And the winner is...

[OlyMan]

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread. My son and I have decided on a camera, and we are now just waiting for it to arrive. When I tell you what we chose, some might say "well that was predictable, why did I even bother typing a half page reply", but really it wasn't predictable, I was so thankful for all responses received, I read them all, and (nearly) all ideas and suggestions were considered.

By about three/four days ago we had narrowed the list of possibles down to:

Nikon FG
Olympus OM40 (or PC)
Minolta X700

What I found a little disappointing is how few manual SLRs are being sold with a lens; an essential item for someone starting with nothing. Ten years ago that was quite rare at the budget end of the market, because most budget SLRs had been originally bought in kit form with at least a basic prime lens, which would be sold with the camera. But with film photography floundering on the precipice of extinction, sellers have all learned that the money's in the glass because old lenses can usually be adapted to work on modern DSLRs. So with most cameras now being sold without a lens either because they're keeping it or selling separately, buying a body he could at least use right away with my spare 50mm F/1.8 was inevitably leaning me towards Olympus, though I still didn't dismiss anything.

After watching eBay for well over a week, what finally swung the decision was the appearance last night of a near-mint OM40 body for £25 BIN. Advertised as fully working by a seller with long-standing 100% feedback, it was very clean inside and out, nice rubber, with only a couple of paint-chips on the back door separating it from new. Nor does it ever seem to have been used with a strap because the corners are mark free and it doesn't even have any hoops on the lugs.

If it all ends up being a flash in the pan I'm fairly confident I can at least get my money back. I'll post-up some photos when it arrives.

 

[Alan Gales]

Now your son can be called Olyman2!

 

[darkroommike]

For most cameras the classic normal lens is a 50mm, ever since someone coined the term "nifty fifty" and started going on and on about how a 50mm is the "perfect" portrait lens for a digital crop sensor camera (it's not), there are darn few cameras available with the normal lens. And when available the 50mm sells for more than a complete camera.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Glad to hear. Hope he likes it and everything works out for you. I'm curious to see how he does with his first roll, keep us posted...

 

[vlasta]

By about three/four days ago we had narrowed the list of possibles down to:
Nikon FG
Olympus OM40 (or PC)
Minolta X700

Minolta X-700 -> prone to problems with electronics. Avoid it.

 

[OlyMan]

Now your son can be called Olyman2!

LOL!
Think I'm just as excited about it arriving as he is, and I've already got one. Love the thrill of getting new toys at the door, even if they're someone else's unwanted old toys. I'm sure someone somewhere is this excited when they get a phone upgrade, but me, meh, I can take it or leave it. Today's new cr@p that will be bin-fodder in 3-4 years time just doesn't satisfy my Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

 

[pbromaghin]

YAY!!

 

[Helinophoto]

Well if the father drives a Ford, guess what the son prefer

Hehe

Congrats, let's hope he finds it inspiring to continue on, it doesn't take that many shots to get addicted ^^

 

[OlyMan]

Well if the father drives a Ford, guess what the son prefer

Yeah anything but a Ford because he'll have seen how much time his dad's car spends with the hood up

Here's the baby in question (direct links to the eBay photos, so not sure if they'll work for everyone):

 

[Alan Gales]

LOL!
Think I'm just as excited about it arriving as he is, and I've already got one. Love the thrill of getting new toys at the door, even if they're someone else's unwanted old toys. I'm sure someone somewhere is this excited when they get a phone upgrade, but me, meh, I can take it or leave it. Today's new cr@p that will be bin-fodder in 3-4 years time just doesn't satisfy my Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

I don't even own a cell phone! I used to when I helped manage my daughter Select Softball team for a few years. I just don't really need it any more.

By the way, my daughter shoots an OM-1. Yeah, I bought it for her! I also bought her an Olympus 50mm, 28mm and a Vivitar Series One zoom lens to go with it. It's fun to shoot with your kid! She also confiscated one of my 35mm Stereo Realist cameras. She told me that when she is done with college she wants me to teach her to shoot my 8x10. I can't wait!

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

For what it matters, I agree with your choice as it was the most rational camera to purchase. You can share lenses at the beginning; later, should your son (hopefully) get catched by Photography (capital P fully intentional), he will build up a lens "harem" of his own.

