Most practical 35mm film camera 2016

[GarageBoy]

F100 or F5/F6 - can use the wonderful modern 1.8g lenses

Or an elan 7as previously mentioned- it's quiet, too

Mechanical? Nikon F2 or F3
Any iteration of Canon F1 works too, plenty of inexpensive FD lenses

 

[ciniframe]

What, no Sears cameras!?
Bargains are where you find them. Couple of years ago I picked up a Sears KS500 w/50mm f2 Sears lens for latte money, five dollars. A rebranded Ricoh KR5 it had good light seals and and working meter batteries (takes 2 MS76).
OK, somewhat light on features but a serviceable basic K mount body with a chase the needle w/lollypop meter indication, focusing screen is a diag. split wedge w/micro prism collar and lens unit focuses to 2 feet. Hot shoe only (no PC plug) and no DOF preview, shutter is metal, all mechanical, vertical travel and is timed from 1/8 to 1/500 & B with x-sync at 1/60.

Value for price is 10 out of 10 in my opinion.

 

[macfred]

... first a Canon model 7 rangefinder, I can use all my screwmount leica lenses on a more practical body...

Good choice ! A Canon model 7 is on my wishlist for a long time (or even a Canon P) !!

 

[Vilk]

Sure to be controversial...

naaah, nothing controversial, the answer has not changed since 1971... it's F2, of course!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hmmm... I think we've converged on a consensus in two categories:

1. Tough mechanical cameras prior to 1980.
2. Full featured pro or semi-pro cameras of the 1990's

 

[Alan Gales]

Hmmm... I think we've converged on a consensus in two categories:

1. Tough mechanical cameras prior to 1980.
2. Full featured pro or semi-pro cameras of the 1990's

My post #11:
I see two ways of going with this. A late model camera with Matrix metering or an early model that isn't battery dependent for camera operation. You can always use a separate meter.

As far as brand or SLR versus rangefinder, pick what you like.



It makes sense. Electronics are great but after cameras get old the electronics fail and you are better off with a camera that is not dependent upon batteries. I own three film cameras. A Wehman 8x10, 6x6 Mamiya C220f and a 35mm Stereo Realist. None take batteries.

 

[nolanr66]

I picked up a Nikon FG from KEH about a year ago. It was mint- condition for $39.00. I am using it for my 100 speed film. I had a diopter eyepiece for it already from a previous camera that I had given away. Anyway I have the FG and a FM2n and they are both inexpensive, in perfect working condition. I think they are good camear's and practical. I would replace the FM2n if needed or repair it.

 

[cb1]

My Canon AE1-P with 35-105mm f3.5 lens. I use that for everything.
Runner-up A would be my Dad's Minolta X700 with 28-85mm lens
Runner-up B would be Canon FT/QL with 50mm f1.2 lens

But the AE1-P is my hands down go to film camera.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

...I would say the Nikon F6.

I agree completely! The F5 and F100 are good "runners up."

 

[RattyMouse]

Contax RTS III.

 

[cooltouch]

There is obviously no single "best" camera here.

One thing the OP should have at least mentioned was the preferences of the one having to choose. I mean, does this person prefer a manual camera, or one with a minimum of auto features or one fully laden with auto features? You can't really answer this question unless you know these things.

But anyway if it were me, I prefer a camera that might have one or two auto features, but that also works very well in manual mode. AF is convenient, but not essential.

So, after giving this a lot of thought -- a good ten minutes or so -- I've decided that this camera must be the Nikon FE. Well, the FE2 in a pinch, but I prefer the FE for one reason: it has the flip-up metering tab so one can use pre_AI lenses. I mean, consider: When used in manual mode, it has the wonderfully precise match-needle metering method, and when in Aperture-Priority AE mode, it benefits from Nikon's very practical 60/40 metering pattern, which insures correct exposure in all but the most unusual lighting situations. It takes interchangeable focusing screens. It accepts Nikon's compact, yet fast motor drives, the MD-11 and MD-12. Plus it just looks and feels cool. Every control falls comfortably to hand and it just feels good in the hand. And I especially like the black ones. And perhaps best of all, these days, you can pick up a clean copy for cheap.

 

[ac12]

Nikon F2 or F3 with a 35-105 zoom as my standard lens.
Backed up with: 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 55 micro, 105/2.5 or 135/2.8, 80-200/4.5
I choose Nikon simply because I used and use it and am familiar with it. Not to say that it is any better than Cannon, Minolta, Pentax, etc. for this purpose.

However, as I get older, weight is now becoming a factor. Weight was not a factor when I was younger. Yeah getting old has its related problems.
So for weight reduction, I choose the Olympus OM single digit series; mechanical shutter OM1 & OM3 and the electronic shutter OM2 & OM4.
With a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/2.8, and possibly a short zoom.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is obviously no single "best" camera here.

One thing the OP should have at least mentioned was the preferences of the one having to choose. I mean, does this person prefer a manual camera, or one with a minimum of auto features or one fully laden with auto features? You can't really answer this question unless you know these things.

