Who's the Greatest

[film_man]

Yep, run of the mill. The M Leicas are anything but run of the mill...different class-they're not SLR's. F2 not good as a Pentax? That'll be the day.

The R Leicas are SLRs and nowadays go for less than what a FM3a goes. Does that count? Or should we all just agree that the F2 is the best because that is what you can afford and like?

 

[cuthbert]

I could have sworn I saw pictures of those guys with a Nikon F around their neck...no matter. The F2 doesn't need an introduction nor does it need me to stand up for it. It's longevity and reliability speaks volumes for itself since it's introduction. I doubt you'd find a combat photographer, photojournalist or anyone that made their living with the camera with a Pentax or Minolta around their neck. I've never seen one. Sure, they all work. You can get from point A to B with a Volkswagen or you can go with a BMW.

The Pentax LX and the Minolta XK were just as though and durable as a Nikon F and F2, the fact they weren't available during the Vietnam war prove nothing, a lot of GIs used Minolta SRTs and Canon FTs.

And for the record I've an LX and I think it's a better camera than the F2, for the following reasons:

1) Better viewfinder (the brightest I've seen, the second is the Canon F-1N's)
2) AE shutter priority
3) It meters down to -6Ev
4) In auto mode the shutter can remain open for hours
5) TTL flash
6) Waterproof sealing
7) Last but not least it's almost half of the camera in terms of weight

Of course we might dispute that it's much recent SLR, that I agree, but disregarding it just because "it's a cheap Pentax" is a very narrow minded way of thinking.

Of course your opinion proves that Nikon's marketing strategy of issuing Fs and F2s for free to war reporters paid back because it was fundamental in building the illusion that just Nikon was for pros.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

At some point inertia takes over. So many pros, press, and magazine photographers had Nikon and Canon lenses and other accessories, plus system familiarity, that they stayed with what they knew and with what had massive manufacturer support. Newcomers to the field, working for the same employer as those pros, saw an advantage in using the same equipment - if they even had a choice.

 

[cuthbert]

This is an interesting website about a soldier in Vietnam who took a lot of pictures with what looks like a Minolta:

http://www.chieu-hoi.com/Civilians

I assume he wasn't a pro shooter so he wasn't given a Nikon F for free but had to pay the Minolta out of his pocket...still he used it in action and his pics are brilliant, do we have to disregard him because he was a Mr.Nobody?

 

[Colonel Blimp]

This thread reminded me something a local driver told me in Chad a decade ago about the best car to cross the country (I don't think I have to tell you about the quality of roads in Chad). For him and most of his colleagues, the best car wasn't a Toyota Land Cruiser but an old 1970s Mercedes. No air-con, no 4x4, etc. but if they broke they knew how to fix it, other drivers would be able to help, and parts were available everywhere (even in small villages). If a brand new Land Cruiser (the only conceivable option for expatriates) broke in the middle of nowhere, local drivers could only use the radio to ask for help and wait.

I suppose all comes down to what your concerns and/or expectations are.

 

[rthollenbeck]

At some point you need to concede the floor to those people who know what's the indisputable best camera for everyone.

The Nikon F2 sure is a nice camera!

 

[Paul Howell]

I could have sworn I saw pictures of those guys with a Nikon F around their neck...no matter. The F2 doesn't need an introduction nor does it need me to stand up for it. It's longevity and reliability speaks volumes for itself since it's introduction. I doubt you'd find a combat photographer, photojournalist or anyone that made their living with the camera with a Pentax or Minolta around their neck. I've never seen one. Sure, they all work. You can get from point A to B with a Volkswagen or you can go with a BMW.

Remember that the war in Southeast Asia started in the 40s when the French returned following the Japanese occupation. So who shot with what depends on when in the war. Robert Capa was killed in 1954, he shot with Leica, in the early 60s to mid 60s Nikon was just getting started so there folks who still shot with Contax, Leicaflex, and there were lots of pros who shot with Pentax and Minolta. The PJ with the wire services and major papers were well equipped, but there many free lancers and guys from other parts of the world on a shoe string budget. By the late 60s Nikon had become the industry standard and remained the industry standard until EOS 1.

