>>2979191There is literally no differences between the two besides the superficial.
I have a Canon-AE1, works like a dream and is very usable. I don't know anything about the K1000 as I've never shot with one.
The Canon-AE1 uses FD lenses which are completely useless for digital Canons as they switched to the EOS type. BUT - this comes at an advantage as FD's are usually cheap and are widely available. So getting a 50mm 1.4 is not hard at all.
But mirrorlessfags (myself incl.) are snatching up analog lenses since they can be used - so prices are varied.
But if I had to choose again, I'd go with
>>2979194 Nikon F2 is just sex. Pure unadulterated sex. More expensive, but it's built like a tank and has an all mechanical build with very very good parts. I would jump at the prospect of getting my hands on one, but I have an AE-1 so I don't care much.
With the Nikon you have access to an entire arsenal of lenses which I'd argue are very well built.
It's just expensive and as a newb it might be wise to stick to a cheaper brand and model.
Have a built-in meter to save yourself headaches, the AE-1 meters well.
Also use 400 speed film for that grainy look.
