Beginner Recommend a 35mm camera/system...

[swanseamale47]

As well as Canon or Nikon, check out Pentax. The K mount cameras were very good, The ME super, the MX or my favorite the LX. all cracking cameras and theres a ton of lens that will fit them.

 

[excalibur2]

Whilst the T70 may take great shots, and Canon made some lovely FD glass (my collection has been appropriated by my son for video work), a T70 has no kerbside appeal ( IMHO), it’s not a camera I would reach for ( and I’m sure this viewpoint would be shared by many Fujifilm owners!)

Ah many people think like you and I always say "do you want to take pictures or be a poser". It was well designed camera by Canon in that they were thinking of possible problems by Joe public e.g. doesn't need light seals replacing as it doesn't need them also a feature called safety shift i.e. if you forget to change the shutter speed because of different light conditions it will select the correct shutter speed if not using it on manual. Of course there are cameras that are superior e,g, Canon T90 (which I have) but when the T70 was going for about £5 to £10 (bought two) it was a no brainer to use on sandy beaches with my grandchildren as if sand in the works......just throw it away.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Ah many people think like you and I always say "do you want to take pictures or be a poser". It was well designed camera by Canon in that they were thinking of possible problems by Joe public e.g. doesn't need light seals replacing as it doesn't need them also a feature called safety shift i.e. if you forget to change the shutter speed because of different light conditions it will select the correct shutter speed if not using it on manual. Of course there are cameras that are superior e,g, Canon T90 (which I have) but when the T70 was going for about £5 to £10 (bought two) it was a no brainer to use on sandy beaches with my grandchildren as if sand in the works......just throw it away.

I get that, but for me the tactile feel and handling of my camera equipment is important to me, its not about being a poser! The T series like a lot of the cameras of that era has a very brutallist approach, function over form, nothing wrong with that, its just not what I would choose to use.

The same £10 arguement can be applied to a lot of the 90's/00's plastic fantastic cameras - they are equally capable (most even have AF) - but AF glass will not suit the OPs requirement to adapt to his mirrorless body.

As I previously said, the OP should look at ranges of glass (quality v affordability) and base his decision on that, in this scenario the body is less important, since I suspect more shots will be taken on adapted lens solutions than on film.

 

[excalibur2]

I get that, but for me the tactile feel and handling of my camera equipment is important to me

Well I've handled many cameras from Nikon F4 to Praktica MT3 and the T70 feels ok to me ...but there you go. At least the T70 doesn't annoy me when using the Nikon FM (which I like) when using it in the vertical position because to operate the exposure meter the wind on lever has to be open by about 45 degrees and sometimes it gets up my nose.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It could be argued that, if you wish to enjoy the film experience, you wouldn't be using an exposure meter.

Instead, you'd employ the "Sunny 16" technique: on a sunny day you'd set the shutter speed to match the ASA/ISO rating of the film and the aperture to f16, then open up by one stop as the light level dropped. To save me typing, here's something someone did earlier...

Sunny 16 Rule Extended – Proper daylight exposure without a light meter

In a photography "Sunny 16 rule" is an easy way to get a well-exposed image without a light meter. The extended rule is more detailed for other cases.

skrasnov.com

 

[colourofsound]

I get that, but for me the tactile feel and handling of my camera equipment is important to me, its not about being a poser! The T series like a lot of the cameras of that era has a very brutallist approach, function over form, nothing wrong with that, its just not what I would choose to use.

The same £10 arguement can be applied to a lot of the 90's/00's plastic fantastic cameras - they are equally capable (most even have AF) - but AF glass will not suit the OPs requirement to adapt to his mirrorless body.

As I previously said, the OP should look at ranges of glass (quality v affordability) and base his decision on that, in this scenario the body is less important, since I suspect more shots will be taken on adapted lens solutions than on film.

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

Look at the focal lengths you are interested in and their availability/costs - that should help with the decision process.

