Starter but capable film camera for 2022?

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just in case nobody has mentioned it…  the FM2. It is an excellent body, I had mine since new and it still works just as well as the day I bought it. It’s very similar in size and weight to my M4-P. You can find them very cheap… a friend of mine bought 2 in very good condition for €50, but this was a couple of years ago before the latest return to film trend. Voigtlander have recently released some F mount lenses that are interesting, I’m going to treat my Nikon to one or two one of these days.

7 hours ago, aksclix said:

image quality is very important to me.. I want to be wow’d by the final developed image.. does the film roll matter as well or just the camera? 

Quite the contrary… unless there is something wrong with it the body has no influence on the image quality, the film and lens do.

[ianman]

4 hours ago, aksclix said:

BUT, with film I won't be handholding it for very long anyway

Why not? If you plan to use a tripod with long exposure times, remember these words: reciprocity failure. Unless you use Acros for which I believe no compensation is necessary.

[bandrews]

Not seen any love for it here but I've got an Olympus OM1 with the 50mm Zuiko 1.8 and love it. I don't use it a huge amount but the first roll I had developed, there was one photo in particular - a portrait of a friend - that blew me away. If it was good enough for Jane Bown, it's good enough for me.

[Stuart Richardson]

Personally, I think if you want to be wowed with image quality, then you are probably going to want to skip 35mm entirely and go to medium or large format, though it obviously depends on what you want to spend and what you are looking for.

My go to recommendation would be the Mamiya 7II, but they are so popular and sought after now, that their price has gone through the roof. If you shoot landscapes or documentary, they are hard to beat. There are better cameras for portraiture, studio work and close up work, but if you want a comparatively light, extremely sharp and well-designed camera, the Mamiya 7II is my pick for the best film camera of all time.

Still expensive, but more attainable is something like the Bronica RF. 645 in a portrait orientation (not for everyone, but REALLY for some). It has good Nikon lenses, a compact form factor, and some modern features.

If you like the square format at all, there is a reason so many people use Hasselblads. They are fun to use and have good lenses, were ubiquitous enough that they are easy to find and sell.

If you want cameras with built in lenses, Fuji has made a number of interesting ones, and they all have good lenses. The 645 series has both manual and AF versions, and you can get giant, meterless rangefinders in 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9 sizes. The 6x8 are probably less popular, and are around 1000 dollars. The bang for buck there is high, as you have a good lens in front of a huge chunk of film.

On the 35mm side, if you want to stick to Leica M mount (which is not a bad idea as you can go out and buy extremely good voiglander lenses for it for very little money), beyond Leica there are some great offerings. The Konica Hexar RF is still the most advanced film camera in Leica M mount, and now a bargain. If you want a huge, crystal clear viewfinder better than most Leicas, you can find the Zeiss Ikon for a decent price as well. The Voigtlander Bessa's used to be "cheap" bargain cameras, but looking quickly at ebay, I see they cost more now than the Hexar or Zeiss, which are certainly better cameras, so I would stick with them!

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, ianman said:

...remember these words: reciprocity failure...

"You're frightening the boy, Ian!!!"..................

At the moment I don't think reciprocity failure will be all that high up on the OP's aganda; certainly not if they will be shooting B'n'W film!

In respect of the question as asked I'm yet another who would advocate a Nikon FM for all the advantages listed by everyone else. The bodies are engineered to a very high standard; very simple to learn and to operate; ergonomically near-perfect (IMO) and practically bomb-proof. As the AI lenses were made in their millions there is a wide world of superb optics readily available anywhere on the planet for bargain prices. The bodies are fully-mechanical meaning that the only thing which won't work if the battery fails is the TTL metering. This also means that there are no essential pesky electronics to fail and leave the snapper stranded with a Nikon paperweight - as would be the case with the FMs semi-automatic sister camera, the FE.

Philip.

