Basic film camera

M

maximust

Suspended / Banned
Messages
331
Name
Max
Edit My Images
Yes
I would like to buy a walkabout film camera, something which looks nice and vintage and is easy to load, I have never used a film camera before :(

Something to give a nice old look to my photos
 
There are loads of cameras that fit what you want, heres a few suggestions:

  • Pentax Spotmatic series: I would go for the 'Spotmatic F' version as its more recent and features open aperture metering with Pentax SMC Takumar lenses as well as the very wide range of M42 lenses
  • Pentax ME Super: A popular model, very small and has a good feature set, takes all K mount lenses (minus those not designed for full frame or without aperture rings).
  • Minola SR-T 101 or SR-T 303: features the predecessor to modern multi/matrix metering by having 2 TTL metering cells in the top and bottom instead of one so the metering is less likely to be fooled, wide range of lenses available (I have an SR-T 303 coming in the post!).
  • Canon A series: widely known and renowned but I have no experience with them although lots of people on here do.

These are some of my suggestions but I'm sure others will chime in with theirs soon.

  1. I see you have a Sony body, do you want to be able to use your current lenses (if they are full frame)?
  2. Do you want AF or manual focus?
  3. How much are you wanting to pay?
If you want to stay with using your Sony lenses, then 'Dynax' cameras by Minolta (who used to produce cameras before they sold their photo division to Sony in 2006 who rebranded them as 'Alpha') are what you want. I would do with a Dynax 5 as a base model because it has a good spec (fast AF, SSM compatible, 3 fps motordrive, excellent metering, ADI flash metering, 3 focus modes), its fairly recent (2001) and you can get them with a 28 - 80mm f3.5 - 5.6(D) lens for about £20 - £40. They were the midrange model in the almost last Minolta lineup. My one is excellent and does a great job.
 
Last edited:
The loading of 35mm film is almost standard across cameras - a few have slightly different mechanisms, many in the 90s were automatic (they had motor drives built in), but most manual ones are fine.

By "walkabout", do you mean light in weight, small and discreet, the availability of aperture priority/program modes?
 
What do you mean by 'a nice old look'? That could be a grainy film, vignetting, flare, a soft lens ... see what I mean? :)

For example, this was taken with an Agfa Isolette II on Fuji Reala ISO100 120 roll film. The camera was made in about 1949 and doesn't have any form of metering or focus assist.


Evening light by Strappster, on Flickr


This was taken on an OM2SP with 35mm f/2 lens. It's not a great scan and the film was expired so it's quite grainy but it gives you an idea of how sharp an 'old' film camera can be.


Scrabo Tower, County Down, NI by Strappster, on Flickr


A lot of old film cameras have a 'classic' look of rectangular body with pentaprism on top, perhaps have a browse through Camerapedia and see if something takes your fancy.
 
Thanks for the response Sam

I am open to any camera, am not worried about staying with Minolta etc, I want something that gives a nice old look to the images produced.

Are there such things as m42 film camera's?

I just want something easy to load as I have never done it before

Thanks again
 
When I say walkabout I mean nothing too heavy and too much for me to be operating.

Sorry to sound niave with film, just never really explored it.

Those photos have a really good look about that, is that due to the age of the camera?
 
Look for a charity shop compact.. as long as it doesn't have an obscure battery requirement it should be ok. Plenty of retro '80s looking compacts about, full auto exposure, just point-and-shoot.
 
maximust said:
Those photos have a really good look about that, is that due to the age of the camera?
Click to expand...
The first one, yes. That's a very old bellows camera, fully mechanical, lens isn't coated, the max aperture is f/4.5 on an 85mm lens and there are only four shutter speeds :)

The second one is due to the film having expired and my not doing much PP after the scan. You can get a similar look by using Kodak film from a pound shop; it's usually grainy and sometimes has unusual colour shifts.

You could try browsing flickr to find shots taken with different types of film to find results that you like or you think might work with subjects you have in mind.

And don't worry about loading film; it's only tricky the first couple of times. Once you know how it's done, it only gets easier.
 
to be honest, with film, the "look" is pretty much down to the Film used and the Lens it was taken through - film cameras are just a light tight box that opens and closes for the right amount of time, and move bits of film back and forward. Don't get too hung up on the camera, buy any one of the cameras mentioned by Samuel in post #2, and get out there and shoot some stuff...

Better still - have a browse through the huge "show me your film shots" thread, Find some shots you like the look of, look at the film/processing details that most of us post below the shot, and compile a selection of films to buy. Buy a few rolls of each, and get out there shooting :)
 
The Olympus Trip 35, mixed with some cheap Poundland Kodacolor film is probably a good route to go down - the Trip does everything for you, only two shutter speeds and all automatic and batteryless, I think it looks quite nice and it's reasonably compact.
 
I don't know if you noticed but I noticed that you wanted something that looked vintage so I updated my post with some suggestions.
 
freecom2 said:
The Olympus Trip 35, mixed with some cheap Poundland Kodacolor film is probably a good route to go down - the Trip does everything for you, only two shutter speeds and all automatic and batteryless, I think it looks quite nice and it's reasonably compact.
Click to expand...

+1

It's got a nice sharp lens. It's scale focus, so generally you focus before you bring it up to your eye, then just compose and shoot. Pop some fastish (iso 400) film in, and you're all set. It's nice and light and as it doesn't need batteries, so you can leave it in the glove compartment (or whereever) till you need it/want it. For £10-£15, everyone should have one, and it'll make the most of whatever film you put in it.

It's downsides are: iso400 is the fastest it'll meter, no self timer, no bulb mode. Depending on what you like to shoot on walkabouts, scale focus will either be a liberation or a limitation.
 
Budget doesn't seem to have been mentioned but you ought be able to buy something to fit the bill for under £25. Personally, I find fully auto cameras just dull and lacking involvement, rangefinders come in varying depths of complexity or, if you want to go with M42 lens mount you're looking at a myriad of SLRs. If you don't have an attachement to a given make I'd suggest you search eeeh bay with something like 35mm SLR M42 and take it from there.
I'd add this advice for you: don't buy anything with a dead meter. If you're experimenting with old technology 35mm film from a background of DSLR (I'm guessing here) you're going to need all the help the camera can give you without losing heart with no guidance on settings. A lot of 35mm cameras aren't worth the cost of repairing.
 
Trips are sweet cameras but there is a definite limit to what you can do on them. For my money the Olympus OM10 is one of the best cameras for someone new to film. Cheap, reliable, simple, fully featured, and a handy size. It's the sort of camera you can learn on but can also still happily be using five or ten years down the line. Zuiko lenses are killer, and you can always upgrade to something higher end like an OM1 later (also Zuiko lenses mount nicely on lots of DSLRs with an adapter).

I wouldn't touch the Canon A series second hand. I've owned a couple and I can't say I think much of them. They aren't very well designed and suffer from irritating and sometimes terminal mechanical problems like mirror cough. If you decide on Canon go for an earlier fully mechanical model like an FTb, they're far more reliable and just generally nicer cameras to use (and they look better).
 
Last edited:
TBF the cough is only terminal if you do nothing about it for a long time and it's a simple remedy for someone who knows what they're doing (the application of some lubricant).

Any camera of a similar vintage will likely need new light seals and I wouldn't dismiss all 1970s Olympus bodies as unreliable on that basis.
 
Disphotic said:
I wouldn't touch the Canon A series second hand. I've owned a couple and I can't say I think much of them. They aren't very well designed and suffer from irritating and sometimes terminal mechanical problems like mirror cough. If you decide on Canon go for an earlier fully mechanical model like an FTb, they're far more reliable and just generally nicer cameras to use (and they look better).
Click to expand...

Yes I would normally say "pass on the A models"...but now have recently acquired an A1 (that was attached to a Canon 50mm f1.4), and would say it's a well designed camera, it took me 15mins to sus out all the controls and use the camera...but it is not in the same league as a T90 and did laugh at the flash syn of 1/60 sec, and it has a very slight intermittent mirror damper(known as shutter) squeak.
So if you can pick up the A1 for peanuts without any mice in it, I'd say you wouldn't be disappointed.
 
Musicman said:
TBF the cough is only terminal if you do nothing about it for a long time and it's a simple remedy for someone who knows what they're doing (the application of some lubricant).

Any camera of a similar vintage will likely need new light seals and I wouldn't dismiss all 1970s Olympus bodies as unreliable on that basis.
Click to expand...

If you're buying a camera second hand you have no way of telling how long its been like that, or how costly repair might be so it's risky. Needlessly risky when there are better cameras out there for the same price.

No Canon film shooters I know who have used both choose the A series over the F. The F's are fantastic cameras (hence the reason the F-1 still costs hundreds of quid), the A's were revolutionary when they appeared from a tech perspective, but flawed from a practical one. Anyway end rant :).
 
I started with an Olympus OM2-SP but I think an OM-1 or 2n would be better. They are small, easy to load and the lenses are also compact and of great quality. An Oly trip would be a great partner when you don't want an SLR to carry. The lenses are superb and the exposure system, although basic is rather good. The only fiddly bit is getting the hang of scale focus, it only took me about half a roll of film though!
 
Getting good, non-professional used F-1s is far more difficult than getting an A-1 though. Besides, for the requirements laid out in the OP, it doesn't sound like the F-1 suits best - in fact, something like the AE-1 Program, if we are talking SLRs, or even better the Trip 35 is a much better bet.
 
Max, head a few miles down the road to Brixham and have a browse in Mifsuds. Give them an idea what you're after and listen tyo their advice and see what thay've got to offer in your budget.
 
I was just quoting the F-1 as evidence of the strength of the whole F series. The obvious choice for a begginner would be the Ftb or TLb, similar but simpler and cheaper.
 
if you're just after a point and shoot, Canon do a nice range of AF35M models, in varying versions. i own 3 myself and love 2 of them, 1 is abit crap :lol: the AF35M II is nice to use, load the film, point and shoot, nice lens, fully auto and auto focus, and nice and cheap :) the AF35ML is the one to look out for though, as it comes with a nice 40mm 1.9 lens :) they're perfect for carrying around because they're small and relatively light :)
 
Good luck with finding one cheap Brian - but I tell you what - if you find a good clean working QL1.7 anywhere above your definition of cheap but less than £40 (or £60 if its an all-black version) get it and I'll take it off your hands,pay postage, and drop a fiver in the charity of your choice :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
Good luck with finding one cheap Brian - but I tell you what - if you find a good clean working QL1.7 anywhere above your definition of cheap but less than £40 (or £60 if its an all-black version) get it and I'll take it off your hands,pay postage, and drop a fiver in the charity of your choice :lol:
Click to expand...


How many do you want :lol: but I'd go to £3 for a QL17 (to play with)....but there is no logic to some sellers as everything from skate boards to camera gear (well not Leicas etc) is junk to them, and it's getting to these sellers before someone else.
 
What sort of price are you looking at? I bought an olympus OM10 at the beginning of summer for £50 with the manual adaptor and some film and have been experimenting with different films to see how it all turns out which is a lot of fun. It's not a massive camera, easily fits in my satchel so I find I can take it pretty much everywhere. The olympus trip 35 people have been suggesting is smaller though so if it's compact you want that might be better.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennyogg/
 
One thing though - the Trip 35 isn't that small. It's smaller than most SLRs but considering how limited it is, it's huge - I thought it was a relatively compact camera, but it just isn't.
 
If you want small and 35mm, an Olympus XA fits the bill. Eminently more pocketable than a Trip.

I know as I genuinely do keep one in my jacket pocket.

The Rollei 35 is a little smaller, but scale focus only and it's more fiddly to use with the collapsing lens and idiosyncratic film loading system.
 
freecom2 said:
I thought it was a relatively compact camera, but it just isn't.
Click to expand...

Though TBF, relative to many rangefinders like Yashica GT it is quite compact.
 
I recently started a college course and i posted a similair question, the brilliant help is endless but eventually I found I had to commit!

I got a Minolta srt 101 with a lot of guidance from members and i find it perfect!
It has three simple controls, aperture, speed and iso. A nice needle from the lightmeter in the view finder tells you when it's correctly exposed and the results i am achieveing are incredible!

It's a nice size and very robust! With a simple on off switch on the bottom.

Good luck on your hunt.
Ffordes photographic have a great selection on offer.
 
On the proviso that you don't sell it if you don't like using it or film but donate it to someone else on these forums. I will let you have a Black OM2n (just had new seals and been CLA'd) and 50mm f1.8 Zuiko. Of course if you do like it/like using it you are free to keep it for as long as you want.

Failing that, if you would rather have a Pentax ME Super I can let you have one of those under the same conditions but unfortunately no spare lenses for it and it's not been CLA'd.
 
Musicman said:
Though TBF, relative to many rangefinders like Yashica GT it is quite compact.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Considering that they don't need to have a full mirror and pentaprism assembly, I find most 35mm rangefinders are unbelievably large - I was astonished, I thought having a rangefinder mechanism would help to shrink the dimensions.
 
Personally, I don't get the need for tiny cameras - ok, light cameras I can see - I don't want to carry 5lb of pig iron up a mountain (sorry Fed3) when I can carry something lighter, but, for my own kind of shooting, all making things small does is make them fiddly to use and more prone to my clumsy fingers breaking things. Something like my A-1 is small enough for me, though as I've said ^^^ if Brian can turn up a nice cheap functioning QL17 in black I'll happily go for one. I can see if you're shooting in a covert manner (street or whatever) then something you can snap and drop into a pocket is a good idea, but as I always seem to have my camera on the top of a set of sticks, shooting landscapes, and faffing around for half a hour per frame, covert cameras aren't a priority to me.
 
TheBigYin said:
Personally, I don't get the need for tiny cameras - ok, light cameras I can see - I don't want to carry 5lb of pig iron up a mountain (sorry Fed3) when I can carry something lighter, but, for my own kind of shooting, all making things small does is make them fiddly to use and more prone to my clumsy fingers breaking things. Something like my A-1 is small enough for me, though as I've said ^^^ if Brian can turn up a nice cheap functioning QL17 in black I'll happily go for one. I can see if you're shooting in a covert manner (street or whatever) then something you can snap and drop into a pocket is a good idea, but as I always seem to have my camera on the top of a set of sticks, shooting landscapes, and faffing around for half a hour per frame, covert cameras aren't a priority to me.
Click to expand...

Mark.... you'll have all the winter to wind up your enthusiasm for a film P&S as the big boot sales are closing down for the winter, just small ones now but did spot an old mint, cased, fully working, Olympus trip today (one with no batteries)...... but WTF another stubborn granny as she wanted £10 for it.:bang:
 
Have to agree with the Olympus XA, excellent little camera but if you were thinking SLR then how about:

Olympus OM1/OM1n or OM2/2n

Pentax ME Super (which has an easy film loading system not that its hard to load film) or Pentax MX is a lovely little SLR

Nikons FM and FE are quite a nice size, I always found Canons to be on the large side which is fine but obviously not ideal for taking out and about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top