Top 10 classic 35mm film cameras

blockend · Feb 25, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I would. I already "persevere" with both 35mm and medium format cameras when I can get objectively superior quality easier (but not cheaper) out of digital. I just like the process and the look. (I also shoot 4x5 but that gets into levels where matching it digitally gets expensive.)

As of now, digital photography has a look based on the available technology. It's not everyone's preference, which is why I continue to use film. However when digital can reproduce the appearance of films and formats precisely, would the process alone enough to keep using it? Yes and no in my case. Yes for hand made processes, where the distinctive artefacts are intrinsic to the print, no for industrial films, which were designed to react in a consistent way without variation.

When I can dial in Tri-X or Kodachrome and get exactly the same thing out, aesthetics win out over sentiment and routine. That can't happen with wet plate and similar, which will only ever be a computer programmer's idea of what a collodion print should be. However we're veering off topic here.

Roger Cole · Feb 25, 2014

That is, of course, a perfectly valid viewpoint that you are entitled to. I just tremendously enjoy the whole darkroom process and get more than enough computer exposure at work and online. I'd not use digital if I got absolutely indistinguishable results, because for me it's as much or even more about the process as the artifact. YMMV of course.

And so what, we're off topic - it's only sort of off topic as a valid answer could be "none of them due to the demise of film." I doubt that's the case, but one could make the argument.

blockend · Feb 25, 2014

Process is clearly important for 'wet' darkroom printers, of whom I've been one for four decades. In the context of the original question I still say 35mm is one of the most potentially threatened formats from the incursion of digital photography, as it offers fewer unique attributes in the final print compared to larger film sizes. Even the micro-boom of lomography has seen most images on digital media, not paper. Will there be a sufficient number of darkroom printers to maintain a paper print industry? I don't know, but I'd guess black and white silver prints will outlive wet darkroom colour printing. Unless photographers make their own plates they're at the mercy of an industry whose film manufacturing decisions have proved impossible to predict.

elekm · Feb 25, 2014

I enjoy the thoughtfulness of an all-manual camera. I like being able to select the aperture and shutter speed by turning two dials. I like being able to focus. And in some ways, I like the limitation of film - of not having an endless supply of photos at my fingertips.

I have several very nice digital cameras, including an older Pentax K10D and an Olympus E PL-1 (my second foray into the "Two-Thirds" format), but I find that I tend to just shoot frame after frame without putting as much thought into it. I suppose this says more about me - that perhaps I don't respect the digital process.

I am not going to worry about the availability of film. As long as there is demand, there will be someone to supply it.

NJH · Feb 25, 2014

Controversial opinion perhaps but I think the film cameras we are using are just as likely to be usable in 10 years time as the digital systems popular today, in fact they might be more usable as there is a definite reckoning coming in the market place. One of my work colleagues is a case in point, he has 4 old film SLRs and some lenses and a few year old Canon DSLR which is a bit dodgy. He won't pay for a new DSLR and is debating whether there is any point given how much better phones are getting. I chucked him a roll of Poundland Agfa Vista which he has promised to run through one of his old Pentax SLRs, might as well use them if you have them. I reckon he represents far more of the potential photography market out there than those on forums always looking for the latest tech. This isn't to say that film is winning back more that the current digital camera market is easily looking at as bleak a future.

GRHazelton · Feb 25, 2014

Maris said:
Cliveh I'm dying to know, before this thread gets real long, which one you'd put at the top of the list. My pick is the Pentax MX.

Pentax LX

Peltigera · Feb 25, 2014

NJH said:
Controversial opinion perhaps but I think the film cameras we are using are just as likely to be usable in 10 years time as the digital systems popular today, in fact they might be more usable as there is a definite reckoning coming in the market place. One of my work colleagues is a case in point, he has 4 old film SLRs and some lenses and a few year old Canon DSLR which is a bit dodgy. He won't pay for a new DSLR and is debating whether there is any point given how much better phones are getting. I chucked him a roll of Poundland Agfa Vista which he has promised to run through one of his old Pentax SLRs, might as well use them if you have them. I reckon he represents far more of the potential photography market out there than those on forums always looking for the latest tech. This isn't to say that film is winning back more that the current digital camera market is easily looking at as bleak a future.

I am more than confident that my 1937 Nettar will still be working in ten years time as will my Voigtlander Vitos. My Zeiss Ikon Contessa has a good forty years left in it, I would think.

elekm · Feb 25, 2014

I feel confident saying that all of my non-electronic cameras will outlive me and those who end up with them.S

NJH · Feb 26, 2014

My point wasn't about the camera but the availability of 35mm film vs availability of continuing support for some of the current crop of digital systems. It is a certainty I feel that at least some proportion of the current systems in which guys have invested thousands in will be dead and gone in 10 years. Its not a certainty at all that all 35mm film will be gone so take your chances with either but I am convinced we are set as good as many of the alternatives which were supposed to replace film.

blockend · Feb 26, 2014

NJH said:
My point wasn't about the camera but the availability of 35mm film vs availability of continuing support for some of the current crop of digital systems. It is a certainty I feel that at least some proportion of the current systems in which guys have invested thousands in will be dead and gone in 10 years. Its not a certainty at all that all 35mm film will be gone so take your chances with either but I am convinced we are set as good as many of the alternatives which were supposed to replace film.

You're absolutely right, but you have to remember cameras are now consumer goods and churn is part of the deal. Nobody expects to buy a DSLR and have it for twenty or thirty years like a Nikon F. It's male jewellery and the moment the latest gigapixel camera comes out, they wouldn't be seen dead with the old model. It has only a passing connection with photography, which as we all know, can be done on any camera.