But anyway if it were me, I prefer a camera that might have one or two auto features, but that also works very well in manual mode. AF is convenient, but not essential.

I use 35mm when I will not have the time or inclination to carefully compose, that is - shooting more on the fly. Therefore I use the Nikon N-75 for color and Nikon F-100 for black & white and use the AF and automatic exposure. The AF and exposure control will guaranty that the photograph will capture the composition, light and focus. If I want to do something serious, meaning that I will work with the negative to get a carefully crafted print, I use go to MF for the larger negative size and use the Hasselblad with the manual focus and use the prism light meter to get the EV value, then choose the shutter speed & depth of field for the composition.

 

[Arklatexian]

Nikon F100, FMx, or Leica M3-6.

None will figuratively break the bank, few will literally break.

Remembering that we are talking 35mm, when I first read this post, I immediately thought: Leica M2/M3. After giving the question more thought, I still think Leica M2/M3. If you get one in really good condition, and take good care of an "M" Leica, it will probably outlast you and I don't know how old you are!....Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

That's just crazy talk.

This may have been "crazy talk" but about the time that I developed my first rolls of films, cameras that we call medium-format today were called "minature cameras". This included 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Graphics and Graflexes as well as Rollei. 35mm cameras were known as sub-minatures. The basic size sheet film camera of those days was 8 x 10 or full plate while the 4x5 was known as "quarter plate". Our older English members probably remember such sheet film descriptions as late as the 1950s. The period that I referred to earlier were the 1930s into the 1940s.......Regards!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Likewise, I think back in the 1930's 16mm ciné film was called "spaghetti" (in comparison to 35mm).

One can only guess what postwar 8mm or 9.5mm was considered to be (vermicelli?).

 

[blockend]

There is obviously no single "best" camera here.

One thing the OP should have at least mentioned was the preferences of the one having to choose. I mean, does this person prefer a manual camera, or one with a minimum of auto features or one fully laden with auto features? You can't really answer this question unless you know these things.

I wasn't asking for a "best" camera, there's no shortage of those threads. I was trying to ascertain if 35mm film camera use had changed since its hay day, and if what users now look for in a camera is the same as back then. Hence the term practical. It seems to me that if you need a film camera you have to rely on, either for professional reasons or some other unrepeatable event like a round the world trip, the picture in 2016 is a challenging one. Either you buy one of the very few new film cameras still in existence and the back up that comes with it, or you go for a camera with spares and servicing (like Sover Wong's Nikon F2 support), or you carry multiple bodies of the same camera on a disposable basis, or you adopt a laissez faire attitude and use whatever comes to hand. Common problems can be fixed by general repair, but not all cameras still have parts available.

The thread quickly went down a my favourite camera route, or replaced 35mm with a different format, but some people got the question and provided interesting answers. Thank you!

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Remembering that we are talking 35mm, when I first read this post, I immediately thought: Leica M2/M3. After giving the question more thought, I still think Leica M2/M3. If you get one in really good condition, and take good care of an "M" Leica, it will probably outlast you and I don't know how old you are!....Regards!

M2s seem all the rage these days. Personally I think the M4/M4-2/M4-P represent some of the best 'all rounders' in the line up. Leica fetishists can debate the relative merits of all three, however all can be worked on by any of the popular Leica techs in seeming perpetuity, have a great set of clutter-free frame lines, have no electronics to break, have the modern improvements (internal frame counter, quick rewind, quick load), and are remarkably cheap. I got my M4 from a guy who had just had it CLA'd and it's been a great investment. And what is true about older Leicas which is NOT true about new ones, is that they actually don't lose value. I could probably easily get back my full investment.

Plus the silver Zeiss lenses or new silver Voigtlander lenses make them look quite handsome IMO!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The closest fitting the title description would be any from Praktica.
Found Praktika so unreliable;it almost turned me off of photography.With my Nikon FM, I rediscovered the love
Barring that I would say the Nikon F6.

 

[TSSPro]

I second the post above about suggestions either being older mechanical cameras or pro/prosumer matrix metering camera from that 90s. They're both exactly what I would have suggested. Hope that you find a solution to the conundrum.

 

[k.hendrik]

FM>F5 or when in doubt > Praktica MTL3

 

[mynewcolour]

I can buy fifteen Nikon L35AFs for the price of a Leica M. That's practical.

And they all come with a lens.

And a light meter.

And a flash.

;-)

 

[jgoody]

Olympus OM 1n or OM2 or 2n -- very functional with decent lenses and a smaller footprint than most SLRs. But there are lots of great inexpensive SLRs out there and they are very practical!

 

[4season]

I was trying to ascertain if 35mm film camera use had changed since its hay day, and if what users now look for in a camera is the same as back then.

During the Great Age of Film, I obsessed about Quality. Today, I feel freer to enjoy "bad" equipment.

 

[AgX]

I can buy fifteen Nikon L35AFs for the price of a Leica M. That's practical.

It only would be practical if you could use them all the same time.

(And you still would have paid too much for them.)