SLR woes

[Rick A]

Pentax is a decent choice, lotsa cheap glass for them, most manual bodies hold up fairly well.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Pentax is a decent choice, lotsa cheap glass for them, most manual bodies hold up fairly well.

Agree. My first SLR was a Pentax SV purchased at the PX in Vietnam in 1967. I still have it and it functions as well today as back in '67.

 

[olleorama]

The problem, I guess, is finding a house with at least 2000th shutter speed

 

[mgb74]

It's pretty much all been said above:

If you want compact, robust SLR then it's Olympus (take your pick, other than OM10). But expect to pay a premium for used lenses (even compared to Nikon).

Perhaps one of the later Pentax manual focus SLRs (like ME Super) for compact, lots of bang for the buck, maybe not quite as robust.

Minolta XE and XD for reasonably robust bodies (esp. XE) and inexpensive but high quality glass. Not especially compact.

I think Nikon N90s is biggest bang for the buck in AF bodies (surprising how cheap they go for) but not compact (and not MF).

 

[Viggi]

I use both Konica T3 and TC (and an FS-1, but I always think it is giving up the ghost when it automatically advances the film..). The lenses are nice - good contrast and colour. I shot TC with 50mm 1.7 and FM2n with 50mm 1.4 AF, side-by-side, and had films from both processed by same shop. This is how I shoot, these are the guys I use for developing, so the comparison was relevant to me. And I actually preferred the look of the AR lens. I don't use my cameras heavily, but I've heard the Konicas are not in the same league as Nikons for reliability - no surprise here. The shutters are loud, viewfinders a bit dark (certainly on the TC, the T3 is quite good in my opinion). The T3 is heavy, big and... well, lurvly. As for the lenses - you can still get 28mm (loads of them around), some 50mms, and the occasional 40mm pancake, but the more rare lenses are not cheap, and hard to find - the only source I know of is fleebay, and I also found 135mm f3.2 from camera-house-uk. I'm a bit disappointed that I can't get more Konica lenses for a reasonable price.

 

[Viggi]

Not wanting to divert the thread, but does anyone have more info on the Kenko cameras?

 

[Rick A]

I reason I prefer OM-1's over my OM-4 is the 4 has far to many displays to memorize for every function. I found myself spending all my time trying to figure out what the display was showing instead of shooting. It has been sitting on my shelf for nearly ten years, my wife even gave up shooting it in favor of an OM-1. Keep it simple, unless someone offers you an OM-3 for next to nothing, then grab it and never let it out of your hands.

 

[John Koehrer]

WRT the 2000/4000 speeds, that may limit your selection a bit.FM2n OM4? Pentax LX? I don't recall but sorta kinda recall the OM & Pentax use electronics to control the shutter speeds.
I just discovered my F2 has 1/2000. Never used it. Hmmpph!

 

[upnorthcyclist]

I'd recommend a Minolta XD or XE - both are terrific bodies that get you into Minolta lenses - but both cameras' fastest shutter speed is 1/1000.

 

[Wade D]

Most of the mechanical cameras have top speeds of 1/1000 (some 1/2000). The electronically controlled shutters on more modern cameras top out at 1/12000 (Minolta Maxxum 9). The trade off is you must have batteries. I bought a Minolta Maxxum 8000i for the top speed of 1/8000. It has, in my opinion, too many bells and whistles for my taste. A much cheaper way of getting shallow DOF with a 1/1000 shutter speed is a neutral density filter. That's what I use on my Minolta SRT 201. Not a small camera but very well built and the lenses are sharp and cheap.

 

[blockend]

Nikon manual lenses are sought after and nicer examples are attracting prices only a collector would pay. I faced a similar dilemma and decided to go Canon FD as the prices are cheaper and older metal bodied breech mount lenses are robust in a Nikkor kind of way. I still have a number of Nikons and a small collection of AIS and non-AI lenses (plus a few AF lenses). However the Canon F-1 is more expensive in the UK than pro Nikons so the only manual body available at a reasonable price is the FTb.

