I have D3200. Manual focus lenses only work on full manual exposure ode, and you dont get exposure meterig. You have to eter with another lens, use hand held or f16-sunny.
Most digital lenses are DX, and only offer coverage over 1/2 the frame area on a full-frame camera, with extreme corner vignettg and distortion.
Other way around, using FF legacy lenses on DX Digital brings issue above.
To all xtents and puposes, trying to get any inter-compatability twixt the two is a bit of a mire; early Nikon MF lenses for instance, wont couple, and you do have issue with potential contact damage.
I use, legacy lenses, mostly M42 via adapter on the electric picture maker, and a couple or T2 remounts... BUT for th most part I tend to keep lenses native to the camera they belong to.
I still have fairly extesive Olympus OM outfit that was front line SLR until I got the EPM, as well as my Sigma MK1 all metal, all manual M42 outfit... ls a Zenit, a Zies ikonta 120 folder, and a few others.
M42.... great system, I got into it i the early 90's when the Sigma fell out of some-ones attic. atthe time M42 lenses were doubly cheap as chips, and primes even more so. I used to pick up lucky boxes for £5 when went to get film, and see what I culd make work! These days MFT brigade have given them something of a cult status and prices are a lot less 'chap'... BUT still some great lenses out there for very very lttle money; eg, my front line lenses are a Pentacon 29, and a Ziess Jena 50. The ziess is loverly, and you can still pick them up for well under £50, often wth a camera attatched. AND you know you can flog on anything M42 as easily as you bought it. I do use the M42 lenses on the EPM, on infinity corrected adaptor. Not as first course, it is a faff, and if I want to faff, I will shoot them on the Sigma, with film, they are native to. As a system, It stands a long hard look, and old Zeniths and Practkas that take them are virtually worthless these days. A genuine Pentax, shouldn't break the bank too much ether; with many Richoc and richoch copies like teh Sigma ot there, that with a little research can be absolute steals....
Olympus OM.... I shot this system exztensively through the 90's. I still have an OM10, whch is a loverly bt of kit for the money. I used to pick them up for about £5 a time, and abuse them mercilessly! I eventually stepped up to an OM4, which is even more wonderful... BUT for a small prpensity to EAT batteries faster than t will shoot film! Single dgit OM1's & 2's were the pro-am grade bodies of their day, more durable, and more highly valued they are probably the better buy still reletvely 'cheap' for what you get, but the 10's are still to my mind a heck of a lot of camera for your money. Bayonette mount, the bodie AND lenses can, start to get a little wobbly... one rason the M42's are so good.... brick out-house like constuctin.. well, excluding practikas! Most enses are zooms, and the MFT boys seem t have kept prices high, on the primes, which apart from the 50's tend to be rarr and especially at the wide end, still over priced. But, as a stsyem, it does offer a far amount of VFM, and the 10, lacking the prtensions the single digt OM's got can be a cracking camera.... I actually preffer it n many ways to the 4, and ot just because I dont have to swap batteries before firng the shutter! As a cheap way into flm and manual focus, t is STILL avery god cheap way into the game.
Other systems.... Pentax 'K' mount, for example, share much with the Olympus, and M42, in astonding array ofgenune and copy kit arond, and prices that vary from how 'cheap' to how MUCH!!!! If you do your homework, it could be as good a way into t as anything.
Nikon 'legacy' that they haven't changed the F-Mount sice umety jckety two is a bt mute, as far as I am concerned; was a prompt in my choice t by Nikon when I got the EPM, but I had also been lookig t swap t the F-Mount system for some years... it was just too expensive to justfy! And conclusion ow is that that legacy F-Mont ompatabilit IS a bit of a doble edged sword.... BUT, if you are prepared to pay that bt extra, again, ther's still a lot of very good lenses out there for sensble money, and plenty of crackng cameras that needn't break the bank, and will hold value and sell on readily. I WOLD avod the later AF examples though, motor in body they weren't as fast as the cannons, they were expensve, and the lower speced versions usually took obscure non rechargeable batteries that are now unobtanum or horendousely expensive. Some used rechargeable AA's, which would be a uch better bet, but.... personally, these cameras are a bit neither nor to me; they aren't a full sensation 'manual' camera, nor a fully automatc electric-picture-maker. They are cheap, but f you spend more on film and batteries, possbly not! And that nggle goes for a lot of 90's and 00's AF offerngs, of whch BIG cauton has to be offered over any of the APS format ones that prceeded the DX dgtals. Cartridge flm for them is ow pretty much obsolete, and yu dont get that full-framiness from them ether. Most often sold for the leses tat may be compatble with some mor modern digtal SLR's.
You THEN have the small matter tha a film camera is lttle ore than a light tght box to keep the film in. Lens on the font ad film in the back were the ket thngs to pctures, after operator. All of them are now quarter century plus old, which is best or best value will very much depend not on the make or model or specification when new, but how ts been looked after since..... conditon s all.....
AND, if you want a real steel? I have to say, looking at 35mm and certanly 35mm SLR is somethig of a blind alley. They were, significantly over specified and over priced ad over rated when they were new... bggest advantage of 35mm was the 'compact' film format, wihch allowed a very small camera. Sticking a pentaprism on the top, and a large mirror housng often rendered that plus somewhat mute, for little gain other than Through-The-Lens focus and compositon..... many vanted view-finder and rage finders, that could explot the 'compact' format, and could ofte have better 'true focal length' lenses.
In the 35mm arena, there are lots and lots of bargais out there, by way of things like the Minox 35, which is as small as my Olympus XA2's, with a pop out true focual length 35mm lens. My father bought one of these, around 1992, and it cost hm then, as much as my D3200 did quarter century later. Fantastc bit of kit, so often pased over thse days smply because its NOT an SLR and doesn't have iterchangeable lenes. BUT amazing quality camera, and NOT a 'cheap' compact. That, like many non SLR 35mm's was a pretty expensive enthusiast camera in its day, around £500's worth n 1990, you ca pick up now for maybe £50. Better value, is the XA2, which I have had since 1980, it too was as expensive the shop as an entry level OM10. Suffers slightly havng an 'equated' 35mm lns, to keep the body copact, and save 'pop ot' or bellows, and hidden under clamshell cover, it was a camera that set a ew standard in ts day for pocketability as well as qualty. You can pick these up for under £25 these days, in very good conditon. The Rolie of course remains the kiddie and has assocated prce, but agan, you dont have to break the bank to get even one of them. Abslte bargan basement, I have a very nie Konica C35, which like the minox has a fast ad genune focal length 35m les, and a semi-auto exposure system that made t a favourite n ts day as both an enthsasts camera Dad could get a bit pretentouse with, but could hand wide and kds to use as a pot and shoot. These can be picked up for like a FIVER now, smply ecause they dot have the name, or a pentaprism... So outside the SLR world there is a HUGE arena to find very very good cameras for real bargain prices, that n many cases ar as good or better than SLR's.
Following that train of logic, and shelving ideas you 'might' be able to share lenses with Electric-Picture-Maker... and whether you can 'live' hapily with a fixed lens (and suggestion you have had 35mm prime permenantly attatched to D3200, sggests you probably can), then you have the whole world of Medium format to look at, where, again, fixed lens folders or reflex box cameras, NOT being the high end 'system' cameras like a Bronica or Mamiya or 'blad, are again hugely under rated the market, and things like my Zies Ikonta folder, with 105mm ziess lens are INCREDIBLE value.. that one, folded slips n a coat pocket more easily than an OM10, eve an OM broken down withut lens! Yet delvers that medium fomat loverliness in that HUGE negatve, you can only dream of even with 'good' 35mm... £25?!?!?!?! that' ridiculous! Whlst lacking through the lens viewfinder.... actually lacking much by way of a veiefnder! Wholey manual, maual focus, and by scale! You DO get that full 'antique'nolvement of havig to think about what you are dog, the camera dong nothing for you. YET, t actually doesn't have to be all that much faff, and after wavig had held light meter abot a bit, and realising you still have to use 'judgement' t does actually distill everything down, and you stop frettig about buttons and settngs and just get on with the job. And it's an aena that puts off so many, and where folk prepared for it, so often want the more elevated system cameras, and 'pro' gear there are just SO many really really good cameras about for absolute penneis.
In your shoes... I would ot be looking for specific camera recomends...... nor tryg to stick to a budget.
First off, I would be weighing up, the merits of 35mm vs medum format. And consdering thngs like home developg, and whether I was going to print or scan. Scanning is convenient. But most affordable scanners are for the 35mm format. You can do MF on a flatbed, or an a adaptor, but they are rare and more expnsive. 35mm scores here on the convenience and cost bt you aren't gettig that hge leap i format size MF offers. If you are planning to home print? yo can develop both 35mm and MF with minimal equpment in the kitchen. Basically a dev tank ad spiral. MF just takes more chemicals, BUT you can 'contact prnt' and get decent viewable size prints, without an enlarger. 35mm is so small you will want t enlarge to pit, or scan to a viewable size. Begging an eglarger, and some sort of dark-room even a temperary bathroom set up.... aga, need ot be partcularly expensive, but probably a lot more and a lot more to consder than the camera.
Overall, 35m probably wns on cost vs convenience, especially if you dont home process, and use comercal labs; which for 35m at the cheap end can ve prtty cheap. MF will tend to be a bt eyewaterig, BUT yo keep costs i check by rmembering ts flm, you pay per frame, and so think twce, and ask whether what you are looking at IS worth a exposure.... so you will likely take fewer photo's and get mre keeprs from them.
Then, its on to that choice between viw-finders and range finders vs system SLR's.... where if bang for your buck is that crucial, you are probably best of dismissing system SLR's altogether, and looking very hard and dong plenty of research on any sub £25 e-bay offering of a 35mm compact, to cherry pick those enthusiast offerigs over over non enthusiast, over the counter P&S..
AND ultimately, it will only be the 'start' of an adventure in film, and if you find enthusiasm for it, follow o wll be 'what NEXT film camera'....
My advice? Here and now, if you pressed me to offer just one camera? I cant do it... REALLY cant do it! Given you have taken to the 35mm prime on the EPM, though, would have t recomend a non SLR, ad or toe in the water exercise, that Konica C35, for as little as a roll of film? Has to be hard to beat. XA2 is gaining a fan base again, its much more P&S, but again, a lot of camera for £20 or so, and then you have older stuff, like y GRandad's old Kodak retnette, that agan has fixed lens, but a good one, s fully manual, and handles a lot more like an SLR withot being a SLR, and can be picked up for Zenit or Practika sort of money, in teh £20 region. Personally that would have me looking at old folders and reflex's of the medum format veriety, and 'wondering'... but sticking to 35mm for likely convenience of gettig film, gettg it processed and scanned ond or prited..... those non SLR35's would be where I looked, and given huge umber on offer, would look at adds, then research candidated for orignal spec, owners reviews and buy on condition.
I would NOT recomend a 'cheap' slr like a zenit.... thogh I do have one.... they were always cheap, and always wll be, and they do have quirly handling; Practca's, eve cheaper, they dot have the brick outhouse build of the Zenits, and even more quirky handling. And having interchageable lenses wll likely take you into that gadget aquesition sysndrome, where findng good lenses you are likely NOT to be doing t all for penny pocket money! OM10? As toe in the water, for £25-50? Yeah, maybe.... t s still a lot of camera for your cash, lens choice s pretty good, though ostly zooms, and yu might avoid the GAS problem more easily. If you have to have a system SLR n 35mm format, it is probaby the one I would recommend with fewest qualms.
But, if you want to explore, then you will start to hanker for the higher spec cameras. and at some point be faced with the system shift dilemah, to which there's no good answer, other than bite the bullet ad pay the money, and MF will rear its ugly head again to get the 'real deal' from it.
But, as toe the water, price of a petrol station disposeable... ONE name.... Konica C35....here's a few on e-bay right now; I'd avod the later ones with integrap flashe's, but earlier ones, like mine, even at dealer prces aren't commandig much more than £30, while there's a rather ice, high spec range-rinder eddition up at the moment for barely a tenner, another for £15, and even a dealer one for under £40. Non range-rinder verions, which are likely little handicap, privately? I have seen for as little as £5! Remember condition is all, and those prces are for a mid-market 'enthusiast' camera of the early 70's, not a P&S comact of the 80's, with lens, and a true focal length one, with pretty impressive f2.8 aperture.. It s something I would use as a bench-mark... and err... well, mine wa my Grandad's, so has added sentimental value, BUT, one I wouldn't object to paying money for. (And I have seldom paid money for a film camera, so that is some accolade!)
