Film Camera Recomendations

Messages
32
Edit My Images
No
hi there.

I shoot digitally with a d750 and I love the dynamic range. I like my blacks to be black and whites to be white.

As yet I know nothing about film however I do class myself as someone who is comfortable behind the lens.

What film cameras could be recommended, upto £250/300?

35mm, medium format, square format - no preference at this time.

Thank you.
 
I also have a D750 and also shoot film for fun - its great!

Lots of options - based on what I own or have owned...
  • Nikon F80 - Cheap, £30-£50, is basically the same as a Nikon DSLR in the way it works, just a bit more basic like less AF points and takes film. Liked it and could make use of your lenses, but I found it too similar in use to a DSLR and not different enough
  • Nikon FE - Had 2 and miss them so thinking about another. Good one around £100, great one a bit more. Does meter, but is manual focus. Good feel, nice action, looks great and IMO more fun than the F80
  • Rolleicord - Have a VA, after my D300 which I keep as backup its my longest kept camera. Medium format, great IQ, fun to use but does work out more to run as 12 exposures rather than 36 for similar costs for film and processing. Great to use and different.
  • Leica - throwing this in as you could get a III model for around that (try collectablecameras) - not used that but had an M2 (twice, trouble is you are looking at £400+ for body and at least £200 for lens). Great camera to use, maybe research how good or bad the III is
 
If you're coming from a modern digital SLR, the path of least resistance would be to pick up an autofocus Nikon film camera such as an F90, F100, or maybe an F4 if you wanted something with a bit more heft.

What sort of photography do you do? There are so many film cameras, with all sorts of different form factors, and obviously they all have limitations. I started off with a Rolleicord Vb and it's still one of my favourite cameras, despite owning all sorts of others which are supposedly 'better'.
 
A lot depends on what you think you want from Film Photography, are you looking for a similar experience to your D750 but on film? If so then for about £300 you should be able to pick up an F5 if you keep your eyes open, autofocus and top of the Nikon range in its time, about half that will pick you up an F100, again in its time top of the range consumer autofocus camera.

If you want to go retro, pretty much manual everything then go for a plain prism F2, awesome chunky wonderfulness with the best sounding shutter ever.

If you fancy medium format the world is your lobster, pick yourself up a nice TLR like a Yashica 124G or a Mamiya C220/330 all will fall within budget, if you fancy being Vivian Maier then there are affordable Rolleiflexes out there.

Finally if you want to push the boat out you could always go for a large format Chroma designed and manufactured by F&C’s very own @stevelmx5 , the camera comes in under budget but you’ll have to add on a lens and some dark slides. https://www.kickstarter.com/project...x5-technical-camera?ref=discovery&term=Chroma

So there’s plenty of choice it’s just a question of what you want to experience from shooting film, the decision is yours.
 
As above, the F100, F80 and F5 would be the film bodies most compatible with your D750 - they work with AFS and the older AF/AF-D lenses, support VR and manual aperture control of G lenses, and have a similar 2-dial interface. Only the recent AF-P and electronic aperture 'E' lenses won't work. Anything older than the F5, like the F90, will have more limited compatibility. The F5 is large and heavy and you'll probably have to stretch your budget to get one, but of course the quality is excellent. The F100, which would be my first choice, is about the closest equivalent to your D750 of any film camera. Make sure the plastic latch that secures the back is undamaged and the multi-selector is working well - replacement backs are hard to find. The F80 is a smaller and lighter alternative - the viewfinder and AF aren't as good, but it's quieter than its bigger brother and very reasonably priced. Look out for 'sticky' rubber on all Nikons of this era, which can be hard to fix.

Manual focus Nikons of the F, FM and FE series are hard to fault, and you'll be able to use any manual focus lenses you buy for them on your D750, though a modern G lens (etc.) won't be much use on these bodies.

If you aren't bothered about compatibility, the possibilities are endless. What do you want to shoot?
 
