Found my mom's old SLR

[Phaedrus2129]

So we found my mom's old 1981 Asahi Pentax K1000 35mm film SLR in a box with some lenses and other goodies. I've been wanting a DSLR for quite a while now, and while this is film based the lenses and filters are good to have. We got:

K1000 camera body
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2
Lenmar 135mm f/2.8
Quantaray 35 ~ 70mm f/3.5-4.5
Lenmar Auto 2x Teleconverter
Hoya 55mm Skylight(1B) filter
Hoya 50mm Skylight(1B) filter
Quantaray 49mm +3 filter
Plus a manual, tripod, strap, flash, and a couple rolls of 35mm film. All lenses are K or KA mount.


Now none of this stuff is spectacular. The K1000 was a budget camera whose only redeeming feature was that it Would. Not. Die. and was sold for twenty years. The lenses are kind of slow and none of the glass is spectacular. But you can get an adapter to mount K-thru-KA2 lenses to Canon cameras for like $20, so at least I'll have free macro and telephoto lenses laying around when I get my own SLR (probably a Canon T1i 500D).


Think it's worthwhile to get some practice with the film camera? I'm going to try for the Canon for Christmas.

[Parak]

It does get you to start off on the deep end of the pool and forces you to learn what it means to manually control everything. With the current SLRs it's easy to try and ignore the basics, and that is something you don't want to do.

Also those lens are really meh, and I wouldn't use them with an adapter on current SLRs as that usually crops something. You can use them without an adapter on current Pentax SLRs, but again it will be all manual.

[Pylon]

Depends on the quality of the processing in your area. If all you have are 1 hour minilabs you might want to be wary as a lot of them are staffed by poorly skilled lab operators running likely dirty roller processing machines stocked with possibly outdated chemicals. As a result, your film gets abused (scratches, fingerprints, etc.) If you have a pro lab, then it's much better as you'll get much better processing (at a price, of course). You also get the option to shoot E-6 slide film like Velvia, which looks awesome and can't be developed in regular C-41 minilabs. If you want to shoot B&W, consider developing yourself as it's fairly simple to dev B&W film (you need a changing bag, some chemicals, a tank, and a dust-free place to dry the film in. You only need a full blown darkroom if you want optical prints)

 Film is expensive, but it's also a great learning tool precisely because it lacks a lot of the convenient aspects of digital - instant image review and a nigh infinite amount of shots that could be taken. Because of the lack of those two features, the film photographer must be careful and calculate in his shooting to prevent film from being wasted, etc.

With a certain scene for example, if I have a digital camera, I would check it out, think a little, take a shot, review, and adjust, and then maybe take another 2 or 3 shots just in case. With film, I would carefully compose and consider (do I really want to spend $.25 worth of film on this?), and before clicking the shutter, carefully check everything - exposure, composition, and then click the shutter. I'd rarely shoot more than 2 images of the same shot. And in the end, my keeper rate ends up being much higher than digital (5-25%, as opposed to around 1-5% with digital)

It's also great fun for some to shoot film. The large viewfinder, manual nature of your camera, etc. might get you, but it gets expensive after a while.

[chimera15]

It's not worth it. Put it back where it came from an wait 50 years or so, and sell as an antique when all the other ones are at the bottom of a landfill. lol  It's too much of a hassle to get film developed these days, and you have total control digitally.  There's really no point and a waste of time to learn the basics on that thing.  You're just handicapping yourself needlessly.

You can buy an entry level dslr in the same range as that for like $300, that has like 100 times the capability, and you can still get the basic understanding of manual capabilities of a traditional slr camera from it.

Of course the real important thing is the desire to take pictures and the mindset that goes into them, so if it gives you a thrill to use that camera, and traditional film in some way then go for it.

The one thing that old cameras like that would be good for is to load b/w film and then buy a good enlarger, then you would have total control also.  Shooting color though, you really should go digital.  Having to take your film to get developed and putting it in the hands of others is the worst.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Saunders-LPL-670MXL-Dichroic-Enlarger-Extras-/320545074988?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa1f9af2c

[Phaedrus2129]

Think 35mm film would still be good after 15 years? It doesn't go bad, does it?

[Rusty Rat]

The K1000 was a budget camera whose only redeeming feature was that it Would. Not. Die. and was sold for twenty years.

A good condition one is a collectors item. The K family were very successful and the K1000 was great value with a heft and size to make it popular with people with normal sized hands. If anything the K1000 has similar heft to the classic Nikon F2.
I have a NIB K1000 with a few pieces of Pentax glass plus some less than new M series bodies which were made for people with seriously small hands.

The lenses are kind of slow and none of the glass is spectacular.

The Pentax glass is really good even by today's standards, but ahem the other glass is rubber domed equivalent.

[Phaedrus2129]

Define "good condition" and "collectible".

I said in the OP I'm looking to get a DSLR. The Canon T1i 500D looks very good to me, especially if I can get one refurbed with kit lens and extras south of $500, which doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

[chimera15]

sides, you can't do this with a film camera...well suppose you could but would take a lot longer.

Just caught this about 5 minutes ago,  out my front window and failing light, and only had a 70mm max zoom lens.  



The kootest wittle baby bunny.  It would have fit in the palm of my hand.  It's head was only about an inch wide, and I was about 7 meters away.  The grass was just cut about a week ago, and only about 3 inches high.

Shots like this really make me realize I at least need a doubler if not a higher power lens.  This is extremely cropped.

[chimera15]

Think 35mm film would still be good after 15 years? It doesn't go bad, does it?

Yes, 35mm film goes bad.  It usually has an expiration date.  Although I'm not exactly sure what the effects of using old film like that would be.  Possibly lots of artifacts and lower resolution as some of the chemicals do strange things.  Most pro's keep their film in freezers for that reason.

Maybe you'll get some demon writing from it if you use it, as lots of ghosts would have had a chance to write on the film. roflol

[chimera15]

Definitely worth getting shooting practice with a film camera.  ANY camera is lots of fun.  I had an old black Pentax ME Super, a very small camera which I prefer, and the lenses were sharp.  I have 1000s of shots, one of the things I do between posting here is film scanning on a Nikon CoolscanV but most negatives hold up fine for decades.

Show Image

I used minoltas.  Have boxes full of pics.  I can never bring myself to scan them.

This was/is mine.  I have tons of lenses for it and even an auto advancer thingy for the bottom of it.

[Pylon]

Think 35mm film would still be good after 15 years? It doesn't go bad, does it?

It does. However some people like expired film because it gives cool effects (funky colors, etc.)

As for negatives and longevity, color negatives tend to fade and color shift after a while, even if properly stored in a dry, dark place. Color slide is somewhat better, and B&W and Kodachrome are the best.

[Pylon]

Oh yeah, if it's 15-year old slide film though, toss it out.

[chimera15]

It does. However some people like expired film because it gives cool effects (funky colors, etc.)

As for negatives and longevity, color negatives tend to fade and color shift after a while, even if properly stored in a dry, dark place. Color slide is somewhat better, and B&W and Kodachrome are the best.

It's ghosts trying to communicate.

[nraymond]

So we found my mom's old 1981 Asahi Pentax K1000 35mm film SLR in a box with some lenses and other goodies. I've been wanting a DSLR for quite a while now, and while this is film based the lenses and filters are good to have. We got:

K1000 camera body
SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2
Lenmar 135mm f/2.8
Quantaray 35 ~ 70mm f/3.5-4.5
Lenmar Auto 2x Teleconverter
Hoya 55mm Skylight(1B) filter
Hoya 50mm Skylight(1B) filter
Quantaray 49mm +3 filter
Plus a manual, tripod, strap, flash, and a couple rolls of 35mm film. All lenses are K or KA mount.