If you are speaking of longevity and reliability then the F is the greatest camera. The F was still in production and preferred by many after the release of the F2.

And I thought this about Volkswagen's not BMWs. I paid $1100 for my F2 in 1974 or $54305.99 in todays money. I paid less for my upgraded F3P in 1982 than I did for the F2. The average shooter or many pros could not afford a top of the line F2 or F2s, one reason Nikormats were popular.

 

[Alan Gales]

This is an interesting website about a soldier in Vietnam who took a lot of pictures with what looks like a Minolta:

http://www.chieu-hoi.com/Civilians

I assume he wasn't a pro shooter so he wasn't given a Nikon F for free but had to pay the Minolta out of his pocket...still he used it in action and his pics are brilliant, do we have to disregard him because he was a Mr.Nobody?

Ken Rockwell always says this but I've heard it all my photographic life, the camera does not matter. It's the person behind the camera that does. Great photography is great photography no matter who created the image.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[ColColt]

And I thought this about Volkswagen's not BMWs. I paid $1100 for my F2 in 1974 or $54305.99 in todays money. I paid less for my upgraded F3P in 1982 than I did for the F2. The average shooter or many pros could not afford a top of the line F2 or F2s, one reason Nikormats were popular.

I don't remember them being that much back then but my memory, like my eyes, are not what it use to be. I do recall in '77 lusting after the F2A but couldn't fork over the money for one in those days. Lots of folks wanted one but they were top dollar then. Now, you can get a pristine F2A or F2AS for less than $500 and an FTN Photomic for about $150.

Will Rogers once said he never met a man he didn't like. I never met a camera I didn't like but I didn't get to meet them all. I even like still the old Brownie Hawkeye 620 camera my Mom gave me when I was about 12-14 years old that used flash bulbs. It still works today, just retired.



And, I'll agree, you could put a Chinon in the hands of Ansel Adams and still get Pulitzer Prize photos.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This is an interesting website about a soldier in Vietnam who took a lot of pictures with what looks like a Minolta:

http://www.chieu-hoi.com/Civilians

I assume he wasn't a pro shooter so he wasn't given a Nikon F for free but had to pay the Minolta out of his pocket...still he used it in action and his pics are brilliant, do we have to disregard him because he was a Mr.Nobody?

We shouldn't disregard him or his photos. I have crazy lust for the SRT-101, but it wasn't used much by press, sports, or magazine professionals. Among soldiers in Vietnam, I think Minolta had a good following.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Will Rogers once said he never met a man he didn't like. I never met a camera I didn't like but I didn't get to meet them all.
...

There is one camera, which I won't name, that I truly despise. If I were given one, I'd probably destroy it rather than give it away and foist its miserable characteristics onto someone else.

 

[cliveh]

Over the past month I've looked at Leica M and R cameras and after reading much from owners and other threads here and there I've come to the conclusion the best 35mm film camera, all things considered, is with little doubt the Nikon F2AS. I've never read nor experienced anything about shutter lag as I have in the Leica R cameras. I've not read anywhere about the problems some of the others have with the F2 series and I have myself the F2A but it suffers from the old Cds cells which are not 30+ years old. Mine isn't giving any problem but if and when it does I have an advocate that can replace those old cells with new ones-Sover Wong.

Notwithstanding the Canon F-1 is another great camera but, I got started with Nikon in 1977 and think that's where I'll stay.

The best camera can only be judged by the pictures it produces and that is more to do with the photographer than the equipment.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Re: "let the market decide"

Then it is most likely a disposable.

Not that market

I meant the pros - those working for newspapers, magazines, sports, overseas assignments, and so on. Back in the early 1970's, it seemed that in every huddle of reporters, those silver Nikon FTN heads were popping up. At sporting events in the early 1990's, those thick white long Canon lenses were everywhere - well, at least they were the most visible.

 

[chip j]

Gosh!! I got into photography in the first place because I was inspired by the EQUIPMENT!!!

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't remember them being that much back then but my memory, like my eyes, are not what it use to be. I do recall in '77 lusting after the F2A but couldn't fork over the money for one in those days. Lots of folks wanted one but they were top dollar then. Now, you can get a pristine F2A or F2AS for less than $500 and an FTN Photomic for about $150.

Will Rogers once said he never met a man he didn't like. I never met a camera I didn't like but I didn't get to meet them all. I even like still the old Brownie Hawkeye 620 camera my Mom gave me when I was about 12-14 years old that used flash bulbs. It still works today, just retired.



And, I'll agree, you could put a Chinon in the hands of Ansel Adams and still get Pulitzer Prize photos.

I paid street price in Sacramento, I kept my F for another year or so then passed it to my brother. The same camera would have cost less in New York. I don't recall what I paid for the Motor Drive the MD 4, but it also a lot of money in the day.

Chinon made a good work horse cameras. I shoot with a CM and CE 3s with my M42 lens.

In term of greatest cameras, perhaps the greatest 35mm of the day was the Spotmatic, had an 18 year run from the first version through the F, then lived on as the K1000. Great line up lens, meter was good, simple to use, good viewfinder. I bought my first spot in 1966, used in a Pawn Shop in Long Beach California, 3 lens came with it, the 50 1.8, 28 3.5 and a 135 3.5, on the side I also got a 105 2.8, many other cameras have come and gone over the years but I still have the spot, I use it once or twice a year. Shutter and meter still accurate.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't remember them being that much back then but my memory, like my eyes, are not what it use to be. I do recall in '77 lusting after the F2A but couldn't fork over the money for one in those days. Lots of folks wanted one but they were top dollar then. Now, you can get a pristine F2A or F2AS for less than $500 and an FTN Photomic for about $150.

Will Rogers once said he never met a man he didn't like. I never met a camera I didn't like but I didn't get to meet them all. I even like still the old Brownie Hawkeye 620 camera my Mom gave me when I was about 12-14 years old that used flash bulbs. It still works today, just retired.



And, I'll agree, you could put a Chinon in the hands of Ansel Adams and still get Pulitzer Prize photos.

I paid street price in Sacramento, I kept my F for another year or so then passed it to my brother. The same camera would have cost less in New York. I don't recall what I paid for the Motor Drive the MD 4, but it also a lot of money in the day.

Chinon made a good work horse cameras. I shoot with a CM3 and CE 3s with my M42 lens.

In term of greatest cameras, perhaps the greatest 35mm of the day was the Spotmatic, had an 18 year run from the first version through the F, then lived on as the K1000. Great line up lens, meter was good, simple to use, good viewfinder. I bought my first spot in 1966, used in a Pawn Shop in Long Beach California, 3 lens came with it, the 50 1.8, 28 3.5 and a 135 3.5, on the side I also got a 105 2.8, many other cameras have come and gone over the years but I still have the spot, I use it once or twice a year. Shutter and meter still accurate.

 

[Alan Gales]

Chinon made a good work horse cameras. I shoot with a CM and CE 3s with my M42 lens.

Back in the 1980's a fellow came up to my counter to purchase a Kodak point and shoot 35mm camera. He told me that it was good to buy an American made camera from an American manufacturer. I told him that Kodak didn't make cameras any longer and that the camera was made by Chinon in Japan. He had a worried look on his face until I reassured him that Chinon made good products.

 

[cuthbert]

Ken Rockwell always says this but I've heard it all my photographic life, the camera does not matter. It's the person behind the camera that does. Great photography is great photography no matter who created the image.

Thanks for sharing!

Mmm, Rockwell says many things, but the fact is that he writes reviews of camera gear so in reality whatever he said he DOES consider the camera and lenses important. I don't buy the story of the sharpness of the lens that doesn't matter, as somebody rightfully pointed out on this board in the old days a lot of pros shot medium format because they wanted more sharpness and at that time the limit was the quality of the emulsion. While a soft lens has its uses it's a sort of "special effect" while everybody appreciate a sharp picture.

Of course the skills and the eye of the photographer is a conditio sine qua non (and this guy, amateur or not, knew how to shoot, and IMO at the time cameras were just manual the skills of the average amateur were mode advanced than many digital "pros" who fix everything in PP) but I'm sure he chose that Minolta because it was sturdy, reliable and with good glass...in the website it is stated that he still uses it so I don't doubt that camera is as strong as a Nikon F or F2 used by pros in wartime.

BTW let's be honest, the building quality of the average jap SLR of the 70s was astonishing, FTbs, KMs, Nikkormats etc...were literally bullet proof.

We shouldn't disregard him or his photos. I have crazy lust for the SRT-101, but it wasn't used much by press, sports, or magazine professionals. Among soldiers in Vietnam, I think Minolta had a good following.

I think the point of the discussion was "just F2s or M3s are cameras tough enough to go to war in the jungle and get out alive with your undeveloped rolls"...IMO no, and that was an example. If I had to go to do a reportage in warzone I would take any mechanical (or mostly mechanical) camera of that era, of course after having serviced it because my F1s, F2s, Pentaxes etc...are 30 years old, at least.

I am pretty sure that as new they were all in condition to cope with the Mekong delta.

 

[Alan Gales]

Cuthbert, I know where you are coming from and Ken catches a lot of flack for his statement that the camera doesn't matter. What he is really saying is that the photographer is way more important than the equipment which I know you agree with.

All formats and lenses have their place just like you are saying.

 

[ColColt]

If I had to go to do a reportage in warzone I would take any mechanical (or mostly mechanical) camera of that era, of course after having serviced it because my F1s, F2s, Pentaxes etc...are 30 years old, at least.

I have to admit I know little about Pentax SLR's but, if I were in that situation I think I'd have at least one F2, a Leica M2 or M4 and a Canon F-1. Of course, a trusty Gossen Luna Pro would be handy to have.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have to admit I know little about Pentax SLR's but, if I were in that situation I think I'd have at least one F2, a Leica M2 or M4 and a Canon F-1. Of course, a trusty Gossen Luna Pro would be handy to have.

I'd rather use an early Bronica 2 1/4. You trip the shutter and the enemy will take off running thinking that you are firing a howitzer at them!

 

[flavio81]

I'd rather use an early Bronica 2 1/4. You trip the shutter and the enemy will take off running thinking that you are firing a howitzer at them!

In that case i'd rather use a Pentax 6x7. You trip the shutter and the camera vibrations launch the (circa 2 Kg) camera directly into the enemy's head.

 

[cuthbert]

I have to admit I know little about Pentax SLR's but, if I were in that situation I think I'd have at least one F2, a Leica M2 or M4 and a Canon F-1. Of course, a trusty Gossen Luna Pro would be handy to have.

I heard about a famous photographer in the early 80s who spend weeks in the forests of Borneo taking nature pics with a LX because it was water proof, in the early 80s somebody asked Keppler who needed a F3, a F1 or a LX and he answered those who were taking hundreds of pictures in difficult conditions.

During the Vietnam war the LX didn't exist, but the trusty Spottie served on the front, for instance this guy has one:

And probably he was a pro because he has long hair, too long for a GI.

Then if you watching the Killing Fields, good movie about Cambodia, you'll notice the american journalists all have Nikons but the brit reporter is using an early aperture priority Spotmatic, of course it's a movie but an accurate one.

 

[rthollenbeck]

Gosh!! I got into photography in the first place because I was inspired by the EQUIPMENT!!!

I do love photography, but ive been there too. Having been in photo equipment sales, it's easy to be passionate about the equipment. I'm sure there are others the same is true for but they couldn't bare to say the words.

 

[rthollenbeck]

.

Cool photo, thanks for sharing.

For sure......back in the day when analog photography ment manual, all the way.
Tough times for some.