Minimal 35s

[Bill Burk]

I've been carrying a Spotmatic F and I have a few choice words about that...

But I don't fully trust the meter. When power is off the needle is null, so I don't know when I bring to my eye whether it's null because I got lucky and exposure is right, or if the power is off.

So I have to fiddle until I see satisfactorily that the needle is moving (and my "Depth of Field" lever is up for my non SMCT lens - and the lens is in Automatic too (because if that slides to Manual, the finder is dimmer than it has to be).

So after a few checks, I can use the meter. Most of the time I have a Weston Master II or III in my pocket anyway, but a few times I have left the meter home.

 

[macfred]

My 'minimal' 35mm is a Konica III rangefinder from 1956 with Hexanon 1:2 f=48mm - Konirapid-MFX shutter.
Sturdy mechanics - bright finder - remarkable lens - nice price.
There is a version with exposure meter and half-frame capability (Konica IIIM - 1959) too.

--
My 120 minimal is a FUJI GW670iii rangefinder.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Leica III
Zeiss Nettar 515/16 for medium format

 

[gorbas]

Horizon 202 and Minolta Autometer 4F

 

[Ces1um]

Still has a meter.

I think there's room here for a deep metaphysical discussion. If the meter functions, then it's a meter. If the meter is nothing more than a collection of non-functional metals and glass, is it still a meter? Discuss amongst yourselves...

 

[blockend]

It's strange people thought rangefinder cameras without a meter were normal, but SLRs without a light meter were an oddity.

 

[Ces1um]

If it has a meter, it isn't minimal. Q.E.D.. Interchangeable lenses are ok, as indicated in my first post

But didn't you say in your original post you carry around an external meter? Wouldn't a smaller built-in meter be more "minimal" than carrying around an external meter? One thing to carry rather than two? If I can't have a meter at all then I might as well go with something like a kodak instamatic 50 with a 126 to 35mm adapter? That's getting pretty basic.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Spotmatics gotta figure high. Although I could be a smart ass and say "pinhole".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

But didn't you say in your original post you carry around an external meter? Wouldn't a smaller built-in meter be more "minimal" than carrying around an external meter? One thing to carry rather than two? If I can't have a meter at all then I might as well go with something like a kodak instamatic 50 with a 126 to 35mm adapter? That's getting pretty basic.

You can have a meter. You can not have a camera with a built in meter. You can have a Contax II, but not a Contax III.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think there's room here for a deep metaphysical discussion. If the meter functions, then it's a meter. If the meter is nothing more than a collection of non-functional metals and glass, is it still a meter? Discuss amongst yourselves...

No metaphysics needed, a broken built in meter is still a meter.

 

[Paul Howell]

You can have a meter. You can not have a camera with a built in meter. You can have a Contax II, but not a Contax III.

So you can have a Canon F1 with standard non metered head but not a Ftb? With or without a metered head a F1 or Nikon F1 is more advanced than a metered Ftb or Nikormat. A fixed lens Kowa Se or H with a working meter is more basic than a Contrax II, Leica M4, or Nikon F or F2.

 

[Ces1um]

Spotmatics gotta figure high. Although I could be a smart ass and say "pinhole".

I thought about that as well, but then you'd need a tripod really.

 

[ciniframe]

On old folders you can't get film for I use photo paper, cut to size, loaded in the darkroom. It's ok for a test, as long as the camera has a 'B' setting, tripod mount and can take a standard cable release is handy also. I have an old Kodak folder that takes 130 film but I really intend to adapt it to 120. Another project I'll get around to.......I really will.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It's strange people thought rangefinder cameras without a meter were normal, but SLRs without a light meter were an oddity.

The reason, perhaps, is historical. In the Age of Rangefinders, the height of their popularity with amateurs, built in meters were the exception. When amateurs began the Great SLR Migration, the built-in meter as a manufacturer-introduced selling point was almost an expected feature.

I thought about that as well, but then you'd need a tripod really.

Although I have a very small "micro" tripod for my pinhole camera, more often than not I simply rest it on a surface or on the ground.

To my post above, I will add Minox III and Pentax 110 for subminiature formats.

 

[btaylor]

Contax IIa, Leica M2. I don't need no (built-in) stinking meters. I sold my FSU rf gear awhile ago. simple/minimal, moderately reliable, bargain but high quality optics!

 

[MattKing]

Who else has a favorite basic and competent 35, either rf or slr?

Half frame is good, so is 120, I put this in 35mm without thinking it through.

Not fair if you change the rules!
The Retinette 1b you see in my Avatar.
The Retina S1 that I had in my youth - unless the magicube feature and built in "sunny 16" exposure system disqualifies it
If 120 cameras are allowed, my Baby Bessa would be a good choice, although using the frame counter function is so demanding that I need to carry the instructions with me.

 

[Besk]

I use a Leica IIIf. Also want to try out the Robot with the 30mm/3.5 lens I just purchased here. A Nikon F2/plain prism is too large and heavy.

 

[Bill Burk]

I know I was bending the rule by suggesting a Spotmatic F... But I figured it’s in the spirit of simplicity when you take a camera that features a meter.... but you don’t use it. For the Contax III example. What if you got it cheap because the meter doesn’t work?

 

[mshchem]

Back in the day, pre 9/11, I left the fancy Nikon stuff at home and carried a Spotmatic. I would use the meter in dim light . I loved that camera. Now I have a really nice SP500, Super Takumar 50 1.4. Since I treasure that little gem, I leave it at home and carry a Canon G16 "film less " camera, but only when I fly. My favorite minimalist cameras are 6x9 Fuji rangefinders.
Mike

 

[John Koehrer]

All Canon F1's had a meter, it's in the body.

Going to 1/2 frame SLR's the original PEN-F and FV were meterless. So were a number of Olympus viewfinder cameras.

 

[grahamp]

Voitlander Vito B. No meter, no rangefinder (unless I use one on the accessory shoe). 50mm Color-Skopar. Quiet, too.

 

[Gerry M]

35mm: Zorki 3M, Canon IVSB2, Nikon S2
120: Zenobia/Neo Hespar

 

[bimmey]

Fed 2 and Jupiter 8 is with me most of the time.

 

[darinwc]

I also appreciate the early Pentax cameras. I have a Pentax SV with a f1.8 that I am dying to take out.
But my latest simple camera is the Rollei 35. The meter on mine does not work. Just finished the first roll but have yet to develop it. No rangefinder. Manual controls. No meter (broken). Not sure how accurate it would be anyway.
Simple joy to use.

 

[David Lingham]

Nikon FM with no battery because of a non working meter, completly manual, Weston euromaster. Does that qualify.