Best (cheapest) FILM camera for learning the basics

[w349]

Firstly, I realise this is the digital SLR forum. However, I've been asked to teach someone the basics of photography and I would like to start by having them use a film camera. The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, I think it will be a better way to understand exposure and composition because you have to really think about your shots (or run out of film quickly, and at £4 a roll that's an expensive habit!) and secondly... and probably more importantly to me, I have a pool of FD glass sitting around that could be put to good use.

So... what's a cheap and cheerful film camera that I can pick up from eBay - or even another forum member - without breaking the bank? Obviously it must be FD mount and offer full manual control.

[Andy Stringer]

I don't know enough about the second-hand market for film cameras, but I respectfully disagree that it's better to use a film camera to teach photography unless your student has specifically requested this. I think digital is a much better format for learning photography for several reasons:

• You can review each shot with your student immediately and offer advice on exposure and composition
• The EXIF data is recorded for each shot, so you don't have to write down the details
• You can change ISO settings between shots instead of having to change the film - this would be a good way to teach exposure
• Digital doesn't cost £4 per roll, plus developing costs. You need to give your student the freedom to take bad shots without worrying about the cost, because each bad shot is a learning opportunity. Also, high speed bursts during action or wildlife photography will become very expensive on film.
• It's time consuming to back up your negatives (i.e. scanning)
• Cheap film cameras might not offer the same range of focus points, focus tracking, exposure modes and other features that a cheap dSLR would provide.

[w349]

I don't know enough about the second-hand market for film cameras, but I respectfully disagree that it's better to use a film camera to teach photography unless your student has specifically requested this. I think digital is a much better format for learning photography for several reasons:

• You can review each shot with your student immediately and offer advice on exposure and composition
• The EXIF data is recorded for each shot, so you don't have to write down the details
• You can change ISO settings between shots instead of having to change the film - this would be a good way to teach exposure
• Digital doesn't cost £4 per roll, plus developing costs. You need to give your student the freedom to take bad shots without worrying about the cost, because each bad shot is a learning opportunity. Also, high speed bursts during action or wildlife photography will become very expensive on film.
• It's time consuming to back up your negatives (i.e. scanning)
• Cheap film cameras might not offer the same range of focus points, focus tracking, exposure modes and other features that a cheap dSLR would provide.

Thanks for the input Andy, I agree that all of those are definite plus points of digital photography and a few of the many reasons I would never dream of going back to shooting film. Of course if budget were no issue, digital would be the way to go - but like I said, I have a pool of FD glass to use and this would be a relatively inexpensive way to get started. If the student in question (a family member) wants to provide their own digital camera, that would be fine by me - this is just an initial stepping stone that doesn't require much financial investment by me or her.

[andnowimbroke]

There are a few film guys on the site that can prolly answer your question, but they sleep in on Sunday until about Wednesday afternoon How much is cheap? They make EF to FD adapters (some better than others) for a digital camera. In the long short term (if that made sense) it would be cheaper. I would have messed up all kinds of film trying to figure out the trinity and how it works. The older digital canons can be had for cheap in the used market and resold to a student if things didn't work out.

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with Andy that digital is the way to go, for the reasons he stated. Immediate image feedback means interactive learning, and that's much more effective. If my daughter misspells a word, should I wait a couple of days to correct her?

What's 'not much'? Used 1000D's go for $300 with kit lens, and an FD-to-EF adapter could be used.

All that FD glass brings up another question. How often do *you* use it? Are you holding onto it for sentimental reasons? One possibility would be to sell those lenses and use the proceeds to get an 1100D, or similar. I tried the film route with my niece, who developed an interest in photography. Not in person since she lives on the opposite coast of the US, but I shipped her my old Pentax film body, several lenses and flash. She had used a P&S (and camera phone, of course) and was used to the instant gratification. She'd probably shot 2-3 rolls before calling and asking if I minded her selling the gear - the proceeds got her a decent used kit (XSi/450D + 18-55 + 55-250).

[clemmb]

• Cheap film cameras might not offer the same range of focus points, focus tracking, exposure modes and other features that a cheap dSLR would provide.

These are not the basics. Composition, exposure, depth of field are basics. When I moved to digital I found exposure to be the most difficult. I found that film, with its better exposure latitude, looked good with a little over exposure. Also discovered I was not as good as I thought at nailing the exposure. To teach someone the basics with DSLR, make them operate it in manual with a hand held exposure meter. Maybe even make them focus manually. Most of the inexpensive DSLRs I have seen are not ergonomically set up to operate manually which can be frustrating. The Canon XXD models are pretty easy to use manually. You can pick up a canon 10D at KEH for $225. Get an FD to EOS adapter and your set.
The EXIF data really is very helpful. When I was learning on a Minolta SRT201, fully manual film camera, I had to carry a pad with me to write down my settings so when I looked at my shots I could better see what I did right and wrong.

[HDNitehawk]

I won't repeat Andy's points as they were my thoughts when I read this as well.

If you want a cheap option go for this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...dapter_FD.html

On the local craigslist a few weeks back someone was selling one of canon's first DSLR's and the price was under $100 us.
No matter how cheap you pick up a film camera, in the long run it most likely will not be the cheaper option.

[Lars]

I have an FD/EOS adapter, but took the glass out as soon as I got it, and only use it for macro-work. The small lens is a cheap little thing that will most probably influence your pictures negatively. There is one reliable adaptor that Canon made / put their brand on when EOS first came. It sells for several hundred $$$. Besides, you should easily get a second hand Canon A1 or T50 for less than 50-80$ if you look the right places. They are easy to use, have the most necessary functions for shooting film, and you don't have to worry about bad sensors

[HDNitehawk]

A film camera sounds cheap. Figure this in, the local store develops for $2.00 a roll. A cheap roll of film is about $2.00. Then you have a few options, print or get a viewer. Print is another 25 cents a pic for 4x6 at the local shop, doing just a contact sheet only saves you 50 cents. If you printed every pic at 41 cents each 1200 pics and you have this paid for. Picking the least expensive option to start doesn't always end up being the cheapest.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...3_Digital.html

[w349]

Thanks for the views everyone - it seems the general consensus is that film is not the way you'd go. I'll have a chat with my student-to-be and weigh up the pros and cons between us.

neuro: The FD glass is inherited and selling is not something I'd want to do. I am holding on to it for sentimental reasons and I suspect I will never use it again