Noob to manual camera work

[Ahov]

So I've only ever used automatic cameras and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a beginner 35mm camera with a nice lens. I'm into older camera's from the 80's up and any suggestions would be great

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

Canon 30d used?

[Ahov]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Canon 30d used?

Recommended lens? 

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, Ahov said:

Recommended lens? 

What you want to do. Good old 50 1.8 will work fine.

[Ahov]

The two thing i photograph are like Nature scenes and Sun sets To be perfectly honest with you

[AkiraDaarkst]

16 hours ago, Ahov said:

So I've only ever used automatic cameras and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for a beginner 35mm camera with a nice lens. I'm into older camera's from the 80's up and any suggestions would be great

 

Buy any DSLR that you like, perhaps one with a kit lens or one without and get the lenses you like.  For landscapes and sunsets, I generally prefer lenses on the wider side though telephoto lenses can also be used.  And learn to judge exposure, you don't need to use Manual mode to have people think you're a good photographer or capture good images.  You just need to learn to compose the scene and set the exposure properly.

[cc143]

Are you looking for an actual 35mm camera or just a DSLR or CSC? There is a big difference there. Most CSCs or DSLRs are actually crop sensor, i.e. their sensor is smaller than 35mm. 

 

35mm sensor cameras tend to be on the expensive side and have less automation (a 5d has an auto mode but what's to the right of that on the mode wheel, only P, M AV etc.) 

 

If you want something cheap that's Full frame, the EOS 5d mark 1 is the cheapest option I could think of. 

 

There is however, no reason you should do that. An APS-C sized sensor camera would do just fine for you. 

 

If you are going new, depending on your price range, a d3300, 750d or 70d, depending on your price range would be just fine. 

 

If you don't mind going used, a 60d, 70d would do wonderfully. 

[zdog16]

On 12/30/2016 at 4:26 PM, cc143 said:

Are you looking for an actual 35mm camera or just a DSLR or CSC? There is a big difference there. Most CSCs or DSLRs are actually crop sensor, i.e. their sensor is smaller than 35mm. 

 

35mm sensor cameras tend to be on the expensive side and have less automation (a 5d has an auto mode but what's to the right of that on the mode wheel, only P, M AV etc.) 

 

If you want something cheap that's Full frame, the EOS 5d mark 1 is the cheapest option I could think of. 

 

There is however, no reason you should do that. An APS-C sized sensor camera would do just fine for you. 

 

If you are going new, depending on your price range, a d3300, 750d or 70d, depending on your price range would be just fine. 

 

If you don't mind going used, a 60d, 70d would do wonderfully. 

You are totally right.

I tell people all the time that buying an expensive camera does not automatically make your pictures better, especially if you're shooting in manual. 

I was fortunate enough to be able to move from a crop-sensor D5100 to a Full Frame D-750. Here are two pics, one from each camera. Which one is the more expensive camera?

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

28 minutes ago, zdog16 said:

I tell people all the time that buying an expensive camera does not automatically make your pictures better, especially if you're shooting in manual. 

Same thing I tell people.  And just because someone uses manual mode doesn't make them a better photographer either.  A/Av, P, S/Tv modes are just as good and they serve their purpose.  There has to be a reason to use M mode.

[cc143]

1 hour ago, zdog16 said:

You are totally right.

I tell people all the time that buying an expensive camera does not automatically make your pictures better, especially if you're shooting in manual. 

I was fortunate enough to be able to move from a crop-sensor D5100 to a Full Frame D-750. Here are two pics, one from each camera. Which one is the more expensive camera?

 

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison due to the difference in the 2 images, their content, lighting etc. Also, there is lack of information, what lens was used for each shot? what DOF? Perhaps a more seasoned photographer than I could actually tell. I'd go with top is FF due to the shallower DOF and because the camera seems to perform rather well in low light, then again, my gut tells me its the other way around. 

 

There are benefits to both FF and APS-C, having recently made the move myself however, I wouldn't turn back.

