SLR advice.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Hello all.
I like the way film looks in comparison to the way digital photos look. I would like to buy a decent SLR. However, I know nothing about film, cameras, lenses, or brands.
Can you guys help me out please? I don't want to use disposable cameras.
- Removable lenses
- SLR
- Not too expensive
- Good quality
- Reliable
- Things to watch out for, things to know.
- Film, what to know, where to buy.
Okay, thanks for any information you can give me, /p.
>>2762118
I like olympus slr's because theyre small and the lenses are great for nice price. But i recommend just looking for a camera in a thrift store.
>>2762118
> I like the way film looks in comparison to the way digital photos look
Cheaper option: Apply software filter to your digital photo in post.
Film looks without all the expenses.
Old mechanical SLRs aren't differentiated in the way modern cameras are. Pentax, Mamiya, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta and even cheap shit like Chinon and Praktica are all pretty much the same and the 50mm 1.7~2 kit lenses are all great. The electronic ones (aside from a basic meter) are more differentiated but also generally lower quality and more likely to be broken.
go to goodwill and get a canon ae-1 with the 50mm 1.8
I got two of them for 5 bucks each that both work flawlessly
>>2762166
No, it never looka the same
I really think OP is just a troll but I will give my honest answer.
If you like film and you see a great photo of someone that knows what s/he's doing, it is really hard to get there. Think camera, technique, good film stocks, a lot of darkroom magic, masking the shit out of the picture, etc. Then you need a really nice scanner. Post processing and trying to match your negative. You are in for a lot of time, money and studies.
But if you like that piece of shit hipsters do with consumer cameras, developing in a messy way, with scanner artifacts, dust, faded colors and other shit. Just buy any meme film camera with cheap leans from /p/ advice guerrila.
Nikon N80 with 50/1.8d. Should run about $100. All the controls and ergonomics of a modern DSLR with all the grainy goodness of 35mm.
Closest thing to film is the original Fuji X100. Take a look at reviews; they're fantastic.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X100T Camera Software Digital Camera X100T Ver1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:18 14:36:26 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness 7.4 EV Exposure Bias 1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2172 Image Height 1448 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2762232
Quit your bullshit
>>2763113
I beg to differ. The Ricoh GR - The 'old' ones with the CCD inside - have been praised for years as being THE closest thing to film that digital has to offer. Especially at high ISO and turned into black and white, the CCD GR tends to emulate TMAX film 1:1.
>>2763113
>>2763140
What film fags don't seem to understand is that digital isn't like film in that you can't just rely on it to emulate the look you want on its own. Any camera with sufficient dynamic range to capture the scene at hand is able to look like film. The only thing stopping it from happening is the lack of effort and understanding by the person driving photoshop. Which is understandable, since you're all used to just splashing some shit on your film and having it look finished for you.
>>2763143
Don't you dare burst my bubble, anon!
>>2763150
>someone posts this meme in every thread
cracks me up every time. i've never seen a convincing digital fake, and i've seen i don't know how many thousands of digital vs film threads in my nine years on this meme cartel.
>>2763157
Because most people shooting digital aren't trying to emulate film, most likely.
>>2763163
No, it's because it can't be done. Film (as well as chemical printing) is a very complex process that reacts in a nearly stochastic manner compared to digital. Kids who grew up with digital's easy math just assume that it's a matter of shifting RGB values up and down, but it's much more than that.
>>2763165
Exactly this. There are things digital will never be able to do, and randomness of the grain, nd the handling of highlights are only a few of them.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2763173
>stochastic
Just double the resolution of your digital shot in photoshop, add noise in your favorite way, and resize to original resolution. It'll look shitty in exactly the way that film looks shitty.
>>2762118
For the most part all brands offer the same thing. Nikon, canon, olympus, minolta, pentax, and konica all have high quality fast primes as well as a range of bodies. Cheap: Anything from the 90s because they dont look cool are always incredibly cheap. If you want fewer lcds and more knobs Minolta is also cheap
