Best 35mm Film Camera

landzaat · Jan 1, 2013

I put in my 0,02.

The best camera is the one you take with you
With that out of the way. The best camera I've ever used, period, is the Minolta Dynax 9 (a.k.a. Maxxum 9) - it is very intuitive and fast. It is better then the Minolta Dynax 7 or the Canon EOS 1v (did I hear somebody say blasphemy?).
I do like my Minolta XD-5 and XD-11, but I don't expect them to be really better then good offerings by other manufacturers of the same era (late '70's, early 80's) - but never tried those, so I can nominate them for best manual focus camera

But seeing you already own Canon, I would go Canon. The EOS 1v, EOS 1n and EOS 3 are great cameras, however, their user-interface is something you've gotta learn (unlike the Dynax 9) and they're big and heavy (just like the Dynax 9). I don't like the Canon EOS 30/33 (Elan 7), on paper it seems to be the best choice, but I seem to prefer the EOS 50E (Elan II) - the handling is much nicer and it feels much more sturdy. It has a cross AF sensor, I find that important. The only downside imho is that it lacks a dedicated stop-down button!

Of the (even) more consumer oriented cameras, the EOS 3000v (Rebel K2) seems a nice buy, I can't find many differences between it and the more expensive EOS 300v (Rebel Ti). Stay clear of the EOS 3000n (Rebel XS N) as it is a heap of plastic junk. Consider the Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000), as it is a good camera. Stay clear of the 28-80/3.5-5.6 II lens, as it is the worst thing ever put on a camera - get a 50/1.8 or, even better, the new 40/2.8 to go with that film camera!

Of course this is all too late, but hey, I thought I give you my opinion

andrewf · Jan 4, 2013

PentaxBronica said:
It might not be the light meter which is stuffed. I bought one a couple of weeks ago which appeared dead but returned to working order after I cleaned the battery cover. If that doesn't do it then a CLA shouldn't be horribly expensive and will get it working perfectly.

Lenses aren't hard to find for little outlay, just stick to SMC Pentax or SMC Pentax-M (ideally primes) as they'll be the nicest to use on that body and there are no real horrors amongst them.

You were right. It was the battery. I had used a brand new A76 but it turns out I needed the S76. So now it seems to be working fine. I was mistaken, also, it is a KM so leaving a lens cap off runs the battery flat. So that's all sorted. Now to find a suitable 28mm Thanks for your help!

PentaxBronica · Jan 4, 2013

SMC Pentax or SMC Pentax-M 28mm f3.5, whichever you can get hold of. The earlier lens is a little sharper but bigger and harder to find.

TheShermanstank · Jan 6, 2013

I really love the EOS 1V-HS. I shoot with two bodies all the time. The thing that I like about it the most is the AF accuracy, weather sealing and the ability to capture the metadata for each frame using the ES-E1 software/cable bundle.

Also, CANON still services the 1V (brand new bodies are still being sold in ADORAMA, B&H etc.)

henry finley · Jan 6, 2013

Best 35mm? Probably a Nikkormat FT2. Why would anybody need more or newer? Of course an F2 is really sweet, but a Nikkormat is easier to meter with--the needle is bigger, and it doesn't blank out when it's dark above your head. Yep--Nikkormat. Good as it gets or needs to be.

lxdude · Jan 6, 2013

henry finley said:
Yep--Nikkormat. Good as it gets or needs to be.

Unless you don't like the shutter speed and ASA selectors, or its ergonomics, or moving the coupling pin and setting the lens to 5.6 before mounting, (with "the twist", of course). Or you want a brighter finder, interchangeable focusing screens, or prefer something smaller, or lighter, or quieter. Or a silicon cell meter. Or...

They are beautifully made, solid and durable, but I much preferred several other cameras over the Nikkormats. Nikkormats are excellent for teaching the fundamentals, with nothing extra (except meter), and nothing missing (MLU, DoF preview). So I agree it's as good as it needs to be, but not that it's as good as it gets.
I love the F2, especially with the plain prism, so if I'm going to have the size and weight, it's the F2 for me.

henry finley · Jan 6, 2013

Please understand--after 1977, camera manufacture halted. They're weren't any cameras after 1977. Automobile manufacture ended in about 1973. After the Ampex, sound recording ended. After Hammarlund, there were no ham receivers. Yep--Nikkormat. Good as it gets or needs to be. Now, pardon me while I open up this 1959 Hasselblad C and re-foam it for this guy.

elekm · Jan 6, 2013

I think the Yashica/Kyocera Contax cameras have viewfinders that are noticeably better than most cameras that I've handled. And that does make a difference when out and about.

The Rolleiflex SL35 E also has a very nice viewfinder - perhaps a notch below that of the Contax models.

Among rangefinders, Cosina showed that it could rise above its middle-of-the-road cameras that it made/makes for others and produce a rangefinder with overall excellent handling that carries a terrific viewfinder.

lxdude · Jan 6, 2013

henry finley said:
there were no ham receivers.

Hey, I love receiving ham!

henry finley · Jan 6, 2013

Then find yourself a Hammarlund HQ-110. Covers 160, 80, 40, 20,15, 10, 6. Good as it gets on a Hammarlund. Hallicrafters isn't too shabby either. But if you ever opened them both up and looked under the chassis, the Hammarlund looks a whole generation ahead--clean, neat, and masterfully designed. Never seen even an iota of drift. Good stuff. An HQ 180 is a great general coverage and more a good bit more complicated. And it's TRIPLE conversion (with tubes!) But on the 180, you have to use the crystal oscillator to locate the ham bands off the general coverage dial. The 110 doesn't need a bandspread dial, and you don't have to use the Xtal much at all.

lxdude · Jan 6, 2013

henry finley said:
Good as it gets on a Hammarlund.

It's got ham right in the name! I don't understand all the jargon, but that's OK. I can make my own glaze, and I don't care if it's pre-sliced or not!

Yashinoff · Jan 6, 2013

Is there anything particularly good about the Nikkormat?

henry finley · Jan 7, 2013

Seriously, about the FT2's and FT3's (Nikkormats), they have everything you'd ever need in a 35. And still get the 95+percent viewfinder area of the actual image at the film gate. A vertical running Copal shutter which never fails, 125 sync speed. The camera is an absolute brick of ruggedness, and still amazingly light. And when you trip one off, it's the smoothest of any SLR. You can't accidentally change film speed, and it's center-weighted enough to get by as a spot-meter when you need one.
They're 35-40 years old now, but still as tight as the day they were made. And as a fellow who has worked on a good many cameras, the Nikkormat's CDS cell have held up the best. And with a Nikkor f/2 50mm lens, you get the sharpness of a Leica for the EBAY price of less than a trip to the gas station.
And when you swing it by the strap, it'll make a criminal need 100 stitches in the noggin.

brucemuir · Jan 7, 2013

Henry I hear ya.
I have 3-4 F's, 1-F2 an FM2n and a Nikkormat FTN and an FT2 and I was amazed at how smooth the film advance was on the mats.
Both meters work in them and I gotta say they hold a candle to any of the more "pro" models.

The mats actually have beter MLU than my F's but I still grab the F's first. IDK just something about the way thy are balanced/handle.

The mat is no budget camera in my mind.

henry finley · Jan 7, 2013

I've got an FT2 with a big bash in the front of the pentaprism sheet metal. I bought it on ebay for 4 Nikkormat parts camera for 10 dollars. I took the 2 best and built 1. Works perfect.I don't ccare about the big dent--it's my car camera, with a roll of Tri-X in it. Just in case I see the need to do a drive-by shooting.

dorff · Jan 10, 2013

Les Sarile said:
BTW, I owned a few Canon L lenses and those were some of the best lenses I ever used and I was therefore apprehensive using old - secondhand, manual focus lenses. However, after qualifying some of my acquisitions with Kodak Techpan processed in Technidol and evaluated under great optical magnification, I know that the primes I have tested will not be outresolved by any DSLR today.

I think for black and white work on film your assessment may be completely valid, but for colour work on either digital or film, there are some caveats. Testing with B&W film as you did may obscure many colour-coupled lens flaws such as chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. For this reason, one should test every lens in the intended end use. A good example of a great lens on film, but very mediocre on digital, is the Nikkor 400 f/3.5 IFED. There are many other examples, too. And although it is maybe not what you meant to say, I doubt that resolution is the only or even most important characteristic of an optic. I do agree that Canon L lenses are mostly great, and so are the APO and ED counterparts from Minolta, Nikon, Leica, Olympus etc. But there are many lenses that are equally great that are not necessarily L or ED. Some are downright unassuming, like the Nikon Series E 75-150. You are correct in saying that old manual focus lenses can be surprisingly good, but I would add a few zooms to the list of primes.

Les Sarile · Jan 10, 2013

dorff said:
A good example of a great lens on film, but very mediocre on digital, is . . .

Actually digital is very mediocre since the thread is Best 35mm Film Camera . . .

mohawk51 · Feb 13, 2013

wrightguy said:
Hey guys, I started as a digital photographer, but I want to get a film SLR. I currently have a Canon T2i with EF lenes, so a Canon camera would be preferred, but I could be swayed to Nikon (and maybe Pentax.) I want to know want you think the best 35mm camera is. I am interested in the Canon K2, but that's not even close to my final choice.

The Nikon F2, then the F3.

cliveh · Feb 13, 2013

If you delete the SLR, perhaps an M2?

elekm · Feb 13, 2013

With cameras being relatively inexpensive, I would buy several of them and then decide which to keep.

I'm partial to Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Rolleiflex and Olympus (in that order). I also tried a buddy's Canon AE-1 and liked that quite a bit, and I always thought the Canon F-1 looked awesome.

Finding which is best for you is a very personal matter, because what feels nice in my hands might not feel so good for you. Or it might be perfect for you.

DREW WILEY · Feb 13, 2013

I like a no-nonsense camera, very reliable under all kinds of conditions, no electronics, mechanical with no need of a battery, and no clutter in the viewfinder that looks like an airplane cockpit. If it comes with an owner's manual the size of a phonebook - not for me. My first camera was the very earliest SLR
Pentax, and I liked it a lot. Now I use a Nikon FM2n and an FM3a (the latter has just a little added nonsense which I ignore).

Tony-S · Feb 13, 2013

Obviously, the Fujica 35 SE. I mean, film advance lever on the bottom? C'mon!

Fujica 35-SE 35mm Rangefinder

flatulent1 · Feb 14, 2013

Late in the day to be answering the OP's question, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Since you have EOS lenses, you'll want an EOS body. The best cheap one is the Elan IIe, I got a few for $25 each. The best newer body is the Elan 7N, which has the backlit top deck LCD that the Elan 7 doesn't. The best inexpensive pro body would be the EOS 1N.

Outside of Canon? I like Contax, but they're expensive. You might also consider a Mamiya 645 Pro; they're so cheap I bought two.

Beyond that? They're all good. Well, except for the original Maxxum 7000. What a dog.

Best 35mm Film Camera

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency