In your opinion, what are the best modern 35mm film SLRs ever built?

neilt3 said:

Very versatile , and if you get the battery grip , you can use AA batteries in it , and improve the handling if larger lenses are used .

Click to expand...

I agree completely, but they are almost impossible to find at a decent price. I was lucky to find a couple from sellers who didn't know their worth.

neilt3 said:

If you want to try out some Minolta lenses , you can't go wrong with a Dynax 5 .

Click to expand...

Let's not forget about M42 and T-mount lenses that can be used on any Minolta camera -- SR, SRT, X-whatever, Maxxum, Dynax, Sweet..... The list there is basically endless. Then add:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

xkaes said:

I agree completely, but they are almost impossible to find at a decent price. I was lucky to find a couple from sellers who didn't know their worth.

Click to expand...

I've picked a few up over the years from between £5-£15 . You used to see them more often but not so much now .

xkaes said:

Let's not forget about M42 and T-mount lenses that can be used on any Minolta camera -- SR, SRT, X-whatever, Maxxum, Dynax, Sweet..... The list there is basically endless. Then add:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

Click to expand...

My M42 lenses I tend to use on m42 cameras .
I do use Tamron adaptall lenses on them though .
The main ones I use are the 17mm , 90mm 1:1 Macro and the 350mm and 500mm Reflex lenses . These do well on any camera .

neilt3 said:

I'm a Minolta shooter , always have been since I bought a used 7000AF in the early 90's .
Although I have most Minolta cameras AF and MF , my favourite one is the Dynax 7 , I have several . They work great , AF , metering , nice lenses . Works with all Minolta A mount lenses as well as all Sony A mount lenses ( full frame that is , not the digital "DT" crop sensor lenses - although you can fit them , they don't fully cover the film ) , screw driven , SSM and SAM .
It's a very modern camera , I recommend it .

I've recently bought my second Dynax 9 , this time it's one that's had the SSM and ADI flash control update , so it'll also use my Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 and Sony 70-400mm SSM G lenses and some others .
Un-updated ones don't AF with SSM and SAM lenses .
This is also another good camera , very reliable .

One point with regards to "modern" electronic cameras ( late 70's onwards ) repairs are getting less and less likely/possible .
Some issues can be rectified , others can't .


Hmmm , you did say "what are the best modern 35mm film SLRs ever built? " I'm not sure I'd call any of them "modern" !
I do have the F3 and F4 , and I do like using them at times , but they aren't modern !

Why do you rule out Canon EOS ?
You shoot in low light , they all support the latest image stabilised lenses .
Night time photography your on a tripod regardless .
Something like the EOS 1V , then the EOS 3 would ideal .
The Elan 7NE is also a good camera .

Later Nikons like the F6 , F5 , F100 and F80 might be a better choice if you want Nikon as they'll support image stabilised lenses , I'm fairly sure the F4 won't .
You can mount them , but have to switch it off , as it'll still drain the batteries , but not give correct stabilisation .
Non of the new lenses using an electronic aperture allow aperture control on any film camera , so avoid the "E" lenses . ( not MF series "E")

If you want to try out some Minolta lenses , you can't go wrong with a Dynax 5 .
Cheap s anything , often with the 28-80mm or 28-100mm kit lens .
Very versatile , and if you get the battery grip , you can use AA batteries in it , and improve the handling if larger lenses are used .

Click to expand...

I actually have the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7! I have both the Minolta AF 50mm F1.4 and the AF 28mm F2, both being the 'newer' version. I recently got a brand new Tamron 35mm F1.8 and its performance at all apertures is simply fantastic. Anyway, the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7 is a phenomenal camera all around, for sure.

So the next question I should answer is why do I want another SLR if I already have the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7, one of the very latest and best SLRs in existence, underdog though it might be. The answer is that I don't like using autofocus, I don't like the 93%-94% viewfinder coverage, and I don't like not being able to squeeze 1 to 2 more frames out since it has no film advance lever. Regarding the autofocus issue, yes, you can set the camera to manual focus, but there are absolutely no focusing aids like a split image/microprism screen and Minolta never created one for this camera. My not liking the 93%-94% viewfinder coverage is self explanatory, particularly as I use mirrorless scanning using my Sony a7r IV and would not be cropping the images. Finally it really would be nice to be able to squeeze another frame or two in considering the price of film these days.

Anyway, one of the reasons I've avoided something like the EOS 1V is because it's and all-button, no knob camera. And, although it's not very important, as absurd and ridiculous as this reason might sound, it's just... hideous. I also know for a fact that it scratches up fairly easily. At that level, I'd much rather get a Nikon F6. I've used Canons in the past and they just don't 'click' with me, for lack of a better word. I'm certain, however, that the EOS 1V is an extremely capable camera. No doubt about it. However, I think that my Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7 checks all the same boxes, save for the fact that it doesn't have any image stabilzed lenses.

Regarding the Nikon F4, despite the marvel of engineering that it is, it, in retrospect, might not be best suited for me, given its very hefty weight. Also, since there's no film advance lever on the camera, I can't squeeze out one or two more extra frames like I imagine I could with a camera that has said advance film lever.

Let me rephrase my orginal statement and say that I'd like for my next camera to (loosely) include the following:

-A very small SLR camera
-A viewfinder with 100% coverage, or at least close to it, so anywhere between 97% to 100% coverage
-The ability to meter at night, which would invariably include aperture priorty auto-exposure that extends far beyond my Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7's 30 seconds.
-The ability to meter accurately so I could shoot slide/transparency film.
-A film advance lever where I could ostensibly squeeze 1-2 more frames out of the 35mm film strip.
-I'm primarily a landscape shooter, however as I treat each camera like a different paint brush, I'd primarily be using this camera for street photography (and, of course to a lesser degree, some landscape and architectural photography).

Also, if any of you guys would recommend something other than the Pentax LX, Olympus-OM4T/Ti, or Nikon F3, please let me know! I'd love to hear your suggestions.

Many thanks again ahead of time!

manfrominternet said:

Regarding the Nikon F4, despite the marvel of engineering that it is, it, in retrospect, might not be best suited for me, given its very hefty weight. Also, since there's no film advance lever on the camera, I can't squeeze out one or two more extra frames like I imagine I could with a camera that has said advance film lever.

Click to expand...

The F4 will go to the end of the film. I could usually get 37 or 38 frames from it. It won't automatically stop at 36, it will stop when it senses end of film tension.

While still heavy, the F4 ( as opposed to a F4s or F4e) is reasonably carry-able.

Craig said:

The F4 will go to the end of the film. I could usually get 37 or 38 frames from it. It won't automatically stop at 36, it will stop when it senses end of film tension.

While still heavy, the F4 ( as opposed to a F4s or F4e) is reasonably carry-able.

Click to expand...

The Nikon F100 is a newer design and much lighter. It handles the film in the same manner as the F4.

manfrominternet said:

Well, I’m down to four cameras:

-Pentax LX
-Olympus OM-4Ti
-Nikon F3
-Nikon F4

I don’t know which of these I should pull the trigger on and purchase. I’m hoping that those of you who have far more experience can help.

I’d primarily be using this camera for night photography and general street photography. That said, whichever of these cameras has the ‘best’ exposure metering is the one I’d probably go with. It seems like the Pentax LX might be the best for night photography, but the Nikon F4 has matrix metering, so I’m not entirely sure.

Any suggestions? (Many thanks ahead of time!)

Click to expand...

Olympus OM-4 will give you metering like none other, it's as brilliant as it gets, nobody has ever had anything with that kind of operational logic. And still allows to you use your brain to operate.

Sirius Glass said:

The Nikon F100 is a newer design and much lighter. It handles the film in the same manner as the F4.

Click to expand...

And wastes two frames at the beginning

brbo said:

And wastes two frames at the beginning

Click to expand...

And yet it is much lighter. That makes a big difference when traveling.

manfrominternet said:

. . . Finally it really would be nice to be able to squeeze another frame or two in considering the price of film these days.
. . . Also, since there's no film advance lever on the camera, I can't squeeze out one or two more extra frames like I imagine I could with a camera that has said advance film lever.