Now none of this stuff is spectacular. The K1000 was a budget camera whose only redeeming feature was that it Would. Not. Die. and was sold for twenty years. The lenses are kind of slow and none of the glass is spectacular. But you can get an adapter to mount K-thru-KA2 lenses to Canon cameras for like $20, so at least I'll have free macro and telephoto lenses laying around when I get my own SLR (probably a Canon T1i 500D).


Think it's worthwhile to get some practice with the film camera? I'm going to try for the Canon for Christmas.

Why Canon?  Pentax makes some excellent DSLRs, and the mount is backwards compatible so that you can use all the old K-mount lenses just fine, no adapter needed.  For KA-mount lenses mounted to a modern Pentax DSLR, the DSLR can communicate and control aperture with the lens, so that the only thing you need to do when taking a picture is focus manually, the body can take care of the rest.  And with Pentax's in-body shake reduction, you actually get shake reduction on old prime lenses (the body will ask you the focal length of the lens when you turn the camera on for non-AF lenses).

Pentax's SMC coating is one of the best (and was far ahead of the competition in the '70s), and as a result their old lenses are still very useful today.  The Pentax 50mm f/2 lens, while very common, was one of the sharpest 50mm lenses out there, and I've gotten stellar results with mine on my K200D body, including some great macro shots taken with extension tubes.  Resolution is really superb, starting right at f/2.

The other lenses I'm not sure about... Lenmar I'm not familiar with, but probably rebranded someone else's lens, and Quantaray I know just rebranded other lenses.  You might want to check out the lens database over on pentaxforums.com.

And shooting film on an old manual body isn't such a bad thing - the K1000 had a pentaprism viewfinder (rather than a mirror like all lower-end DSLRs today) giving it a nice, bright viewfinder, and often had a split-image focus screen (good for getting precise manual focus) rather than a matte screen they ship on most DSLRs now (which isn't good for precise focus below f/2.8 because it shows so more as in focus than it really is).

A nice thing about Pentax and the K1000 is that you can also take any modern KAF mount lens and as long as it's a full-frame lens (some Pentax and many third-party KAF mount lenses are) and has an aperture ring you can mount it and use it on the old K1000 (you just won't have autofocus).

I shoot both digital and film, and still have and sometimes use my old K1000.  Fun camera that's built as well as those old Model M keyboards!

[Pylon]

Not to mention with film, you can collect those colorful spent canisters:

And this one needs some dev:


And yes, that's a HP rubber dome it's sitting on.

[Phaedrus2129]

Does Pentax have any decent entry level DSLRs in the $500 range?

Over on OCN there appears to be a love affair with the Canon T1i and T2i bodies, the 450D/500D/550D is always one of the first cameras recommended to a beginner. The T1i 500D was the only real DSLR on display at Walmart for me to try out, and I liked it well enough. But if Pentax is comparable and compatible with these old lenses...

[chimera15]

I've got a Nikon d3000, which is an entry level slr.  I didn't realize it before I ended up buying a 75-300mm lens yesterday, after having a lot of difficulty with that bunny shot that dlsr's are backward compatible with film slr lenses.  I actually own a nikon film slr as well and had a few lenses for it.  I'm flabergasted and really happy.  I just need a nikon-minolta converter now and I'll be able to use all my lenses.  I even have one of those crazy 500mm ones for my minoltas that looks like you're trying to snipe someone. lol

I just tried out an old 100mm I had for my nikon, worked perfectly, great shot. Manual focus of course, but who cares.


I realized I even have a telescope mount for my old nikon that I can use with this digital now, so I can photograph planets  and through people's windows miles away and junk too. lol

[chimera15]

Nikon.  Don't go down the Pentax route just because you have a $30 50mm SMC lens.

Shoot the camera forensics experts and Serial Killers prefer.

Show Image

Gravure photographers use them too.

[xwhatsit]

There's nothing wrong with that SMC 50mm f2 -- I have the 50/2 Tak on my Asahi Pentax S2, which is the meterless predecessor to the K1000 (S2 feels much nicer I have to say, beautiful smooth wind and much smaller than the K, and I love the chrome finish). The 50/2 is blisteringly sharp and has the sort of bokeh that appeals to me.

