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

[Pioneer]

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.

Internet myths live longer than zombies.

 

[Hassasin]

Internet myths live longer than zombies.

I have seen a lot of LX bodies with issues, did not like the ratio to good ones and thus never bought one.

 

[Pioneer]

I have seen a lot of LX bodies with issues, did not like the ratio to good ones and thus never bought one.

I understand the feeling. We all make decisions based on our personal experience. I do the same. I personally purchased 3 Nikon F6 bodies from KEH that turned out to have film transport issues before I found a 4th one that worked well. However, even though I know that my own personal experience is not necessarily a good indicator, I sold that working F6 last year when I had to make a decision between it and my Canon EOS 1n. Was it logical? Probably not. For all I know that F6 could have been practically brand new. The Canon EOS 1n has been my primary macro camera for over 2 years now because it has autofocus. It has never failed and the autofocus has been very reliable so for me it was a good choice. But even with all of that I still choose to work with my LX cameras most of the time in preference to any of the others I own.

The only professional film cameras that I have any in-depth personal experience with is the Pentax LX. I worked with two of them professionally for over 15 years from about 1986 to the early 2000s. Before that I worked with a K2. The LX cameras were both cleaned twice in that time. Neither one ever failed to operate in the field. In that time both cameras always worked without problem. I can't tell you how many rolls of film were used in those cameras because I am retired and no longer have access to those records. I know it had to be thousands of rolls of Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Tri-X. One of the cameras was pulled from service shortly before I retired because of age and a third was purchased to replace it. However it was still working fine and it still works to this day.

When I retired I was personally given all three of those cameras by my former Manager because my replacement did not want to work with film. It was not until then that I was told that getting service was becoming more difficult, not because the camera couldn't be repaired but because the weather proofing seals normally had to be replaced when the camera was opened for cleaning and service. These seals were no longer being manufactured because the camera has been discontinued and were getting tougher to source. So the repair problems were not because of component reliability or even because of parts shortages but because a consumable for that camera went out of production. In other words, the way I see it, the problem is that it may have been built too good. The fact that it was in production and used professionally for over 20 years is actually quite impressive to my way of thinking.

But we make our decisions regarding cameras based on our personal impressions and the fit of the camera itself. A lot of people feel more comfortable with a bigger camera because it gives the feeling of solidity. They typically feel more comfortable with a Nikon or Canon. There is nothing wrong with that if it is how you feel. I prefer a camera that feels more nimble and quick to respond and so the LX makes me feel good. It fits my hands and the way I work.

Fortunately there are still enough of these cameras out there that everyone who wants should be able to find a professional tool that fits them if that is what they want. I would hate someone to reject an excellent professional tool like the LX because of an inaccurate internet myth of undependability.

 

[benjiboy]

In my opinion, the Nikon F2 and the Canon New F1 are two of the best 35mm film S.L.R ever manufactured, I have had personal experience with both these models over many years and they have both proven to be supremely reliable, and able to cope with the most challenging conditions without any problems, which is why in their day most people who made their living as photographers used them..

 

[Craig]

they have both proven to be supremely reliable, and able to cope with the most challenging conditions without any problems, which is why in their day most people who made their living as photographers used them..

Mind you, you could say the same about the successor models, such as the New F-1, F3, F4, F5 and the EOS 1 series. In the 1990's I didn't see a single newspaper photographer in my city using an F2 or original F-1, almost all of them were using an EOS 1. One did use a Leica R series for a while ( R5 I think?) and then switched to Canon.

Both Canon and Nikon were set up to cater to those who used their cameras as tools of their trade, with expedited service and loaners while their camera was in for repair. Leica wasn't set up to cater for that. Using 400 or 1600 speed C41 film and reproduced in a newspaper nobody could tell the difference between a Leica lens and a Nikon or Canon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Still the Nikon F100 by far. It was the most advanced Nikon film camera that does not require a wheel barrow to move around. If one needs more exercise then look at the F5 or F6.

 

[benjiboy]

Still the Nikon F100 by far. It was the most advanced Nikon film camera that does not require a wheel barrow to move around. If one needs more exercise then look at the F5 or F6.

I would rather have "a wheel barrow to move around than a plastic back

Mind you, you could say the same about the successor models, such as the New F-1, F3, F4, F5 and the EOS 1 series. In the 1990's I didn't see a single newspaper photographer in my city using an F2 or original F-1, almost all of them were using an EOS 1. One did use a Leica R series for a while ( R5 I think?) and then switched to Canon.

Both Canon and Nikon were set up to cater to those who used their cameras as tools of their trade, with expedited service and loaners while their camera was in for repair. Leica wasn't set up to cater for that. Using 400 or 1600 speed C41 film and reproduced in a newspaper nobody could tell the difference between a Leica lens and a Nikon or Canon.

