A return to 35mm - finding my ideal camera(s)

[Craig]

I'm sure lots of us with GAS have done that, but I wouldn't recommend it for someone starting out. A different lens is more useful than another body.

 

[Les Sarile]

I'm sure lots of us with GAS have done that, but I wouldn't recommend it for someone starting out. A different lens is more useful than another body.

I would agree for the most part but did you know the Pentax LX can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes (even lasting many hours) all the while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting and adjusting accordingly?

My first SLR camera was a Canon EOS3 which had seemingly countless features. One evening I was out shooting RVP100F and didn't even realize that it has a mximum aperture priority exposure time of 30 seconds. I will learn later on that all Canons with aperture priority has this limitation - film or otherwise.

I took this shot and due to the time limit, this was underexposed.

I figured then that if the Canon EOS3 was so limited, I expected that all others must also be limited. I would prove myself wrong.

Anyway I got into older model cameras and was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Pentax LX could aperture priority shots lasting a long time so I explored just how long given that the manual states 125 seconds.

I conducted a controlled test and was amazed that it would just keep going. You can see that the exposure times closely matched my Sekonic up to 50 seconds but after that it's all LX . . .

Anyway, many years later I revisited that Hoover Dam scene and used Kodak Ektar 100 in the LX to take this aperture priority shot that lasted over 45minutes . . .

So depending on what kinds of shots you like taking - or want to play around with, the Pentax LX can make a difference.

 

[Craig]

You certainly should match the camera to your shooting style, but do you need an LX, F3 and F1-n at the same time? Probably not.

Of course for the dam shot you could have calculated the reciprocity, adjusted the exposure and set it on Bulb (or time, I don't know if an EOS 3 has that). For long exposures I wouldn't rely on autoexposure anyway, simply because it can't account for reciprocity.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For long exposures I wouldn't rely on autoexposure anyway, simply because it can't account for reciprocity.

Sure looks like the LX handled it well enough above...

 

[trick]

I would agree for the most part but did you know the Pentax LX can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes (even lasting many hours) all the while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting and adjusting accordingly?

Thanks so much for this Les, very useful information on the Pentax LX!

 

[trick]

Thanks again to everyone who replied with their favorite 35mm cameras, your suggestions are hugely appreciated and have been really helpful for me. Hopefully others will also come across this thread and find it helpful as well.

Just a general comment on whether I need so many cameras and should just stick to what I have.

NEED is very specific, I probably don't really need to be shooting 35mm at all. My medium format cameras are already wonderful and then there's the whole world of digital, but I won't go there.

For the most part, I'm very lucky to a have the time and some spare cash to try out some of the best 35mm cameras that have been produced that aren't in the Leica price range. That's part of the joy for me, purchasing cameras online, cleaning them up, trying to fix them if necessary, marveling at how incredible these mechanical masterpieces are, given when they were built. Even just the pure build quality is a thrill for me, given I was born in the early 80s and by the time I was old enough to appreciate things, they were mostly made of plastic and disposable.

So yes, it definitely makes sense for me to use the cameras I have - and I do, every single day in fact. Mastery has come up a couple of times, but I've been shooting for many years and picking up a new camera isn't really a huge learning curve. I also enjoy the process of testing for light leaks, meter accuracy etc.

So no, I'm not crazy. No, I'm not a photography novice. Yes, I do enjoy owning and shooting with similar equipment right now. Yes, I'll probably end up selling a few things in the end and will end up keeping my favorites.

 

[flavio81]

Nikon F3 / Minolta X700: "I'll need an SLR, with light meter but otherwise fully manual."

Nikon L35AF. / Minolta Hi-Matic AF2: "I want a quick point-and shoot with a good quality lens that can do simple autofocus."
(...)

So, my question to you is: What other cameras do you think I should try out that fit into one of the above categories that and would blow one of the current options out of the water for a similar price point

The Nikon F3 is a very good camera and I love mine. Very good if you like auto-exposure.

If you want something that will "blow out of the water" the Nikon F3, there is an specific answer: The Canon New F-1 has a better viewfinder and viewfinder readout, more features and options, feels tougher, and doesn't really depend on batteries. However the F3 feels better in the hand and is more ergonomic.

I'd say that your third choice should be a Pentax MX.

I own the three cameras i've listed, btw.

As an alternative to the X700, the XD11 would be one. In Nikon, don't overlook the FE, it's a good camera. In Canon, the A-series have nice light cameras in the form of AT-1, A-1 and AV-1, and the T70 is a truly good camera that gets overlooked because of its looks. T70 is a great choice for a light camera that does many things right.

I would pick one 35mm SLR system and stick with it. Don't try and build a Nikon system and a Minolta system, but rather spend the money you would on the second system for lenses or accessories for the first system. Otherwise you're either duplicating, or have the wrong body/lens combo with you for whatever you're shooting that day.

The joy is in having many different systems!! I own Canon FD, EF, Pentax K,Pentax M42, Nikon, Mamiya RB, and Bronica ETRS systems.

GAS is life.

Thanks so much for this Les, very useful information on the Pentax LX!

I would prefer the MX; it's smaller and lighter, which is the whole purpose of using Pentax-M lenses (which are INFERIOR in optical performance than the bigger older K-series lenses, but at least you have a choice of compactness vs perfection, unlike the OM system). Otherwise i'd pick any of the Nikon or Canon professional cameras.

By the way the cheapest Canon New FD lenses like the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 100/2.8 and 135/3.5 have stellar optical performance and are extremely light, so if you're looking for light weight that is a good option besides the Pentax-M system.