I'm more into rangefinders, personally, I don't like the size of SLRs and the poorer image quality and crap wides. Zoom is for pussies anyway.

Film is lots of fun, I do a bit of printing too in the bathroom but it's a hassle. Although the magic of seeing a print slowly appear in the soup never gets old.

Developing B&W is insanely cheap and quite fast. Scanning does suck. I'd like to shoot more colour but the cost of getting it developed and taking it to the minilab blows. I would like to try souping C41, there's some cheap kits on macodirect and other sites, it looks pretty foolproof as long as you get the temps within ballpark. And even faster than B&W souping.

At least have a play with the thing first before you put it up on eBay, you'll learn a lot more from a few rolls of film with that 50/2 SMC than you will machine-gunning a DSLR.

[nraymond]

Does Pentax have any decent entry level DSLRs in the $500 range?

Over on OCN there appears to be a love affair with the Canon T1i and T2i bodies, the 450D/500D/550D is always one of the first cameras recommended to a beginner. The T1i 500D was the only real DSLR on display at Walmart for me to try out, and I liked it well enough. But if Pentax is comparable and compatible with these old lenses...

The old Pentax entry-level is the K-x, which sells for about $500:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-digital-slr-camera-reviews/73845-pentax-k-x.html

The newly announced entry-level is the K-r, which is due to be released soon, and will debut probably close to MSRP before street prices fall (per usual):

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-digital-slr-camera-reviews/113820-pentax-k-r.html

Regarding Canon and Nikon, both those companies have put themselves in a corner with shake reduction in their lenses, and not wanting to alienate and confuse their customer base by doing shake reduction in-body, so you only get shake reduction in their zoom lenses.

There are a lot of great things about Pentax (like how the put a lot of higher-end features on their midrange models, i.e. my old $500 at the time K200D is a weather-sealed body that can take an additional battery grip with a vertical shutter release and AE-L button, supports auto-bracketing, dual RAW formats of both PEF and DNG, remote off-body flash control, etc.) but one of the biggest pros to Pentax is that prime lenses can all take advantage of in-body shake reduction, and Pentax makes some real quality prime lenses, such as their Limited line which is all-metal (FA are full-frame and backward compatible with film bodies, DA are for APS-C digital bodies), and they also have a line of weather-sealed lenses, both zooms and primes, which are a great combination with their weather sealed bodies if your an outdoor photographer.

[nathanscribe]

I use a 1930s Leica IIIb, and a '50s M2, with glass ranging from a couple of late 30's 50/3.5 Elmars (one uncoated, one coated) to recent Voigtländer 35/2.5... also, a Nikon F2 with a 50/1.8, but it doesn't see as much use as the rangefinders.  Ilford FP/HP all the way here.  Good stuff.

I used to have plenty of Pentax kit, and the MX was good but too small for me.  The 67 I had was massive though and weighed a ton.  I had a Mamiya 645 for a while, and a Sinar P (5x4) but that barely got used.  Made a few pinhole cameras too from 35mm to 5x4.

Haven't really done much photography for a while... keep meaning to, but darkrooms are never that comfortable to work in compared to a nice warm light room with a comfy chair and no evil chemicals.

Ah, chemicals.

[instantkamera]

I've got a Nikon d3000, which is an entry level slr.  I didn't realize it before I ended up buying a 75-300mm lens yesterday, after having a lot of difficulty with that bunny shot that dlsr's are backward compatible with film slr lenses.  I actually own a nikon film slr as well and had a few lenses for it.  I'm flabergasted and really happy.  I just need a nikon-minolta converter now and I'll be able to use all my lenses.  I even have one of those crazy 500mm ones for my minoltas that looks like you're trying to snipe someone. lol

I just tried out an old 100mm I had for my nikon, worked perfectly, great shot. Manual focus of course, but who cares.


