Photography - Recommendations

[Williamsmith]

It's been 37 years, I figure, since I took a Photogrpahy 101 class in college so I remember very little about it. What I do recall is that I liked working in black and white and I enjoyed the challenge of creating an interesting photo which illicited a response.

Yesterday, I was bumming around in a few antique stores and ran across a Canon AE1. I recalled that this was the camera that I used back in the day. I want a manual 35 mm camera. There are others of that vintage out there ....any suggestions?

[Ultralight]

It's been 37 years, I figure, since I took a Photogrpahy 101 class in college so I remember very little about it. What I do recall is that I liked working in black and white and I enjoyed the challenge of creating an interesting photo which illicited a response.

Yesterday, I was bumming around in a few antique stores and ran across a Canon AE1. I recalled that this was the camera that I used back in the day. I want a manual 35 mm camera. There are others of that vintage out there ....any suggestions?

While I can't help with the gear question, I will say: Please share photos you take on here!

[Williamsmith]

While I can't help with the gear question, I will say: Please share photos you take on here!

I will. I regret that I was not armed with a vintage 35mm on my recent tour of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Savannah GA and Charleston, SC. Lots of great opportunities were missed. The iPhone 7 did fill in admirably.

[ToomuchStuff]

Canon, Nikon or Pentax (later was typically used as the training camera around here).

[pinkytoe]

DH is an old camera buff and has at least a hundred of them. I will get his opinion and report back.

[Float On]

I have a collection of vintage cameras but I am so bummed that I didn't keep the canon I cut my teeth on. I think I was just so excited when digital came along and my studio photography results could be viewed instantly that I was pretty quick to trade in the 35mm (I did jury slides, catalog, promotional photography for our business and others). I'm sure I sold it for $25 along with several lens and bag and extra film at a yard sale. So wish I could have it back.

[Rogar]

The AE1 is not a bad camera. If you have decent Canon lenses there are advantages to sticking with Canon. When I went totally digital I sold my Nikon F3 which I considered to be a mighty fine modern film camera. If you really want to go vintage there are some fun cameras from the 1940's on up that are really manual.  The Kodak Retinas are some of the more common high quality consumer cameras. Film cameras can be had for cheap these days off eBay. I have shopped KEH many times for used gear, too. https://www.keh.com

I've owned a number of vintage cameras, but just have digital now. I could see getting into it again. Film is fun. It's sort of like opening birthday presents when you get developed film back and the manual process is rather meditative. However, if I were to get back into film, I'd probably go with medium format. Maybe an old Zeiss bellows folder or a twin reflex.

[Geila]

I've always preferred the manual cameras with film. I finally gave in and bought a digital and I never use it. The instant results are so anti-climatic! And I miss the serendipity of a good shot. With digital you can just keep taking shots until you get what you want. The art has been taken out of the equation.

I hope you find some good equipment and enjoy using it.

[SteveinMN]

The AE-1 was a landmark camera, and deservedly so, IMO. Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax also offered excellent cameras in the 80s and 90s and even into the 21st century. Really, toward the end of the film era (the early-to-mid 2000s), there were no truly bad 35mm SLRs from the main manufacturers. I still think fondly of my Olympus OM-1 and lusted after an OM-4 for years. Digital changed all that (for lots of reasons).

n.b., the AE-1's primary claim to fame was its autofocus capability, being one of the first widely-sold cameras to offer that level of automation. If you are looking for a completely manual camera, the OM-1 is completely manual, as is the Pentax K-1000 that has been a staple of photography courses for years. Of course, even the fully-automatic cameras of the late film era can be used manually. But there are reasons you might want to go "simple".

One key to buying a film camera now is its condition. Many of the parts are "NLA" -- no longer available -- which means you (or whoever maintains it) will have to have access to new old stock or will have to cannibalize broken cameras of the same model. Obviously the more popular the model, the easier it will be to find parts.

Another key is who can maintain it. The techs who were trained by the camera manufacturers themselves are dying of old age. The demand for fixing older cameras -- particularly "common" 35mm SLRs -- declines continually (though there always will be a market for a Leica tech or techs who can repair medium- and large-format cameras). Fortunately, there are troves of information on the Internet and it's no big deal these days to send a camera across the country for repair or even a CLA (clean/lube/adjust). I strongly recommend a CLA for a camera that's been minding an attic or garage for years; lubes stiffen up and rubber decays. It's not hard, though, for a CLA to exceed the cost of the SLR you purchase today.

The nice thing about most of these cameras is that they can be had for a song now -- and they still can take marvelous images!

[Williamsmith]

I appreciate the responses. The Canon AE-1 I had in my hands yesterday had a larger than standard lens, a flash that needed a battery and looked to be in fine shape. $80 would have brought it home. Still, I was not sure of the cost of having a tech service it. I'm looking for a steal. I believe I do want to go completely manual as the art of photography is the main draw for me. I don't want to point and shoot.

[Rogar]

I am not totally familiar with the AE-1, but most of the SLRs are capable of shooting in manual only and manual focus with the correct setting. At one time I had a Nikon FM that Steve mentioned and it is indeed fully manual. It takes one or two small battery cells for the light meter, but otherwise no batteries. The Pentax K1000 is similar. If you are bottom fishing there are a bunch of older cameras that might fit you bill.

I'm speaking from experience from a few years ago, but when you get into manual focus (not auto focus) and "prime" (not zoom) lenses there are some high quality lenses in the bottom fishing price range. If you go back a little further into SLR development you might get into screw mount lenses (as opposed to modern bayonet mounts) that are probably even cheaper. Then, there was the era where rangefinders with fixed lenses were common and lenses could not be interchanged. There's a little artistic niche I've been into where not only are you shooting totally manual, but is only one choice for the lens focal length. The further back you get, you get into cameras with fixed lenses and also fairly crude methods of focus and exposure. I have had used cameras from the 30's and 40's where you have to gestimate the distance to the subject or use a separate range finder, as well as handheld light meters. It all depends on how far back into analog days you want to go. ...and then there are pinhole cameras that don't even have a lens or shutter

[bae]

Leica.

[frugal-one]

It's been 37 years, I figure, since I took a Photogrpahy 101 class in college so I remember very little about it. What I do recall is that I liked working in black and white and I enjoyed the challenge of creating an interesting photo which illicited a response.

Yesterday, I was bumming around in a few antique stores and ran across a Canon AE1. I recalled that this was the camera that I used back in the day. I want a manual 35 mm camera. There are others of that vintage out there ....any suggestions?

Asked DH who is a camera expert. He said the AE1 is a good camera and also thought you might like the Pentax 1000. He stated they are both good and have many accessories and lenses. He said $80 was too much for the AE1 and to look on e-Bay to get a better price.

[pinkytoe]

DH mentioned Nikon F1,2 or 3. He said there is a camera forum called APUG.com that might be helpful.

[Williamsmith]

Asked DH who is a camera expert. He said the AE1 is a good camera and also thought you might like the Pentax 1000. He stated they are both good and have many accessories and lenses. He said $80 was too much for the AE1 and to look on e-Bay to get a better price.

Thank You.

[Williamsmith]

DH mentioned Nikon F1,2 or 3. He said there is a camera forum called APUG.com that might be helpful.

Thank You as well.

[Williamsmith]

Leica.

A great camera.....with an equally insurmountable price.

[bae]

A great camera.....with an equally insurmountable price.

Are the 35mm M-series ones expensive still? I have a whole system and spares, and I loved the simplicity and ease of use for the sort of casual photography I did, but I have to confess that once small digital cameras got "good enough", and once our on-island film processing place perished, I've used either my iPhone or a small Panasonic Lumix for everything.

I miss the super-nice lenses.

[ToomuchStuff]

Years ago, I had an Olympus OM1. I gave it to a friend of mine that was a newspaper man, when I upgraded to a Minolta (x370 if I remember correctly), because I could get a motor drive/power winder for it.
The Pentax K1000 was a/the school model, and while many would go for it or Minolta or Olympus, the Nikon and Cannon were the high end that pro's and those with serious interest used in 35mm.
When I bought my home, I used the money that I had saved up, to buy a Nikon F4S.
Since that time, and for as little as I do I also use a couple Panasonic Lumix's.
I wonder if your getting into the developing side of things, or do you have someplace local to do that.

[razz]

What about access to the film itself and the processing of the film?

[Williamsmith]

Years ago, I had an Olympus OM1. I gave it to a friend of mine that was a newspaper man, when I upgraded to a Minolta (x370 if I remember correctly), because I could get a motor drive/power winder for it.
The Pentax K1000 was a/the school model, and while many would go for it or Minolta or Olympus, the Nikon and Cannon were the high end that pro's and those with serious interest used in 35mm.
When I bought my home, I used the money that I had saved up, to buy a Nikon F4S.
Since that time, and for as little as I do I also use a couple Panasonic Lumix's.
I wonder if your getting into the developing side of things, or do you have someplace local to do that.

I don't have the space or resources to develop my own film.

[Williamsmith]

What about access to the film itself and the processing of the film?

As far as I know, and I haven't researched this locally.....B/W 35 mm film is available and there are services for development out there. It is becoming more popular...a return to the film as opposed to digital that is.

[SteveinMN]

The Pentax K1000 was a/the school model, and while many would go for it or Minolta or Olympus, the Nikon and Cannon were the high end that pro's and those with serious interest used in 35mm.
Nikon and Canon hold the high end both because they're actually making money selling cameras (well, Nikon not so much but certainly more than Olympus and Pentax; Minolta went broke and got folded into Sony's lineup and has been pretty much subsumed by Sony's own lens mount). What makes CaNikon the professional choice, though, beyond things like weatherproofed bodies and lenses and a wide lineup of lenses and accessories, is professional service -- loaner lenses, fast turnaround for repairs, etc. -- for people who are buying professional-level cameras and who can't have them down for too long. Not every CaNikon buyer qualifies for professional service, either. But Sony barely offers it and the others? Not at all.


Unless that AE-1 already had a CLA by someone who was a Canon tech (at one time or another), $80 even for the kit is too much money. If you're willing to wait until you find a deal at some thrift store or yard sale, keep looking, assuming the price of a look-over by a tech is part of the purchase cost.

Another option might be to buy from either a local camera store (if your area still has any; they'll weed out the troublesome ones or at least warrant them for a while) or from an outfilt called KEH (obvious URL). KEH prices by the condition of the item, but even their "BGN" (Bargain) level is trusty, even if it looks like it's been through a war. I've bought BGN lenses from them and been very happy with them.

bae, anything with the red Leica dot on it is $$$$. It's wonderful gear to use, but it does not take a better picture than a properly-operating AE-1. That's up to the person pushing the button. On the other hand, the Leica gear will forever be worth far more than the AE-1 (unless it was Canon's "Job 1" AE-1, I suppose).

And, yes, B&W film is out there. So is processing, though most places don't do B&W locally anymore because of the lack of demand.

Have fun hunting, Williamsmith!

[creaker]

Canon AE-1 is what I used, although I haven't used it in a while. When the original one I had died, I got a replacement off of Ebay and that worked fine - but definitely buyer beware on older cameras on Ebay.

[Williamsmith]

I am in and out of antique stores often. Yesterday, I happened to be in one and I happened to be standing in front of a display that included the third Canon AE-1 of the day. It felt like I was destined to take it home. Upon examination, it appeared to be in near perfect condition and it came with a 52mm lens and strap. I hemmed and hawed around so much that the wife finally reminded me how long I have been shopping for one and gave me the incredulous eye when I told her I wasn't sure. At $50, it was the best price I had seen.

I settled on the AE-1 due to the ease of finding compatible accessories. And it can be used in the manual mode or programmable for auto exposure. But it is definitely not a computer and belongs to the analog revolution. So begins my journey. I don't have any great expectations for artistry. I simply want to capture images that in and of themselves evoke a feeling for me. Whatever that means....I'm not sure yet but I believe portraits can be in that class and some of the most powerful images I've seen .....are faces.

One more step back from the digital world. I was listening the an interview with Neil Young regarding digital music. It is fascinating to me how much of the analog sound is lost in the digital universe. I wonder if photography is similar?

[Rogar]

Congratulations! It should be a fun project. From what I know, digital can capture more detail than analog, but there is a unique richness and depth with film that is hard to match.

[SteveinMN]

I was listening the an interview with Neil Young regarding digital music. It is fascinating to me how much of the analog sound is lost in the digital universe. I wonder if photography is similar?
In some respects I think it is. The first digital cameras (digital SLRs, to keep comparing apples) did not offer the color rendition and dynamic range that film did/does. People complained that the first CDs sounded rather tinny and grainy, compared to vinyl.

But digital optics improved very rapidly, and, a few years ago, digital passed film in dynamic range. Used to be that pushing film to ASA 400 gave you a grainy picture -- but at least an image you got in low light. Now DSLR users routinely bump ASA to 1600 or higher with pretty much no ill effect -- and the option of denoising software to use afterward. I also remember when the brand of film chosen depended on whether you preferred Kodacolor's reddish cast or Fuji's bluish cast or Agfa's relative lack of saturation. Some people liked the pop of Kodachrome over other slide films; others found it garish. I can argue about the quality of Canon's JPEGs out of camera and my preference for Nikon's JPEGs. But that is arguing over trivial things compared to color cast and saturation. And I can fix that in post-processing, too. :)

I sometimes wonder how much of the fond comparison, though, is ... well, romantic. The sound-equalization curve used on most records -- RIAA -- only covers frequencies between 30 Hz and 15,000 KHz -- not near the limits of human hearing then or now. Except that most of the people who are old enough to have used a record player to listen to current music back in the day probably have hearing now that's no better than 30-15KHz. :D

How much of "that good old analog sound" came from sound engineers who had had 70-80 years to perfect recording and playing back that sound; how much of that declaration is from people who like real mac-and-cheese but are just "okay" with it because it doesn’t taste like the definitional "blue box" of their childhood; and how much of it comes from acoustic factors we cannot yet measure definitively?

Full disclosure: I still have a few hundred LPs I enjoy listening to and, in cases of a duplicate LP and CD album, have kept the LP. Most of what I listen to, though, is digital -- either my own stuff, streamed, or Internet radio.

William, congratulations on re-acquiring an AE-1. Great camera and just as good at images now as it ever was. Have fun with it!