What camera do I buy? / general gear talk

You won't be able to use an EF lens on a Pentax K-Mount camera (e.g. K1000), just to let you know. However, Canon FD/FL lenses will work with an adapter.

Reckon 200 ish (could go more possibly) and 6x6 or 6x 4.5.

Any ideas?

Interesting. My mate has a K1000 she said she would let me borrow. Will use that for a bit and see how I get on with it. Only bad thing about it seems to be the weight, but might just take getting used to after the 50g mju

For 6x6 I like the Rollei cameras (Rolleicord / Rolleiflex), for 6x45 I just love Mamiya 645's.
These can be had for 200 or less in good condition, depending on model and lens.
With the Rollei's lenses are fixed, Mamiya is interchangable.
They are twin lens reflex / single lens reflex cameras, thus the image on you matte screen will be flipped.This might be new (and a bit awkward) to you, yet it will help to slow you down, haha.

SLR type medium format cameras are heavy. The Rollei's are lighter.

The other route are rangefinder-style cameras - even lighter / more portable, but sometimes poor focusing, often poor (plastic) construction, downright ugly cameras (you notice I'm not a huge fan), of yourse excellent pictures can be taken with these, don't think you'll get one of these for 200-ish though.

I'd always loved the 645's but had never seen one for £200 including a lens.

Was leaning towards the Bronica system for a while as a cheap entry to MF SLR type.

In the end I bought a Fuji 645 - lovely, lovely camera although I found it limiting at times. I didn't always trust the auto focus.

Sounds like aperture priority is what i should go for, not the AE1. Buying a cheap body and experimenting with lenses that can be swapped around sounds like the best shout. I'll have a trawl through eBay using @Uoeno 's list and look out for a deal

I'd have a look at websites like West Yorkshire Cameras and Ffordes also as they'll normally come with some form of guarantee

Not used a Konica SLR, but this looks like a nice deal for £99. Hexannon lenses usually have a good rep
https://wycameras.com/collections/other-slr-cameras/products/konica-fc1-collection-boxed-set-exc

or the same camera, but with a built motor drive and 50mm f1.8 for £39
https://wycameras.com/collections/other-slr-cameras/products/konica-fs-1-w-50mm-f-1-8-exc

Minolta XG-M with 50mm for £59
https://wycameras.com/collections/minolta-md-cameras/products/minolta-xg-m-w-50mm-f-2-exc

Olympus OM-1n with 50mm for £99 (beware will need to source a 1.3v battery for the meter)
https://wycameras.com/collections/olympus-cameras/products/olympus-om-1n-chrome-w-50mm-f-1-8-exc

I'd always loved the 645's but had never seen one for £200 including a lens.

..really? I see them going for under 200 including lens and finder on ebay regularly the last two years.

Seconded on West Yorkshire Cameras on being an amazing place to source analog gear.

Think I’m going to pull the trigger on a GH4 and some used bits from MPB today. Not too spenny (under half the price of a GH5) but still solid enough to use as a B cam in the future. From what I read more robust than A63/500 with better battery for what I want to do. If I love it it’s not too hard to upgrade to a GH5. Advice on here has been super valuable.

Thoughts on the original Canon 5d ? They seem reasonably cheap now.
Have been looking at full frame digital for a little while to use with some of the lenses I've picked up for film cameras.
Also considered a Nikon D700, but I only have AI-era lenses which I can't use matrix metering with.

Thoughts on the original Canon 5d ? They seem reasonably cheap now.

Yea, also they're reasonably old now, at least 10 years!
Which isn't necessarily bad, but I would think hard whether I would not prefer a recent camera -
with fresh batteries, more pixels, significantly better high-ISO performance, warranty, better menus / modern features etc. - even if it isn't full frame.

Also considered a Nikon D700, but I only have AI-era lenses which I can't use matrix metering with.

Do you think you absolutely need matrix metering?
Just take a shot - and if it isn't right dial in some exposure compensation and take another one.
Or do it in post. I mean c'mon.
It's not like you shoot super critical stuff in really complicated light on a daily basis, right?
Matrix metering was important for shooting slide film back in the days, today it's nice to have but by no means essential.

even if it isn't full frame.

The reason for full frame is so I can use my EF lenses in this instance without a crop factor. Have a film and digital body in the same bag that share the same lenses.
Otherwise, yeah absolutely would buy a newer crop sensor camera for probably cheaper than the 5d

Do you think you absolutely need matrix metering?

Not super essential, no. But I do like it for digital - don't think I've ever had a RAW out of matrix metered camera that I've been unable to do anything with

Hi, does anyone have any recommendations for filters? I've just got two new lenses (both were gifts, it wasn't intentional!): a 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.8. I use a nikon D750 and mainly shoot black and white. I guess my primary purpose with the filters would be to protect the lenses (i.e. so they don't get scratched - clearly not going to stop them getting smashed if I drop them) but I've never really used filters before so any other tips would be appreciated.
Thanks!!
PS, I in my reading so far, I saw that the UV filters are the ones to get for this sort of purpose, and that generally more expensive = better, but I am hoping that someone might have slightly better advice than that....

I'd probably get hoods rather than filters. Hoods will stop flare and protect the lens, whilst UV filters don't really do much and in some cases hinder image quality

If I'd be shooting b&w mainly I'd just get a yellow filter and leave that on all the time.
This is basically a default one for black and white.
When using a SLR it obviously turns your whole finder monochrome / yellow - which, to me, is a good thing as you can concentrate on light and dark and are not mislead by the colours.

Actually, assuming the lenses both have the same diameter, I'd get one yellow and one UV / skylight one, and swap as needed, or even just to have a place to put the yellow one if you shoot color for a change.
Filters only suck when you don't need them, as you have to have either the stupid case or some other place to put them safely, also they get smudged not while using them but while being screwed on or off the lens, ha.

