mr ailsbury Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 right, a friend of mine is starting photography at college and she needs a 35mm slr camera and needs a bit of adviceshe doesn't want a dead crappy one because iff she ends up carrying it on for the second year she will have to buy a better one but at the same time she doesn't want to fork out hundreds of pounds.so can anyone suggest a camera thats good quality but not too expensive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobnobs Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Canon 300X/V Here or the Nikon Here Pretty dece, but maybe a bit too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 If you're wanting 35mm then that's film. You sure you want film?Digital ones start at £400 body and lens ish. Not sure about the second hand ones. Cheapest are Nikon D50, Canon EOS 350D and such.If you want 35mm then I've got no idea. I know my Jessops halifax branch had a 35mm Nikon one for like £120 second hand I think and still have it. Not sure 'cos I don't work there any more.If you want digital, you won't be getting much for "less than a couple of hundred of quid". SLR cameras are expensive. Photography is expensive. Seriously - Especially if you want half decent photos.Chris Radcliffe's camera gear will be £2k+, Rob's near £1k and mine about £1300. Me and Rob are amateurs, Chris is pro so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyoyo Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Digital ones start at £400 body and lens ish. Not sure about the second hand ones. Cheapest are Nikon D50, Canon EOS 350D and such.There are two Nikon D50's here. Both under £400.If she is dead set on film, then try ebay. Plenty of bargains on ebay as everyone seems to be sheeding with film and moving to digital.Ebay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si-man Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 There are two Nikon D50's here. Both under £400.If she is dead set on film, then try ebay. Plenty of bargains on ebay as everyone seems to be sheeding with film and moving to digital.Ebay The D50, thats what ive just bought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARSE! Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 If you're wanting 35mm then that's film. You sure you want film?Digital ones start at £400 body and lens ish. Not sure about the second hand ones. Cheapest are Nikon D50, Canon EOS 350D and such.If you want 35mm then I've got no idea. I know my Jessops halifax branch had a 35mm Nikon one for like £120 second hand I think and still have it. Not sure 'cos I don't work there any more.If you want digital, you won't be getting much for "less than a couple of hundred of quid". SLR cameras are expensive. Photography is expensive. Seriously - Especially if you want half decent photos.Chris Radcliffe's camera gear will be £2k+, Rob's near £1k and mine about £1300. Me and Rob are amateurs, Chris is pro so....I think the photography course requires you to have a film slr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I think the photography course requires you to have a film slr. The one at my college doesn't. It encourages digital. And you don't need an SLR. A bit of a shambles really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobnobs Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Considering the course i do involves a lot of film work, then im guessing film would be a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 In my opinion, there are obvious benefits for using all digital photography when doing something to create the final photo, however coursework and shit might need you to use film.Let's wait for him to reply to film / digital shall we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobnobs Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Yeah, but still, i say go for the film, as it actually means you have to be a good photographer, not just take 100's of photos and then pick one you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minitrialer Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Yeah, but still, i say go for the film, as it actually means you have to be a good photographer, not just take 100's of photos and then pick one you like.I TOTALLY agree i take much better photographs on my 35mm, i started off with a digital and it didn't really help. I just shot away, delete, delete keep etc. etc. whereas i respected that on a film camera i was paying for it to be developed and only had 36 exposures. Plus i loved the creativeness of the darkroom, and i think i m in fact getting my own dark room, i can't wait! Seriously once i tried film i loved it.Start off on film- thats my advice. Photography doesn't have to be REALLY expensive. I have got a praktica (about 30 quid off ebay with flash, bag and lenses) and i have got an f55. That was only about 100 off ebay.Anyway, thats my advice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Drewery Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I TOTALLY agree i take much better photographs on my 35mm, i started off with a digital and it didn't really help. I just shot away, delete, delete keep etc. etc. whereas i respected that on a film camera i was paying for it to be developed and only had 36 exposures. Plus i loved the creativeness of the darkroom, and i think i m in fact getting my own dark room, i can't wait! Seriously once i tried film i loved it.Start off on film- thats my advice. Photography doesn't have to be REALLY expensive. I have got a praktica (about 30 quid off ebay with flash, bag and lenses) and i have got an f55. That was only about 100 off ebay.Anyway, thats my advice I know what you mean, I have messed about with photography for a while now with a digital camera, and the results werent anything that special. However, the photography course I am starting at college in September requires that we use 35mm cameras, so I took my dads old skool Minolta 5000 out today, its a tidy camera too, used to be one of the best cameras in the consumer market, still good today. He bought a tele macro lens with it too, and a flashgun and I had some fun with it. So much easier to take shots with and much more fun to use. The only downside is I cant use photoshop to tweak the photos but as people have said you become a better photographer by using 35mm cameras as you only have limited shots to get the picture how you want on your mind, and you cant see the photo until after it has been developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minitrialer Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 yer i agree, and also its surprising how much you can actually do in the darkroom. It's a lot more difficult i would say = more fun! So photoshop isn't everything. It feels more like your own photo when you have taken it and developed and printed and fannied on with it. You can obv scan 35mm prints onto a comp. as well which is quite cool. Places like tesco and some other shops actually develop films and scan them onto CD for you for a few quid- something to bear in mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_P Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Chris Radcliffe's camera gear will be £2k+, Rob's near £1k and mine about £1300. Me and Rob are amateurs, Chris is pro so....Whats that got to do with anything in the subject of this topic?The one at my college doesn't. It encourages digital. And you don't need an SLR. A bit of a shambles really.Not all colleges are the same? Just cus YOUR college dosen't do film, it dosen't mean every one in the country is the same. The only downside is I cant use photoshop to tweak the photos Why not? Scan them in and do it that way I don't think I can say anything that hasn't been said. I'm currently borrowing a Pentax Super ME off a friend with loads of lenses and bizzle but i've only developed 2 types of film (well a lab did it as our college is crap and dosen't have a dark room.) I just found it to be quite expencive, espically as one roll of film was destroyed because light leeked onto it somehow, probably through my own error.I need to give this film lark a proper go really, some of the photos I got were good for a first go but there were more misses than hits, mostly due to the light leek!I've got some Ilford B+W film in the fridge too but I understand thats more expencive again to get developed.Good luck with it all, I'm sure you could pick up something cheap no worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Have a look in cash convertors for 35mm cameras. Every time i got in they have fookin loads of slrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Stop Junkie Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Photography is expensive.That's rubbish! It can be expensive, but it certainly doesn't have to be. It comes down to how well you can use the equipment you have. A lot of people assume more expense equals better images. In some cases, spending big bucks will create worse images, unless you understand why.I'd suggest going the eBay route, I presume your friend doesn't have any lenses or accessories already?I've been looking at Canon film cameras, and an EOS 30V will set you back about £110, and cheaper Canon lenses are also cheaper still on eBay. There's plenty on there, so it's worth being choosy and buying the best you can.The other option is look for an Olympus OM-10 or similar. You can pick up a whole kit - with lenses and flash - for about £40. With a manual adapter, then it's can give fully manual operation. Looks cool, very cheap, and will be a great choice for a student being taught how to use it properly.dSLRs are relatively expensive on eBay compared to the features you can get on a D50 or 350D. May as well go new.Ultimatley how much kit costs has little effect on final image quality. I spent years with my Dad's Minolta, and looking back over those slides, some are amazing images! Buying old kit from good manufacturers in good condition will give good results, no matter how cheap it is. The most important accessory for any photographer is a good eye, and that's something you can't buy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Whats that got to do with anything in the subject of this topic?I was emphasizing that photography can be very expensive, and we're no-where near pro or whatever. Jesus Rob.And I said before, my college is shit, it's photog course is shit, hence why they're all taking photos on a coolpix3200 and editing them in PS for final coursework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Papasnap Maher Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 And I said before, my college is shit, it's photog course is shit, hence why they're all taking photos on a coolpix3200 and editing them in PS for final coursework.So because you have a nikon d50/70...does that make you a better photogrpaher than them?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr ailsbury Posted June 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 you need film slr's because we have to do developing etc for the coursework/exam experimenting with enlargers and stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si-man Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Stop moaning slags!!! http://www.cashconverters.co.uk/results.ph...;categoryID=240 Have to be quick on some though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Chris Radcliffe's camera gear will be £2k+, Rob's near £1k and mine about £1300. Me and Rob are amateurs, Chris is pro so....£270 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Papasnap Maher Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Chris Radcliffe's camera gear will be £2k+, Rob's near £1k and mine about £1300. Me and Rob are amateurs, Chris is pro so....My kit cost more than yours nick....f**k me im soooo much coooler....and daddy gave it to me alll for free, im such a C*UNt. I cant take pics for shit either, but knowing my cam cost more than you, makes my day...i must be pro and all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 So because you have a nikon d50/70...does that make you a better photogrpaher than them??No but it allows you to work with all different kinds of lenses to try out different techniques and stuff you absolute wanker.You've got a f**king attitude problem Joe. What happened to you being alright?You seem to just be a fanny these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Papasnap Maher Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 (edited) No but it allows you to work with all different kinds of lenses to try out different techniques and stuff you absolute wanker.Shut the f**k up who gives a f**k about lenses. A good photo can be taken with anycamera...you dont need to know your shiz to take a good photo.You've got a f**king attitude problem Joe. What happened to you being alright?oh my god you thought i was alright?? did i say you had taken a good photo or something?? i was probably talking out my arse to see your reply.Attitude problem...yes...but only with certian people...when they post shite...aka you You seem to just be a fanny these days. Ok.Reply then...or are you scared of getting a warning LOL Edited June 24, 2006 by JoeMaher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyT Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Tell her to get a nikon fe-2 (or something in the fe class)- nikon rules the film market, canon has the upper hand on digital...You probably don't want her to take a plunge into digital (or if her coursework doesn't allow it) purely based on money...The camera body is the cheap part, things after that = expensive. You can get so much film stuff off of ebay for cheap....These days the differences between 35mm and high end digital cameras is close to nil...the only place film still has a serious advantage in is medium and large format cameras, which are absolutely amazing....and each time you take a picture you are spending 2-3 quid...so not very practical for anyone except amazing pros with tons of funding. I don't know any professional photographers who use film anymore, a sad truth. Film is great to learn with...photoshop holds all the same powers a darkroom does- if you are anti post processing you might want to look into some older famous photographers and see their before and after shots. The only difference is you don't get your hands dirty. Just stay away from the filter menu Alot of unis are switching to digital, the only reason some are not is because they have so much money invested in film (darkrooms, old teachers etc.) that they can't really just throw it all away and feel good about themselves/economically viable.At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the 9 or so inches behind the viewfinder...just always remember that when you are drooling over this and that camera...good light and a good eye is worth so much more than any piece of equipment (unfortunately equipment is generally necessary for good light).Cheers-andrew 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.