For the most part, I'm very lucky to a have the time and some spare cash to try out some of the best 35mm cameras that have been produced that aren't in the Leica price range.

Those would be the Canon F-1, New F-1, Nikon F2, and the Pentax LX (MX is also very close to being ultimate). Probably the Minolta XE-series and X-1(XK) too, plus the Contax RTS.

 

[George Mann]

Those would be the Canon F-1, New F-1, Nikon F2, and the Pentax LX (MX is also very close to being ultimate). Probably the Minolta XE-series and X-1(XK) too, plus the Contax RTS.

It is foolish to discount the Nikon F4!

 

[flavio81]

It is foolish to discount the Nikon F4!

Sorry but that thing is near the size of carrying my Bronica ETRSi. And many F4 i've found here had some intermittent failure. Otherwise I love cameras with tons of controls.

 

[George Mann]

I would say that my F90x is an ideal SLR, save its weight. But nonetheless, I prefer its features and handle to anything else that I own.

 

[flavio81]

I would say that my F90x is an ideal SLR, save its weight. But nonetheless, I prefer its features and handle to anything else that I own.

Do you prefer it over the F100? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[flavio81]

You certainly should match the camera to your shooting style, but do you need an LX, F3 and F1-n at the same time?

YES!

 

[George Mann]

Do you prefer it over the F100? I'm genuinely curious.

It is made better than the somewhat fragile 100, so yes.

 

[flavio81]

It is made better than the somewhat fragile 100, so yes.

Good point...

 

[BSP]

Which is the Leica M2.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is made better than the somewhat fragile 100, so yes.

But I treat all cameras as if they were fragile. I pack a F-100.

 

[flavio81]

But I treat all cameras as if they were fragile.

Of course: You're a Hasselblad user.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course: You're a Hasselblad user.

And Pentax, and Nikon, and Tessina, and Graphic, and Graflex, Konica, and WideLux, and Voightlander, and Nikonos, ...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If your budget is flexible, unload the lot of them and get a Contax G2 with the 28, 45 and 90 primes. Some of the best glass ever made for 35mm, and very easy to carry around. Or if you want to keep with the pocketable format, a Contax T2 or T3, or the T-VS with its zoom.
If you want to kick it old-school, someone else here mentioned a Retina, which doesn't have a (working/trustworthy) meter 99% of the time, but has outstanding glass, is full manual, and is very pocket-friendly.

 

[Les Sarile]

I would prefer the MX; it's smaller and lighter, which is the whole purpose of using Pentax-M lenses (which are INFERIOR in optical performance than the bigger older K-series lenses, but at least you have a choice of compactness vs perfection, unlike the OM system). Otherwise i'd pick any of the Nikon or Canon professional cameras.

No doubt inferior maybe a relative term in this case . . .
For instance I tested my Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro - and others I bought used of unknown origin, to outresolve a Nikon D800 36MP DSLR by quite a bit.
So an inferior lens bought used for cheap and of unknown origin performs this well, I'm all for it . . .

 

[trick]

If your budget is flexible, unload the lot of them and get a Contax G2 with the 28, 45 and 90 primes. Some of the best glass ever made for 35mm, and very easy to carry around. Or if you want to keep with the pocketable format, a Contax T2 or T3, or the T-VS with its zoom.
If you want to kick it old-school, someone else here mentioned a Retina, which doesn't have a (working/trustworthy) meter 99% of the time, but has outstanding glass, is full manual, and is very pocket-friendly.

I've been watching the G2 on eBay - such a gorgeous camera! I might have to take the plunge one day...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been watching the G2 on eBay - such a gorgeous camera! I might have to take the plunge one day...

I used to own one. Best darned travel camera short of my Rolleiflex. Took mine to Argentina, Uruguay, and Spain, among other places. One of the great benefits is that there's no mirror to have to get out of the way, so you can pull off some rather long exposures hand-held (my record with it was a 1 second exposure inside the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, but that was braced on a pane of glass). I don't still have that shot posted here, but here's one I took in Puerto Rico with the G2 on the new Ektar 100:

 

[flavio81]

No doubt inferior maybe a relative term in this case . . .
For instance I tested my Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro - and others I bought used of unknown origin, to outresolve a Nikon D800 36MP DSLR by quite a bit.
So an inferior lens bought used for cheap and of unknown origin performs this well, I'm all for it . . .

Hi Les,

I realize i had you on the "Ignored" list for a long time. I don't know why, because you post some comparisons that are interesting, for example the picture you posted elsewhere comparing the size of pro 35mm film cameras. Thanks for those comparisons!

I just added another guy to the ignore list (George Mann, what a troll with zero gratitude for other forumers) so I removed you as well.

You're correct, "inferior" is a silly word. But also consider that a 50/4 lens doesn't really require too much size, so it's easy to make compact. For example the actual lens (actual optics) of the Canon FD 50/3.5 lens are tiny, all the bulkiness is just the helicoid.

 

[Donald Qualls]

But also consider that a 50/4 lens doesn't really require too much size, so it's easy to make compact. For example the actual lens (actual optics) of the Canon FD 50/3.5 lens are tiny, all the bulkiness is just the helicoid.

I've got a couple 35mm folders with 50mm f/2.9 lenses -- which are pretty small. That's only about a 16mm entrance pupil, after all, and with only two elements head of the aperture (one of those negative) there isn't much magnification to account for.

 

[George Mann]

I just added another guy to the ignore list (George Mann, what a troll with zero gratitude for other forumers)

You are only fooling yourself!