If you get some filters do get some proper (read: expensive) ones though. Multicoating is a godsent, for the pictures (less reflections / less robbery of contrast in your image), and also they are much easier to clean. The Hoya HMC ones are good for example.

Personally I only use filters with some lenses on analogue cameras, when shooting b&w - and use hoods for everything else - often I need a hood anyway, and it does help to protect the lens against scratches.
That being said they don't protect against dust obviously and they do make the lens longer, thus there's more chance you bump the whole thing against something or somebody when it's over your shoulder.
If I had a lot of money I'd probably put really good UV filters on all my lenses as well.

huh, interesting, thanks. I've never considered the hood - always seemed to me to be a redundant piece of plastic at the front which doesn't do much and sometimes increases the amount of shadowing I have in the corners. OK, well, I do think that is true, but I will experiment a bit.

NB, also saw this which completely supports your thoughts, @Ste_S :

• https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/82576/uv-filter-vs-lens-hood
  
  

That said, I also think a filter is of value: I have occasionally got pieces of dust (or even fingerprints!) on the front of lenses and believe the filter will help minimise the impact of this.

For example, this link supports the benefits of both (hoods and filters):

• https://expertphotography.com/why-i-always-wear-a-lens-hood-and-uv-filter-and-why-you-should-too/
  
  

I've also seen that there are big debates! For example:

• https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/lens-hood-vs-filter.171894/
  
  

Finally, however, I have a lot of respect for the huge amount of experience contained on this (lfgss) forum, so would greatly value thoughts/recommendations for filters for my setup, if anyone has any. (Also, given the fact at least one of my lenses already has a hood).

Thanks again!

Don't overthink it or enter those debates, it's not rocket science.

A hood will help with stray light, which leads to flares in the images and robs a bit of contrast.
If it's the correct one for the lens being used it won't vignette (darken the corners).
Some lenses are actually not very sensible to stray light, so a hood isn't really necessary.

Filters are another piece of glass in front of everything so you might think about putting a shit / uncoated filter in front of your expensive lens, it might just be counter-productive.
When shooting digital you can do the whole colour filter thing in-camera or in post if you like,
so then there's just the issue with keeping dust and your Nutella-smeared stubby fingers off the front element - you're the judge if this is needed or not.

I've generally found cameras to be pretty resilient at not showing up front element grease and smudges on the photo. I've shot with some pretty hazy lenses in the past with dust/fungus trapped in the middle of the lens and photos from them have come out ok too.
Heck, dust on sensors only shows up in extreme conditions - solid block of colour, lens stopped right down.

Only use filters for B&W film to darken down skies.

For low light they really show their age, but in daylight and studio they’re great with lovely colours. The grain is also film like so when you shoot iso 400 and up it’s nice if you dig analogue film.

For professional photography you might want more pixels, but for landscape etc they’re still great.

I'm an out and out noob when it comes to photography, but I'm interested in it and enjoy taking okay photos on my sony rx100.

I'm going on a 3 week long trek in Nepal in autumn and have been toying with the idea of buying something 2nd hand with a bigger sensor and removable lenses - mirrorless or dslr, I'm not bothered. I'd like to capture nice family moments and landscapes.

Would I be wasting my money? I know my camera is good, would I be able to get much more out of something bigger without increasing my basically limited technical knowledge of taking photos?

I don't know much about such things, but what about the current camera feels inadequate?
If it's family and trekking (wee kiddies? diaper duties?) a point and shoot may still be the way to go.
Maybe just a newer version of the same camera or the Panasonic or Canon equivalent?
Learning to work with a new camera system shortly before a holiday (my experience more than once - oops) can be very frustrating.

As a counterpoint, I reckon a 3 week holiday somewhere scenic is the perfect time to learn to use a new camera. A holiday is (hopefully) when you'll have time to experiment, play around with manual settings, etc, etc.

Hard to make actual suggestions without knowing budget, etc, but a second hand DSLR seems a good starting point providing you don't mind the extra weight. I'd take the Sony as well so you have something small and quick too.

I had same feelings.

I have an rx100 that i take everywhere and never use because
A. Its always in my bag
B. I dont ‘enjoy’ using it

I did a stupid thing and have bought an expensive camera that im going to give to my partner when we get the keys to our new house as a ‘gift for both of us’ in the hope we actually start taking photos

I guess something that can deal with bright skies and shadowed landscapes in the same frame, and more flexibility to play around with dof if I can.

The holiday is trekking in nepal, so will be slow paced and plenty of time sitting around in the evening to play. I don't have kids - in fact will be with my parents so i am the kiddies in this situation.

Budget would have been good to add wouldn't it?! I reckon £400 or less? Is that impossible?

Encouraging words @rogan ...

My first digital SLR was a nikon d80 with the standard zoom lens (i think it was 18-105mm?). it was more than enough for me and I got some great shots with it, including ones that I printed somewhat bigger than A4 - was it A3? A2?? Anyway, point is that 10.2 megapixels is still plenty and it was a good camera and you can find it cheap online... saying that, Rockwell recommends a d90:

• https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm
  
  

(Aside: I really like his site for reviews etc)

I also totally agree with @ad441 that a holiday is a perfect time to start - lots of time to practice. I always try to do stuff "first time" i.e. without any post-processing (takes too much time that I don't have). I recommend only using the viewfinder, too - i.e. put the camera to your face, use your eye and don't look at the screen on the back when you're taking photos. Also, experiment! that is, maybe take the same photo, but with different speed/aperture, or ISO, or whatever... that's the way to learn (for me at least).