That said, it is absolutely, undeniably true that the 12 inches behind the camera are the most significant in most cases (to rip off Ansel Adams.) 

34 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Same thing I tell people.  And just because someone uses manual mode doesn't make them a better photographer either.  A/Av, P, S/Tv modes are just as good and they serve their purpose.  There has to be a reason to use M mode.

With a camera with reasonably good ISO performance (5d performs great with ISO 6400 or even higher) , I usually prefer being in M, setting Aperture and SS where I generally want and the ISO on auto, if the camera overdoes it, I will just alter my SS or Aperture, it's something I notice I do lately, in the past, P, Av and Tv saw much more use on my camera. Of course that's similar to using P/Av/Tv according to what matters most in getting the shot. 

 

Regardless, saying pros never use M anyway (yes I actually heard that recently!) or pros only use M is pretentious at best. Getting the shot is what counts, I don't care if I use full fledged Auto to get it! 

 

One should know how to use Aperture properly or when to use faster or slower SS and why though. 

[zdog16]

7 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison due to the difference in the 2 images, their content, lighting etc. Also, there is lack of information, what lens was used for each shot? what DOF? Perhaps a more seasoned photographer than I could actually tell. I'd go with top is FF due to the shallower DOF and because the camera seems to perform rather well in low light, then again, my gut tells me its the other way around. 

 

There are benefits to both FF and APS-C, having recently made the move myself however, I wouldn't turn back.

That said, it is absolutely, undeniably true that the 12 inches behind the camera are the most significant in most cases (to rip off Ansel Adams.) 

You are absolutely right, these images were chosen to be an unfair comparison on purpose. If the camera is used properly then you will obviously get a better image out of the better camera. My point is that if you don't know what your doing then a $2000 camera won't make your pictures any better and you can get fantastic images out of an inexpensive crop-sensor camera. Thus for someone just starting out a full frame DSLR is overkill.

 

 If your still curious the top image was taken with my D5100 and a 35mm f1.8(52mm FF equivalent). The bottom image was taken with my D750 and a 24-120 f4. Admittedly it was a bit difficult to find an image that looked worse from the 750 both because of the better sensor and because my skill level has continued to increase since the 5100 was my primary shooter. 

[Ahov]

This thread got out of hand, i was thinking more along the lines with cheap slightly "Vintage" (80's-99) 35mm camera recommendations 

[AkiraDaarkst]

35 minutes ago, Ahov said:

This thread got out of hand, i was thinking more along the lines with cheap slightly "Vintage" (80's-99) 35mm camera recommendations 

There are SLR cameras you can find on eBay, from Minolta, Nikon, etc.

[Ahov]

Just now, AkiraDaarkst said:

There are SLR cameras you can find on eBay, from Minolta, Nikon, etc.

Any thing specific you can think of?

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 minute ago, Ahov said:

Any thing specific you can think of?

Something like a Nikon F.

[Ahov]

2 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Something like a Nikon F.

I was considering and olympus OM-1, thoughts on that?

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 minutes ago, Ahov said:

I was considering and olympus OM-1, thoughts on that?

 

It's a good camera.

[cc143]

Do you think you'd need an AF system? 

 

I have researched it myself, and have come to the conclusion that the most practical thing to do is get an EOS SLR camera, pity I always wanted to try one of those hand wound film ones. The best reason for this is that it is, to my knowledge the only camera system that has a fairly new lens connection system that is carried over into their newer cameras. I have my dad's old EOS 1000, which can use all of my EF lenses I have for my own digital EOS camera. 

 

It might be the case that other brands do so as well, but I find Canon's EOS line the most easily comprehensible as it were, from the perspective of someone who hasn't had the opportunity to shoot film back when it was the standard. They are also dirt cheap in ebay, an eos 5 could be had for under £50! and I'm sure the U.S. market is better still.   

 

I remember using the EOS 1000 I mentioned before when I first got into photography and it isn't that different from a Canon camera today. you get an AF system, a film motor, basically what you expect to find on a modern DSLR, it's just more plasticky.