advertisement


Recommend an SLR film camera

When you come down to it, all the 1960 - 1980 SLRs were pretty wonderful, except perhaps for the Russians. My first "proper" camera, when I was about 11 or 12, was a Fed rangefinder, which produced great negatives and never missed a beat. It was an era of very high quality mechanical and optical engineering. Hard to go wrong unless it is a camera that has taken a beating.
 
For years i trusted Nikon too...up to their first digital cameras, they stuck to being tough and long lived with great glass (not Zeiss quality but always 'best useable'). I thiught Fuji might be going to be the new leica, but?
Truth seems to be that engineering has gone, to be replaced by something less
tangible?
I regret this. I'd rather have a Zenith E than a modern DSLR in many ways. I never did drive a tank but I wish i had :)
 
The truth is that, in almost all fields, one no longer pays for the quality, precision and durability of engineering, but for the image and/or prestige that (supposedly) comes with a brand.
 
Yes, despite this sounding old, I agree. A lifelong Merc fan ( we had 7) The first? a W123, was built early 80’s and the engineering was astonishing. Further, the garages concentrated on delivering the same quality at service time. No modular replacement scheme, just careful analysis and diagnosis, with impeccable care. We were not rich at all… the cars were always 6-20 years old, but the dealers treated us like any other Merc owner. Well…. Ok hahaha. Ranting on. Gone now for a boutique exotic coffee shop while some module is replaced at stupid cost.
 
Well i'm not so sure. Go grab yourself a canon 1D series DSLR and see how it feels and behaves. They are built like tanks, weather sealed - you could knock in nails with them. On the second hand market there are plenty of examples with 300k shutter actuations, that's a hell of a lot of use (and abuse) and they just seem to keep on going. Nikon have their own D3 equivalent. I'm not sure what 'engineering marvel' from the 70s would be able to survive in this environment.

Anyhow, this is all somewhat off topic. It's true you can get a lot of decent, well put together camera from the 70s for small money compared to modern cameras.
 
Update:

Thanks so much for the advice. They went for a mint little Pentax MX which I have with me now along with a nice 50mm F2.

Nic.


good choice, I have a few OM1s and also an MX. i think the OM1 is a more elegant design, but the MX feels a bit more robust and has a couple of nice features like the aperture window and the depth of field preview on the self timer. A couple of things:
- look out for the pentax 40mm 2.8 pancake lens (it was the reason I bought the MX, as the OM equivalent lens is crazy money now). The pentax version isn't that special optically but it's OK if stopped down, but it is just sooooo small it means you have a full SLR that's smaller than many rangefinders
- the meter on the MX can be a bit dicky. On mine it seemed to regularly decide not to work, there seem to be two reasons - firstly there's a contact under the base plate that needs a little bend to persuade it to make contact again and. Secondly the actual battery compartment lid can stop the batteries making proper contact, I got a cover from an ME Super off ebay for £5 and it solved the problem - the MX version has a plastic tube to hold the batteries, the ME super one doesn't.

HTH
Phil
 
I’ve a few legacy 35mm cameras and a couple of folding 120 cameras. I love them, but it must be over ten years since I put any film through any of them. Why? I just can’t justify the costs really. Out of a roll of 36, I might be really happy with one or two shots, if I’m lucky, and the ‘moment’ to retake will have long gone.
How much for a roll of 35mm colour, then developing and processing, and a CD for hi-res digital copies?

I hope I do use one or two of those cameras at some point, but there’s always a reason not to. My EOS 650 is about 35 years old, and the autofocus with my ten year old Canon lenses is lightning fast.
 
I’ve a few legacy 35mm cameras and a couple of folding 120 cameras. I love them, but it must be over ten years since I put any film through any of them. Why? I just can’t justify the costs really. Out of a roll of 36, I might be really happy with one or two shots, if I’m lucky, and the ‘moment’ to retake will have long gone.
How much for a roll of 35mm colour, then developing and processing, and a CD for hi-res digital copies?

I hope I do use one or two of those cameras at some point, but there’s always a reason not to. My EOS 650 is about 35 years old, and the autofocus with my ten year old Canon lenses is lightning fast.
Yup. Unlike other media trends, this one is costly for very little result. Film and it’s processing is entertaining and can be great but 1 in 10 is good going. Free digital imaging is very liberating.
 