I would suggest to quickly carry the camera to a technician and have the faster shutter times tested. This was not necessary one or two decades ago, but lately I do it with all cameras that I purchase and all of them show problems (easily adjusted) at one or both top shutter speeds. These cameras are ageing, just as we do, and most of them have had more than one previous owner. However, probably your son's first roll will be nothing to write home about, so you might also use it as a "technical tests roll" to check the top shutter speed, light leaks, diaphragm actuation, lightmeter accuracy and so on directly "on the field and on the film".

To both of you: have fun!

 

[colin wells]

I think the OM40 is one of the great unsung heros of the camera world .It is never up their with the greats like the Minolta X700 but i think it deserves to be with its twin metering and top specs .Everyone says but what about the battery problems well the Minolta X700 also had its problems

 

[OlyMan]

I think the OM40 is one of the great unsung heros of the camera world .It is never up their with the greats like the Minolta X700 but i think it deserves to be with its twin metering and top specs .Everyone says but what about the battery problems well the Minolta X700 also had its problems

The Program mode on the OM40 was more versatile than in the X700 as well. On the Minolta you had to set the aperture to minimum to use Program mode. On the Olympus you don't have to do that. So if you want to use a restricted range of apertures for creative purposes (eg F/8 or wider), set the lens at F/8 and the camera will work with that, providing it can juggle its shutter speeds around the remaining apertures to produce an accurate exposure.

With regards to batteries, some users reported their cameras ate batteries literally in days. Clearly that was a genuine fault. Hopefully this one isn't faulty. Some others were more likely 'user error', not a fault, such a storing the camera with the neck-strap wound round the camera, pressing on the shutter release. As for the rest of them, I really don't think having to buy a pair of a SR44s every four months is excessive. Where I live you can't buy a decent coffee for the price of two SR44s.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Interesting. I've used most OMs over the years but never tried an OM-40. Might see if I can find one cheap too....

 

[OlyMan]

Interesting. I've used most OMs over the years but never tried an OM-40. Might see if I can find one cheap too....

The overall build and refinement is on par with the OM-10, along with the same slightly-clattery shutter mechanism. But it's still a great camera to use.

The difference between the OM-40 and the OM-4 clearly demonstrates how Olympus thought the market was heading. As well as manual and aperture priority, the OM-40 got matrix metering, a program mode and the ability to read DX-encoded film-cartridges. The OM-4 got multi-spot metering. Olympus boffins clearly couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams that pro users would be even the least bit interested in matrix meters and programmed exposure, and let's not even talk about auto-focus.

The OM2-SP at least got a program mode and spot metering in manual mode, if not matrix metering.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now is the time when people who had other cameras as their camera [drug] of choice will tell you that you made a mistake and shoulda bought their camera choice.

 

[Alan Gales]

Now is the time when people who had other cameras as their camera [drug] of choice will tell you that you made a mistake and shoulda bought their camera choice.

Back in the 80's I used to sell 35mm cameras brand new. I also used to sell a lot of film photography gear on Ebay. Mostly medium and large format but some 35mm. Before I sold used cameras I would shoot a roll through them to make sure they worked. I also have owned a lot of pre-owned cameras just because I wanted to try them out. I'd buy them cheap and then resell them if they were not for me. Of course I have my favorites but most of the cameras were pretty darn good. Kidding around like we do is fun but I just can't understand the serious "My camera is better then your camera syndrome". If people would actually shoot different brands they would find out that there is no best camera for everyone.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I agree in full with you, Alan. In 99,9% of cases, the camera body alone does little to nothing in terms of photographic quality, and even when it does, there are however many many camera bodies that are basically equivalent to each other. In my opinion, the photographer should choose its camera depending on the set of lenses he/she wants to use, on quality/price ratio of both the camera and the lenses that would fit, and last but not least in terms of how he/she is in touch with the "look" of the camera.

 

[cooltouch]

Kidding around like we do is fun but I just can't understand the serious "My camera is better then your camera syndrome". If people would actually shoot different brands they would find out that there is no best camera for everyone.

This is a point I have often made in this forum and others. Back in a previous life, I was a camera dealer and I was at all the camera shows to buy and sell camera gear. Prior to that, I was a hardcore Canon FD shooter, with old F-1s and FTbs. Yes, I also owned an AE-1 (my first real camera) and an A-1, but as I got more acquainted with photography, I used those two less and the old classics much more. After I had been buying and selling photo gear for a while, I had built up a fairly impressive inventory of cameras and lenses. It was during this period where I got acquainted with a variety of camera brands. I soon found favorites, but they were spread through the gamut of choices. For example, I developed a real liking for the Nikon FE and the Pentax KX, the Minolta X-570, and the Contax 139 Quartz. As for Oly, I had owned only OM-1s and OM-2s. I liked the OM-1 better, but I never got used to the shutter speed ring. Same thing goes for the Nikkormats. I've just always preferred a dial. What do all the cameras I mention above have in common? A very good manual mode. Match needle metering with the FE and KX, match LED metering with the X-570 and 139Q.

Fast forward more than a couple of decades, and what do I have in my personal collection? Well, besides Canon old F-1s and FTbs and even a New F-1 and a T90, I now own at least one copy of all the favorites I mention above. What I've taken away from all this is a camera is a tool to produce images, hopefully noteworthy ones, and that there are many cameras that can do this very well. But the glass is most important. The glass is what gives an image it's character. The glass is also the costliest to come by, so it takes more time to build up an appreciable collection. I'm working on it. I have a good selection of Canon and Nikon glass, but I still have a long way to go for Pentax and Minolta, and especially Contax. To fill in the gaps, I have a good collection of Tamron lenses as well, so every camera in my collection will have a variety of lenses to shoot with. But even though my Tamrons are excellent lenses (almost all of them are SPs), they deliver a Tamron character, not a Pentax or Minolta or Contax or whatever. So while it's really nice to have a good collection of Tamrons to fill in the gaps (I have Tamron SPs from 17mm to 500mm), I still want to put together lens collections from the various brands I've chosen. And this is just 35mm. I've got lots of medium format gear also -- from various makers.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

After I checked OP signature, I'm not sure why two threads were actually needed. What was the problem to give your child same camera at very beginning?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Back in the 80's I used to sell 35mm cameras brand new. I also used to sell a lot of film photography gear on Ebay. Mostly medium and large format but some 35mm. Before I sold used cameras I would shoot a roll through them to make sure they worked. I also have owned a lot of pre-owned cameras just because I wanted to try them out. I'd buy them cheap and then resell them if they were not for me. Of course I have my favorites but most of the cameras were pretty darn good. Kidding around like we do is fun but I just can't understand the serious "My camera is better then your camera syndrome". If people would actually shoot different brands they would find out that there is no best camera for everyone.

By 35mm cameras do you mean SLRs? If so, it makes sense. Especially if you are in the buying, selling after single test roll mode. You just not really learning the camera and not putting it up to the real challenge. It takes more than one roll and more than just test shots to understand the difference between camera bodies...
Yes, here is no best camera for everyone for sure.
This is why 35mm cameras aren't just SLRs...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree in full with you, Alan. In 99,9% of cases, the camera body alone does little to nothing in terms of photographic quality, and even when it does, there are however many many camera bodies that are basically equivalent to each other. In my opinion, the photographer should choose its camera depending on the set of lenses he/she wants to use, on quality/price ratio of both the camera and the lenses that would fit, and last but not least in terms of how he/she is in touch with the "look" of the camera.

It is really almost all about the glass [some cameras use focal plane shutters] or just see the second line of my signature.

 

[Alan Gales]

By 35mm cameras do you mean SLRs? If so, it makes sense. Especially if you are in the buying, selling after single test roll mode. You just not really learning the camera and not putting it up to the real challenge. It takes more than one roll and more than just test shots to understand the difference between camera bodies...
Yes, here is no best camera for everyone for sure.
This is why 35mm cameras aren't just SLRs...

Yes, I'm talking about SLR's. I have never owned a 35mm rangefinder except for the fixed lens Minolta Hi-Matic that I bought my wife. There were a lot of Hi-Matics but this one was aperture preferred with manual but only metered in aperture preferred mode for some reason.