I realized I even have a telescope mount for my old nikon that I can use with this digital now, so I can photograph planets  and through people's windows miles away and junk too. lol

d3000 = no screw drive focus, you loose AF on anything prior to an AF-S lens.

[nraymond]

That's because they put it where it works the best.

The tests I've seen show in-lens shake reduction currently works best at longer focal lengths, but at shorter ones in-body shake reduction is on-par with in-lens.  So you wouldn't be incorrect in saying that in-lens shake reduction is the best place for shake reduction for telephoto zoom lenses.  I think you are oversimplifying the situation, especially when Canon/Nikon offer zero shake reduction to prime lenses, and it is with prime lenses that you get the best optical quality and depth of field control.

Pentax is not a financially stable player - never has been.  Important consideration since once you start buying lenses it's hard to switch brands.

Pentax has been a division of Hoya for a few years now, which gives them financial stability.

Old lenses are old.  There have been many improvements in lens design over the years.

Old keyboards are old.  There have been many improvements in design over the years.... oh wait.

(Ripster, my high opinion of you have every so slightly fallen.)

And once again, other than the 50mm F2 the others in your stash are trash.

Until we know who actually made those other lenses, we can't say whether they're trash or not, but yeah, he's not sitting on some forgotten treasure or anything.  I guess I failed to make clear my two points - 1) someone can have a lot of fun and take some great pictures with old equipment (especially if you follow a philosophy like that of lomography) 2) Pentax still makes great cameras that can take great pictures, have a lot of features, and use a camera mount that has maintained tremendous backwards and forwards compatibility (go buy an M42 adapter and mount some really great old glass to a modern Pentax DSLR if you want, or buy some old Leica glass and adapt it to K-mount and have fun, or just use great old SMC K-mount lenses unmodified no problem - great lenses, especially primes, haven't changed much in the last few decades, and some designs haven't significantly improved in 100 years).

[nraymond]

Old keyboards ARE old.  Usually big and clunky too.  Like most old camera stuff.

Despite having many AF lenses, including a 50mm f/1.4 AF lens, I recently bought a 50mm f/1.4 manual focus lens, because while I can manually focus an AF lens, most AF lenses are designed with short throw (for fast AF, unless it's a macro, in which case it will have long throw) and are not damped (again for fast AF, unless it is a macro that has an adjustable dampening control), so an old 50mm f/1.4 that's manual gives me the well-damped, precision manual focussing I want, with all the optical quality of my AF lens.

A few months back I also bought an old Cosina (Tomioka designed) 55mm f/1.2 lens, which is also well-damped, has a great all-metal build, and is a joy to use on a modern digital body once I installed a split-image focus screen.  The lens is probably 15 years old, at least, and still looks and works like new, and for f/1.2 focusing, especially doing macro work with extension tubes, I wouldn't want anything other than manual anyway.

That being said, I also believe in the philosophy that the best camera is the one you have with you.

[Phaedrus2129]

That guy owns an iPhone and runs a blog and he talks about "a new photo community". Therefore his opinion is void due to pretentiousness.

[nraymond]

That guy owns an iPhone and runs a blog and he talks about "a new photo community". Therefore his opinion is void due to pretentiousness.

The book has good reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321684788/

I have no affiliation with the guy, but I find it more pretentious that someone would dismiss someone's ideas off-the-cuff like that, what all the guy is trying to do is encourage people to take more pictures using an everyday tool, i.e. you don't necessarily need expensive, complicated or the latest gear to take good photos.

While I'm someone who loves the latest technology, I'm also someone who loves old technology, and also someone who believes everyone should try to make the most of everything they can, and that anyone can make art, and anything that encourages anyone to use the tools in their life in more creative ways, that's a good thing!

(One of the reasons I don't take part in many forums anymore though is due to the prevalence of people who like to shoot down things as quickly as they can, rather than have open and complex discussions from many angles.)

[mike]

Old keyboards ARE old.  Usually big and clunky too.  Like most old camera stuff.

