So, I'm a little bit new to this...

[Alan Gales]

Oh, I did have a Hasselblad (that was my first SLR, actually). But I didn't run around proclaiming it the second coming of Voigtlaender either. I've got brand preferences to be sure, but they're because the tool fits my need. Nowadays it's Contax G/RTS for 35mm, Rollei for medium format (which has become my primary camera), and Canham for large/ultra-large format. Yeah, they're all "name" cameras, but I have them because I like what they do and how they do it, not because they're "names". I'd much rather see someone out taking photos with a Minolta X700 and a Tokina zoom than pining for some Leicelbladikon and not taking pictures because they don't have it, or worse, having it but denigrating those who take photos with "lesser" equipment.

I occasionally buy and sell film cameras, lenses and accessories to help support the hobby so I have had the opportunity to test quite a few cameras. Everything has it's advantages and disadvantages. I did take in a Hasselblad 500CM with 80mm Planar on trade. I like it so well that I have kept it for now. I use it as a "walk around" camera and enjoy shooting square for a change.

Between my Nikon DSLR and the Blad I really don't need a 35mm SLR camera. I do occasionally shoot a Stereo Realist. I own 3 4x5 cameras (Tachihara, Crown Graphic and Sinar P) and an 8x10 Wehman.

Truth be told I use the DSLR the most (Ebay sales, sports, and snapshots) but the Wehman is my favorite.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

In the UK, prices for Non-AI lenses are close to post-1977 AI and AIS lenses. They are perceived as vintage and rare and so asking prices have risen in the last few years. Still, they are in average cheaper and are great fun!
10 years ago I built my first Nikon system around a Nikkormat FTN, a 28mm and a 105mm Non-AI and paid relatively much less than today's prices.

To the OP
You can check prices and availability with Ffords, Mifsuds and other retail second-hand specialists.

 

[pbromaghin]

I feel an FT2/FM debate is imminent...

You sure you're new at this? Make some popcorn and sit back.

Back on topic, I'm a big fan of Minolta X series. The x-700 and x-570 just feel right in my hands and the lenses are as good as any Nikon. Also, they are very likely to fit in your budget right now. Oh, and a tip for checking eBay prices: look only at completed auctions so you see only what people have really paid for gear.

 

[Tom1956]

There are Minolta fans, sure enough. To me Minolta is in the class with Canon, Ricoh, Fujica, Yashica, and others. In stock-car racing, it's called "lap traffic".

 

[ntenny]

There are Minolta fans, sure enough. To me Minolta is in the class with Canon, Ricoh, Fujica, Yashica, and others. In stock-car racing, it's called "lap traffic".

A lot of people are very fond of the ergonomics of the Maxxum bodies, which I suppose is fair enough. I wish I could remember who I once saw saying---I think on APUG, even---"Nikon makes the best lenses, Minolta makes the best bodies, and Canon makes the best compromises". A matter of opinion, to be sure, but it does seem to match what users of the brands say they like.

Topcon, now, *there's* an underappreciated SLR line. But don't let on about it or they'll all want one.

-NT

 

[Dr Croubie]

Based upon the very short (only a few months, really!) period I've spent in analog photography, I've not really picked up my digital in quite sometime. I find myself being dragged further and further into this analog world, and to be honest I'm quite happy with it. It's a whole lot of fun!

Be careful, that's how it starts. I dropped €1800 on my 7D and EFs15-85 a few years ago. It's served me well, I'm sure the shutter count is well over 30-40k by now (it was 17k after the first year, before I turned off High-Speed Continuous). I rarely pick it up these days, except at a Singapore bird-park last week I shot off about 1000 frames. Horses for courses, birding is the one place digital>film for me.

Besides birds, I got into film specifically for that reason actually, to force me to slow down and think before firing off a few hundred shots and sifting through them all later (it's funny when I see tourists around doing exactly what I used to do, even on landscapes. Some will learn to slow down, some won't and just keep doing a spray'n'pray).
Flash forward a few years, I've got an Eos 3, 2 Bessa Rangefinders (L, R3A), a Mamiya 645AF, three 6x6 (Pentacon6, Kiev60, Kiev88), and I just got in the mail the other day a Retina Reflex Original and Retina Reflex IV (had to get both versions, different lens-mounts you see), plus I've got an inherited Petri 7s Circle-eye rangefinder and I'm awaiting delivery of my two Travelwide 4x5" LF cameras. Don't ask me to count the lenses.

I'm curious though, why did you jump to OM and also to Nikon? Any reason not to go canon (like i did) to share lenses?
(I suppose if you only had a 600D with EFs lenses and no EF-mounts, then having to buy everything again means you can choose from any brand). I already had a bunch of EF lenses so an EOS 3 was an obvious choice. My 40mm Pancake rarely leaves it, only for my EF85/1.8 sometimes. The other good thing about EF Canons is that you can mount almost any lens on them, Nikons, OMs, M42s and PKs, Leica R and C/Y, plus easily-converted (EdMika) FL/FD lenses.