[Topsy]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Personally, I think if you want to be wowed with image quality, then you are probably going to want to skip 35mm entirely and go to medium or large format, though it obviously depends on what you want to spend and what you are looking for.

My go to recommendation would be the Mamiya 7II, but they are so popular and sought after now, that their price has gone through the roof. If you shoot landscapes or documentary, they are hard to beat. There are better cameras for portraiture, studio work and close up work, but if you want a comparatively light, extremely sharp and well-designed camera, the Mamiya 7II is my pick for the best film camera of all time.

Still expensive, but more attainable is something like the Bronica RF. 645 in a portrait orientation (not for everyone, but REALLY for some). It has good Nikon lenses, a compact form factor, and some modern features.

If you like the square format at all, there is a reason so many people use Hasselblads. They are fun to use and have good lenses, were ubiquitous enough that they are easy to find and sell.

If you want cameras with built in lenses, Fuji has made a number of interesting ones, and they all have good lenses. The 645 series has both manual and AF versions, and you can get giant, meterless rangefinders in 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9 sizes. The 6x8 are probably less popular, and are around 1000 dollars. The bang for buck there is high, as you have a good lens in front of a huge chunk of film.

On the 35mm side, if you want to stick to Leica M mount (which is not a bad idea as you can go out and buy extremely good voiglander lenses for it for very little money), beyond Leica there are some great offerings. The Konica Hexar RF is still the most advanced film camera in Leica M mount, and now a bargain. If you want a huge, crystal clear viewfinder better than most Leicas, you can find the Zeiss Ikon for a decent price as well. The Voigtlander Bessa's used to be "cheap" bargain cameras, but looking quickly at ebay, I see they cost more now than the Hexar or Zeiss, which are certainly better cameras, so I would stick with them!

I'd agree with Stuart here, if you're used to digital and you want to be Wowed then medium format is the way to go.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. It was one thing when cameras were 6-10 megapixel, but with 35mm cameras pushing 60+ megapixels, going to 35mm if you are used to digital can be a reminder of how far you can go on "low" resolution. The best normal films in a good camera give around 12-14 megapixels of resolution at 35mm. It is not a 1 to 1 comparison, as the film has much more "information" right down to the molecular level, but that information is only really useful for tonality past a certain point. The detail in a digital file is much sharper and more distinct, and grain plays much less of a role. Putting a roll of Porta 800 in a 35mm film camera is like shooting at ISO 50,000+ in a good digital camera in terms of grain and the digital still probably has more detail, just given the huge differences in resolution. Colors and the character of the grain are very different, however.

All that said, film has a secret weapon: you can just use more of it. A 6x7 camera has a image making surface more than double the size of a camera like a Phase One. While the sensor is better within its size, using bigger film can push the image quality much higher at a fairly palatable increase in cost. Additionally, I think the beauty and look of larger format cameras is hard to beat...the way that the lenses render and the soft highlight roll off of film...it is really quite seductive.

I don't want to diminish 35mm. It is a great tool and still the easiest way to get into film, due to the easy availability of film, processing and scanning, but medium format is still pretty easy too, since it is still roll film. These days I think it is a better way to experience the film world than 35mm, unless you want to focus more on taking a lot of photos at a time. Personally, I prefer that my camera has 10 shots a roll instead of 36. When I shoot 8x10, I often go on a trip for a week or so with around 10-20 sheets...scarcity tends to improve your photos!

Edited January 21, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Aryel]

I think you received some very good advices. However, I’d tend to avoid medium format initially: definitely worth visiting but starting with 12 shots (if you go 6x6) per roll may be a bit frustrating coming from digital… 

A 35mm slr sounds ideal at first, especially if you choose one where the lens could be mounted on your digital camera. 

If you have a camera shop, it is well worth checking and holding the cameras. Have fun exploring. 

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Topsy said:

I'd agree with Stuart here, if you're used to digital and you want to be Wowed then medium format is the way to go.