Olympus XA2's..... err... yeah... STILL love mine... and it probably is still my most used film camera.. I probably would buy anther... again checkng e-bay, prices start from a ludicrous quid, and go up to silly money for the rarer more collectible versions; BUT a tenner gets you a good working example, probably with flash and presentation case. And somethig that is still very very useable, if not quite so involved, but definitely a bit of photographic history. As said, over the years an XA2 has probably been my most used camera, and of the flm camera's still IS.. small irny when I bought the D3200 EPM, to replace yet another extinct dig-compact, the XA2 found its way into my pocket agan, and njoyed a bt of a renaisace dong what it has always done best.... just be there, when photo-op arses, and not beg lots of faff to grab it!
They are well recomended. I have three.... so I probably wouldn't need to buy another.... the orignal 'range-rinder' XA on the other hand has tempted me a few times, this is a manual focus camera, rather than smpler zone focus model, and has a slightly more complicated lens ad focus system.... these have never been 'chap' and rarely a bargain, they still command around £100 for a good example... and as such s not a bargain, but why the Konica range finder editions are such good value for probably a better, f slightly less compact camera with the same degree of user involvement, and a true focal length lens rather than an equated compound one. You do have to be a it clued up about XA's though as the plain XA s a range fnder and as said expensive, ad SN'T an XA1 which was a cut-price selenium cell version of the XA2, ad no where near as useful or freindly t use, or as valuable as they try and make them in the adds. XA3's and XA4's were derivatves of the orignal XA2, and OTMH I thik the XA4 had a 28m wide angle lens rather than 35mm 'standard' and XA3 a closer close focus and DX flm speed codng, or somethig like that, but other tha special body colours, they were pretty much XA2's, that remans teh classic. Later Mju's, packed eve more automation, with motor film advance, and inbult flas, and the last of them even offered rather dodgy 'zoom' lenses. We had about three of the orignal Mju's in the family whe they were new, bougt mostly for lades, as they were easy to use P&, that sld on the legacy of the XA2... but personally? dont rate the. They were a very much bult down to a prce consumer conpact, packed with unnecessary fatures, and rather fragle. My ex did have one of the last 'zoom' edditions, and franklyit wasn't worth the film t took! Horrible horrble camera.
BUT I mention thse only as coparison to the Konca.... the XA2 is a cult camera, there are more than a few XA2 users and exponents on here, and for £10-£15 or £20 they are a lot of camera for your cash; but the Konica, has to reman my top choice and bench mark. While NON SLR cameras wold reman favurite for VFM and useablity.
IF you have to go system SLR, then for the cost of an OM10 compared to a Zenth or Practca, again, for geune pocket money prices that would have to be my top suggestion.....
I would nightmare at the last AF SLR's, and the myriad of cameras with ever more automation, potentially obsolete lens systems, and battery issues. I would NOT buy a APS example, been though they are incredibly cheap; unless it had a very very interestng/valuable lens on it I could make use of on a DSLR, but most wont. Of 35mm offerings I would be dong lots of research on what was on offer, to check I COULD actually use it now, as is, and not have to modfy t to get roud battery issues etc. AND sangune, that what I was buyg really wasn't much different to a slow Electrc-Picture-Maker I had to buy film for! So n matter how 'cheap', for what t dd, I may as well save my money ad shoot the EPM!
Which WOULD bring me back to the notion that one of those old manual focus, manual EVERYTHING 120 folders or Twin-Lens-Reflex's, for that real difference in the experience, and reslts, probably WAS worth the inconvenience.... o the principle that that 'incovenience' is actually a heck of a lot of the 'experience' and learning and joy of old flm cameras... ad they offer that huge dfference ad deliver the sort of results on they can for it... and can be just as 'cheap'.
Bottom lin is thatthe variables are SO huge, you ave to do your home-work; whats on offer, take yur choice ad pay your money... but aproah with an open mind; dont dismiss non SLR's, ad ponder just how you will likely use, and what you are really hoping for.... as an 'investment'?!?! forget it. You lmost certaily wont make money buying something that's cheap now, that will be worth a fortune in 10 years time! AND n all likelihood all the expeiment will do is find new and imaginative ways for you to waste your money..... so set a dget, and milk the amount of 'fun' you ca from it.
EOS-30 with Flash Up
got my F90x with a 50mm non AI lens as body stop (h'mm not suppose to use em) for £10......anyway used it a few times even recently when I forgot how to use it properly (erm must carry a manual around with me 