Some cameras I have just run a test roll through and some I kept for a while and then later sold. With 35mm SLR's some are so similar that you are instantly familiar with them the first time you pick them up! I mostly shot a Contax 139 Q and I loved the feel of that camera in my hands but I could have shot another brand and it wouldn't have been a big deal. The Zeiss lenses were nice but I've gotten great results with other brands. One of my favorite 35mm shots was taken with a Tamron SP zoom lens.

 

[cooltouch]

By 35mm cameras do you mean SLRs? If so, it makes sense. Especially if you are in the buying, selling after single test roll mode. You just not really learning the camera and not putting it up to the real challenge. It takes more than one roll and more than just test shots to understand the difference between camera bodies...
Yes, here is no best camera for everyone for sure.
This is why 35mm cameras aren't just SLRs...

Your question was directed at Alan, but I'd like to answer it as well. Pretty much SLRs, yeah. I did have a Leica M3 with a 50/3.5 Elmar for a while (which I put multiple rolls through before selling it), a few LTMs (Canon and Leica), and a couple of "Poor Man's Leicas" aka Canon QL17 GIIIs. Most of the cameras I mention above, I actually adopted for a while and shot multiple rolls through them -- especially the FE and KX. I was just into enjoying the camera, so I would tend to keep a camera off the sales table for a while, while I shot with it.

Other cameras I knew pretty much instantly what they were all about. Take the Minolta X-570. Simple, clean, no extra gadgetry. Just a no-frills Aperture Priorty mode and a very clear to read and understand Manual mode. So I knew almost instantly I was gonna like that camera. And I was right.

 

[Alan Gales]

This is a point I have often made in this forum and others. Back in a previous life, I was a camera dealer and I was at all the camera shows to buy and sell camera gear. Prior to that, I was a hardcore Canon FD shooter, with old F-1s and FTbs. Yes, I also owned an AE-1 (my first real camera) and an A-1, but as I got more acquainted with photography, I used those two less and the old classics much more. After I had been buying and selling photo gear for a while, I had built up a fairly impressive inventory of cameras and lenses. It was during this period where I got acquainted with a variety of camera brands. I soon found favorites, but they were spread through the gamut of choices. For example, I developed a real liking for the Nikon FE and the Pentax KX, the Minolta X-570, and the Contax 139 Quartz. As for Oly, I had owned only OM-1s and OM-2s. I liked the OM-1 better, but I never got used to the shutter speed ring. Same thing goes for the Nikkormats. I've just always preferred a dial. What do all the cameras I mention above have in common? A very good manual mode. Match needle metering with the FE and KX, match LED metering with the X-570 and 139Q.

Fast forward more than a couple of decades, and what do I have in my personal collection? Well, besides Canon old F-1s and FTbs and even a New F-1 and a T90, I now own at least one copy of all the favorites I mention above. What I've taken away from all this is a camera is a tool to produce images, hopefully noteworthy ones, and that there are many cameras that can do this very well. But the glass is most important. The glass is what gives an image it's character. The glass is also the costliest to come by, so it takes more time to build up an appreciable collection. I'm working on it. I have a good selection of Canon and Nikon glass, but I still have a long way to go for Pentax and Minolta, and especially Contax. To fill in the gaps, I have a good collection of Tamron lenses as well, so every camera in my collection will have a variety of lenses to shoot with. But even though my Tamrons are excellent lenses (almost all of them are SPs), they deliver a Tamron character, not a Pentax or Minolta or Contax or whatever. So while it's really nice to have a good collection of Tamrons to fill in the gaps (I have Tamron SPs from 17mm to 500mm), I still want to put together lens collections from the various brands I've chosen. And this is just 35mm. I've got lots of medium format gear also -- from various makers.

My first 35mm camera back in 1982 was a new display model Canon AV-1 that my boss marked down to $85. I ended up selling it later due to it being aperture priority only and buying a new Contax 139 Q. I later bought a couple of display model Minoltas for less money than the Canon. I gave one to my sister for Christmas and sold another to a friend who was looking for an inexpensive SLR. I shot a roll through the Minolta and showed my friend the results. At first he didn't believe me and thought I had made the images with my Zeiss glass. I told him I would give him a full refund if he was unhappy with the camera. He bought it and kept it. Yes, there are differences in glass but in many cases I think people make more out of it then they should. If people want the best images then they need to learn light. Light is everything!