Biggest Bang for the Buck

[Sirius Glass]

My first slr was the f/1.Minolta SR-7 in college. I later moved up to the SR 101, SR 201, ... X700, f/1.4 58mm, f.1.4 50mm, f/2.8 28mm and the f2.8 21mm lenses and Vivitar 70mm to 203mm zoom [which lacked the contrast of the Rokkor lenses]. Wonderful well built cameras. Real work horses.

 

[gone]

For the present time there's still plenty of good SLRs out there w/ 50 lenses for $50-$100, and also lots at the second level of $50-$100 . Most of them have been mentioned......AE-1 and AE-1 Programs, A1's, Pentax ME Super and Spotmatics, Nikkormats, etc. There's still tons of cheap AF cameras too. I prefer the Nikons, but the others are there at giveaway prices.

I shouldn't say this because it might start a run, but the early Leica R lenses are still amazingly affordable, and we're talking about a big jump in quality of build and IQ here. An R 90 2.8 Elmarit can be found for $300-$350 and can be used on just about any SLR w/ an adapter. They're worth every penny too. I handed one to a friend once (the R lenses feel like they're built from solid glass and metal, which they are) and said "Doesn't it feel more like something NASA would build?", and after looking at it and focusing it he replied "BETTER than NASA!"

 

[Captain Mainwaring]

I love my Minolta 7000i to bits. Got two Tokina lenses I really like, a 28-70 and a 70-210, and there's this chap selling a Minolta macro lens I could really do with. Much as I like my mechanical dinosaurs and my plastic pocket-sized focus-free weirdomats, this is most likely the easiest-to-use and the most versatile camera I currently have.

What I absolutely hate is how the Minolta gratuitously wastes four good frames at the beginning of every roll of film. I sometimes get up to 40 shots per roll of 135 if I use any of the mechanical cameras. And they don't offer an option of advancing it manually, either

 

[narsuitus]

I know everyone has a brand of camera they enjoy using but I think the Minolta ranks very highly today as a very inexpensive entry into 35mm while still providing very high quality results.

Any thoughts?

I enjoy using Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Leica, Fuji, and Minolta 35mm film cameras. All produce very high quality results. All, except the Nikon and Leica, were inexpensive cameras. I have never even used two or three Minolta film SLRs that were given to me by people switching from film to digital.

 

[gone]

The thing about the Nikon cameras is they seldom need service. You can buy a beater Nikkormat for $30 and it will probably work fine. I love the cameras, but don't love many of Nikon's lenses. However, w/ the availability of adapters, now I can put all sorts of lenses on my Nikon cameras. This works out great.

I think the best film bargains are all the AF cameras that can be used w/ MF lenses. My $13 N70 is a fun camera! No, it's not built to the standard of my Leicaflex, but it has a fast motorized film advance, spot, matrix and center metering, it's light and small, has a 1/4000 top shutter speed, and if it ever dies it will be $5 to $15 to replace it.

 

[Pioneer]

I enjoy using Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Leica, Fuji, and Minolta 35mm film cameras. All produce very high quality results. All, except the Nikon and Leica, were inexpensive cameras. I have never even used two or three Minolta film SLRs that were given to me by people switching from film to digital.

I agree. I enjoy using all of them and I am very glad we still are able to use them. But if you are using quality lenses and know what you are doing the photographs all turn out pretty much the same in the tray.

I guess I have never considered Nikon or Leica as biggest bang for the buck. Maybe biggest buck for the bang.

The three advantages to using Nikon and Leica were that the equipment was a tad more robust in use, equipment rentals were available if they were needed and repair services were provided to the professional whenever the equipment broke down. In today's market most of those advantages are no longer applicable. All the equipment is very old, many of the professional cameras have been rode hard and put away wet and repair services, while available for some equipment, is becoming harder to find and is very expensive. I think that Leica (M mount and Screw mount) are probably an exception on the repair availability front but it is still expensive.

 

[Chan Tran]

I was out and about this morning with my Minolta SRT 201 equipped with the very nice MC 28mm/2.8 lens and it crossed my mind that these cameras (Minolta SRT series and lenses) may be the biggest bang for the buck available right now. Anyone interested in shooting 35mm but not blessed with all the money in the world would almost certainly be well served by one of these cameras and a couple of lenses.

I am normally a Pentax fan but I have enjoyed using the Minolta SRT cameras for many, many years (including on my high school yearbook staff) and have been quite happy with the results and the experience.

I know everyone has a brand of camera they enjoy using but I think the Minolta ranks very highly today as a very inexpensive entry into 35mm while still providing very high quality results.

Any thoughts?

What kind of price are you talking about? The price when the camera was new or the price now? There is a great difference if you consider best bang for the buck when the camera was introduced and now. The SRT's are cheap now but I don't think they are all that cheap compared to others in when they were new.

 

[Pioneer]

The thing about the Nikon cameras is they seldom need service. You can buy a beater Nikkormat for $30 and it will probably work fine. I love the cameras, but don't love many of Nikon's lenses. However, w/ the availability of adapters, now I can put all sorts of lenses on my Nikon cameras. This works out great.

I think the best film bargains are all the AF cameras that can be used w/ MF lenses. My $13 N70 is a fun camera! No, it's not built to the standard of my Leicaflex, but it has a fast motorized film advance, spot, matrix and center metering, it's light and small, has a 1/4000 top shutter speed, and if it ever dies it will be $5 to $15 to replace it.

EDIT - I apologize. This should have been started with "In My Humble Opinion." My experience is a very tiny subset of all the users and all the cameras out there. But I suspect I am not the only one.

That is hogwash and pure Internet rumor. I know that I am going to upset a lot of Nikon fanboys on this forum but if you have not had to repair a Nikon camera you have been lucky. I apologise if I am offending anyone but professional cameras get used very hard. When a pro finally sold one it had already seen hundreds of thousands of shutter actuations.

It seems that whenever this comes up the first thing that accompanies the statement is "Nikkormat." Nikkormats are no different than most Pentax's, Minoltas, etc. They were intended for the consumer market. They were never intended for the professional market so it is still possible to find Nikkormats that have not been used hard.

Nikons are a different story, especially older models. I have owned three Nikon Fs, an F2, two F4s and an F6. The only one that did not require service was the F6. And that service does not come cheap. Oh, to be fair, one of the Fs required some shutter service that I was able to manage on my own so I guess you could say it did not require a trip to the technician. I have had way better luck with my Minoltas.

Even my Leicas, and I own several, have all required some form of service with the exception of my MA. It is all part of the cost of owning and using these wonderful cameras. But I have never assumed that these cameras would run without some service required.

 

[Pioneer]

What kind of price are you talking about? The price when the camera was new or the price now? There is a great difference if you consider best bang for the buck when the camera was introduced and now. The SRT's are cheap now but I don't think they are all that cheap compared to others in when they were new.

Agreed. As I remember, my first Minolta SRT101 was bought on layaway and it took me four months to pay for it.I don't remember the exact price but it certainly stretched my young budget. The lens, a wonderful md rokkor-x 45mm f/2, took three more months. But even film was not that inexpensive as everyone seems to believe.

I was considering more what the camera sells for now when I opened this thread.

 

[polka]

At the Photo Fair of Bièvres in France : a Spotmatic body (M42) for 5$ and a Helios44 (58mm/2) for 1$ (they married well). I did not really need them, but it was so tempting.
POLKa

 

[Chan Tran]

Agreed. As I remember, my first Minolta SRT101 was bought on layaway and it took me four months to pay for it.I don't remember the exact price but it certainly stretched my young budget. The lens, a wonderful md rokkor-x 45mm f/2, took three more months. But even film was not that inexpensive as everyone seems to believe.

I was considering more what the camera sells for now when I opened this thread.

I don't know if the SRT's are the best bang for the bucks. They work fine but if you want meter they are not the ones you want. I had several SRT's and I always use them meterless without the battery.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know if the SRT's are the best bang for the bucks. They work fine but if you want meter they are not the ones you want. I had several SRT's and I always use them meterless without the battery.

When I need a camera meter to actually work the only one I really trust is the one in my Pentax LX. The 645Nii is almost as good as is the spotmeter on the PZ1p. But there is still no substitute for a good handheld meter and some good old fashioned brain power.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I was out and about this morning with my Minolta SRT 201 equipped with the very nice MC 28mm/2.8 lens and it crossed my mind that these cameras (Minolta SRT series and lenses) may be the biggest bang for the buck available right now. Anyone interested in shooting 35mm but not blessed with all the money in the world would almost certainly be well served by one of these cameras and a couple of lenses.

I am normally a Pentax fan but I have enjoyed using the Minolta SRT cameras for many, many years (including on my high school yearbook staff) and have been quite happy with the results and the experience.

I know everyone has a brand of camera they enjoy using but I think the Minolta ranks very highly today as a very inexpensive entry into 35mm while still providing very high quality results.

Any thoughts?

Minolta makes great lenses. When I was in high school, my mom bought me an XD-5. One really I really like is MD Rokkor X 45mm f/2. It's a super sharp and compact. Check out this video by Mathieu Stern.

 

[sfphoto]

Pentax Spotmatic

For 70's SLR's would second the Spotmatics, not large, great ergonomics (IMO), well built, easy to repair, great glass.

Having owned and repaired all I find that:

Nikons & Canon FD/FL are large and heavy although well constructed
Olympus OM are light / tiny but not as sturdy
Minoltas and Konicas are bulky and not as sleek

 

[Huss]

I think the best film bargains are all the AF cameras that can be used w/ MF lenses. My $13 N70 is a fun camera! No, it's not built to the standard of my Leicaflex, but it has a fast motorized film advance, spot, matrix and center metering, it's light and small, has a 1/4000 top shutter speed, and if it ever dies it will be $5 to $15 to replace it.

Interesting reading the specs of the N70. I have the N75, which supposedly is better. But in many ways it is dumbed down. Shutter to only 1/2000. Only DX film speed setting. Cannot easily select metering pattern - it is matrix for the AE. If you want center weighted you need to switch to manual. If you want spot, you need to program the AEL button for that.
It seems the only thing better about the N75 is that Nikon cleaned up the top LCD panel. But they did that by removing key functionality.

 

[Radost]

Great Perkeo II $150
Mint Canon EOS Elan 7NE -$50