It's ambiguous what the OP means by 'wowed' but it didn't take long before his bank balance is being put under strain and he's gone from simply getting back into film to feeling inadequate if he's not using a gold plated Carlos Fandango Multiblad. But wowed by results could mean following in the footsteps of HCB or buying a donkey to carry a 16x20 up a mountain like Ansel Adams.

[aksclix]

8 hours ago, 250swb said:

TLR Yashicamat 124G

Yes, I like this one.. I considered a rolleiflex instafilm too at one point just for fun.. I like vintage products and with film, I am not really shooting for modern specs… I might just get the FM2 for its popular votes here.. and then probably get another like the eos 1v

 

[aksclix]

6 hours ago, ianman said:

Why not? If you plan to use a tripod with long exposure times, remember these words: reciprocity failure. Unless you use Acros for which I believe no compensation is necessary.

I googled it and now I know what reciprocity failure is

 

5 hours ago, pippy said:

"You're frightening the boy, Ian!!!"

I am 42 but I'd love to be a boy again

 

47 minutes ago, 250swb said:

It's ambiguous what the OP means by 'wowed'

an image I can look at and feel the characteristics of film photography.. nice colors, contrast, atmospheric beauty that people refer to? a lot depends on how well I compose and shoot.. the first film is surely going to go to waste with a lot of practice shots I suppose.. also, I should be able to see a good quality image without (much) loss of detail on a 11x14, 16x20 print perhaps? 

Looks like the FM2 is clearly winning now.. I realized the F5 might be a bit too heavy for what I am looking for... so, maybe I'll start with that.. since I have quite a few ef glasses, I might try out the eos 1v as well.. seems impressive although I have no intention to shoot sports or action with the film camera.. 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

scarcity tends to improve your photos!

THIS! THIS is exactly what I thought when I wanted a film camera... I get to run this algorithm in my mind that analyzes whether or not I want to use up 1 exposure for this shot.. 

[Eclectic Man]

I agree with Stuart Richardson above about the Mamiya 7 ii, it is a superb camera, but now a bit pricey second hand (the Mamiya 7, original version is still good, and uses the same lenses but was tweaked to improve handling for the 7 ii).  Check out 'The Shipping Forecast' by Mark Power for how good the Mamiya 6 (precursor to the '7') was.

You say you have a budget, but you need to consider the cost of film and developing as well as the camera.  While a medium format image will always beat a 35mm image for wow factor, so do the costs involved in purchase and developing.  For film, the best for colour transparency seem to be Fuji Provia and Velvia, which can be spectacular but pricey.

[logan2z]

As others have suggested, I'd probably stay away from medium format at the start.  It's more expensive to get into and you'll probably want to be able to shoot more than 10-12 frames a roll as you're learning.  Medium format image quality is obviously better, but you'll be able to get a nice 8x10 or 11x14 print from 35mm without any trouble.  If you decide to stick with film, then there are plenty of good MF options from Hasselblad (my personal choice), Fuji, Mamiya, Plaubel Makina, Rollieflex, Yashica, etc.

[aksclix]

14 minutes ago, Eclectic Man said:

I agree with Stuart Richardson above about the Mamiya 7 ii, it is a superb camera, but now a bit pricey second hand (the Mamiya 7, original version is still good, and uses the same lenses but was tweaked to improve handling for the 7 ii).  Check out 'The Shipping Forecast' by Mark Power for how good the Mamiya 6 (precursor to the '7') was.

You say you have a budget, but you need to consider the cost of film and developing as well as the camera.  While a medium format image will always beat a 35mm image for wow factor, so do the costs involved in purchase and developing.  For film, the best for colour transparency seem to be Fuji Provia and Velvia, which can be spectacular but pricey.

