Getting into film

Dan Canon Kid

Dan Canon Kid

Messages
46
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
hi i currently have a dslr but i am looking to get a film camera. does anyone know a cheap good quality model ??

thanks, Dan :)
 
Any of the Canon EOS range will get you started, use your existing EF lenses, wont work with EFs though.

Dave.
 
Only yesterday an excellent basic camera with very sharp lens went for about £9...it was a Konica TC with 50mm f1.7 lens, I assumed it was working ok but it's a very good camera to start using film.
 
cheers guys i will have a look i am worried about exposing it right as it would be a waste of film wouldnt it?
 
Thats why I sugested an EOS body, very similar to your DSLR, full auto mode if you need, to full manual, similar controls.

Dave.
 
you can pick up a canon EOS body pretty cheap on ebay, anybody will do, obviously its the quality of the meter and the focusing system that matters.... no sensor on a film camera, thats your film, so that part that governs a DSLR isnt an issue on a film body.


I bought an EOS5 off of ebay for about £50 i think, all my canon lenses fit (bar the one EF-s lens ive got) so its win win in that respect.
 
Dan Canon Kid said:
cheers guys i will have a look i am worried about exposing it right as it would be a waste of film wouldnt it?
Click to expand...

Well another good camera, still fairly cheap, that will expose the film correctly for you and also if you set the camera wrong it will still correctly expose, is the:-......Canon T70 with built in winder and motor drive, I have two and it's the sort of camera that lets you concentrate on taking shots instead of fiddling with the camera.
 
The Canon T70's an FD mount (manual focus) body, so won't work with Canon EF lenses, BTW.
 
Musicman said:
The Canon T70's an FD mount (manual focus) body, so won't work with Canon EF lenses, BTW.
Click to expand...


Well you can use versatile M42 or Tamrons with adapter if you want, anyway best to try film using excellent gear the cheapest way and FD lenses are cheaper than EF.
 
.
if you want a COMPLETE film set-up with a Canon A1 + 4 lenses

....have a look "here"....:thumbs:.
 
Try looking for a Pentax K1000 ,a 28,50 and 135 pentax lenses,all have the same filter thread size 49mm and go for the M series not the A ,a little cheaper
If buget steches look at the Pentax MX but check the rubberised silk shutter that it has not perished
Are you doing black and white or colour,some cheap filters on e-bay,get a orange and red for b&w plus a liner polerizer and away you go and even try infared

Good luck David

PS the battery in the MX and K1000 are only to power the meter
 
That A-1 kit of John's is a decent bit o kit - i've pretyy much got the same stuff myself - apart from the flash (which I don't really do on film anymore) and the short zoom, but all the other hardware is excellent stuff, providing the body hasn't developed a cough, and would do you proud. The lenses will work on your digital, provided you get a decent adaptor - i've got one from here - it works like a short (maybe 1.2x) tele-converter - the 28mm looks like the kit lens at 33-34mm setting - but a lot faster.

and you wont have to change your name to DAN CANON and PENTAX KID :lol:
 
You can pick up a Nikon F4 for next to nothing nowadays. Best camera I ever came across.
 
It sort of makes sense if you have a bunch of full frame lenses for the digital, to get a film camera that works with them too... that's the reason behind my getting a EOS-3 as my main film camera. The A-1 was a sentimental thing - I always wanted one of them back in the day, but didn't have the available cash at the time. Now, they go for (relatively) peanuts, so I got one. The OP may not have the emotional attachment to a brand, fair enough, and may not have a bunch of L glass already, so he's able to pick anything he wants. All I was pointing out was that the A1 is a really nice handling camera :shrug:
 
TheBigYin said:
It sort of makes sense if you have a bunch of full frame lenses for the digital, to get a film camera that works with them too... that's the reason behind my getting a EOS-3 as my main film camera. The A-1 was a sentimental thing - I always wanted one of them back in the day, but didn't have the available cash at the time. Now, they go for (relatively) peanuts, so I got one. The OP may not have the emotional attachment to a brand, fair enough, and may not have a bunch of L glass already, so he's able to pick anything he wants. All I was pointing out was that the A1 is a really nice handling camera :shrug:
Click to expand...

