piss with the dick ya got

>>4494640
Exactly. At the end of the day film camera bodies hardly matter beyond what lenses they can take and how good their internal meter is. If the meter in camera mostly agrees with an external one then it should be a fine piece of kit for you to use. 35-70 actually covers a surprisingly decent amount of shots you might want to take (though the variable widest aperture is a little closed off still imo). Just get out there and shoot a roll or two, get it deved, and see what happens

>>4494645
Yeah with that aperture you're not going to be shooting at night without a tripod but it's a perfectly acceptable setup for shooting in well-lit spaces.

>>4494633
>Single Lens Reflex: check
>Manual shutter speed: check
>Decent range of shutter speeds: check
>Aperture control: check
>Light meter in viewfinder: check
>Shutter speed in viewfinder: check kinda
>Lens that isn't outright terrible: check (bonus: fun zoom lens)
>135, not a meme format: check
Throw it in the trash and buy a Leica M3 anon.

>>4494633
>I know it's not the best camera in the world
As far as manual focus SLRs go, there's not much that's better in terms of specs. 1/2000th on the top speed is higher than most except for a select few models, the only thing you'd really gain by getting a different camera is access to different glass and maybe better build quality. I would stick with it, just check the light seals before you start shooting. Also check around to see of you have any places around you that offer film developing, and how much they cost, and if they scan.

Other than that, remember to expose for your shadows, negative film can handle a being overexposed a lot better than underexposed, which looks like shit usually.

>>4494633
I have one of these. I ran into mechanical failures with the film advance lever, but that was easily fixed. It’s a good machine, and you’ll have room to grow since this model is compatible with Zeiss Planar T* lenses.

>>4494722
Occurs to me that I should have just said C/Y mount lenses instead of specifying one line of them. You’ll have some nice options is what I’m saying

>>4494652
The day I buy a Leica in my country is the day I'm extremely rich.

>>4494652
PERFECT! I'll start studying everything.

Now, one thing that's bothering me is how I'm going to "develop" the negatives... I thought about buying a digital camera to take pictures of the negatives and edit them on the computer, or buying an Epson V600. Both cost 2000 in my country. I don't know which would be the best choice, though.

>>4494748
Just have someone else develop them for you. Most people do this. Self-development is very niche.

>>4494748
If you don't have a good digital camera to "scan" your film then forget about self-development, just send them to the nearest hipster lab. I don't think buying a film scanner is worth it, and you can buy a DSLR/Mirrorless later once you get more comfortable with the hobby.

>>4494802
>>4494768
Excuse the question, but just to get a point of comparison, how much does it cost to digitize the photos you take analogically?

In my country, each photo costs 50 cents of a dollar.

>>4494883
Just to digitise? Free technically but the inital cost for me was about $1500 for body, lens, and scanning equipment like a backlight etc.

>>4494886
YES! Just to scan each photo from the negative.