Best pre-1965 SLR

[Don_ih]

Best pre-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Best post-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Focal plane shutter - but you could put a leaf shutter on it and use that. You can lock up the mirror. It can be used inconspicuously (no one would have a clue what you're doing). Big negatives. What more could you want?

 

[Pioneer]

Best pre-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Best post-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Focal plane shutter - but you could put a leaf shutter on it and use that. You can lock up the mirror. It can be used inconspicuously (no one would have a clue what you're doing). Big negatives. What more could you want?

Excellent choice.

 

[abruzzi]

I'd probably go with a Pentax SV or a Nikkormat FS. Neither have light meters, and its kind of fun having a very uncluttered viewscreen. If you absolutely want a light meter, change that to Spotmatic and Nikkormat FT. I use both mostly to practice guessing exposure. Ultimately while I could do the same on a rangefinder or two, I much prefer SLRs over rangefinders.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Oh, hell. May as well throw in the VP Exakta (127 film) and the Ernemann Ernoflex

 

[reddesert]

The Bronica S2 was released in 1965. I know that's not really what the thread is about, it's just sort of interesting in terms of the pace of subsequent technological development (or pace of perceived obsolescence) in 35mm vs medium format.

 

[RLangham]

Best pre-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Best post-1965 SLR? the mighty RBGraflex. Focal plane shutter - but you could put a leaf shutter on it and use that. You can lock up the mirror. It can be used inconspicuously (no one would have a clue what you're doing). Big negatives. What more could you want?

I have been kicking myself for failing to buy a 5x7 Graflex SLR for now fully four years. It was in good shape at an antique store for $99, and I had about 120 dollars of spending money, from my first grownup serious job (as a line cook). I ought to have bought it. But I wanted to get a haircut and take this girl out to dinner the next day, so I passed.

Turns out she was an airhead and a knockout drunk who was mostly using me as a meal ticket and a ride home. I remember that Offspring song about an exploitive girlfriend coming on the radio at the bar (where she'd dragged me after dinner.) By that time she was quite drunk, and she said, where the whole bar could hear her: "I LUV WEEZER!"

The Offspring sound nothing like Weezer.

Should have bought the Graflex instead.

I did mention 35mm in the first post, but that's alright, it bears discussing. The true early history of the SLR is almost entirely large format up until the original Kine Exakta, and unfortunately I don't have any experience with non-35mm SLR's. My LF cameras are an Anniversary SG and a Pacemaker SG (that one is in terribly rough shape, and I've only one good leaf shutter between them).

 

[Les Sarile]

I follow this discussion with a grin on my face... Because from my perspective, not yours, this is completely academic.

If I look at photo catalogs from various sources aimed at consumers at stationary stores in West-Germany from that period, there is not one japanese camera listed. Not one.


Where they do show up, in small number, are at the two major mail order stores.in West-Germany that sold cameras.
Those were their entry into the westgerman market. By my own perception of incidence of pre-1970 japanese SLRs at camera stores, their share was small.

Of course opposite over here. Otherwise, I would have a Praktina FX - a true system camera that predates the Nikon F by a few years. This ad from a February 1958 Modern Photo magazine . . .

MP195802-123 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[DREW WILEY]

I began with a Pentax H1, so should probably vote for that due to sheer nostalgia. It did hold up well. I didn't care about TTL metering back then, and still don't. Almost never goofed an exposure, and that was in Kodachrome days.

 

[Pioneer]

I began with a Pentax H1, so should probably vote for that due to sheer nostalgia. It did hold up well. I didn't care about TTL metering back then, and still don't. Almost never goofed an exposure, and that was in Kodachrome days.

A great camera. I use an H1a from time to time that is a real workhorse. I have never even had it checked since I bought it 6 years ago and yet it has provided excellent and untroubled service for all those years. I pick it up...it works. It doesn't get better than that.

EDIT - In the interests of total transparency, not all my shots have been good ones. But that certainly is not the camera's fault.

 

[Paul Howell]

My first SLR was a Spotmatic, 1966, still have it, the meter is getting ify, need to send it in for servicing, runs on either hearing alkaline batteries, not much to it, stopped down match needle metering, nice silky smooth film advance. My second 35mm SLR was Konica T, I traded the T and lens for a used F but kept the Spotmatic.

 

[Bob L]

The answer is the Pen F, of course.

 

[Oren Grad]

Pentax SL: Spotmatic without the complication of the meter. Elegantly simple in both appearance and function.

Honorable mention to the Spotmatic and the SV.

 

[Down Under]

I've been into Nikkormats since the early model FT. Best cameras around. Built like thanks and go on going on forever and then some.

The most outstandingly good 'mats I owned were the FTNs and the FT2s BUT both post-date 1965. So not really playing fair here, am I? Ha!! The ELs were also excellent shooters altho much younger and fully electronic, so again, not quite fair play.

Now to play the devil's advocate again...

Unless you are really, truly lucky, whichever 'oldie' SLR you end up buying, you'll 99.5% surely have to add at least 2x to 10x the cost you pay for it, to get it working properly again. They are ancient things and like all us old ancient things - okay, enough said.

 

[RLangham]

I've been into Nikkormats since the FT. Best cameras around. Built like thanks and go on going on forever and then some.

The best I owned were the FTNs and the FT2s BUT both post-date 1965. So not really playing fair here, am I? Ha!!

Now to play the devil's advocate again...

Unless you are really, truly lucky, whichever 'oldie' SLR you end up buying, you'll 99.5% surely have to add at least 2x to 10x the cost you pay for it, to get it working properly again. They are ancient things and like all us old ancient things - okay, enough said.

Hell, before even the FT, there was a Mamiya made model, the Nikkorex F, that, while not built to the standards of the later Nikkormats, had the original Copal square shutter which often still works perfectly today.

 

[Les Sarile]

Hell, before even the FT, there was a Mamiya made model, the Nikkorex F, that, while not built to the standards of the later Nikkormats, had the original Copal square shutter which often still works perfectly today.

Or the Ricoh branded version. It's pretty hefty . . .

Ricoh Singlex - Nikon F by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[alanrockwood]

In 1965 Exakta didn't even have an instant return mirror. The Exakta dates from the days of the Zepplin, and never really changed that much from it's original mid-30's design.

Yeah, but honestly, who needs an instant return mirror? It just sounds like un-needed gadgetry to me.

 

[MattKing]

Yeah, but honestly, who needs an instant return mirror? It just sounds like un-needed gadgetry to me.

That pitch as black viewing system until you are able to wind to the next frame is lousy for photos of kids and sports!

 

[ciniframe]

The answer is the Pen F, of course.

Was waiting for this. Still have a Pen F and FV, sleek and functional, no bigger than a 111 series Leica. And with a 36x roll of B&W nearing $10 for some brands and improved T grain emulsions it’s not as crazy as it was in 1963.
A fairly complete lens selection by 1969-1970 but thin on the ground now and expensive for several of the more desirable. My collection is 6 lenses from the 20 to a 25 f4 then a 38, 100, and 150 along with a ratty 50-90. Add M42, OM, and T mount adapters and I can field quite a few lenses.
But ‘best’ has so many qualifiers that…..pretty much any model mentioned so far can be the ‘best’ for your personal use and preferences.
Edit; the Pen F lenses also do double duty on my 4:3 dig-it-all, or maybe that’s damm-it-all.

 

[ntenny]

I have almost bought a Topcon in that series recently, but I honestly want to be sure as the price point for various models hovers a bit higher than some of the contemporary cameras from other brands.

So it's a modified Exakta mount with an internal aperture linkage, right? Can it mount standard Exakta lenses? And how does the build quality compare?

I don’t think this got answered (I missed it if someone covered it).

I have a Super D and can confirm it mounts Exakta lenses. Preset lenses should work as usual, and the “auto” aperture lenses with the little arm and plunger can be used manually: You have to depress the plunger with one hand and trigger the shutter with the other. It’s not a big deal to get used to, but once in a while I forget the plunger and overexpose a shot by four stops or whatever.

Build quality is outstanding—tanklike—but I don’t have any hands-on experience of Exakta bodies to compare.

-NT

 

[Don_ih]

I did mention 35mm in the first post

My original answer was a bit of a joke. I have 2 RBGraflex cameras and they're not exactly quick to use.

Well, the best 1965 35mm SLR I have is a Contaflex BC with 4 lenses. It's better than the Exacta and Asahiflex I have, because the lenses are better and it has a working meter. The problem with Contaflex cameras in general is that they are very difficult to fix.

A 5x7 RBGraflex would be worth quite a bit more than $99. It's a shame you missed out on it.

 

[Down Under]

Hell, before even the FT, there was a Mamiya made model, the Nikkorex F, that, while not built to the standards of the later Nikkormats, had the original Copal square shutter which often still works perfectly today.

Yes, but. But!!

A nice enough camera. I used one in the late '60s, a friend had it. Took lovely Kodachrome slides. I didn't care for the camera ergonomics, but that's just me. It was so long ago, I've forgotten why I didn't find it easy to use. Tinny. Fiddly, I reckon. An odd lens mount as well.

Now completely unrepairable. Spare parts for this model went south before 1990. So a nice shelf queen.

Most old cameras are lovely playthings until they break down. As so many of mine have done, in the past.

Nice to know yours works well. For now. Long may it go on going on. When it eventually pops off, it will be as usable as - my Contax G1s.

The OP didn't say "usable today" so the Nikkorex gets by. Just.

 

[henryvk]

That pitch as black viewing system until you are able to wind to the next frame is lousy for photos of kids and sports!

Probably is. For any kind of more ponderous photography it is very usable.

I have my grandfather's ~1958 Edixa Reflex (Modell B, I think) which also doesn't have an instant return mirror and it works very well for me. I basically only use it with the waist level finder. I recently did some light CLA under the bottom plate, on the shutter rollers and retensioned the shutter. It's quite heavy but the controls are very smooth and I have a chrome Travegon 35 mm f/ 3.5 lens for it. The downside is the top speed of 1/500s and the fact that it doesn't have an accessory shoe.

 

[RLangham]

My original answer was a bit of a joke. I have 2 RBGraflex cameras and they're not exactly quick to use.

Well, the best 1965 35mm SLR I have is a Contaflex BC with 4 lenses. It's better than the Exacta and Asahiflex I have, because the lenses are better and it has a working meter. The problem with Contaflex cameras in general is that they are very difficult to fix.

A 5x7 RBGraflex would be worth quite a bit more than $99. It's a shame you missed out on it.

Other than wanting to go on the date, I had two apprehensions about it... one, I didn't know anything about LF at the time and I didn't know, for instance, whether they still made film for the camera... I say it was 5x7 but quite frankly that's a guess... could have been 4x5 I guess. And I had no idea how anything on it worked so I wouldn't have been able to tell if the shutter worked.

I don't even know what model it was... the only reason I assume it was even a Graflex is that that would be the most common LF SLR in America, would it not?

 

[bluechromis]

I haven't used one, but it seems the Alpa reflex has something of a cult following especially with the Kern Macro Switar 50 mm.

 

[RLangham]

I haven't used one, but it seems the Alpa reflex has something of a cult following especially with the Kern Macro Switar 50 mm.

Cult following is an understatement. The 11's sometimes sell for 5 figures.

Probably is. For any kind of more ponderous photography it is very usable.

I have my grandfather's ~1958 Edixa Reflex (Modell B, I think) which also doesn't have an instant return mirror and it works very well for me. I basically only use it with the waist level finder. I recently did some light CLA under the bottom plate, on the shutter rollers and retensioned the shutter. It's quite heavy but the controls are very smooth and I have a chrome Travegon 35 mm f/ 3.5 lens for it. The downside is the top speed of 1/500s and the fact that it doesn't have an accessory shoe.

View attachment 284118

I bought one. It turned out to be thoroughly junked so I sold the prism and kept the lens... a Cassar-S that I find preferable to some of the other basic m42 normals.