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

[SindreS]

I'm considering a new slr camera, most important feature for me is macro (since i can't use that on a rangefinder). I want something that has a great build quality (this is very important for me, i love the feeling) and a high degree of reparability. Not just for this year but in 10 years. I have heard many have bragged about the build quality and viewfinder brightness of the leicaflex sl2 so i'm a bit biased to it. However I have heard that the pentax lx is tiny and weathersealed so i'm really unsure here. Cheap optics is also a plus but not required. Does any of you have had any expierience with the cameres mentioned. Preferrably with 2 or more. Don't need such high shutterspeed, max 1/1000 or 1/2000. Prefer led diodes but levers are ok.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Why did you exclude Nikon?

 

[SindreS]

Why did you exclude Nikon?

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?

 

[Hilo]

OM-4Ti, without any question (for me !).

It's light meter is great, as good as the light meter of the LX and many other high end cameras, but the OM-4Ti is fantastic in spot metering and ae lock. Just try one and understand how that works.

Olympus made special macro lenses, the 50/2 and the 90/2. I have the first and it is quite something, also as just a standard lens. The Pentax LX is the same size or slightly larger than the OM-4Ti and it is the better built camera, smoother transport, easier shutter sound, all that.

 

[cuthbert]

If you want a small "professional" camera the LX is the right choice, but CLA can be expensive.

The MX is even smaller, but it's simpler and totally mechanical.

The F1n is the upgraded F1 from the late 70s, totally mechanical, a beast, very big and heavy, more or less like the F2, perhaps you might consider the F1N which is the camera from the 80s, slightly small and also offers AE aperture priority like the LX.

All these camears are reliable and reparable, it's not really an issue.

 

[BradS]

"excellent build quality"....I think this excludes the Pentax MX, ME, MG and MV from consideration. They're great cameras but, long lived and reliable...they're not. Better look to a Pentax KX or LX for that.

 

[SindreS]

How come nobody mentions the leicaflex? I would expect that the leica fas raised up from the bed and starting telling how it is godlike. Does anyone in here have any experience of it? Also how are the viewfinder brightness of these cameras? (generally, not only the leicaflex).

Currently im biased towards leicaflex and om4 ti (because evrything with titanium have to be good?)

 

[Bearman]

Leicaflex SL/SL2 do have rep as brightest viewfinder. SL doesn't have hot shoe, which might make your macro work more difficult. R lenses more expensive, too, even 2-cam versions. Still would love an SL2 someday, as it's such a work of mechanical art.

I agree with cuthbert on the Canon F1n. Lots of directions you can go with such a system camera, without spending so much.

I use my Nikon FM3a more and more for film work. Lighter and easier to use than my beloved Nikon F2AS. I know FM3a doesn't quite qualify with your parameters, but it's a great machine.

 

[cuthbert]

"excellent build quality"....I think this excludes the Pentax MX, ME, MG and MV from consideration. They're great cameras but, long lived and reliable...they're not. Better look to a Pentax KX or LX for that.

The Pentax MX is low quality? How so?

How come nobody mentions the leicaflex? I would expect that the leica fas raised up from the bed and starting telling how it is godlike. Does anyone in here have any experience of it? Also how are the viewfinder brightness of these cameras? (generally, not only the leicaflex).

Currently im biased towards leicaflex and om4 ti (because evrything with titanium have to be good?)

If you want a bright and big viewfinder you want a MX or a LX with a 50mm f1.4 or even better a 50mm f1.2, not a Leicaflex.

The F1N viewfinder is no slouch either, while the Nikons have a dimmer finder, especially the F2.

 

[GRHazelton]

I own both the Pentax LX and the MX. Both are excellent, professional grade machines; the MX preceded the LX and has available - if you can find them - a winder (not hard to find) a 5 fps motor drive (IIRC), a bulk film back, data backs - now out of date, interchangeable screens, depth of field preview, etc. It is a delightful camera to use. Note, however: If you are considering macro shooting the MX does not have mirror lockup, although there are some kludges out there.

On to the LX. Weather sealed, yes, although how many lenses are? The camera is getting old, whether or not repairs will be available in 10 years is hard to say. CLAs aren't cheap, but nor are they for other pro systems.

The camera is a fully professional system, comparable with the Nikon F3. Its center weighted TTL metering is incomparable, able to handle down to -6.5 EV, IIRC. Anecdotal reports speak of metered exposures of HOURS, my experience was about 20 minutes in moonlight; Vivitar 18mm @ f4 with 100 ASA film. Since the meter reads off the film during the exposure, changing light conditions mean nothing. Fireworks shots are a breeze! No need for a viewfinder blind.

One horrid omission: There is no auto-exposure lock. Grrrr. The aperture preferred AE works very well, however.

Flash sync at 1/75. Speeds over 1/75 are mechanical, so battery failure is not necessarily a catastrophe.

Mirror lockup, of course, interchangeable screens and finders, yes, if you can find them. Winder, motor drive, data backs (out of date!), yes. Excellent viewfinder, full info there. TTL flash metered off the film with the proper unit. TTL flash works very well.

And of course with both the MX and the LX thousands of K mount lenses, and the old 42mm screw mount glass (with an adapter and used manually) are out there.

 

[Paul Howell]

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?

Nikon F6, still in production, as rule Nikon provided repairs and parts for decade past last production. F5s are still being serviced by Nikon. I also believe that Canon is servicing EOS V.

 

[Les Sarile]

The OM4T probably has the most sophisticated spot meter of all the manual focus era SLRs and with the F280 flash can sync all the way up to the top shutter speed of 1/2000. Unlike the LX, it can only aperture priority autoexpose up to about 4 minutes max while the LX is the only one that can go on for as long as it takes or batteries die.

For macro work, having interchangeable viewfinders can become a great advantage as the LX can provide considerably higher magnification as well as a very bright screen. The OM4 doesn't have mirror lockup which I use often in my macro work. Since the OM4 has a fixed prism you will need to rely on an addon magnifier but that can greatly darken the viewfinder.

The LX has the most viewfinder options and practically all of them have built-in diopter too.

The Canon New F-1 and Nikon F3 have the viewfinders and screens needed for macro work but the New F-1 doesn't have mirror lockup or TTL flash while the F3 does. The FM3A doesn't have interchangeable viewfinders or as wide a selection screens. Both the New F-1 and FM3A have the screen where the split prism never blacks out regardless of slow lens or even autobellows use. It turns out this isn't great to use for macro work. And of course the FM3A doesn't have interchangeable viewfinders either.

I have no hands-on experience with the Leicaflex but from reading the manual, it does not have the sophistication of these others.

Regarding repairability, here in the USA those who know Eric at Pentax Camera Service know that he is the guru of Pentax and can address anything Pentax. However, if any of these cameras requires replacement PCBs that are no longer available, only a good one from a donor camera can help.

 

[BradS]

Les, Thanks! I really appreciate and enjoy your detailed analyses and comparison photos.

 

[Xmas]

The op said macro...

An LCD camera like a OM4Ti is not long term a mirror attachment for a rfdr or a FG (for TTL flash) will do for macro and are cheap.

 

[Bill Burk]

OM4Ti literally has mirror lockup by using the self-timer (mirror locks up. countdown begins).

I have enjoyed Macro photography with OM-4 with its 50mm f/2 Macro. Prior to that I used Pentax ES-II with 50mm f/4 Macro.

I would give, for Macro use, a very strong bias to the OM4Ti "off the film plane" metering feature, which is adjusted during exposure as needed...

Any camera which also offers that would be worth considering.

 

[darkosaric]

new slr camera
most important feature for me is macro
Cheap optics

New SLR: Nikon FM3A is in comparison to all other SLR's practically new and it will last your lifetime and more.
Cheap optics: nikkor 55mm f3,5

 

[SindreS]

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

Thank you everyone the the quick and thoroughly answers. I do not need flash functionality (so hot or cold shoe is the same). I don't think I need interchangeable finders, but maybe focus screens(? Unsure about this tho since I don't have much experience with macro photography). I'm going to do a very basic form of macro photography. Many portraits of animals and general "stuff" such.

Thanks for the size comparison. The newest canon f1n looks a bit on the big size.

In many ways I want the least sofisticated camera because of reparability. That dosent mean I don't want to be able to use my camera without batteries (this is not important for me) just that it's easy to fix. But these two things are often correlated.

So Gurus. What would you go for with these demands?

 

[Ap507b]

More thoughts towards the Nikon F3 from me. I know what you said about not wanting interchangeable finders, but an F3 with a DW-4 6X magnification finder could be ideal for Macro work. I have the same setup, but put it together for photographing the moon to save getting a neck ache.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/finders/finder3.htm

Has some details on it. I find it a lot easier than a viewfinder.

F3's although electronic are reliable. Yes, some have failed but they were designed by Nikon for a lot of use. Avoid a beater body as that likely will have been used & maybe abused professionally, but a good cosmetic condition body could be a good bet. F3's were produced in far more numbers than all of the other cameras mentioned so should be easier to get repaired if needed. Both from a donor body parts situation as Nikon don't have all the parts for it anymore & from people maybe willing to look at it?

I have two F3's & think they are lovely cameras to shoot with. The only control that could be better is button that lights the LCD in the finder.

 

[LarryP]

My preference would say the mx along withe the 50 macro or the 100 f4 macro if you could work with an f4. But I will say one of the nikkormats paired with one of nikons excellent macros would be something to look closely at. I'm just not that familiar with the nikon offerings since I started with pentax and really had no need to buy into other brands.

 

[SindreS]

Silly edit tool won't let me get my tables back. Will try again later

 

[Paul Howell]

MF Either F3 or LX, the LX was made until the early 2000s so some more recent. AF Nikon F 4 or 5 would be best for macro.

If you decide on an F3 look for clean press version.

 

[flavio81]

I want something that has a great build quality (this is very important for me, i love the feeling) and a high degree of reparability. Not just for this year but in 10 years.

Nikon F, F2, Nikkormat models, perhaps the F3
Canon F-1 and New F-1, FTb, FT, TX, FX, TL
Pentax LX, MX, K2
Minolta SRT-series, XE-5, XK

Can't go wrong with those cameras.
Best viewfinder (brightness and quality) are, in my experience, the Canon F-1N, Nikon F2 and perhaps the F3. Cuthbert owns those and says the LX viewfinder is even a bit better than the Canon F-1N, so that could be an option.

My opinion: Take a look at the LENSES, first choose which LENSES do you really want to use, and if you can get them for a fair price, and afterwards, selecting a camera body is easy.

 

[GarageBoy]

I like how you include the om4, but think the f3 has too many electronics - the f3 is a tank, can be had for cheap, and is a joy to use and has been damn reliable for a lot of people

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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.
Also, be aware the early -4 with the original circuit board are power hungry.
Some have had the electronics updated.

Still the OM-4 is a fantastic camera for the price it goes now.

I'll recommend for durability the OM-1.
The OM range of macro lenses and accessories are 1st class.
Olympus was doing microscopes before doing cameras.

 

[baachitraka]

Even OM4ti just works only for another 200-300 rolls, I still recommend it for Zuiko lenses.