I've been experimenting a bit with 35mm photography over the past months, just trying out different settings on an old Minolta XD-5 camera. Love it, picked it up at a rummage sale with 3 lenses, a flash, tripod, case, etc. Really got me into this and I'm hooked- everything just looks much better on film (when I actually get it right!). I'm looking to see if there are better options for cameras- the one I have now is great, but I can't help but to wonder if there is anything better out there. I'd prefer to stay with the almost entirely mechanical cameras, I like the look of them, but if the better/best options are ones with digital tech, then that's OK. Must be film though! Also, tips and tricks? Any input would be great. Thanks.
Get a Minolta SR-T 101 or one of the other SR series units, they are dirt common and built like tanks and having disassembled one before I can tell you that there is also very little plastic in the design. It'll also work with the 3 lenses you have and is 100% mechanical except fo a built in light meter in many models, the meter uses an obsolete battery however the camera works just fine without the battery. Just check the serial number, they revised the design several times. BTW I also suggest trying to get some slide film, very often you'll get better prints out of that than color print film.
Just stick with the official Minolta lenses, I have had a lot of problems with 3rd party lenses, usually due to the aperture sticking or teleconverters loosing pieces inside the camera.
Well, like digital, your best investment is decent glass. Professional lenses don't come cheap, though. You're looking for lenses with fixed apertures throughout the zoom range, or fixed primes. No higher than f/2.8. And, of course, if you're buying second hand, beware of fungus! You would be right in thinking there are better bodies out there, though. And you really need to pick a manufacturer and stick with it, so you're probably better off with a friendly dealer for advice and having a play. A general guide, though - Nikon's F4, F5 and F6 are still good cameras, as is the FM3A. You're probably looking in the region of £500-1,500 for those bodies ($750-2,250 US). Then you could decide whether to get manual focus lenses, or AF (you'd have to check compatability). As for lenses, a 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AIS is around £800-1,000, although the 50mm f/1.2 AI or AIS would only be around £500 - both good lenses for starters. One of the best 35mm manufacturers is Leica - their M and R range cameras are still awesome. You could probably pick up an R7 body for around £300-600, maybe cheaper than that if you're lucky. An M3 would probably go for a bit more than that. Obviously, one being a rangefinder, you have to choose what size you want as the lenses aren't compatible. Of course, the even more serious option is medium format. You should be able to get even a Hasselblad for the £500-2,000 mark. If you're happy starting from the bottom and developing your gear as you progress, though, start with some decent lenses for the body you have. Then you can either get a better body and have a decent lens base, or flog the lot and get something better when the time comes.
Film cameras that do all the basics are cheap. Check out what Keh has on offer in Minoltas, if you want to keep your current lenses: http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35...a-Bodies?s=1&bcode=MI&ccode=2&cc=80205&r=WG&f -- Just google the model numbers to find out more, Keh is just a price guide and trading site, you wont find much info there a lot of the time. It's different to digital cameras, where the resulting image is different from camera to camera. With film, the camera does one thing: open and close a hole really fast. There is no white balancing, no image processing, nada. The difference between a base level film camera and a god-tier professional film camera, are the onboard tools that help you get the exposure correct. But as long as you have shutter speed control, aperture control, and some kind of basic light meter, you're set. Your XD-5 has all these, so it's perfectly fine to learn on. The one thing you might find is that older cameras sometimes need exotic batteries that don't exist any more. For instance, my Canonet rangefinder needs a mercury cell battery that'd be illegal to make these days, and the alkaline equivalent will perform poorly over time. Zinc-air batteries will work in it, however, so I'm lucky there. 'Newer' film cameras work on readily available alkaline cells, often taking those 1/2AA 12v cells. So that's something to take into consideration. Things to quickly check on the camera body are the foam around the film door and mirror. Does it bounce back when you touch it? If not, it needs to be replaced, or light will get in and ruin your fun. Mechanically, the camera shouldn't stick when it actuates, and should have a fast, "satisfying" action. If it limps along, squeaks, or needs a nudge to move around, then it needs servicing. Then, as long as the body is in good repair, get a good book to get to grips with the nuts and bolts of photography. I recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It's the book I learned from, and it still serves well as a reference. All sound advice. But. You don't need to spend big to get good results. Fast primes and wide aperture zooms are, as you've rightly said, going to command quite high prices. But you can get set up fairly inexpensively, and Minolta is a good brand for it. The "beercan" lens, for instance. It produces a beautiful image and can be had for under $100. Minolta's "nifty fifty", 50mm f/1.7, can be had for around $30, and gives you a nice natural FoV with a decent aperture for low-light shots (and narrow DoF). In film days, everybody started with a 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.8 prime lens (they usually came with the camera), so there are zillions of them floating around, hence the cheap price. Once you're kitted out, just get snapping! You'll soon learn what you like to shoot, and what you don't, and you can start to get a feel for what gear does and doesn't work for you. Since you've only paid a little for the equipment, it doesn't matter if it turns out that you never user a particular focal length, or you prefer the convenience of a zoom over the fastness of a prime. It's easy to be convinced that you "need" the best top range gear by camera nerds, but you can create really great photographs with modest equipment.
Wow, thanks for the massive input (looks bigger in portrait mobile mode!). I will take it all in and work on that. Those cameras are way out of my current budget, although they'd be killer to own. I will also take a took about for that beer can lense, sounds intriguing. the foam does need to be replaced it is sticky... Shouldn't be too bad. What I do like is that the mechanical parts of the camera are in immaculate shape and sound fantastic, compared to my mother's well cleaned and oiled camera. also, does anyone have recommendations for Minolta telephoto lenses?
Yes, DO NOT GO OFFBRAND! Also get a Catadioptric lens, they are more expensive but for long telephotos they are less than half the size for the same focal length and give a much better photo.
The beercan lens is what you'd call telephoto, at 70-210mm. Catadioptric lenses (or a "mirror lens") are interesting. There are some manufacturers selling 500mm f/8 mirror lenses under the names Samyang or Vivitar, and the image they produce is quite decent when you factor in the compact-ness and the price. I don't know why people are so dead against off-brand lenses. There are awesome lenses from Tamron (e.g. the 17-50 f/2.8) and Sigma (the 10-22 f/3.5).
My problem with them is often the pin that opens the aperture is made cheaply and starts to stick or fails completely, my super cheap telephoto doesn't even have one which makes it a b**** to use because it is impossible to focus the lens on anything but the largest aperture on a bright sunny day, the stupid thing is useless unless you are trying to photograph a solar eclipse WITHOUT a filter. It is easier to recommend against them than to guess which one might be good. Just remember that the Minolta mount was ued for about 50 years so there are no shortage of lenses out there though a few may runn you a few hundred like the 50mm f=1.2
You don't need to guess which ones are good, you let strangers on the Internet try them for you! For Minolta though, you're right, they're plentiful enough that staying first-party is pretty easy.
I actually just got my first film camera: Zeiss Ikon. The only thing I'd recommend, is the main feature I look for, which is not only metering, but AE mode (Aperture Priority). If you need to take a shot quickly, this does a lot of the work for you. Set the aperture and ISO (which you'd rarely change in a given hour or so), compose, then shoot. The SRT-101 has meetering, but not AE mode. For that, you'll need to look at the XD (XD-11 depending on your local) or X-700. They are a bit more than the SRT-101, but still quite cheap. If you go Minolta, they have a legendary 58mm lens. The 58mm F1.2. It has substantially creamier bokeh than the 58mm F1.4 (or any of their other lenses for that matter) but you will pay for it. In America... a lot. Here they seem to run about $300-$350. For a non-foggy, non-fungii one in the west you're looking at $500. They have a 35mm F1.8 which is apparently the cat's meow as well. And then, the fun part. Finding the film you like that isn't out of production. :| This is poor advice...especially when we're talking about cheap but functional gear from the 60's - 80's. Do some due dilligence, get stuff in good condition, and learn to use each tool. I'm looking at a couple of < $50 SLR's (with albeit good glass) to carry around w/ my Zeiss range finder and Sony DRX1. Also not sound advice. Zeiss (arguably the best name in optics unless you wanna spend $3k on a handmade Leica lens) have made lenses for most mounts you could imagine (and still do). Canon, Nikon, etc., back in those days as well made lenses for other mounts (Leica M, for instance). Some mounts have tons of manufacturers supporting them (M42, for instances). Go offbrand -- some of the best lenses are there. Just do your research.
Good to hear. I'm getting an sr-T 101 with a 200mm lense to add to the ones I have- 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm. Anyone want an XD-5 body?
Another question- I got offered an Olympus OM-2n, which I've heard is a very good camera. Cost out of the equation, how does it line up to the Minolta sr-T 101?
I wouldn't say very good. It's OK. There's no spot metering or program mode and it's the old style needle metering system. I loved my Olympus but it eventually developed several mechanical faults. It was basically an late Seventies update of a 1975 camera. I'd expect a body to be around £80-100. Personally, I think there are better cameras out there for that sort of money. The Minolta you mention is an ancient beast dating back to the Sixties. They stopped production around 1975, when the OM-2 came out. I'd expect one to fetch around £20-40, most examples you will see are cheaper because they're broken. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole, personally! It's really all down to personal preference and what you will or won't need out of a body. The later the body, the more features it's likely to have. Not necessarily for the better, of course! ;-) As I said before, it's ALL about the glass. So, just as you don't have to have an amazing body, don't go out buying loads of lenses willy-nilly. Buy a few GOOD lenses. ;-)
