What are the classic 35mm SLR's

2F/2F · Dec 7, 2009

zenrhino said:
Im surprised noone mentioned the Leica R6 (or R6.2).

They are in no way "classic", nor could they be mistaken as such. It is a "classic-style" mechanical SLR, but 30 years later than the Nikon F, which set the standard for this class of camera. That is why.

Sirius Glass · Dec 7, 2009

zenrhino said:
Im surprised noone mentioned the Leica R6 (or R6.2).

Me too! They make excellent doorstops and paper weights. Always too heavy, too expensive, and too late getting to market. They finished 500th in a field of 40.

flatulent1 · Dec 8, 2009

Everyone has their own definition of the term 'classic camera'. To me a classic is one that feels good in the hand and works very well. One that stands above the crowd. One that is still desirable after all these years. A lot of nebulous platitudes, but for me, I know it when I see it. There are a lot of cameras others consider classics that didn't make my list for the simple reason that I am not acquainted with them.

The classics I have experience with:
Canon F-1 (all flavors)
Canon T90
Minolta SRT (all flavors)
Minolta XD11
Nikon F4

Future classics:
EOS 1N-RS
EOS 1V
Nikon F6

SchwinnParamount · Dec 8, 2009

Maybe this thread should be re-titled "What is your favorite 34mm SLR?". There are so many of those threads on APUG already. What unique value does this thread add?

2F/2F · Dec 8, 2009

I agree...however, it is OK IMO, because the "correct" answers are quite easy and straightforward and have already been stated...if you define classic as "that which has defined a class". There are really only two truly "classic" 35mm SLRs, the way I define "classic".

1. The Asahi Pentax, revolutionary as a mass-produced, high quality, easily and decently accessorized pentaprism SLR. Every 35mm SLR camera since has had the same basic design.
2. Nikon F, revolutionary as a 35mm SLR professional system. They took the basic Pentax idea and took it to the next level. Every 35mm SLR professional system since has had the same basic idea and components.

Similarly to what Q.G. stated earlier in the thread, everything SLR before these cameras was unlike them in more ways than not.....and everything SLR after them was like them in more ways than not.

I think that was pretty much agreed upon by many people who hold to a similar definition of "classic", and now we are just having fun.

Those for whom this is not the definition of classic have certainly chimed in with their own opinions, which is great.

John_Nikon_F · Dec 8, 2009

eSFotos said:
In my book 'Classic' refers to one I like to shoot with.
F3
OM2n
RTS
EOS3

If we're going on that criteria, then, things do change a little.

I still say Nikon F, since that's my favorite of all the bodies I own.

Then,

FM2n
F4
Nikomat FTn and F3P are tied for 4th.

The reasons why the FTn and the F3P are down so low are these:

Nikomat FTn has going for it: good meter readout, sleek lines, and a good feeling body. Cons: no motor drive capability, 1.35 volt battery, no hot shoe, and shutter speed dial placement (although that can also be a pro - makes it easy to adjust for EV increments by turning both the aperture ring and the shutter speed ring at the same time).

F3P has going for it: Nice viewfinder (minus the meter display), same size as FTn when no motor drive is mounted, LOTS of accessories. Cons: even though the F3P is the same size and weight as the FTn, it doesn't balance as well. Also has that meter display that's rather inconclusive sometimes.

-J

lxdude · Dec 8, 2009

2F/2F,

In absolute terms, your selections are hard to argue with. I initially thought of the same definition and examples that you did.

However, I think "classic" has come to encompass a broader meaning. Otherwise classic car shows would be rather boring. The '57 Chevy Bel Air would be allowed but not the sedan. Which is the classic Avanti, the Studebaker or the later ones? And anyone knows the Jaguar XK 120 is the pattern for the 140's and 150's, though all three are considered classics.

I think "classic" can be that which initially defined a class, and also a member of that class which expresses well the qualities of that class. The class can define not just a type, but a time; for example, "a classic mid-60's Japanese 35mm rangefinder".

The Nikon F3, the Pentax LX and the Canon F-1N all define what the pro level interchangeable prism camera was in the early 80's. To me they're all classics as they all represent a different design approach to the same class of camera. The Nikon F2 was THE pro camera of the mid to late 70's, in that time the classic photojournalist's SLR, and the one desired by the most people. The Canon F-1 had a considerable following and to me is every bit as much a classic. That's because it's a wonderful example of Japanese design and engineering of a certain time, was aimed at the pro market, but was certainly not a copycat of the Nikon F series.