But yeah, don't let me convince you away from OM or F, I've used the glass of both but never the bodies so I can't comment on the features of each too much (anyone want to convince me to buy an OM body to match my OM glass instead?). And sometimes buying a whole new body costs just as much as a decent adapter to a different body (eg i've seen both M42->EF adapters and Spotmatic bodies go for $10 on fleabay).

 

[PaperNoire]

I'm curious though, why did you jump to OM and also to Nikon?

My main reason for jumping straight to OM came after my purchase of the Olympus Trip 35. My Dad's friend mentioned that he had an OM10, so that made me look up the OM series, and then he let me borrow it. Unfortunately it was too faulty for me to risk a roll of film (which film in itself can be expensive at my age!), so I decided I'd just get my own. And I loved it! Great SLR to start out with. My sudden jump to the Nikon F series came when I found out most of my favourite photographs and photographers were shot with / used Nikon F's (Joseph Sterling, etc). So it made me investigate, discovering the full extent of the Nikon SLRs, so I'm really aiming to get one right now.

I have to admit guys, I'm not a huge fan of the ergonomics of the Minolta bodies. Sorry if this offends anyone! We all have preference, right?

A little request - hope it's not too dicky to ask, but if we could keep the conversation topic to Nikon cameras, specifically Nikon F-series cams, and which one I should save up for (currently it's FT2 vs FM?) I'd greatly appreciate it

 

[MattKing]

A little request - hope it's not too dicky to ask, but if we could keep the conversation topic to Nikon cameras, specifically Nikon F-series cams, and which one I should save up for (currently it's FT2 vs FM?) I'd greatly appreciate it

Attempting to keep an internet thread narrowly focussed and on topic is a much more difficult task than anything photographic .

My advice on matters Nikon isn't likely to be the best, because I have never warmed to their cameras. I would suggest, however, that if you are considering cameras like anNikon FM, it is more important to pay attention to issues of feel and ergonomics than questions of features and specifications. If you liked the feel of an OM-10, I would guess that an FM might be more suitable than an FT2.

 

[Tom1956]

I remember the Nikon market strategy of 1977 very clearly. In short, a Nikkormat or an FM would be fine for you. But back to the story. Until then, Nikon was the "professional" one, and Nikkormat was the "second body", or amateur, either one. Turned out the Nikkormat was more useful, and often got moved to "first body" in the camera bag.
In 1977, the FM came out to capture the amateur/consumer market with the Nikon name, so amateurs could be proud they had a "real" Nikon. In 1977, there was a big deal going on among manufacturers to make the new "small" bodies. A fad that Olympus started with the 'revolutionary" OM-1, and Pentax with e ME/MX. It was a race to the small body. Nikon dropped the Nikkormat ELW and re-branded it the Nikon EL2, another marketing ploy. Nikkormat was being phased out as a name. It was all just marketing, to capture the consumer market.
As far as your decision, either one is fine.In fact, I believe the FM switched to the SBC cell. Though 35 years later, both CdS and SBC cells go bad at about the same rate. No real advantage there. Remember, the FT3 was an AI camera. I only recommended the FT2 to you so you could get in on the cheaper older lenses. If you don't mind the occasional nuisance of the Nikkormat prong, then all is good. But when buying, be absolutely sure that the meter cells have not lost linearity. This means that it has lost accuracy from one light level to another. (accurate in bright daylight, inaccurate when it's darker). But any camera meter can exhibit this. It's called a dead cell. Any brand of camera of any age over 20 years can develop this.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have to admit guys, I'm not a huge fan of the ergonomics of the Minolta bodies. Sorry if this offends anyone! We all have preference, right?

Offend? Hell no. The fewer people like the Minoltas, the more there are for me.

 

[Alan Gales]

A little request - hope it's not too dicky to ask, but if we could keep the conversation topic to Nikon cameras, specifically Nikon F-series cams, and which one I should save up for (currently it's FT2 vs FM?) I'd greatly appreciate it

Since you are considering an FM you might want to look at the FE. The additional aperture priority mode is not necessary but it is a nice feature to have.

 

[Chan Tran]

I recommended the FM and the FT2 is a fine camera but I don't see why not the FT3, whichever one that is least expensive for you.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I recommended the FM and the FT2 is a fine camera but I don't see why not the FT3, whichever one that is least expensive for you.

The FT3 requires AI lenses. The FT2 does not, this is the only difference. To use non-AI lenses on the '3, you must resort to stopdown metering.

