I spent years buying digital camera gear and shooting digital only to realize that film actually does look better. Well time to start all over again.Whats a good film camera thats manual, and around the 80s-90s era? I also want something non mirrorless/dslr feeling as I just feel sick with regret any time I touch something like that now.
You sound like a Sony user. Try a CCD era digital camera like the D200. For film there's like a billion threads up with people talking about their favorites. Nikons are good though. Maybe an F3 if you want a good manual camera.
>>4336406thats a nice looking film camera ill just $800???I thought film camears were cheap
>>4336411What fucking website are you looking at tha F3s ate 800? I got mine for like 200 with 2 lenses
>>4336411I have blown all my money on digital cameras so now I am looking for a film camera for $300 or less...
>>4336413how long ago did you buy it? I think prices have gone through the roof on everything the last few years.
>>4336415Holy shit
>>4336415Ok just checked and they are like 250 body only, 400 with a lens. I think either being australian is fucking you over somehow or just need to search more.
>>4336417We always get ripped off on everything zzzz
>>4336411if you want to be real cheap look at 90's electronic slrs. none of the collectors want them but they take pictures just fine, I got this one for $25.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width4000Image Height2250
>>4336405>I spent years buying digital camera gearWhat gear?What did you not find satisfactory?
>>4336420d800 and a ton of lenses
>>4336405Sinar F2
>>4336419can you set the aperture and shutter speed manually? thats all I mainly want.
>>4336423it has a manual mode yes, I'd imagine pretty much all these sorts of cameras do. but since you already have nikon lenses see if there are any cheap bodies that'll work with them before you buy into a new system[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2075
>>4336425looks nice, which pentax model is this?
>>4336419My go to answer for this is canon eos 5. You can buy em for like 20-40 bucks in working condition and the thing is great. Has almost anything you’d want in an slr[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image Width760Image Height603Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2017:06:22 08:59:45Exposure Time1 secF-Numberf/16.0ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width760Image Height603RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4336427that's from the zx-50 in >>4336419 with Fuji 400[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2075
>>4336431looks really good, def has the fuji mint greens going on
>>4336405>film actually does look better.Learn how to apply a film simulation filter in post.
I only shoot film (besides phone pics for mundane purposes) and I really don't believe you, a self-described modern digital gear queer, would find that film looks better than whatever you were shooting before.That is unless you have (a) atrocious sense for composition and you're comparing your photos to other photogs' well-composed film photos, in which case your own ill-composed film photos will just disappoint you, or (b) your technical knowledge about the photographic process, like exposure, contrast, and color grading, is lacking in which case you should just learn more about the camera and software you already have.If you're sure neither of the above is the case and you still want to shoot film for whatever reason, I suggest getting ONE of the following1. Medium format twin-lens reflex or folding camera. Generally these have no automation. Research a few cameras in this category, specifically their design and operation, and you will have an idea of what the experience is like-- very different from modern digital cameras. Buy a cheap working one from ebay. Spend an afternoon finding out what all the controls do and how they affect the shooting experience. Expect to fuck up your first roll of film anyway. This is fine.2. Cheap rangefinder camera. This will be a more familiar form factor to you but still noticeably different. Film and development will be cheaper.Whatever you do, sell your shit. Keep one body and no more than three lenses. Too much gear is bad for the mind.
>>4336405Only photographers ever say this, because photographers are all gearfags and the only thing they look for more than a good photo is an excuse to buy more garbage
>>4336405I felt the same way until I discovered the exceptional image quality of the Nikon D2x. But I still shoot slide film for its unmatched imaging.
>>4336419>pentacksew
I wouldn't go with anything other than these>8x10The best image quality, flexibility at the expense of the worst ergonomics>TLRBest compromise, reliability>RangefinderDECISIVE MOMENT.
>>4336405>>4336414Pentax K1000 with a 50mm kit lensYou'll still be a shitty photgrapher though. If you can't get it done with digital shooting film isn't gonna help. You sucking is the issue.
>>4336421Yah. You are hopless. Buy an iphone and call it good.
>>4336405nikon fe2 or canon ae1 are cheap and easy to find. even a pentax k1000 will work if you just want to start learning film and you don't want to spend a lot. you can get decent lenses for all of them for not too much money.
>>4336429I was shooting aerial surveillance pictures of ships in 2003 with an EOS 5. Truly excellent.
>>4337534Yeah, the 1,3, and 7 are all nicer as you move up the tiers, but the price grows exponentially. I really think the five is the best bang for the buck.
>>4337536I agree
>>4336417>I think either being australian is fucking you over somehowlmao everything here is 2x the cost, and we have 0 liquidity because of the tiny population and density compared to other places. even though we have 10x less population than NA, its more like 100x less products/quantity here
Canon 5D Classic, the white mans choice.
>>4336429>You can buy em for like 20-40 bucks in working conditionwhere? Looks like they're a bit more expensive on eBay.
>>4337534what sort of lens?
>>4337616Hmm, looks like even these are seeing the camera price inflation, you’re right. But there are some there, you just have to be patient and check the descriptions. Picrel listed as fully functional but with a rattling sound inside. You’re of course taking a gamble with how much you trust Japanese sellers and their assessment of “fully functional”. Looks like it’s cheaper if listed as the American a2 version also.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1284Image Height2104
>>433762070-300mm, pretty sure it was f/3.5-5.6 but I'd have to go back and check cos it was a while ago. We weren't shooting covertly, we would fly past vessels about 100ft off the water
>>4337616Got an EOS 3000 for like $20+shipping and the seller included a roll of kodak 400, a bag, and an EF 28-80mm lens. Honestly a steal, but it wasn't difficult to find. I know these late-film cameras aren't super desirable but if you want film, there ya go champ
>>4337653Was that one of those stabilized lenses? Also who were you working for? Sounds neat.>>4337678I already have a few Minolta MD mount cameras. I used to have a Maxxum 400si but the piece of shit broke and was stuck in Program mode permanently
>>4337799Nah we didn't use stabilised camera lenses but we used stabilised binoculars to identify vessels. A small coastguard-style operation doing fisheries work against illegal fishing from other countries and some smuggling operations. Was very good fun.
>>4336433That's not a camera feature, it's a film stock feature and to a lesser extent a lens feature. Don't buy bodies to achieve a look, buy different stocks. The body is little more than a dark box with controls. The most relevant features of a body are the mount and the modes it offers.
