I really like my FM2 with a 50mm 1.8 AIS pancake right now. It’s just really simple to use, it feels rugged but light at the same time and it’s all mechanical. I take it everywhere!

The besr is subjective. Pentax Auto is maybe the smallest 35mm out there. Pentax MX is dumb small and light. I loved my MX, bought two.

The canon af35m is also pretty small. But we gotta specify if you want slr or compact, because that makes a huge difference. I know you said 35mm camera, but there are so many...

From my personal list (weights from the internet):

Compact AF: Fuji DL Super Mini (Tiara)
Tiny and light camera, 28mm is great for travel, Infinity lock/no flash mode is just one button away, decent manual focus settings too. Also feels pretty well made. 154g (without battery)

Compact MF: Olympus XA
Very small, 35mm f/2.8 lens is very nice, rangefinder focusing(!), aperture priority, plastic but very sturdy and quick to use thanks to the sliding cover. 220g (with battery)

SLR: Olympus OM4 TI
It is not the lightest camera out there with 510g (Non Titan version is 30g more), the Pentax MX is even lighter with 495g. But feature wise and with this wonderful viewfinder, I would rather pick the Olympus over the Pentax (and it helps that I have the Olympus already). Of course, without lens an SLR is not much fun, when you add a 50/1,8 or 50/1,7 to either of those cameras, that will be another extra ~170g (for both lenses).

Fully manual, the Yashica FX-3/FX-3 Super/FX-3 Super 2000 (and corresponding FX-7 series. Literally the same camera, just that the FX-7 is silver and the FX-3 is black).

The Super 2000 will be the lightest of them all. This series uses the Contax/Yashica mount which has a range of high end Zeiss glass ready if you got the cash.

Olympus XA2 is my go to

Olympus XA, the original rangefinder one.

Now that I finally bought one, feel free to spread the hype and inflate prices (/s). These cameras are actually worth it

Rollei 35

Edit: whoever downvoted me I'm placing a curse on you that your next roll comes out blank

The best ones I own, for different situations are the: Olympus Mju ii, sharp lens, autofocus, fully automatic exposure and built in flash.

Minox 35GT, sharp lens, manual focus, aperture priority, hotshoe and fits in to even a tiny pocket.

Lomo LC-A, sharp in the center, zone focusing with automatic exposure, not the most accurate camera but it has a certain charm to it. Has hotshoe and some models have attachment points for various attachents.

I would probably recommend the Minox 35 series. Amazing cameras, pretty cheap and very fun to use. Can bring it everywhere.

Any of the Kodak Retina folders, but especially the IIIc. Great lens, solid build that protects itself, good ergonomics, fully mechanical, and probably one of the best publicly documented series of cameras for repairs thanks to Chris Sherlocke's YouTube channel. If all of that wasn't enough for you, they can often be had for fairly low cost too.

Unfortunately there are no proper 35mm film cameras currently in production, just point and shoots and instant cameras. Pentax is working on releasing a new film line, but it'll probably take a while, if it ever happens.

You'll need to look at the second hand market, or settle for a point and shoot.

Get a used Nikon FM,FM2 Olympus OM system. If you want to go high-end then Leica.

There are many used options available. Are you looking for an SLR or point and shoot? Or something unusual?

check the price of film and developing first

I would say honestly any slr in good working order should be fine. There are not any new ones being made, so having the camera function properly takes top priority. I would keep an eye out for cameras with M42 mount, Canon FD mount, or Pentax K mount as I feel like that is what I see the most lens wise while thrifting. Other mounts are fine too, you just might have to spend a bit more and possibly buy online to find what lenses you need.

Any early 2000s entry-level film SLR (e.g., Canon Rebel, Nikon N55)

Contax T3

Get something manual like Pentax K1000.

Photography is simple, your film will have an ASA number and you set your adjuster to that.

All that's left is aperture (F-stop) and shutter speed.

If you set the dial on your lens to around 2.0 your subject will be in focus and your foreground and background will be blurry.

If you set your aperture at 16, everything will be in focus from the front to the back of pic.

There are settings (F4, F5.6, F8. F11) in between that will vary how much is blurry.

Shutter speed can help you stop motion, at 1/1000 second you can stop moving objects and at 1/30 second things will be blurry, and then there is everything in between.

The most important thing in photography is exposure, you'll have a light meter in your viewfined and usually you get a pointer in the middle for correct exposure and you do that by moving your aperture ring and shutter speed.

At that point it's just compose your pic and press the shutter, In time you'll learn how and what setting to change to get the results you want.

Search Nikon N80 on the 'Bay. Fully capable yet fully auto if you prefer. Onboard flash. Cheap, with kit zoom.

Nikon FM2. Good affordable lens selection. Easy to use. Fully manual.

At this point most film cameras are 30-40 years old, so none of them will be as reliables as a modern digital camera, so you need to come to terms with that. The XA is really compact, you won’t find many options that small. I suggest you just buy another XA. Also check out the Contax 137. It’s a tiny SLR and if you pair it with the Zeiss 45mm pancake lens it’s a really compact package. I have one and it’s great.

The Minolta XD is already pretty darn small for an SLR. If you want to shave off maybe 100 grams there are other options suggested here, but not really appreciable IMO.

