Which Vintage 35mm do you recommend?

[AlexBC]

Hello,
I need some help figuring out which camera will round out my continuously ballooning film camera collection. I have been looking at the specifications of Nikon F series cameras and I think I am close. I like to read Mr. Rockwell's site, with all of his amusing "this is the best slr in the world" type proclamations, but it really isn't helping. I have decided on a number of qualities that I am looking for in a camera so I thought I would list them here and see what cameras you guys recommended.

1. I'm looking for an older camera. 1980s or older. As much metal and as little plastic as possible.
2. No niche cameras. I want something that was common, or built by a common company, with a common quality/following.
3. Interchangeable lenses. I am not looking for a fixed rangefinder or a fixed point and shoot.
4. center-weight or spot metering. I have plenty of modern bells and whistles, I don't need too much.
5. No autofocus. Got that stuff already, thanks.
6. Good set of lenses available. Good glass, good quality.
7. Fairly inexpensive bodies. Lenses are expensive I know, but I'd like to spend under $300 for the body.
8. Shutter speeds longer than 1 second would be nice, but I have tripod queens for longer exposures so that's not as important.
9. I'll likely be using Ektar 100 in the camera, so 1/4000 or slower is fine with me. Show me a situation when I'd need faster and I'll happily show you my sunburn.
10. Manual mode is a must. I'm not a huge fan of priority modes, either.

I think I'd rounded it down to Nikon FM2n, Olympus OM-1/2/3, or some Canon. I am attracted to a Contax for the Zeiss options, but I'll mainly shoot medium format, so I probably wont spend all that much on glass in the long run.

Is this helpful to start with?

Thanks alot,
-Alex

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Perhaps Canon FTb QL, Minolta SRT-101, Pentax F or KM, or KX, or Nikon FM.

Also check this Minolta/Canon/Nikon/Pentax camera timeline out:

http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/


Welcome to APUG!

 

[blockend]

Condition determines value of old mechanical cameras. A mint early number Nikon F and a beat up but perfectly functional F2 might differ in price by a factor of 10. Old Nikon lenses still function (to some extent) on new DSLRs which adds to their value, whereas orphaned mounts like the Canon FD and Minolta MD tend to be cheaper, though mirrorless digital camera users have ensured real bargains are thin on the ground.

Think which lenses you want, a 50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8 and 135mm 3.5 will cost a fraction of the same in f1.2, 1.8 and f2 in any mount. Three hundred bucks should see any body except Leica M within reach. If I was advising someone starting out I'd say go for a Nikkormat and 50mm f2, Canon FTb and 50mm 1.8, or Minolta SRT and 50mm 1.8 which will see you inside a hundred dollars/pounds and give as much image quality as anything around.

 

[jjphoto]

I've had FM2n, OM2n and various Contax and Yashica bodies (still have some). Some of the Contax bodies are superb, with all the bells and whistles, but I tended to use the cheaper ones without any problems.

I happen to love the viewfinder in the OM bodies so I would choose an OM over anything else for this reason alone as it makes focusing much easier. I agree that the Zeiss lenses are superb and probably reason enough to choose a Contax/Yashica body. I guess it depends on the particular lenses you want to use but some of the OM lenses are also superb and although they have a different look to the Contax Zeiss lenses should not be considered inferior (I regularly use both on digital bodies). I think I am least attracted to the Nikon lenses and bodies of the period (although I used Nikon exclusively for about 10 years) so I would avoid Nikon for this reason alone. Having said that, some of their lenses are superb, ie the Micro-Nikkors, so it just depends on your needs.

Try a cheap OM2n and 1.4/50 (just avoid the early silver nose lenses unless you want a softer look). If you like that then expand, if not, resell it and move on.

 

[AlexBC]

Thank you both for your feedback. My lens interests are very basic. I want a 35 (or 28), 50, and a 80. f/1.8 or faster if I can manage. I won't be collecting a huge mass of them, so I may omit the 80 for awhile.

 

[frank]

One quintiscential 35mm SLR is the Leica SL with 50 Summicron.

Others: Nikon F, F2, F3; Canon F1n, EF, Ftb; Olympus OM1n

 

[Paul Howell]

All mechanical common but not on the radar of those who collect.

Minolta 202
Konica T or T3
Olympus OM 1

Electronic Shutter

Yashica FR

Minolta X 700

Early AF

Minolta Maxxium 700 or 900.

Pentax SF1

Nikon N 90

 

[trythis]

Do you care if it requires batteries to function?


Sent with typotalk

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

1. I'm looking for an older camera. 1980s or older. As much metal and as little plastic as possible.

Hi
That isn't vintage.
That is just old.

If you want vintage, go for an Exacta or a Asahiflex.

 

[vdonovan]

Not much mention of the real classics like the Leica iii or the Leica M series. You don't specify SLR or rangefinder, but if I was going to own only one 35mm camera, it would be a Leica M rangefinder. Contax as runner up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any of the Minolta STR family will be reliable.

 

[crumpet8]

It's been mentioned a couple of times here already and I can put in another thumbs up for a Minolta. I have the srt101, a 101b and a few different rokkor lenses. Great lenses, you can get a 50mm 1.4 for about $75 and the 1.7 which it usually comes with is also good battery runs the meter, otherwise it's all mechanical. Built like a tank, mine have been with me some time now without a service and still going strong!

 

[ColColt]

If it were me with that criteria I think the Nikon F2 or F2A would fit the ticket very well. Depending on finances I'd even mention a Leica M2 as well.

 

[blockend]

You don't specify SLR or rangefinder, but if I was going to own only one 35mm camera, it would be a Leica M rangefinder. Contax as runner up.

For under 300 dollars? Good luck with that.

 

[AgX]

AE-1

Cheap, common, reliable, and all the other requirements of yours.
And takes modern batteries, something you did not think of.

 

[summicron1]

I have a canon AE1 sitting here in a camera bag with four lenses, 24, 28, 50 and 80-200 Xoom I would ship to you Monday for $150.

Seriously, this is typical of what you can find. For $300for the body alone you could pick up a Leicaflx sl.

 

[frank]

AE1? Yech!

Sorry, did I post that out loud?

 

[nanthor]

The Nikkormat is a nice solid, all metal camera with great focusing screen and built- in meter that does not get in the way. Easy to use and buy, comes in silver and black. Bob.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

Nikkormat Ft2/3.. will last generations.

 

[Roger Cole]

Not much mention of the real classics like the Leica iii or the Leica M series. You don't specify SLR or rangefinder, but if I was going to own only one 35mm camera, it would be a Leica M rangefinder. Contax as runner up.

Not in a $300 budget, and even if he found the body the lenses, while good to superb, command prices far higher than equally good (sometimes yes, even better) Japanese lenses.

 

[jimjm]

Another vote for the Nikkormat FT2/FT3 bodies. Definitely has some of that "vintage" feel you're looking for, bombproof build and very capable. You can find an excellent body for under $100 and spend the extra cash on one of many outstanding Nikkor lenses. If you want a smaller body, the FM or FM2 are also great, just a bit more modern feel.

The Nikon F2 with any of the Photomic heads is for me the perfect manual SLR, but will cost $200 or more in good condition. Some of the older meter heads can be erratic, but can be easily serviced and will last for decades more.

I have Olympus OM, Minolta MC and Pentax screw-mount bodies, but the big advantage with Nikon is that I can use many of the older Nikkor lenses on the newer AF and digital bodies. My most-used lenses are the 28/2.8 AIS, 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and the 105/2.5.

 

[pbromaghin]

$300? Heck, the SRT budget could be $30. I am a MD body guy but I recently came into an SRT 201 with 3 lenses for $30. It feels wonderful, solid metal construction and it will take all those wonderful Rokkor lenses, some of the best in the world and dirt cheap. There is the battery conversion problem - they don't make a battery with the correct voltage for the meter any more and it costs a few bucks to covert it to use new batteries. Remember, the battery is only for the meter. If you have a handheld meter of your own, you have no worries at all.

 

[AlexBC]

Thank you thank you for all of your advice! I did want to mention a few things to clarify:
Yes, I use "vintage" loosely. There are many older cameras, but I used that to describe the pre-plastic film SLRs. Sorry to mislead anyone. I didn't want anyone to think I was after anything state of the art or the immediate precursor to the digital age.

As for batteries, I am not picky as long as I can replace it with an equivalent cell or if it can be adapted without altering the voltage to the light meter. I have several actual light meters, but I want to be able to leave those things in the car and use the camera's meter and a small gray if needed.

I'm not opposed to a rangefinder, but my budget will limit my choices considerably. The Nikon FM is still looking good, but now I'll have to think about these Minoltas. I've seen them, but never used any.

 

[summicron1]

Thank you thank you for all of your advice! I did want to mention a few things to clarify:
Yes, I use "vintage" loosely. There are many older cameras, but I used that to describe the pre-plastic film SLRs. Sorry to mislead anyone. I didn't want anyone to think I was after anything state of the art or the immediate precursor to the digital age.

As for batteries, I am not picky as long as I can replace it with an equivalent cell or if it can be adapted without altering the voltage to the light meter. I have several actual light meters, but I want to be able to leave those things in the car and use the camera's meter and a small gray if needed.

I'm not opposed to a rangefinder, but my budget will limit my choices considerably. The Nikon FM is still looking good, but now I'll have to think about these Minoltas. Seen them, but never used any.

If you don't mind needing a weird battery, go for a Pentax spotmatic -- they're older but pure gold to handle and use, solid and reliable, smooth and easy to use, and it is possible to jigger a modern battery to work in it. The lenses are as good as Leica, some folks say, and there are tons available. I have a prejudice against the Minolta SRT series because I've not come across one that aged well in my very considerable camera acquisition travels, but I'm happy to be proven wrong, I just think the Spotmatics hold up better.

And, like all the others, very cheap these days. I wasn't kidding about the canon ae1 outfit.

 

[AgX]

Yes, I use "vintage" loosely. There are many older cameras, but I used that to describe the pre-plastic film SLRs.

What is a pre-plastic SLR? To get a (nearly) all-metal SLR you need to go back to the 60s.