35mm Camera Suggestions (1 Viewer)

[dave_brogli]

I'm looking to buy a 35mm camera in the 100-200 dollar ebay range.

I want a somewhat high quality camera that I can take pictures of sporting events and everyday life.

What are the better brands? I know canons pretty good, but what models? What features do I look for? I see so many out there but I dont know whats good anymore. Ive been using a digital camera fort he past 4 years so now I feel kinda out of the loop...........

Any ideas guys?? thanks!

oh and how about the "HD" kodak film? Is it really all it's cracked up to be?

 

[AllanN]

Are you looking for a more portable easy to use point and shoot? Or a SLR that is more customizable?

 

[dave_brogli]

Kinda customizable (it doesnt have to be very advanced)but with the simpleness of a point and shoot.

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Canon AE-1 Program.
That's the film SLR I use when I'm not using my Canon G1 digital camera.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...pgrm/index.htm

-JNS

 

[Mark Hedges]

Canon AE-1 Program.

The AE-1 was a fine camera in it's day but it is not going to be as simple to use as a P&S. It is manual focus, isn't it?

I have a Nikon N60 SLR and recommend it. It is lacking a few of the features of it's replacement (the N65) but it is superior to the N65 in build quality. It can be as easy to use as a P&S but it can be made to do more advanced things as well.

Mark

 

[Dan D.]

The AE-1 is certainly a fine camera, but there are a few things to think about.

Do you need an SLR?
For quality photography and the fast action of sporting events (usually at far distances), this is the way to go. However, $100-200 can be a bit limiting for an SLR, certainly an autofocus model.

What are your lens requirements?
Sports photography usually requires a decent zoom lens, about 300mm at least. You won't find that on a point-and-shoot, so an SLR will be the way to go. A zoom will likely be an added expense, but with an SLR, you can always add it later after you decide you definitely have the need and/or decide you want to invest further in your hobby. A note about lenses... you should plan on putting more of your investment into a quality lens than into the camera body. 90% of the photo quality is going to be due to the quality of the lens, not the camera. If you buy a nice camera with lots of bells and whistles, then put a cheap lens on it, you've just shot yourself in the foot.

Do you need autofocus?
Certainly a benefit for sports photography, though not necessarily a requirement. There are tons of classic sports photos that were taken without autofocus, but it will require you to develop a bit more skill, which as a photo hobbyist can be fun. Many photography purists (in my opinion, primitivists ) will argue that the best way to learn photography is with a fully manual film SLR, which will certainly fit your budget.

Which camera?
Tough to say. As mentioned, the AE-1 is an outstanding camera with manula controls and some program capability if I recall correctly. It should also be quite affordable. The drawback is that it uses the old FD lens mount, which does not accept the modern line of Canon EF autofocus lenses. FD lenses can be found cheaply though.

The Canon versus Nikon debate is eternal, but the reality is that they both offer excellent products with their own strengths. I started with Nikon but have become a Canon user. The old Nikon FG was my first camera and is a solid first SLR.

If you are willing to increase your initial investment and would like to go the modern route, the Canon Rebel 2000 packs a lot of bang for the buck. You can often find this paired with the good quality Tamron 28-300 zoom (which covers just about every range you'll need in one lens)for reasonable prices.

 

[Mark Sherman]

Im agree with Dan. A Canon rebel is a fine camera but the lens is going to be a bit more money if you are going to do sporting events. The old saying speed costs money, how fast do you want to go. This can be said about lenses. I would recommend something around like a 28-105 which will cover a good range for your focal length with an f stop of around 2.8-3.5.


Good luck and happy hunting

 

[Peter McM]

I'm an ameteur photographer and a Minolta Maxxum XTsi user. I love it; it'll do as little or as much as I want it to. They just stopped making this model, so you may be able to find one cheap even new somewhere.

To check out what different cameras are capable of, go to www.photosig.com[/url] You can browse through thousands of photos and can search by a variety of perameters such as camera model. Don't look for any of my work, though. I don't have a scanner yet.

 

[Mark Hedges]

An outstanding photo resource is photo.net. Full of very knowledgeable people although perhaps not as tolerant of newbie questions as HTF people.

 

[Peter McM]

Mark:

I, too use photo.net. I find the people who frequent that forum to be very helpful to a budding novice such as myself. In fact, they are more responsive to me than the photosig-ers have been. A lot of the pros do get rather technical, however; much of the banter on that site does tend to go over my head a bit.

I go to photosig for the photos themselves, and photo.net for the education.

 

[Mark Murtha]

Hi,

Another recommendation for photo.net. I followed their advice and got a good camera for less money than I thought.

I remember one main principle - unless you're going to spend *lots* of money (around $1000 or more) a Point and Shoot is pretty much as good as a SLR. So I got the Minolta Freedom Zoom explorer, 28mm-70mm, and it's worked extremely well. Probably takes better pictures than my previous camera, an Olympus that was 3x the price.

So go ahead and consider this a recomendation for the above camera.

Good luck!

Mark

 

[Ted Lee]

if you're interested in a minolta manual focus, i have an x-700 that i'm looking to sell. it includes a tokina lens - i think it's 20-210, but can't recall off the top of my head. plus i have a bounce-flash.

pm me if you're interested.

btw - am i breaking any forum rules by posting this? can' remember....

 

[Mark Hedges]

unless you're going to spend *lots* of money (around $1000 or more) a Point and Shoot is pretty much as good as a SLR

I don't really agree with that. You can get outstanding SLR cameras for very reasonable prices these days. The thing that makes a difference is the lens. If I am using the same lens odds are I would get as good a picture off my $200 N60 as I would off the $2000 Nikon F-5. My N60 + Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 lens will smoke any point and shoot out there.

You could get away with a P&S if you aren't going to try anything tricky. But if you want to take closeups or shoot with a telephoto lens an SLR is the only way to go.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Another advantage of a SLR -- you can say bye-bye to most red eye on indoors flash pictures if you play your cards right.

Many SLRs can take separate, high-power bounce/tilt flash units, and automatically adjust the flash exposure as you take the picture, using through-the-lens metering. The bounce/tilt feature lets you bounce the light from the flash off a ceiling or wall, so that the light doesn't shine directly in a subject's eyes. This will usually prevent red-eye, as opposed to "reducing" it.

 

[JohnRice]

Dave, unfortunately, threads like this never seem to accomplish much. I'll just leave my advice to this.....


If you want to get involved in photography beyond the most basic, you should probably invest in an SLR from the beginning. Good, used manual focus models should be readily available pretty cheap. In fact, AF models are probably nearly as cheap used these days. There are too many good models to name. The main SLR manufacturers are Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and Pentax. All of them have made many nice models over the years, but Canon, Nikon and Minolta have remained most active in the SLR market the longest. I have used all 3 of those brands extensively over the years, and I used to work for Minolta. Each brand has its particular strengths and a good sign that someone doesn't know what they are talking about is if they try to convince you that any one of them is junk.

As someone already mentioned, the lens is basically the sole factor (other than the film) in the "quality" of the picture. If you want good image quality, don't skimp on lenses or anything the light passes through on its way to the film. The actual SLR camera (body) has the "features" like auto or manual focus, exposure modes, metering modes, etc, etc, but has virtually nothing to do with how good the pictures are. In some cases these features can replace lack of understanding, but usually they can't. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of cameras.

An SLR is a system, meaning ultimately you will want more than one lens, a flash or two, maybe some filters and so on. Once again, if image quality is important, avoid the "all in one" mega zoom type lenses. That is not the place to skimp. If convenience is your priority, just get a nice point and shoot and don't look back.

oh and how about the "HD" kodak film? Is it really all it's cracked up to be?

Don't you know a progressive image always looks better than an interlaced one?




In other words, it is nothing but marketing bullshit.