Minimal 35s

[R.Gould]

If 120 is allowed then what about the Roleiflex,s many older ones don't have meters, Rolleicord,Microcors, Super baldax,Franka Solida 2 and 3,Zeiss Ikon Ikonta B and the little 645, Ensign 1620,1220,autorange 1620 and 220,Voightlander Perkeo and baby bessa,Meopta, cameras,Braun Paxima'to name just a few of the very many cameras without meters or electrics of any kind, I would say pretty much any MF folders are all purely mechanil cameras, certainly My ambi comes into the list

 

[ciniframe]

I really do understand the OP's reasoning. For instance, If I were to buy a new film Leica it would be the meterless MA, would not even have to think twice about it.
Disclaimer, I have a perfectly good M4-2 and could/would never afford a new Leica. It was just a thought experiment.

 

[ic-racer]

I like the Yashica FX3 as my inexpensive, modern, simple, compact, manual, SLR, with reliable LED meter that uses silver cells and takes Zeiss lenses.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Mine is a Rollei 35s.

Roger

 

[jim10219]

If we’re doing 120, how about 620? I have several Ansco and other box cameras that are so minimal, there’s only one aperture, one shutter speed, and one focal point! The only thing you can change is the film!

 

[narsuitus]

One shot, one aperture, one focal length, no viewfinder, no mirror, no pentaprism, no rangefinder, no viewscreen, no focus, no lens, no shutter, no film counter, no film winder, no light meter, no tripod (just set camera on stable surface)


Pinhole Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Colin Corneau]

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

There was a member back in the APUG days that had a pretty fascinating series of work made with a pinhole and handheld in the streets of LA.

 

[Wallendo]

My favorite minimal camera, by this thread's definition, would be the Minolta SR-1.

In general, I use my Olympus 35RC with broken meter and Nikkormat with flaky (useless) meter more often.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One shot, one aperture, one focal length, no viewfinder, no mirror, no pentaprism, no rangefinder, no viewscreen, no focus, no lens, no shutter, no film counter, no film winder, no light meter, no tripod (just set camera on stable surface)


Pinhole Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr

I really hope that those are not pipe bombs!!

 

[Bill Burk]

Mine is a Rollei 35s.

Roger

And your Speed Graphic for handheld shots on the streets of New York...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like the Yashica FX3 as my inexpensive, modern, simple, compact, manual, SLR, with reliable LED meter that uses silver cells and takes Zeiss lenses.

Which part of "no built-in meter" is so #&@!$ difficult to understand?

 

[Pioneer]

To better get into the spirit of things, I packed my little 4x5 Obscura, some Delta 100, a changing bag, and my guess-o-light-meter into the hills for a few frames. I would guess that probably qualifies though it isn't handmade as it would appear that narsuitus's gear is.

In action...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Which part of "no built-in meter" is so #&@!$ difficult to understand?

I think it's the "built-in" part.

If a camera was designed with a meter, e.g. Spotmatic, then it's not a minimalist camera. If the meter doesn't work, that doesn't matter: it was designed with a meter, so it's not minimalist.

 

[Down Under]

Woo hoo, this is almost like reading the Guardian Online!

Common sense tells me to stay out of all this, but common sense isn't rally a precious commodity in today's mad world anyway. Or on this site. So here comes my input.

Still has a meter.

It does indeed, sort of. Let's take this further. Then if you carry a meter on a string around your neck, then you still have a meter, don't you? So where does this fit into all this, I'm beginning to suspect, obsessive minimal-minimalism?

Maybe we should all agree to carry 120 roll film Kodak Brownies and use the Sunny Sixteen rule. That should satisfy everyone's criteria.

To further complicate things, I have a lovely old (black body) Nikkormat EL I bought new in the 1970s. Meter system rendered up the spirit a few years ago. I can use the EL, but only on one speed,1/90. Can't get much more minimal than that. I often take it out with an equally venerable (circa 1960, so much older) Weston Master V which reads reasonably close to accurate in bright sun, but is all over the place on overcast days, so compounding the margin for error in shooting.

Unless you consider my even older Nikkormat FTN, with its now-and-then working meter, but I long ago gave up putting in batteries as the meter was so unreliable anyway. With an old Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 lens, I keep it set on 1/125 with FP4 and leave the meter in my camera bag, so as a point-and-shoot, it's brilliant.

Will it please the OP if I include my Kodak Retina IIb? Even more so than the E, you can't get more basic than that.

Except for my Retina Ia. Uber-minimalist!

Also the aforementioned Kodak Brownie.

I want a glass of Tasmanian Pinot now.

I note that others have already made comments similar to mine. That's good. Now I feel like I belong...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

So... This was the criteria stated in the first few posts:

I've been using a Pentax H1a as a daily carry camera lately, with the 55 f:2.2 Auto Takumar and a Gossen N100 meter.
I like the simplicity and handling of the camera, it seems smaller than it is and the lack of frills is very appealing.
...

...
Not battery dependent. No incorporated exposure meter. No automation of any sort. Nothing superfluous to basic function.
...

Seems pretty clear and easy to satisfy.

My Topcon R II fits this, along with the Leica III mentioned earlier.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think it's the "built-in" part.

If a camera was designed with a meter, e.g. Spotmatic, then it's not a minimalist camera. If the meter doesn't work, that doesn't matter: it was designed with a meter, so it's not minimalist.

Thank you.

 

[polka]

If 120 is allowed

With the definition of "minimal" as we understood after a while : take any basic 6x9 folder where you have to set separately the speed (choice : 1/25 1/50 1/100 B T), the aperture and the distance (without a telemeter - from infinity to 1.5m) and then separately spool the film (looking through a red window) and tension the shutter. This is sporty photography with truely "basic" or "minimal" tools !

Even more minimalistic : boxes ! one speed, one aperture (maybe two : sunny - cloudy) distance set to hyperfocale.

Polka

 

[E. von Hoegh]

With the definition of "minimal" as we understood after a while : take any basic 6x9 folder where you have to set separately the speed (choice : 1/25 1/50 1/100 B T), the aperture and the distance (without a telemeter - from infinity to 1.5m) and then separately spool the film (looking through a red window) and tension the shutter. This is sporty photography with truely "basic" or "minimal" tools !

Polka

Yes indeed.
How about a Kodak Bantam 4.5? Meets all of the above criteria, plus has colander bellows (I use it with the bellows sheathed in black construction paper), significantly larger negative than 35, 828 film and backing paper must be slit from 120, and collapsed it is miniscule. The lens is very good, it gives lovely 8x10 prints.

 

[guangong]

Some variety of Leica, usually a screw mt, occasionally a Retina or Contessa folder or Nikon F w plain prism and pancake lense for just walking around and being ready. Another camera I like to carry is the Rollei 35.
And almost always a Minox 8x11 hiding somewhere in my pocket. Options for car can possibly include everything from Leicaflex to 4x5.
For a while I carried a Minox 35m but their tendency to failure at always a crucial moment is their primary characteristic.

 

[polka]

My prefered pocket camera was a minox 35EL that I bought in 1979 and that never failed (must have been lucky). Today, I use it less : when playing tourist I prefer digital P&S (mortal sin !), and when photographying I do B&W MF (Moskva5, Arax80, Bronica S2, etc.).

Polka

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Woo hoo, this is almost like reading the Guardian Online!

Common sense tells me to stay out of all this, but common sense isn't rally a precious commodity in today's mad world anyway. Or on this site. So here comes my input.



It does indeed, sort of. Let's take this further. Then if you carry a meter on a string around your neck, then you still have a meter, don't you? So where does this fit into all this, I'm beginning to suspect, obsessive minimal-minimalism?

Maybe we should all agree to carry 120 roll film Kodak Brownies and use the Sunny Sixteen rule. That should satisfy everyone's criteria.

To further complicate things, I have a lovely old (black body) Nikkormat EL I bought new in the 1970s. Meter system rendered up the spirit a few years ago. I can use the EL, but only on one speed,1/90. Can't get much more minimal than that. I often take it out with an equally venerable (circa 1960, so much older) Weston Master V which reads reasonably close to accurate in bright sun, but is all over the place on overcast days, so compounding the margin for error in shooting.

Unless you consider my even older Nikkormat FTN, with its now-and-then working meter, but I long ago gave up putting in batteries as the meter was so unreliable anyway. With an old Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 lens, I keep it set on 1/125 with FP4 and leave the meter in my camera bag, so as a point-and-shoot, it's brilliant.

Will it please the OP if I include my Kodak Retina IIb? Even more so than the E, you can't get more basic than that.

Except for my Retina Ia. Uber-minimalist!

Also the aforementioned Kodak Brownie.

I want a glass of Tasmanian Pinot now.

I note that others have already made comments similar to mine. That's good. Now I feel like I belong...

Wow.
I could write a pretty interesting essay, based solely on responses to this thread. Several pretty interesting essays, probably.

 

[barzune]

My first 35mm ( in the mid-60s) was a Zenit. Although I splurged and bought the much more advanced Zenit E, the store also carried the more basic Zenit B, which did not have the uncoupled selenium meter.
With its limited set of features, I propose the Zenit B as a "Minimal 35" within the criteria set by the OP.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My first 35mm ( in the mid-60s) was a Zenit. Although I splurged and bought the much more advanced Zenit E, the store also carried the more basic Zenit B, which did not have the uncoupled selenium meter.
With its limited set of features, I propose the Zenit B as a "Minimal 35" within the criteria set by the OP.

I never said "limited set of features". I said "no frills", "nothing superfluous". A Nikon F2 with meterless prism is acceptable.

 

[ciniframe]

I think this thread demonstrates that "minimal" certainly means different things to such an varied group of film users as found on this forum. But, that said, since the OP started this thread he gets to set the parameters and we get to contribute our favorite selection based on those parameters.
If someone starts a thread about "basic" or "no frills" 35mm SLR's the back and forth would probably get just as lively. My first 35mm SLR was a Miranda D and since it had interchangeable focusing screens I soon discovered I much preferred the all matt screens without microprism or split wedge focusing aids. That extends today to my very fancy and accidently acquired OM-4Ti which has a plain matt screen but in every other respect does not meet the OP specifications for "minimal".

 

[Paul Howell]

I never said "limited set of features". I said "no frills", "nothing superfluous". A Nikon F2 with meterless prism is acceptable.

I would take no frills to mean limited number of features, interchangeable prisms is a frill in my book while a self timer is not frill as it allows the shutter to be tripped without a cable release.