To me, the OM-1 is a classic because it defined a new class and a new design philosophy, the very compact SLR.
One reason it's classic, like other classics, is that it was so well done. Its big bright viewfinder and lower noise and vibration were very influential, and defined an approach that was about more than compact size.
I think it remains, with its siblings, in a class by itself as a compact system SLR, by virtue of its very extensive system. The Pentax MX for example, is a great machine, but its system of accessories, while enough for most people, did not match up to the Olympus system in scope.
The MX and the OM-1 are both classic examples of 70's metal bodied, all-manual, very compact SLR's; broadening the class to encompass all compact SLR's, machines like the Nikon FM series exemplify cameras which were for many, "just right": not too big, not too small.

I know the notion of "classic" could be parsed down to the point of absurdity. I just think "classic" can be defined more strictly or less strictly without losing meaning.

2F/2F · Dec 8, 2009

Indeed...but I would argue, and often do (or often used to, when I cared more), that the terms "classic car", "classic rock", and the like are misnomers. "Pre-1968" cars was always my preferred term for my automotive interests when I was heavily into cars...and "classic rock" to me is Chuck Berry, Little Richard, etc...not '70s rock.

However, this standpoint was formed years ago because I was tired of hearing the term "classic" so loosely applied to so many things. There are other definitions...but IMO they have arisen due to common misuse of the term. This does, however, make them valid dictionary entries. This is exactly why in each different answer I made, I defined what I meant by "classic" in that instance. Very important in this sort of thread, IMO. Similar to being asked what is "best", or what is "needed", or what is "quality". The terms must be qualified and quantified before answering.

lxdude · Dec 8, 2009

Yeah, I think the word means different things to different people. I agree it has been applied too loosely too often.

I think that your definition of "classic" is much the same as "seminal".

I see cameras that defined a class and those which refined a class as being "classic".
Put another way, the term applies to those which originated, were significant in the evolution of, or are an outstanding example of a class. They are definitive of a class. Like the original poster's example, the Spotmatic. Or the legendary Nikkor 105mm f/2.5., an outstanding example of pre-computer optical design, and a classic photojournalism lens.

Still I think some are called a classic but only a few are called THE classic.

lxdude · Dec 8, 2009

An example of a camera which is distinctive, readily recognizable and in a class of its own, yet not really considered a classic, is the Argus C3.

Maybe that's because the class it's in is "converted brick".

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 8, 2009

2F/2F said:
1. The Asahi Pentax, revolutionary as a mass-produced, high quality, easily and decently accessorized pentaprism SLR. Every 35mm SLR camera since has had the same basic design.
2. Nikon F, revolutionary as a 35mm SLR professional system. They took the basic Pentax idea and took it to the next level. Every 35mm SLR professional system since has had the same basic idea and components.

While I largely agree with the choice of those two cameras as being seminal (and I have both), their choice is also a bit of a popularity contest.

The Contax F predated the Spotmatic and it's predecessors and also had the first pentaprism (though not with an istant-return mirror).

Also the Praktina (*not* Practika!) predated the Nikon F, offering spring and electric motor drives, interchangeable prism, bulk film backs and arguably better lenses than than Nikon could offer for a *very* long time.

The Rolleiflex 2000F/3003 certainly did not look anything like the Spotmatic & Nikon F.

And while the Leicaflexes (I, Sl & SL2) may have trailed the Nikon F by some years, they surpassed it and its successors with their highly dampened mirrors and shutters, extremely bright viewfinders and better ergonomics
(I'll leave lens quality out of the discussion). They just didn't sell as much as the F (& F2) did, so are "less" of a classic....

Ken N · Dec 8, 2009

To me, a "Classic" is the "poster child" of a particular brand/type of camera. For example, in Leicaland, the M3 is the classic "M", whereas the IIIF is probably the classic pre-M body.

I would also consider "Classic" to be a model that has stood the test of time and maintains desirability long after new technology has provided new alternatives. For example, The Olympus OM-1 is a classic, but so is the OM-2n and OM-4Ti. As a general rule, a "Classic" is either the first or the last of any given series. Mid-series models are usually better than the first, not as good as the last. Think of all of the Canon EOS film bodies--which ones would you consider to be the "classics"? I can guarantee you that the 45 or so models between the first and last are mostly ignored.