Let me rephrase my orginal statement and say that I'd like for my next camera to (loosely) include the following:

-A very small SLR camera
-A viewfinder with 100% coverage, or at least close to it, so anywhere between 97% to 100% coverage
-The ability to meter at night, which would invariably include aperture priorty auto-exposure that extends far beyond my Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7's 30 seconds.
-The ability to meter accurately so I could shoot slide/transparency film.
-A film advance lever where I could ostensibly squeeze 1-2 more frames out of the 35mm film strip.

Also, if any of you guys would recommend something other than the Pentax LX, Olympus-OM4T/Ti, or Nikon F3, please let me know! I'd love to hear your suggestions.

Click to expand...

Regarding squeezing out a few more frames from a roll, if you can insert a new roll into your camera in complete darkness, you can actually get an additional 2 or 3 frames before position 1. I did this when I wanted to maximize my last roll of Kodachrome and got 40 or 41 out of it. I've also done this on many other occasions but is a nuisance when trying to fit all the strips in a holder.

To that point, the F3's meter is locked to sync speed until you get to position 1 before the meter goes back to normal operation. The workaround to this is if you know how to meter the scene at sync speed and whatever aperture you need for a good exposure. In fact, all Nikon cameras of the era that had aperture priority mode has this limitation. Fortunately, Nikon saw the error of their way and remove this feature in the FM3A. The other two on your list can potentially get a couple more frames extra over the F3.

Since you would prefer manual focusing, I would suggest that viewfinder magnification is much more important then coverage since you can no longer rely on AF to achieve critical focus. As such, the OM4 and F3 have tiny 0.8X magnification compared to the LX which has magnification of 0.9X with the standard FA-1 viewfinder. Higher and lower magnifications available with others.

The OM4 has the most sophisticated meter of the three - including multi spot, and can aperture priority autoexpose beyond 30 seconds. Of course looking back you can see perfect exposures have been conducted using film with much tighter latitudes long before sophisticated TTL metering was achieved.

I have always been a great fan of Minolta and Pentax equipment and I love my Pentax PZ1p and Maxxum 7xi. But to be completely honest I use my Canon EOS 1n more frequently than those two cameras because the autofocus is faster and more accurate with the Canon. I owned a Nikon F6 for the same reason but I eventually sold it because I preferred the rendering of Canon's lenses and the F6 did not get the use in my house that it would get with my daughter.

But don't get the wrong impression, I will be using the Pentax LX 100 times or more before I pick up the Canon. I like the Canon but I can live without it. Not sure whether or not I can live without the Pentax LX.

Manual focus: Contax & Minolta (MD-III), AF - Nikon, simply like that. That's what i am shooting since the late 80s through 90's, and still. Finally got my lens i was hunting since 89 for a acceptable price - Contax Distagon 35/1.4, NOS.

Craig said:

The F4 will go to the end of the film. I could usually get 37 or 38 frames from it. It won't automatically stop at 36, it will stop when it senses end of film tension.

While still heavy, the F4 ( as opposed to a F4s or F4e) is reasonably carry-able.

Click to expand...

Practically every serious SLR will go beyond 36 mark on film counter. But manual film advance allows to squeeze not the last, but first frames of the film, if loaded in total darkness.

Though FM2/FE2, Minolta 9000 and some other cameras with manual film advance are a negative exception in that regard.

I see this happen all the time. Someone asks, "What is the best xyz" - and pages of passionate discussion follow. Problem is, without first agreeing on a working definition of the word "best," everyone is talking about something different. Best value? Most durable? Most ergonomic? Most features? Most complete system? etc. All of the above? Something else?

In this thread, it is only on page 19 - in post #454 - that the OP finally clarifies the question enough to make it worthy of discussion. Is it fair to say the preceding 18 pages of this thread were a waste of time? I don't know how much time it takes to post 452 replies, but for a slow keyboarder like myself, it's a lot!

Here is an idea: I propose the first reply to any thread asking for opinions about the "best" anything should be a request asking the OP to define what they mean by "best." Otherwise, we are the blind men describing an elephant.

runswithsizzers said:

I see this happen all the time. Someone asks, "What is the best xyz" - and pages of passionate discussion follow. Problem is, without first agreeing on a working definition of the word "best," everyone is talking about something different. Best value? Most durable? Most ergonomic? Most features? Most complete system? etc. All of the above? Something else?

In this thread, it is only on page 19 - in post #454 - that the OP finally clarifies the question enough to make it worthy of discussion. Is it fair to say the preceding 18 pages of this thread were a waste of time? I don't know how much time it takes to post 452 replies, but for a slow keyboarder like myself, it's a lot!

Here is an idea: I propose the first reply to any thread asking for opinions about the "best" anything should be a request asking the OP to define what they mean by "best." Otherwise, we are the blind men describing an elephant.

Click to expand...

"What is the best xyz?" Is just an invitation for everyone to jump in a post their camera drug of choice totally independent of anything the OP stated as criteria.

Besides things can slide off topic here in a hurry.

Les Sarile said:

Since you would prefer manual focusing, I would suggest that viewfinder magnification is much more important then coverage since you can no longer rely on AF to achieve critical focus. As such, the OM4 and F3 have tiny 0.8X magnification compared to the LX which has magnification of 0.9X with the standard FA-1 viewfinder. Higher and lower magnifications available with others.

Click to expand...

It is so sad that Olympus declined from one of the best viewfinders, in the OM-1, to the shrunken magnification viewfinders in the OM-4, because photographers wanted to see shutter speed and f/stop and other things in the viewfinder, forcing the field of view presentation to shrink in order to preserve the compactness of design.

runswithsizzers said:

I see this happen all the time. Someone asks, "What is the best xyz" - and pages of passionate discussion follow. Problem is, without first agreeing on a working definition of the word "best," everyone is talking about something different. Best value? Most durable? Most ergonomic? Most features? Most complete system? etc. All of the above? Something else?

In this thread, it is only on page 19 - in post #454 - that the OP finally clarifies the question enough to make it worthy of discussion. Is it fair to say the preceding 18 pages of this thread were a waste of time? I don't know how much time it takes to post 452 replies, but for a slow keyboarder like myself, it's a lot!

Here is an idea: I propose the first reply to any thread asking for opinions about the "best" anything should be a request asking the OP to define what they mean by "best." Otherwise, we are the blind men describing an elephant.

Click to expand...

Should also add what their definition of "modern" is as well !
People's views on that quite clearly vary for a number of reasons.

wiltw said:

It is so sad that Olympus declined from one of the best viewfinders, in the OM-1, to the shrunken magnification viewfinders in the OM-4, because photographers wanted to see shutter speed and f/stop and other things in the viewfinder, forcing the field of view presentation to shrink in order to preserve the compactness of design.

Click to expand...

That one feature - VF magnification, has always been at the top. Specially with non-interchangeable bodies. Amazing to me - not in a good way, that bodies with interchangeable VFs don't offer magnification options like the LX does.

Has LX not become a reliability flop in the end ? I agree it was a fantastic concept and steered its own course, as most what Pentax had done (actually even today with the Mono K3).

I throw my hat in with the Canon F1. Every time I compare it to Nikon F2, I just don't see how F1 is not better in real terms. And I especially came to liking its last version.

Hassasin said:

Has LX not become a reliability flop in the end ? I agree it was a fantastic concept and steered its own course, as most what Pentax had done (actually even today with the Mono K3).

I throw my hat in with the Canon F1. Every time I compare it to Nikon F2, I just don't see how F1 is not better in real terms. And I especially came to liking its last version.

Click to expand...

I think calling it a flop is not very accurate at all. I think that certain replacement parts are more of an issue than reliability. I have three working examples that run perfectly and the metering is still spectacular on manual or on aperture priority. I personally know from the number of rolls put through one of my cameras that it has literally thousands of shutter actuations on it. I hauled mine through mines, underground and surface around the globe but they are still accurate and reliable. I suspect that pro cameras from Canon and Nikon probably have similar issues. Like mine, a lot of these cameras were professionally used, so I doubt they were treated with kid gloves. I have two of them that now have mirror foam sticking problems; I could be wrong but I don't think that is unique to the LX. I do believe that the seals used to weatherproof the camera after it has been serviced are getting difficult to find.

"reliability flop" ? Well it's not a Ford Model T, but 42 yrs is a good run, no?

I've owned an Olympus OM4ti for almost 2 years now. Here are my thoughts:

* Exposure accuracy, both with Aperture Priority, and spot metering. You use the small center dot to pick your sources to meter, and press the meter button up to 8 times to read values for each. When you decide to take the picture, it averages out the exposure of all 8 dots. For slides, it's ideal as you can, for example, take a couple spot meters in the highlights, and throw in one for the mids or even shadows, which averages almost perfect for slides. Or, just use auto exposure which works 95% of the time. Exposing with color negative or most any B&W with auto mode is a breeze. I regularly shoot PanF 50 and HR-50.

* Nighttime shots - Olympus basically invented (or perfected anyway) TTL real-time scene metering, starting with the OM2 series in the mid 70s. For night shots, it will expose up to ~2:05 (just over 2 mins). And being dynamic, any changes in lighting are accounted in real time.

* Compact in size. It may not feel at home with someone with larger hands. Larger zoom lens (i.e. Vivitar Series 1 70/210mm) tend to take over the camera (you are handling the lens, with this tiny film device attached to it !!)

* The shutter "thwap" is typical and non-distracting. It's not too loud, nor quiet.

Drawbacks:

* Limited lens selections. Zuiko glass is legendary and can be sharp enough to out-resolve TMAX 100, but, you are missing out from what's offered to Nikon or Canon. Their lens are easy to adapt to modern digital cameras, so that keeps the prices higher on the more nice Zuiko glass.

* Mirror Lock: You can only lock the mirror using the timer. It's OK for non-action photos on a tripod.

* Reliability: It's no Nikon, but some claim to get decades of use from theirs without issue. My OM4ti had a problem where the shutter randomly refuses to open every 10-20 shots. Had a CLA performed by zuiko.com which mostly cleared that out. I still lose a frame every 100 or so exposures. It is irritating. My late Father's OM-10 is still going strong. (and these models are non known for durability!)

* Battery Life: As long as you pick the newest 4T, or any 4Ti, your battery will last for months before replacement. Most have a date code printed where the film cartridge sits inside. I believe it was 1993 or newer models don't have the battery drain problem.

Bottom line: Over 99% of my photos are keepers. Exposure is almost always where you'd expect it to be, making it easier if you print your own photographs. The controls are intuitive enough (for me anyway) and it has a solid feel. The small size and compact lens is great for travel / hiking.

manfrominternet said:

I did a little research myself and settled on three cameras that I think might qualify:

-Minolta Maxxum 7 (also known as the 'Dynax 7' or 'Alpha-7')
-Nikon F6
-Contax N1

Click to expand...

That's the original post.

I suggested a Maxxum 5 because it's 95% of the Maxxum 7, and is smaller, lighter, and less expensive -- $20 with a ZOOM lens in mint condition. That blows everything thing else out of the water.

Hassasin said:

Has LX not become a reliability flop in the end ? I agree it was a fantastic concept and steered its own course, as most what Pentax had done (actually even today with the Mono K3).

I throw my hat in with the Canon F1. Every time I compare it to Nikon F2, I just don't see how F1 is not better in real terms. And I especially came to liking its last version.

Click to expand...

One main difference between the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 is that in the F-1, the CDS cel is in the body while the meter is in the prism of the F2. Therefore, the F2 meter could be upgraded from CDS to SPD just by changing the prism. Might be an important consideration.

I bought my first LX off KEH (used in EX condition) in 2011 and a second one off auction that was listed as belonged to a relative, doesn't work, for parts. Both work 100% then and perfectly fine still. Full disclosure, I've bought many cameras and given their vintage age, I am pleasantly surprised that most did not require any CLA. Those that were working perfectly continues to do so.