[sawitar]

Being born in digital era I want to try some film photography.

I have access to some very basic 35mm cameras (viewfinder P&S) but I was wondering if there is a point buying something more sophisticated.
If anything I would go for Pentax as I already have selection of lenses and other accessories.

There is Pentax MZ-S + grip + remote release cable (no box though) for circa 200 pounds available in friendly store.
Or plenty of other MZ series cameras on eBay for less than 50 pounds

Any advice? Is MZ-S worth 200 pounds in 2017?

[LesDMess]

Sorry I have no experience with autofocus Pentax bodies but welcome aboard, enjoy the experience and good luck!

[edmundrt]

The MZ-S is worth £200 today - it was the flagship of the MZ range. The other MZs were good too - personally I like the MZ-6. All MZs feel rather plasticky, so if this would put you off then that is something to think about.
Be aware that the MZ series has one common fault, which is a plastic gear in the mirror mechanism which can break. I have owned four MZ series bodies (10, 50, 5 and 6) and only the 50 suffered this failure, the others are still going strong.
If you need autofocus, the earlier Z series are also good - the Z-1p is the 'daddy' of Pentax film cameras, a proper professional-grade beast with a 1/8000s shutter, 1/250s flash sync and every customisable function you can think of. The Z-20 and Z-50 are not as full featured, but still good little cameras and available for next to nothing.

tl;dr if you have the money for that MZ-S, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. If you decide to look around, there's plenty of choice. Happy Pentaxing!

[sawitar]

Does ist suffer from this plastic cog issue?

[aoeu]

The MZ-S is worth £200 today - it was the flagship of the MZ range. The other MZs were good too - personally I like the MZ-6. All MZs feel rather plasticky, so if this would put you off then that is something to think about.
Be aware that the MZ series has one common fault, which is a plastic gear in the mirror mechanism which can break. I have owned four MZ series bodies (10, 50, 5 and 6) and only the 50 suffered this failure, the others are still going strong.
If you need autofocus, the earlier Z series are also good - the Z-1p is the 'daddy' of Pentax film cameras, a proper professional-grade beast with a 1/8000s shutter, 1/250s flash sync and every customisable function you can think of. The Z-20 and Z-50 are not as full featured, but still good little cameras and available for next to nothing.

tl;dr if you have the money for that MZ-S, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. If you decide to look around, there's plenty of choice. Happy Pentaxing!

Concur: I have the ZX-L version of your MZ-6. It is one of only a few film cameras I'm keeping when I move next month. Works with any Pentax flash and lens.

[Alex645]

I have access to some very basic 35mm cameras (viewfinder P&S) but I was wondering if there is a point buying something more sophisticated.
Is MZ-S worth 200 pounds in 2017?

To answer your two questions:

1) The advantages of any SLR, whether film or digital?
a) They are part of a system with many interchangeable parts, the biggest advantage for a Pentaxian is the lens compatibility.
b) Greater range of controls including shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. (slower long exposure times and faster short exposure times, plus bulb; potential f/1.x thru f/32 or f/150+ with a pinhole adapter)
c) Easier to manipulate controls (focus, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc)
d) WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get): The viewfinder shows you what your lens is seeing; no parallax issues.
e) Improved ergonomics and weight for more stability.

2) The flagship Nikon and Canon 35mm FSLRs are much more than 200 pounds in 2017. Yes, you could probably find a less expensive compromise such as the Nikon F100 instead of the F5 or F6, but if the MZ-S is in excellent working condition, and the seller will give you some sort of used camera warranty (the best I've seen is keh.com 180 days), then yes, it's worth it, especially to someone with compatible Pentax AF lenses.

[sawitar]

Just bought Mz-30 + 35-80 + two rolls of AgfaVista200 and set of batteries off eBay for 10 pounds with shipping.

[conniption]

MZ-30 with a 35-80 here on Vancouver Craigslist for $50 CAD, says it works as it should...

---------- Post added 05-18-17 at 01:39 PM ----------

Oops, read your post wrong. I thought you were looking at a MZ-30 for that much $. Nearly fell off my chair

[ChrisPlatt]

IMO you will learn more using a simpler manual focus camera with mechanical shutter.

Chris

[Xmas]

IMO you will learn more using a simpler manual focus camera with mechanical shutter.

Chris

Think Chris means Pentax SLR like S1a, SP or K1000, which you can get in London shops or street markets for 80-120£.

[aoeu]

Concur: I have the ZX-L version of your MZ-6. It is one of only a few film cameras I'm keeping when I move next month. Works with any Pentax flash and lens.

To add something.
If what you want is easy inexpensive full frame then this might be what you want. Mine has the battery grip which reduces the battery cost and makes it fit better in my hand.
The other film cameras I'm keeping are the K2DMD, the MX, and the LX system.
As others are pointing out in this thread some cameras are totally manual and some can be more automatic. I sold my K1000 this month and the buyer didn't even recognize the bag of bits and pieces.

[sawitar]

As I regularly print A3 I want to see quality difference between film (being full frame) and my K-50.
Also to check if quality justify hassle of developing film.

[Alex645]

As I regularly print A3 I want to see quality difference between film (being full frame) and my K-50.
Also to check if quality justify hassle of developing film.

The significant difference is less about quality and more about aesthetics.

Also the other huge difference is your process of capturing images. Digital encourages experimentation and more or easier in post-processing. Film is about limitations; the photographer's vision of what a particular roll of 24 or 36 will include. More effort and thought goes into each shot as the number of exposures available diminish. And your reaction to results are different than digital. With film, you will have a visual memory of what you thought you captured, but then the actual result is as much serendipity or disappointment as it is execution of your intent.

Film IS a hassle, and in many ways, that is what makes it better. Sort of like using a tripod. Once you commit to it, it will slow you down but then force you to really consider the angle, the perspective, and open possibilities of low ISO, slow shutter speeds, and small apertures.

[sawitar]

My new old camera arrived today. It is in very good condition and all seems to be working well.
I will post some photographs later on.