I am not saying its not sensible, its just not crazy! Depending on the camera you get there are real bargains out there. My Olly, for me, is a nice size and I only shoot with prime lenses, all of which, in comparison to my Canon lenses, tiny! Its a different feel and different experience for me. :)
 
There are times I want a nice compact slr, where I'll take the A1 out - when I'm going out on a "proper" photo-trip, i'll take the EOS3 and the digital, with the appropriate lenses, partly because they can share the same set of L lenses, partly because it saves me getting confused in the handling between one type and another, and partly because I know the EOS is as dead-bang reliable as the digital, but probably with better AF and metering. When I want a more simple approach i'll take the FED3 or Voigtlander Perkeo and meter by sunny 16. And If I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I'll take the Pinhole Holga and count elephants :lol: There's definitely scope for shooting in pretty much any way I want within the range of film cameras out there (well - all apart from sharp 35mm panoramics, but xpan's are WAY out of my budget :lol:)

fwiw - my guess is that the OP is not a grizzled old sod like me, that started shooting on film, but someone who's used to digital cameras and all the trimmings. So - i'd recommend a cheap eos body that could perhaps ease the transition from full service digital to fully manual film. They are cheap, and still sell on well enough, so are effectively free - and if he wants to get into full manual camera's then the world's his lobster - maybe excalibur2 could find him something at a car-boot sale ? - he seems to turn a bargain up every other day at one :lol:
 
I think that exceptional old lens still cost a lot, so on that note I wouldn't be buying 2x the same lens just to use them on different bodies.

what's so different in the olly ? still takes film, so in my mind, film counts 3x more than the camera of course if the bodies are reliable.
 
Starastin said:
I think that exceptional old lens still cost a lot, so on that note I wouldn't be buying 2x the same lens just to use them on different bodies.

what's so different in the olly ? still takes film, so in my mind, film counts 3x more than the camera of course if the bodies are reliable.
Click to expand...

That my lens line up, as well as being wonderfully sharp, cost less than £100. I have a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 and that is all I need for that camera. The quality of the shots achieveable from my film setup is wonderful and I think the whole experience is that much better. Film will only ever, for me, be a thing that I shoot as a side project to digital. I guess for me that makes the whole feel and process more important. I am not sure I would want to be wielding around a camera so similar to my digital when I want to shoot film.

So, to agree with some points, it does make more sense to use a film camera that can take your current lenses but it certainly isn't crazy not to!
 
menthel said:
That my lens line up, as well as being wonderfully sharp, cost less than £100. I have a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 and that is all I need for that camera. The quality of the shots achieveable from my film setup is wonderful and I think the whole experience is that much better. Film will only ever, for me, be a thing that I shoot as a side project to digital. I guess for me that makes the whole feel and process more important. I am not sure I would want to be wielding around a camera so similar to my digital when I want to shoot film.

So, to agree with some points, it does make more sense to use a film camera that can take your current lenses but it certainly isn't crazy not to!
Click to expand...

I agree with this, that's why I went with a fully mechanical, manual focus camera when i started shooting film, I wanted something 'different' not just normal shooting with a wait to see my photos! Its so much more enjoyable, taking some more effort and thought with the process. When i start college I'll be developing my own film too!
 
Thmaga said:
I agree with this, that's why I went with a fully mechanical, manual focus camera when i started shooting film, I wanted something 'different' not just normal shooting with a wait to see my photos! Its so much more enjoyable, taking some more effort and thought with the process. When i start college I'll be developing my own film too!
Click to expand...

Looks like there is someone else out there who thinks like me! I am just waiting for the chemicals to be delivered personally...
 
menthel said:
That my lens line up, as well as being wonderfully sharp, cost less than £100. I have a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 and that is all I need for that camera. The quality of the shots achieveable from my film setup is wonderful and I think the whole experience is that much better. Film will only ever, for me, be a thing that I shoot as a side project to digital. I guess for me that makes the whole feel and process more important. I am not sure I would want to be wielding around a camera so similar to my digital when I want to shoot film.

So, to agree with some points, it does make more sense to use a film camera that can take your current lenses but it certainly isn't crazy not to!
Click to expand...

Myself I'm more and more looking into M42 lenses. Just got the 135mm f2.8, and well , you can use it on anything as long as you have the adapter.
but then again - I wouldn't like to buy another 24-70mm f2.8 just for the film. + I don't like having a lot of lenses because of traveling
I understand your point of view. but mine suits me better ! :D .
 
Starastin said:
Myself I'm more and more looking into M42 lenses. Just got the 135mm f2.8, and well , you can use it on anything as long as you have the adapter.
but then again - I wouldn't like to buy another 24-70mm f2.8 just for the film. + I don't like having a lot of lenses because of traveling
I understand your point of view. but mine suits me better ! :D .
Click to expand...

Exactly! As long as we are all happy and using film! :thumbs:
 
menthel said:
Exactly! As long as we are all happy and using film! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's absoloutely the main thing - life's too short to spend time doing things that don't make you happy - that's why I retired before my 40th Birthday :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
That's absoloutely the main thing - life's too short to spend time doing things that don't make you happy - that's why I retired before my 40th Birthday :lol:
Click to expand...

Jammy s*d, can't see it happening before my 60th to be honest. :shake:

Andy
 
exactly why when I bought the D90 I bought full frame lenses, now I have an F90 film camera, the lenses work on both cameras :thumbs:
 
***maybe excalibur2 could find him something at a car-boot sale ? - he seems to turn a bargain up every other day at one***

Did I tell you about the........................................ :)
 
Dan Canon Kid said:
hi i currently have a dslr but i am looking to get a film camera. does anyone know a cheap good quality model ??
thanks, Dan :)
Click to expand...

if you are still looking ....?

here's my Nikon EM with 50mm 1.8 E series ...."link"

absolutely mint - recently purchased, but now I just got a 50mm f2 for my Nikon F3 from here ... well the EM can go !!
 
Dan Canon Kid said:
joxby i didnt know he traded it in i think it was an f3 and yardbent cheers but a bit expensive for me
Click to expand...

fair enough - but TBY does have a point

rolls of colour or B&W are at least a couple quid
Im getting mine dev and onto CD at Tesco for £2

copy from CD to PC, edit and print onto A4 premium glossy - lets say £1 for ink and paper per print

the cost of the camera is not your main consideration........:)
 
Dan Canon Kid said:
sorry bloody heck
Click to expand...

Sorry for the abrupt answer, but I'll stick by my guns here...

That camera is a good little camera, from a respected make, that has done all its depreciating. You'll be able to give film a try, run a few rolls through it, an if you don't like using film, it'll sell easily enough, probably for near enough what you paid. As explained, colour film processed on the high street/supermarket costs best part of a fiver a roll - call it 14p a shutter press. Black and white is dearer - chromogenic (C41) B&W film is maybe 3.50 a roll, plus £2-£3 processing... Proper B&W is dearer still, if you pay for developing - say £7 for dev and scan, and a couple of quid for the film itself. Of course, it's dirt cheap if you process it yourself, but you have a outlay on hardware and cemicals of maybe the same as the camera above, plus a scanner.

Top and bottom of it is film isn't cheap - it can be affordable if you have access to university darkrooms/chemicals say, but there is always a certain capital outlay if you're going to use it properly. Of course, if you just want to TRY film, borrow a camera from someone you know, and shoot a couple of rolls. Bash 'em through Tesco's and they'll rush you a fiver a roll, so a tenner will let you know if it's for you.

For me, a couple of rolls a week is maybe a tenner's worth - covers pretty much all my non-work shooting needs, and is cheaper than lunch at the pub once a week :shrug:
 
TheBigYin said:
Sorry for the abrupt answer, but I'll stick by my guns here...

That camera is a good little camera, from a respected make, that has done all its depreciating. You'll be able to give film a try, run a few rolls through it, an if you don't like using film, it'll sell easily enough, probably for near enough what you paid. As explained, colour film processed on the high street/supermarket costs best part of a fiver a roll - call it 14p a shutter press. Black and white is dearer - chromogenic (C41) B&W film is maybe 3.50 a roll, plus £2-£3 processing... Proper B&W is dearer still, if you pay for developing - say £7 for dev and scan, and a couple of quid for the film itself. Of course, it's dirt cheap if you process it yourself, but you have a outlay on hardware and cemicals of maybe the same as the camera above, plus a scanner.

Top and bottom of it is film isn't cheap - it can be affordable if you have access to university darkrooms/chemicals say, but there is always a certain capital outlay if you're going to use it properly. Of course, if you just want to TRY film, borrow a camera from someone you know, and shoot a couple of rolls. Bash 'em through Tesco's and they'll rush you a fiver a roll, so a tenner will let you know if it's for you.

For me, a couple of rolls a week is maybe a tenner's worth - covers pretty much all my non-work shooting needs, and is cheaper than lunch at the pub once a week :shrug:
Click to expand...

b****r that.

Film IS cheap. In the last 2 years I have bought a full large format set up and shot a big heap of film and my total cost is still less than a full frame digital camera new.

And I have more keepers.

And they're better quality.

Film has less initial outlay but higher ongoing costs. depends on ypur spends I guess :shrug:
 
FWIW I think that it's cheap compared to digital too - that's not my prime reason for using it, of course, but it's certainly cheaper than a couple of grand for a new body every couple of years. However, if the OP was complaining that £55 for a Nikon EM and lens was too expensive, then the per-film cost is always going to be expensive as well - especially compared to the running costs of his already purchased Canon 500D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top