Looking into getting a new camera...

[WestonParresia]

I am stepping up beyond your typical kodak 35mm, I want a camera that will really allow me to get into photography and the artistic side of it.

 

[VWPETE]

do you want to use film or digital....how much do you want to spend

 

[WestonParresia]

I would like to use film, and right now my limit is about $500.00

 

[VWPETE]

oh dang...you can get some good stuff for that much.

i would recomend Nikon or Canon SLR camera and a good lense

i don't know that much but i have used a NIkon N60 and it was a very nice camera. NIkon dosn't make it anymore but they do have the N65 its a little lighter and smaller...but mainly because of more plastic in it....but that dosn't meen its a bad camera.
I have also used the Canon Reble G and the Reble 2000 both good cameras to start with and both have many features. easy enough to use in just plain auto mode or full manual control. also these cameras should only run about 300 tops so you can have leftover money and get some other accesories, like filters a bag and such.

 

[WestonParresia]

Thanks man I am going to look into it

 

[koppee1]

i bought a Canon Rebel 2000 around 1999. It still works great. Although I think there are newer models out to replace the Rebel 2000. I don't think you can go wrong with either. If you can afford it, get the Canon 28-135 IS lens. The image stabilization is awesome

 

[Mr Hako]

ANY manual camera with fully adjustable aperture and shutter (including B setting) setting will do. You can buy old Nikons, Canons and Olympus OMs for less than 200 dollars. Just make sure all the mechanics work freely, the glass is spotless, and there are no dents in the bodywork.

Image Stabilization is pointless. When you start using slow films (ISO 25-50) and polarizing filters, and start shooting in the "golden hours" (morning and evening) then the gains from such lenses are non existent. You'll be shooting with shutter speeds of 1/2 sec or slower anyway.

Get a tripod instead.

 

[Mr Hako]

In fact, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use a tripod.

A £50 camera on a tripod will yeild sharper results than a £5000 camera in a wobbly hand.

 

[Metimbo]

I just bought the Fuji S7000. It is a 6mP SLR pro-sumer camera. It is great for "point and shoot" situations and you can get all artsy-fartsy with it as well.
You can find it online for $339.
~Tim

 

[VWPETE]

In fact, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use a tripod.

A £50 camera on a tripod will yeild sharper results than a £5000 camera in a wobbly hand.

i don't ALWAYS use a tripod....i really don't feel like carying one around half the time i have had no real isses with bad pictures...only in really low light conditions.

 

[Mr Hako]

I suppose you're right. For reportage photography, or at a party or festival etc. you don't want to be faffing around with tripods. But then you'd be using fast film (and sometimes flash), right?

But for serious, top drawer pictures, which is what the original post was about, I stand by my assertion that a cheap camera and a sturdy tripod is better than no tripod on any camera.

Even on a sunny day, once you've got a polarizer on and maybe a neutral grad, with slow film and a small aperture, you can be looking at 1/8th sec or slower. I don't know anybody who can hold that steady.

A good rule to remember is that it's generally not a good idea to hand hold for shutter speeds below the recipricol of the focal length. For example, 50mm lens, 1/50th sec; 210mm lens, 1/200th sec

 

[VWPETE]

that does make sence....though i personaly havn't used anyhting less than 200 speed film...but i have had problems were i do wish i could have used a tipod...

 

[Tini]

I use a HP 945 digicam.


Not an SLR - but has a lot of functionality for the average user. So far very happy with it.

Had a Minolta x300 before.