 

[benjiboy]

I was actually writing about the days before autofocus cameras came out. I sold many Nikon F 3's to professional Photographers in the 1980's when I worked at a professional dealership and their general impression of them when I spoke to them was they were not as reliable as the F 2 especially in adverse weather conditions because even if humidity got to the light meter in the prism of the F 2 the camera body would still operate which was not the case with the F3.
I remember one customer who bought an F 3 from me coming back hopping mad with the camera saying it had stopped working after he had put it down on some damp grass

 

[Pioneer]

Never had that problem with my LX.

Even in wet mines underground it never quit. Didn't dare pull the film a couple of times without cleaning it off but it never died on the job.

 

[JParker]

True. My apologies.

Accepted. Thanks .

 

[Les Sarile]

Never had that problem with my LX.

Even in wet mines underground it never quit. Didn't dare pull the film a couple of times without cleaning it off but it never died on the job.

Makes sense since at the time of it's release, I believe the LX was the only one that was weather sealed.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't believe that there was one 35 mm film S.L.R camera that was in absolute terms " the best " , only that there were a few very good ones that depending on the particular person's preferences as far as handling and feel of the machine in use could be determined by the user

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't believe that there was one 35 mm film S.L.R camera that was in absolute terms " the best " , only that there were a few very good ones that depending on the particular person's preferences as far as handling and feel of the machine in use could be determined by the user

The Nikon F100 is the most advanced AF SLR that Nikon made without carrying around extra weight just to be able to machine gun a subject and blowing 36 exposures on one subject in at matter of seconds.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Given your route downwards I would look at stripped down systems without too many modes and possibly with greater longevity. So manual focus manual only cameras (but perhaps with aperture priority as an extra)

I have voigtlander R2 with 25, 35, 50, 75, 90 lenses. Negatives are contrasty and sharp and I happily blow these up to 16x20

Pentax lenses are good especially M series (the A series click stops break). Pair these with a KX, KM, MX or LX or even a Ricoh XR1.

Olympus lenses equally good paired with OM1n or OM2. There ends my experience and have used these three systems for black and white prints for some time


but others love Nikon FM/FM2, Various Minolta offerings, some like Canon (Ftb, AT1)

I would think all these Lens systems are great - so which bodies handle best for you ?

Nikon FE is hard to beat.

 

[Arthurwg]

I like Nikon. My F6 works perfectly, as does my F100, which I bought new. It's seen much hard use over many years. Lenses too.

 

[Craig]

Nikon FE is hard to beat.

Unless you are a left eyed photographer! Then the advance lever pokes you in the eye when metering.

 

[Steven Lee]

Time to change the title of this thread to: "Those who never used Canon 1v, raise your hand!". Then the title would match the content. It may not be your favorite camera, but objectively it is the best one. It focuses and meters better than you can. It was the top model of the top dog manufacturer who destroyed all competition. It survived well into the 2010s with minimal modifications: the latest Canon DSLR is still the 1v with a sensor inside.

 

[M-88]

Time to change the title of this thread to: "Those who never used Canon 1v, raise your hand!". Then the title would match the content. It may not be your favorite camera, but objectively it is the best one. It focuses and meters better than you can. It was the top model of the top dog manufacturer who destroyed all competition. It survived well into the 2010s with minimal modifications: the latest Canon DSLR is still the 1v with a sensor inside.

I'm afraid 20 pages and almost 500 posts stand as a testimony that there's no "objectivity" involved in this thread. Besides, OP asked "in your opinion", which kinda endorses the whole subjectiveness of this thread.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Canon EOS 5

 

[SodaAnt]

The Canon EOS-1 series.

 

[benveniste]

Still the Nikon F100 by far. It was the most advanced Nikon film camera that does not require a wheel barrow to move around. If one needs more exercise then look at the F5 or F6.

The F100's Achilles Heel just bit me. In today's dollars, this was an $1800 camera with a 15 cent plastic door latch. Yeah, it's a relatively inexpensive repair, but not one that should have ever been necessary.

 

[GregY]

The F100's Achilles Heel just bit me. In today's dollars, this was an $1800 camera with a 15 cent plastic door latch. Yeah, it's a relatively inexpensive repair, but not one that should have ever been necessary.

24 yrs on a 15cent latch is pretty good.....don't you think?

 

[Pioneer]

24 yrs on a 15cent latch is pretty good.....don't you think?

Nope.

 

[GregY]

Nope.

Well none of those (great) electronic cameras are as robust as a Nikon F or early Leica M. They've had a good run & at least you can have the latch replaced even though you might be disgruntled that it was a cheap part.

 

[benveniste]

24 yrs on a 15cent latch is pretty good.....don't you think?

Since that 20+ years represents perhaps 500-600 openings and closings, not really, no.