what old SLR should i buy?

I would go for an Olympus OM camera.

Otherwise get a Nikon as lots of lenses are up for sale used.
Pentax, Minolta and other are nice, too.

I am not into the Canon FD mount cameras while I dig their EOS range.

Morten, he said cheap. Dunno bout you, but I never saw a cheap Nikon/Canon/Olympus unless it was broken!

Andy K said:

Morten, he said cheap. Dunno bout you, but I never saw a cheap Nikon/Canon/Olympus unless it was broken!

Click to expand...

I got my OM1 for $25 with a 50mm f/1.8...cheap to me

Ok...the self-timer doesn't work, but otherwise everything is in good shape. The shutter is tested ok, and with a zinc-air battery (1.35 V hearing aid battery) the light meter works great and gives good results with slide film.

My OM-1 cost close to double that, but it is in mint condition...

Andy K said:

My OM-1 cost close to double that, but it is in mint condition...

Click to expand...

Still cheap for a mint OM1...

I have big hands, but I still like Pentax. The size of my hands may well be part of the reason why more than 80% of my pictures are shot in vertical orientation - unless it's that the local landscape is mostly vertical?
Anyway, I like a camera that can take any lens ever made by that manufacturer.

Woolliscroft said:

I'll go along with the OM lovers. Avoid the 2 spot and the straight 4 as they eat batteries, but the 1n, 2n, 3 and 4Ti are all lovely and very robust and reliable, despite their compact build.

David.

Click to expand...

Some of the later OM-4s had updated circuits that were the same as what went in the OM-4Ti. Even so, I've never understood making such a big deal of battery life on the earlier OM-4s and the OM-2 Spot. The batteries are cheap, and if the cameras are inactive for along periods, removing the batteries is hardly rocket science.

The bigger problem with the OM-2 Spot is that the circuitry doesn't seem to be as reliable as the other electronic OMs. That said, there are lots of people who are shooting them reliably now, having purchased them new, early on.

As for availablility of wides, especially wider than 24, well, people who have them tend to hang on to them. The 21/3.5 is often available on auction, and it is reputed to be great. I've never owned one, as I have the 21/f2. You'll have to pry it from my dead, cold hands. It replaced a Leica 21 and made me feel comfortable in selling my M3, 50MM DR and 90mm. The 21/2 doesn't often surface on oBoy. When they do, expect to pay $800-1K for a good one.

Canon D shooters are snapping up the 28 shift.

Earl

Leica R6.2

..................... hum, I was just joking....

Woolliscroft said:

I'll go along with the OM lovers. Avoid the 2 spot and the straight 4 as they eat batteries, but the 1n, 2n, 3 and 4Ti are all lovely and very robust and reliable, despite their compact build.

David.

Click to expand...

My OM of choice happens to be the OM 2S and although I've heard of the battery eating problems. can't say that I've ever experienced it. The circuits in them can go out and when that happens, you have a parts body on your hands as you can't get them fixed. Before someone tells me what an idiot I am and that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me just say that I have 5 or 6 OM 2S camera bodies, as well as at least one of all the other single digit OMs with the exception of the 3Ti, so I do have a choice about which OM body I use. For good, quick and accurate metering on the fly, the 2S is my choice. Does that mean I would suggest someone seek out the OM 2S? Not really and I wouldn't tell them to cross it off the list. There are no cameras that I have found which have a manufacturers warrantee on their 25 to 30 year old cameras. Zuiko optics are great, offering some super choices from wide through telephoto and including some of the best macro gear available. The OM system is a great one and I'll probably use it for the rest of this incarnation. An Om 2S will probably always have a spot in my 35mm film kit. Bill Barber

I like mechanical cameras. If the electronics fail (which could be expensive to repair), you still have 100% control of focus and exposure. The Nikon FM, FM2, FM2n, and Pentax K1000 come to mind. There are lots of others. I have a slight Nikon bias due to all the great manual focus lenses available at very seductive prices, and the cameras are built like tanks.

Richard

I will agree with Trivette. I would, if buying older secondhand model, buy camera which doesn't need batteries for work. That way problem with finding replacement for old mercury batteries would be avoided, camera would work at all speeds/apertures. Of course, you would have to buy handheld light meter.

Canon A-1 or AE-1.They are some great FD lenses out there and the prices aren't that high.

At a certain point, nearly anything you buy will probably need to be serviced. Either a routine CLA or replacement of foam seals. If the foam seals have begun to corrode, those should be replaced first. Those tend to disintegrate into tiny very sticky globules, and you don't want that getting into the shutter where it most certainly will foul the mechanism or onto the focusing screen.

Make sure you check this when buying any SLR from the 1970s or 1980s. Cameras from the 1990s should still be OK.

I think asking "which old camera should I buy?" is a bit like asking "which old car should I buy?"

I would derive no joy from a 1960's cadillac, even though its an old car - while many would have no fun with the cars I would pick.

Same goes for cameras.

Good thing is - many absolutely amazing cameras are dirt cheap, and you have just about all of them accounted for in pages prior. Pick one. You can buy and sell them with no loss and sometimes a gain, as they seem to have hit the bottom of their depreciation curve. Buy one, see if you like it - if not, sell it and get your money back (if you bought wisely - not even exceptionally, just smartly).

One suggestion I would add, is a camera that is a bit of a hidden gem of the Canon FD line - the EF. NOT the EF-M. This is an ancient, all metal, old-school SLR that has just about every feature you can want in a manual camera - although it has some drawbacks (no motor drive, no replaceable focusing screens to name a couple - perhaps the only major ones).
It does have mirror lock up, is built like a TANK (warning - and wieghs as much!), has a mechanical shutter for all but the slowest (upwards of 1/2 second) shutter speeds, has a vertical travel Copal shutter and synchs with flash up to 125th of a second - pretty good for an SLR of that vintage. Also, it may be the only one that has a verified voltage comensation so that you can use modern batteries.

Big selling point - the meter scale in the viewfinder adjusts as you switch lenses - so with the f1.4 it started there, with the f4 it starts at f4. WOW.
OK - I am kidding, but it is a cute little gimmick ona 30+ year old camera

I enjoyed mine very much, until it was stolen out of my car this weekend

One more thing - I have an AE1, and I have a friend who bought one - they are both a huge pain with unpredictable electronic gremlins - I know they are wonderful when they work (mine is) and perhaps my experience is isolated and not typical - but the electronic shutter/meter gremlins relegated mine to paper weight status (even after getting many knowledgeable people's advice on how to get around them). And no, it was not the squeek. That much said - they are SO cheap... you can just keep buying them until you get a good one and whenever they give you trouble - but who wants to do that?

Peter.