 

[Alex Muir]

Hi. Have you considered any of the more modern Nikon autofocus SLRs? You can pick up an F80 very cheaply in the UK. Much cheaper than a good FE/FM and just as effective. It has full manual control of exposure, as well as all the usual auto settings. It also takes a standard cable release which is useful. The only downside is that it doesn't meter with manual focus lenses, but this only matters if you already own manual focus lenses. The 50mm f1.8 AF lens is great, but although they only cost around £120 new, they hold their value and tend to fetch at least £60-70 on eBay. I would look for an F80 with the original kit lens which was 28-100mm. It's not very robust, but gives good image quality, and can be found very cheaply. This camera also has a useful built-in flash. Alex

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I believe the FM switched to the SBC cell.

Tom
I know those cells as SPD (silicon photo-diode) and that is the term on the Nikon EL2 manual, which was the first Nikon to have them.
All previous Nikkormats had the CDS cells.

 

[Tom1956]

Tom
I know those cells as SPD (silicon photo-diode) and that is the term on the Nikon EL2 manual, which was the first Nikon to have them.
All previous Nikkormats had the CDS cells.

Whatever. All the same in that the meter circuit is totally different from the CdS cells. The CdS was strictly a simple resistor circuit. The silicon circuit was an amplification circuit very much like an audio amplifier. The cells are not interchangeable in any way.

 

[Alex Muir]

I've just noticed that all of my pound signs are mixed up! The figures were 120 and 60-70 GB pounds. Also, I don't mean the F80 isn't robust.....it is. It's just the kit lens that is less solid than more expensive lenses. Alex

 

[Dr Croubie]

Meanwhile, I thought someone had mentioned it already but I can't find the specific post. If you're sticking with Nikon and want to know what lenses will and won't mount on which body, there's a nice table here for easy reference. Don't get too scared off by it, it's not too hard once you've read it a few times. (and easier still, if you're just getting one body/lens to begin with and you buy them together, there's a good chance that the two match and you won't need to worry until you start filling out your kit with more lenses).

 

[PaperNoire]

Meanwhile, I thought someone had mentioned it already but I can't find the specific post. If you're sticking with Nikon and want to know what lenses will and won't mount on which body, there's a nice table here for easy reference. Don't get too scared off by it, it's not too hard once you've read it a few times. (and easier still, if you're just getting one body/lens to begin with and you buy them together, there's a good chance that the two match and you won't need to worry until you start filling out your kit with more lenses).

This is perfect! Cheers pal!

I embarrassingly have to admit, I'm still using the kit lens with my 600D... You see, I've got some of my best images out of it, and to be fair, I've just never got around to purchasing any other lenses for it! You know how we teens are, one minute we'll be wanting to buy this and that, then it's this other thing and you have to have that thing etc etc... I guess I just forgot to buy lenses! But yeah, I suppose in the future, when I have a paperround or some sort of paying job, I'll most likely be picking up a few lenses for the Nikon. Thanks a lot for the table link!

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing particularly wrong with using a kit lens. Many of them are quite functional. They generally aren't as fast as some of the nicer offerings, and therefore may be a bit harder to focus manually, and they often aren't the most rugged in construction, but they can be used to take photographs!

 

[PaperNoire]

There is nothing particularly wrong with using a kit lens. Many of them are quite functional. They generally aren't as fast as some of the nicer offerings, and therefore may be a bit harder to focus manually, and they often aren't the most rugged in construction, but they can be used to take photographs!

Exactly!

Yeah, focusing manually is a bit of a no-no... It generally seems to be fast enough with AF when I'm shooting the streets, which is quite surprising! I do use manual whenever it's possible though.

 

[Chan Tran]

Tom
I know those cells as SPD (silicon photo-diode) and that is the term on the Nikon EL2 manual, which was the first Nikon to have them.
All previous Nikkormats had the CDS cells.

The FM has GPD (Gallium Photo Diode). I don't know what are the advantages or disadvantages compared to SPD but SPD is much more popular. I do find that the FM meter responds very fast. If you point it at a TV screen it possible to have all the LED's lighted at once. That is it indicates both over and under exposure at the same time.

 

[Nikon Collector]

++

Intuitive, easy to use, big nobs, great glass. What's not to like? And I'm a Minolta guy.

No DOF, no self timer, no on/off switch for meter, slow horizontal cloth shutter to name just a few things and I've owned 4 of them

 

[Nikon Collector]

I've been given a lot of nice camera and darkroom equipment for free. All you really have to do is let it be known that you are into film and people with VERY NICE cameras that have been sitting in a box in their closet for years will practically beg you to take it. And you may not yet have figured out the fact that all these people on here, some of whom really know what they are doing, have such widely varying opinions of different brands, really means that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the results you will get from one brand to another.

a camera is a light tight box that holds the film the correct distance from the lens, it's the camera user that controls the quality of the photograph

 

[pbromaghin]

a camera is a light tight box that holds the film the correct distance from the lens, it's the camera user that controls the quality of the photograph

Bullshit. It is the lens and the film as manipulated by the photographer. The camera body has little to to do with it other than making the manipulation more or less easy.