I see no point in using film in such a way that it is the same as digital - you might as well shoot digitally. Get a Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad medium format SLR. They are nearly as different as you can get (large format is more different but is going to cost you more than £300 with all the essential bibs and bobs). They are different because the sensor is larger (either 60 x 45 mm or 60 x 60 mm compared to 36 x 24 mm) which impacts on image quality and DOF) and you should be using the waist-level finder which will greatly impact composition and is, of course, strictly manual focus. I find the waist-level finder to be the greatest and thoroughly positive difference to using digital. The finder image is at a distance (at waist level) and moves as you move the camera in ways that are not intuitive but are very creative. The last positive difference is the cost. Unless you do your own developing, the cost is around £1.00 each time you press the shutter release (I am thinking of using my Bronica ETRs, Mamiya and Hasselblad are a bit dearer) - and that cost makes a big difference, particularly as you only get 15 (60 x 45 mm) or 12 (60 x 60 mm) images on a roll. The thinking level tends to increase dramatically. And no chomping, of course - b biggest advantage!
 
Last edited:
Snip
I see no point in using film in such a way that it is the same as digital - you might as well shoot digitally.
I know what you mean there, John, but I have to admit that even though I enjoy using fully-manual vintage and semi-auto classic film cameras, I also enjoy using one or two of the last of the 35mm film SLRs to experience just how advanced they got before digital finally killed them off. :)

In this case, if the OP hasn't got any experience of film (its different types, contrasts, grains, exposure latitudes, film speeds, etc.) then might it be beneficial for him to buy a 35mm film SLR that's similar to the DSLR he's used to until he gets to grips with film photography? With a reasonable spec (but not too expensive) latter-day film SLR he should be able to choose to go as 'manual' as he likes when he's ready, but get consistent enough results in full auto exposure and AF modes (providing the camera works properly!) to see the difference between different film makes and types, rather than wondering if the result achieved was possibly down to dialling in the wrong settings?

Once up and running, the choice of the next (or a different) film camera (there's often no escape once bitten by the bug!) might be easier to make, and the results more predictable and manageable based on the experience gained with the 'training model'? That's just my take on things, so I'm not recommending any particular course of action, just contributing to the general discussion. Best of luck deciding on what's best for you BOADC. (y)
 
I see no point in using film in such a way that it is the same as digital - you might as well shoot digitally. Get a Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad medium format SLR. They are nearly as different as you can get (large format is more different but is going to cost you more than £300 with all the essential bibs and bobs). They are different because the sensor is larger (either 60 x 45 mm or 60 x 60 mm compared to 36 x 24 mm) which impacts on image quality and DOF) and you should be using the waist-level finder which will greatly impact composition and is, of course, strictly manual focus. I find the waist-level finder to be the greatest and thoroughly positive difference to using digital. The finder image is at a distance (at waist level) and moves as you move the camera in ways that are not intuitive but are very creative. The last positive difference is the cost. Unless you do your own developing, the cost is around £1.00 each time you press the shutter release (I am thinking of using my Bronica ETRs, Mamiya and Hasselblad are a bit dearer) - and that cost makes a big difference, particularly as you only get 15 (60 x 45 mm) or 12 (60 x 60 mm) images on a roll. The thinking level tends to increase dramatically. And no chomping, of course - b biggest advantage!

Disagree with the opening statement. I like shooting with more modern AF 35mm SLRs* just as much as I like medium format folders and TLRs, and it still gives me a different experience to digital.
I third/fourth the recommendation for a Nikon 35mm AF SLR

*For someone who was a teenager in the 80s, autowind film cameras where something from the space age that pro's used. Picked up a Canon EOS300x recently and it was a thing of wonder hearing the camera do it's thing with the film ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm influenced by

I like my blacks to be black and whites to be white

If we're talking about black and white photography, then in my opinion any current DSLR will beat a 35mm camera hands down, and film then becomes an inferior experience. I'm also assuming that the envisaged end result is a print. When we move up the film scale from miniature cameras (and I won't push the prewar definition of a minature camera that would make most rollfilm cameras miniatures :D) then there is a difference in quality. And reasonable size grain free prints become possible.

Note well the many assumptions in this: black and white film, prints of 12x16/A3 or larger, grain not wanted.

On that basis, I'd recommend as a first step a medium format SLR or TLR, with a slight bias towards the TLR. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anything comes in under the £300 maximum budget.
 
The cheap road to success would be an F80 that you can get for uunder £50 in great working order, albeit a bit sticky. The operation of the modes should be familiar to you and that will let you concentrate more on getting things right, since there is a limit to what can be done in post processing. Should you decide that film is a longer term objective, that might be the time to go for a more expensive Nikon or perhaps a rangefinder if that sort of photography appeals? Medium format is the other way to go onwards and upwards with film, and you'll find plenty recommendations on here.

I went back to film through a different route, buying cameras I couldn't afford when I was younger. This has meant using Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Canon 35mm cameras, and swapping between makes/types is a recipe for unsatisfactory results, at least in my case. Stick with familiar hardware is my best tip. (y)
 
If we're talking about black and white photography, then in my opinion any current DSLR will beat a 35mm camera hands down, and film then becomes an inferior experience.
That is probably the case if you use a very late date film SLR. I use much older film cameras - one of my favourite is a 1937 Zeiss Ikon Nettar - that produce images that would be next to impossible to achieve with digital. That is partly down to the lenses which are far less 'clinical' than modern computer designed lenses are. Also partly down to the leaf shutters which affect the image in a much different way to focal plane shutters - hence my suggestion above to use a Bronica, Mamiya or Hasselblad.
 
I've just got a Yashica Mat LM for £39 and I love it. It makes a refreshing change to shoot something other than DSLR or SLR and I really like the look of the processed images
 
As yet I know nothing about film however I do class myself as someone who is comfortable behind the lens.
What film cameras could be recommended, upto £250/300?
35mm, medium format, square format - no preference at this time.

There are loads of cameras to be had for that sort of money, many for far less. They have different strengths and weaknesses and it's hard to recommend something without having an idea of what you'd want to do with it.

What sort of photography are you interested in - what subjects?

What attracts you to film?
 
If you want older manual (what some call "proper" film shooting) then there's plenty within your budget.

I have way too much that I need to shift because I just don't get to use it!!
 
This is a great read. Thank you everyone. That said I’m only half way through....

I shoot music mainly, live, studio and on location however I wouldn’t be looking to use the film camera for these shoots. More in the way of just mixing thing up a little.

I’m comfortable with manual focus, I sometimes use it with live music to try and make a shoot more challenging.... or even just to keep me on my toes.

There is something romantic about film grain. Something that digital cameras just don’t give you. Even if you try and replicate it after the fact.

I’ll have another read through everyone’s feedback and comments. Thanks again in advance.
 
Snip:
I shoot music mainly, live, studio and on location however I wouldn’t be looking to use the film camera for these shoots. More in the way of just mixing thing up a little.

I’m comfortable with manual focus, I sometimes use it with live music to try and make a shoot more challenging.... or even just to keep me on my toes.

There is something romantic about film grain. Something that digital cameras just don’t give you. Even if you try and replicate it after the fact. .

It could be a bit challenging at times to shoot live gigs using film (without flash), mostly due to the limited available light and being more or less on the limit of 1000 ASA (ISO) colour print film, which was about the best that was available at the time, but it was still more than possible. Manual focus could be tricky at times too, unless you had eyes like the proverbial 'outhouse' rat! :D I wouldn't like to try it these days... give me a modern full-frame DSLR and AF for that job!

Jimmy Rogers at the Redcar Blues Festival 1991 (scanned from a print). Canon A1, Mitakon 80-200 f/4.5 on Kodak Ektar 1000 (a long-since discontinued film)

39821092555_759631df21_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is a great read. Thank you everyone. That said I’m only half way through....

I shoot music mainly, live, studio and on location however I wouldn’t be looking to use the film camera for these shoots. More in the way of just mixing thing up a little.

I’m comfortable with manual focus, I sometimes use it with live music to try and make a shoot more challenging.... or even just to keep me on my toes.

There is something romantic about film grain. Something that digital cameras just don’t give you. Even if you try and replicate it after the fact.

I’ll have another read through everyone’s feedback and comments. Thanks again in advance.

Hello, I cannot advice you about the hardware except for stating the obvious like: 135mm format hardware is more practical and comfortable to carry and handle than medium or large format, that was the main purpose of it. And even when is more common to start in the film world with 135mm, mainly because you can find good equipment for a low price, that is what I did and very happy with it, but I will dare to recommend to start directly with medium format, let's say something in 6x6 like a Yashica Mat, Rolleicord/Rolleiflex or a Mamiya. The reason for such recommendation is because you said that you are not new in photography and know how to handle everything in manual mode, so the adaptation to a new hardware will be reasonable easy for you, and I think you will really love the results and the size of the 120 film. In addition to the results, I usually find myself more comfortable handling the 120 film than 135, in every aspect, from the develop process to the enlarging process.

That is my personal experience, once you try 120 there is not turning back :)
 
I did, mainly due to cost if you're not home developing or scanning. Went through a phase of shooting five rolls of B&W film a week which was costing me £70 for film+dev+scan. Gone back to 35mm and it's costing me a third of that on a shot per shot basis.

For someone who wants to try something special on film as an additional to a work on digital, I think it is ok to go for medium format, I do not see a budget issue there.
 
I sent three films today to AG Photogrtaphich for develop and scan. Cost me £40. A big budget issue for someone whose only income is the state pension.
 
I sent three films today to AG Photogrtaphich for develop and scan. Cost me £40. A big budget issue for someone whose only income is the state pension.

H'mm if using colour negs would would be £12 plus postage (if you can fiddle a jiffy bag only 90p )...from filmdev. If you prefer B/W and want to cut costs, some films convert quite nice from colour neg to B\W using Photoshop or whatever.
 
Filmdev provide no information at all about their scans. What is medium? What is large? Three films at £14 per film is £42 plus postage to them and postage back to me. That is north of £48. Ag Photographic offer free postage to them and return postage was in that £40 I mentioned.

My three films were selected for their properties. Fomapan 200 for its classic look, Rollei Retropan 400 ditto but faster and a roll of Ilford FP4+ for some architectural photography in my TLR. Digitally processing colour film to give me monochrome rather defeats the point of using film in the first place.
 
Filmdev provide no information at all about their scans. What is medium? What is large? Three films at £14 per film is £42 plus postage to them and postage back to me. That is north of £48. Ag Photographic offer free postage to them and return postage was in that £40 I mentioned.

My three films were selected for their properties. Fomapan 200 for its classic look, Rollei Retropan 400 ditto but faster and a roll of Ilford FP4+ for some architectural photography in my TLR. Digitally processing colour film to give me monochrome rather defeats the point of using film in the first place.

Well of course for B\W you can't beat the real thing and the only way to cut costs is to dev and scan yourself....erm just saying as you probably already knew that and don't want to do it.
 
I do develop and scan my own 35 mm but I cannot do decent scans of 120 film so those go out to a lab. I am quite impressed with AG Photographic and for really critical work I use Palm Labs in Birmingham who are more expensive and slower but very good.
 
I do develop and scan my own 35 mm but I cannot do decent scans of 120 film so those go out to a lab. I am quite impressed with AG Photographic and for really critical work I use Palm Labs in Birmingham who are more expensive and slower but very good.

H'mm any reason why poor results from 120..e.g. film bowing in the holder or whatever?
 
Just that I do not have a 120 scanner, and use a flat bed scanner is not good enough.
 
With a flat bed scanner, the light comes from below and either bounces off the bottom of the film or passes through to be reflected back through the film again by the white scanner lid. To get a good scan of film, you need the light to pass through the film but just the once - so light from above.

I could rig up a light source above the negative but cannot turn off the internal light in the scanner so that would make it worse.
 
Filmdev provide no information at all about their scans. What is medium? What is large? Three films at £14 per film is £42 plus postage to them and postage back to me. That is north of £48. Ag Photographic offer free postage to them and return postage was in that £40 I mentioned.

My medium scans from Filmdev are 3091 × 2048 pixels (6.3 MP) at £10 per film for black and white. For my purposes, that's enough resolution, so I've never paid for a large scan. £3.40 (?) for postage out if you don't try the jiffy bag and large letter stamp trick that Brian mentioned. Return postage is free, and the scans get delivered by download. So maybe £34 if the medium scans are acceptable.
 
With a flat bed scanner, the light comes from below and either bounces off the bottom of the film or passes through to be reflected back through the film again by the white scanner lid. To get a good scan of film, you need the light to pass through the film but just the once - so light from above.

I could rig up a light source above the negative but cannot turn off the internal light in the scanner so that would make it worse.

A flatbed for scanning film has an illuminator in the lid that's used to transmit light through the film to the sensor (as well as one under the glass for scanning paper and the like). You tell the software what's being scanned, and it works out which illumination to use.
 
A flatbed for scanning film has an illuminator in the lid that's used to transmit light through the film to the sensor (as well as one under the glass for scanning paper and the like). You tell the software what's being scanned, and it works out which illumination to use.
My point entirely. My flatbed scanner is a standard one, not a film one hence me sending the film out to be scanned.
 
My point entirely. My flatbed scanner is a standard one, not a film one hence me sending the film out to be scanned.

Well you have got me completely confused as you say your scanner is not for film yet get good results from 35mm...anyway wouldn't you save money by buying a flatbed scanner that is for film. A cheap Epson scanner like my 4180 photo gives good results for 120 colour negs but haven't tried it for 120 B\W....and will have to see the results before recommending it for a cheap scanner..my V750 produce great B\W shots with 120 film.
 
As excalibur says, would it not be better to buy a dedicated/compatible scanner? I have a V550 and that performs very well for 35mm, I'm waiting for some 120 to fire through, develop and scan but I would guess the results scan wise will be the same. You can pick one up new for £180, so wouldn't take many films to be worth buying one
 
I already have a very good 35 mm film scanner. £180 for a second film scanner just for 120 would be hard to get past Bestbelovd as would finding space to keep it. For the amount of 120 I do, I will stick with sending it out.
 
As excalibur says, would it not be better to buy a dedicated/compatible scanner?

My personal vote is no if you're going to shoot colour. Yeah, you save money, but you'll have to live with generally subpar results with anything besides black and white, I would argue.

My Epson has a near permanent place on a shelf in the wardrobe.

I already have a very good 35 mm film scanner. £180 for a second film scanner just for 120 would be hard to get past Bestbelovd as would finding space to keep it. For the amount of 120 I do, I will stick with sending it out.

Sounds wise to me.
 
Filmdev provide no information at all about their scans. What is medium? What is large?

My medium scans from Filmdev are 3091 × 2048 pixels (6.3 MP) at £10 per film for black and white. For my purposes, that's enough resolution, so I've never paid for a large scan. £3.40 (?) for postage out if you don't try the jiffy bag and large letter stamp trick that Brian mentioned. Return postage is free, and the scans get delivered by download. So maybe £34 if the medium scans are acceptable.

... and Large is reportedly 6774x4492 (30.4MP) Noritsu:

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/film-developing-in-the-uk.341566/page-33#post-7966758
 
It seems strange to me that Filmdev offer no indication beyond small, medium and large as those are essentially meaningless. Other places either give you the file size or pixel dimensions either of which allow me to understand the quality I am going to get.

I understand that I could do a Google search to find out but really that should not be necessary. As a new customer, Filmdev should give the the information that I need. I would not be happy giving my custom to people who are pointlessly vague about rather important aspects. It does not really bode well for the rest of the process.
 
Last edited:
I already have a very good 35 mm film scanner. £180 for a second film scanner just for 120 would be hard to get past Bestbelovd as would finding space to keep it. For the amount of 120 I do, I will stick with sending it out.

That's fair enough, unless your doing it week in week out it's not worth it so much

My personal vote is no if you're going to shoot colour. Yeah, you save money, but you'll have to live with generally subpar results with anything besides black and white, I would argue.

My Epson has a near permanent place on a shelf in the wardrobe.



Sounds wise to me.

Depends what your using the images for really doesn't it, if your selling large prints for example then yeah, lab is always going to win no doubt about it. But for hobbyist/enthusiasts as a cost effective way to digitize their own shots, then I wouldn't class the results as subpar. Then again it also depends how competent the individual is I suppose to get a desired result. I'm no expert by any means, I've developed only 6 rolls of 35mm film since starting with film 2/3 month ago.

The image below was from my 3rd roll I think it was, home developed and scanned, so you could say a lot of margin for error. I would think I wouldn't have got an image that was that much better quality than what I would need or have use for. I've ordered a 12x8 print of it, so that will be the real test of quality I suppose.

P.s feel free to send the Epson to a good home to keep my other one company :D

locomotiommarch32 by Shaun Palmer, on Flickr
 
Back
Top