• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

My ideal film camera

The Nikkormats hit my sweet spot. Their single flaw is weight, by any other metric they are excellent. I don't need a light meter, so aging circuits are irrelevant. Build quality is exemplary. Copal square shutters go on forever. They can take direct hits from solid objects. Their pose value is minimal, keeping geeks and thieves away. Camera and lens prices are inexpensive. Of the 5 Nikkormats I've owned, none have failed mechanically, which is amazing for 45 - 55 year old cameras.
 
BayG75 said:
The FM3a is a wonderful camera, and the closest thing there is to my ideal camera. But not quite perfect - no matrix metering or shutter priority/auto modes. And unlike most people, I really like the lens mount shutter speed dial on the Nikkormats.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't have a 100% viewfinder. 93% is frankly a bit poor in a camera that costs this much IMO.
 

Kodak made two roll films like 35mm the first was 828, later morphing into a cassette as 126

Ian
 

I can't comment on the matrix metering, having not shot the F6. My limited slide shooting with the F4 gave good results though.

What I would say is that the F3's winder and motor are both IMO VASTLY better than the FE/FM series, so I don't understand your reasoning there. Power rewind is nice! The manual advance lever is so smooth!
 

I have the motor drives on both my F3Ltd and P. They are much better than the Fm series, of course. But they are stinking huge! The film advance lever on both is light, imprecise and a sloppy mess. There is play in the vertical axis on all F3 cameras I have tried because of the ball bearings they put in there to make it super light. Really not pleasant. I find pretty much any other film advance lever on any other Nikon much nicer to use. F/F2/Nikkormat/FM/FE etc.
 

Point taken about the drive. Perhaps the solution there, in our ideal world, would be a drive AND a winder option, a lá Pentax LX.
As for the advance lever, I'm afraid I still don't agree with you there. Going back to my F2 after using the F3, or playing around with my girlfriend's FT3, I'm always unpleasantly surprised by the rough advance. It just feels crude and archaic by comparison. The play, and the plastic lever, I understand your reservations about. The light action, to me, is one of the F3's best features. A matter of opinion I suppose.
 
This is crazy but I'd like to design a small camera to take 16mm un-perfed film. With a frame size of 12X16 and a layout like a Rollei 35 but only 1 inch thick. Two front facing dials, one on each side of the lens with shutter speed on the right and aperture on the left. A fixed 25mm f2.8 Tessar design with front element focusing to 1 meter. There would be available a +1 and +2 close up lenses. A 22.5mm filter thread. A folding viewfinder on the left end that is interchangeable with a reflex right angle finder. The plastic cartridge would be exactly like the Minolta 16 cartridge but without the bridge (I have several Minolta 16 cameras and when the bridge broke on one of my cartridges I removed it entirely and the feed/take-up pair worked fine without the bridge.) A two blade leaf shutter with 'B' and 1/8-1/250 and X-sync at all speeds. With a standard 1/4-20 tripod mount thread and shutter button that takes a standard cable release.

Since I believe (for myself) that film photography should be DIY then I'd wish for Ilford and Kodak to offer 100 ft. bulk non-perfed 35mm film in several B&W types. Then with a slitter one could get two 16mm strips on 35mm with only a 3mm waste strip. Oh, almost forgot, would like Paterson to make 16mm reels for their tanks.
 
Something like a Fujica 645 with a reliable rangefinder and a BIG patch, a Leica M on steroids!
 
Sirius Glass said:
Nikon F-100 without a doubt.
Click to expand...


Does not eat batteries.
Lighter than the F5 or F6.
Easier to hold than the F5 or F6.
Nikon used to make them and now they cost a whole lot less. Buy 1 or 2 or maybe a dozen [10 if you are in a country that uses the metric system]
 
A camera with the body and features of the F5, that shot 6x6.
 
ChristopherCoy said:
A camera with the body and features of the F5, that shot 6x6.
Click to expand...

Yes and we could call it Hasselblad. But I do not need the film advance and the autofocusing.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Yes and we could call it Hasselblad. But I do not need the film advance and the autofocusing.
Click to expand...

You could call it whatever you like...as long as it all came in one piece.

ETA: And the AF is a must. As well as the metering, advance, and all the rest of the F5 features.

ETA, A: Or the F100 features. I like that one as well. I've owned that one as well too.
 

It would of course have interchangeable lenses and film backs.
 
Sirius Glass said:
It would of course have interchangeable lenses and film backs.
Click to expand...

Nope. Wouldn't need those either. Basically just take the F5 and stick some 120 film in it.
 
ChristopherCoy said:
Nope. Wouldn't need those either. Basically just take the F5 and stick some 120 film in it.
Click to expand...

But I change films mid roll switch between color and black & white or film speeds.
 
I honestly have a hard time thinking of how to improve on an OM-2n for a great manual focus SLR.
 
Unless you want a SLR, a AF version of one of the Fuji rangefinders, I guess more like a 6X6 or 6X7 version of the Konica Hextar with matrix metering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register