View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Posts: 724
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
I meant the german amazon. Regarding taking courses for searching perhaps I will have to do. I am not as good as you for sure.
Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
moltogordo
Joined: 16 Mar 2014 Posts: 48 Location: Prince George, British Columbia
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
moltogordo wrote:
I collect cameras, and perhaps can give you a hint or two. The Nikon FM10 is still made, and is a nice little manual camera that comes with a standard zoom lens for around $300 US. Here's a link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112196-USA/Nikon_1689_FM10_35mm_SLR_Camera.html
I think it's your best bet for a manual 35mm new machine.
If you wish to go the used route, know that the Pentax DSLRs are backwards compatible and will take old Pentax lenses, which are very good. This makes the manual MX, and K1000 very good film cameras to own because you can swap lenses. A good MX can be had for about $120 US. It's an excellent camera, very small, and very sturdy. I have four, and they all work well. The K1000 isn't quite as small, but it's a rock, and can usually be had for about the same price. This was a favored camera of schools and college media programs.
Nikon DSLRs will take old Nikon lenses, too, but only in manual mode. Best bets for picking up a used Nikon are the F3 and the FM2. Oddly enough, a good FM2 (Nikon's second echelon camera) fetch hire prices than the flagship F3. The FM2 is completely manual, and retro owners like that. A good used one is about $150. I got mine for $75. Looks a bit rough but works fine. F3s can be had very reasonably. I've seen good ones as low as $100 for a body, and almost mint ones about $200. There's lots of them around.
My personal recommendations in this area are the MX and the FM2. You can't go wrong with either one. Nor with a K100 or F3. They stand the test of time . . . I've never bought an MX or FM2 that didn't work used. Very well built cameras.
Another reason for my recommending Pentax/Nikon is that their Tamron adapters are generally excellent and have a simple fit. Tamron Adaptalls are about the best bang for the buck in the used lens market. I've never got on that was badly fungused, and they are all sharp and fit and work well on the digital DSLRs.
Other cameras that I'd recommend as cheap users would be the Canon FtB, the Olympus OM1, and the Minolta SRT101. All sturdy, all have good lenses available. Any of these vintage SLRs, though, will no usually have working meters. Something about the lifespan of the selenium compounds used in the cells. Whatever the case, there is a whack of good used cameras out there.
If your taste is medium format, I'd look into the Mamiya TLRs. A good used C330 can be had for $150 bucks, and it'll beat the quality stuffing out of any 35mm on the planet.
Have fun! _________________ If you prefer "I think, therefore I am" to "non sum qualis eram", you are putting Descartes before Horace. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4572 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
there is quite a number of film cameras that had been produced until after 2000, the Fuji Klasse only was released in 2007.
However they were not made for interchangeable lenses but are compacts usually with a fixed lens. The Klasse W sports a 2.8/28, the Klasse S a 2.8/38mm lens.
Various Contax cameras, T2, T3 come with a 2.8/38 resp, 35mm lens, TVsII has a 30-60mm zoom, most produced, I believe, until 2007 by Kyocera.
Minolta made a TC-1 with a 3.5/28mm lens, Nikon the 28ti and 35ti and Ricoh the GR1 variants with a 2.8/28 and the GR21 with a f3.5/21mm lens.
All are rather high end models _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teo
Joined: 19 Jul 2014 Posts: 1079 Location: Romania
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
If a primary objection to a used camera is dust or dirt in the viewfinder and the fact that getting it cleaned will cost more than the camera is worth, then here's my 2 cents:
Buy a professional 35mm camera that has a removable prism, and interchangeable focusing screens, That way, when a bit of dust gets into the viewfinder, you just pop it off, blow out the dust, pop out the focusing screen and clean it as well (carefully, though!), and reassemble. The most popular and practical cameras that fall into this category are the pro models that were made by Canon and Nikon. And, because film cameras have become devalued because of digital, it's possible to pick up some really great pieces for cheap. Canon's original F1 and New F1, Nikon's F-series from the original F all the way to the F6 (I guess the F6 still has a removable finder, right?) -- any of these will give you the flexibility you need and are also some of the best picture taking tools ever produced. Problem solved. Oh, and you most likely won't need to worry about longevity, either. I have a Canon F1 that's about 38 years old, a New F1 that's probably about 30 years old, a couple of Nikon F2s that are in their 30s and an F3HP that's probably close to that. All of them work as well now as they day they trundled off their respective assembly lines. And they'll probably still be working long after the "Nikon" FM10 has been tossed into the dust bin. Isn't the FM10 actually built by Cosina?
