Some questions about alpa cameras

[Paul Howell]

I don't mean completly inaudbile and I know the disadvantages of slr. But what are some of the quietest slr bodies?

F6 Has tons of electronics and AF if im not mistaken? How is it's size? Are there any camera comparison pages?

I want to stick with film, I have a digital m4/3 body.

Although I don't use a F6 I have a friend who I shoot with who does, Don lurks around APUG so he may decide to give his feedback. From I know about the F6, it is AF, the last in the Nikon 35mm pro line of camera. It is AF, but can use AIS manual focus lens as well, about the same size as F100, smaller and lighter than the F5. Has all of the bells and whistles, 1/8000 top shutter speed, likely the best built in meter of any film camera, auto bracket, manual, shutter speed, aperture, program and manual exposure modes, well sealed. Used F5 in the US run from about $800 to $1400 or so, new $2300.

There are many camera comparison pages, the best way to really compare to is to find the user manuals online then check out the various reviews.

As mentioned the F2 is a very strong and reliable camera, all mechanical there are folks who still repair it, later versions used AIS lens.

 

[4season]

Why are the alpas not sensible cameras? too expensive? Feature lacking?

SindreS,

Sometimes the only way to know is to buy it and live with it for awhile: Maybe it will be everything you hoped it would be, and maybe it won't.

I'd like to get an Alpa too, but my expectations are a lot lower: I expect to pay too much money and I probably won't end up using it too often. And I expect the photos to be very nice, though not really on par with a modern camera which costs a lot less. I also expect that items like the shutter and mirror cushion foam will deteriorate over time and need replacing. I expect that few repair technicians will touch it, and those that do will want to be well-paid for their efforts. And they likely will need to improvise replacements for parts like those shutter curtains and foam strips as NOS (New, Old Stock) parts likely have also deteriorated. And if strangers ask me about my camera, they will inevitably ask "Is that a Leica?". Other than the very rare older man, no one will know what an Alpa is, nor will they care.

Between the two of us, I think I have a better chance of not being disappointed

 

[flavio81]

Some of your requirements are in conflict with themselves. No SLR with a mirror will be very quiet. Even a Leica M is audible. The quietest cameras are leaf-shutter rangefinders.

My Nikon F is as quiet -or quieter- than many of my leaf-shutter cameras. It's because it gives a sound that is lower in high-frequency content (than the leaf shuttered machines).

 

[flavio81]

Ken Rockwell said "The (Nikon) F2AS is the last, best, most advanced and most durable mechanical camera ever made by Nikon. It might be the best ever made by anyone".

That's Ken opinion and it's just an opinion. Ken's website is fun and has some good info and good tests, but it's not a "bible."
The Nikon FM3a is mechanically more advanced, for example.

There are many "best ever" cameras, within Nikon and outside Nikon. I'd be perfectly happy with only my Nikon F2AS and no other SLR camera, but I prefer the Canon F-1N and the F2AS sits mostly unused. The Pentax LX surely should be at the same league of those, without problems.
My Nikon FE got more use than my Nikon F and F2, despite being "inferior" in theory. But i got along with it pretty well.
My Canon EOS 5 is in theory more "advanced" and "capable" than all the former cameras, but it does not inspire me to go out and take pics, and I don't like the viewfinder.

Because at the end, you need to choose the camera that you feel most comfortable with, or inspired with. In theory, you can make great pictures with ANY camera, including an iPhone camera or any of the toy cameras (Holga, etc). But my advice is to select the camera you feel more inspired to take pictures with.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't mean completly inaudbile and I know the disadvantages of slr. But what are some of the quietest slr bodies?

F6 Has tons of electronics and AF if im not mistaken? How is it's size? Are there any camera comparison pages?

I want to stick with film, I have a digital m4/3 body.

BTW, there is an adaptor for Alpa to 4/3 bodies, my friends who inherited the Alpa use the lens on a Sony. So if you decide on the Alpa make sure you still find the adaptor.

 

[SindreS]

SindreS,

Sometimes the only way to know is to buy it and live with it for awhile: Maybe it will be everything you hoped it would be, and maybe it won't.

I'd like to get an Alpa too, but my expectations are a lot lower: I expect to pay too much money and I probably won't end up using it too often. And I expect the photos to be very nice, though not really on par with a modern camera which costs a lot less. I also expect that items like the shutter and mirror cushion foam will deteriorate over time and need replacing. I expect that few repair technicians will touch it, and those that do will want to be well-paid for their efforts. And they likely will need to improvise replacements for parts like those shutter curtains and foam strips as NOS (New, Old Stock) parts likely have also deteriorated. And if strangers ask me about my camera, they will inevitably ask "Is that a Leica?". Other than the very rare older man, no one will know what an Alpa is, nor will they care.

Between the two of us, I think I have a better chance of not being disappointed

I'm guessing that as well! What slr system are you using?

 

[4season]

I'm guessing that as well! What slr system are you using?

Back when film was my primary photographic medium, I owned Nikon (FE, F, F2, F2AS, F3, F4), Leica R (R4S Mod P) and very briefly, Pentax MX, Spotmatic and Olympus OM1. Which is only a fraction of my film cameras, but I got heavily involved with medium format and rangefinder-type cameras up to 6x9, even dabbled in large format. In fact, for a time I swore off of 35mm altogether and owned nothing smaller than my 6x6 Mamiya Six. Which was actually a terrific carry-around outfit when combined with the 75mm normal lens. This collection currently resides in other people's houses via the medium called "eBay"

Right now I'm just having a little bit of fun with film and trying to keep this hobby small and inexpensive. I'd be surprised if film ever accounted for 5% of my shooting again.

 

[Jet]

Sindres, I'd be interested in knowing what you intend to be shooting, and how much film you intend to shoot. What sorts of 35mm cameras have you shot with in the past?

 

[SindreS]

Sindres, I'd be interested in knowing what you intend to be shooting, and how much film you intend to shoot. What sorts of 35mm cameras have you shot with in the past?

Well hello there. I short whatever I feel is worth a shot. Often when im with my family or on a trip I carry a camera. So it is a lot of nature/landscape, "portraits" (the longest lens I'm "comfortable" with is 50mm so the tightest portrait will be waist/upper body and up). I also want to shoot a bit in the city. Hence the quiet and small. I am using a bessa r and a canon ae1. I have have laid my hands upon a nikon f3 and that felt pretty nice. So the lenses im going to get is something in the 20mm range (24-28 maybe). 35mm and 50mm. I care a lot about design so that is why for me the camera must look both nice and feel nice. It should also be functional. So I'm looking for a "bauhaus" camera. Most often I'm going fully manual (without aperture priority and such. So I don't need it but if it has it I won't discard the camera)

E: The canon ae1 feels decent. I'm not very impressed with it but it works. The small "grip" is smart I must say. Could be a bit larger and such like the pentax lx grip. I don't fancy the metering too much (needle). However if the camera is perfect in all the other ways than needle then I might be ok with it.The bessa r is also in this league. But it has a great Viewfinder and metering system (metering says on for a couple of seconds after you have pressed the button).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

My Nikon F is as quiet -or quieter- than many of my leaf-shutter cameras. It's because it gives a sound that is lower in high-frequency content (than the leaf shuttered machines).

My Canonet 28 and QL17 GIII both make a nice quiet little "click" sound. My wonderful plain-prismed F makes a very satisfying "ka-chunk" sound - more pleasing than any other SLR I own, but louder than the Canon rangefinders and the Leica M's.

Perhaps there's an equatorial paradox at work here?

Admittedly, I can't hear anywhere near 15-20kHz.

 

[John Koehrer]

What if I told you that I wanted this.
- Small body (small body over weight)= Olympus OM-1/Pentax MX Certainly None of the AF Nikons
- Reliable = Olympus OM-1/Pentax MX
- High build quality.............................Eh! equal to most other brands
- Must have build in lightmeter............OM-1/Pentax MX
- Shutter sound (or lack of).................OM-1/Pentax MX
- Don't need any accesory finders........OM-1/Pentax MX
- Good selection of quality lenses.........OM-1/Pentax MX
- Battery dependancy is not an issue.....Not battery dependent except for meter.....Both
- I prefer diodes (LED for instance) however not that big of a deal....OM-1 uses needle & notch, Pentax LED's w/speed display in finder(transparent dial).
All these points are very important for me.
*Both offer winders and motor drive.

Speaking as someone that uses Nikon, Both the OM family and Pentax M family are too small. I've got a Pentax KX that suits me better than the smaller cameras.
At the shop I worked for, the AIpa rep brought in a body casting for shop & tell & liked to demonstrate it's strength by standing on it. That doesn't mean the other brands wouldn't do the same but it was kind of fun(we all took turns) I was able to use an ALPA for a few days & found it very odd with the front to back advance and front release.
Because you use you're using the index finger to advance & fire it wasn't fast at all. I guess the benefit is you can consider your shots more carefully :~P.