Actually many old lenses are less big and clunky than newer stuff given the lack of autofocus motors. Out of the 3-4 of 50mm lenses I have (I can't believe I've lost count!), the largest is the autofocus Canon 50mm f/1.4.

Yes lens design has improved over the years, but not that much especially for primes. It is likely that a 50mm Pentax lens from the 1970s would stomp any kit lens into the ground; at 50mm of course

Whilst that other glass may not be much cop, it does let you try out other focal lengths. Plus :-

a) You're only using the middle of the image circle with a crop DSLR and weak lenses tend to be weakest at the edge.

b) 'cheap and nasty' glass will often be manufactured with very loose tolerances, but that variation will just occasionally result in something a bit special.

Shooting manual focus lenses on a modern DSLR can give you some of the advantages of shooting an all manual camera. Manual slows you down which can be an advantage for some forms of photography - it forces you to spend more time considering the shot you're taking.

[chimera15]

d3000 = no screw drive focus, you loose AF on anything prior to an AF-S lens.

Yeah I know, that's what I was saying.  I prefer manual focus anyway.  I never trust the autofocus. lol   I'm just totally stoked I can use my old slr lenses at all.

[chimera15]

Despite having many AF lenses, including a 50mm f/1.4 AF lens, I recently bought a 50mm f/1.4 manual focus lens, because while I can manually focus an AF lens, most AF lenses are designed with short throw (for fast AF, unless it's a macro, in which case it will have long throw) and are not damped (again for fast AF, unless it is a macro that has an adjustable dampening control), so an old 50mm f/1.4 that's manual gives me the well-damped, precision manual focussing I want, with all the optical quality of my AF lens.

A few months back I also bought an old Cosina (Tomioka designed) 55mm f/1.2 lens, which is also well-damped, has a great all-metal build, and is a joy to use on a modern digital body once I installed a split-image focus screen.  The lens is probably 15 years old, at least, and still looks and works like new, and for f/1.2 focusing, especially doing macro work with extension tubes, I wouldn't want anything other than manual anyway.

That being said, I also believe in the philosophy that the best camera is the one you have with you.

That's what I'm finding as well.  The old manual focus lenses work really great with digitals, and cost like 1/100th the cost of a newer one, and make great looking pics.  The only drawback is you don't get the interactive f-stop light metering, but if you're off, you can see it in your shot, or adjust it if you're shooting raw anyway.  It gives those old lenses a whole new life.

It's actually strange.  I realized I should be able to see the light metering and if the timing/f stop is set correctly cause that's all in the camera right? But mine is blanked out.  It looks like it can't read the f-stop setting on this old lens, so it doesn't know how to calculate whether it's too dark or not... But if I turn off all the lights then it does say the subject is too dark...  strange.

[nathanscribe]

If you set a manual camera correctly, utilising depth of field, and have some leeway with exposure (particularly with b&w) then they can be quicker in use than an automatic.  I remember working with a Leica alongside a friend with his Nikon D2 (I think) and I'd often got my shot before his kit had finished focussing.  Of course, overall, mine was less flexible but if you know what you're doing manual kit can be plenty fast enough to work with.

I'd also agree that old lenses aren't necessarily bad lenses.  You should check for fogging, misalignment and scratches, and smooth operation of the aperture (and in-lens shutter if it has one) but there has been some damn fine glass in the past.  A good older Pentax or Nikon 50 will give great quality.  One of the nice things about the old Leitz uncoated lenses is the softness and character of the image - not useful for everything, but if you want it, you got it.  Tools for jobs, like everything else.

[chimera15]

If you set a manual camera correctly, utilising depth of field, and have some leeway with exposure (particularly with b&w) then they can be quicker in use than an automatic.  I remember working with a Leica alongside a friend with his Nikon D2 (I think) and I'd often got my shot before his kit had finished focussing.  Of course, overall, mine was less flexible but if you know what you're doing manual kit can be plenty fast enough to work with.

