Who prefers 35mm SLR over all other kinds of cameras?

[GaryFlorida]

I do . . .

It's an AI version, full featured and typical robust build.

nice. So do I. How do you like it? What is your favorite Nikons and Nikkormats in order of most fav to least?

 

[ME Super]

35mm SLRs are convenient, especially for shooting slides. I have a fondness for the square format too, though, and would love to see a 35mm camera that took 24x24mm pictures on 35mm film (with 35mm spacing so you could use 35mm slide mounts). I primarily shoot a 35mm SLR.

On the other hand, bigger and square is nice too. I'd love to get ahold of a good 6x6 TLR in good working order.

if you want the spacing the same, couldnt you just make a paper mask and put it in front of the film plane?

I thought about that, but wonder if the paper mask would scratch the film?

 

[Les Sarile]

nice. So do I. How do you like it? What is your favorite Nikons and Nikkormats in order of most fav to least?

Keep it down as I don't want them to hear anything about favorites!

I am currently distracted by an OM-3 though . . .

 

[thuggins]

Your list of 35mm SLR advantages is pretty good. As has been pointed out on these forums many times, an SLR will do anything a rangefinder can do, but not vice-versa. Half frame is fun, but running thru a roll of film takes quite a while and viewing the transparencies is a challenge. MF is also great to do "for a change", but it is far from the perfect format. The longer lenses create depth of field, low light, focus and hand held stability issues. As for the purported image quality of MF, the modern "grainless" transparency films makes any advantage of the larger negative moot. I've seen a number of 35mm images blown up to 4ft x 6ft (yes, feet). At these sizes differences in lens quality becomes very apparent, but the detail the film can record is remarkable.

 

[GaryFlorida]

Your list of 35mm SLR advantages is pretty good. As has been pointed out on these forums many times, an SLR will do anything a rangefinder can do, but not vice-versa. Half frame is fun, but running thru a roll of film takes quite a while and viewing the transparencies is a challenge. MF is also great to do "for a change", but it is far from the perfect format. The longer lenses create depth of field, low light, focus and hand held stability issues. As for the purported image quality of MF, the modern "grainless" transparency films makes any advantage of the larger negative moot. I've seen a number of 35mm images blown up to 4ft x 6ft (yes, feet). At these sizes differences in lens quality becomes very apparent, but the detail the film can record is remarkable.

Its nice to see support for 35mm SLRs. I was hoping to see some dedicated 35mm guys on this thread, which I did. It seems there is a level of shame of liking 35mm SLRs on here so it was nice to see some of you guys step up for your system and represent. I dont have to be ashamed any more for liking and shooting a 35mm SLR. Im not alone. Shoot proud. Im keeping my FT3. Even so Im snapping up the first bargain Crown Graphic that enters my strike zone.

 

[narsuitus]

Why did you take the Nikon badge off the black one?

I did not take the Nikon badge off. The badge was off when I purchased the viewfinder.

 

[flavio81]

As for the purported image quality of MF, the modern "grainless" transparency films makes any advantage of the larger negative moot.

Seriously? Do you shoot medium format alongside 35mm from time to time? I don't find the difference "moot."

I wonder what the large format shooters think...

 

[GarageBoy]

I like using 35mm SLR cameras- mainly using it these days to finish off my Provia 400X/Neopan 400 and TMZ3200 stash
All the reasons I like to use film are enhanced when using MF- so if I had to choose, 645 is my choice (Can hand hold- quick handling- decently modern cameras)

 

[thuggins]

Seriously? Do you shoot medium format alongside 35mm from time to time? I don't find the difference "moot."

I wonder what the large format shooters think...

I've shot my share of MF and the results are nice, but they are no better than 35mm trannies. Any "noticable difference" is in people's imaginations. The differences in the focal length of the standard lens also complicates a comparison between LF and 35mm.

 

[John Koehrer]

I did not take the Nikon badge off. The badge was off when I purchased the viewfinder.

By removing the name plate i t'll fit an F2. The plate on the F2 remains on the body when the prism's removed.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I've yet to try LF stuff but lack patience needed. MF is OK. So yes I prefer 35MM SLR just for the myriad of possibilities and ease of use. And the great in camera meters.

 

[fotch]

My all time favorite is the Nikon F3HP although I do like using lots of other cameras. But if could only have one....

 

[RattyMouse]

Your list of 35mm SLR advantages is pretty good. As has been pointed out on these forums many times, an SLR will do anything a rangefinder can do, but not vice-versa.

This is not correct. A 35mm rangefinder can be made with a leaf shutter. A 35mm SLR, to my knowledge, has never been made with a leaf shutter. The only SLR's that I know of that have leaf shutters are the Hasselblads. Therefore, 35mm SLR's cannot sync their flashes at the higher speeds that leaf shutters can. Nor can they shoot as silently.

 

[rbultman]

This is not correct. A 35mm rangefinder can be made with a leaf shutter. A 35mm SLR, to my knowledge, has never been made with a leaf shutter. The only SLR's that I know of that have leaf shutters are the Hasselblads. Therefore, 35mm SLR's cannot sync their flashes at the higher speeds that leaf shutters can. Nor can they shoot as silently.

RB/RZ67's are SLR's that use leaf shutters. The M645 system has leaf shutters too. I realize that these are not 35mm, but they are SLR's. Given that these are SLR's and have leaf shutter lenses, it should also be true that "a 35mm SLR can be made with a leaf shutter." Just because no one has doesn't mean they can't be made. It just might be difficult, expensive, awkward to use, and probably eliminates much of the advantages of a 35mm SLR with focal plane shutter.

Regards,
Rob

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

A 35mm SLR, to my knowledge, has never been made with a leaf shutter.

You have a lot to learn and to read. Here is one: the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex.

Some info here: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contaflx/super.htm

There are more leaf shutter 35mm SLR made by many other manufacturers, for example Mamiya.

 

[tomfrh]

I'm pretty new to film and I love my canon eos SLRs. I'm shooting slide film (velvia and agfa precisa) and these cameras work great. If I could only have one camera format it would be 35mm. Regarding 35mm transparancies vs larger format, I've also been shooting velvia in a pentax 645N and a 4x5 camera. The larger images are clearly superior to the 35mm format. Aside from being more detailed, the images just look better. The colours and tones are smoother and more complete.

 

[GaryFlorida]

This is not correct. A 35mm rangefinder can be made with a leaf shutter. A 35mm SLR, to my knowledge, has never been made with a leaf shutter. The only SLR's that I know of that have leaf shutters are the Hasselblads. Therefore, 35mm SLR's cannot sync their flashes at the higher speeds that leaf shutters can. Nor can they shoot as silently.

The Nikon FT3 has a vertically traveling Copal focal plane shutter that syncs at 1/125 which is pretty fast. Not as fast as a leaf shutter but pretty fast.

 

[GaryFlorida]

RB/RZ67's are SLR's that use leaf shutters. The M645 system has leaf shutters too. I realize that these are not 35mm, but they are SLR's. Given that these are SLR's and have leaf shutter lenses, it should also be true that "a 35mm SLR can be made with a leaf shutter." Just because no one has doesn't mean they can't be made. It just might be difficult, expensive, awkward to use, and probably eliminates much of the advantages of a 35mm SLR with focal plane shutter.

Regards,
Rob

What are the advantages of a focal plane shutter? I know that they are faster up to 1/4000 but what else? I wonder why they didnt put more quiet, low vibration leaf shutters in SLRs?

Also, the Pentax 6x7 has lenses available that have leaf shutters in them. I dont know why Nikon never did this. This way you could have both leaf and focal plane like a Speed Graphic.

 

[Paul Howell]

You have a lot to learn and to read. Here is one: the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex.

Some info here: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contaflx/super.htm

There are more leaf shutter 35mm SLR made by many other manufacturers, for example Mamiya.

And Topcon, Kowa, Kodak and Voltlander to name just a few more. I have several Kowa, very good 5 elements 50mm lens, the 100 is very good, one of the best 100s I have.

 

[rbultman]

What are the advantages of a focal plane shutter? I know that they are faster up to 1/4000 but what else? I wonder why they didnt put more quiet, low vibration leaf shutters in SLRs?

Also, the Pentax 6x7 has lenses available that have leaf shutters in them. I dont know why Nikon never did this. This way you could have both leaf and focal plane like a Speed Graphic.

I'm guessing that the reason that they did not put more leaf shutters in 35mm SLRs is because of the additional complexity of the mechanisms required to time everything. More mechanisms means more cost and more things to break. I'm not sure which type of shutter is inherently more reliable, which has fewer and/or stronger mechanisms, etc.

One of the advantages of a leaf shutter in a camera without a focal plane shutter is that only the leaf shutter stands between the subject and the film. When you press the shutter release button, the leaf shutter can be immediately activated. These have the least amount of shutter lag (or should.)

In the case of an SLR, there is at least the mirror that must be moved out of the way before the shutter can be opened to expose the film. This results in more shutter lag than is capable of in leaf-shutter only RF cameras*. In the case of an SLR that supports leaf shutters (RB67, Mamiya 645), a baffle or focal plane shutter must also move out of the way prior to opening the leaf shutter. This may lead to additional shutter lag if the mirror and baffle or focal plane shutter are operated in series (one first, then the other) or in parallel (simultaneously). The operation of an SLR with a leaf shutter must go something like this:

1. Photog presses shutter release button.
2. Close the leaf shutter.
3. Raise the mirror
4. Raise the baffle or open the focal plane shutter
5. Open the leaf shutter
6. Close the leaf shutter
7. Lower the baffle or close the focal plane shutter
8. Lower the mirror

In some cameras, like the RB67, the mirror does not return automatically. You have to wind the body in order to reset the mirror. I'm not sure if the baffle closes immediately or not.

Regards,
Rob

* Note that the RB67 is capable of reducing shutter lag by using the mirror-up mode of the camera. When activated, steps 2-4 above are done. The photographer releases the leaf shutter using a cable release screwed into the lens. This makes shutter lag on par with something like an RF camera with leaf shutter lenses only. But, once the mirror up mode is engaged, you can no longer see through the lens as the mirror is up and the leaf shutter is closed. This makes it impossible to refocus after the mirror-up mode is activated.

[EDIT: Corrected by Richard, changed remark about leaf shutter having to be in the lens.]

 

[R.Gould]

I have several cameras where the leaf shutter is in the camera body, not in the lens, 2 that come to mind straight away is my Ambi Sillete, with three lenses and the Compur shutter in in the camera body, also my Werra has the shutter in the camera body and 3 lenses,I also undersatand the both the Zeis Ikon Slr's and the Viogtlander Slr's had compur leaf shutters in the camera bodey, in fact most German interchanable lens cameras up to the early sixties had leaf shutter's in camera body's, so it was not a problem, the main execption was Lecia, usin focal plane shutters, but it was the belief that leaf shutters were better and keeping them in the cameras that, among other things including the fact that Japan could build cameras cheaper than the German cameras, that lead to the sad demise of the German camera industry,but personally if I had to use slr's I would prefer to use one that hqad a leaf shutter,
Richard

 

[rbultman]

Richard, thanks for correcting me regarding body leaf shutters. Here is a link to the Contaflex, mentioned by Richard, with some details regarding the body leaf shutter. My post has been updated.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Contaflex_%28SLR%29

Regards,
Rob

 

[GaryFlorida]

Can you name a leaf shutter SLR (35mm) that has the shutter in the body and has interchangeable lenses of 135mm or greater? (not including the monocular from zeiss contaflex).

Thanks
Gary

 

[Paul Howell]

Can you name a leaf shutter SLR (35mm) that has the shutter in the body and has interchangeable lenses of 135mm or greater? (not including the monocular from zeiss contaflex).

Thanks
Gary

Topcon, Kowa, and Kodak. I know that Topcon had a 135 and 200, and that Kowa made a 135 but not sure about a 200. All of the Topcon had interchangeable lens while Kowa made fixed and lens and interchangeable cameras. Kodak made up a 200, for the Retina SLR and some lens were camed to fit the III S rangefinder, although the 200 was not camed it could be mounted and scaled focused on a IIIS

 

[narsuitus]

The plate on the F2 remains on the body when the prism's removed.

The Nikon nameplate is attached to the viewfinder on the Nikon F2. It is attached to the body on the Nikon F.

https://flic.kr/p/s9e1kQ