Curt · Feb 26, 2014

Exacta 500

Roger Cole · Feb 26, 2014

I dunno folks, I know lots of people using several year old digital gear. Not everyone who buys a DSLR plans to replace it as soon as its superceded. That gets less and less true as they get more capable too. At one time it made a certain sense because each generation offered significantly improved capabilities over the last. Now, they're so good, how much better do you need? Sure SOME people buy them as status symbols, but not most I think.

That's not to say they'll last as long as a mechanical film camera. The materials and build quality just aren't going to last for decades.

I don't have any doubt that we'll be buying 35mm film in 10 years. Make that 30 or more and it's a different question though I'm still hopeful.

Steve Roberts · Feb 26, 2014

Hatchetman said:
Pentax Spotmatic

+1 (though maybe being pedantic the SP2 has the edge....)

RalphLambrecht · Feb 26, 2014

NikonF and FM.

NJH · Feb 26, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I dunno folks, I know lots of people using several year old digital gear.
That's not to say they'll last as long as a mechanical film camera. The materials and build quality just aren't going to last for decades.

I don't think materials and build quality matter anything like as much as people think. Modern Leica is a perfect example, they seem to have far to many problems with their digital M bodies which are all in the realm of the electronics. The body and rf mechanism may be good for 50 years but its not much good if you end up with a sensor fault and there are no more stocks of the out of date sensor or its equally obsolete imaging pipeline electronics. Guys are already worrying about this point with cameras which only came to market a few years ago. Its sad to say but its a big part of the reason why I am here on APUG, I just didn't want to be on that escalator any more and found myself a mint condition M6 for less than 15% of the cost of a new Leica digital M body. I have vastly more confidence in an M6 being useable in 10 years time than either an M8 or M9.

frank · Feb 26, 2014

Digital Leicas, and even electronic Leicas (M7) do not equate with mechanical film Leicas. You can't expect the same longevity out of them.

cliveh · Feb 26, 2014

The Leica cameras are a good example of form/function/design and technological progression over time and as with many other products there comes a time when further progression does not improve the product. Although I use an M2 as my main camera, I can't help thinking that Oskar Barnack hit the nail on the head when he designed the Leica II. I know the viewfinder leaves somewhat to be desired, but it is probably the nearest you can get (in my opinion) to the perfect camera.

Paul Howell · Feb 27, 2014

cliveh said:
The Leica cameras are a good example of form/function/design and technological progression over time and as with many other products there comes a time when further progression does not improve the product. Although I use an M2 as my main camera, I can't help thinking that Oskar Barnack hit the nail on the head when he designed the Leica II. I know the viewfinder leaves somewhat to be desired, but it is probably the nearest you can get (in my opinion) to the perfect camera.

I know perfect, difficult to load, poor view finder, slow film advance, cant use long lens. Great in its day, but there is a reason why SLRs dominated 35mms. .

cliveh · Feb 27, 2014

PDH said:
I know perfect, difficult to load, poor view finder, slow film advance, cant use long lens. Great in its day, but there is a reason why SLRs dominated 35mms. .

All of what you say is true, but for size, shape and weight it seems perfect.

benjiboy · Feb 27, 2014

One man's classic is another man's old junk a lots of people fawn over and collect cameras I wouldn't give houseroom to for free.

E. von Hoegh · Feb 27, 2014

PDH said:
I know perfect, difficult to load, poor view finder, slow film advance, cant use long lens. Great in its day, but there is a reason why SLRs dominated 35mms. .

I have a Barnack clone made by Canon. I have no problem loading it, it winds faster than I can frame in my head the next shot, and the viewfinder is indeed dismal - but one can learn to use it effectively. Better to get a shoe mounted finder and just use the VF for the rangefinder.
One advantage these cameras have is they are so simple mechanically that they can be kept going for a very long time.

cliveh · Feb 27, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I have a Barnack clone made by Canon. I have no problem loading it, it winds faster than I can frame in my head the next shot, and the viewfinder is indeed dismal - but one can learn to use it effectively. Better to get a shoe mounted finder and just use the VF for the rangefinder.
One advantage these cameras have is they are so simple mechanically that they can be kept going for a very long time.

Well said. How many of today's cameras will still be working in 82 years time?

filmamigo · Feb 27, 2014

I'll play -- I'm more interested in the cameras than in the impossibility of making a list that means something to more than one person.

1. Nikon F3. If only it had a faster flash sync, it would literally be the only 35mm camera I ever needed.
2. Leica M (2 through 7, take your pick.)
3. Pentax LX
4. Nikon FM2n
5. Pentax MX
6. Hasselblad XPan
7. Rollei 35
8. Canon F1
9. Pentax Spotmatic F
10. Zeiss Ikon ZM

E. von Hoegh · Feb 27, 2014

cliveh said:
Well said. How many of today's cameras will still be working in 82 years time?

Not
a
single
one.

irvd2x · Feb 27, 2014

filmamigo said:
I'll play -- I'm more interested in the cameras than in the impossibility of making a list that means something to more than one person.

1. Nikon F3. If only it had a faster flash sync, it would literally be the only 35mm camera I ever needed.
2. Leica M (2 through 7, take your pick.)
3. Pentax LX
4. Nikon FM2n
5. Pentax MX
6. Hasselblad XPan
7. Rollei 35
8. Canon F1
9. Pentax Spotmatic F
10. Zeiss Ikon ZM

Pretty good list.

Sent from my LG-P509 using Tapatalk 2

Top 10 classic 35mm film cameras

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency