BMW R1200R R1150R/T F800 K1200R R1100R/T R1250R RnineT Message Board

Years back, at the beginning of the digicam revolution, I sold off my Ricoh KR5 SLR. It was a very easy camera to use, and took some great shots. I now regret not having it and want to buy another SLR film camera.

Ebay has many SLR cameras available, and I don't want to necessarily restrict myself to the Ricoh.

I don't want to spend too much either. Less than $100 would be good. It seems that's not unreasonable either, having watched a few auctions.

Any suggestions/experiences with different brands? What should I avoid?

Cheers

Steve

Steve,

If I were you, I'd stick with either Nikon or Canon. They have been the top choice of pros for over 30 years and continue to be in this digital age.

This way, if you decide to go digital in the near future, the lenses you have for your film camera will work on the digital body. (If you buy the current lens mounts that is)

Hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I've been a professional photojournalist for the last 33 years and hope to be doing it for another 33 years.

Thanks Michael. Much appreciated.
I'm already digital. I have an Olympus c-770 which is doing the trick. I got that for an absolute song from a work colleague that wanted to get something to fit in her pocket for travel convenience.
I've been watching the Canons closely as there are quite a few available.
I just need something relatively simple, not to much wizzbangery, and the difference in the models is unknown to me.
This link shows a camera, a bit pricier than most but the sort of thing I'm after.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/CANON-EOS-3000-N ... otohosting
Any guidance would be fantastic.

Steve,

That Canon EOS 3000 looks to be a good camera although I personally have never used that particular model. It was not sold in the US when first introduced. Think it is the equivalent of the EOS Rebel series, another plastic bodied camera that was released to the US market. Anyway, the last film camera I used was a top of the line Canon, an EOS1. Now I'm using strictly digital - Canon ID Mark II's and a Canon 5D.

Anyway, the lens on this EOS 3000 is an "EF" and that is good. It means it will work with the current popular Canon SLR digitals. Do not get a Canon with an "FD" lens mount which was discontinued in the late 80's.

The photo is blurry but it appears to come with a 35 - 80mm zoom which is a good range. The f4-5.6 maximum aperature will be a drawback indoors and in dim light situations but if most of your photography is outdoors during the day, that will not be much of an issue.

One last thing...make sure you can buy a battery for it - hate to see you buy a camera only to discover they no longer make a battery that fits.

Boxerboy - Like most things, photography questions require a detailed explanation. But I agree that Nikon and Canon are your best bets given the price constraint. Otherwise, I would have said Leica.

As far as lens compatibility goes, Nikon is probably your best bet. Their lens mount has physically stayed the same for decades. With the advent of autofocus, many companies changed their lens mount configuration. Canon went from the very good FD mount to their current EOS mount back in the late 80s. Nothing wrong with that, except that the legion of FD lens owners (like me) suddenly found the need to spend a fortune if they wanted their cameras to focus for them. Nikon on the other hand didn't change. However, Nikon put the AF motor inside the camera body, whereas Canon made the smart choice of putting AF motors in the lens body for all their lenses - which also simplified the lens-body interface. Nikon had to follow Canon's lead when it came to larger lenses by supplementing the body's AF motor with a larger motor housed in the lens itself. It's very difficult to house a do-it-all motor in the camera body that will serve a 28mm lens and a 500mm telephoto equally well.

When it came time for me to upgrade to AF, I decided to go the Canon route despite my annoyance with having to buy a whole new collection of lenses because of Canon's AF philosophy.

Having said this, Nikon's lens collection (Nikkor) has the widest variety of focal lengths on the market. This is especially handy if you're into architectural or scientific work. You can buy a manual focus lens made in the 70s and use it with their current print film camera bodies (not all however - check Nikon's compatibility info). In terms of lens quality, Nikkor was generally regarded as having had a slight edge, but the gap has closed between it and Canon.

Bottom line - you can't go wrong with either. When it comes time to matching a digital SLR with your lense collection, both companies have great bodies. It will come down to taste and price of a particular body/model.

Steve:
Good answers here from people who know their gear. I would make a plug for my camera gear, Konica-Minolta but they've sold out to Sony which is apparently determined to make it big in the digital SLR world.

I would strongly consider Pentax as well. Their digital cameras can use any Pentax mount ever made. Their newly announced digital SLR, the K10D, has anti shake built into the body, rather than the lens (as is the case with Nikon-Canon, making and AS lens much more expensive). So if you went that way in the future, your lens investment would become anti-shake. Not true for N-C, where you must buy a more expensive lens to get the AS feature. Just something to consider as you think about all the N-C advocates. No doubt N-C are top of the line cameras, but the others are exceptional cameras and sometimes better suited, may have the features you are looking for that N-C simply don't offer. My KM Maxxum 7D has an intervalometer for extended time lapse photos that no other camera offers. So check the features you want and get the camera that best matches those features.

Look for a Pentax ZX-5N. It's a great film camera, and has many of the options and features accessible by good old buttons, instead of having to tediously scroll through menus. Much better IMHO. I'd sell you mine but it is worth more to me than what I could get for it.

Another suggestion for camera and lens hunting. Check out http://www.pbase.com. It is a photographer's site for posting images and the images are categorized by camera and lens, among other things. Click their "search by camera" and you can see its members' photos who have that camera or that lens, and see what the photos look like. Somewhat subjective, but real world photos, taken by real people who use a given camera. I use it a lot when thinking about lenses and cameras to buy.

Good luck!

Minolta did pioneer much of the AF technology in the 80s.

