Anyone ever switch SLR systems?

fmajor · Mar 26, 2012

The OP has already stated to not be changing systems so the original question is answered. However, since i'm both verbose and vain, i'll add that i've never *changed* SLR brands; Rather changed (actually added not changed) formats.

From 35mm Minolta and entering the digital evolution, i've since entered medium format and will stop here. I've picked up a fully functioning Minolta Autocord for an exceptional price and finally a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S and 2 lenses (65mm Sekor C and 180mm Sekor C).

I know medium format is the end for me because sheet film, to me, requires too many inconveniences (essentially, roll film and roll film cameras are *much* more convenient to use/store/develop/etc) for my level of printing need.

Paul Howell · Mar 26, 2012

I have changed systems many times, sometime for good reasons sometimes for not so good reasons. I started with Pentax M42 in the mid 60s, did not sell but bought a Konica T in the late 60s because I wanted shutter speed priority, sold the Konica in the early 70s for Nikon as I needed a motor drive. Keep Nikon mvoing from F to F2 and F3 until my gear got stolden out of checked luggage at LAX after 9:11 Bought a Sigma SA & on a impuluse in 2003, added SA9 which I still have and use. Then bought a T90 just for fun. I still have M42, Pentax K, Sigma, Miranda and Canon FD and use them all on occassion. The price of most gear is so low that I dont have an issue with keeping several sets.

benjiboy · Mar 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's a really great summary, Ben. To me, the essential quality of the camera is that it's intuitive to use (comes with use and experience), and that it works every time. In my world the camera is the very least important piece of the whole process, yet it stirs so much conversation and passionate debate.

Here's what's not taught enough, discussed enough, and practiced enough: printing.
Thank you, Max, for this link: http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/
Or go to YouTube and make a search for Gene Nocon, and listen to his 30 minutes interview with Anthony Mournian of Photographer's Formulary. Forget about the camera - go make your prints better!

I hope I can say this without sounding like an old fart Thomas, but my experience of sixty years of photography has proved that the old saying " the best camera is the one that you're most used to" is true, I know I've been there and have the t shirt, being able to operate the equipment intuitively without conscious thought is more important than Modulatory Transfer Function charts, and Line Pairs Per Millimetre graphs, because you can have the finest equipment but if you are too slow in reacting with it because of your unfamiliarity with it, the pictures gone.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 26, 2012

benjiboy said:
I hope I can say this without sounding like an old fart Thomas, but my experience of sixty years of photography has proved that the old saying " the best camera is the one that you're most used to" is true, I know I've been there and have the t shirt, being able to operate the equipment intuitively without conscious thought is more important than Modulatory Transfer Function charts, and Line Pairs Per Millimetre graphs, because you can have the finest equipment but if you are too slow in reacting with it because of your unfamiliarity with it, the pictures gone.

Agree 100%, and I don't see how your statement disagrees with mine.

E. von Hoegh · Mar 26, 2012

benjiboy said:
I hope I can say this without sounding like an old fart Thomas, but my experience of sixty years of photography has proved that the old saying " the best camera is the one that you're most used to" is true, I know I've been there and have the t shirt, being able to operate the equipment intuitively without conscious thought is more important than Modulatory Transfer Function charts, and Line Pairs Per Millimetre graphs, because you can have the finest equipment but if you are too slow in reacting with it because of your unfamiliarity with it, the pictures gone.

The trouble with old farts is they're often correct. Agree 100%

Ken N · Mar 26, 2012

The OP is in the process of collecting the best Zuiko lenses. Of course those will be more expensive, but not really any more expensive than the best FD lenses. OK, maybe a little more, but that's because so many are being used on Canon bodies.

Hmmmm....

What was the reasoning for switching, again?

I would recommend keeping the 28/2, selling the 35/2, pick up a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 (black nosed, Made in Japan) and either the 90/2 or 100/2. Stop right there. Don't get anything more. That three lens kit is as good as the Leica equivalent. Some say better.

If you really want to bust the budget, get an OM-3Ti.

wblynch · Mar 26, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Try to find a working guitarist who only owns one guitar...

Steve.

That would be B.B.King, now well over 80. He has used the same model guitar almost his entire career. He has replaced Lucille many times but always with another identical Lucille.

elcabezagrande · Mar 26, 2012

wblynch said:
That would be B.B.King, now well over 80. He has used the same model guitar almost his entire career. He has replaced Lucille many times but always with another identical Lucille.

BB King, while he is most often associated with the Gibson ES 355 guitars that he named "Lucille", actually played a Fender Telecaster on most of his recordings for RPM Records, and the special-edition Gibson Lucille on his later stuff. The ES 355 wasn't introduced until 1957, while Mr. King started his recording career in 1949. I think a better example might be "Master of the Telecaster", Albert Collins. Les Paul would seem the easy choice, but like King, his career began long before the introduction of his namesake guitar.

I think I will now spend the remainder of my morning watching Albert Collins videos on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.1250l5979l0l7792l14l14l0l7l7l0l99l597l7l7l0.

BrianL · Mar 26, 2012

As a long term Olympus over as well as Leica user, I'd not quite rate that high but, do rank the Oly glass above Canon and Nikon. They learned to make excellent lenses for their half frame cameras, a harder thing to do than a 35mm lens. They then like Minox who also learned to amke excellent glass b/c of their core cameras moved up to the 35mm format. If there was a company that competed against Leica other than Zeiss, it would be Minox who bought the glass balnks from Leica and I understand they were grinding lenses for Leica and when it looked like Minox was going out was when Leica bought the company to be able to have them grind the lenses. Sadly, they killed the 35mm camera line instead of attacking the shutter issue and continuing making them. My ML was hard to distinquish from my Leica results and I loved when in slide competitons holding up the ML when others guessed Leica and other Nikon, etc.

narsuitus · Mar 26, 2012

puketronic said:
Anyone ever switch SLR systems?

Just curious and for what reasons?

I switched SLR systems only once.

I started with an SLR camera that had an M42 screw mount and a bayonet mount (Miranda Sensorex). When the camera proved to be unreliable, I got rid of it and replaced it with an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic that used the M42 screw mount and a Nikon that used a bayonet mount.

I still use Pentax and Nikon cameras, however, the Nikon is the only one I developed into a system. I have a large inventory of lenses (14mm to 2000mm) and a variety of viewfinders, backs, motor drives, view screens, and other accessories for the Nikon. I only have three lenses (28, 50, and 135mm) for the Pentax.

Since the Pentax cameras and Nikon system have been meeting my needs for years, I will probably never switch SLR systems again.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6095358701/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5595970877/

puketronic · Mar 26, 2012

Ken N said:
The OP is in the process of collecting the best Zuiko lenses. Of course those will be more expensive, but not really any more expensive than the best FD lenses. OK, maybe a little more, but that's because so many are being used on Canon bodies.

Hmmmm....

What was the reasoning for switching, again?

I would recommend keeping the 28/2, selling the 35/2, pick up a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 (black nosed, Made in Japan) and either the 90/2 or 100/2. Stop right there. Don't get anything more. That three lens kit is as good as the Leica equivalent. Some say better.

If you really want to bust the budget, get an OM-3Ti.

Lots of great advice. I think my switching is a dumb idea but it was a thought I had yesterday morning.

The main reason is for me to save money so that I can better afford 35mm rangefinders. I prefer rangefinders but they're just so much more expensive. Truthfully, even if I did switch, I wouldn't really be saving that much money..maybe a few $100-$200 at most. I'm not going to switch. I'm just going to collect my lenses more slowly. I'll get the 50mm f1.4 next then a telephoto sometime in the future. Truthfully, I seldom feel a need to use a telephoto but I feel that it would be cool to have and play with.

clayne · Mar 26, 2012

BrianL said:
As a long term Olympus over as well as Leica user, I'd not quite rate that high but, do rank the Oly glass above Canon and Nikon.

Off-topic, but let's not forget about Minolta/Rokkor as well. They also did their own glass and were significantly ahead of everyone else for quite a while.

Jeff Kubach · Mar 26, 2012

A love my Canon FD system. Great system and great glass.

Jeff

paulie · Mar 26, 2012

pentax + 50mm and 28mm, everything else is LF

baachitraka · Mar 27, 2012

One Mantra: 'OM' till end of life.

ozphoto · Mar 27, 2012

Unfortunately, (for me) yes - from FD (full kit including a wonderful 300 f2.8) to EF.

Photography is my job, and unfortunately, d*****l overtook film as the method of delivery. Made sense to convert completely, however unlike some of my FD kit, the EF system had to be purchased brand new.

I do miss the FD kit I had, but managed to pick up a great original EOS-1 for my film (no 2nd body just yet), which has kept my 35mm film shooting sated.

Somebody got a great deal on an A1 and drive, Original F1 and drive, not to mention all the lenses. . . . . . . .but you never know, I might land a nice FD kit from an Op-Shop at some stage too.

Pumalite · Mar 27, 2012

clayne said:
Off-topic, but let's not forget about Minolta/Rokkor as well. They also did their own glass and were significantly ahead of everyone else for quite a while.

I've had two XD-11 and 2 X-700, whose Electronics have just died and nobody that I know can fix them. So, I'd say; if you choose Minolta; stick to the Mechanicals: SRT-101. SRT-200, SRT-201 and the like.

clayne · Mar 27, 2012

Pumalite said:
I've had two XD-11 and 2 X-700, whose Electronics have just died and nobody that I know can fix them. So, I'd say; if you choose Minolta; stick to the Mechanicals: SRT-101. SRT-200, SRT-201 and the like.

Personally, I just use their mechanicals. But have you had the simple stuff checked out on your X series? Capacitors?

fmajor · Mar 28, 2012

Pumalite said:
I've had two XD-11 and 2 X-700, whose Electronics have just died and nobody that I know can fix them. So, I'd say; if you choose Minolta; stick to the Mechanicals: SRT-101. SRT-200, SRT-201 and the like.

John Titterington in Kansas can fix 'em. He's done CLA's on 2 XD-11s for me (as well as some SRT cameras!!!) - he's the best Minolta Tech out there.

RalphLambrecht · May 28, 2018

puketronic said:
Just curious and for what reasons?

I'm thinking of switching to Canon FD system (from the OM system). Maybe it's a bad idea--not sure but my primary reason is because it's cheaper overall. Which glass is better? Who knows? My feeling is that they'll render images the similarly unless you're shooting to test.

I bought into the OM system because they are pretty and rangefinderesque. OM is probably the most rangefinderesque SLR but it's not a rangefinder, and I lust for my lenses! I'd stay in the system if the glass were cheap, but they aren't. Originally I thought I'd be happy with a 35mm f2 but then I got a 28mm f2 and now I want a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f2. I have no plans for digital so if I were to switch to FD now, then I can probably sell these lenses and my two OM2 bodies and have a complete suite of fast lenses (28/35/50/85) with two Canon F1 bodies.

I went from Praktika to Ricoh to Nikon and that's where I'll stay now.I always switched to get an increase in quality and flexibility but, I'm very happy wi

guangong · May 28, 2018

My advice: Don’t trade in, accumulate! In the mid 1960s I traded my Pentax and lenses for Leica M camera and never looked back. But from then on have never sold or traded a single camera, so the number of cameras, lenses, etc have gradually grown from Minox to 4x5 and everything in between and I use them all.

faberryman · May 28, 2018

I started out with a Pentax SP500 in 1973, moved to the OM system in 1977, and haven't changed since. No reason to. I have added a couple of bodies and lenses along the way. I like the small size, bright viewfinder, and spot metering on the OM4, though I still have and use my original OM1. If I had originally switched to Nikon, I am sure I would have stuck with Nikon, If I had originally switched to Canon, I probably would have gotten POed when they changed lens mounts mid-stream and switched to something else.

Jim Jones · May 28, 2018

My first SLR was a Praktica FX3, bought used in 1962. The M42 system was foolproof and inexpensive. Years later I tried a Miranda, but it was unreliable. Then came Nikon in 1967, and they are still the favorites. A Pentax M42 was handy for one good 400mm lens, but a fine Nikon mount 400 made the Pentax redundant. A Panasonic micro 4/3 already converted to IR made up for Kodak's discontinuing their IR film. That sounds like too many basic system changes. It would have been worse had I chosen anything other than Nikon 51 years ago.

ReginaldSMith · May 28, 2018

In 35 mm SLRs: Canon to Nikon to Olympus back to Canon to Contax to Canon EOS and now Minolta/Dynax.

Why? Because I love precision machinery and enjoy experiencing the engineering and design and implementation of cameras. They are endlessly fascinating to me. I have at times had 25 cameras in the closet. I am down to about 6 now because I live in Tiny Houses*. But, I still love the camera as an engineering object.

As to the photographic result, they make little to no difference. I have some award winning photos made with a simple Canon QL17 rangefinder, and some with a Yashica T3 point and shoot, and of course with various SLRs and so forth. Cameras don't make the photograph, only your eye. But the camera can simply be a "joy to use unto itself." The most wonderful feeling cameras I have owned were the Canon T-90 and the Contax Aria with my current Minolta a-9 right behind them.

I keep separate my interest in cameras from my photography. I don't change cameras to "make better photos."

Paul Howell · May 28, 2018

Update from my last post in 2012, boy how time does fly, my Sigma SA7 and 9 developed the slow yellow death. Both viewfinders developed a deep yellow turning to orange to haze. As the problem is an issue with all late Sigma AF camera bodies I could not just buy another body. I have added Minolta AF, 9, 7, 800, 600 and a couple of 9000s. I then added Sony DSLRs so I carry both a SLR and DSLR that use the lens mount. I have sold the T90 and few lens I had as I just don't need another system. I still have a rather complete Spotmatic system, all Pentax prime M42 lens from 24 to 400, a Chinion body with power winder.

Anyone ever switch SLR systems?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency