Help choosing a 35mm SLR

GRHazelton · Aug 16, 2015

Chan Tran said:
Yup! The K1000 was designed to be cheap and functional. Nothing cheap about a Leica whether or not many of the features functional or not. Take the Leica MP rewind crank for example. The Leica meter attachment is another one. Oh yeah the visoflex adapter.

Cheap and functional, but crippled. The KX is pretty much what the K1000 should have been. Full readout of shutter and aperture in viewfinder, and DOF preview. You can turn the meter off. Can be found cheaply, but not readily. The K 1000 is generally badly overpriced, probably because of photography schools' recommendations.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 16, 2015

There is also the Minolta SRT-101 (and successors) with the beautiful 58/1.2 MC Rokkor.

cuthbert · Aug 16, 2015

flavio81 said:
Cuthbert,

The 50/1.2 AI is supposed to be a major improvement over the 55.

Yes I heard it but the common knowledge is that a Canon FDn 50mm f1.2 even non L is better. For the FD 55mm f1.2, mine is loaded with coma and so soft that as said before it looks like a painting, here there are some samples:

It's weird but not always unpleasant, still I cannot define it a "good" f1.2

On the other side the performance of the Fujinon wide open is astonishing, just look at the first picture:

I have few shots of the Canon Fdn wide open, one of my favourite self portraits was taken wide open with this lens...it's a little soft wide open, also in the centre, but still good for portraits:

GRHazelton said:
Cheap and functional, but crippled. The KX is pretty much what the K1000 should have been. Full readout of shutter and aperture in viewfinder, and DOF preview. You can turn the meter off. Can be found cheaply, but not readily. The K 1000 is generally badly overpriced, probably because of photography schools' recommendations.

The K1000 is simple as functional as a Leica which doesn't offer ANY of the features you say (aperture and shutter speed in finder, DOF preview, the EXTERNAL meter is often always one). plus all the K series are a little louder than a Leica, with the LX if you lock the mirror up the sound of the shutter is more or less the sound of a Leica.

I agree that prices of K1000 are getting ridiculous that's the reason why I recommend a KM but even better a Spotmatic F that is smooth...having said that a K1000 with K50mm f1.2 would do the job.

GRHazelton · Aug 16, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
There is also the Minolta SRT-101 (and successors) with the beautiful 58/1.2 MC Rokkor.

The 101 is lovely, agreed. But IIRC it uses a mercury cell, and Minolta changed its mount (as did Canon, and to some extent Nikon) so the stock of used glass demands careful choosing.

Chan Tran · Aug 16, 2015

GRHazelton said:
Cheap and functional, but crippled. The KX is pretty much what the K1000 should have been. Full readout of shutter and aperture in viewfinder, and DOF preview. You can turn the meter off. Can be found cheaply, but not readily. The K 1000 is generally badly overpriced, probably because of photography schools' recommendations.

Fully agree with you there. What I meant that the K1000 was designed to be cheap and at introduction its price was about half that of the KX. But now on the used market it becomes more expensive than the KX. I think most people who paid the high price for the K1000 weren't around or weren't into photography when these 2 cameras were introduced.

GRHazelton · Aug 16, 2015

Chan Tran said:
Fully agree with you there. What I meant that the K1000 was designed to be cheap and at introduction its price was about half that of the KX. But now on the used market it becomes more expensive than the KX. I think most people who paid the high price for the K1000 weren't around or weren't into photography when these 2 cameras were introduced.

Right you are! The photo instructors have inflated the market value for the K 1000. I have a K 1000, and its an adequate machine. The teachers should have spent a little time discussing what would make an adequate choice for a beginner's camera, discussing the various criteria and what cameras would fulfill them. I've seen really scruffy K 1000s with price tags of $150. with a scarred f2 50mm in second hand shops. I recently bought a lovely Pentax SuperProgram with a spotless f1.4 for about $90. What's wrong with this picture??????

albada · Aug 16, 2015

cuthbert said:
My best 1.2 is the Fujinon but I don't think you want to place that fabulous lens on a lousy camera like the STX

I like the internals of the STX-1. However, after firing, a spring rings for a few seconds, giving the camera a cheapo feel. And the flimsy plastic top and bottom of the STX-2 make it seem even more cheapo, despite being a solid camera underneath. I don't know what Fujica's engineers and managers were thinking. Did they have no understanding of the importance of giving a good impression?

Mark Overton

Mackinaw · Aug 16, 2015

flavio81 said:
........Honestly the options are overwhelming, so try to meet a camera collector so you can try diverse cameras, amd choose the one which feels best to you!

Wise words. Once you narrow your choice down to a select few, try and find a store, collector, etc. who has these cameras and try them yourself.

Jim B.

