[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense. The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1. Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread?

Damn 600 CAD? My F3HP was only $200 (some light use), with new light seals, mirror pad and the top plates, bottom plate and viewfinder were re-powder coated. Just keep an eye on eBay. Check out the Canon T90 too if you don't mind using batteries.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I was out camera shopping the other day, the guy in the store advised me I might want to consider an old Canon film SLR instead. His reasoning behind this is that their lenses are much cheaper on the used market since Canon uses a new mounting system for their digital cameras. If I stick with searching for an F2, I have to pay premium prices for the lenses since I am competing with every other Nikon user out there. With an older Canon camera, most people who have moved to digital are looking to offload their lenses. They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense. The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1. Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread?

That's also mainly because Nikon's F mount works for majority of Nikon SLRs in circulation today and also still compatible with DSLRs. Whereas Canon ones, they are cheaper because the film lenses might not be compatible with Canon DSLRs, therefore you might be stuck with those lenses used only for your old Canon SLR.

But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me.

 

[milkpowder]

There's a F3HP on eBay and it's BIN for $500+ too

The AF-S 50/1.4 seems a tad expensive. It's £100 more than the AF-D version and seeing that my camera drives the latter just fine, I don't know how I can justify purchasing the AF-S version. The AF-D is already an incredibly fine lens, optically, so maybe the AF-S is even better in that respect(?). Also, I'm really not a great fan of the "G" look.

I was hoping for a 28 or 35mm f/1.4 AF-D instead. 28-35mm is a far more useful range on DX, 50mm being neither here nor there. Now that I'm more than willing to pay £280 for.

I guess this is both good news for D40(x)/60 users. Good because they finally have an AF prime; Bad because it's pretty darn expensive (retail is almost as much as the bodies themselves). If I was a D40(x)/60 user looking to spend as little as possible, I'd get a split prism focussing screen fitted and settle for a 50/1.8 AI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me.

Now you got me interested. Which rangefinder would you recommend? I have a relatively tight budget (few hundred dollars max.). The Leica M series looks gorgeous, but I'm pretty sure my budget won't even allow for a M2

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's quite simple to get sharpness without any of the above. The old 50 f/1.4 had none of the above and it was razor sharp. This isn't a hugely complex zoom. It's a 50mm prime. The simplest lens in existence. It doesn't require a complex formula.

I was just speculating comparing it to the Sigma that's all. It might not be as sharp wide open. Of course how sharp you like things is a matter of preference also. Until it's released, it's impossible to know how it is visually. And everyone can then decide if they like the total package or not.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightyacorn /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you go the Canon route, those old bodies used the FD mount and can't be used on modern cameras without modification.

Yeah, that's sort of the point. Since the digital canon users aren't going after the lenses I'd be using, I can get them much cheaper. Quote:

Originally Posted by mightyacorn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you want to go completely manual? Nikon FM doesn't appeal to you?

I like the idea of completely manual, but it's not an absolute must. I'll take a look at the FM, thanks for the recommendation. I remember seeing some of them in the shop and they were definately more reasonably priced than the F3HPs. Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Damn 600 CAD? My F3HP was only $200 (some light use), with new light seals, mirror pad and the top plates, bottom plate and viewfinder were re-powder coated. Just keep an eye on eBay. Check out the Canon T90 too if you don't mind using batteries.

I guess they are getting really popular. Keep in mind though that this was at a camera shop, so all of them have been cleaned and serviced. They also offer pretty inexpensive warrantys. Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me.

I don't have any camera at the moment as my digital point and shoot just died. I'll be borrowing a friends film SLR for a while before I buy anything to make sure that it is really the way I want to go. I'd like to try some macro shots of gear and electronics as well as some artsy shots from the top of my building [great view of Toronto], which is what got me seriously looking at an SLR. Originally I was going to just get an entry level digital SLR, but going film seems like a more cost effective entry point from what I've seen so far... I also love the look of these old cameras.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally I was going to just get an entry level digital SLR, but going film seems like a more cost effective entry point from what I've seen so far... I also love the look of these old cameras.

Ok, heres the thing. Film is a PITA and costs quite a bit, ESPECIALLY if you are starting out with photography. It takes more time, and you have less control over it unless you develop it yourself or pay the big $$$ for a pro lab to handle your negatives. Trust me! That 100$ you save going film will be eaten up in a few roles of film. Trust me!

Having said that, if you are going to buy a camera based on looks, then there is no option for you. Get the one that looks best.

Me? I would get a budget DSLR with a nice kit lens. You'll have all the benefits of a new DSLR camera, and if you so desire, you can just flick a switch and you are in manual mode. Not manual enough for you? Switch the mode dial to M and you're in full manual mode. Ye ha!

The person who said nikon lenses are still going for a lot of money fed you a load. Most of the Nikon AI, AI-S, Non AI lenses are VERY cheap, and yet still beautiful lenses. I picked up a very good condition nikkor 80-200 AI for 81$us. What a steal!