 

[Kell]

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

That would be the toughest decision for me.

My Pentax compact outshone anything that came after it so I have a soft spot for them as a brand too.

What I would say is just try and compare like for like prices on similar lenses.

Older Minolta lenses (the MC range) are up there with Canon FD and Leica for being converted to cine use. Which means two things:

1: they’ve very highly respected
2: they get snapped up quickly and command a premium.

I think you can tell which way I’d go. But I doubt you’d be disappointed with either.

I was gifted a Pentax P30 a while ago which I used for a while. But it didn’t have the looks of the Minolta and I didn’t ever use those lenses on a modern body but I couldn’t tell the difference in my film shots.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

This may or may not help

The Rokkor Files

 

[Plain Nev]

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

Ah, just to muddy the waters a bit, if you go with Pentax you will also have access to Chinon and Ricoh lenses.

 

[colourofsound]

Look at the focal lengths you are interested in and their availability/costs - that should help with the decision process.

Chiefly I am more interested in the wider angle lenses (anything below 50mm) as they'll be more useful on the Fuji re: crop factor.

It seems both have a decent array of lenses in the 26-35mm range.

Ah, just to muddy the waters a bit, if you go with Pentax you will also have access to Chinon and Ricoh lenses.

On the contrary, this might help. At the end of the day if there is more availability in K mounts than MD mounts, it makes sense to go Pentax.

 

[colourofsound]

There looks to be some really nice Sigma, Tamron and Hoya lenses (judging by eBay) and theres even a pancake lens all in K mount...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There looks to be some really nice Sigma, Tamron and Hoya lenses (judging by eBay) and theres even a pancake lens all in K mount...

Now that Tamron has been mentioned, have you considered the AD2 range?

There are few, if any, manual focus cameras they won't fit, with the right adapter. You'll get automatic exposure with almost every camera that offers it. They also work quite nicely with dSLRs that are backward compatible with the film camera range, such as Nikon. I still use mine on the Nikon D600, when I'm not using them on the Canon film SLRs...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There's lots more about the Tamron AD2 range here...

Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses | Adaptall-2.com

A web resource providing information about vintage Tamron non-AF lenses.

www.adaptall-2.com

 

[excalibur2]

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

You'll have to pixel peep on a digi to find any difference (if any) between recommended lenses for Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc as on a film camera it will not show.....well in saying that there is caveat emptor as you might see a difference between copy variation in manufacture and pick a lemon, but then it still might not show on film?
On MFlenses site they test old lenses on different digis so might help in making a choice.

 

[woof woof]

Absolutely this - I won't be getting into the weeds for some tim (if at all).

The real question is then which system has the better set of lenses? It seems to me in my research that Minolta potentially has generally higher quality, but the SMC coating on Pentax lenses is highly regarded.

So at gunpoint then - Minolta or Pentax?

I have quite a few film era lenses including Nikon, Canon FD, Olympus Zuiko and Minolta Rokkor. Of them I like the styling and compactness of the Olympus Zuiko best but I find their aperture control clunky and overall I think I prefer the Rokkors and especially the earlier all metal body lenses with their scalloped focus rings. They are IMO beautifully made and a similar all metal and glass build to the much larger Nippon Kogaku lenses I also have.

However... Can I suggest something different to a SLR? How about a Range Finder?

I had two, a fixed lens Canonete and a Voigtlander Bessa. If I had to go back to film (it'd be with a gun to my head) I think another one of those would be high on my list rather than a SLR. Keep in mind that they don't do close up shots too well (longer minimum focus distance and parallax error) so if some film era macro or just close up shooting is on your list of things to do these may well not be suitable.

I had a Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 color scopar on my Bessar and I bought another one in recent times to use on my FF Sony A7 via a cheap adapter.