Yea, the recurring cost is a given… gotta do what you gotta do.. I did quote a 3k budget because nothing Leica is inexpensive… considering the FM2, I am almost down to 10-15% of that budget with some F lenses I already have 55 f/1.2, 28 f2.8, 20 f2.8

[Brancbūth]

31 minutes ago, Eclectic Man said:

I agree with Stuart Richardson above about the Mamiya 7 ii, it is a superb camera, but now a bit pricey second hand (the Mamiya 7, original version is still good, and uses the same lenses but was tweaked to improve handling for the 7 ii).  Check out 'The Shipping Forecast' by Mark Power for how good the Mamiya 6 (precursor to the '7') was.

You say you have a budget, but you need to consider the cost of film and developing as well as the camera.  While a medium format image will always beat a 35mm image for wow factor, so do the costs involved in purchase and developing.  For film, the best for colour transparency seem to be Fuji Provia and Velvia, which can be spectacular but pricey.

I really don't think I could recommend the Mamiya II for a first venture into film photography. @aksclix has already mentioned that they will probably hold off on rangefinder focusing and exert more energy on nailing manual shooting, rather than having to tackle several steep learning curves at once, so the 6, 7, and 7II would be out. The glass for those cameras is what makes them so good. The bodies themselves are problem-ridden and becoming increasingly difficult (and subsequently expensive) to repair, if they can be repaired at all.

Also, the OP has defined "wow factor" as being "an image I can look at and feel the characteristics of film photography.. nice colors, contrast, atmospheric beauty that people refer to." I sincerely believe that 35mm is just as capable of delivering that than medium format is.

I think the FM2 is a good choice.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Brancbūth

[250swb]

3 minutes ago, aksclix said:

Yea, the recurring cost is a given… gotta do what you gotta do.. I did quote a 3k budget because nothing Leica is inexpensive… considering the FM2, I am almost down to 10-15% of that budget with some F lenses I already have 55 f/1.2, 28 f2.8, 20 f2.8

I think if you got the legendary 105mm f/2.5 you'd have a full set for everyday photography. And if you find the 55mm a bit heavy look at the pancake 50mm f/1.8 AI-S, a lens that gives a Summicron a run for its money.

[Ornello]

14 hours ago, aksclix said:

Hello film shooters!

Another conversation from this forum led me here.. I used a friend’s Minolta film camera about 25 years ago and remember nothing about it.. not even the model.. I am interested in jumping onto the film bandwagon and looking for advice on getting a film camera that is

- easier to adapt to coming from the digital world of photography for over 15 years… (yes, I am spoiled by a lot of new tech across different brands!) I want to like it the first time I use it and not get frustrated by it.. 
- this is a Leica forum but if there is a recommendation for another brand, I would love that too..

- image quality is very important to me.. I want to be wow’d by the final developed image.. does the film roll matter as well or just the camera? 

- 35mm or medium format? 
- reliable place to buy used film gear? 
 

Anything else I missed?
 

Thank you in advance! 😌

How much are you interested in investing? How many lenses do you want or need? What kind of photography interests you?

[aksclix]

20 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think if you got the legendary 105mm f/2.5 you'd have a full set for everyday photography. And if you find the 55mm a bit heavy look at the pancake 50mm f/1.8 AI-S, a lens that gives a Summicron a run for its money.

That seems inexpensive.. will get one if I feel like it after trying out the lenses I have

[pippy]

55 minutes ago, aksclix said:

I googled it and now I know what reciprocity failure is......I am 42 but I'd love to be a boy again......

I hope you didn't take offence, aksclix, none was intended! "You're frightening the boys, Don!" was a phrase our lecturer used when he was describing - in far too much detail - the theoretical complexities of the phenomenon because the entire class (apparently) were staring at him like frightened rabbits! He then went on to explain a far simpler rough solution which, I must say, worked perfectly well in practice.

Colour Reciprocity Failure, on the other hand, isn't quite as forgiving...

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

In film world medium format means quite a step forward in image quality.

If speed is not important for you I recommend medium format.