Thinking of getting a new 35mm SLR. Your thoughts?

mshchem said:

Why did Kyocera call Yashicas, Contax? And all these "Zeiss" lenses made in Japan. Yashica always made a damn good camera, why did they hide behind a German name? Always seemed silly, like a Cosina Nikon or a Cosina Voigtlander.
I would have got a mint Nikon F2A and bought a extra plain prism. 50 1.4 , 85 1.4. Chrome no black body.

No battery, know photography Hey I like that!

Mike

Click to expand...

Some of those Contax are really good machines, the F2 is great but i wouldn't avoid the better Contax SLRs.

Zeiss called first (1969?) Pentax for collaboration (in coatings, K-mount design, and lenses). Then the deal fell through and Zeiss went to Yashica.

Leitz (leica) went to Minolta in the early 70s, and they released SLR cameras that shared the same platform.

It will hurt many camera collectors, but a visit to Frank Mechelhoff's site will explain that basically the german camera and lens industry got surpassed by the japanese due to many reasons, one of them being bad decisions.

example link on his site:
http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Voigtlaender-Niedergang.html

So the two major camera makers, Zeiss-Ikon and Leitz, had to ally with the japanese.

MrBrowning said:

From what I've read on the 35-70 it is highly recommended and the photos I saw online with it looked great. Was the 80-200 the Vario-Sonnar or one of the other 80-200s? If it was the Sonnar what did you think of it?

Click to expand...

I had the 80-200 Vario-Sonnar. It was very good - I was very happy with the images from it. Would that it were a 2.8 instead of an f4, but that would have made it very large and very heavy.

Speaking of Zeiss, how about an Exakta?

TheFlyingCamera said:

I had the 80-200 Vario-Sonnar. It was very good - I was very happy with the images from it. Would that it were a 2.8 instead of an f4, but that would have made it very large and very heavy.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Some of the reviews I read online made it out to be mediocre.

Opinions, opinions! All of them good, some even excellent (those who take the time to explain what they say).

Nikkormats. Get an EL or FT2 (the older FTNs are also good, but long in the tooth, buying batteries can be a problem, and no matter what some will say, the converters will not satisfy if reliable exposures are important to you) with a 28 or 35 AI or AIS, add a UV filter and an appropriate lens hood, load with film, and shoot away. For years and years. The cameras themselves are made from cast iron and held together with ocean liner rivets. Very little can go wrong with them. If the metering systems break down, the ELs work at a fixed 1/90 (who on earth would shoot at this speed?) but the entirely manual FT2s will just go on working as non-meter cameras.

The older Nikon lenses and accessories are still excellent value for little money. Old Canon lenses and other bits seems to me to be much more expensive, I have really never understood why this is. Maybe because when the Canons were new, they were the preferred shooters for the 'burbies, as all the Canon ads seemed to be aimed at the suburban market.

I am still using two ELs I bought new in the late 1970s and a pair of FT2s I bought in circa 2005 when old camera prices dropped below the basement floor. Ten years ago people would say "such old cameras!" but now they look and say "hey, fantastic!".

I love my EL.

1/90 is a very usable speed...but i think the mechanical speed is 1/125.

ozmoose said:

The older Nikon lenses and accessories are still excellent value for little money. Old Canon lenses and other bits seems to me to be much more expensive, I have really never understood why this is. Maybe because when the Canons were new, they were the preferred shooters for the 'burbies, as all the Canon ads seemed to be aimed at the suburban market.

Click to expand...

I suspect it's more the case that Canon FD lenses dating back to 1971 will still work and meter properly with the latest FD cameras. FL lenses, which are often considerably cheaper, are more like the pre-AI Nikons -- requiring the Canon FD bodies to be stopped down in order to meter with them.

But I suspect that most old lenses -- whether Canon or Nikon -- are being sold to be used on DSLRs and MILCs. Where metering systems don't matter as much as they did with film cameras. So this is an equalizer with Canons between FD and FL lenses. But still, the FLs sell for less. I suspect this is because of a perceived "primitive" quality to the FLs -- which they do not possess. And it is an equalizer between Canon and Nikon, as well. You know as botha buyer and seller on eBay of old Nikkors and old Canon FD lenses, I don't really see much of a difference in price or perceived value between the two marques. If anything, in a number of cases, I see the Canons selling for less.