Most practical 35mm film camera 2016

[Jim Jones]

I bought a Nikon F1 in 1967 and never saw the need for a more up-to-date SLR. The only upgrade beside accessories was a pentaprism finder to replace the ungainly meter. Its lenses and some of its accessories work on Nikon's 50-year-later d****** cameras with a loss of automatic features. A Leica M4 bought three years later has proved more durable and more of a pleasure to shoot within the limitations of a rangefinder system. What seems to be the most practical camera varies widely among diverse photographers. The answers here reflect what worked well for each of us. A much larger number of replies would be necessary to arrive at a statistically accurate answer.

 

[mshchem]

I'm going to the UK from the US over Christmas . I have digital , medium format , F100, F 5 etc. After all the thought I'm taking a Very nice Nikon F2A, with a 50 f1.4. I will probably put a medium yellow filter and take 2 or 3 rolls of TMY . No battery failures or chargers to fiddle with, the built in meter will serve fine, I have a cute little Gossen incident meter I may take as well. Mike

 

[ac12]

As has been said, there are MANY MANY cameras that fit the requirement.

That said, I have a few recommendations.
Standard SLRs:

• Nikon FTn, F2, F3.
  I am not familiar with the lower end Nikons, which would really be the continuation of the Nikkormat series of cameras.
  
• Cannon has many good cameras, but I am not a Cannon shooter.
• Minolta; SRT101, 102 ...
• Pentax. I would go with the later models that used a bayonet mount, not the early Spotmatic series, that used a screw mount. IF you don't change lens much the screw mount is OK, but if you change lenses, I found the screw mount was risky to use, especially with longer lenses.
• Olympus. OM series. A nice light camera, compared to the other cameras of its day; Nikon, Nikkormat, Cannon, Minolta SRT-101, etc.

Compact:

• Nikon AF1

CAUTIONS:

• You MUST verify that EVERYTHING WORKS properly on these old cameras, and that the optics are clean. On some/many, the variable resistor on the metering circuit could be worn out, and that could be difficult to impossible to replace.
• I would also avoid any camera that uses a mercury battery, cuz no one makes mercury batteries any more. You have to use the zinc/air batteries, that only last about 3 months.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm joining the Canon EOS system camp here. I use the EOS A2 and I would use it more if the batteries were not so darn expensive. I would also shoot far more film if I used it all the time.

For full manual mechanical camera I would go with the good 'ol K1000. It just works.

I'm going to throw in a wildcard though. With the price of film and processing on the rise I would also get a nice half frame for snapshots. 72 frames to a roll is approaching digital territory. Bring 3 rolls on a trip and you won't run out. Olympus Pen series is where it's at.

 

[macfred]

The most -for me- practical 35mm camera for 2016 was a 1956 Konica III Rangefinder (with Hexanon 48mm f/2 and Konirapid-MFX shutter).
This one comes -unlike the later versions- without an EV coupling (an interlock between the shutter speed and aperture rings).
I used it more often than my Nikon F4.

 

[Agulliver]

The closest fitting the title description would be any from Praktica.

Barring that I would say the Nikon F6.

I own quite a few cameras including SLRs from Nikon and Ricoh...but I keep coming back to my Praktica BX20S. The only time it ever let me down was after I dropped it from some height onto a stone floor, and even then it functioned on auto - just needed the manual shutter setting system repairing. I have a bucket load of lenses for it, Tamron Adaptall II, plus native PB mounts from Sigma and CZJ. All good glass, all rugged and reliable. I also have the BD32 dedicated flash which is incredibly versatile when attached to a BX series camera as it communicates with the camera's CPU. Though any of the Praktica B series and even the older M42 screw mount ones are good. If they have survived this long, they will keep going...and they can be repaired by a competent technician unlike some of the more complex Nikons, Canons, Pentaxes etc. I've used several of the B and BX series, and come down always with the BX20S though there are comparatively few around. If I really had to limit myself to just one camera, and it had to be practical, I'd choose the BX20S. It must be practical as mine has certainly fired it's shutter over 30,000 times, been with me up and down the UK, around the USA, Europe, in my pocket to gigs.


That said, there is something for the simplicity of a camera that doesn't even use a meter. If you can fly on manual, a decent 35mm range finder or "guess the focus" can often be fitted in a trouser or jacket pocket. It's worth bearing in mind such a camera will probably have a leaf shutter which might be something you like.

 

[neilt3]

Where did you hear that one ?

From Sony, specs on the A77ii


LENS COMPATIBILITY
Sony A-mount lenses, operation with Minolta/Konica Minolta lenses confirmed

I emailed Sony, so far to response.

Well , from what you copied and pasted under "LENS COMPATIBILITY " it say's "confirmed ".
That means they work !

I own the Sony a77ii , as i said in my earlier post and I use the early Minolta screw driven lenses on from a 16mm fish eye to the 300mm APO G , and they have received a new lease of life on it . The only lens that gets regular use on that isn't screwdriven is the Sony 16-50mm SSM f/2.8 .
While I don't want to start a discussion on APUG about digital cameras , have a look at the review of the a77ii here ; https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a77ii
For more information look here ; http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onebody/ilca-77m2
( you can also see the drive coupling for the lens sticking out in one of the pictures )
If you want to discuss the a77ii further , or want some sample shots from it , feel free to PM me .

For anyone interested in Minolta auto focus film gear , check out Michael Hohners website .
All film bodies are listed with everything you need to know about them in a chart , all the specifications are clearly shown .
All accessories are listed too , including part numbers and compatibility information from flash guns to vertical grips , eyepiece cups , lens shades , remote controls and links to reviews where available .
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/bodies.php
http://www.mhohner.de/

A good link to those interested in Minolta manual focus gear see here ; Dead Link Removed

 

[blockend]

The reason I began the thread is I suspect many film photographers, myself included, rely on multiple cameras in the modern era. That was not commonly the case thirty or forty years ago. People may have had a second or third body for their system, but multiple brands were a rarity. The redundancy of types and makes mean we never have to confront the issue film photographers formerly did, we simply put the camera to one side and move on to something else. The issue of what camera is "best", the mix of price, build quality and appropriate lenses for our work, has been replaced to some extent by novelty.

So what I'm really asking is what camera would you choose if you could only have one today, considering repair support, reliability and cost. I think that represents a much smaller group of cameras, but it was a decision buyers used to accept as normal, plus we have added factors of using vintage cameras.

I'll say Nikon F2. Solidly built, still has professional maintenance support and takes a wide array of lenses from the 60s to the 90s. Worth repairing financially as well as sentimentally and fit for most tasks. If you want a camera for next 20 years, the F2 is a good bet. (I don't currently own one!)

 

[Laurent]

The reason I began the thread is I suspect many film photographers, myself included, rely on multiple cameras in the modern era. That was not commonly the case thirty or forty years ago. People may have had a second or third body for their system, but multiple brands were a rarity. The redundancy of types and makes mean we never have to confront the issue film photographers formerly did, we simply put the camera to one side and move on to something else. The issue of what camera is "best", the mix of price, build quality and appropriate lenses for our work, has been replaced to some extent by novelty.

So what I'm really asking is what camera would you choose if you could only have one today, considering repair support, reliability and cost. I think that represents a much smaller group of cameras, but it was a decision buyers used to accept as normal, plus we have added factors of using vintage cameras.

I'll say Nikon F2. Solidly built, still has professional maintenance support and takes a wide array of lenses from the 60s to the 90s. Worth repairing financially as well as sentimentally and fit for most tasks. If you want a camera for next 20 years, the F2 is a good bet. (I don't currently own one!)

Leica M4 it is for me. Dreamt of it for years, never could afford one when it was available new, don't even think about lenses... Now I got a nice sample, got it CLA'ed by a passionate repair man, 4 lenses (no Leitz one, two expensive now that there are compatibles).

Yes it may lack a meter, but this means I can use either meter, the pocket one when I'm lazy, or the 408 when I want to be more precise.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The most -for me- practical 35mm camera for 2016 was a 1956 Konica III Rangefinder (with Hexanon 48mm f/2 and Konirapid-MFX shutter).
This one comes -unlike the later versions- without an EV coupling (an interlock between the shutter speed and aperture rings).
I used it more often than my Nikon F4.

It had a very nice lens also, fairly compact and was a "speed camera" in that era of time. Speed camera meaning fast f2 lens and down-stroke lever film advance. The only drawback for some was the fact that it wasn't very light. I myself, liked the weight of the camera and ease of use, but I truly fell in love with it's image quality. Absolutely first rate!

 

[Paul Howell]

Well , from what you copied and pasted under "LENS COMPATIBILITY " it say's "confirmed ".
That means they work !

I took it to mean that the older screw driven lens would not work on the A99ii only focus conformation. I hope you are right, although I shoot 90% film I want to upgrade from the A 900 to the A99ii, dont want to replace my lens.

 

[narsuitus]

...practical cameras capable of taking a few hundred films in their stride only!

Based on dependability, features, simplicity, and lens quality, the Leica M6 rangefinder and the Nikon F2 SLR are practical 35mm film cameras capable of taking a few hundred roles of films in stride.



Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sure to be controversial, but with the holiday season just round the corner the question might raise some fun answers, and even a few intelligent ones! For someone primarily or exclusively shooting 35mm film, which camera would you recommend today? Can be new or second hand, SLR, rangefinder or other, but no delicate shelf queens - practical cameras capable of taking a few hundred films in their stride only!

Are you really into hundreds of rolls?
I have tried many 135 film format cameras since 2012. From Holga 135 Pan to EOS 3. Used hundreds of rolls (including those to test cameras). Based from what I know, on SLR side, it would be Nikon F series, serviced camera.
Rebel series Canon EOS film cameras are available very cheap, with small grip will use regular batteries, will take few hundreds of rolls easily, before clunking out and they are compatible with as of now flash line and most of the EOS mount lenses available from Canon and other manufactures. AF and AE is good enough on these cameras.
And as it was mentioned above Canon EOS film cameras are same as their digital EOS line.
It is very practical these days to have similar film and digital cameras and share same lenses, flashes with full functionality. You could get EOS film body for 40$ and digital EOS for 200$.

But since I'm not SLR guy, I'm with Leica M film cameras for now. I prefer electronics free models. If hundreds of rolls are to be taken, they will need CLA about every five years. To be re-lubed and re-adjusted (shutter speeds). I'm glad what service is still available for Leica M cameras. I could only CLA my family FED-2, which is capable for one hundred of rolls before CLA is needed. And here is Vladimir Panasenko from SF, CA who is servicing his M2 Leica cameras by himself. This is most practical approach to me. To have capable cameras and to be able to service them by yourself.
Plenty of non-expensive, but all metal and glass RF lenses are available, because LTM mount lenses are compatible with M cameras via simple adapter. I recently serviced and shimmed 19$ collapsible Industar-22, which was made in fifties.

 

[flavio81]

I bought a Nikon F1 in 1967 and never saw the need for a more up-to-date SLR.

For me the most interesting thing about the Nikon F is that the shutter is one of the most smooth in Nikon cameras. And certainly much more smoother and quieter than the shutter on the F2. Lock the mirror up on a Nikon F and it sounds like a rangefinder (Nikon rangefinder). Why? Because Nikon used the very same shutter

I own two Nikon F cameras but the prisms need diverse types of repair. Previously i owned a mint Nikon F with working meter, and I sold it. I still regret it. Now i have two Nikon F2 cameras, but there was some special mechanical charm particular to the F camera. At least it sounds way better than the F2 (the F2 does a loud, vulgar "clack" with a faint "ping" afterwards)

I'm joining the Canon EOS system camp here. I use the EOS A2 and I would use it more if the batteries were not so darn expensive. I would also shoot far more film if I used it all the time.

I also have that camera (actually the Canon EOS 5 which is almost identical). The batteries here cost about USD 8 or less, which is expensive, but the batteries last a lot!! Just shoot without using the flash too much and they should last a lot. Also, be sure to activate the custom function that engages the AF only when you press one of the rear buttons. In that way, you avoid having to autofocus everytime the shutter button is pressed.

This also helps a lot with composition.

The EOS 5 is a very very good camera, despite having an inferior build quality (for a Canon). I was about to buy an EOS 3 but at the end the 5 had all I needed. On the other hand the shutter+mirror is rough in terms of vibration, while the manual focus cameras (F-1, FT-series, A-series) are exemplary in this area.

 

[Luckless]

"Most practical" comes with a lot of "It depends" and disclaimers of "Context".

Do you already have lenses for a 35mm camera system that you want to keep using with the film camera? If you have a load of great glass for modern canon EOS systems, then a pre-EOS body likely isn't going to make a lot of sense.

Then there is the issue of what do you actually want to do with the camera? If you want something that slips into your shirt pocket and goes around with you all day and every day to capture random moments of your life, then the camera's ability to be connected to an 800mm lens you would otherwise use for birding or something probably isn't going to matter all that much, and you might find one of those super compact range finders to better suit your needs.


In general, finding a task to use new gear that you don't yet own is a good way to end up with a lot of things taking up storage space. Start with a task and goal you have in mind, and then find a tool that meets the demands of the work you're aiming to do.

 

[ransel]

My own experience:

First choice - Nikon F2 that I purchased used in 1982 or '83. I have never had a problem with it and have shot hundreds of rolls through it. Meter still functions accurately. Favorite lens to use, 35mm f/2.

Second choice would be my Nikon FM with same lens.

A very close third choice is my Canon P rangefinder with Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5.

 

[Cholentpot]

For me the most interesting thing about the Nikon F is that the shutter is one of the most smooth in Nikon cameras. And certainly much more smoother and quieter than the shutter on the F2. Lock the mirror up on a Nikon F and it sounds like a rangefinder (Nikon rangefinder). Why? Because Nikon used the very same shutter

I own two Nikon F cameras but the prisms need diverse types of repair. Previously i owned a mint Nikon F with working meter, and I sold it. I still regret it. Now i have two Nikon F2 cameras, but there was some special mechanical charm particular to the F camera. At least it sounds way better than the F2 (the F2 does a loud, vulgar "clack" with a faint "ping" afterwards)



I also have that camera (actually the Canon EOS 5 which is almost identical). The batteries here cost about USD 8 or less, which is expensive, but the batteries last a lot!! Just shoot without using the flash too much and they should last a lot. Also, be sure to activate the custom function that engages the AF only when you press one of the rear buttons. In that way, you avoid having to autofocus everytime the shutter button is pressed.

This also helps a lot with composition.

The EOS 5 is a very very good camera, despite having an inferior build quality (for a Canon). I was about to buy an EOS 3 but at the end the 5 had all I needed. On the other hand the shutter+mirror is rough in terms of vibration, while the manual focus cameras (F-1, FT-series, A-series) are exemplary in this area.

You're right about the build quality. It's overall a great camera but I'm scared of the mode selection knob. When this one goes I'm going to get the EOS-3. I got the A2 version without the magic eye focus thing 'cause I wear glasses. I think this was the camera used to get the bullet time effect in The Matrix.

I got an F3 a few years ago, and between the A2 and F3 I've shot about 50 rolls. If I had to parse down my collection I would stick with these two and maybe the Nikkormat for full on mechanical camera.

 

[wy2l]

For me, it's the Nikon FM3A. Like a fine Swiss watch...

 

[flavio81]

You're right about the build quality. It's overall a great camera but I'm scared of the mode selection knob. When this one goes I'm going to get the EOS-3.

To be honest i seldom move the mode selection knob, only for turning the camera to "off" before storage. Besides that it can stay in M or P as needed.

As for the EOS 3, it is much heavier. The EOS 5 does most of what the 3 do, while adding an AF illuminator (useful) and a flash with zoom and red eye reduction -- one of the most full-featured built-in flashes i've seen. The EOS 3 has much more AF points, but to be honest I mostly use the center point.

 

[Huss]

I'm going to the UK from the US over Christmas . ... I'm taking a Very nice Nikon F2A, with a 50 f1.4. I will probably put a medium yellow filter and take 2 or 3 rolls of TMY

2 or 3 rolls of film? You mean, per day?
I'm going to the UK too over Xmas. But I know what the weather will be like having lived there in a previous life, and so will be taking a Nikonos V

 

[Prest_400]

2 or 3 rolls of film? You mean, per day?
I'm going to the UK too over Xmas. But I know what the weather will be like having lived there in a previous life, and so will be taking a Nikonos V

What a contrast to the heaps of sunny weather surfing photography that I'm accustomed to see from Nikonos. I was a bit of a cheapstake and got a NotNikonos F80, just keeping it inches out of water instead... To play around the beach.

As for the EOS 3, it is much heavier.

That's a thing on the pro 35mm AF models that I dislike. I mean, my Fuji 6x9 weighs 1460g and a pro 35mm of this kind gets in the ballpark or even surpasses that, with a modest 50mm lens. Then 35mm is still the same puny negative.
Still, I like a 35mm with some heft. Just googled weights, both my OM-1 and F80 with a 50mm 1.8 are around the 700g mark... Right to me.

 

[Huss]

What a contrast to the heaps of sunny weather surfing photography that I'm accustomed to see from Nikonos. I was a bit of a cheapstake and got a NotNikonos F80, just keeping it inches out of water instead... To play around the beach.

I use the Nikonos as a rain camera! Also excellent for street photography while skateboarding (I have fallen with it) as it is so tough, the viewfinder is huge, and the AE metering excellent.

 

[neilt3]

The reason I began the thread is I suspect many film photographers, myself included, rely on multiple cameras in the modern era. That was not commonly the case thirty or forty years ago. People may have had a second or third body for their system, but multiple brands were a rarity. The redundancy of types and makes mean we never have to confront the issue film photographers formerly did, we simply put the camera to one side and move on to something else. The issue of what camera is "best", the mix of price, build quality and appropriate lenses for our work, has been replaced to some extent by novelty.

So what I'm really asking is what camera would you choose if you could only have one today, considering repair support, reliability and cost. I think that represents a much smaller group of cameras, but it was a decision buyers used to accept as normal, plus we have added factors of using vintage cameras.

I'll say Nikon F2. Solidly built, still has professional maintenance support and takes a wide array of lenses from the 60s to the 90s. Worth repairing financially as well as sentimentally and fit for most tasks. If you want a camera for next 20 years, the F2 is a good bet. (I don't currently own one!)

If you can have only one camera ????
That's a very unreasonable restriction !

If I could only have the one it would be the Minolta Dynax 7 .
I have a couple of these in current use , one with colour film in , the other B&W .
They share flash guns , remote and lenses as my Sony DSLR's so I tend to carry both around when I'm out .

From a reliability and cost point of view , it's a very good choice .
Repair would be an issue though , although there is a firm in the U.K that would work on it parts are an issue .
I got my second one fully working again by using the back off a faulty one to replace the broken LCD display on a working camera .
The price to buy a fully working body isn't much more than what you pay for labor before adding the cost of parts , if they are available .

With most of my film cameras , especially 35mm , it would be uneconomical to pay some one to repair them .
If I can't fix it myself , I keep it for parts .

Although you ask about 35mm , I would have to keep my Bronica ETRSi and Yashica 124G as well .
Well you can't just have one camera can you ?!

I took it to mean that the older screw driven lens would not work on the A99ii only focus conformation. I hope you are right, although I shoot 90% film I want to upgrade from the A 900 to the A99ii, dont want to replace my lens.

Ah , I understand where the confusion is now .
All Minolta SLR's and Minolta & Sony DSLR's and DSLT's use PDAF ( Phase Detect Auto Focus ) to focus . from the Minolta 7000AF to the Sony 99ii .
All bodies have the coupling for screwdriven lenses .
All bodies ( film and digital) after the Dynax 7 was released are compatible with SSM and SAM lenses , so if it fit's on the body it works as intended .

Depending on what body the lens is on you have between 1 single AF point with the Minolta 7000AF/9000AF and 61 or 79 AF points with the Sony a77ii , depending on lens . This is regardless of if it's a screw driven lens or SSM/SAM .

The Sony a99ii also has a Hybrid AF system that uses the standard PDAF focus ( from the a77ii) that all your lenses can be focused using ( screw driven or motor driven SSM/SAM) 61 or 79 AF points , depending on lens .
It also uses on sensor phase detect points that work with the normal PDAF unit , giving 399 AF points .
Not all Sony or Minolta lenses are compatible with this new AF system ( mostly just some SSM & SAM lenses ) so they automatically use the 61 or 79 AF points that are available .

Your Minolta lenses will be just as good as they've always been and will continue to work as they always have done , but better , you just won't be able to use some of the latest technology offered in the latest bodies .
So don't worry .
Have a read here ; http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a99ii-lens-compatibility-list_topic122033_page1.html
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a99ii-lens-compatibility-list_topic122033_page1.html
Sorry about going a bit off topic and discussing digital cameras , but it relevant to the continued use of excellent Minolta film era lenses , which are what most of mine are , from the late 1980's to early 90's .
You take your chances with Sigma though !

 

[mynewcolour]

In no particular order ...


Olympus Mju II – because it's the smallest and easiest to carry 35mm camera I've found, and the results are good.

Nikon L35AF – because it's fast (and easy) to use, cheap and still quite flexible for an advanced use.

Any of the manual, mechanical, metered SLRs from the 70s (with a the standard 50 1.8 or similar lens) – because they are durable, reliable, cheap and versatile.

 

[Cholentpot]

To be honest i seldom move the mode selection knob, only for turning the camera to "off" before storage. Besides that it can stay in M or P as needed.

As for the EOS 3, it is much heavier. The EOS 5 does most of what the 3 do, while adding an AF illuminator (useful) and a flash with zoom and red eye reduction -- one of the most full-featured built-in flashes i've seen. The EOS 3 has much more AF points, but to be honest I mostly use the center point.

Weight is no factor for me. I'm shlepping around a BronicaZ these days...