through a bottle neck to continue ignoring so much, whilst its as good a place to start as any, it is possibly not the 'best'... and with a little thought and considering the questions raised about what you hope to do, you could get a much better one, and get so much more from the whole experiment & experience...
Olympus OM10 & Zuiko 50
This was my first 35mm SLR quarter of a century ago. They were a £100 'entry' level SLR when new, you can pick up a basic body and 50mm lens for about £30 these days, if you hunt a bit. £50 should get you something with the 'manual adapter' and maybe an extra lens or a flash gun. They have been criticized for being a little unreliable, compared to some rivals in the same price range, like the Pentax or Canon, though usually better featured. I have had about three over the years, and the only trouble I had with any was shear abuse! (One got drowned at a gig at the SU when I was at uni... another got dropped off the top of a castle battlement when I got bumped by one of the kids.. cant exactly blame the camera for not wanting to work after that!)
As compact as 35mm SLR's got, its a very easy handling camera, and very versatile. Zuico 50 is a cracking and still well regarded lens, and popularity with the digital Micro-four-Thirds users who like mounting old 35mm lenses has kept prices relatively 'strong'. OM's through the lens light metering system was sophisticated and almost transparent in use, and widely regarded as one of the 'best'.
As an 'Entry-Level' SLR, it was very very good, and did introduce many to SLR photography, being almost as point and shoot easy to use as a compact and encouraging people to worry about the photo rather than the settings, and that virtue remains, its still a very good entry camera for 35mm film SLR.... if used to digital, and its a fairly 'safe' system to go for, with plenty of scope to buy, reletively cheaply alternative extra lenses without having to get enormously clued up to assure comparability.
BUT, it 'isn't a very large step away from digital; and other than having to manually focus the lens, it could be somewhat underwhelming in not begging more 'involvement'; which could be said of a lot of 35mm SLR's of this generation. For similar or less money still, outside 35mm SLR, I offer:-
Olympus XA2
That is the 'clam-shell' Olympus XA2, of which I own three! It's about the size of a packet of cigarettes, and is slightly smaller even than the Minox. It was the camera that basically 'invented' the 35mm 'compact', making a camera that was almost as compact and easy to use as a 110 cartridge 'Instamatic', yet delivered 35mm quality as good as SLR's without the bulk. As mentioned, probably half of all the film photo's I have ever taken were shot with one of these; they DO offer SLR rivaling quality, and are as or even more usable than an SLR & 50 combination. And if you are looking at an SLR and a single lens, so not exploiting the interchangeability of lenses, then why buy that unnecessary feature? The XA2 and similar non SLR 35mm film cameras are often cheaper than a 35mm lens for an SLR, so even if you want that alternate lens versatility, these can still be cheaper and 'more' useful than that extra lens in the bag.
Dismissed far too rapidly as a 'consumer compact' and inference it cant be much cop; just because of the trend it started to consumerise 35mm, ignoring it's iconic status as the camera that started that trends, and it's inherent virtues of being a standard setting camera, able to deliver image quality to rival SLR's. It has acquired something of a 'cult' status, and some are now using XA2's as I have always done, as a second body slipped in the gadget bag with the SLR, or tucked in a pocket as a very very versatile carry about.
And they were not a 'cheap' camera in their day, Mine cost about £90 new in 1981, as much as basic OM10 on the shelf next to it; but you can pick them up now in good working order and nice cosmetic condition for under £30. You can probably pick up something very usable for £10 or £15... and so represent a lot of camera for the money. But many many other non SLR 35mm range finders or compacts are out there, many that were very creditable cameras in their day for 'serious' photographers, that simply NOT being SLR's are even bigger bargains than SLR offerings.
Minox 35
One such alternative is a Minox 35. Various versions were offered over the twenty years they made them from about 1980 until the millennia. Minox were best known for their sub-miniature 'spy' cameras (as featured in the James Bond movies), and were renowned for the 'precision engineering' of them that could capture 35mm rivaling image quality on a 6mm film! The C35, then was to show what they could do with 35mm. It was one of the smallest ever 35mm cameras, with in camera metering and coupled automatic exposure, as by then usual on SLR's, but an image quality from the lens quality and construction few but the highest end 35mm SLR's could match.
My father was wowed by his when he eventually bought one in the early '90's, and I have to say it was impressive, though I only ever used it a couple of times, and cant remember any 'foibles', which suggests it probably didn't have very many. When he bought his, then, it was ludicrously expensive, ISTR around £500, which then would have bought a brand new all singing all dancing Minolta AF SLR 'outfit' with a couple of lenses and a flash! Now? You can pick them up for 'around' £50, as much as an SLR & 50; that offers potentially 'better' image quality, but exploiting the advantage of the 35mm format to be compact enough to slip into a jeans pocket!
Its a heck of a lot of camera for an incredibly small amount of money; and mostly 'just' because it ISN'T an SLR, which is why this non SLR world is so attractive, so much of what were very serious enthusiast or professional grade cameras are over looked or ignored, simply because they aren't an SLR, so many have been lead to believe are what you 'have' to have to get into 'serious' photography... and delving into that arena, could take you as far as the interchangeable lens Leica rangefinders, which still for the same sort of cold cash as a DSLR, are far from 'cheap' but a bargain compared to what they cost new twenty years ago, there is far more in it, than the typically 'cheap' consumer compacts of the era.
Heading into the world of 'Medium format' then, I shall mention:
Lubitel 166
That's the soviet era Russian Lubitel 166, a 'Twin Lens Reflex' 120 roll film Medium format camera. If memory serves they retailed new for about £50 in the 80's & 90's, and you can still pick up good working examples for under £20! It was a common 'entry' into medium format film cameras back in the day; with the suggestion that it was 'cheap Russian crap', but it delivered image quality that would make you question why you put up with the even crapper quality of 35mm SLR! Like the Zenit or Praktika 35mm SLR's, as 'cheap' cameras when new, they don't represent much of a bargain now, compared to how much 'better' cameras, but they still offer that leap in grade and involvement from 35mm SLR they always have, and are still astoundingly cheap way to try it.
A fixed 'twin lens reflex', you don't have the versatility to change lenses; but, as with a 35mm range finder; that's no great disadvantage over a 35mm SLR with a single prime lens or even a single reletively short range zoom.
Moving up the arena, you get from this to things like the Mamiya or Bronica's that come in many shapes and forms that include range finder's like a big 35mm non SLR, to Twin Lens Reflex like the lubitel, or even full SLR's like the legendary Hassablad; all potentially in interchangeable lens 'systems'; which can still be bought for relatively un bank breaking prices in the sub £100 arena gaining ever greater 'bargain' status as you move up through the rankings to cameras that cost £1000's when new, and can now be bought for £100's.
Zeiss Ikon Ikonta folding camera.
To offer an alternative to the 'Cheap' lubitel though, this is a 'Medium format' 120 roll film camera; 12 to a roll. It has a very good 90 or 120mm Ziess lens, and makes huge negatives 6x10cm, This is the 'basic' model with scale focus and 'machine gun sight view finder; of which there are a few examples on e-bay, that could be procured for 'about' £25 or so. More sophisticated models with in body 'range finders' and shutter's with a wider range of speeds & apertures are more desirable, and more expensive, but few command more than £100.
NOW: I own an example of one shown, I inherited many years ago, and can say, as a folder, it's not particularly bulky, it slips into a coat pocket more easily than a 35mm SLR and it's a very pleasant handling camera, that delivers amazing quality pictures. Mine, actually belonged originally to my Grandad's brother-in-law, and I can recall as a child in the 1970's, him defending his 'antique' whilst my father and cousin argued for their 35mm SLR's. 'Uncle John' pointed out the virtues of the larger format, and the wonderful 'perspective', and image quality it offered, whilst pointing out that whilst the 'Boys' with their 35mm might be able to shoot cheaper 35mm film, and colour slides; but with that camera, and only 12 frames to a roll, he had to be somewhat more discerning and thoughtful about what he shot, but could home develop his film and make 'contact-prints' in the kitchen, that could go straight into the family album, without having to pay for 'expensive' processing or wait for slides to turn up in the post and set up a projector to look at them.
It is still a very usable camera; and as a step into the world of 'film photo', one that's as cheap and useful as a 35mm SLR & 50mm lens combo, that offers a very different type of more traditional film photography.
So, you don't have to go very far up the rankings or up the budget much if any to start finding very very useful Medium format cameras, and could procure one that is as useful and far more rewarding to use than a basic 35mm SLR & Prime. Back to 35mm SLR's....
Minolta Dynax 3000
I include this as an example of something that's porobably NOT a very useful start. In the 90's Minolta pushed 'Auto-Focus' into the SLR world after pioneering it in 'compact' 35mm cameras in the 80's. This is an entry level Auto-Focus SLR from the '90's; ISTR that they eventually brought consumer 'kit' cameras with typically 35-70 zoom lenses down into the sub £500 price bracket. Now you can pick these up for under £50. I was always wary of them in their day; they didn't seem to have the durability of more traditional Manual Focus SLR's, and they usually took what were then very expensive, frequently 'special' disposable batteries, that driving the film transport and the lens focus were notoriously short lived making them very expensive to run! A 'niggle' that afflicted almost all of that generation of AF film camera, and almost all the ameteur grade offerings.
As an intro to film for a digital camera user, now, I would be very very wary of any of them; and for all they are often incredibly 'cheap'; they are almost as completely automated as modern DSLR's and not an awful lot different to shoot, other than having to fit film! they probably don't offer that 'film' experience, or involvement of earlier Manual focus cameras, whilst the battery issue, and whether you can still get the ones any particular camera needs, asides from lens availability & compatibility issues, I would be wary of recommending any of this generation of AF SLR to a film newbie.
And THIS is sort of the point, there is an awful lot out there, and SO much of it in the sub £100 price range, that includes so much that could be a very poor choice, from 'zoom' compacts from the late 90's, early entry level AF SLR's like the dynax, or the defunct Advanced Photo System, camera's, the SLR offerings being the basis of the now usual 'crop sensor' Digital SLR's; where you need to do your home work on anything to assess whether its a bargain or not, whether its even useable or not, and more importantly whether its in any way useful to YOU....
Which takes us back to the questions begged by your starting proposition; what do you hope to get out of your foray into film? Why 35mm, why 35mm SLR? How 'involved' do you want to be or can you tolerate? How much 'automation' do you need or want? And How much 'versatility' do you want or need? etc etc etc....
Most of us who started out when film was all there was, didn't start diving in with system SLR's and a bunch of lenses. We started out with compacts or range finders, or basic MF box cameras or folders we picked up in the 2nd hand shop. AND for most photo, it wasn't until we bumped into the buffers of what we were trying to do, and realized we needed long zoom lenses, or close focusing macro lenses or the like that we moved into the world of 35mm SLR's..... and made advantage of them.
Whilst; there were very very many, who were over sold in the shop on the virtues of SLR's who ended up with Practika's or OM's instead of more useable fixed lens range finders like the XA2, who were frustrated by the involvement of using them, and so didn't and got little or nothing from what they offered, even as much as they could have got from a compact. and THIS 'danger' still applies, and is 'worse' as film IS still a great place, it still has a lot to offer; BUT a bad start is not likely to let you discover what it has to offer and could put you off entirely.
So... answering the question asked... OM10... answering the one posed... what do you really hope to get from film?
And the same problems you get using film would be the same as digi e.g. wrong exposure, or something like cut off heads in framing 