Don Promillo · Aug 17, 2015

As a Pentax MX shooter, I'd recommend the MX or the LX. The MX is the less expensive, but not as prestigious choice.
The MX has no Automatic Exposure, no weather sealing, no Mirror Lockup, and no changeable viewfinder. But it is fully mechanical. It will fire without a battery which is only used for the light meter. With a winder it gets grippier, but also heavier and bigger.
The meter on mine works very good. It uses LEDs instead of a needle which can be harder to read with glasses in full sun but easier to read at night. The bright and huge viewfinder has indicators for the shutter speed and aperture.

The MX is a reliable, cheap, light and small 35mm camera for everyday carry and use.

MartinCrabtree · Aug 17, 2015

You Pentax shooters need to stop that right now. I cannot afford another system.

Don Promillo · Aug 17, 2015

Oh, it did not stop with Pentax. It was only the beginning...

But Mamiya MF is not on topic here

Paul Howell · Aug 17, 2015

The MX was considered the pro level camera until the LX was released. My understanding was the MX was built to higher standard than the ME and took a true motor drive. Most of the bodies I have seen have had heavy use. Still a great camera.

cuthbert · Aug 17, 2015

PDH said:
The MX was considered the pro level camera until the LX was released. My understanding was the MX was built to higher standard than the ME and took a true motor drive. Most of the bodies I have seen have had heavy use. Still a great camera.

I think the most "pro" camera Pentax had made before the LX was the now almost forgotten K2DMD, it had a professional motordrive, databack, aperture priority with AE lock (not even the LX has it) and...a pricetag superior to the F2A in 1977!

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...0720-honeywell-price-list-october-1976-a.html

Of course I have it, it's hard to find unlike the MX, and it feels even more solidly built than the LX.

However MXs have interchangeble screen that the K2DMD doesn't, and they are easy to procure. IMO they are lightly built, I prefer the K cameras.

MartinCrabtree said:
You Pentax shooters need to stop that right now. I cannot afford another system.

C'mon with less than $100 you can enter in the Pentax world with a nice Spotmatic and a 55mm f1.8 or a 50mm 1.4 if you are lucky. If you prefer K mounted camera for the same money you can get a KM or KX with similar lenses.

albada said:
I like the internals of the STX-1. However, after firing, a spring rings for a few seconds, giving the camera a cheapo feel. And the flimsy plastic top and bottom of the STX-2 make it seem even more cheapo, despite being a solid camera underneath. I don't know what Fujica's engineers and managers were thinking. Did they have no understanding of the importance of giving a good impression?

Mark Overton

I have a broken STX-2 (advance lever stuck) and it's hard for me to believe the same company 10 years before was making the best m42 cameras (on pair with the Spotties)...probably at the end of the SLR wars of the 70s the losing parties decided to drop off the hard game, this also included Fujica that decided to concentrate on "cheap" cameras, that is a pity because the AX-5 is IMO a great electronic camera, I prefer it to the Pentax Super A and Canon A-1.

GRHazelton · Aug 17, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
You Pentax shooters need to stop that right now. I cannot afford another system.

You KNOW that you want a clean LX, the f1.2, the winder, the high eye point viewfinder, the hand grip, the AF 400 potato masher dedicated TTL flash (peels paint at 20 feet! Recycles in 100 nanoseconds! Fusion powered with flux capacitors!), the ....... No home should be without at least ONE LX ... that's why I have three...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

AlexMalm01 · Aug 17, 2015

I use a Contax S2 which is completely mechanical except for the spot meter (led readout, not needle) Various zeiss lenses make it a joy to work with. I think there is a rare zeiss 1.2 but it's probably pricey. 50mm zeiss 1.4 can be had with the contax s2 within your budget. Avoid the more expensive s2b since the only difference is a simpler metering system.

Contax S2 can also do 1/4000th and it's weatherized

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul Howell · Aug 17, 2015

cuthbert said:
I think the most "pro" camera Pentax had made before the LX was the now almost forgotten K2DMD, it had a professional motordrive, databack, aperture priority with AE lock (not even the LX has it) and...a pricetag superior to the F2A in 1977!

I think the K2DM was off the market as the K models were replaced by the M line up. I agree that the K2MD had many pro features, sort of between the MX and LX. Although a nice camera, the K2DM was not in the same camp as the F2 or LX.

jeffreyg · Aug 17, 2015

I don't know about a 1.2 lens but if you want a finely crafted vintage camera what about one of the Voigtlander Bessamatic cameras. Rather heavy but beautifully built.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Theo Sulphate · Aug 17, 2015

jeffreyg said:
I don't know about a 1.2 lens but if you want a finely crafted vintage camera what about one of the Voigtlander Bessamatic cameras. Rather heavy but beautifully built.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Beautiful photographs!

I've been using a Voigtländer Bessamatic for about 20 years. Although its Color Skopar lens produces very sharp images, the weakness in this camera is its behind-the-lens leaf shutter and the mechanism used to activate it. Eventually the mechanism will jam due to either wear or needing lubrication. Very, very few repair people will tackle the job of working on a Bessamatic. I was extremely lucky to find a repairman who both was happy to do it and also had the knowledge of working on many of them. Alas, he is getting into retirement and doesn't want his name mentioned.

Another thing with these cameras is the aging selenium meter.

That said, Blue Moon Camera has a near-mint Bessamatic with a set of lenses. (Note: I am not associated with Blue Moon in any way)

MartinCrabtree · Aug 17, 2015

GRHazelton said:
You KNOW that you want a clean LX, the f1.2, the winder, the high eye point viewfinder, the hand grip, the AF 400 potato masher dedicated TTL flash (peels paint at 20 feet! Recycles in 100 nanoseconds! Fusion powered with flux capacitors!), the ....... No home should be without at least ONE LX ... that's why I have three...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Yes actually I do want an LX. It's all that guy Sarile's fault. What an wonderful camera it must be.

But I'm not finished with Nikon. Only scratched the surface.

You all suck. I thought this kind shit was over decades ago when I quit getting high.

GRHazelton · Aug 17, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
Yes actually I do want an LX. It's all that guy Sarile's fault. What an wonderful camera it must be.

But I'm not finished with Nikon. Only scratched the surface.

You all suck. I thought this kind shit was over decades ago when I quit getting high.

Yeppers! Just like certain drugs, the LX is soooooo wonderful! Don't even try it once, or you'll never go back to whatever - Nikon, Canon, Leica, whatever!!:w00t:

cuthbert · Aug 17, 2015

GRHazelton said:
Yeppers! Just like certain drugs, the LX is soooooo wonderful! Don't even try it once, or you'll never go back to whatever - Nikon, Canon, Leica, whatever!!:w00t:

Getting a LX is...well just look inside this tunnel (actually a M85mm f2)

Do you the light at the end of the tunnel? That's the LX screen!

And yes...there's no coming back.

GRHazelton · Aug 17, 2015

cuthbert said:
Getting a LX is...well just look inside this tunnel (actually a M85mm f2)

Do you the light at the end of the tunnel? That's the LX screen!

And yes...there's no coming back.

Oooooh Yessss, my Brother! I desperately NEED (not want, but NEED) a lens like that!

Funny, I have the AsahiFlex IIa my Father brought home from a NYC trip back in the day. He also bought the 35mm, and the 83mm f1.9, in addition to the standard 50mm f3.5. All the lenses are preset; the 1.9 is a wonderful portrait lens. I need to get that old warrior up and running, for old times sake. Also, imagine the reaction to shooting with a 'flex from the mid 1950s!

flavio81 · Aug 17, 2015

cuthbert said:
Getting a LX is...well just look inside this tunnel (actually a M85mm f2)

Do you the light at the end of the tunnel? That's the LX screen!

And yes...there's no coming back.

85 f2.0... because if you want an 85 f1.2, and sharp even wide open, there is only one choice: CCCAAAAANNNNOOOOOONNNNN

Cuthbert,

The FD 55/1.2 is good enough wide open. Years ago I did a test by shooting a bookshelf with electronic flash. At f5.6 the detail and sharpness was impressive but at f1.2 most of the resolution was still there. Of course, with lower contrast and strong vignetting. So part of the softness you could be caused by slow shutter speeds or wrong focus point.

I can bet that the contemporary (early) Nikkor 55mm is not as good. There, i said it. The 1971 introduction of the FD line forced Nikon to improve their designs, you see many recomputation of their lenses during the 1972-1977 period, until the introduction of the AI line.

John Koehrer · Aug 17, 2015

cuthbert said:
Sadly I don't have the Pentax f1.2 but it has an excellent reputation, it was the first to be introduced in 1975 (Pentax won the race to the SLR 50mm 1.2, Nikon arrived second in 1978 and Canon introduced its lens in 1980) with the K mount, the A is supposed to be sharper thanks to a better coating and it should have 9 blades instead of 8.

M

First 1.2 in '75? do you mean the first one made in January of '75?
Or in the Pentax brand?

Canon had a 58/1.2 in '62 and Nikon in '65.

Paul Howell · Aug 17, 2015

John Koehrer said:
First 1.2 in '75? do you mean the first one made in January of '75?
Or in the Pentax brand?

Canon had a 58/1.2 in '62 and Nikon in '65.

Konica had a 1.2 in the late 60s, was in production until the end of the Konica 35mm SLR lineup, Minolta by the late 60s as well, seems that Pentax was last to the party.

Help choosing a 35mm SLR

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency