Which Vintage 35mm do you recommend?

[flavio81]

Canon F-1, the discriminating pro choice

All of these cameras are quite good and will do what you want.

But if you really are interested in using one of the best then find a Canon F-1N and enjoy shooting a fully professional camera with an extremely high build quality, excellent full-info viewfinder, totally accurate meter and an extremely good lens system. It may turn out to be a tad high for your stated budget but you certainly won't mind once you have used one for awhile. And you will save lots of money by using the Canon FD lenses.

 

[aoresteen]

The best Spotmatic is the meterless Pentax SL. I have two (one in black, one in chrome). No meter, no mercury batteries to fret about. I just bought another one . Easy to have them serviced. SMC Takumars are amoung the best lenses out there.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_Spotmatic#The_SL


Now if you want to go classy find a Contaflex Rapid. It's a meter-less Contaflex Super. It has interchangeable front elements. Compur leaf shutter, very hard to have serviced. Widest lens is a 35mm, longest lens is a 115mm. It takes interchangeable film backs (don't trust them - they all leak light by now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaflex_SLR

 

[Roger Cole]

All of these cameras are quite good and will do what you want.

But if you really are interested in using one of the best then find a serviced Pentax LX and enjoy shooting a light, professional camera with a very, very accurate meter. It may turn out to be a tad high for your stated budget but you certainly won't mind once you have used one for awhile.

EDIT - Of course it was still being sold in 2000 so it may not quite be vintage enough for you.

I've got one. It is awesome, and has probably the best pre-matrix TTL meter ever put in a camera. But it is over budget and, while it has a useful range of speeds that work without a battery, it's not all speeds - might or might not be an issue.

But it's certainly a great camera and lenses are plentiful.

 

[AgX]

AVOID CANON SERIE A AND T: THEY GET OLD VERY BADLY.

I got about 15 of them (A's and T's). Out of them only one has a failure*.
The A's even do not show that squeak.


*
By now all A's will have deteriorated foam rubber sealings and mirror damper. with the T's it likely will occur at the dampers.
But that is a issue seen by all cameras of that period with foam rubber.
There is one problem with Ts, that anyone with a screwdriver can solve.
All my T-70 command backs (seemingly not manufacturede by Canon) have beginning deterioration at the LCD screen.
I got one FD 50/1.4 lens from 1976 that since a few years got a sticky aperture, slowing down action and in need of repair.
I got one new-FD 50/1.8 about ten years younger that got oily blades but still works perfectly

 

[Fr. Mark]

Lots have mentioned it already, but the OM-1 is a nice camera, controls fall easily to hand, all manual, with internal meter. Economical with film (39 on a 36) lighter and compact and quieter than some. Nice features like mirror lock up, fstop depth of field preview, self timer, later ones you can put a motor drive on. Mine from the late 70's is still working. One draw back: Mercury battery, but if you replace it with a same size different voltage battery you could quickly figure out the difference with one roll of B/W film.

 

[Alan Gales]

Lots have mentioned it already, but the OM-1 is a nice camera, controls fall easily to hand, all manual, with internal meter. Economical with film (39 on a 36) lighter and compact and quieter than some. Nice features like mirror lock up, fstop depth of field preview, self timer, later ones you can put a motor drive on. Mine from the late 70's is still working. One draw back: Mercury battery, but if you replace it with a same size different voltage battery you could quickly figure out the difference with one roll of B/W film.

I bought my 21 year old daughter an adapter for the battery and her exposures have been right on. She loves her OM-1.

Dead Link Removed

 

[aoresteen]

Lots have mentioned it already, but the OM-1 is a nice camera, controls fall easily to hand, all manual, with internal meter. Economical with film (39 on a 36) lighter and compact and quieter than some. Nice features like mirror lock up, fstop depth of field preview, self timer, later ones you can put a motor drive on. Mine from the late 70's is still working. One draw back: Mercury battery, but if you replace it with a same size different voltage battery you could quickly figure out the difference with one roll of B/W film.

I have 4 OM-1 bodies and 3 OM-2 bodies. Have your OM-1 serviced by John Hermanson Camtech Photo Services, Inc www.zuiko.com. When John overhauls an OM-1 he converts the meter circuit to use a 1.5v silver oxide battery and calibrates it. By far it will be the best $100 you will spend. All my OM bodies have been serviced by John. I just had 3 done last spring.

John worked for Olympus USA for many years before running his own repair shop. He is the go-to repair person for Olympus OM cameras.

 

[DannL.]

I recently found a minty OM-1MD (Black) outfit in a thrift store. I have been through a ton of 35mm SLRs over the years, including at least three OM-10s. None have tickled my fancy as much as this camera. It's similar in many ways to the Leica and Canon rangefinder cameras I once owned, but it has the advantage of being an SLR in nearly the same size/weight package. I use mine with a leather Olympus half-case as it fits my hands more comfortably. It's a pleasure to use.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What really matters is how the camera fits in YOUR hands and how it feels to YOU. The rest are just opinions. If the camera is too big or too small for you, then it is no the camera for you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I recommend one that fits well in your hands, and that has a viewfinder you can easily see what you're photographing. It should preferably be known to be of good quality, and be recently serviced. It needs to suit you as a photographer, your physical attributes, and when you pick it up it should feel good to use.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What really matters is how the camera fits in YOUR hands and how it feels to YOU. The rest are just opinions. If the camera is too big or too small for you, then it is no the camera for you.

I wrote my comment just after you without reading your comment first.

A couple of years ago I acquired a Leica M2. I love it. But it's too small for my giant hands. It helped putting a thick leather protector on it, and to use one of those larger release buttons on it. I wish I could have one about 50% larger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I forgot to mention the viewfinder points that you mentioned. Good call.

 

[Photo-gear]

Quote Originally Posted by Photo-gear View Post
AVOID CANON SERIE A AND T: THEY GET OLD VERY BADLY.
I got about 15 of them (A's and T's). Out of them only one has a failure*.
The A's even do not show that squeak.



By now all A's will have deteriorated foam rubber sealings and mirror damper. with the T's it likely will occur at the dampers.
But that is a issue seen by all cameras of that period with foam rubber.
There is one problem with Ts, that anyone with a screwdriver can solve.
All my T-70 command backs (seemingly not manufacturede by Canon) have beginning deterioration at the LCD screen.
I got one FD 50/1.4 lens from 1976 that since a few years got a sticky aperture, slowing down action and in need of repair.
I got one new-FD 50/1.8 about ten years younger that got oily blades but still works perfectly


One of a re-seller in my area shares the same opinion: Canon series A and T have too much of electronics, so it gets old badly most of the time. The T90 is very ergonomic but is known for its EEE syndrome. The A series are known for the shutter squeak syndrome. And so on, without mentionning the trouble to find a technician that wants to fix it. Of course, every camera has its flaws but I am talking about a heavy trend.

By the way, the re-seller's shelves are full of these Canons that nobody wants, although the Nikons and Pentax are easily sold. Maybe the Canon FB are reliable: those I haven't tried them out.

Nothing wrong with FD lenses.

 

[Nathan King]

All of these cameras are quite good and will do what you want.

But if you really are interested in using one of the best then find a Canon F-1N and enjoy shooting a fully professional camera with an extremely high build quality, excellent full-info viewfinder, totally accurate meter and an extremely good lens system. It may turn out to be a tad high for your stated budget but you certainly won't mind once you have used one for awhile. And you will save lots of money by using the Canon FD lenses.

I will second this recommendation. I will NEVER sell my F1N!

 

[flavio81]

One of a re-seller in my area shares the same opinion: Canon series A and T have too much of electronics, so it gets old badly most of the time. .

The canon A-series, in particular the AE-1, is perhaps the most reliable electronic camera i've found on secondhand stores. All I found were with working electronics, no matter how battered. Compare with more than one dead-meter Nikon F3 i've found, plus another FA whose electronics were dead as well.

The canon "squeak" problem I can fix in about 5 minutes by removing the bottom plate and squirting WD40 on a strategic point. I've posted a diagram on how to do this in the year 2001 or 2002, my A-1 camera still works till today after that fix.

 

[flavio81]

I recently found a minty OM-1MD (Black) outfit in a thrift store. I have been through a ton of 35mm SLRs over the years, including at least three OM-10s. None have tickled my fancy as much as this camera. It's similar in many ways to the Leica and Canon rangefinder cameras I once owned, but it has the advantage of being an SLR in nearly the same size/weight package. I use mine with a leather Olympus half-case as it fits my hands more comfortably. It's a pleasure to use.

If size is a concern, i'd recommend also the Nikon FG, which is apparently even smaller than the OM1. It is light, reasonably well built, has a very good viewfinder and many functions. A nice little camera.

 

[flavio81]

I will second this recommendation. I will NEVER sell my F1N!

It's my favorite 35mm camera as well. I like it more than my Nikon F2, which I like more than the F3.
I've used Olympus OM1 and OM2 as well, which I find very overrated, to be honest.

On the other hand the Nikon F with the plain prism is not as capable but it gives a certain pleasure that few camera have. I'd say the (original) Canon F-1 shares the same timeless qualities.

 

[Roger Cole]

The canon A-series, in particular the AE-1, is perhaps the most reliable electronic camera i've found on secondhand stores. All I found were with working electronics, no matter how battered. Compare with more than one dead-meter Nikon F3 i've found, plus another FA whose electronics were dead as well.

The canon "squeak" problem I can fix in about 5 minutes by removing the bottom plate and squirting WD40 on a strategic point. I've posted a diagram on how to do this in the year 2001 or 2002, my A-1 camera still works till today after that fix.

Suggestion - I don't know this repair but I do know WD40, and I would never, ever, use it as a lubricant. In my bicycling days shop owners loved the stuff, because people who used it on their chains were always buying replacement chains at two to three times the rate of those of us who used Tri-Flow or a wax based lube. The thing about WD40 is that in addition to a light penetrating oil it also contains (see the label) "rust inhibitors" aka what amounts to varnish. A spritz on tools before you put them away, to keep them from rusting, is fine. As a lubricant the oil is quickly displaced leaving behind the sticky rust inhibitor. It will prevent rust but it will also gum up with dust, dirt and grime quicker than the same part would otherwise. Granted there shouldn't be a lot of such inside a camera but I still wouldn't pick it for a lubricant. I don't know what's best for cameras but I generally use Teflon based Tri-Flow in places where most people use WD40.

 

[Photo-gear]

The canon A-series, in particular the AE-1, is perhaps the most reliable electronic camera i've found on secondhand stores. All I found were with working electronics, no matter how battered. Compare with more than one dead-meter Nikon F3 i've found, plus another FA whose electronics were dead as well.

The canon "squeak" problem I can fix in about 5 minutes by removing the bottom plate and squirting WD40 on a strategic point. I've posted a diagram on how to do this in the year 2001 or 2002, my A-1 camera still works till today after that fix.

I have used Nikon (FM2n and FE2), Pentax (K1000, Spotmatic f and ESII) and even Konica (T3n and FT-1) without a problem. My Canons series A (AT-1, A-1) are in dusty box for lack of parts, out of order. The T90 got sold for parts.

 

[georg16nik]

Suggestion - I don't know this repair but I do know WD40, and I would never, ever, use it as a lubricant. In my bicycling days shop owners loved the stuff, because people who used it on their chains were always buying replacement chains at two to three times the rate of those of us who used Tri-Flow or a wax based lube. The thing about WD40 is that in addition to a light penetrating oil it also contains (see the label) "rust inhibitors" aka what amounts to varnish. A spritz on tools before you put them away, to keep them from rusting, is fine. As a lubricant the oil is quickly displaced leaving behind the sticky rust inhibitor. It will prevent rust but it will also gum up with dust, dirt and grime quicker than the same part would otherwise. Granted there shouldn't be a lot of such inside a camera but I still wouldn't pick it for a lubricant. I don't know what's best for cameras but I generally use Teflon based Tri-Flow in places where most people use WD40.

Yep, WD40 just shows bad knowledge and lack of practical experience.
Teflon based lubricants are the most appropriate for cameras, lenses, etc.

Back to the OP.

...
I've been looking at the Contax cameras, specifically the 167MT. I am surprised that the eBay prices for the lenses are so low. I'd written them off because I believed that they would be outside of my price range, but they are certainly very reasonable. That said, I'm still leaning towards Nikon for ease of access reasons. eBay will have to be my main resource like it or not, and Nikkor lenses are everywhere. I just realized that my brother actually has an old Nikon F with a couple of lenses buried in his closet from his college days, so I may have to look at using that while I figure out whether I want to go newer, older, heavier, or lighter.

Your brother's Nikon F sounds like a plan.
Don't bother with this particular Contax, unless you have a couple of Distagons and Planars lying around. Better get Yashica later on when you know a bit more about SLR's of that age - in case you wanna get your feet wet with Contax-land. The repairs for most not purely mechanical cameras are gonna be substantial in time, cost.

 

[michr]

Based on your description of a reliable, manual focus interchangeable lens, mass-produced camera, the only thing I can recommend is a Nikon F series camera, such as the FM, FA or the like.

 

[flavio81]

Suggestion - I don't know this repair but I do know WD40, and I would never, ever, use it as a lubricant.

I never implied use as a lubricant, but as a solvent. On this usage the problem is caused by dried-up grease. The solvent in the WD40 solves down the grease and the mirror mechanism operates smoothly again. No extra lubricants needed. The amount of WD40 applied is really minute.

Yep, WD40 just shows bad knowledge and lack of practical experience.

My A-1 is still working after about 12 or 13 years after i used the WD40 fix. I say, that's good enough practical experience, thank you.

 

[georg16nik]

I never implied use as a lubricant, but as a solvent. On this usage the problem is caused by dried-up grease. The solvent in the WD40 solves down the grease and the mirror mechanism operates smoothly again. No extra lubricants needed. The amount of WD40 applied is really minute.
[]....[]
My A-1 is still working after about 12 or 13 years after i used the WD40 fix. I say, that's good enough practical experience, thank you.

Yeah, you used WD40 (water-displacing spray) instead of Naphtha and then proper synthetic lubrication.
No sane camera/lens manufacturer will pat your back and recommend WD40.

 

[flavio81]

For everyone who may want to use this information, here is the diagram i posted in 2001 detailing where to apply WD40 to solve the mirror squeak problem.

http://www.baytan.org/prak/pic/a1grease.gif

 

[AlexBC]

Thank you for even more options! I'm not close to deciding, but I had an opportunity to try a Canon AE-1 recently and I think it is too small for me to use for extended periods of time. When I go home for the holidays, I'll be able to try a Nikon F. I'm looking forward to such a classic! It hasn't been used in around 15 years so I'll be sure to inspect it inside and out before cocking it. I've read about the shutter curtain getting wrinkles after sitting unused and then being cocked. Any truth to that?