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

[etn]

I'm just marveling that we see the need to discuss "modern".

Well, we are a FILM photography forum. That says it all. "Modern" would probably be digital, as far as photography is concerned!
(OK, I know, I am opening another can of worms here... )

 

[etn]

Since I'm shopping around for a new-ish 35mm film SLR, I figured that I'd ask some of you more experienced professionals about this. (I've been shooting large format and medium format film for about 8 years and am working my way down to 35mm film!)

What 35mm film SLR camera systems do you think are the best to get into right now?
Which system do you think has the 'best' lenses?

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

There are so many pros and cons to consider... what are your priorities and what do you want to photograph?

A few ideas (thinking out of the box) - all of which have exceptional lenses:
- Nikon F6: best for automation, metering, and speed, good for pretty much anything.
- Leica M / Zeiss Ikon: best for size and weight, if you want manual focus and simplicity; not so good for macro work.
- Contax G1/G2: best for size and weight, if you want autofocus
- Nikon F3, FM2, Olympus OM: best for size, if you want an SLR
- ...and more, albeit in different categories: Nikon 28/35 Ti, Ricoh GR21, Leica Minilux, Hasselblad Xpan, etc.

It seems that you want an SLR with automation. I think you cannot go wrong with either of your choices. I have no clue about the Minolta or Contax but if it were me I would chose either the Contax for the Zeiss glass, or the Nikon for serviceability and access to many, many, MANY lenses (including Zeiss, Voigtlander - the Ultron 40mm SL2s absolutely shines - and possibly others.)

I realize the F6 is probably in a different price category than the Minolta and Contax. With this kind of budget, have you considered medium format? You give up automation but gain a lot in image quality.

Also, priorities change over time. It happened to me recently. My F6 does not see much use those days: if I decide to carry that large and heavy camera, I might as well take my Hasselblad for not much more weight. Having a child in a backpack carrier - all together 20 kilos - rule that out more often than not, though. (Until this phase is over, all my cameras will be neglected in favor of my cell phone ha ha!)

Good luck with your decision and let us know what you choose!

 

[Craig]

Well, we are a FILM photography forum. That says it all. "Modern" would probably be digital, as far as photography is concerned!

Modern within the contex of 35mm film SLR's, not all SLR's, as the title of the thread specifically said film SLR's . I would define the 35mm SLR era as starting in the mid to late 1950's and ending with the F6.

I'd define "modern" as being the introduction of good AF cameras, so say 1988 an onward, i.e. Nikon F4 and EOS1 and newer. I'd purposly exclude modern AF from including things like the Canon T80 and Nikon F3AF.

 

[etn]

Modern within the contex of 35mm film SLR's, not all SLR's, as the title of the thread specifically said film SLR's . I would define the 35mm SLR era as starting in the mid to late 1950's and ending with the F6.

I'd define "modern" as being the introduction of good AF cameras, so say 1988 an onward, i.e. Nikon F4 and EOS1 and newer. I'd purposly exclude modern AF from including things like the Canon T80 and Nikon F3AF.

Agree with you Craig. I was just making some fun with my previous post!

 

[manfrominternet]

So can anyone list their very favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification viewfinder?

I have to say that the autofocus on the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 I'm currently using is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on this Minolta. The particular issue with this Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.

I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might just fix everything by simplying buying and installing the proper viewfinder eye adjustment instead of wearing my glasses. The one native to this Minolta Dynax/a-7 that I'm using focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.)

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

 

[Craig]

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

Canon F-1, Canon EOS 1, any of the Nikon F series ( F, F2-6). Both the Nikons and Canon's have a variety of focusing screens that can be installed, including split image and microprism. The later Nikon F4 and F6 ( I don't know about the F5) also have focus confirmation to tell you when it is in focus.

 

[Helge]

So can anyone list their very favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification viewfinder?

I have to say that the autofocus on the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 I'm currently using is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on this Minolta. The particular issue with this Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.

I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might just fix everything by simplying buying and installing the proper viewfinder eye adjustment instead of wearing my glasses. The one native to this Minolta Dynax/a-7 that I'm using focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.)

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

I’ve looked through a lot of SLR viewfinders. The best by some margin is the XD7/XD11/XD. 94% coverage, very bright, full information, 0.87x enlargement, large enough while still not needing you to peer around with your eye pressed to the eyepiece.
The screen in its close cousin in the X-700 is slightly brighter or finer in texture 95% coverage and 0.90x enlargement. but otherwise a little worse.
I’d pick the X-700 as an overall package, but both cameras have their strengths.

The second best viewfinder I’ve used is the one in the Canon T-70. Probably the same as the one in the T-90. But the latter is a camera I never had much interest in.

 

[Radost]

So can anyone list their very favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification viewfinder?

I have to say that the autofocus on the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 I'm currently using is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on this Minolta. The particular issue with this Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.

I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might just fix everything by simplying buying and installing the proper viewfinder eye adjustment instead of wearing my glasses. The one native to this Minolta Dynax/a-7 that I'm using focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.)

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

I had the same issue with the A7 focus before I started back button focusing.
What I really hate about that camera is how poorly the on board flash works compared to the cheapest Canon camera

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nikon F100 is according to Samy's Camera sales people and repair people the best film camera Nikon made. The focus screen covers approximately 96% of the view. Reference: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f100specifications.htm Yes, I know it is from Ken Rockwell, but even a broken analog clock is correct twice a day.

 

[Mike Lopez]

So can anyone list their very favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification viewfinder?

I have to say that the autofocus on the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 I'm currently using is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on this Minolta. The particular issue with this Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.

I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might just fix everything by simplying buying and installing the proper viewfinder eye adjustment instead of wearing my glasses. The one native to this Minolta Dynax/a-7 that I'm using focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.)

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

Nikon built 100% viewfinder coverage into each of their flagship models: the F through the F6. I don't use any other Nikons for that exact reason (I'm using the word "exact" for a couple of reasons here...). I'm quite partial to the F2, particularly after they receive the Sover Wong treatment (he has rehabilitated two such bodies for me). I often use them with a waist-level finder, which offers you no help with the second part of your question--regrets.

 

[benjiboy]

Bare in mind 100% viewfinders loose a significant area of the image in the negative carrier or in the slide mount

 

[Cholentpot]

Bare in mind 100% viewfinders loose a significant area of the image in the negative carrier or in the slide mount

I get more than 100% when I scan. It's a kick when I scan 110 film and I get what's out of the official frame line. 100% viewfinders have more use today than in the past.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bare in mind 100% viewfinders loose a significant area of the image in the negative carrier or in the slide mount

It depends on the format and the view finder. The Graphic viewfinders with different inserts for different focal lengths seem to be accurate. My 35mm NIkon AF camera seem to be as stated in the specifications, so one can predict the coverage with a choice of camera models. I would expect the same for Canon.

 

[benjiboy]

It depends on the format and the view finder. The Graphic viewfinders with different inserts for different focal lengths seem to be accurate. My 35mm NIkon AF camera seem to be as stated in the specifications, so one can predict the coverage with a choice of camera models. I would expect the same for Canon.

I found with Nikon 100 % viewfinders to be able to print the whole negative one had to file out some of the negative carriers to print the whole negative and with transparencies the slide mounts lost a small amount of the image.
I find with my Canon F1s that show about 90 odd percent of the image I can see more of the image on the final result that I see in the viewfinder.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found with Nikon 100 % viewfinders to be able to print the whole negative one had to file out some of the negative carriers to print the whole negative and with transparencies the slide mounts lost a small amount of the image.
I find with my Canon F1s that show about 90 odd percent of the image I can see more of the image on the final result that I see in the viewfinder.

Lets not start a Nikon Canon spat.

 

[benjiboy]

Lets not start a Nikon Canon spat.

That's not my intention Steve, I made my decision more than thirty years ago, and I don't intend to prostitalize.

 

[Les Sarile]

So can anyone list their very favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification viewfinder?

I have to say that the autofocus on the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 I'm currently using is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on this Minolta. The particular issue with this Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.

I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might just fix everything by simplying buying and installing the proper viewfinder eye adjustment instead of wearing my glasses. The one native to this Minolta Dynax/a-7 that I'm using focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.)

So, with that said, can anyone list their favorite 35mm SLRs that have a 100% (or very near) and a high magnification and bright viewfinder?

I used the Canon EOS3 and EOS1V and their AF is never iffy. In pitch black settings, having a Speedlite guarantees AF, as well as perfect exposure. If you use L lenses. there will be no hesitation in AF even with the L extenders. I had a couple of cheap Tamron AF lenses and there is a pronounced amount of lag. Adding Tamron extenders adds even more lag. L lens on a Rebel body is still pretty quick but noticeably slower. The cheap Tamrons with extenders will definitely cause the AF to hunt.

Alas, all AF cameras I've tested have tiny viewfinders, all about 0.72X. The EOS1 has 100% coverage. The EOS3 has 97% coverage.

 

[SteveInConverse]

I really like the Nikon F4 S and it's primitive auto focus.

 

[manfrominternet]

Between the Nikon F3, Nikon FM3a (which has only 93% viewfinder coverage), and the Nikon F6, which of these would you guys get?

 

[Craig]

Between the Nikon F3, Nikon FM3a (which has only 93% viewfinder coverage), and the Nikon F6, which of these would you guys get?

You need to make a list of what you need the camera to accomplish and narrow it from that. The 3 you listed are very different, both in terms of capability and price.

I know quite a bit about cars and I hate it when friends ask me what is "best" to buy. So much depends on use and expectations. One person might want a nimble commuter vehicle for one person that is cheap to operate and easy to park, the other might be running a construction company building roads. The "best vehicle" might be a bicycle or a Kenworth dump truck.

Back to cameras, you have to know what you are using it for to determine what to buy. Define the need first, then find something that meets the need. As you have stated it above, it's impossible to make a recommendation without more information.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You need to make a list of what you need the camera to accomplish and narrow it from that. The 3 you listed are very different, both in terms of capability and price.

I know quite a bit about cars and I hate it when friends ask me what is "best" to buy. So much depends on use and expectations. One person might want a nimble commuter vehicle for one person that is cheap to operate and easy to park, the other might be running a construction company building roads. The "best vehicle" might be a bicycle or a Kenworth dump truck.

Back to cameras, you have to know what you are using it for to determine what to buy. Define the need first, then find something that meets the need. As you have stated it above, it's impossible to make a recommendation without more information.

The best camera hands down is one that as the shutter is about to fire, corrects the lighting, the exposure, the focus, last but the most important is correct the composition by either moving objects around or for that really crappy composition refuse to take the photograph.

 

[ChrisLLUK]

Assuming autofocus isn't required, I'd go for the Olympus OM4Ti. I got a higher percentage of keepers on slide film, where exposure is very unforgiving, than with any other camera.

 

[manfrominternet]

You need to make a list of what you need the camera to accomplish and narrow it from that. The 3 you listed are very different, both in terms of capability and price.

I know quite a bit about cars and I hate it when friends ask me what is "best" to buy. So much depends on use and expectations. One person might want a nimble commuter vehicle for one person that is cheap to operate and easy to park, the other might be running a construction company building roads. The "best vehicle" might be a bicycle or a Kenworth dump truck.

Back to cameras, you have to know what you are using it for to determine what to buy. Define the need first, then find something that meets the need. As you have stated it above, it's impossible to make a recommendation without more information.

I agree. I should have been a bit more specific: As I'm a landscape photographer who frequently shoots large format/medium format in the evening in restricted areas, I'd like to be able to use a 35mm film camera near night, without a tripod. The ability to meter at night and slower shutter speeds are a must. I'd also like for my potential 35mm film camera to be lighter than at least my medium format cameras (Fuji GF670/Fuji GW690III). Manual forcusing would be ideal as I've had nothing but bad luck and soft images with the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7; this camera practically forces me to use its autofocus as there's no split image screen for the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7. :/

 

[Craig]

I'd like to be able to use a 35mm film camera near night, without a tripod. The ability to meter at night and slower shutter speeds are a must.

Then it's an easy choice: Canon EOS. They have the best autofocus and the best image stabilization you can get in a film camera which will help get sharp hand held photos in low light.

This might help decide on a body: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/camera.html?s=film&s2=eos

 

[Mark J]

I would put in another vote for the Canon EOS film bodies. I used LeicaR7 bodies for years, but have been very impressed with an EOS 30 body I picked up on EBay. The option for modern Canon or Tamron/Sigma AF glass would seem to meet your needs very well.