Sometimes, old is just plain better than new. That is certainly the case when it comes to film gear. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Posts: 724
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
If a primary objection to a used camera is dust or dirt in the viewfinder and the fact that getting it cleaned will cost more than the camera is worth, then here's my 2 cents:
Buy a professional 35mm camera that has a removable prism, and interchangeable focusing screens, That way, when a bit of dust gets into the viewfinder, you just pop it off, blow out the dust, pop out the focusing screen and clean it as well (carefully, though!), and reassemble. The most popular and practical cameras that fall into this category are the pro models that were made by Canon and Nikon. And, because film cameras have become devalued because of digital, it's possible to pick up some really great pieces for cheap. Canon's original F1 and New F1, Nikon's F-series from the original F all the way to the F6 (I guess the F6 still has a removable finder, right?) -- any of these will give you the flexibility you need and are also some of the best picture taking tools ever produced. Problem solved. Oh, and you most likely won't need to worry about longevity, either. I have a Canon F1 that's about 38 years old, a New F1 that's probably about 30 years old, a couple of Nikon F2s that are in their 30s and an F3HP that's probably close to that. All of them work as well now as they day they trundled off their respective assembly lines. And they'll probably still be working long after the "Nikon" FM10 has been tossed into the dust bin. Isn't the FM10 actually built by Cosina?
Sometimes, old is just plain better than new. That is certainly the case when it comes to film gear. |
Hi,
so great advice.. I will go and look to some of these new ones... I guess I should be able to use my minolta lenses there with an adapter.
Regards
Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4747 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Limited adaptor availability for Minolta lenses some have lenses in. I use one for my Nikon I'm happy with it. Stick to your X700 its a great camera but an SRT model would be better, not battery dependent. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Or, given that you shoot Minolta, you might want to look around for an XK -- that was Minolta's pro equivalent back in its day. A very fine camera, made in regular and motor drive versions. Removable finder and focusing screens. It's a very cool camera. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PWhite214
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 Posts: 230 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
PWhite214 wrote:
I looked at the prices on the XK here on EBAY (USA). http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=minolta+xk&_frs=1
Not for the small budget. Sure looks nice though.
Phil |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4747 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Analogue cameras existed sometime between film and digital and are not available any more. They were otherwise known as still video cameras - like this Nikon.
_________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Posts: 724
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
alaios wrote:
very very good information and thanks for sharing... I might be a new one in the near future.. It looks tempting the feeling of a clean viewfinder.. I would try clean my minolta too and see what I get...
Regards
Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
Personally I can't see the apeal of a new film camera.
Recent models are so flimsy compared to older models, without offering any noticable advantages.
With Digital cameras there's generally an improved sensor and perhaps some improved processing...
However I suspect the market for film cameras would be too small for a manufacturer to even add in improved metering/autofocus systems that they've developed for their digital range.
Then there's the problem of tin whiskers which tend to affect newer solder conections (since lead solder was banned) so the electronics in a new model could easily die in less than ten years.
As it happens the viewfinders in my film SLRs have generally a cleaner look than my digital ones, despite being at least 10 years older. Perhaps they are better looked after, used less, or just brighter due to the larger format.
If I had money to throw at a film camera I'd certainly rather get one of the better older models (a Pentax LX perhaps) and have it given a quality CLA service. It would almost certainly out last any current model! The acessories for these models may not be available new but they generally come up on the used market often enough, and in 5 years time accessories for current film cameras will probably be scarce. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Typically, the only vulnerable area I find in film cameras is the meter. This component seems to fail quicker than others. But there are folks out there who now specialize on fixing dead meters on certain popular older models, so even the meter issue can often be put to rest. Quality film cameras that were built back in the last century will probably last well into this century before wearing out, and even so, it will probably be some small component that has failed and which, with a bit of effort, could be replaced, thus rendering the camera back into service.