I took a Nikon FM2 on our trip (purchased used, + lenses). The things takes a beating. Easy to use with minimal 'things' to play with and set up. This is a manual SLR. I've had various Nikons in the past (FA, F3) and a Leica R4s (too expensive). This one works for me. It's light and durable, yet not made out of plastic like most digitals.

If you're looking for a 35mm SLR, consider the FM2. Also, there are always tons of Nikon AI lenses to be found used.

Ooooh. I had a FM2 back in college. A big regret I have is the fact that I sold it. Nikon no longer makes it.

It is interesting that Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss & Leica all make/made cameras and surveying instruments.

Nikon & Pentax are both generally regarded as budget products.

Zeiss & Leica are both considered to have superior optics, with Leica (Wild) probably having the best mechanical build also.

I just picked up a Canon Digital Rebel XTi (10 megapixel) consumer grade camera Saturday. It is exceptional in all ways, except for the fact that the consumer grade Canon lenses (I have an IS 17-85 and an IS 75-300) are both just acceptible optics wise after using my surveying equipment.

For me film is about as dead as DOS.

Hey Boxerboy...it's not how good the camera is but how good the user is..how funny is this pic..

DJ

socalrob wrote:It is interesting that Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss & Leica all make/made cameras and surveying instruments.

Nikon & Pentax are both generally regarded as budget products.

Zeiss & Leica are both considered to have superior optics, with Leica (Wild) probably having the best mechanical build also.

I just picked up a Canon Digital Rebel XTi (10 megapixel) consumer grade camera Saturday. It is exceptional in all ways, except for the fact that the consumer grade Canon lenses (I have an IS 17-85 and an IS 75-300) are both just acceptible optics wise after using my surveying equipment.

For me film is about as dead as DOS.

Rob, interested to hear how you're getting on with the rebel. Assume that's the 400D? Considering treating myself soon! I still have a Pentax ME Super bought in my college days which my daughter uses now, still takes great photogrpahs but as you say, film is dead these days.
Over here it's around £500 including 18-55mm lens but I hear that the lenses they bundle aren't all that great and that it's better to get the body and go for a higher end lens. Any advice gratefully received!

Chris:

If you can spring for the Canon 24-70 2.8, you'll have a great lens. Pricey though. Over 1400.00 if I remember correctly.

Don't be afraid to try the Tamron or Sigma lenses. They are about half the cost of the Canon lenses and are pretty good. I just saw an article in Shutterbug about 3 of Tamrons lenses. Good reports. Skip the 18-55 lens. That said, let me also say that if you are just out and about and on your bike, you may want just a cheaper lens like the 18-55 unless you intend to do some serious photography. I have a cheaper Sigma 28-300 I use when I'm just out on my bike and not intending to do some serious photography. I think I paid about $280 for it.

GypsyRR wrote:Chris:

If you can spring for the Canon 24-70 2.8, you'll have a great lens. Pricey though. Over 1400.00 if I remember correctly.

Don't be afraid to try the Tamron or Sigma lenses. They are about half the cost of the Canon lenses and are pretty good. I just saw an article in Shutterbug about 3 of Tamrons lenses. Good reports. Skip the 18-55 lens. That said, let me also say that if you are just out and about and on your bike, you may want just a cheaper lens like the 18-55 unless you intend to do some serious photography. I have a cheaper Sigma 28-300 I use when I'm just out on my bike and not intending to do some serious photography. I think I paid about $280 for it.

That 24-70 is the one I'd go for eventually, it's around £700 here so that equates to $1400 I think. I like the Canon but the Nikon D80 is drawing me in. Not so much the camera itself but the fact that we have a department at work with a whole range of Nikon compatible lenses which I can borrow as I please so I'd only need the body for starters!
We just bought a Sigma 10-20mm for those panoramic shots I posted about a while back and it's absolutely pin sharp. Fantastic lens.

I have a cheaper Sigma 28-300 I use when I'm just out on my bike and not intending to do some serious photography. I think I paid about $280 for it.

$280 for a lens is serious enough for me. I have always loved photography but have never used it for anything more than gathering reference for art work in another medium. However I AM SO impressed with the quality coming from some of you folks like, Gypssy and Socalrob, and Taosports etc.
My little digital CoolPix just comes nowhere near and it makes me jealous! But keep 'em coming anyway. I love the photos...and the more artistically composed, the better.

Just priced up the kit I'd like, Canon 30D and that nice L series 28-70 2.8 at £1450. Bit rich just before Christmas!! Bugger.

It’s not the camera or the lens folks…those are just tools. It's all about the eye and brain behind those tools that makes great images. Some of my favorite photos that I’ve made on my trips are from a cheap 3-4 megapixel camera.

A simple point and shoot camera is all you need for 90% of the images you see in our Great Rides section. Knowing how to use the camera and how to make a striking image with it through composition and photo processing (Photoshop, etc…) is the secret.

I call it Making a photo rather than taking one.

Michael,

Remember that cloud shot at Crater Lake from your trip a few weeks back? You referred to it as a ??????? type of cloud? And I really liked the effective picture you had posted about it.

Saw a similar formation over the Old Rag Mountain, Blue Ridge Mountains, Virginia just the other day. Alas, had no camera handy and found no spot along the 4 lane to safely stop anyway. But the shot would have been amazing (take my word for it!)

M

MikeCam wrote:But the shot would have been amazing (take my word for it!)

I believe you Mike!

This is probably the photo you are referring to :



It was taken (whoops! - made) on my trip to Crater Lake. It's a lenticular cloud over Mt Shasta in northern California.

Oh yeah! Thanks for the repost. Lenticular cloud - tapping forehead to enhance memory - lenticular cloud....