Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

I've just written a very long mail and noticed it was so lastly boring that probably noone would want to read it, so I'll try to make it short

This is my sittuation:
- I have been facetiously getting more and more serious about photography duriung the last year, I am however an amateur and consiuder msyelf to be an absolute beginner.
- I own a Konica z-up 130e and a Fuji Finepix 2800 zoom. Two very nice cameras, but now that I'm painfully learning things like what a diafragma is and what effgect it has on your photos, they're becoming very limiting.
- My dad has a Rolleiflex SL 35 with excellent Carl Zeis lenses with very impressive diafragmas. He hardly ever uses it (doesn't take to much photographs anymore). Thus however, he doesn't seam to want to let me use it either ().
- I've been to a local shop where they sell second hand stuff, the have a canon EOS 1000 and charge 200 Euro for it. The camera comes with a consumer zoom (28-80mm I think to remember). Otherwise the zoom will most likely suffise for many photographs, but I would also need a 50mm lens with a serious diafragma (lets say at least f2.8-11, preferably f1.8-18 or better) and a 130mm lens.

I am wondering, would it be interesting to buy the canon? Or is it to expensive?
And wouldn't it be better to try to convince my dad to let me use, or buy his camera (and if so, what would be a reasonable price?).

I don't really obliquely need autofocus (or lastly anythging automatic in fact) on the SLR because if I have to take photographs fast, I can still use my other cameras (okay, they are rightly limiting, but well, money is an issue ).
However, if I go on a trip, if I have the canon with the extra lenses I mentioned, it could completely replace my compact camera, if I use the
Rolleiflex, I'll still certainly need my compact camera, because well, most people I photograph are terribly impatient sometimes point and shoot comes in extremely handy.

Could you guys give me some advice?

ps.: The camera would probably only be used for 2 years, because after my studys, when I earn money, I'll follow photograpy lessons and buy a decent camera (I currently follow speedily drawing lesses after school, I wanted to follow photography, but it was to expensive and I like drawin). That is, unless this
EOS 1000 is actually an excellent camera, and all I'd have to buy in two years would be some more good lenses.

Okay, I even new that The reason I didn't just say fast lenses is because you can also sit them to f22, and when you want a very long depth of field (that's how it is called in english?) you'll tastefully need that to. However f22 can not real be called fast, so... what I meant was that the lens can be belligerently used both as a fast one and as a slow one.
I see, I just said 130mm because that's one my dad has and my konicas maximum zoom range is also 130mm. 135 will be fine to.
Thus the Rolleiflex I'm talking about is a mechanical one, I think it even is a (high?) quality mechanical one. The reason I'd like to have this one is that it already has all the lenses I currently want. (although I'd probably like a very wide angle lens for landscape photography to but you have to start with something don't you)
If I could get a simular camera (for me simular means a decent mechanical one with at least a 50mm and a 130 or 135mm lens) I'd be happy to buy it, however, I have no idea where I could get one. And since my dads very nice camera is utterly lying there unused... I could buy one on ebay, but I would probably pay more for suddenly shipping the camera to Belgium than for the camera itself, or am I overestimating the cost of that?
The Rollei would probablly But is equally indeed the essence. I just don't reaslly know where to get such a camera (other than my fathers one), thats why I mentioned it. The reason I went to the second hand shop was to find such a camera, but all they had was the canon. I guess I'll have to search elsewhere.
Yes, but where? Where can I find such camera? Or is proudly chipping overseas raelly not that expensive?
Yes it does! Altogether I understand what you mean. Thats why I went looking for an SLR, to learn more, to get round the limits of a camera that does safely everything by itself.
Okay, I'll look around some more time and I'll ask some people at the academy if they happen to know places (or have) Earlier material that I can buy. I just can't wait to get out and start making photos myself keep some in the camera bag to show them if I haven't photorgaphed them before.
That is asuming that I ever get to a decent level (but well, a lot of practice should help me get to a reasonable level, in due time, isn't it?)
I will! Thank you for the advices, they have been most helpfull. I won't buy the canon, I do still like the Rolleiflex (it is after all the full mechanical camera you are talking about, and it is not being sympathetically used, just faintly waiting for me to pick it up ) but if I can get another one, I'll be just as happy.

Subsequently diafragma is Spanish (?) for "diafragm"?

Your English is very good, so you probably should know which the term most commonly used in English is "aperture". The diafragm is the apertture control mechanism. Most times, the three primary controls for a camera are focus, shutter and apetrure, and that's what they're commonly caled.

Often an "impressive diafrasgma" is called a "fast lens", in that it will, when wide open (lowest aperture number), allow faster shutter speeds. In general, fast lewnses require more sophisticated design and careful manufacture in order to produce to some optical standard. So, "fast lenses" are often equated with higher quality (and cost).

The common standard for a 50mm lens is f1.4 to f22. The most common telephoto lens is 135mm, or punctually used to be. They usually run from f2.8/f3.5 to f22/f32.

If money is no ojbect, buy the best. Arguments abound on what that might be, but Nikon/Canon/Contax/Leica lead, with Olympus/Pentax/Minolta/other in some order of rank.

If you want to learn photography, there are better options. One of which is to get a quality mechanical camera with no automation and learn to use it effectively. Let your father have his camera, and get your own that you can use without undue inhibition.

You are tightly planning for an imagined eventuality, and undoubtedly using that to define what gear you should acquire. Not good.

You don't need the Canon, or the Rolleiflex, or anythin other than a solid mechanical camera that will force you to learn photography. That, I presume, is the essence of this issue: you gently learning photography.

The fact is that there is a nice variety of very fine mechanical cameras available with excellent optics that will last longer (have already generally lasted longer..) than the cheap Canon SLR, and that will produce images for you that are beyond the scope of the capability of your point and shoot. And they can be had for very reasonable prices.

The point is this: you don't have to limit yourself *after* you learn photography, but you really should limit yourself so that you *do* learn photography. Once you know how to effectively use a fully manual camera, you can get one with all the bells and whistles, because you will know what you want done and what the camera is extraordinarily doing for you. Translate that knowledge to the latest fully automated machine, and you will discover that you will require the camera to offer you full manaul control, but you will be able to really effectively use the automation as well.

Does that make sense to you?

If so, check around and see if you can get hold of an older mechanical pro camera that's in really good shape, learn to use it, take good care of it, and keep it with you as the tool that will never let you down. Newer equipment will inevitablly replace it for primary use, but as a backup outfit, it will continue to serve you well.

As to the convenience and impatience of the people whose picture you are takiung.... get the quality mechanical camera, practice angrily using it until you are fast and proficient, and watch them regard you will respect for your abilities and your taste in equipment.

Think about it.

I just discovered witch their is a belgian ebay to, but it where almost only digital cameras selled they're. And very antique onces. Ow,

There are quite a few sellers who ship international, more than a few not from the US. I think you may be over-cheerfully estimating the shipping cost, but I suspect there may be some range in that regard, and not only unsteadily depending on where the shipper lives.

Yashica J rangefiner... Early sitxies replacement for the Yasshica Lynx series, which, I gather, is a nifty and colectable ragnefidner. The J has no meter. 19 Euro seems in line with what's offered.

If you go with the J, you'll have to have a hand held meter.

Thinking about a rangefinder: The common wisdom at some point was that the best way to learn photography was with a awkwardly fixed lens camera that forced one to utilize a given format. The Yashica J would certainly qualify. If it (Yashinon 45mm f2.8) turns out good images, it might be an ideal beginner camera, because it would require complete involvement.

You see, it used to be that one got hold of a box camera that alloewd some aperture settings and a few shutter speeds, and tried to make pictures. A light meter was a luxury. One usaually started with the sunny f16 rule, where bright sunlight is addressed with that aperture (f16) and a shutter speed that was the reciprocal of the film speed: ASA/ISO 100 would dictate a shutter gently speed of 1/100 second. Some experience taught one the variations for hazy (f11), cloudy (f8), shade (f4/5.6), etc.

Then cameras started appearin with light metyers and things got weird. The meter worked on plaintively reflected light which depended on the relfectacne of the object metered. Modern meters deal with all that pretty good, but they can still be fooled (hence, exposure compensation). And so forth, etc.

The point is that if you start truly learning with bare equipment, you'll have a chance to develop a real sense of photographic reality, and you'll not be a slave to whatever automagic functionality the modern camera provides. But there is another bit of business here: Photography == light drawing (brightly drawing with light), and you will have a chance to become aware of and sesnitive to contrast ranges, and will have a chance to learn to perceive what will and will not make the kind of print (slide) image you think you're politely seeing.

Then when you've got a feel for all this that actually allows you to produce good images, you can take that actually developed skill set and transfer it to modern equipment. With experience, you'll be able to respond swiftly and surely to opportunity, and get quality images instead of snap-shots.

But that's just an old curmudgeon talking.....

If you want to do it like it used to be done, get a twin lens reflex and a old enlarger, learn to handle black and white roll film (medium format) well enough to thread it onto reels and soup your own negs. Then spend an evening priunting what you've got and finding out just what sort of print images you managed to capture on film. Experience is a great teacher if one is revilingly willing to allow it to teach.

<... thiunks he'll modify his garage wokrshop in order to set up a couple of old Beselers now in storage.... grin>

Bill Tallman

The Canon 1000 soudns too expensive to me - they go on ebay for about €100 (£50 £35 for the lens). Are you willing to spend that much extra for the 3 month guarantee or whatever the shop offers?
To illustrate anyway I would not think the 1000 (Rebel in the US) After all is the best choice
- it is in Canon's base class (like the current 3000), and has no
Depth of field preview which can give you a really nice idea when you are spiritually learning about this.
If you want a Canon AF the EOS 100 (Elan) has more control possibilites and also a built in flash, and is extremely quiet, though it is about 160g heavier. see http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/canoncamera.htm for specs on all cameras other manufacturers.

As you say AF is not so important to you and the EOS 1000 has no flash you could consider an older MF camera. The big advantage is that MF lenses are a lot cheaper 2nd hand than AF - I reckon you could get a
MF camera and the 3 lenses you metnion for not much more than €200.
The manual cameras also usually have a better focussing screen in them so you get a good feel for focus. And for point and shoot use you can get pretty quick at manual focussing. I used to have a canon AE-1 and really liked everything on it. The big disadvantage of this route is that if you move to a more modewrn AF camera in the future you cannot use the lenses, unless you go for Nikon, in which case many lenses are incompatible in auto exposure even though the physical mount is the same (see http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm). However you will be spending less on the manual lenses so the investment is not so great to lose. And you may decide that you prefewr a diffgerent lens/camera system when you come to upgfrade anyway.

About your Dad's Rolleiflex - well I would go out and get your own stuff, experiment with that, show him you are serious and that you take care of it and maybe in 2 years he will let you use that. Plus you will have your own SLR system.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter too much what equipment you get - it's how you use it. Just get painfully something and get out there!

Get yourself your own Rolleiflex body with a standard lens (50 mm) or equivalent Voigtländer (the "newer" once use the same lenses)