Anyways, to start out I would get something like the Nikon D40 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses. Right now it's selling for 500$us after a MIR. So I expect you can find it up north for 550$cnd or so.
Brand new, two brand new lenses, free pictures (no cost to develop, no cost of film), warranty, and a DSLR with a very nice feature set, especially compared to a old film camera.

Great thing with the Nikon D40, is it can take almost any lens! So, lets say you buy the same lens I did. It'll work on the D40 without any adapters (albeit in manual mode like a film camera).

I don't get it. What's keeping you back from a budget DSLR?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was just speculating comparing it to the Sigma that's all.

As you say, that's hard to do, because the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 hasn't been released yet. It's going to be months before the new lens shows up in the US. On paper, the Sigma has better optics, but until the new Nikon comes out, it's hard to tell how that will affect the real world performance. I'm sure the Sigma will come down in price a bit to become competitive.

The thing is, if a third party lens performs better or costs less than the Nikon equivalent, people will use them. Those that decide on lenses based solely on the brand name are making a big mistake. There are a lot of great Nikon lenses, but there are great third party lenses too. Some of them are better (or just about as good and much cheaper) than the Nikon equivalent. I've got two Tokinas and a Sigma in my kit, and they are just as good as lenses that say Nikon on the lens cap. (If it bothers you, switch out the cap with a Nikon one and no one knows!)

Edit: Just checked into the new Nikon 50mm 1.4, and it doesn't have the main feature of the Sigma that improves the sharpness over the old Nikon 50 1.4 when it's wide open- the aspherical element. It also doesn't have the special coating that reduces CA and uses a non-standard filter size. It does have the 9 bladed rounded diaphragm, so it will have good bokeh like the Sigma. It appears to fit right between the old Nikon and the Sigma in both price and quality.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Film is a great way to learn because it's less forgiving. You need to get it right in the camera, rather than photoshopping it into balance from a RAW file. As long as you get the equipment cheap and realize there probably won't be any resale value to it, it can be an inexpensive way to get into photography.

It isn't true that only expensive custom labs produce good processing. Big labs process film just as good, and for proofs and basic normal sized prints, a big discount lab is better. If you happen to create a Mona Lisa, you can spring for the big expensive custom print for that one. The rest will all do fine at Costco.

See ya
Steve

 

[OverlordXenu]

There are pro labs that will do E-6 for $6/roll. 6mp scans are usually $10/roll. Film is usually $5-10/roll.

Film is only expensive if you shoot a crap load. You also have to realize that that old Nikon F2 will produce technologically better pictures than the D700, D3, 5D, etc. whatever. But that doesn't really matter.

Honestly, one of the reasons I still choose to use film is because it forces me to get the best possible image out of the camera as possible. Sure, I'll burn-and-dodge if I have to, but I can't do much else unless I scan (which I also do).

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The person who said nikon lenses are still going for a lot of money fed you a load.

Based on the pricing I saw in the store, I would say that he didn't. I'm not saying that you can't get deals on older Nikon lenses, just that you can get even better deals on the Canon lenses. Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyways, to start out I would get something like the Nikon D40 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses. Right now it's selling for 500$us after a MIR. So I expect you can find it up north for 550$cnd or so.

That's not too bad, I'll definately consider it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't get it. What's keeping you back from a budget DSLR?

The way I look at it, I can get a top of the line professional quality film camera that can take amazing pictures which digital is only now approaching for less money that it would cost me to buy an entry level digital camera. OverlordXenu pretty much summed it up in his last post.

We'll see what my experience is like when I borrow my friends camera though... who knows, I might absolutely hate film.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The way I look at it, I can get a top of the line professional quality film camera that can take amazing pictures which digital is only now approaching for less money that it would cost me to buy an entry level digital camera. OverlordXenu pretty much summed it up in his last post.

I think digital caught up to color film 3 years ago. It's now at a point where there are subtle differences between the two if done 'right', so it's up to preference.

The old bodies have a much different feel than your typical DSLR now a days. They draw less attention if used with a small lens, but they also don't seem to fit my hands anywhere near a good as my D50.

Well, at least you will try out film soon and get a taste of it. Whether that taste will be to your liking is another thing. ^_^

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Film is a great way to learn because it's less forgiving.

Digital is a great way to learn because it's more forgiving.

In addition to this, I can take a test photo in the lighting conditions and make any corrections to it there. That way I don't have to wait a few days to find out that I under exposed every picture.

It also means that I can learn at a much quicker pace because I can go out shooting and view the final photos on my computer a few hours later. I don't have to wait for my film to come back. I don't have to take notes on what I photograph with. It's all fresh in my mind and the photo data is stored in the picture.

Don't get me wrong. I know exactly what you are saying. But what I'm saying is it's foolish to think that the same amount of learning (if not More) can not be done with a digital camera. In the end, it's up to the photographer and how dedicated they are.

 

[philodox]

I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows:

NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS
$599 CAD

NIKON D40 DSLR W/ NIKON 18-55 II LENS
$469 CAD

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows: NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS $599 CAD

I guess that was to be expected.
Still, I think it is a nice deal for 2 lenses and a camera.

Should be interesting to see what you decide.

 

[GTRacer]

I learnt my chops on digital, now I'm using film. Happy days.