the "best" of: Leicaflex SL2, OM4Ti, pentax mx/lx and canon f1n

[Les Sarile]

Although the OM-4 and so the updated -4Ti are very nice cameras, they aren't recommended for long term use due to lack of spare parts. Of course, you can always buy a spare body to take parts from.

Of course lack of spare parts applies to all these cameras long out of production and not just the OM4.

In the USA, I've experienced excellent repair service from Camera Repair Japan and Camtech.

For critical focusing - as well as a right angle finder, the Olympus Varimagni finder is an excellent accessory that even fits most of my other camera brands.

 

[kxjiru]

I own an LX and the om4t which are great. You really can't go wrong there but optics can get pricy quickly so I'm gonna throw a wildcard in; Minolta xd7/11. It has good quality, repairs are affordable and bodies are plentiful. It has OTF metering, a very bright viewfinder and LED diodes. Best part? The shutter sound is QUIET. Lenses tend to be less expensive than other systems because the mount is dead except for the 1.2's , 85mm's, and wide angles. The macro lenses are relatively pocket change. Give it a try.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Of course lack of spare parts applies to all these cameras long out of production and not just the OM4.

In the USA, I've experienced excellent repair service from Camera Repair Japan and Camtech.

For critical focusing - as well as a right angle finder, the Olympus Varimagni finder is an excellent accessory that even fits most of my other camera brands.

Yeap, but a mechanical one can be repaired more easily.

 

[4season]

It's funny how things worked out, but my 35mm SLR which got the most use for macro work was a Leica R4S Model P of all things; basically a rebranded Minolta XD/XG-series camera. Not as rugged as my Nikon F, F2AS, F3 or F4, and it had a non-ratcheted film advance lever. But it happened to come with a 35/2.8 Elmarit lens which focused unusually close, and I ended up using it quite a bit. Sometimes you just don't know until you've used a camera for awhile!

 

[mweintraub]

Which of the nikons have a high level of reparability? the f2 is quite large, the f3 has too much electornics(?) (but sexy looks for sure). So then your talking about fm2 and such?

The F2 is too large, but the SL2 is ok? Here is it against the Nikon FE
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100992052@N03/10813356704/

 

[Xmas]

If you are committed to macro then a TTL OTF ring flash makes things easy.

But maintainability might need to take 2nd place.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

For OTF TTL flash nothing better than an OM-2N. Their circuit board is "primitive" and can be "fixed".
That's what the US guy from Camtech keeps saying.

 

[Pioneer]

I have tried most of the cameras mentioned and would still choose the LX.

- Great macro glass available for good prices
- Light,
- weatherproof,
- OTF metering that cannot be bettered,
- best viewfinder I have ever worked with,
- interchangeable focus screens and finders including an awesome magnifying finder.

The LX can still be purchased new in Japan if you are really all that worried about reliability.

The rest of these cameras are all very nice but if you are serious about macro and will do a lot of photography you will really appreciate and want a pro body and system. The LX provides that in spades without the monstrous bulk of the Canon and Nikon offerings of that time period.

Right now you are not interested in flash but the Pentax AF080 Ring flash is perfect for macro work and is fully compatible with the LX's OTF TTL flash system.

 

[Les Sarile]

And aside from all the great properties of the Pentax LX, it is also available in the Titanium model and we all know that can only be a good thing . . .

 

[giganova]

The Leica R cameras (R4 through R6) and their lenses are fantastic.

 

[SindreS]

Which macro lenses are avaible for the lx and how are their perforamce? Lenses are getting important for me, I need good lenses (and preferrabley cheap but one can't get it all).

Giganova: How come you only looked at those? How about the older SL series as mentioned before? Considerering the leica r because they have leica lenses so thats why im curious.

E: What does a new pentax lx cost? also the titanium version is just ridiculously priced. So that dosen't matte for me. If I really want titanium then I'd just go for an om4ti or a nikon f3

 

[Pioneer]

Pentax made a couple of very good 100mm macro lenses, not sure what they are going for nowadays.

In addition, Vivitar sold a very nice 90-180 flat field zoom macro that dentists used for years and years. It goes to 1:2 at 180mm. They also sold a very well respected 105mm 2.5 macro that was built by Kiron. This lens is a true macro at 1:1 reproduction.

Tokina had a 90mm 2.5 macro that is very well respected as well.

If you are really serious about macro there is a bellows setup that was provided with a 100mm bellows lens. This is an excellent setup for a serious macro artist.

Prices are usually best researched when you are interested in actually buying since they can bounce around quite a bit.

 

[Les Sarile]

Which macro lenses are avaible for the lx and how are their perforamce? Lenses are getting important for me, I need good lenses (and preferrabley cheap but one can't get it all).

Giganova: How come you only looked at those? How about the older SL series as mentioned before? Considerering the leica r because they have leica lenses so thats why im curious.

E: What does a new pentax lx cost? also the titanium version is just ridiculously priced. So that dosen't matte for me. If I really want titanium then I'd just go for an om4ti or a nikon f3

Well if your pockets are deep enough to consider Leica lenses then you are in luck as the Pentax lenses will generally cost less - much less. Of course if it doesn't perform then I am of the opinion it isn't worth anything regardless the price and the two Pentax macros I have - bought used at very good prices in great condition, will not be the weakest link in your system. They are the SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 Macro and the SMC Pentax-M 100mm F4 Macro.

Below is a test I conducted of the 50mm f4 macro on Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol using a 4X4 arrangement of the 12233 res chart. I then magnified the central area with my autobellows and you can see that this combination resolved about a 12 X 4 = 48 which is extremely high resolution. Unfortunately, I don't really know if that is as good as this lens gets - or if gets better, since I bought it used and I don't know how it was taken care of.

Full size version of Techpan-ISO12233 Reschart A

Needless to say if you are not using film that is as high resolving as Kodak Techpan at ISO25 processed in Technidol then this lens will not hinder your ability to capture the detail.

I also tested the 100mm f4 macro and it too is a very good performer and will give you more space between you and the target.

 

[Les Sarile]

They also sold a very well respected 105mm 2.5 macro that was built by Kiron. This lens is a true macro at 1:1 reproduction.

Yeah I have that lens in an OM mount too and it does list 1:1

 

[filmamigo]

I use a Pentax LX and MX, and have owned a Nikon F3.

If my only concern was having a camera that will work or be repairable forever (even after the apocalypse when battery production has ceased, all electronics have been vaporised, and only 35mm film is available) then I would have the Pentax MX. In fact, that's my primary reason to keep the MX. Fully mechanical, and built to a professional standard, the MX will long outlast me (and I hope I've got another 50 years in me

If my biggest concern was tactile feel and quality of viewfinder, I would still have the Nikon F3. Hands-down this is the nicest built camera I have ever used. The film wind-on is buttery smooth, and almost every button and knob feel great. The high eyepoint viewfinder in the F3HP is the best 35mm viewfinder I have ever used. Two drawbacks: the meter readout is a squinty little LCD affair that I didn't like. And the F3 doesn't take my collection of beautiful Pentax and Takumar glass.

The Pentax LX is my primary 35mm camera, because it offers 95% of the build quality of the Nikon F3 (including a very good viewfinder) and it works with my Pentax lenses. That said, the LX has a reputation for being a service queen. I have had two LX's over the years. My first one was pristine, but had a metering circuit failure that required replacing the main circuit board. My second one is a well-worn user, but everything works well. I don't worry about being stuck if the LX develops an issue, because I have my MX and because the LX has a big range of manual speeds that don't require battery.

If you don't have any investment in lenses and are starting fresh, I would recommend the F3. They really are a beautiful camera and seem tough as nails. There are also lots of them on the used market, so they can be replaced or repaired if need be.

 

[Paul Howell]

In addition to some very good Pentax and 3rd party Macro lens, you can find extension tubes and bellows units in K mount. Full frame Pentax AF macro lens will also work on the LX in manual or aperture exposure in MF mode. I have set of extension tubes in K mount as well as a few zooms with a macro mode, all work well within their limitations.

 

[Les Sarile]

I use a Pentax LX and MX, and have owned a Nikon F3.

The high eyepoint viewfinder in the F3HP is the best 35mm viewfinder I have ever used. Two drawbacks: the meter readout is a squinty little LCD affair that I didn't like.

If you think the LCD is squinty in the F3HP it's because the whole viewfinder is squinty as it has a tiny 0.75X magnification compared to 0.97X in the MX and the even larger magnification in a couple of LX viewfinders. Of course the smaller magnification viewfinders have more eye relief and generally preferred by those who wear glasses.

 

[flavio81]

If you think the LCD is squinty in the F3HP it's because the whole viewfinder is squinty as it has a tiny 0.75X magnification compared to 0.97X in the MX and the even larger magnification in a couple of LX viewfinders.

Yes but that 0.75X shouldn't be so bad. My Canon F-1 (old) has a 0.77X viewfinder and I find it excellent for composing and focusing, no problem at all. It's not like the horrible tiny viewfinders of today's DSLR cameras. Nikon F, and F2 have 0.8X viewfinder magnification and everybody says it's a great viewfinder (i do, as well).

For comparison:
Nikon F4 0.70X
Nikon D3 0.70X

I had a Nikon F3 (non-HP) and found the viewfinder good. I tried the HP model and it seemed, yes, smaller, but still fine, though.

 

[Les Sarile]

Nikon F, and F2 have 0.8X viewfinder magnification and everybody says it's a great viewfinder (i do, as well).

I had a Nikon F3 (non-HP) and found the viewfinder good. I tried the HP model and it seemed, yes, smaller, but still fine, though.

"Everybody" who says it's a "great finder" obviously prefer more eye-relief over magnification.

It "seemed" smaller because it optically is.

It's not a question of good or bad but more about whether you prefer/need bigger magnification or more eye-relief.

The sports finders have even more eye-relief and therefore smaller magnifications at about 0.55X.

I suppose others may not care one way or the other as long as it has the lens mount they want too.

 

[flavio81]

"Everybody" who says it's a "great finder" obviously prefer more eye-relief over magnification.

It "seemed" smaller because it optically is.

I never implied otherwise. Of course it is smaller. My point is that when I compared the F3 versus the F3HP, it seemed "smaller but just fine, though." In other words, that the magnification (0.75X) was still good enough for focusing, framing, composing, etc.

You speak about a tradeoff of eye relief vs magnification, but there is another parameter - brightness. And, if the focusing screen stays the same, bigger viewfinder will imply less brightness. Of course, a brighter focusing screen may alleviate this problem, BUT there is ANOTHER problem: engineers can increase focusing screen brightness but in detriment of focusing precision. Of course this assumes the focusing screen technology is the same. 1960s focusing screen technology can't be compared with 1980s technology and so on.

So, all in all, my point is, I wouldn't worry too much about viewfinder magnification, and find 0.75X enough.

Finally, all this debate about Nikon F3's 0.75X versus the OM-1 and it's overhyped 0.92X magnification is child's play once you get accustomed to the viewfinder of a 6x6 or 6x7 camera -- huge, bright, and precise.

BTW, regarding the Nikon F3, for me the location, size, and clarity of the LCD display left to be desired. I sold my F3 due to this and other reasons, the main reason being called "Canon F-1N".

 

[Les Sarile]

I never implied otherwise. Of course it is smaller. My point is that when I compared the F3 versus the F3HP, it seemed "smaller but just fine, though." In other words, that the magnification (0.75X) was still good enough for focusing, framing, composing, etc.

You speak about a tradeoff of eye relief vs magnification, but there is another parameter - brightness. And, if the focusing screen stays the same, bigger viewfinder will imply less brightness. Of course, a brighter focusing screen may alleviate this problem, BUT there is ANOTHER problem: engineers can increase focusing screen brightness but in detriment of focusing precision. Of course this assumes the focusing screen technology is the same. 1960s focusing screen technology can't be compared with 1980s technology and so on.

In other words, smaller magnification results in more eye-relief and visa versa and it is a good thing that it is "fine" for you. That anybody has to worry about is up to the end user.

I can tell you that your perceived anticipated issues with larger magnification (darkness, clarity, etc.) does not exist on the MX and LX if they are in good condition as they are supposed to be. For instance both the LX and F3 have semi-transparent mirrors to allow light to pass through to the metering cel but yet they are both very bright. This is a characteristic I hope to be able to quantify instead of just saying it is better.

I am also have the split prism screens on the Canon New F-1 and Nikon FM3A that never blacks out even with very slow lenses or mounted on autobellows. However, with their brightness comes very poor contrast. Having the flexibility to use alternate screens is a good thing.

 

[filmamigo]

If you think the LCD is squinty in the F3HP it's because the whole viewfinder is squinty as it has a tiny 0.75X magnification compared to 0.97X in the MX and the even larger magnification in a couple of LX viewfinders. Of course the smaller magnification viewfinders have more eye relief and generally preferred by those who wear glasses.

Sure, I do wear glasses and like the eye relief. But I also shoot with contact lenses on, and then it's a moot point.

The tiny LCD is a separate issue. Nikon could have used a bigger or more contrasty display, or could have put a bigger backlight on it. (The Pentax Program Plus is quite good for this.) Or Nikon could have gone for a full-height LED scale or match-needle. Lots of options would have been better.

Of course it's subjective, but with or without glasses, the F3HP is the most pleasurable viewfinder I've ever used. Perhaps it's the particular ground glass, or something else, but subjects SNAP into focus and the view is very film-like. Not dissimilar to the view in a good MF waist level finder. As I say, the LX is almost as good. My biggest quibble is eyepoint, secondly a bit less snap-in-focus effect. I have tried the LX's high eyepoint sport finder, and abandoned it, because while composition was easy, focus was not. The F3HP really is my goldilocks finder, combining the two.

 

[Les Sarile]

Sure, I do wear glasses and like the eye relief. But I also shoot with contact lenses on, and then it's a moot point.

The tiny LCD is a separate issue. Nikon could have used a bigger or more contrasty display, or could have put a bigger backlight on it. (The Pentax Program Plus is quite good for this.) Or Nikon could have gone for a full-height LED scale or match-needle. Lots of options would have been better.

Of course it's subjective, but with or without glasses, the F3HP is the most pleasurable viewfinder I've ever used. Perhaps it's the particular ground glass, or something else, but subjects SNAP into focus and the view is very film-like. Not dissimilar to the view in a good MF waist level finder. As I say, the LX is almost as good. My biggest quibble is eyepoint, secondly a bit less snap-in-focus effect. I have tried the LX's high eyepoint sport finder, and abandoned it, because while composition was easy, focus was not. The F3HP really is my goldilocks finder, combining the two.

It is great to find the right combination of eye-relief and screen to meet your needs. Congratulations!