>>4513097
Film isn't that expensive if you don't want it to be. If you want to set up your own scanning rig and use flagship cameras and professional film stocks then yeah it can get expensive but there's no reason why you need to do that. If you're just starting out you can get it scanned and developed at a lab.

For film cameras there's a couple of models that are often recommended to students, as they're simple, distraction free cameras that help you focus on learning and understanding the exposure triangle. The important this with these is not so much which one you choose but which one you can find a good deal on. I assume you're talking 300 USD, most of these you should be able to find for around 80 USD, I wouldn't spend more than 100, but I'm a tight arse so...

>Pentax Spotmatic or K1000
Good, cheap and abundant
>Nikon FM / FE / Nikkormat / F
Same thing as the pentax, but from Nikon. Great if you can find a good deal but can be more expensive.
>Canon FT / FTb / EF / AE1 / A1
Good abundant cameras with great lenses
>Minolta SRT

Or if you want an autofocus film camera, pretty much any Canon EOS film camera will be good and most of them are cheap.

With digital its the same story, just get whatever cheap used DSLR you can find for cheap near you and dont get sucked into brand faggotry. I would probably go with either Canon or Nikon for these as there are more lenses out there for these. Personally I would say to go with a 5D or 5D mark ii, but I have no idea what these cost in burger land. Full frame cameras are good if you can find a cheap one, but smaller sensors like APS-C are ok too.

>>4513097
>I like the look of analog film, but I fear it'll be prohibitively expensive, and some part of me feels I should just ride the wave and stick to digital anyway.
Pentax K10D ($200) and a 24mm f/2.8 lens (~$135) or 55mm f/1.8 lens (~$70). It does have a very film-like rendering. Highlights don't clip, they bloom and bleed into surrounding pixels. That's the sensor technology (CCD). Those lenses are manual focus with aperture rings so if you did get a Pentax film camera they'd work with no issues (K-mount has been the same for 50 years). There's other options for CCD cameras, Nikon has some but I just don't know what there is specifically. I'm pretty sure Nikon F-mount carries over from film to digital as well.
I wouldn't recommend anything less than an interchangeable lens camera. Compact cameras are a fun novelty but if you want to seriously "gain some competency" you need something with interchangeable lenses. If you're prepared to spend a little more than $300, you could get an original Sony A7 for ~$400: 24MP full-frame camera compatible with hundreds of great lenses both cheap and bougie. Film adds up REALLY quick but the image quality can't be replicated exactly with digital, only approached. Film is actually really high resolution, much higher resolution than even 60MP digital cameras, as long as you have the MONEY to scan it with high enough resolution.
>Recommendations for books tha might help me develop my skills?
1. Any art history book you can get that covers the renaissance and has full-page colour pictures.
2. Any art history book you can get that covers modernism (impressionism) with full-page colour pictures.
3. Any book published by your favourite movie director/photographer/cinematographer/artist, etc. with... you guessed it, full-page colour pictures (if colour matters, your favs might work in B&W).

>>4513097
I would suggest getting a used crop sensor DSLR, Nikon or Canon, look for one that it in good shape on Craigslist/Facebook Marketplace and the like. It's easy to get one cheap from someone who bought one, used it three times, then never touched it again and wants to get a little money back.

They take quite good pics, and are a great way to dip your toes into using semi-automatic and full manual shooting modes, and just learning a camera in general. You can either turn around and sell it yourself down the road, or continue to build it out with new lenses, it's up to you.

File: Bridge_Cameras_combined_image.jpg (83.8 KB)

>>4513097
Others are suggesting DSLR, I don't recommend it because you will get locked into obsolete habits/process.
Better to buy an old bridge camera. As long as it has 2 dials, one for shutter speed, one for aperture, its great for learning.
Don't bother with any auto exposure modes, just use manual mode.
As with a modern mirrorless camera you will see the photo preview/review in the viewfinder, so you will quickly learn how to control exposure, and eventually when you upgrade to modern mirrorless gear you already have the skillset for mirrorless which you would not develop if using DSLR.

>>4513201
Exposure preview is useless for skilled users and is automatically disabled, or is disabling, in dim conditions

Please dont glorify being bad at photogtaphy

>>4513201
Just wait until you find out the only serious professional stills cameras are all still DSLRs and view/technical cameras

>>4513202
Exposure preview is useless for DSLR boomers because it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
DSLR boomers rely on the exposure meter because that's all they had for decades.
Exposure meter is just a bad guess at what exposure should be - it always wants to neutralize your subject to be middle gray, just as auto white balance always wants to neutralize the color in your scene.
"what you see is what you get" in an electronic viewfinder has obsoleted metering and AWB for skilled users, but the boomers still think it's relevant because metering is how they've always done it.

>>4513221
>t. coping meterlet