Top 10 classic 35mm film cameras

[Tom1956]

Yes to Pentax Spotmatic II, no to SP F. I had a Spotmatic F I bought new in 1974 and was proud I finally had a Pentax. But always hated it had that nasty design of the lenshood as the meter switch. Nikon F2, not F3.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I will add —

• Canon T90
• Olympus OM 4 (not Ti variants).

I've owned both and sometimes I have these flashbacks of fun times long ago using both of these (quite a few years apart).

 

[blockend]

I will add —

• Canon T90

Definitely. Considering its life span was so short, the T90 was the template for every SLR and DSLR that followed. When it came out I thought it was the most hideous camera I'd set eyes upon. Having owned one for a few years, that opinion hasn't changed, but it certainly established the looks and operation of subsequent 35mm cameras. Twenty eight years on the body still looks contemporary, if you like that sort of thing.

 

[Black Dog]

+1 on that and add Olympus Trip too.

 

[benjiboy]

Definitely. Considering its life span was so short, the T90 was the template for every SLR and DSLR that followed. When it came out I thought it was the most hideous camera I'd set eyes upon. Having owned one for a few years, that opinion hasn't changed, but it certainly established the looks and operation of subsequent 35mm cameras. Twenty eight years on the body still looks contemporary, if you like that sort of thing.

Unfortunately according to general consensus of opinion on this thread electronically controlled cameras can't be considered classics and although my Canon T90, Canon EF and 2 Canon New F1's are all important developments in camera design and have given faultless service for more than 20 years and are still perfect they are considered children of a lesser God.

 

[NJH]

Its the difference between historically important and equipment guys would like to own. I used a T90 for half a day way back when, it was a stunning glimpse into the future.

Today though I voted FM3A and my M6 because they represent for me the pinnacle of two of those two companies classic lines and are just quintessential in representing the difference between 35mm film and 35mm digital cameras. The problem with the T90 is exactly that, its closer to todays soap bar tech fest DSLRs than classically shaped and basic film cameras of the past.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I found nothing ill to speak of with the T90 other than an occasional propensity to work through batteries more quickly than would be desirable, and it also got quite warm to hot on prolonged shooting. I agree my first look at it was along the lines of hideous and unconventional, but then again, I have also always without exception viewed Porches as hideous travesties of design — horses for courses. The Olympus OM4 is remembered more strongly by me for its innovation and control over the T90 but also how well it fitted in smaller hands as opposed to the somewhat awkward design of the T90.

 

[vsyrek1945]

Nikon FM

a HUGE +1

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

35mm digital cameras

That is incorrect. 35mm is a film size, so it has nothing to do with those thingies.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's also a sensor size for "full frame" digitals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NJH]

It takes to long to type 24mm x 36mm all the time, and anyone reading it would think the writer is somewhat odd.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It's also a sensor size for "full frame" digitals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it isn't. No sensor is 35mm in any sense, or even 24mmx36mm.
Call it FX format as Nikon does or simply "full frame" as you did.
But, don't confuse 35mm FILM with those "D" thingies.

And enough of this "D" talk. It isn't for here.

 

[FilmNerd]

Here's my top 10 list of what I consider classic (in other words, what I'd like in my collection!)

1. Nikon F
2. Leica M3
3. Canon AE-1
4. Minolta SRT-101
5. Pentax K1000
6. Nikon FM
7. Olympus OM1
8. Olympus 35RC
9. Kodak Retina
10. Canonet G-III QL17

 

[Les Sarile]

FilmNerd, The differences between 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7 seem more aesthetics then in terms of photographic capabilities?

 

[NJH]

No, it isn't. No sensor is 35mm in any sense, or even 24mmx36mm.
Call it FX format as Nikon does or simply "full frame" as you did.
But, don't confuse 35mm FILM with those "D" thingies.

And enough of this "D" talk. It isn't for here.

You really are an obnoxious sort. Everyone understands what was meant and you're pedantry only shows you are wrong yourself. Its 135 film if you want to be pedantic and full frame sensors are commonly understood to mean 36mm x 24mm the same as the imaging area on 135 film.

I can't believe we are even having this debate. Thanks for derailing this page of the thread just to score some points and have a silly pathetic argument.

 

[Roger Cole]

No, it isn't. No sensor is 35mm in any sense, or even 24mmx36mm.
Call it FX format as Nikon does or simply "full frame" as you did.
But, don't confuse 35mm FILM with those "D" thingies.

It's as much "35mm" as the film is. Neither side is exactly 35mm and the diagonal of course is substantially longer.

I'm not confusing film with anything.

And thanks NJH, spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You really are an obnoxious sort. Everyone understands what was meant and you're pedantry only shows you are wrong yourself. Its 135 film if you want to be pedantic and full frame sensors are commonly understood to mean 36mm x 24mm the same as the imaging area on 135 film.

I can't believe we are even having this debate. Thanks for derailing this page of the thread just to score some points and have a silly pathetic argument.

As you have shown your level of education, I will not lower to your level.

But, one thing you are right: Nikon's FX sensor is about 36mmx24mm. I had read not long ago some misinformation in a "D" related magazine that it was closer to 37mmx24mm.

...the larger FX-format sensor measures 36x24mm which is approximately the same size as 35mm film.

From: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html

Finally, a few corrections on your poor English: "You're pedantry" is wrong. It should be: "your pedantry". "Its 135 film" should read "It's 135 film".

Roger,
"35mm" refers to the film gauge, i.e. the width of the photographic film, which consists of strips 34.98 ±0.03 mm (1.377 ±0.001 inches) wide.
When referring to 35mm cameras, it isn't related to the image size, as there is the half-frame size as you know and it still is 35mm film.
BTW, 135 is the catalogue number in Kodak's system for the cassette. It was universally adopted to refer to still 35mm film.

 

[lxdude]

It's as much "35mm" as the film is.

You're wrong there. 35mm film is 35mm across its entire width; it has nothing to do with frame size.

 

[lxdude]

You really are an obnoxious sort. Everyone understands what was meant and you're pedantry only shows you are wrong yourself. Its 135 film if you want to be pedantic and full frame sensors are commonly understood to mean 36mm x 24mm the same as the imaging area on 135 film.

I can't believe we are even having this debate. Thanks for derailing this page of the thread just to score some points and have a silly pathetic argument.

Talk about obnoxious!

 

[elekm]

I was going to add to this, but I think that perhaps this has run its course.

 

[frank]

I'd like to add the Contax rf to the list. (I'm rusty on the models.)

 

[tony lockerbie]

You can, and will get so many different opinions, but I will list the three cameras that I always go to in my (vast) collection. These are just so wonderful to look at and fondle, all are beautifully engineered, and all are German. The Zeiss Contarex, Leica M3/2, and the Rolleiflex F.

 

[frank]

Of course the Rolleiflex will be on a list of classic cameras, just not on the list of classic 35mm cameras.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What!? Still...no Olympus XA on the list??

 

[frank]

What!? Still...no Olympus XA on the list??

There is now!