Daddy Dee Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Daddy's little girl is going to be a high school senior this fall taking photography. She needs a 35mm camera for the class and I understand that auto-focus is o.k. It has been a LONG time since I've looked at anything in the 35mm market and have noticed there are a number of combo packages of body and 28-80 or 100 zooms in the neighborhood of $300. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and more. Funny thing, haven't been able to locate any real reviews of these cameras. Everybody on the net is in to video or digital. Any advice is appreciated. Still need to check in with the teacher, too. One thing I never liked about those little zooms is that at f4 or so, they were too dark to get good focus. But then, I was always using a manual focus 50mm 1.4 lens as my reference. Does the current technology of autofocus keep that from being an issue? Any advice/experience is appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerbache Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Canon's lower end models get really good reviews. From my experience, they're really well made and easy to use. The Rebel cameras are nice, and nearly as feature-filled as the next line up (the EOS series, if I remember correctly), which basically buys you a more sturdy body build. One nice thing about Canon is that their lenses are in a really broad range of price, from the cheapie stuff they give you with the camera all the way up to the huge, professional lenses you see at sports events. One lens I really like (if you're willing to sacrifice zoom capability) is their 50 mm, f1.8 lens, which can be found for around $50, I think. Super sharp pictures, if a little cheap feeling. Nikon's lens lineup is pretty similar to Canon, since they are both in consumer as well as professional cameras, but the Nikon lenses seem to go a fair amount more expensive than the Canon. If you want to go a cheaper, but solid way, and she is willing to learn to use a non-autofocus camera (it's not that hard, although I admit that I have an autofocus body myself, in addition to my old manual), you can find older bodies of Nikon, Canon, or Minolta for pretty cheap on Ebay, and can usually snag a body plus an assortment of lenses for that kind of price range. I like the older SLR bodies, personally. My old Minolta is built like a tank, and has survived more torture than I figured would be possible. These old cameras will take pictures that are at least as good as, if not better than the newer models, plus a quick way to learn the ropes of SLR photography is to have to do it a few times with a fully manual camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomac Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 You sacrifice speed with the zooms but film quality in faster film speeds is much better than in the past. It helps with the low light situations. Auto focus is over rated in my opinion. I have it, on one camera, but focus manually most of the time. I still like to set the speed and match the F-stop, so the automatic functions are not that important to me either. If your daughter is taking the class and really wants to learn what its all about, I bet you could find a nice used Nikon body at a very reasonable price. Maybe a FM or an FE. I have an FM and will never get rid of it. Tamron makes a good quality lens for most camera brands and I have had good experience with one that I have. Its an AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3. (that's an auto focus lens and it's not cheep. You can get manual focus zoom for a reasonable amount.) With 200 or 400 ASA film, they work well in most lighting situations. The brands you mentioned are all good. Im a Nikon guy. Once, while in a camera store, I heard a guy say, hey, Cannon is the official camera of the Olympics. Another guy said, Cannon may be the official camera but Nikon will take all the pictures. Its just personal preference. If you can afford it, Nikor glass is great stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Dee, I am with boomac on this one. A Nikon FM or FE would be great choices. Very reliable and solid. Let me know if you'd like me to peruse the local shops. They always seem to have some good selections. I will keep my eye out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I go back to the all manual days. I still have my first cameras and some of them still work But seriously, auto focus cameras uasually use an infrared grid pattern to project something for the system to lock on to at low light levels. The first generation autofocus cameras were slow to focus and would sometimes hunt for focus. The newer models are much faster and more accurate. I still have my last two film slrs but rarely use them They are an Minolta 7000I (second generation) and a Minolta 9xi (pro model third generation) They are built like tanks and perform well. I have switched to digital though for the convience and large cappacity. I can get over 400 high rez 12 megapixel images on a single 2 gig micro drive, a resolution that will make a print that is as good or better than any 35mm format camera in NORMAL situations. Digital cameras lack the ability (so far) to record the range of light (f stops) that film can. I still have my 4x5 view camera if I need ultra high quality. NO digital camera can match the image made by a sheet of film that is 4 inches x 5 inches. There are digital backs for view cameras that do well but still lack the range of film. Minolta is an underdog in the world of pro level cameras. That meens that you will get more for the money with them. The quality is top shelf and the optics are fantastic. They can be had on ebay for a good price with many accesories thrown in to boot. The smaller the number the more basic the camera. The 9000, 9XI, 9 etc series are the pro cameras. The 7 series 7I, 7XI, 7000I, 7000 ect are the prosumer models. The 5 series are the joe camera guy series and the 3 series is for something just a step above a instamatic. The order of introduction was, #000, #000I, #XI, # for the major autofocus models. I know this is bound to stirr the pot but generation for generation, Minolta cameras are more advanced than Cannon or Nikon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I like my Nikon. On the other hand, I'm quite sure any of the big brands perform as well. You should check with the professor and see what he is teaching to. When in Rome . . . I'm from the old school. Teach manual focus, depth of field and hyperfocus. Teach the use of gray card for exposure. Teach composition of the image which will be captured. Film speed and lighing. Use of a tripod. Selection of a lense or use of a (ugg) zoom. These are what allow the creation of a good photo. OTOH, the class could well be dedicated on how to use, or tame, the computer controlled cameras of today to get them to do the above. It could take a full semister of study to learn how to defeat autofocus and autoexposure. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 ---------------- On 7/6/2004 9:49:31 PM DaddyDee wrote: Daddy's little girl is going to be a high school senior this fall taking photography. She needs a 35mm camera for the class and I understand that auto-focus is o.k. Funny thing, haven't been able to locate any real reviews of these cameras. Everybody on the net is in to video or digital. ---------------- I think issues are: (1) Will one fixed-focus lens do it; while a small number of fixed-focus lenses be OK, it's a fuss to be changing them very much; a zoom covering a moderate, functional range is more convenient. (2) I think one should learn the differences in using a normal, wide, and, especially, a portrait-length (90-105) and telephoto (over 100/105). If a zoom, it should have at least a 3:1 zoom ratio (e.g. 28-80 or 85 -- no 2:1's like 35-70!). (3) Auto-focus vs. manual; either way, be sure to look through the viewfinder to see how bright and how clear the field of view is with the camera and lens being chosen. (4) Is it to be strictly film, or is digital being taught? While I prefer film myself, digital is more and more widely used. (5) Is flash contemplated? Expertise in understanding and using flash is valuable. (6) Is macro contemplated? True close-up macro is more difficult, probably will require a tripod. A good macro lens, which will be better than a zoom lens's "macro," is very expensive if bought new. If a less expensive used lens is found, 100 mm is much better than 50 mm. I used to find reviews in "Photography" and other glossies useful, but haven't looked for those mags for years and don't know if they still exist. Never thought much of Consumer mag reviews. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Shutterbug magazine is a good source of info, with tons of display and classified ads. http://www.shutterbug.net/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Dee, I have a spare Nikon 4004 with a decent 50mm Nikkor lens that you can take a looksee at when you come up. All my photography these days is with my 6006 or (hopefully) a new to me N90S. You would be welcome to borrow it for the semester. I could also keep an eye out for an equivalent in the paper, or we could even hit Schiller's when you are in town. They have about the best used selction outside of Chicago, and the analog camera bodies are dirt cheap these days. For between $50 and $150, she can have a top Nikon kit from 15 years ago with three solid lenses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Agree with Dave about Schiller's - not the best price on used but a pretty darn extensive and good, well tested inventory. I also agree with older Nikon due to the plethora of accesories on the used market for a darn good camera. Since it is a class for base learning (I assume) of what happens when using a camera I also agree that you should get a camera that was made to work well with manual processes. This is the best way to learn what makes the difference in a shot. Further, several of the autofocus cameras are a bigger pain than necessary to use manually. We (lovely wife and I - it is part of her business ventures) have 4 35mm SLRs, two digital 'fit in the palmers', several inexpensive box style large formats and a digital SLR. I visited with her just now and we both agreed that our favorite camera for black and white is the old Canon AE1. It is very reliable and has the same quality of an AK-47 - seems to work regardless of handling and conditions. For color work I would side with the older Nikons. I do recommend that you consider a camera that can be told to automatically set either shutter speed and/or aperture - that goes a long way in speeding up bracketing when looking for the perfect shot. I would definitely go used and see if this develops into an addiction before taking food from the table for the newest, best camera... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 ---------------- On 7/7/2004 8:02:42 AM hwatkins wrote: ....our favorite camera for black and white is the old Canon AE1. It is very reliable and has the same quality of an AK-47 - seems to work regardless of handling and conditions. ---------------- Remind me to NEVER ask you to take my picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 ---------------- On 7/7/2004 8:37:29 AM cluless wrote: ---------------- On 7/7/2004 8:02:42 AM hwatkins wrote: ....our favorite camera for black and white is the old Canon AE1. It is very reliable and has the same quality of an AK-47 - seems to work regardless of handling and conditions. ---------------- Remind me to NEVER ask you to take my picture. ---------------- I am a big fan of point and shoot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I still have the Nikon 8008 that I bought when I was in college. It has both auto and manual focus and a number of other programs that she may or may not use right away. I've seen the bodies on ebay for under $100. (There is one auction ending today where the current price is $90.) **Edit-I just noticed that there is also a Nikon FM-2 (fully manual), lens (Sigma 35-70mm) and flash for about $105 right now as well. That would be a pretty nice setup and would force her to work on the fundamentals, as Wil M. mentioned earlier. You should be able to pick up a camera such as this and a couple of high quality lenses at or below your price range. Make sure to get a UV-filter to protect the lens. I have an older Quantaray lens (for Nikon) that I may be selling. It is a 75-300mm with an f4-5.6 (or thereabouts). I'm not sure what it's worth-PM me if you're interested. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 Gentlemen, Thanks for the advisement here. I've got some good recommendations to work with. I'm encouraged to think of here learning the fundamentals on f stops and manual focus. Called the teacher this morning and missed his return call. Left a voice mail for me to call back at six this evening. That will be interesting to see what he things. Dave. thanks for the very kind offer of your spare Nikon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I recently got rid of my film nikon, moved up to the Nikon d70 digital SLR. Can't go wrong with a Nikon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gullahisland Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 These guys all seem to know a HELL of a lot more about photography than I do, but I have to say that the Canon Rebel 2000 is a phenomenal camera for not a lot of money. For a newbie (like me), I found it to be FAR more intuitive (hence, easier to use) than the comparable Nikon that I looked at. I wanted to like the Nikon better, but it was just too cumbersome. I now have two Rebel 2000s. I keep a roll of B&W in one of them and color in the other. Another alternative (albeit A LOT more expensive), would be to purchase a Digital SLR camera. Hear me out. To me, the problem with traditional film cameras is that you don't get immediate feedback. You have to shoot the whole roll of film and then wait for it to be developed. Hopefully, you'll still remember EXACTLY what settings you used to achieve the results. With digital, you can mess around with aperature, f stop, etc. and immediately see the results. Technology has spoiled ALL of us, but today's youth EXPECT things to be instantaneous as a result of technology. You might find that doing it the "old fashioned" way just frustrates her and she may lose interest. Conversely, if she had the instant feedback of experimenting with a digital camera, she just might get "hooked". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 " With digital, you can mess around with aperature, f stop, etc. and immediately see the results." Agreed. Also with the price of the individual picture being lower the more I take, I shoot a lot more than I would with a film camera, and generally get better shots. I have about 2000 shots through the Nikon in the past week or so. Figure thats 55 rolls of film, cost of the film plus processing would be over 300$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 ---------------- On 7/6/2004 10:58:54 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote: ...... I'm from the old school. Teach manual focus, depth of field and hyperfocus. Teach the use of gray card for exposure. Teach composition of the image which will be captured. Film speed and lighing. Use of a tripod. Selection of a lense or use of a (ugg) zoom. These are what allow the creation of a good photo. OTOH, the class could well be dedicated on how to use, or tame, the computer controlled cameras of today to get them to do the above. It could take a full semister of study to learn how to defeat autofocus and autoexposure. Gil ---------------- I agree with total manual cameras to learn with. The problem with most of the cameras and lenses today is that a lot of the features needed to practice depth of field, hyperfocal distance have been dropped as most "users" didn't know how to use a depth of field preview (or even what that funny button did) and the scales on the lenses needed to set hyperfocal distance and depth of field are missing on most all lenses made within the last 15 years or so. I agree that zooms loose some sharpness and defanitly loose speed compaired with fixed focus lenses. Also missing from many cameras is the pc connection (for external flash, not personal computer) Yes most have hot shoes but they are a pain to connect studio strobes to. A good all manual setup shouldn't cost much over $100 but the down side is none of the cameras will be supported by the factory and repair if needed might be hard if not impossible. Also needed is a good tripod. There are many good quality units for under $100 that will serve for many years. A cable release is a great item to have for tripod work, also a mirror lock up is a great feature for long exposure tripod work. Go with what the teacher recomends. I know Nikon has been pushed hard in the above posts but in reality, any name brand camera / lense will be a good investment. EDIT.. I will restate that a digital camera (I don't care who makes it) CAN NOT capture the tonal range that film can. CCDs can at best only capture 4 f stops or so of varriation. Film can (esp b&W) capture 10 f stops. The zone system is impossible to use with digital cameras. The zone system teaches you to pre-visualise the photograph and place the tones where YOU want them. Not where the camera meter wants them to be. This is very usefull if you intend to take photographs of anything other than grey cards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 "I will restate that a digital camera (I don't care who makes it) CAN NOT capture the tonal range that film can. CCDs can at best only capture 4 f stops or so of varriation. Film can capture 10 f stops. " I disagree. I would say digital (on a newer good quality sensor) is more like 6-7 stops easily. Some of the newer professional sensors capture 11 stops of range from what I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 While I have $2,000 in a Canon Digital Rebel rig (from tripods to graycards to circular polarizers), I came from manual focus, built-in light meter (not AE), and my thumb was the motor drive. While I am a Canon guy, Nikon or Canon are great. The only thing to keep in mind is with a Canon EOS or Nikon N camera (new, autofocus), lenses you buy now will translate to a better body down the road. Figure, a nice autofocus 70-200mm f/2.8 will last a LONG time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.