I love to take pictures, and I’ve been looking for a decent camera that is a step up from regular point-and-shoot types. The Pentax ZX-60 is at the top of my list right now, it’s pretty close to what I’m looking for and not horribly expensive (as far as cameras go!)
I want something that has interchangable lenses, not too complicated to use, and not too pricey. I would appreciate any input in helping me to decide what kind to buy!
You will get annoyed with an auto-flash - if you want do to low-light, it should let you - not insert a half-assed flash.
Consider a Pentax/Yashika a throw-away - you will quickly outgrow the available lenses, and even if you don’t, you can’t use them on any other bodies.
As a student-level rig, the Pentax has been a great little niche camera (don’t know about this model). But - if you want to start building a system, go with Cannon, Minolta, or Nikon (and not the bottom of any of those lines). The available glass and accessories for those lines will keep you busy for many years.
p.s. - this has been discussed several times - search the boards for more detail.
IMO the popup flashes built into a lot of 35mm SLRs is one of the worst abominations ever foisted on amateur photographersl. Maybe that’s going a little overboard but if you want to make flash photos looks like they were from a cheap P&S that’s how to do it. Unfortunately the way to correct it is with an off camera flash that will be bulkier than you want to deal with. it’s a tradeoff that you have to decide on.
If you anticipate wanting to add lenses and grow as a photographer I’s steer you toward something like Nikon N65 or one of the Canon EOS cameras as you’ll have more lens and camera options later on. In a few years digital may be a better choice for amateurs than film and you’ll have more use for your Nikon or Canon lenses if you graduate to a DLSR.
My thinking right now is that a digital camera is a better choice for an amateur photographer looking to improve. Although the initial investment is somewhat higher, you save an enormous amount in terms of film, film developing and printing. Because the cost of taking a picture is effectively zero, you can spend a lot of time and attention on a single subject without breaking the bank, fooling around with depth of focus, different exposures, and different angles. The evaluation of the photos can be almost instantaneous. And instead of having hundreds of old shoeboxes full of faded photos that you never look at, you can put all your pictures on a few CDs and browse them easily. And almost everyone has a PC and a modem nowadays, so you can email pictures to people, or put them on web pages very easily.
As far as wanting interchangeable lenses – they are nice to have, but lens technology has gotten to the point where a good zoom doesn’t have a lot of sins. With the exception of a wedding or two where I got talked into taking pictures, I can’t remember the last time I used the OM-4. I really don’t miss going on vacations packing a camera and three or four different lenses.
Hm,
You know, it really depends on what you want to do/learn with this camera. If you aren’t interested in learning the basics of film photography (like how to select F-stops and shutter speeds, how to develop and print your own film, how to use a flash, etc.) I’d have to agree with Finagle about getting a digital camera. Their quality is getting better all the time, and you don’t have to spend money on film or film development (though you will have to spend some $ on batteries).
On the other hand, if you do want to learn basic photographic principles, a good manual camera is essential. I’m talking about one that’s totally manual - no automatic anything on it. Many camera manufacturers have been getting away from cameras like that because people seem to like doodads and whizbangs on their cameras now. BUT, in MHO, that’s just more stuff that can break, and once you learn the basics of photography you don’t need all that crap anyway. An excellent choice for a basic manual camera is the Nikon FM10. The price is comparable to the Pentax, but in this case you are paying for Nikon quality in place of the Pentax’s bells and whistles. Nixon undeniably makes great cameras, and this one could last you the rest of your life.
I’ve had my manual Olympus OM-1N for 20 years now, and I don’t need any other camera (though the Nikons and the Leicas are nice cameras - I’ve had the opportunity to use both, I just couldn’t afford to buy one of my own at the time I was looking to buy). The only thing I’ve replaced on it in that entire time is the hotshoe - which only cost me $20.
Oh, and those auto-flashes do suck - mightily.
Well, to disagree mildly with romansperson, almost any mid-to-high level digital camera will let you operate in aperture or shutter priority mode, perform exposure compensation, and so on. Many will support external flashes. So they are arguably * better * for learning basic photographic principles because of the rapid feedback you can get on how well your settings worked in a given situation and the low cost of experimentation.
Looks like a fine camera. Get it, lot’s of film and start shooting. Don’t save on film. Learn; enjoy; ask.
Don’t use the picture modes. It’s you who must make the picture not the camera. Learn to see.
Learn to use slow-shutter sync. Most useful and underestimated feature on a camera.
Try slides and the autobracket feature.
Don’t use the pop-up flash for indoors (or use it indoor on a tripod with slow-shutter sync)
Use the pop-up (fill-in) flash for sunny contrasty, outdoor portraits.
Get a 35mm fix focal or a 28-105mm zoom if budget permits.
But, Finagle, a digital won’t help you learn to develop and print your own film, which, at least in MHO, is part of the whole experience. I had a lot of fun learning how to do that.
And, there is one other thing about digital cameras that drives me nuts. If you plan on taking a lot of action shots, you are probably going to have to buy yourself a pretty expensive digital - far more expensive than a basic SLR. The lower-level models have a really annoying delay between when you press the shutter button and when the shutter actually fires. So if your intention is to take pictures of sporting events, kids playing or wildlife, make very very sure that the digital you buy can do that, or you’ll end up missing a lot of shots.
Yeah, I did the whole “develop and print” thing for years, both black and white and color, slides and prints. Then it occurred to me that spending all my time alone in a dark room was not the way I wanted to spend my young adult years. Photo developing is also expensive and messy and requires a lot of equipment.
It’s a fun skill to have, but it’s a bit like setting type (which I also know how to do) in that it’s not a technology with a future. Currently I’d only recommend learning darkroom skills to someone who was really interested in producing very high quality, large size art prints. And I’m guessing that in another 2-5 years, digital will have occupied that niche as well.
As for the shutter delay, that’s an artifact of the autofocus rather than the digital camera itself. So you can reduce the lag significantly by pre-focusing. But you are correct – one of the advantages of the manual focus SLR is that it allows you to time your shots much better, so you get better candids (or at least, the candid you wanted).
One more thing you might consider is buying second hand. All decent camera shops have dozens of decent used cameras, often at often cheap prices. And they come with the added advantage that people will think you’re a real photographer, not a dorky tourist.
And as a second bonus, it’ll get you on the good side of the camera shop guys which can be useful - if they get to know you and you want to try a new (new to you, but still used) widget (lens, flash, whatever) they might let you try it for a half a day before buying it.