The Olympus OM1 is a nice camera but probably isn't up to heavy use, which is why I swapped to a Nikon F years ago. It's hard to judge how tough is tough but I recall a chap in a police department who went from Nikons to OMs saying the Olympus had more problems, mine certainly shed cosmetic parts rapidly.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

As the previous post I'll go with the Canon FTb.

Jeff

 

[baachitraka]

Om-3 has became rare-earth device these days. :-(

 

[Rick A]

Om-3 has became rare-earth device these days. :-(

I had the opportunity to buy one for the same price as my OM-4, alas I allowed the salesman talk me into the OM-4, just had to have the extra bells and whistles.

 

[baachitraka]

What was the price they were asking for om-3 at that time?

Olympus should produce these gems to keep the tradition/cult alive.

 

[kivis]

Although I am Nikon all the way, the Yashica FX 2000 is cheap and damn good.

 

[olleorama]

Okay, a plan has formed. I will try and use my Gfs Konica with a 28, a 40 and a 85. If I don't like it or if she tries to rip me off )), I will go and try the pentax, and if that doesn't work out I'm gonna get my FMs repaired. This will be a low cost operation from now on as I'm set on getting a fuji gw670III first and foremost. 6x7>35mm, at least when it comes to stuff that is semicommercial, in these times. B/W 35mm is mostly private stuff anyways. You'll probably see some nikon glass in the classifieds in a month or so..

 

[baachitraka]

6x7>35mm ?? Just decide after this.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[olleorama]

6x7>35mm ?? Just decide after this.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Jesus, it's 23 pages, my boss would kill me if they knew I read that. Threads that long should have an abstract.

 

[baachitraka]

Mr. Bertilsson, was kind enough to post what he has discovered. You may not required to read everything but first few messages should clarify a lot.

 

[olleorama]

Mr. Bertilsson, was kind enough to post what he has discovered. You may not required to read everything but first few messages should clarify a lot.

I also find that I can make very smooth 16x20s from acros and t-max100 with no apparent grain structure. But at the same time, from a 6x7 from the same film, I get even better prints. For me at least. Anyhow, most stuff I sell I have to scan, and there is a very big difference there, with the Imacon I get a lot better results from 6x7, that's just the way it is. Printing 35mm is all fun and dandy, but for print (as in books, magazines) scanned negatives is basically the only way for me. So 6x7 is higher priority than 35 atm. I do intend to keep printing 35mm, but only for myself.

 

[philosomatographer]

Not elitist, just second nature from having an OM-1 hanging off my face for so many years

I have to concur here - if you are used to the ergonomics of the Olympus OM system, it's absolutely, positively, second-to-none. Especially an OM-1 (even nicer than an OM-3 in that regard). You really don't need to foul up the viewfinder with a display of what you already know - I am glad they used the real estate instead to build the biggest, brightest optical finder ever fitted to a 35mm camera.

Anybody who has been using an OM-1/OM-3 for a couple of months can, in about two seconds, set it to any shutter speed / aperture combo purely by feel, and this with one hand. Quite a bit nicer than even a Leica M in that regard.

It's a very different philosophy, however, and it either works for you, or it doesn't. If you shoot negative film, guess exposure, and "pre-visualise" - ready to take the shot in an instant - you make your exposure and (approximate) focus decisions with the camera still slung over your shoulder, set them by feel with one hand, and at the right moment take the shot, without changing anything other than focus.

The OM-1 was built for this style of operation. It clashes severely with the "driving a computer" style of photography (i.e. as possible on later Nikons) but is very much in tune with using a plain Nikon F - which is nice, but gigantic by comparison!. Still, if size does not bother you, it's tough to argue with the excellence of an F.

 

[Diapositivo]

If I were the OP I would first contact some foreign repairers (many British ones have been mentioned in this forum) for a rough guesstimate of the problem. Maybe it is just some lubrication which is needed. You can send two bodies in one parcel and save on shipping. I don't think a mechanical body can really be "weared", not if properly lubricated. Once I have an investment in one brand, I would just use it as much as possible.

If the repair option is discarded, I would go for mounts that are not anymore in production. That means probably Canon FD, Minolta SR (MC/MD), Contax/Yashica, Olympus, Konica. I leave out Rolleiflex and Leica, Alpa etc. for price considerations.

Olympus lenses seem to experience a new demand peak in the second-hand market, possibly due to their small size which makes them an ideal candidate for mating to smaller digital cameras, with adapter rings.

That leaves Konica, C/Y, Minolta manual focus.

A Contax RTS or RTS II is very serious stuff, it has got the 1/2000, and it can mount the Zeiss lenses. Those are not cheap, although probably a bargain in the second-hand market. If image quality comes before price, Zeiss lenses are always a good option.

Konica cameras and lenses are probably very good but being rarer they are possibly more difficult to service.

The overall best quality/price ratio is probably in Minolta SR lenses. You can find first-class (or better-than-first-class) lenses at a relatively contained price. The only Minolta SR camera to have 1/2000 was the XM (or XK). You can buy a XM for around €250, not cheap, and a second body (X-700, or a mechanical SRT) for peanuts. Lenses are cheap so the only expensive part of this setup is the XM for the 1/2000 requirement. XM and X-700 have a viewfinder which is wonderful for brightness, magnification and clarity of focus, and the more I take pictures, the more I think the viewfinder is THE important differentiating factor between cameras. You are using the "goodness" in a good viewfinder at every moment, while you use the single function of the camera (such as 1/2000) only occasionally, and you can most probably take the same picture with 1/1000.

Juice:
1) Repair your stuff;
2) Take to occasion for a quality "jump": C/Y with Zeiss lenses (expensive switch);
3) Switch to Minolta SR for high quality at bargain prices (economical switch, with an improvement in lens quality ).

Fabrizio

 

[Ken N]

I am a bit perturbed about the Olympus bashing in regards to its inability to survive bashing. It seems like every instance of expression about it in this thread is hearsay. If they really were as wimpy as some make them out to be, there wouldn't be any working samples available at all.

Trust me, they are PLENTY tough.

My OM-2S is nearing retirement, not from wearing out, but because I just happen to prefer using the same metering system across all bodies and the other ones are OM-4T and OM-3Ti bodies with the multispot metering. My OM-2S has far more than 100000 exposures on it.

As to lenses... There is a good reason why Zuikos are drawing a premium. They easily adapt to EOS mount cameras and happen to be far better than the Canon lenses in many many cases. Especially the wide angle lenses.

 

[fstop]

Ok, I'm looking for a compact manual slr. I have used and abused nikons trustworthy FM and FM2 models (along with F100 and F80), but they have given up their ghost on me. I have a few lenses I like, a 50/1.8 pancake, decent lens but focus is a bit loose, a 28/2.8 which I really like, and a 85/something, decent. So a few alternatives now:

• Shell out for repairs, which are stupidly expensive here in Sweden
• Buy another FM/FM2/FA or similar
• Invest in a new system

I also have a chinon something with quite a few m42 lenses, most are third party and of dodgy quality.

Been contemplating Olympys OM-seires, most likely OM4. Konica T-series also seems interesting, from what I've heard the AR hexanons are quite swell, my girlfriend has a TC with a 40/1.8 which gets stellar reviews, and the house seems quite compact. How are the manual minoltas? I would like to have at least 1/2000th maximum shutter speed, 1/4000th is better.

The reason I'm thinking of switching from Nikon is that their lenses fetch absurd prices nowadays, and manual Nikon bodies are all the rage. Most used manual bodies are way higher priced today than for, let's say, 5 years ago.

Does anybody have any good advice and experience?

just spotted this post and didn't read any of the other replies
with that said
Minolta bodies and Rokkor lenses will give you top quality images for not a lot of money.