 

[colourofsound]

I have quite a few film era lenses including Nikon, Canon FD, Olympus Zuiko and Minolta Rokkor. Of them I like the styling and compactness of the Olympus Zuiko best but I find their aperture control clunky and overall I think I prefer the Rokkors and especially the earlier all metal body lenses with their scalloped focus rings. They are IMO beautifully made and a similar all metal and glass build to the much larger Nippon Kogaku lenses I also have.

However... Can I suggest something different to a SLR? How about a Range Finder?

I had two, a fixed lens Canonete and a Voigtlander Bessa. If I had to go back to film (it'd be with a gun to my head) I think another one of those would be high on my list rather than a SLR. Keep in mind that they don't do close up shots too well (longer minimum focus distance and parallax error) so if some film era macro or just close up shooting is on your list of things to do these may well not be suitable.

I had a Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 color scopar on my Bessar and I bought another one in recent times to use on my FF Sony A7 via a cheap adapter.

As long as its an interchangeble lens range finder; sure. However I do like the idea of the SLR in so far as its a back-to-roots photography and I think it'll help me understand my digital photography a little better. Plus the general availability of all the aforementioned lenses in the more popular systems.

Just reiterating that vintage lenses on my APS-C is (slightly) higher on the priority list; getting a camera body and playing with film is just a nice bonus and welcome, hands on distraction.

 

[woof woof]

Just reiterating that vintage lenses on my APS-C is (slightly) higher on the priority list; getting a camera body and playing with film is just a nice bonus and welcome, hands on distraction.

Film era lenses on APS-C digital will be subject to the crop factor and depending on how you feel about it this could be either a good or a bad thing. For example 50mm f1.8 lenses for film can often be found at cheap to reasonable prices but on APS-C digital you lose the 50mm FoV and to get that sort of FoV back you'd need to go to a 35mm and you'd probably be at f2.8 rather than f1.x or paying a lot of money for a wider than f2.8 aperture. You could go for a cheap 28mm f2.8 giving a FoV of 42mm or there abouts. Of course if you like a longer FoV APS-C digital and film era lenses might work out ok for you.

Good luck choosing.

 

[colourofsound]

Film era lenses on APS-C digital will be subject to the crop factor and depending on how you feel about it this could be either a good or a bad thing. For example 50mm f1.8 lenses for film can often be found at cheap to reasonable prices but on APS-C digital you lose the 50mm FoV and to get that sort of FoV back you'd need to go to a 35mm and you'd probably be at f2.8 rather than f1.x or paying a lot of money for a wider than f2.8 aperture. You could go for a cheap 28mm f2.8 giving a FoV of 42mm or there abouts. Of course if you like a longer FoV APS-C digital and film era lenses might work out ok for you.

Good luck choosing.

Yup I'd taken that into consideration. I'm interested in any lenses 35mm or wider; they'll work nicely on APS-C. Anything else I get will likely be something like a macro or fisheye; you know for the fun

 

[Haych]

always a good selection of Nikon, Canon and Pentax bodies/lens on eBay - my favourites were always the Canon A1 and Pentax ME (super) which was called the Pentax Leica in it's day - it is a ;lovely size - most of the early Nikon's were quite big and heavy but then came the later FM's and similar, which were lighter and smaller - but Nikon did make some ground breaking cameras at the time.

Still have a Pentax ME Super with a 28mm and 50mm lens.

Olympus OM2n.

Superb camera and the Zuiko lenses are also brilliant.

Zeiss Jena 70-210 was a nice lens on the OM1n.

As well as Canon or Nikon, check out Pentax. The K mount cameras were very good, The ME super, the MX or my favorite the LX. all cracking cameras and theres a ton of lens that will fit them.

One of the most fun lenses was the Asahi Takumar 17mm f/4 fisheye

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One of the most fun lenses was the Asahi Takumar 17mm f/4 fisheye

Tamron's AD2 17mm is rectilinear and that's fun as well, on a full frame body...