BTW The word "previsuallize" attributed to AA won't be found in his writings but do appear in Minor White's.

 

[4season]

What if I told you that I wanted this.
- Small body (small body over weight)= Olympus OM-1/Pentax MX Certainly None of the AF Nikons
- Reliable = Olympus OM-1/Pentax MX
- High build quality.............................Eh! equal to most other brands
- Must have build in lightmeter............OM-1/Pentax MX
- Shutter sound (or lack of).................OM-1/Pentax MX
- Don't need any accesory finders........OM-1/Pentax MX
- Good selection of quality lenses.........OM-1/Pentax MX
- Battery dependancy is not an issue.....Not battery dependent except for meter.....Both
- I prefer diodes (LED for instance) however not that big of a deal....

Just remembered the Leica R6/R6.2, Nikon FM3A and Olympus OM3! I figure that these are some of the last-ever fully mechanical cameras actually built by Leica, Nikon and Olympus, and all have electronic finder displays. OM3Ti might be the costliest of the bunch though.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The FM3a has a beautiful analog display in the viewfinder. The shutter speed scale is on the left along with a thin black needle showing the indicated exposure and a blue indicator for the selected speed. The set aperture is at the top. Focusing is by microprism and split image.

The FM's have LEDs to indicate over, under, and exact exposure.

OM3Ti --- yeah, I forgot about that one. It's a gem: titanium build, lighter and smaller than the F3, and spot metering. An expensive classic now, but good.

 

[ph]

A small correction ad the above belief that light traps for the Alpa film chambers use foam plastic.

The Alpa back is removed for fitting ordinary film or the special back for reels of bulk film for use with the weird motor. It slides into fairly precise channels that do not use, nor need, foam.

p.

 

[Jet]

Sindres, I also have a Bessa R and Canon AE1. When I got the Bessa, I thought I'd never want another rangefinder camera. I loved the bright viewfinder and meter. Yet, I continued to by rangefinders - most recently a Canon 7, that I use with the 35mm 1.7 lens I got with the Bessa. I hope you do pick up an Alpa, and share your experiences with it. It seems to me to be a camera that stands out from the crowd. Let me know if you find a source for reasonably priced lens adapters, and this is what I need to complete my Alpa experience.

 

[SindreS]

Sindres, I also have a Bessa R and Canon AE1. When I got the Bessa, I thought I'd never want another rangefinder camera. I loved the bright viewfinder and meter. Yet, I continued to by rangefinders - most recently a Canon 7, that I use with the 35mm 1.7 lens I got with the Bessa. I hope you do pick up an Alpa, and share your experiences with it. It seems to me to be a camera that stands out from the crowd. Let me know if you find a source for reasonably priced lens adapters, and this is what I need to complete my Alpa experience.

Do you have an alpa? And well I was going to ask a workshop the price to fabcricate adapters. I'll give back when (if) I hear from then.

E:
Jet. Why did you go with the canon. I have considered canon rf models (especially those with the leica vit built in) however no built in lightmeter and the bessas r great viewfinder makes it a no competition. If I were to upgrade my (rf) kit it would haver to be an bessa r2/Leica m5/leica m6.

 

[Jet]

Sindres, I have an Alpa 9d. Thanks for looking into those adapters.

I have a few Canon rangefinders in the collection, including a VT and a P. The 7 is on my desk right now. The build in selenium meter on the 7 works just fine. The meter on my Nikon D2x is undoubtedly more accurate, but the one of the 7 seems to match it 90% of the time. It has a big viewfinder, multiple frames and a metal shutter, and I picked it up in very nice condition for under $100. The looks have grown on me. An M3 would be nice, but that would be a lot more money. Compared to the Bessa, the Canon feel more substantial in my hands....and I'm a sucker for all things vintage.

 

[rthollenbeck]

Bonus questions:

Why are the alpas not sensible cameras? too expensive? Feature lacking? If so grab and contax rx (which i currently have without a lens and im going to try it) or a nikon f6 for instance.

I say the Alpa is not a sensible camera because:
They were so well made and way out there expensive that they are for the most part a rarity.
Witch translates to:
There are few to no parts to fix them.
There are few to no cameras to scavenge parts from.
There are few people with the know how to fix them.
The ones that do break people are likely to consider them potentially valuable and not want to give them up to be scavenged.

If you want a Leica like feel, of excellent build there is the Royal Robots as well.....but again it's rare and has the same set problems associated with rare.

Personaly I would try to avoid the rare problem all together. Lots of Lieca, Canon, Nikon, ect.....and there are no shortage of people touting the greatness of their favorite flavor of camera. Most all of them have a point why the camera they like is great, and most of the favorites will continue to have parts and a guy to fix them, or you just get another.

If you just won't be happy until you've owned and Alpa, go for it! I'm just trying to tell you in a friendly way; "You don't need the Holy Grail to take a great picture". Lots of sensible cameras out there that will last. LOL

 

[Jet]

There are lots of great vintage SLRs, but I can't think of too many that are quirkier than an Alpa. The Olympus Pen series are up there, and something that I've always wanted to try. I don't worry too much about my old cameras breaking. When they do, I just retire them and move on to something else. Over the last 25 years I've retired a Minox, a Contarex, and a Rolleiflex, as well as a few others.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The front-to-back film advance lever isn't too unusual, as they've been on Exaktas since the 1930's. Personally, I've never gotten used to it, but that hasn't stopped me from using them. They seem to last forever and have an interesting and wide variety of lenses to choose from (I managed to add an Angenieux 50/1.9). If you enjoy having a bewildering choice of shutter speed and delay combinations, the Exakta is your camera.

 

[Jet]

Theo, are you sure about the Exakta? The one I have is a left hand wind, standard back to front. It also has a build in film cutter, which I'd consider to be quite unusual. I consider the 50's Exakta VX to be a beautiful camera, and I do like the wide variety of lenses that are available for it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Theo, are you sure about the Exakta? The one I have is a left hand wind, standard back to front. It also has a build in film cutter, which I'd consider to be quite unusual. I consider the 50's Exakta VX to be a beautiful camera, and I do like the wide variety of lenses that are available for it.

Sorry, I am becoming feeble minded in my old age. Yes, they are back-to-front, left side, with front shutter release. A bit quirky and awkward for me to use. Topcon had a front release as well on the Super D.

I have three Exakta VX bodies and one VXIIa -- you'd think I'd remember how the film winds...

 

[blockend]

In case no one's mentioned them, Topcon and Miranda produced well made cameras that are under many people's radar. The Miranda Sensorex is competition for the Nikon F and the lenses are reputed to be excellent.

 

[JW PHOTO]

In case no one's mentioned them, Topcon and Miranda produced well made cameras that are under many people's radar. The Miranda Sensorex is competition for the Nikon F and the lenses are reputed to be excellent.

Topcon Super "D" cameras were truly professional and very well built. Miranda Sensorex cameras were elegant and very good looking, but I'd not put it in the exact same class as a Nikon F. Miranda did have a line of accessories that Nikon couldn't even match at that time, but alas Miranda was already starting to falter by then. I speak from experience on this one. My very first SLR was a shiny new Miranda Sensorex in early 1969, right out of a little dinky PX on our hill in Vietnam. I paid $121.00 or $131.00, can't remember for sure, but for around $155.00 or so I could have had a nice Nikon F. I had no complaints when it came to the Sensorex as a picture taking machine or the quality of the lenses either. Things I liked were the interchangeable finders, like Nikon. The metering was through little slits in the mirror, with bottom weighted + average type metering. The sky had very little influence on the meter and exposures were pretty much spot-on. Turning the camera vertical for a portrait changed the pattern to include the sky, but most of the time you would be fairly close to your subject that the sky wasn't really in the scene. Now, this may seem a little strange, but the feature I liked the most on the Sensorex was the shutter release button. It was on the right front of the camera and pushed straight in. It made for one of the best and easiest releases to use. Just like a gun, you "squeezed" the trigger/shutter release and it made for smooth and not jerky shutter tripping. I used that camera for about ten years and then gave it to my son after I went Nikon. Still, the Miranda was no Alpa that's for sure. John W

 

[Dan Fromm]

Miranda? Fragile. Character in my college dorm bought a Miranda (G, I think it was, could be mistaken) for his graduation gift summer in Europe. It died quckly. A friend brought two Sensorexes home from the Nam. They lived in the shop. I recall one excursion on which both failed after a few shots each. My humble Nikkormat just kept on going.

John, I'm glad that your Sensorex never bit you.