Also, as far as reliability goes the XA is already quite decent. I strongly doubt that buying another camera that hasn't seen service in half a century would be much better. The XA is also the undisputed champion as far as compact manual control, so I would just spend the money and have it repaired.

Whatever you end up getting, keep in mind that, unfortunately, none of the cameras in that class were really built to last for a super long time, and anything you get will be on borrowed time at this point.

I would go for a brand new Lomography LC-A+ or LC-A wide. Its a point a shoot, mine has a great image quality and its reliable because its new.

We haven't many choices to buy new cameras, I think there are only Lomography and Leica.

Olympus 35RC

> I intend on using this camera for family outings with my significant other and our son to take pictures of him so we can look back at his memories.

Curious - why film over digital for this?

To be fair, I don't have kids so I'm not in that position. But as far as capturing once-in-a-lifetime moments with your kid and family, if it's me I'd want to prioritize making sure those moments make it and aren't lost.

Granted, growing up my family shot everything on film because that was all there was! But you'd have cases where you get film back after however many weeks and focus is off and it's blurry, or underexposed or something - and you can't go back in time to fix it. Or if you run out of film, or if something on your 30+ year old camera breaks in the moment, or whatever else.

For me, if I'm doing something and want to know I'm getting the shot - I'm bringing one of my digitals. Can shoot hundreds or thousands of photos, see the results instantly and retake if needed, don't have to worry about having the wrong speed film for the setting, can switch to video mode, etc. I use my film cameras more for more casual and fun stuff.

That's just my 2 cents and something to consider.

If you really do want to put your special moments on film, I'd say get one of the more modern options. Good autofocus, light metering, etc. etc. Like the other guy mentioned, more focus on the photo and less worry about fussing with details.

Do you have any experience with using a DSLR? If yes then I would get any one of what was already mentioned, if no then look for something modern and plastic (Canon eos or nikon f55-f100). Because you will be able to focus more on the actual shooting and developing than trying to nail exposure or focus.

If you have absolutely no experience with photography at all, in any capacity, then I have 2 suggestions for you.

First would be that if you really want to shoot film, just go buy a cheap point and shoot from a thrift shop or Goodwill. You won't have to deal with the learning curve and expense of too many failed rolls of film. These cameras can be very cheap, under $20, and you can spend the rest of your money on film developing and scanning.

Second would be to just shoot using a digital camera. This is especially important if you really want to try learning about photography. There are many, many inexpensive used DSLRs out there that are capable of taking amazing photos. using these can be as simple as using a point and shoot camera, or allow you to take full manual control as you learn. For under $200 you can get a DSLR, kit lens, extra battery, and sufficiently large SD card. You can take tens of thousands of horrible shots, which are easy to delete and cost you nothing. Something like a used Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm kit lens is what I would recommend.

When I had kids I didn't have any time/energy for hobbies any more.

Don't spend a lot, it'll probably get trashed. Just grab something that's quick and easy to use. Flash could be useful for indoors.

I was 25, 27, and 29 when my 3 kids were born. They are absolutely my favorite photographic subjects. When they were younger, I used to take more portraits of them, as they liked to dress up and go out on photo walks more than they do now. I still can get some nice candid photos of them once in a while, and I do really enjoy shooting at their sporting events on both film and digital.

Don’t use flash around a baby.

33! Ha! Whipper snapper.

To me the best panoramic 35mm camera is a 6x7 or bigger with a 35mm film in it and a wide-angle lens.

Are we talking about cameras with a viewfinder and optical path blind to shrink down the projected image on the film? Because those are stupid in my opinion. As far as actual panoramic cameras, I find them interesting, but I suspect they are rarely used to their potential.

>wanna know what the general consensus of this community is on them

its a constant barrage of people jacking off over the xpan

They exist

Yeah....

I think you have three options for 35mm panoramas (aside from XPAN and Widelux):

1. "panorama mode" 35mm cameras. These are generally point and shoot, and usually have a switch that moves a pair of masks over the top and bottom of the film, leaving a panorama-shaped frame. They are generally cheap, portable, easily obtainable. But you get lower resolution because they crop into a regular 35mm frame (though can still look great if you're not doing big enlargement).

EDIT: beware APS cameras, many of which had these modes.

2. Soviet Horizon / Horizont cameras

These are a little more expensive, but shoot a panorama image across multiple "normal" 35mm frames rather than cropping in. They do this with a rotating lens, which means limited choice of shutter speed and aperture, and different perspective in the image than a normal stationary lens. Widelux cameras work in a generally similar fashion; as Jeff Bridges showed, they can open up some interesting creative possibilities. Noblex are a better version of this, but also very expensive. But the rotating lens designs all create a certain kind of image distortion that may or may not be your thing.

3. 35mm in a medium format camera.

You can get 6x9 medium format folding camera in good condition for ~$100, along with 3d printed adapters that will fit a 35mm cannister into the camera. You'll need to load and unload it in the dark (or in a change bag), but you'll get a massive panorama about 84mm long and full 35mm height (including the sprocket area). If you get a 6x6 MF camera (or use a 6x6 mask in a 6x9 camera), this will give you an option for a still huge 56mm long by 35mm panorama. You'll need to guess how far to wind on between shots, but if you're willing to loose a little film that way, you'll get nice result.