Film Camera Recommendation

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Use whatever camera you already have. Bring a friend who can watch your back. Preferably a big, hairy, ugly friend with tattoos and scars and missing teeth. Even in the hood there are few who will try to steal your camera. They would rather take your wallet for the cash than to get a camera that they have to sell to get money. It is more likely that they will chase you to beat the pulp out of you for taking their picture -- either because they are engaged in some sort of illegal activity, or are wanted by the law, or are just shy... or just becuase they know "you aren't from there". Wear good shoes that will allow you to run fast. Don't drive a nice car either and park it on the streets in a ghetto.

Yikes!!! Sometimes I'm thankful that I live where I do...

[BrianShaw]

Yikes!!! Sometimes I'm thankful that I live where I do...

Me too. I'm just saying that when I went photographing in the ghetto or other rough areas... I took my brother with me.

[CGW]

If you want built in meter then stay away from those that use mercury battery. I know I will get flamed for saying this but I don't think any of them has very accurate meter even with the right battery. On your list I think the XD-11 is good. I do think the Nikon FM (FM2 etc..) would have good meter.

Anything requiring mercury batteries, apart from the inconvenience of futzing with ill-fitting zinc-air cells, is also verging on being a relic with a good chance of age-related problems affecting reliability/functionality. After the usual chorus of counter-claims, testimonials and CLA recommendations dies down, remember you'll still be relying on a 40-50 year-old camera whose reputation for toughness will be cold comfort when it breaks or produces poorly-exposed negatives. Forget about retro fashion statements. Get the newest, most reliable gear you can. There seems to be budget enough according to the OP.

[Sundowner]

I like the idea behind the F3 suggestion, above. Here's an even cheaper Nikon option that will get you shooting some great pictures: the little-loved FG.

You can get one for - no kidding - $30. Also, you could pair that with the 24mm f2.8 lens - a hundred bucks will get you a good one - and throw a ten-dollar filter on the front and you're DONE. Less than $150, and you have an AWESOME rig that you can upgrade easily later on! That leaves you $350 left over, which will buy you somewhere around 81 rolls of 36-exposure Tri-X 400, which is a minimum of 2916 exposures. Even I could get a good one with that many frames...

[elcabezagrande]

I am the big ugly hairy friend. Sigh.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Anything requiring mercury batteries, apart from the inconvenience of futzing with ill-fitting zinc-air cells, is also verging on being a relic with a good chance of age-related problems affecting reliability/functionality. After the usual chorus of counter-claims, testimonials and CLA recommendations dies down, remember you'll still be relying on a 40-50 year-old camera whose reputation for toughness will be cold comfort when it breaks or produces poorly-exposed negatives. Forget about retro fashion statements. Get the newest, most reliable gear you can. There seems to be budget enough according to the OP.

Rubbish... The only cameras that have ever left me completely in the lurch were electronic marvels...

Meters can be very easily tested for accuracy at home and a roll of film can guarantee that a shutter is operating normally.

Classic cameras go *slowly* out of adjustment with age, whereas electronic marvels can drop dead suddenly and without warning.

[guitstik]

I may have missed it but where are you located? If this is just for a project and you mainly shoot DSLR then you might consider borrowing equipment. For example, if you lived near me I could lend you any number of Minolta bodies with a 28mm, a Nikon F with a 24 or an Olympus OM-1 with a 24mm. Unless you are going to continue on with film, which is a big possibility, after the project ends then either renting or borrowing makes more sense. It would give you the ability to try different makes and models without making a financial commitment until you figured out what you like.

[spacer]

On my shelf, I have a few that would seem to fit the bill, but only one (other than the dSLRs) that has a wide angle lens at the moment: my X700. I have a 28/2.8 hanging around somewhere for it. The camera is a joy to shoot, and I'm learning to love it despite a poor set of test shots I made the mistake of taking to CVS. It is electronic, however, so I'd probably use my K1000 as a non-electronic 3rd world camera. I've used 'em quite a bit my whole life, so I'm familiar with the meter, and it just feels good in the hands.

Or... if you're looking for something newer, within your budget, (though I may get a few crosseyed looks) there's the Nikon FM10. It's made by Cosina, and probably won't take a beating like some of the other cameras mentioned here, but I've made some of my favorite images from my faux Nikon. Add a decent wide angle lens and stir.

[elcabezagrande]

The Nikon FM10 and the Yashica FX-3 are like cousins.

[CGW]

Rubbish... The only cameras that have ever left me completely in the lurch were electronic marvels...

Meters can be very easily tested for accuracy at home and a roll of film can guarantee that a shutter is operating normally.

Classic cameras go *slowly* out of adjustment with age, whereas electronic marvels can drop dead suddenly and without warning.

Give it a rest. Mechanical cameras aren't immune to breaking, jamming, and otherwise failing suddenly. If I want reliability for a project, I won't be asking to borrow an elderly SRT 101 or Spotmatic for fear that something 40-50 years younger and electronic just might possibly fail. I also won't be losing any sleep over a possibility that remote.