What features do you consider essential on a camera?

New member here ! Greetings from Colorado.

I'm looking to get back into shooting film for various reasons which I won't get into now.
I'd like your varied opinions on what features you consider essential on a manual focus slr so I can make an informed decision on a camera purchase.
Such as...
DOF preview
MLU
In-camera spot meter
Exposure compensation
Auto bracketing
AE Lock
Bright viewfinder
Horizontal cloth vs Vertical metal shutter
Viewfinder info (shutter speed, aperture, etc...)
...and anything else you can think of.

I have no inventory of lenses at the moment, so I'm open to all suggestions.
I'd like something prior to the button/lcd display era and bayonet mount only (might venture into the m42 arena a bit later)
I'm considering the following...
Pentax LX
Contax RTS or RTS II / Yashica FR or FR I
Minolta series = XE, XD
LeicaFlex SL / SL2 or perhaps the R3
Olympus OM-4 / OM-4ti

Something durable and can take some abuse. Preferably brass top and bottom plates (or ti)
I'm studying composition and exposure techniques now (rule of thirds, zone system, etc...)
I've seen plenty of amazing photographs from something as simple as a pinhole camera, so none of these things are really essential.
Perhaps beneficial is a better word.
I know it's all about the person behind the camera and the lens, much more than the body itself.

I enjoy shooting landscapes, architecture, portraits, street photography. Don't see me needing a 5fps motor drive for anything though.
I see myself jumping into medium format as well. Seems the Pentax 67 is cheap these days (it's good enough for Nick Brandt)

Thanks for any advice you can offer

Derek

Derek,
Don't forget the "Click" a camera has to go click.

Worst thing to do is complicate anything in life. Find yourself a camera with simple controls and a simple lens. You are the zoom, exposure offsets, motor drive and focus control. The more you as a human are involved rather than technology, the less to go wrong and the better the results, IMHO.

Pick a $ ammount that allows funding of film and printing then pick the camera that fits in there. It will probably not be your only camera you ever buy so enjoy the journey. And make certain it goes Click, a lot.

Lee

Depth of feild preview, mirror lock up, spot and either average or matrix is nice. Range of primes and zooms. I use a number of 35mm for landscapes, my Sigma SA 9 has loads of features but does not have a good selection of primes. My Pentax SF1n and PZ1 have a great lens selection but lack mirror lock up. I do have a 42mm lens to Sigma SA/D adaptor. A recent Nikon or Cannon or Mintola have all the elements. On the cheap a N 90S. Older manual focus cameras such as Konica, Minolta and Miranda have good features and a wide range of lens but are getting long in the tooth.

daleeman said:

Derek,
Don't forget the "Click" a camera has to go click.

Worst thing to do is complicate anything in life. Find yourself a camera with simple controls and a simple lens. You are the zoom, exposure offsets, motor drive and focus control. The more you as a human are involved rather than technology, the less to go wrong and the better the results, IMHO.

Pick a $ ammount that allows funding of film and printing then pick the camera that fits in there. It will probably not be your only camera you ever buy so enjoy the journey. And make certain it goes Click, a lot.

Lee

Click to expand...

Good points Lee...
Perhaps that's the best route for me to take, Thank you

I love a camera that works without batteries. I have had several occasions where I have hiked out into the middle of nowhere for several hours, or it is Christmas dinner and the batteries die or are dead. If it takes AA's, that's not a big deal but if it takes a specialized battery that needs a specialized store to buy, that is more than annoying. I can usually guess at the metering but still need the camera to fire. This of course limits you to manual cameras of the older variety but I like those kind anyways.

Don't overlook the Nikon F4. It's an AF camera but it works splendidly with almost any manual focus Nikon lens, even the older non-AI ones. And it has the feature set you specified: DOF preview, MLU, spot meter, exposure compensation, auto bracketing (if you get the MF-23 multi-function back), AE Lock, a gorgeous bright viewfinder as well as a very fast vertical metal shutter. Oh, and it has dials and knobs! If I was still seriously interested in 35mm I think I would pick up an F4 (not the F4s which has the larger 6-AA battery grip, but the MB-20 which takes 4 AA batteries).

Most important would be A: durability, B: comfort of use, C: has good lenses available in the focal length(s) I want to use, D: built-in metering. Not necessarily in that order of priority. Certain features would on a case-by-case basis override other features, like I'd trade a little durability for mind-blowing optics, or give up an internal meter for something that is more comfortable to hold in the hand. Doesn't matter if it has 20,000 point multi-evaluative matrix metering if there's a 50/50 chance it'll be pointing at the floor or ceiling instead of what you wanted to photograph because the camera is too small/big/slippery.

On that list you provided, I'm a big Contax fan for the optics. I used to have a 167 MT and an RX. Beautiful cameras that were intuitive to use and had some of the best glass going. If Contax glass is in your budget, I'd also look at older Leica SLRs - an R6.x or even an R7 would be a good option and unlike their rangefinders, the Leica SLRs and lenses are actually affordable on the used market.

Essential features on a manual SLR:

DOF preview.
MLU.
Time AND bulb settings.
X synch with PC socket.
All metal construction,must be rugged, durable, and reliable.
Interchangeable prisms nice but not essential.

For me, 99% of film cameras have everything required. A viewfinder, and full manual control. All the cameras you list look pretty good to me, Pentax LX would be top of my list though. OM4Ti is a little electronic for me, I think Leica SLRs lack the charms of the RFs, and not worth the pennies IMHO.

For medium format, Rolleiflex offers a gorgeous camera at a good price. If you can get along with a TLR, the lenses are amazing and have a real "look", shot wide open, and plenty sharp when stopped down to f/8 or whatever. I wish I could get on with a TLR, as they are great value, very small, make great pictures and are beautiful objects.

For me, perhaps the most important thing, once all the basics are covered (accurate shutter, proper collimation, reliability, etc.), is an excellent viewfinder / focusing screen.
That will allow you to easily and accurately focus even in difficult light conditions or with "difficult" lenses.
For that, the Leicaflexes you mentioned are unbeatable (despite what Olympus OM-4 fans claim).

Other good things: Lenses!!! Also, good ergonomics, spot metering, DOF preview, well-dampened shutter and mirror (at least for 35mm SLRs, a well-dampened mirror makes MLU unnecessary IMHO).

Of the cameras you mentioned, my first choice would be one of the Leicaflexes, then the Contaxes for their Zeiss lenses (not really for the bodies), then all the rest, which are very good except... the Leica R3, which I would avoid (if you must get an electronic Leica R, find a working R4, R5 or R7. The R8 & R9 are wonderful cameras too).

The Pentax 6x7 is a lovely camera, it just takes some guts and energy to carry it around... ;-)
If you get one, make sure it has MLU (in that case, MLU can make a difference!), though its mirror slap isn't as bad as legend has it, since most of it is the second shutter curtain closing and the mirror returning.

If you decide for one of the Leicaflexes, ask and I'd be glad to give the pros and cons of the SL vs. the SL2...

Michael R 1974 said:

Aside from being able to attach the best lenses available for my type of photography (obviously):

-Bright viewfinder with 100% coverage
-MLU !!!
-Focusing screen(s) that makes focusing easier
-Time/Bulb settings
-Standard mechanical cable release socket
-Intuitive, simple controls

Personally I've always found DOF preview next to useless. But it is always available on cameras with the above functionality anyway in case you need it.

Click to expand...

100% coverage? That would narrow the field considerably....
Contax RTSiii and a handful of others, but they are all far too complicated for my liking.
Don't know of any vintage (pre 1980) slr's with 100% coverage.

russkat said:

100% coverage? That would narrow the field considerably....
Contax RTSiii and a handful of others, but they are all far too complicated for my liking.
Don't know of any vintage (pre 1980) slr's with 100% coverage.

Click to expand...

Nikon F, a pre 1980 SLR with a 100% viewfinder. Pre 1960, in fact.

Rol_Lei Nut said:

For me, perhaps the most important thing, once all the basics are covered (accurate shutter, proper collimation, reliability, etc.), is an excellent viewfinder / focusing screen.
That will allow you to easily and accurately focus even in difficult light conditions or with "difficult" lenses.
For that, the Leicaflexes you mentioned are unbeatable (despite what Olympus OM-4 fans claim).

Other good things: Lenses!!! Also, good ergonomics, spot metering, DOF preview, well-dampened shutter and mirror (at least for 35mm SLRs, a well-dampened mirror makes MLU unnecessary IMHO).

Of the cameras you mentioned, my first choice would be one of the Leicaflexes, then the Contaxes for their Zeiss lenses (not really for the bodies), then all the rest, which are very good except... the Leica R3, which I would avoid (if you must get an electronic Leica R, find a working R4, R5 or R7. The R8 & R9 are wonderful cameras too).

The Pentax 6x7 is a lovely camera, it just takes some guts and energy to carry it around... ;-)
If you get one, make sure it has MLU (in that case, MLU can make a difference!), though its mirror slap isn't as bad as legend has it, since most of it is the second shutter curtain closing and the mirror returning.

If you decide for one of the Leicaflexes, ask and I'd be glad to give the pros and cons of the SL vs. the SL2...

Click to expand...

PM sent regarding LeicaFlex SL vs SL2

russkat said:

I'd like your varied opinions on what features you consider essential on a manual focus slr so I can make an informed decision on a camera purchase.

Click to expand...

You should soul-search and determine what YOU need and/or want.

BrianShaw said:

You should soul-search and determine what YOU need and/or want.

Click to expand...

In the process of that now... it may be just a matter of trying a few cameras with different features and based upon my style of shooting/results determine what's essential or non-essential to me.

Thanks for the great point !!!

p.s. In addition to all of the above mentioned camera features... fast flash synch speed.

russkat said:

... it may be just a matter of trying a few cameras with different features and based upon my style of shooting/results determine what's essential or non-essential to me.

Click to expand...

"Buy and try, and buy again" is not my personal style. I tend to be more analytic and develop my requirements before buying anything. As a result I have a small collection of cameras and each is the first of its type I ever bought. Your requirements may change over time (as did mine) and all that means is that another camera needs to be bought. But realistic thoguht about PROBABLE actual usage should get you into the ballpark fast.

Don't forget one criteria, though -- unexplainable and unjustifiable desire.

What…not a single Nikon on your list?

Poll-like questions such as these don’t seem to be nearly as helpful as compared to, ‘here’s my criteria…what do you suggest?’ Kinda’ like the tail wagging the dog. What the gallery may deem essential may be superfluous and dead-weight in your hands.

Rather than ID’ing what I feel to be essential features I’ll point you toward some bodies worth considering so you can deduce appropriateness as it relates to your shooting. From the Nikon line: FM2n, FM3a, FE2, F2AS, F3HP. I shoot each of these bodies. Conditions and subject matter determine which body is called to duty. Nikon also offers a few (dozen) nice lenses, many of which are available for a song and no dance.

Aja B said:

What…not a single Nikon on your list?

Poll-like questions such as these don’t seem to be nearly as helpful as compared to, ‘here’s my criteria…what do you suggest?’ Kinda’ like the tail wagging the dog. What the gallery may deem essential may be superfluous and dead-weight in your hands.

Rather than ID’ing what I feel to be essential features I’ll point you toward some bodies worth considering so you can deduce appropriateness as it relates to your shooting. From the Nikon line: FM2n, FM3a, FE2, F2AS, F3HP. I shoot each of these bodies. Conditions and subject matter determine which body is called to duty. Nikon also offers a few (dozen) nice lenses, many of which are available for a song and no dance.

Click to expand...

Did not intend for this to be a poll...
Shot nikons back in the 80's. Used an FM2, an FA, and an F4s.
Have to rule out something, so I ruled out Nikons and Canons for a start.
Plenty of others to choose from and I've always wanted to try Leica or Zeiss glass, so I'm leaning in that direction.

russkat said:

Zeiss glass

Click to expand...

You do know that you can Nikon manual focus and Zeiss glass at the same time, don't you?

With the cameras that I enjoy using, mostly folders and tlr,s the things that are essential to me are lens, means to focus the lens,shutter, shutter release button film wind and in many cases a red window, failing that a frame counter, anything else is an extra.
Richard

R.Gould said:

With the cameras that I enjoy using, mostly folders and tlr,s the things that are essential to me are lens, means to focus the lens,shutter, shutter release button film wind and in many cases a red window, failing that a frame counter, anything else is an extra.
Richard

Click to expand...

Thanks Richard... Keeping it simple !

Okay, I consider absolutely necessary:

aperture ring
shutter speed dial
DOF preview
MLU
depth-of-field-scale on the lens
a large and bright viewfinder

Another vote for Leica R8/R9 here. Always wanted one 10 years ago, now they are pretty cheap in mint condition.
Or go medium format straight through!

Number one feature of a camera body: lightproof.

russkat said:

Don't know of any vintage (pre 1980) slr's with 100% coverage.

Click to expand...

Minolta XM had 98% of coverage, 1973.

Dead Link Removed

Regarding the original post:

A Pentax LX is "tropicalized", small, you can find very good lenses at a decent price, you can use Pentax lenses on Pentax cameras of different generations, possibly including some modern digital ones, and if starting a "system" today that would be a good choice.
Against it: said to be noisy (actuation is noisy). Cost (the LX not the system).

A Contax RTS is not small. The Zeiss lenses, besides being very good quality (at a very bad price) can "match" the chromatic response of Zeiss lenses on medium format (Hasselblad, Rollei). That can be useful for highly specialistic work. If money is no object, Contax would be a fine choice. Yashica lenses are also good, but you have no camera with interchangeable finder if that becomes important one day (for tripod work a waist-level finder can be very gentle on your back, not to mention macro, work with a copystand etc).

A Minolta system with SR mount will allow a great, great quality/cost ratio on lenses and cameras, because the SR (also called MD) mount went out of production when Minolta switched to autofocus and had to change bayonet. You can build a complete system of high quality and low (sometimes very low) cost but autofocus is something you have to give up (not a problem here). A Minolta XM would be the equivalent of the Pentax LX (without TTL flash) but you can also find plenty of mechanical cameras at a ridiculous price.

A Minolta system with the new AF mount will allow you to use the same lenses on the Sony Alpha digital cameras (or Minolta digital cameras) besides on Minolta AF cameras. But the lenses are not so inexpensive as the SR mount ones.

A Nikon system would be an interesting choice because you can use old lenses on new cameras (with some incompatibilities here and there) and generally speaking Nikon cameras and lenses are very robust. They would be the obvious choice if you think you are going to stress and abuse your cameras. Until the Eighties or so, Nikon lenses were not just very robust but very repairable, often with each lens element mounted with its own collar, which made easy to realign a lens after a shock. This had a price (cost, old designs, weight, and size). I don't think this can be said of the autofocus production at all. If you wear glasses a Nikon F3 HP would be a very sensible choice. Everything branded Nikon still maintains a "badge premium" and if you don't like paying for "brand" is probably not your optimal choice.

Leica: see Contax/Zeiss above regarding high quality and high cost, multiply by two, and see Nikon above regarding paying for badge, multiply by 4.

Olympus: the OM-1, OM-2 and OM-4 are very interesting for their miniaturization, those cameras are even smaller than the smallest Pentaxes and especially the lenses were normally designed to be smaller and lighter than the competition. Too small might become uncomfortable for your hands though, especially if they are big, if you use gloves etc. The shutter speed collar around the lens mount is something that you can like or dislike, beware of that.

If I were you I would take the Pentax route (for the highest versatility at a decent price) or the Minolta SR route (for the best quality/cost) ratio.

Canons: like is the case with Minolta, Canon had to change their bayonet when they went Autofocus. The FD mount arrives up to early Eighties. As with Minolta you can find plenty of cameras and lenses at a relatively low price. My general idea is that the average lens quality is not on par with the Minolta, while the average camera quality is and you can add to your system a Canon F-1, F-1n which is certainly more modern than a Minolta XM.

In one line, I would go for an OLD system (Minolta SR or Canon FD) unless you feel you need features like autofocus, matrix metering, and other devil-inspired features because these out-of-production lenses and cameras offer a high quality at a very low cost.