 

[excalibur2]

Well interested in zooms? the Minolta 35-70 f3.5 maco is worth a look (if reasonabally priced).....I've mounted it on my XD-11 with film to take shots when I fully get my mojo back (gradually coming back after nearly 3 years)........also got my T70 with Canon 20mm all ready for a nice sunny day traveling on my motorcycle to explore more of the Cotswolds.

Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm 1: 3.5 - Review - phillipreeve.net

The Minolta MD 35-70mm f/ 3.5 is a versatile lens which offers prime like performance. This is a full review on the Sony a7 with many full resolution images

phillipreeve.net

 

[colourofsound]

I think based on lens mount and compactness of lenses I am probably going to commit to the Pentax K system; and based on research will probably aim for a Pentax MX body

 

[colourofsound]

Having said that the MD Adapter from KF looks about the same size

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Having said that the MD Adapter from KF looks about the same size

All the adapters for 35mm SLR lenses will be about the same size

 

[colourofsound]

*sigh* okay; so probably Pentax MX OR Minolta XD then

 

[Mr Perceptive]

*sigh* okay; so probably Pentax MX OR Minolta XD then

It’s because basically the adaptor is making up the space for the mirror box - there will be small variations in distance between different camera manufacturers of the lens flange to film distance, but these are in the range of sub 5mm

 

[colourofsound]

It’s because basically the adaptor is making up the space for the mirror box - there will be small variations in distance between different camera manufacturers of the lens flange to film distance, but these are in the range of sub 5mm

How come the Leica M / L39 mounts are so thin then? I suppose they're mostly rangefinders that didn't use mirrors for the viewfinder?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

How come the Leica M / L39 mounts are so thin then? I suppose they're mostly rangefinders that didn't use mirrors for the viewfinder?

Correct - no mirrorbox

The adapter has to put the lens in the same place relative to the film of the original camera

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Correct - no mirrorbox

The adapter has to put the lens in the same place relative to the film of the original camera

Which raises the question of whether the lens is bayonet or screw mount.

The bayonet bodies are a tiny bit thinner than the screw bodies, to allow screw lenses to fit M series cameras via a thin adapter.

 

[ChrisR]

I think based on lens mount and compactness of lenses I am probably going to commit to the Pentax K system; and based on research will probably aim for a Pentax MX body

This is a wise choice. One of the best viewfinders in the business, compact, amazing selection of lenses. Meter is pretty good. I usually meter off the foreground as well as the scene in general before deciding on exposure. The MX has a little tell-tale window at the top of the viewfinder, where you can see the aperture selected, and of course you can see the current shutter speed with the light meter LEDs, so all the information you need is right there. The shutter speed dial is a bit stiff; I have to take the camera away from my eye to change speeds. I've just got used to this!

 

[Haych]

Tamron's AD2 17mm is rectilinear and that's fun as well, on a full frame body...

I was commenting on the lens being used in a 35mm camera thread.

Incidentally, my wife was thinking of a fisheye lens and there was Canon 15mm fisheye in the window of Winchester LCE at the weekend. So popped in to have a look, and asked them to mount it on a crop camera body as that is what my wife has. The first look through the viewfinder in the shop was enough to tell me it wasn't the lens for a crop camera.

As I didn't have my 6D2 with me to view it on a FF, it wasn't worth procuring without a decent assessment.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I was commenting on the lens being used in a 35mm camera thread.

The beauty of the AD2 series is that they'll fit pretty much every 35mm SLR ever made, provided you can find the correct adapter for the camera. Interestingly, 3rd party manufacturers have started making AD2 adapters for digital bodies.

The first look through the viewfinder in the shop was enough to tell me it wasn't the lens for a crop camera.

I've found the Samyang 7.5mm to be very nice on an M43 camera and some people like it on APS format cameras. It's also available under several other names.

 

[Kell]

Having said that the MD Adapter from KF looks about the same size

Personally, I'd advise against K&F.

I bought one (two actually) for Minolta>Sony. I liked the look of them (the black and orange looking fairly OEM for the Sony) and they didn't get too many bad reviews. But the black and orange sections are two different parts, and on one copy, those two parts started coming apart. Probably in less than a month of what I would say was fairly light use. The second one was going that way and felt a bit loose.

I don't know if it's the same for the Pentax>Fuji version, but worth looking into. If you do decide to go down that route, don't buy it direct from K&F unless you're prepared to wait. They're posted from China and mine took about two and half weeks to arrive (with no updates as to when it would turn up). I wanted to get using the Sony, so while I was waiting, I ordered another one from Amazon which turned up the next day - but that's how I ended up with two.

On further recommendations I bought a Fotasy one for my Sony A7 and then when I got the Canon R6II, I bought an Urth one.

Very happy with both of those.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I don't know if it's the same for the Pentax>Fuji version, but worth looking into. If you do decide to go down that route, don't buy it direct from K&F unless you're prepared to wait. They're posted from China and mine took about two and half weeks to arrive. while I was waiting, I ordered one from Amazon which turned up the next day.

My Pentax K to Fuji F K&F adapter was a single unit - unfortunately I sold it about a year ago, otherwise I would have gifted it to @colourofsound

 

[Kell]

My Pentax K to Fuji F K&F adapter was a single unit - unfortunately I sold it about a year ago, otherwise I would have gifted it to @colourofsound

Good to confirm.

 

[colourofsound]

I would have gifted it to @colourofsound

Bless you sir

Personally, I'd advise against K&F.

I bought one (two actually) for Minolta>Sony. I liked the look of them (the black and orange looking fairly OEM for the Sony) and they didn't get too many bad reviews. But the black and orange sections are two different parts, and on one copy, those two parts started coming apart. Probably in less than a month of what I would say was fairly light use. The second one was going that way and felt a bit loose.

I don't know if it's the same for the Pentax>Fuji version, but worth looking into. If you do decide to go down that route, don't buy it direct from K&F unless you're prepared to wait. They're posted from China and mine took about two and half weeks to arrive (with no updates as to when it would turn up). I wanted to get using the Sony, so while I was waiting, I ordered another one from Amazon which turned up the next day - but that's how I ended up with two.

On further recommendations I bought a Fotasy one for my Sony A7 and then when I got the Canon R6II, I bought an Urth one.

Very happy with both of those.

The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.

I'm reading a lot about speedboosters as well, with mixed reviews. Some saying the extra glass has negligible effects whereas others saying it really effects sharpness and fringing. Any experiences?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Bless you sir


The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.

I'm reading a lot about speedboosters as well, with mixed reviews. Some saying the extra glass has negligible effects whereas others saying it really effects sharpness and fringing. Any experiences?

Unless you are serious about using a lot of legacy glass, then I would save your money with regard to a speed booster (they are popular with the video fraternity as they can give back the wide angle view). Personally I would try a budget lens adapater and a budget lens (ie 50mm prime Pentax/Minolta/YMMV) fits to see how you get on with manual focusing, and whether thats the Fuji experience that you are really after - otherwise you might as well buy more Fuji Glass!

 

[Kell]

Bless you sir


The Urth ones are very expensive; but probably worth the cost.

I'm reading a lot about speedboosters as well, with mixed reviews. Some saying the extra glass has negligible effects whereas others saying it really effects sharpness and fringing. Any experiences?

I know nothing about the speedboosters.

The only thing I was looking into before I got my R6II was an adapter for my 5DIII. The Minolta lenses won't work on FF Canons without some extra glass in the way. Everything I've ever read says that this is terrible for image quality. And TBH, for the price of one of those adapters, I could almost buy my Sony.

 

[colourofsound]

I have (finally) purchased a Pentax MX with 50 and 28mm lenses. From eBay (don't judge me) but the price was good, the condition looks great and the feedback was good.

Who's good for film processing; and any reccs on colour/B&W film? Only processor close to me is Max Spielman which I'm going to assume is out right away...