It's easier to define "classic" with the older mechanical cameras as each one is typically a stand-alone work in it's own right. But in the AF years, each new model had a feature enhancement or technology improvement. I'll follow the OM line as that's what I'm most familiar with: The OM-2md did not obsolete the OM-1md. Each were distinctly different cameras with distinctly different strengths. Most people owned both. But the OM-2n was an improvement of the OM-2md which effectively obsoleted the OM-2md in comparison. The OM-4Ti obsoleted the OM-4, the OM-3Ti obsoleted the OM-3. In the Nikon world, each and every F model is a classic as each one is effectively a stand-alone camera without incremental upgrades to obsolete earlier versions of the same camera. (yes, there are some sub-models, but as a general rule, and F3 is an F3 is an F3 is an F3).

A "Classic" is a camera that you can grab, load a roll of film or stuff a memory card in, and not be embarrassed to be seen in public with it.

Ken

MattKing · Dec 8, 2009

Just to be contrary, I would add the Retina Reflex, because of the leaf shutters (although others might prefer the Contaflex).

Matt

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 8, 2009

MattKing said:
Just to be contrary, I would add the Retina Reflex, because of the leaf shutters (although others might prefer the Contaflex).
Matt

And what about the Voigtländer Bessamatic (and a number of similar cameras)?

Chazzy · Dec 8, 2009

Can we at least agree that classic cameras have mechanical shutters and no autofocus?

Ken N · Dec 8, 2009

Chazzy said:
Can we at least agree that classic cameras have mechanical shutters and no autofocus?

Absolutely not.

1. Nikon F3 has an electronic-controlled shutter.
2. Canon EOS-3 is both electronic and has AF
3. Canon AE1 has an electronic-controlled shutter
4. Nikon F4 is both electronic and has AF
5. Nikon FE - Electronic-controlled shutter
6. Olympus OM-2(md/2), OM-4(T/Ti) - electronic-controlled shutters.

Your limiting a "classic" to those two criteria is like saying a classic car must have manual transmissions and no air-conditioning.

AG

Top-Cat · Dec 9, 2009

There's a lot of cameras from the eighties that seem to be considered classic because of their simplicity in design yet opening for possibilities in creative control - ie. the more or less mechanical manual focus cameras.

I recently found a Canon AE1P in a vintage store and was quite surprised when I started surfing the net for history and reviews, it turns out it has an especially bright viewfinder and is different from earlier models in its "program" mode which enables one to just point and shoot. There's also a selection of great manual lenses for this series of cameras with an especially large aperture: the 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2.

I've also seen several professionals favor the Nikon cameras of this day such as the Nikon FM and FM2.
From what I've heard about them, they've turned out to be especially durable and reliable.

Sometimes it seems like what it takes to make a "classic" camera is simplicity and reliability, without limiting possibilities of using extra equipment (being system cameras), and it seems like a lot of early eighties cameras offered just this.

I still have to admit, I'm no expert, just an enthusiast, so I might be wrong.

2F/2F · Dec 9, 2009

Ken N said:
Absolutely not.Your limiting a "classic" to those two criteria is like saying a classic car must have manual transmissions and no air-conditioning.

Two things I wish every car made today had.....I wouldn't have it any other way unless I had to. Stereo deletion would be nice as well. Just give me a car with three pedals and no distracting doohickeys.

The only street car I know of in YEARS with which AC deletion was an option is the Pontiac Solstice. It was most exciting! Too bad the car was not......

One thing I would NEVER delete from any car would be a heater. That can be a matter of life or death in the worst case, and a matter of comfort or EXTREME discomfort in many cases. I can handle heat of any temperature without AC, as long as I have windows that roll down, and I can remain hydrated.

I don't think a single one of the cameras you listed is a ""classic 35mm SLR camera". Perhaps classic in a more specific category (such as "classic 1980s 35mm SLR cameras" or "classic autofocus 35mm SLR cameras"), but not classic in such a broad sense.

2F/2F · Dec 9, 2009

Rol_Lei Nut said:
While I largely agree with the choice of those two cameras as being seminal (and I have both), their choice is also a bit of a popularity contest.

