It depends if you want to go fully mechanical, partially mechanical (batteries required for shutter and/or light meter), or electronic (batteries required) for your film camera. If you just want to shoot film and don’t mind batteries, the Canon 10es is very cheap (you can pick them up from $10-$50) and beginner friendly. It also has advanced modes which will give you a lot of time to learn what all the settings mean, how to use them, and how to use them manually. The nice part is that it has so many options that you can keep shooting even after you’ve figured them all out. It gives you a lot to work with and enjoy for a very long time.

Olympus om10, very user friendly beginner 35mm. You can check my profile for photo examples from my first roll I just got developed on my first ever slr

Olympus 35 RC. Looks great, small enough for a coat pocket, has an auto mode which is easy to use. Takes very good photos. You can get them for under £100 in the UK.

Your post is totally ridiculous because you didn't bother to share your budget, or the kind of user experience you're looking for. "Best" is totally subjective as well.

I've had a great experience with my beginner-friendly film camera, it's affordable and super easy to use.

Consider the Canon EOS film cameras. Cheap, plentiful, and an excellent lens selection

nikon f80

EOS Rebels

Maxxum 5

Canon EOS. Rebel, Elan. I loved my Elan II before it bit the dust (it uh... didn't die of natural causes).

You can find a used bolex or K3 out there on the interwebz

Have a look at Super-8 cameras on eBay, they can be found really cheaply and the stock is relatively affordable too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/r2gnro/a_nice_modern_film_camera/

I think you need to define "affordable" for yourself. The cost of the camera body itself is incidental, really. Remember that you pay for raw film stock, processing and scanning / printing by the foot.

Are you thinking 35mm, 16mm or 8mm?

film cameras are never really "afforable" compared to digital.. the camera itself can be cheap maybe but cost for film stock, developing and transfer is not exactly cheap.

http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

this page has some numbers. for a 90min film with a 4:1 shooting ratio (which honestly is super low) you will have roughly 15k$ costs in film stock, developing and transfer. and you will only be able to shoot as low 4:1 if you plan really well and are conservative with your coverage.

Also i think most of the actually "good" film cameras (Arriflex 416 or SR3, Aaton XTR Plus or Prod) are hard to come by as they are not built anymore so mostly find the old ones that are loud as fuck and drift like hell.

And honestly. the differnce in quality between 16mm and a decent camera like a C300 is not that big, really. you pay a lolt of money and loose a lot of modern tools for rather little difference.

I'd recommend looking into rentals, a lot of the time they'll just have a camera lying around and they'll offer it to you for squat!

Buying, and keeping a professional camera serviced and all is quite pricey and very likely not worth it unless you're going to film a LOT.

Look into Eclair ACL or NPR.

I adore my Canon 814 Auto Zoom. Bought it for like $250 on ebay, working and in good condition, and shot numerous super 8mm films on it about a decade ago.

But it's become quite a bit harder to get 8mm film developed these days, back when I was shooting film regularly I could buy film and get exposed reels telecine'd and digitized at my local Samy's on the cheap but now not so much.

I like my 5D Mk II (which would be budget these days) and Krasnogorsk 3.

DSLR's are more for still photography, as they have mirrors, which are good for stills, but (pretty) useless for video. This doesn't mean that DSLR's don't shoot good video, they just have a extra mechanism that you don't need. Independent filmmakers with smaller budgets are flocking towards mirrorless, detachable lens cameras now days, as they typically very well suited for shooting video, with auto-focus that is getting better and better, good stabilization, and large sensors. The Sony family mirrorless cameras are well praised, with the A7000 series being really popular from amateur to pro. I myself use a smaller A6300, which shoots fantastic video, and is easy to rig up one you get more equipment like cages and stabilizes. It is also one of the cheaper ways to shoot 4k if that is important to you. If you are looking for something cheaper, Panasonic do some budget friendly Mirrorless cameras, and Canon is beginning to bring some competition to the market too. There are plenty of other options too, there lies a word of cinematography cameras if you have the money, and some fixed-lens cameras can be good options for certain projects and budgets. Hope i have helped!

Lighter means 1. changing settings or 2. changing the ISO, which means buy a different roll with a higher ISO. Gold often is 200, so that is what I consider an outdoor/tripod film. It is not your camera, you can buy the fanciest film SLR possible and use Kodak Gold and you'd have the exact same limits as you have now (you can get lenses that allow more light in + no built in flash on many models, so you'd need a speedlite).

Sony fx3

Anything you can afford from Blackmagic.

I think the Pocket 4k is a great way to start, not too expensive, loads of lenses, and leaves you with a good budget for other stuff.

GH5 🤘

FX3 or BMPCC 4k/6k.

The film Pacifiction, which played at Cannes in 2022 was shot on a BMPCC 6K. An entirely serviceable camera with decent lenses.

You can get an 8mm film camera for pretty cheap, but it's hard to get the film developed. I learned film on a 16mm Krasnogorsk with a zoom lens that you can find on eBay for about $500. It had pulldown claw issues, but that was just the one I used.

You could consider a Russian Kiew 16mm camera. It's pretty cheap on Ebay. I had one many years ago.

Why?

I would recommend Asahi Spotmatic, Praktica MTL5B for SLR

Nikon FE

Tbh if you want something affordable, being flexible will be your friend. Check antique sources such as eBay, fbm, or local classifieds. People being told to 'Buy an AE-1 it's a good beginner SLR' have not been lied to, but the advice is so common the price of these are now silly, and thus it has become bad advice. However if you could still pay a 'fair' price for one, it would still be a good buy.

imo a simple SLR is absolutely the best option for a beginner but ymmv, as one woman's simple is another man's overwhelming. Some ideas of how much you actively want to have to work on getting the shot will help, but you'll generally choose to trade off between something more manual where you're responsible for any mistakes, and something more automated which focuses and controls exposure with less input/control from you.

If you want something you won’t outgrow, go for a nikon FM2 with a 50mm lens. Look for secondhand shops in your area and it usually around 100usd. It will last you a lifetime and the metering is beginner-friendly.

Get an autofocus SLR. Everyone wants the old all-manual ones, so the AF ones are cheaper. Any Minolta Maxxum/Dynax would be a good place to start. Some go for like $25-50 with a lens. The old Canon Rebels would also be good, as would similar Nikon & Pentax models.

Canon A-1 (AE-1 Program, AE-1 as an option)