I'd also agree that old lenses aren't necessarily bad lenses.  You should check for fogging, misalignment and scratches, and smooth operation of the aperture (and in-lens shutter if it has one) but there has been some damn fine glass in the past.  A good older Pentax or Nikon 50 will give great quality.  One of the nice things about the old Leitz uncoated lenses is the softness and character of the image - not useful for everything, but if you want it, you got it.  Tools for jobs, like everything else.

It's mostly just a lot of lead time on what you're shooting.  Like if you're doing landscapes, your settings are pretty much going to be the same, just some minor timing decisions depending on the time of day.   If you're shooting people it's all really just about focus which like you say doesn't take much time at all, and you have a much better control of the overall look of your pics.

With the digital feedback of having a thumbnail with a digital..it's like a dream.  I used to have to wait days or even months sometimes to get my film developed to see what I caught, but now I can see it instantaneously.  It's a pretty amazing leap.

[nathanscribe]

Definitely - there are massive advantages to digital, especially for commercial work.  I think most film work is in the hands of artists and dabblers now, of which I am certainly one.  I used to shoot artwork for galleries etc., but gave up due to the cost of the digital gear at the time (early 2000s).  Couldn't justify it for my low turnover, and the local pro lab closed down anyway...

[Pylon]

Ah, chemicals.

But fixer smells awesome. Some people love the chemical smells.

[InSanCen]

If you want to learn to use an SLR properly, then yes, if you are willing to put the time and effort into it.

Using a Manual SLR is a great way to practice. I learned like that (Zenit XP12), and have a much higher rate than pretty much anyone I know that learned on a Digital. Take Notes on each shot, Aperture, Shutter speed etc. When you look back through, you can see what went wrong with each picture (Under or overexposed, slow shutter speed...). You'll run a few rolls off doing this. After a while, a quick peek at the meter, and you should be able to shoot most things reasonably.

It also opens up access to lot's of film that digital simply cannot compete with (The aforementioned Velvia springs instantly to mind, as does Reala if you don't want to shoot E6/Slides/Transparencies). Don't go this route until you have a reasonable keep rate though, it gets very expensive very quickly. Different films suit different subjects. Fuji is awesome for landscapes, Kodak for Portraiture and Ilford for anything B&W.

I shoot mostly on a digital these days, but I still drag out my 35mm or 6x6 Film bodies for anything that I want to be truly exceptional.

If all that sounds like to much work, then you will likely be disappointed with the results, so I'd say just snag a digital.

[NamelessPFG]

I wonder how my stepfather's Canon AE-1 Program fares in comparison. I've wanted to try using it, but it needs a battery replacement first.

It doesn't seem like anything particularly special, and all he has with it lens-wise are a Canon 35-70mm f/4 and two Vivitar telephotos. But still, it's an SLR, and a very popular one for its time period at that. It probably isn't bad to start out with.

However, I simply don't have the money to drop on one of those new Sigma SD1s, let alone lenses (and they use this SA lens mount that's physically proprietary, but electrically Canon EF; any way I go, it's doubtful I'm reusing that FD glass). I might as well learn on equipment that's already paid for, even without amenities like auto-focus, instant review, or fast shooting rates. (And it's not like he even uses it nowadays; we have a cheap Nikon digital point-and-shoot whose convenience seems to outweigh the general lack of quality.)

[Rajagra]

Old lenses are old.  There have been many improvements in lens design over the years.

Also many compromises. Like plastic lens mounts. Take the Canon 50mm f1.8 mk2 for example. Takes nice pictures but pops apart with a light tap.

Chances are an old manual focus lens that was awesome in its day will still be awesome today. And autofocus lenses - all of them - are going to wear out quicker than MF ones.

People like Canon had some brilliant mathematicians who knew their stuff, and engineering methods for putting designs into production. Lenses have not improved *that* much, at least in terms of sharpness.

You might be right about old Nikon lenses being inferior. That's because Canon took out patents on [strike]apochromatic[/strike] aspherical lens design and for a very long time no other manufacturers could copy their designs or come close to their quality.