That is exactly what matters to a very, very large degree: popularity and production numbers. Without it, the features would never have become well known enough and generally accepted enough to have become "classic"; synonymous with the class "35mm SLR cameras". Of course there were "better" cameras (or at least better in certain ways) than either the Pentax or the Nikon F. Almost everything is "better" than everything else in at least some way. However, "classic" does not mean "better" or "best"...not at all.

I would say that they are both more "classic" than "seminal". OTOH, the Exacta, for instance, was seminal...but not classic. Similarly the Barnack Leicas with reflex systems were seminal...but not classic. The Contax? Lost somewhere in between the Exacta and the Pentax, I would say. Almost had all the features of a classic 35mm SLR, but never achieved the widespread popularity and production numbers necessary to become a defining camera of the class. The lack of an instant return mirror means that the camera is not a classic SLR to me. How many 35mm SLRs kept that feature into the future compared to how many did not?

A classic 35mm SLR - one that defined the way that most 35mm SLRs have been since - has a pentaprism, an instant return mirror, and an automatic diaphragm (not present on the Pentax, which is why I favor the Nikon F if it has to come down to one camera...but the Pentax did so much to influence all cameras after it - including the Nikon F - that it must be placed high on the list), IMO. The way the lens focuses or the way the shutter timing is controlled do not matter...but these other things definitely do, IMO. They are part of what is almost universally assumed when you say "SLR" nowadays, and were not universally assumed prior to the cameras I am talking about. If electronic shutters and auto focus had been feasible at the time the Pentax and Nikon F were developed, you can bet they would have been featured on these cameras. Manual focus and a mechanical shutter are just minor technical details to me...not things that define the class "35mm SLR cameras".

Here is my favorite "quick" write up on the Pentax: http://www.cameraquest.com/pentorig.htm

...and the same guy's article about the F: http://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm.

Out of curiosity, what was the first Pentax that featured fully automatic diaphragm control? I am not sure, myself.

elekm · Dec 9, 2009

Chazzy said:
Can we at least agree that classic cameras have mechanical shutters and no autofocus?

I would agree with that. I think the difficulty is that "classic" is a vague term. Some assign it according to date (pre-1975 or pre-1970). Some define it as pre-autoeverything.

Some probably would lump all film cameras into the "classic" category.

I would tend to add pre-plastic to the requirement.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 9, 2009

elekm said:
I would agree with that. I think the difficulty is that "classic" is a vague term. Some assign it according to date (pre-1975 or pre-1970). Some define it as pre-autoeverything.

I would tend to add pre-plastic to the requirement.

I also tend to think that autofocus is very unclassic. I've become a bit more forgiving of electronic shutters, since IMHO the Pentax 6x7 and the Nikon FE, just to mention two, are definitely classics. Though I think the Canon AE-1 is not (and here begins the discussion of plastic).

What does "pre-plastic" mean? To what degree is plastic acceptable?
Are advance lever mouldings, meter switches and take-up spools all supposed to be pure metal?
In that case the Spotmatic, the Photomic FTn and the later (Apollo) Nikon F (though even early Fs have some plastic on the flash mount), are disqualified (along with practically all cameras made after c. 1960).
Being "mostly" or containing "lots of" plastic then? Also very subjective.
I know what I like and dislike (which heavily influences the perception of something being classic), but finding accurate and binding definitions seems impossible.

Joe Grodis · Dec 9, 2009

Kind of a trick question... But excluding all SLR's with poor resale and poor lens selection the only thing left is Nikon F series, and maybe the Canon A1.

Antonio A. · Dec 9, 2009

I vouch for the minolta maxxum 7000. i'm using the one my dad bought in 1986 to take pictures of us as kids, to take pictures of my kid.
And Minolta SRTs and Minolta Hi-Matics

2F/2F · Dec 9, 2009

liquid695 said:
that's right leica M3 with visoflex

A proposition worthy of argument........but why the M3, of all models? The first Leica reflex housing, the predecessor to the Visoflex, was introduced in the 1930s, nearly 20 years prior to the M3, when it would have been mounted to Leica IIs or IIIs (or Is, I suppose).

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 9, 2009

Joe Grodis said:
Kind of a trick question... But excluding all SLR's with poor resale and poor lens selection the only thing left is Nikon F series, and maybe the Canon A1.

There are actually many systems which have at least as good resale value as N and C and also have a range of lenses available which absolutely do not meet the definition of "poor" (unless you're talking about 12-800mm AF VR plastic wonder zooms).

What are the classic 35mm SLR's

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency