Best-built SLR with great metering?

Paul Howell said:

F2 center weight metering.

. "Minolta 800si, has matrix metering, a pretty good AF system, nice eye level readout, down side is that is menu driven and needs a set of cards for advanced function such as bracketing"
.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the 800si uses any cards. Bracketing is selected using the "control panel" which is accessed by a little door on the side.

billdele said:

I don't think that the 800si uses any cards. Bracketing is selected using the "control panel" which is accessed by a little door on the side.

Click to expand...

You are right, got confused with the 700 and 900si.

Huss said:

Whatever I happen to be selling. That is definitely the best camera for your needs.

Click to expand...

Best reply !

Diffraction said:

• Excellent metering: something more advanced than centre-weighted
• Excellent viewfinder: I'd like a very big, bright viewfinder.
• Excellent build: I know it's probably superficial of me, but I love well built cameras. Ideally it would be made entirely of metal.
• Relatively low weight & size: It doesn't have to be super-light, but I wouldn't like something huge with a big vertical grip like the Nikon F5.

Click to expand...

Only the Pentax LX qualifies with all criterias.

If you drop the "relatively low weight & size", i'd add the Canon New F-1 to the list. And the Nikon F4/5/6 and Canon EOS-1 series!

If you drop the "something more advanced" requirement too, I'd add the Nikon F2 and Leicaflex models.

Les Sarile said:

Since you said big bright viewfinder, then there is no bigger or brighter then the Pentax LX by any brand or model ever. Fortunately, Pentax also provided the most eye relief as well since they gave the LX the most extensive lineup of viewfinder accessories . . .

You want all metal as well as relatively low weight and size . . . well that again would be the Pentax LX because relative to its peers it is smaller and lighter while being "all metal" and offering the most manual features if the batteries die as all shutter speeds - sync and above, are available. Excellent build quality - selective rain testing from assembly line as it is also the only sealed and weatherproof camera among it's peers. Titanium shutters so you won't have any concern of ever pointing it at the sun in mirror lock up mode unlike all modern cameras.

And for the pièce de résistance, you want excellent metering, well there is no other camera ever made - past or present, film or digital, by any other brand that can meter for as long as it takes to get a proper exposure or batteries die.

This one of the Hoover Dam at night on Kodak Ektar 100 that lasted over 45 minutes . . .


I've tested all my aperture priority capable cameras of different brands and models and none can meter long exposures of only many minutes consistently. And by very long exposure, I have tested both of my LXs to consistently meter up to many hours long which is of course recommended by the various films datasheets to verify reciprocity failure. To date, I have yet to experience any film reciprocity failures with any of the color negatives I have used . . .

Click to expand...

Dear LesDMess...

I finally got myself a Pentax LX, after years of reading you extolling the virtues of the mighty LX.

My short comparison to the previous pro SLRs i liked: Canon New F-1, F-1 and Nikon F3, F2SB. But in particular, compared to the New F-1, since it was my pick for "favorite pro 35mm SLR":

Big Pros
- Significantly lighter and smaller. It really feels light and nimble, for a pro machine.
- Very ergonomic, feels great in the hand
- Exposure compensation warning (something the F3 and F-1N don't have)
- TTL OTF Flash metering

Pros

- Shutter sound slightly quieter than my F-1N cameras.
- 1/2000 to X (plus B) speeds are mechanical all the time, while the F-1N requires you to remove the battery to enable mechanical backup speeds.
- Double-exposure doesn't advance the film counter
- Film rewinding makes the counter go down (a really useful feature)
- TTL OTF metering
- Provision for vertical or horizontal strap

Cons
- Number one: Viewfinder info (shutter speed numbers and flags) intrudes into the framing area. This is the only professional 35mm camera I know of that does this. I find this annoying, doesn't help for composing pictures.
- No, the viewfinder isn't better than the one in my Canon F-1N cameras. My canons have a clearer viewfinder, probably due to the Laser Matte screens. And note that I have thoroughly cleaned the screen and condenser in the LX before judging.
- F-stop displayed above via a separate window, as in the Nikon FE. And relies on ambient illumination to be seen. On the F-1N all the following information can be glanced at once without moving your eye: Selected f-stop, suggested f-stop, speed, maximum f-stop.
- Viewfinder frame seems slightly curved, not completely rectangular, probably due to the optics on the FA-1 finder. I don't like this.
- Slow, cumbersome screen change. The screen is changed as in an amateur camera like the Canon AE-1P or Nikon FE or Pentax MX. Instead of the easy screen change of the F-1N and Nikon F3. You really need to be sitting down on a bench with tweezers to do the screen change!
- Can't vary metering pattern

Lesser cons:
- No battery tester (the F-1N shows you the battery level and it will tell you how healthy is your batt.)
- TTL OTF metering means the auto speed can differ a bit from the meter suggested speed.
- TTL OTF metering also means film should be loaded to test auto speeds.
- TTL OTF metering pattern probably differs from the viewing-time metering system's pattern.
- Slower battery change procedure
- Film path doesn't have the sophistication of the F-1N. The Canon has a film cartridge stabilizer, plus two rollers that press film against the advance sprocket. And the film is rolled following its natural curl. The Pentax has none of this, no rollers, nothing.

All in all is a camera that I think I'm going to like a lot, however it's not the "F-1N killer" i was expecting.

Patrick Robert James said:

The Pentax and Olympus "pro" models had fantastic viewfinders too. The OM4 I think it was had a pretty complicated metering system built in. Multiple spot averaging even.

Click to expand...

Olympus USED TO have a terrific viewfinder, in the OM-1 and OM-2. Unfortunately, for the OM-3 and OM-4, Olympus followed the pack with adding tons of information to the area around the focus screen, and the viewfinder magnification changed down to about 0.84x to accomodate the extra information. But the area was never 100% in any original OM system film bodies.
The OM-4 pretty much set a standard for metering capability, and even after many evolutionary changes from other brands, there are those who still consider the OM-4 as the standard bearer for metering...its multi-spot capability with biasing a reading for shadow or highlight.

The Nikons with the weighted 12mm center disc, i.e. the later Nikkormats, the F/ftn & F2s. The meters work well for me, you can scan the scene to get an idea of the brightness range, and they are reliable if clean and not worn out. I recently found a Canon FTb, first version from 1971, which also has an excellent meter albeit a rectangular weighted patch.. Also a G.E. DW48 in pristine condition and dead accurate. Don't discount the utility of a good handheld meter, if only as a backup.
The most important bit is to be familiar with whichever meter's pattern you're using. Do not expect the meter to think for you.

wiltw said:

Olympus USED TO have a terrific viewfinder, in the OM-1 and OM-2. Unfortunately, for the OM-3 and OM-4, Olympus followed the pack with adding tons of information to the area around the focus screen, and the viewfinder magnification changed down to about 0.84x to accomodate the extra information. But the area was never 100% in any original OM system film bodies.
The OM-4 pretty much set a standard for metering capability, and even after many evolutionary changes from other brands, there are those who still consider the OM-4 as the standard bearer for metering...its multi-spot capability with biasing a reading for shadow or highlight.

Click to expand...

I agree with your asessment of the OM 4. Unfortunately mine was a battery eater and I traded it off and went to used Nikons.

E. von Hoegh said:

The Nikons with the weighted 12mm center disc, i.e. the later Nikkormats, the F/ftn & F2s. The meters work well for me, you can scan the scene to get an idea of the brightness range, and they are reliable if clean and not worn out. I recently found a Canon FTb, first version from 1971, which also has an excellent meter albeit a rectangular weighted patch.. Also a G.E. DW48 in pristine condition and dead accurate. Don't discount the utility of a good handheld meter, if only as a backup.
The most important bit is to be familiar with whichever meter's pattern you're using. Do not expect the meter to think for you.

Click to expand...

The F100 light meter works well for me and I always meter without the sky. When useful I use the spot meter option of the F100 or use the zoom lens with or without the spot for more selective metering.

E. von Hoegh said:

Don't discount the utility of a good handheld meter (...) Do not expect the meter to think for you.

Click to expand...

These two are the most important pieces of advice here.

flavio81 said:

Dear LesDMess...

I finally got myself a Pentax LX, after years of reading you extolling the virtues of the mighty LX.

My short comparison to the previous pro SLRs i liked: Canon New F-1, F-1 and Nikon F3, F2SB. But in particular, compared to the New F-1, since it was my pick for "favorite pro 35mm SLR":

Big Pros
- Significantly lighter and smaller. It really feels light and nimble, for a pro machine.
- Very ergonomic, feels great in the hand
- Exposure compensation warning (something the F3 and F-1N don't have)
- TTL OTF Flash metering

Pros

- Shutter sound slightly quieter than my F-1N cameras.
- 1/2000 to X (plus B) speeds are mechanical all the time, while the F-1N requires you to remove the battery to enable mechanical backup speeds.
- Double-exposure doesn't advance the film counter
- Film rewinding makes the counter go down (a really useful feature)
- TTL OTF metering
- Provision for vertical or horizontal strap

Cons
- Number one: Viewfinder info (shutter speed numbers and flags) intrudes into the framing area. This is the only professional 35mm camera I know of that does this. I find this annoying, doesn't help for composing pictures.
- No, the viewfinder isn't better than the one in my Canon F-1N cameras. My canons have a clearer viewfinder, probably due to the Laser Matte screens. And note that I have thoroughly cleaned the screen and condenser in the LX before judging.
- F-stop displayed above via a separate window, as in the Nikon FE. And relies on ambient illumination to be seen. On the F-1N all the following information can be glanced at once without moving your eye: Selected f-stop, suggested f-stop, speed, maximum f-stop.
- Viewfinder frame seems slightly curved, not completely rectangular, probably due to the optics on the FA-1 finder. I don't like this.
- Slow, cumbersome screen change. The screen is changed as in an amateur camera like the Canon AE-1P or Nikon FE or Pentax MX. Instead of the easy screen change of the F-1N and Nikon F3. You really need to be sitting down on a bench with tweezers to do the screen change!
- Can't vary metering pattern

Lesser cons:
- No battery tester (the F-1N shows you the battery level and it will tell you how healthy is your batt.)
- TTL OTF metering means the auto speed can differ a bit from the meter suggested speed.
- TTL OTF metering also means film should be loaded to test auto speeds.
- TTL OTF metering pattern probably differs from the viewing-time metering system's pattern.
- Slower battery change procedure
- Film path doesn't have the sophistication of the F-1N. The Canon has a film cartridge stabilizer, plus two rollers that press film against the advance sprocket. And the film is rolled following its natural curl. The Pentax has none of this, no rollers, nothing.

All in all is a camera that I think I'm going to like a lot, however it's not the "F-1N killer" i was expecting.

Click to expand...

Well it's about time you rewarded yourself . . .

Just to be sure, I've never espoused single camera ownership. No Canon New F-1 needs to be killed!
In the context of my previous response - the LX has a variety of viewfinders with far larger magnifications then available on the New F-1 as well as one with much more eye relief. It is interesting that in a manual focus camera with interchangeable VF that only the LX provided this variety. Since I don't yet need glasses I much prefer it and helps me achieve critical focus faster.

The shutter speed in the LX viewfinder has never distracted me personally but I can appreciate a clean viewfinder.

I will grant that the New F-1 does have a screen with a split microprism that will never blackout. The only other one I've seen is on the Nikon FM3A. You can stack multipliers, bellows on a slow lens and it will never blackout. Amazing right? Why doesn't everyone else have one too I wonder? It turns out if you have a relatively dark setting and a relatively wide angle lens that everything will look in focus and therefore impossible to see if you have critical focus or not.

My first SLR was a Canon EOS3 that had all the bells and whistles but in my use for long exposure aperture priority, Canon has limited all it's AV capable cameras to a maximum of 30 seconds. I didn't really expect any camera to be able to exceed it - specially not older ones. But I tried them all anyway and was pleasantly surprised when I found the LX.

BTW, I just took a peek in my LX with a 50mm f1.2 and pointed it at my wide screen and I can see that it is still rectangular with no curvature. Same for my New F-1 with a 50mm f1.4. I am not sure what's going on with yours, perhaps the lens you're using?

Nikon AF especially the F100 with lets the light meter act as a spot meter with one spot chosen or by extending a zoom lens. Also the Hasselblad 45° PME.

wiltw said:

Olympus USED TO have a terrific viewfinder, in the OM-1 and OM-2. Unfortunately, for the OM-3 and OM-4, Olympus followed the pack with adding tons of information to the area around the focus screen, and the viewfinder magnification changed down to about 0.84x to accomodate the extra information. But the area was never 100% in any original OM system film bodies.
The OM-4 pretty much set a standard for metering capability, and even after many evolutionary changes from other brands, there are those who still consider the OM-4 as the standard bearer for metering...its multi-spot capability with biasing a reading for shadow or highlight.

Click to expand...

I used to praise OM-4, I used to own OM-4. Several of them, as a matter of fact. Sure, the metering is excellent and gives a lot of control to the user. However, taking into consideration the latitude of current films, unless shooting slides, one doesn't really need all that multi-spot and shadow/highlight preference in spot metering.

Diffraction said:

Hi all,

I'm GAS-ing and am musing about which next camera I might purchase. Although I'm not sure I'll actually buy anything, I have recently got curious about what my favourite late-film-era SLR would probably be, and I thought it might create a fun discussion. Here's what I'd be looking for:

• Excellent metering: something more advanced than centre-weighted. From what I've read, it seems like most manufacturers developed great metering systems in the 80s/90s, with Nikon and Minolta maybe leading the pack. From my point of view, I would like this because I might then feel comfortable leaving my external light meter behind. My most advanced camera currently is a Minolta XE-7, and while I like it, I don't trust its meter enough to shoot in aperture priority.
• Excellent viewfinder: I'd like a very big, bright viewfinder.
• Excellent build: I know it's probably superficial of me, but I love well built cameras. Ideally it would be made entirely of metal.
• Relatively low weight & size: It doesn't have to be super-light, but I wouldn't like something huge with a big vertical grip like the Nikon F5.
• Sub 500 USD in price. That rules out the F6, sadly.

Things that would be less important to me:

• Fast autofocus: I don't shoot fast-moving scenes that much, so the AF wouldn't have to be amazing. It doesn't even have to have autofocus, I don't mind manual focus.
• Lens selection: I might like a 35mm, a 50mm, and an 85mm, but not much more than that.

So far, my favourite is the Minolta Maxxum 9. It ticks all the boxes, with the exception of low weight, as it weighs almost 1kg. I also have a soft spot for Minolta, and like its design. But I was wondering what else is out there. The Nikon F100 seems to fit the bill mostly, but I'm not a big fan of its design, and I've heard bad things about its plastics becoming sticky over time, which sounds horrendous. I also just found the Nikon FA, which actually looks quite neat.

Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts!

Click to expand...

In my opinion the Nikon FE fits all criteria, as well as the Nikon FM with less convinient metering.plus both have countless lens choices.

I like and have the Canon EOS3 with eye detection and multiple spot metering - I think up to 9 points...

Les Sarile said:

Well it's about time you rewarded yourself . . .

Just to be sure, I've never espoused single camera ownership. No Canon New F-1 needs to be killed!
In the context of my previous response - the LX has a variety of viewfinders with far larger magnifications then available on the New F-1 as well as one with much more eye relief.

Click to expand...

But Mr. DMess, if I wanted a big magnification i could get the F-1 6x magnification variable-diopter finder (FN-6X, which i own), which Pentax also offers. The FN-6X has complex optics on the inside and gives a pristine, aberration-free, huge image close to the size of what you'd find on a medium format camera finder.

As for eye relief, i'm relieved to tell you that the F-1 Eye Level Finder FN and AE finder FN appear to have a bit more eye relief than the FA-1. Of course, that would be expected when the prism is much bigger than the FA-1.

You called the New F-1 "goofy" on other post elsewhere, so I wonder if there isn't some bias at play here.

Beyond my prior criticism of the LX, i should also add that it is a very nice camera in the hand and that the dimensions, light weight and balance make it a candidate for being my preferred 35mm camera. It really has the great balance, nice ergonomics and auto exposure of the Nikon FE without the goofy FE shutter lock, with much better build quality. It has the TTL OTF flash metering of the Nikon F3 without the F3's ills. It has a viewfinder image almost as good as the one in the New F-1, plus the same range of mechanical speeds. It has the compactness and OTF autoexposure of an Olympus OM-2 but properly built inside. Not bad at all.

I'm a Pentaxian too, a proud user of the Pentax 6x7 system, and the MX and ME Super were prior favorites of mine, so the LX is a great addition.

Les Sarile said:

It is interesting that in a manual focus camera with interchangeable VF that only the LX provided this variety. Since I don't yet need glasses I much prefer it and helps me achieve critical focus faster.

The shutter speed in the LX viewfinder has never distracted me personally but I can appreciate a clean viewfinder.

Click to expand...

For me it's very important that the image frame isn't cluttered. That's why I even prefer to use plain (all matte) screens when possible. As mentioned, the Nikon F, F2, F3, Canon F-1, F-1N, all of them have the quality of not placing anything inside the image frame.

It's obvious that the only reason Pentax had to put those big speed numbers within the picture frame was to keep the prism size, and camera size, smaller.

Les Sarile said:

I will grant that the New F-1 does have a screen with a split microprism that will never blackout. The only other one I've seen is on the Nikon FM3A. You can stack multipliers, bellows on a slow lens and it will never blackout. Amazing right? Why doesn't everyone else have one too I wonder? It turns out if you have a relatively dark setting and a relatively wide angle lens that everything will look in focus and therefore impossible to see if you have critical focus or not.

Click to expand...

Good critique, however believe it or not my "go-to" screen for the F-1N is the matte with gridlines. You don't need focus aids when the clarity and brightness is so good. Nobody needs aids. Aids will kill you like it did to Freddie Mercury.

Les Sarile said:

My first SLR was a Canon EOS3 that had all the bells and whistles but in my use for long exposure aperture priority,

Click to expand...

The mighty EOS 3. I was about to buy one but I didn't like the big noise and what appeared to be strong shutter/mirror vibrations. Otherwise it was like a dream camera. I also had the EOS 5, that one had a reasonable sound and worked wonderfully, but felt built like a toy. Still those EF primes I own are really good lenses. But i prefer the FD system to the EF.

Les Sarile said:

Canon has limited all it's AV capable cameras to a maximum of 30 seconds. I didn't really expect any camera to be able to exceed it - specially not older ones. But I tried them all anyway and was pleasantly surprised when I found the LX.

Click to expand...

Yes, however I'm not into ultra long exposures, which you can easily do using a camera with a T setting or T capability, like the Nikon F, F2, F3, my Contax RFs, and the Canon F-1 series (the shutter lock gives you the T), as well as any Pentax with shutter lock.

Les Sarile said:

BTW, I just took a peek in my LX with a 50mm f1.2 and pointed it at my wide screen and I can see that it is still rectangular with no curvature. Same for my New F-1 with a 50mm f1.4. I am not sure what's going on with yours, perhaps the lens you're using?

Click to expand...

If I slightly shift my eyes off-center, the frame curves. Even when centered, you can see it's slightly bowed, just a tiny bit. This is slightly more evident when setting the FA-1 to 0 diopter. But still slightly visible at -1.5 diopter. Just compare with a Nikon F2/F3 or Canon F-1 (any model) finder. Note that i've serviced my FA-1 finder myself and i've confirmed the lenses are in their right position.

I don't mean the image itself is distorted, i mean the image frame, the black image frame around.

Now, the Les Xtreme (LX) was manufactured for 20 years or so, so perhaps I have an early model. Serial number suggests so.

M-88 said:

I used to praise OM-4, I used to own OM-4. Several of them, as a matter of fact. Sure, the metering is excellent and gives a lot of control to the user. However, taking into consideration the latitude of current films, unless shooting slides, one doesn't really need all that multi-spot and shadow/highlight preference in spot metering.

Click to expand...

This is also the reason i didn't get a Canon T90. Why should I care for multi-spot metering when i'm happy using all my medium cameras with a handlheld meter, and even I use my Contax IIa out there in the streets with just my eye as an estimator of exposure?

Besides, when I was using slides I could get consistently perfect exposure with the Nikon F3 quasi-partial meter, the A-1 centerweighted meter, and any medium format camera with my handheld meters. So why should I bother with multi-spot? It's just a gimmick.

flavio81 said:

This is also the reason i didn't get a Canon T90. Why should I care for multi-spot metering when i'm happy using all my medium cameras with a handlheld meter, and even I use my Contax IIa out there in the streets with just my eye as an estimator of exposure?

Click to expand...

There is another 35mm camera capable of multi-spot: Minolta 9000. But only if used with Program Back Super 90. All three - OM-4, T90 and Maxxum 9000 are almost the same age and it seems like companies were trying to sell new features to photographers. Nikon, as we know, went with Matrix meter in their FA and ultimately their solution proved to be better.

flavio81 said:

Besides, when I was using slides I could get consistently perfect exposure with the Nikon F3 quasi-partial meter, the A-1 centerweighted meter, and any medium format camera with my handheld meters. So why should I bother with multi-spot? It's just a gimmick.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you: I tried slides with my OM-4 in multispot mode, N80 in matrix mode and Bronica ETRS with handheld meter. They all came out equally good. If a user knows how to shoot slides and is aware of their limited latitude, rest is not so relevant anymore.

Check out the Minolta MAXXUM 5. It's the smallest, lightest, full-featured SLR ever made. It does practically everything the MAXXUM 9 does -- like spot metering, etc. -- and you can get them like new for $25. They even offer an add-on battery pack for AA batteries for longer life and a larger feel. What can it do? The 200 page manual will tell you -- good luck remembering it all.

EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!

CANON F1N AE

The admittedly heavy Canon F1N offers myriad modification of an excellent light meter, mainly through viewfinder screens, in both metering choices and pattern choices.

Take a look here and search the viewfinders as well and you'll find a still vital, versatile and relative modern meter capacity, with manual, mechanical, shutter speed and aperture priorities.

Yes, this camera needs a winder to embrace it's AE features and the AE finder to SHOW, certain settings.

The F1N is still a quality kit in the hands of the photographer

eli griggs said:

EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!

CANON F1N AE

The admittedly heavy Canon F1N offers myriad modification of an excellent light meter, mainly through viewfinder screens, in both metering choices and pattern choices.

Take a look here and search the viewfinders as well and you'll find a still vital, versatile and relative modern meter capacity, with manual, mechanical, shutter speed and aperture priorities.

Yes, this camera needs a winder to embrace it's AE features and the AE finder to SHOW, certain settings.

The F1N is still a quality kit in the hands of the photographer

Canon F-1 (Original) Focusing Screens

A description of interchangeable SLR focusing screens and their intended uses.

vintagecameradigest.wordpress.com

Click to expand...

YESSSSSS!!! EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!!!!

Note that the link you provided is for the old F-1, not the new F-1.

flavio81 said:

YESSSSSS!!! EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!!!!

Note that the link you provided is for the old F-1, not the new F-1.

Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know.

Try this link instead.

eli griggs said:

EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!

Click to expand...

flavio81 said:

YESSSSSS!!! EMBRACE THE WEIGHT!!!!

Click to expand...

CCCCrrap! I have been doing that for years without a camera! Anyone want extra £££££'s?? Like about 30 US Standard Pounds?

Sirius Glass said:

CCCCrrap! I have been doing that for years without a camera! Anyone want extra £££££'s?? Like about 30 US Standard Pounds?

Click to expand...

You need that to brace for the mighty mirror slap of your blads

Huss said:

You need that to brace for the mighty mirror slap of your blads

Click to expand...

If the Hasselblad mirror slaps were not a myth, the mirror slap would have vibrated the fat away.