i want a... film camera?

[craig]

right. so. i have been snooping around some sites reading on digital cameras. but while i was in the evil empire(walmart) today i noticed a nice looking canon film camera sitting on the shelf, but i was in a hurry and didnt stop to look. just wondering what would be the best FILM camera(not point and shoot) for around 200-500(maybe 600?)

[Hoppy]

for that price. probibly a cannon rebel, and for future referance you can refer to them as SLR, single lennse reflex or something like that.

[doughboyea]

What you saw was the Cannon Rebel, a 35mm SLR, which of course, do to my haste, didn't realize that you had mentioned that already...

I myself personally find for detailed photography, film is still better than digital, only because, digital still does not have the mega pixel that equates film, simply speaking. As for the best 35mm SLR, well, that's hard to say. For me, since I can barely afford to do any mod on my car, buying a new SLR camera seems far on my priorities list. I do however own an authentic PRAKTICA Super TL, made back in the 1970's. My dad had imported it from Germany back then (and paid a pretty penny too). Anyway, I found it and have been experimenting with it. I've taken some pretty nice pictures with it. For some reason, I just like it's ability. It's heavy, made out of metal (magnesium?) and some plastic.

Somethings that you may want to look out for when looking for a 35mm SLR would be the lenses for it. What size they are and how much for those sizes. Then there's the camera's shutter speed. Can you adjust it in a wide range. I know that for my Praktica, it can go as fast as 1/500 sec to as long as you want (for celestial shots and night effects). Newer SLRs could go much faster.

Here she is:

Pictured are the Praktica Body, Pentax 55mm lens w/polorizer and the stock 50mm lens from Meyer-Optik, I think. I've seen this guy on ebay for ~$30 for just the body (compare that to the $300 new SLR's). Lenses are rather cheap too. Again, because they aren't for the newer models, they aren't in high demand. They also have sets for real cheap too. Only thing is you would have to shop wisely. Some lenses have dust or fungus in them, degrading thier ability. Just gotta shop wisely. I guess my point is, you really don't need a brand new 35mm SLR. If you go digital, well, that's another story with alot more $$$.

Dough

ps, I'd scan in the pictures I've taken with my old SLR, but a scanner wouldn't do a 35mm picture justice.

[Hoppy]

oh and as for my credentials in the photography department

ive done
HS year book photo staff
wedding/room photos for "the log cabin" a banquit hall
and independantly an entire wedding

and if i do say so myself, the top student in my HS photography course.

i uses an old nikon and an old mamiya sekor both with a crapload of lenses, filters and what not

[Longhairedhippy]

When buying any serious camera. The body is the least important part. What matters are the lenses. What I like about my Nikons is that the lenses are all interchangeable, so I can use the lenses on my digital or film bodies, depending on what I want to shoot.

[Rooz]

moved

[craig]

and how much would the rebel cost? and would you be able to scan the pictures to the computer with just as much detail as the original?

[doughboyea]

You really can't, unless you got yourself a very high quality scanner.
The imagine won't come out the same. There will be distortion, at least from my experience, hence the benifits of having a good DSLR.

Dough

[craig]

DSLR? as in DIGITAL SLR?


if so, what about this. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page25.asp this is the only thing i can find thats in my price range.

[craig]

^^^ no one going to help me with that or what? lol

[Longhairedhippy]

Pentax is OK for light work, but if you think you may get more serious later on, then it's better to spend a little bit more initially and get a higher-end camera.

[craig]

im pretty serious about it now. if i wasnt to serious about it i would stick with my old camera. so what camera would you recomend? nothing above 1,200-1,500. i was thinking the pentex because it was cheap and i wanted some left for a new computer and a realy good photo printer. but it dosnt matter i guess.

[zeaq328i]

Take nice pics of the thunderbird...

[doughboyea]

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise this thread was continued....

The pentax is ok like Longhairedhippy said. For your price range, for a DSLR (yes, that means digital) I would recommend the Nikon D70 (or D70s). It's slightly less than $1000 and with the extra cash you could get lenses. There's also the Cannon EOS 20D (more than the Nikon). BTW, I believe Woobie has the D70, if he's still posting in the forum. He's posted pics here before with that beast. Insane detail. But whatever you do, you should seriously also consider the extras. Batteries, Memory Cards, Carrying Case ($1000 is $1000), Lenses, etc. And if your really serious there's also filers and polorizers. It may be slightly risky (then again, most of the internet is risky) though Ebay could offer up nice deals on brand new DSLR's or even SLR's. Also note that older lenses are not necessarily bad. So you could save money there, just make sure that they don't have scratches or fungus on the lenses. But, if you REALLY want to save the money, another option is still going the SLR route. You'll pay like $300 for a body and spend another $500 on equipment. And at that price, you'll still have enough left over for a real nice photoprinter. FYI, walmart (evil, i know) has cheap photo processing. I could have them develop an entire roll for like $4. If I did digital it's $0.24/file.

Dough

[BMWLotAttendant]

Go Digital FTW!

I have a digital Kodak, it's good.