I just use 35mm for B&W now. Home development is cheap and I have enought Kodak XX roll ends of movie film stock to keep me going for years. If I need colour I go digital.
 
12197656193_2307f404b7_c.jpg


Loads of great options, most of which will need a proper professional service by now, but I’d put a recommendation in for an old Nikkormat FTn. It’s basically a simplified Nikon F or F2 (can’t remember which), so no removable prism, different heads, motor-drive options, alternative backs etc, but much of the same astonishing build quality, lens compatibility and basic bomb-proof functionality. They are great things, but very heavy (that build quality!). I personally love the fact it has no flash hot-shoe as it removes one key way to take awful pictures! There was an add-on one, but obviously you shouldn’t buy it. Not sure what the prices are these days, but they always seemed undervalued to me as they lack the street cred of an F or F2, and were about a third or half the price of an FM or FM2 despite being much the same thing aside from being a lot heavier (again, the build quality!). I’ve not run a film through it for so long now, but every now and again I pick it up and have a play. It is a lovely thing. An early one, I’d guess at about 1967.
 
.. my choice ...

Used one for over 30 years and foolishly sold it when I went digital.
Gripped with regret, I bought another one about 5 years ago: pristine and with a lovely Takumar f1.4 :)
... and promptly left it in a drawer after shooting just one roll of film :(

They sell for next to nothing on the bay at the moment so clearly escaping the alleged 'film revival' ...



Asahi Pentax SP by mik tec, on Flickr
 
I had an ME Super for a while, then an MEF. Moved to Canon quite quickly. Somewhere I still have an EOS 5 body
The ME Super was my first SLR camera, and I loved it to bits with a Pentax 50mm/1.4 and Cosina 28mm/2.8. I later progressed to Super-A and LX, and collected a few Pentax primes ranging from 18mm to 500mm.

I like Pentax for their compact bodies and fantastic lenses - even if the brand doesn't have the cachet of Nikon or Canon. I defected to Nikon (F90X) for a short period, but have returned to Pentax D-SLRs. I still have an LX with a much smaller collection of MF lenses.
 
I’ve a few legacy 35mm cameras and a couple of folding 120 cameras. I love them, but it must be over ten years since I put any film through any of them. Why? I just can’t justify the costs really. Out of a roll of 36, I might be really happy with one or two shots, if I’m lucky, and the ‘moment’ to retake will have long gone.
How much for a roll of 35mm colour, then developing and processing, and a CD for hi-res digital copies?

I hope I do use one or two of those cameras at some point, but there’s always a reason not to. My EOS 650 is about 35 years old, and the autofocus with my ten year old Canon lenses is lightning fast.

35mm colour negative film has been unobtainium for the last year or so due to supply chain issues. In recent times the film sells for around £8 per roll and develop and scan runs about £10 (I use AG photolab). So around 50p per frame.

I quite like the extra discipline that comes with spending money for each click. It makes me think more about the composition and lighting of each shot and avoid taking pictures that I know will be crap. I think my photography has improved as a result. Nothing kills the fun more than sorting through hundreds of digital captures trying to find the keepers.
 
35mm colour negative film has been unobtainium for the last year or so due to supply chain issues. In recent times the film sells for around £8 per roll and develop and scan runs about £10 (I use AG photolab). So around 50p per frame.

I quite like the extra discipline that comes with spending money for each click. It makes me think more about the composition and lighting of each shot and avoid taking pictures that I know will be crap. I think my photography has improved as a result. Nothing kills the fun more than sorting through hundreds of digital captures trying to find the keepers.

I found it far easier to just slow down with my dSLR!
 
good choice, I have a few OM1s and also an MX. i think the OM1 is a more elegant design, but the MX feels a bit more robust and has a couple of nice features like the aperture window and the depth of field preview on the self timer. A couple of things:
- look out for the pentax 40mm 2.8 pancake lens (it was the reason I bought the MX, as the OM equivalent lens is crazy money now). The pentax version isn't that special optically but it's OK if stopped down, but it is just sooooo small it means you have a full SLR that's smaller than many rangefinders
- the meter on the MX can be a bit dicky. On mine it seemed to regularly decide not to work, there seem to be two reasons - firstly there's a contact under the base plate that needs a little bend to persuade it to make contact again and. Secondly the actual battery compartment lid can stop the batteries making proper contact, I got a cover from an ME Super off ebay for £5 and it solved the problem - the MX version has a plastic tube to hold the batteries, the ME super one doesn't.

HTH
Phil

I agree that the 40mm f2.8 is a great lens, which is a perfect match for the MX. I got mine from ffordes for £55. It was advertised as having ‘slight haze’ but when I did the flashlight test it looked fine. It takes great pictures. I typically use it stopped down to f8 with a yellow filter and a metal vented lens hood.

I had my MX serviced by Robin at Harrow Technical and it is one of the smoothest cameras I own to use.

Pentax MX by Andrew D, on Flickr
 
An early one, I’d guess at about 1967.

I'd guess it's a bit later than that, in '67 I think they were still making the FT, which had full frame metering. The FTn has center-weighted metering.

The big difference between the Nikkormat and a pukka Nikon, besides the lack of modularity, was the shutter - a Nikon F had a proper cloth horizontal focal plane shutter, the Nikkormat used a Copal Square metal vertical focal plane.

The Copal shutter is a lot noisier, but that's a minor distraction in a camera that was all most people needed for a daily driver.
 
12197656193_2307f404b7_c.jpg


Loads of great options, most of which will need a proper professional service by now, but I’d put a recommendation in for an old Nikkormat FTn. It’s basically a simplified Nikon F or F2 (can’t remember which), so no removable prism, different heads, motor-drive options, alternative backs etc, but much of the same astonishing build quality, lens compatibility and basic bomb-proof functionality. They are great things, but very heavy (that build quality!). I personally love the fact it has no flash hot-shoe as it removes one key way to take awful pictures! There was an add-on one, but obviously you shouldn’t buy it. Not sure what the prices are these days, but they always seemed undervalued to me as they lack the street cred of an F or F2, and were about a third or half the price of an FM or FM2 despite being much the same thing aside from being a lot heavier (again, the build quality!). I’ve not run a film through it for so long now, but every now and again I pick it up and have a play. It is a lovely thing. An early one, I’d guess at about 1967.

Without doubt the Nikons were the best of the classic SLRs. Heavy, certainly, but such a great feeling having one in your hands. I had an F1 and later an F2. Lovely machines!
 
I'd guess it's a bit later than that, in '67 I think they were still making the FT, which had full frame metering. The FTn has center-weighted metering.

The FTn was in production from ‘67 to ‘75. Very good Wikipedia entry on the full Nikkormat range. I don’t know the exact date of mine, but it’s a fairly early one as it has the original style fully metal film advance lever (later ones had a plastic tip). It also came fitted with the pictured Nippon Kogaku branded scalloped 50mm F2 lens which I suspect is original to it. Nice user review of an FTn here.
 
The FTn was in production from ‘67 to ‘75. Very good Wikipedia entry on the full Nikkormat range. I don’t know the exact date of mine, but it’s a fairly early one as it has the original style fully metal film advance lever (later ones had a plastic tip). It also came fitted with the pictured Nippon Kogaku branded scalloped 50mm F2 lens which I suspect is original to it. Nice user review of an FTn here.

I bought one new in 1973 and it had the same film advance and the same earlier style NK lens with the silver filter ring and the scalloped focus ring. I wish I still had it. Both features changed maybe a year or two later.
 
.. my choice ...

Used one for over 30 years and foolishly sold it when I went digital.
Gripped with regret, I bought another one about 5 years ago: pristine and with a lovely Takumar f1.4 :)
... and promptly left it in a drawer after shooting just one roll of film :(

They sell for next to nothing on the bay at the moment so clearly escaping the alleged 'film revival' ...



Asahi Pentax SP by mik tec, on Flickr

A Spotty F was the first film camera I bought myself, with the super Tak 50mm 1.4 I took a lot of nice pictures. Still VERY tempted to get another as you say, the prices have not gone daft (yet) the 105mm 2.8 was a nice lens too. I'd love another Leica M3 or4 but honestly a tidy serviced spotty and fast 50 would give me 90% the fun for 10% the cost!
 


advertisement


Back
Top