The biggest problem I see is losing the knowledge base. Face it, most of the people who know how to fix the old, mechanical cameras and shutters (for the large format folks) are also old, many well past retirement age. When these folks leave us, then what? Some of the wiser ones have documented their experiences, but too many others have not.
And of course, there's the issue with film. As the user base shrinks, it becomes more and more difficult for film companies to produce a product and make enough of a profit to stay in business. When the last one goes, then what? I hope that day is very far in the future. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 5027 Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
philslizzy wrote: |
Analogue cameras existed sometime between film and digital and are not available any more. They were otherwise known as still video cameras - like this Nikon. |
how did they get the picture out of the camera? _________________ MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4747 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
kansalliskala wrote: |
philslizzy wrote: |
Analogue cameras existed sometime between film and digital and are not available any more. They were otherwise known as still video cameras - like this Nikon. |
how did they get the picture out of the camera? |
It used a special floppy disk (I'm not sure if it was removable from this model) that recorded the image as an analogue signal recorded line at a time. You viewed it through a TV and if you wanted a print, you used a video capture printer. The printer could capture images as they were streamed into it via a video camera (or this Nikon) They were compatible with 625 or 525 line tv signals. The printers used special paper and had cartridges containing ribbons of heat sensitive dye which made up the image one colour at a time.
Images could be stored on videotape for use later use and the floppy disc re-used.
This was quite an advanced camera in its day, the ones I used to sell didn't have internal storage, you caught the image on a video recorder and the print was the only permanent record that you had,
I used to sell this type of camera in the 90's. Quite a lot of expensive hardware was needed. Technically they were very advanced but the image quality was poor.
These were true analogue cameras. Film is not the opposite to Digital, analogue is the opposite. Film is not analogue. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
duckrider
Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 437 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
duckrider wrote:
Hey hoh; Your'e right!
There was this Sony Mavica, the first analogue camera!
I'd have the translation leak: There are THREE types of cameras at all: film-, plate- and chemical process based since Talbot's times, analogue as Mavica & Nikon QV C 1000 and digital since Steve Sasson's first real digital camera!
In an uncorrect manner we use "analogue" today for film- chemical based process. That's not correct at all:
Silverhalogenide crystals are exposed = 1 or not not = 0, that's digital from the beginning of photography on... _________________ T*homas
(from the origin land of Zeiss, an obligation )
Zeiss ZF 3.5/18, 2.8/25, 2.0/35, 2/50macro, 1.4/50, 1.4/85, 2/100macro
Nikon Df, F2AS, F2A, F3/T, FM
ALPA 11Si, Angulon 2,8/35 ; Xenar 1,9/50 ; Tele-Tessar 4/200
Leica R3 SAFARI Safari Lenses 2.8/28 ; 2/50 ; 4/180
Rolleiflex SL 350 , Zeiss 2,8/16 ; 4/18 ; 2,8/25 ; 2,8/35 ; 1,4/35 ; 1,8/50 ; 2,8/85 ; 1,4/85 ; 4/135 ; 4/200
Leica M9-P, Leica M4-2, Tri-Elmar "Wate", Distagon 2,8/21, Biogon 2,8/28, Biogon 2/35, Planar 2/50, Tessar 4/85, M-Elmar 50mm, Summicron 90
Sony alpha 7r & adapters for all lenses above
Last edited by duckrider on Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PWhite214
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 Posts: 230 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PWhite214 wrote:
I have a Sony Mavica camera with a several boxes of 3.5" 1.2K floppy disks. I need to dig it out to see if it still works. There is a USB floppy drive, somewhere. As I remember, I used that camera in March 2012 visiting New Your City with my daughter and the High School Choir. I also took the Pentax K-1000. I have no idea where those photos might be.
Phil |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
duckrider wrote: |
In an uncorrect manner we use "analogue" today for film- chemical based process. That's not correct at all:
Silverhalogenide crystals are exposed = 1 or not not = 0, that's digital from the beginning of photography on...
|
Each silver atom in the silver halide can react to light giving over 10^20 shades of grey for each gram or silver hailde.
The crystals are quite large in faster film (easily visible) and can very definitely have multiple shades of grey!
I rather think thats closer to analogue than acheivable via video recording! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 5027 Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
does a human being see digitally or analogically? _________________ MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|