Your first SLR...would you buy it again?

[Pentode]

Since the thread’s active again I’ll play:

My first 35mm was a Minolta X700 which I would not buy again, but it’s not really the camera’s fault.

I chose Minolta - a decision I don’t regret - because of my Father’s happy relationship with his SRT-101. I went to B&H, still on 17th St in the summer of 1993, looking for a used SRT-101, but they had none in stock. The salesman suggested I’d do well to start out with an X-700 and made me a good deal on one that had been dropped by a previous owner and repaired in-house at B&H.

He was right. It was a very nice camera and I really enjoyed shooting with it... until the repair gave up. Still under their used warranty, I brought it back and they repaired it again. Only weeks later it was, again, malfunctioning. This time I requested exchanging it for another, working, X-700 even if it meant a slight upcharge. Having none in stock the salesman allowed me to apply a full credit toward a used XD-11.

If that X700 repair had held up I’d probably still be singing it’s praises today; It was a very comfortable camera to use. Once I had used the XD-11, however, there was no going back! I’d buy another one of those any day (and did just that last summer)! When it came time for me to buy a second body a couple of years later I ended up with a very clean SRT-202 and I’d buy one of those again, too.

Both the original XD-11 and the SRT are still seeing regular use.

 

[mdarnton]

My first SLR was a Nikkormat FS, the model without a meter, that I bought around 1966 It was boxy, noisy, and awkward, and I would not buy one now. However, one of its successors, the FG, is currently my favorite 35mm SLR camera. In so many ways, it is the opposite of the Nikkormat--compact, easy to handle, sophisticated enough.

 

[McFortner]

The first SLR I ever owned was given to me almost 20 years ago, a Minolta X-370. I still have it and love it. I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat.

 

[Craig]

I was gifted an early 80's Ricoh, I have no idea what model. It had a habit of spitting the leader from the take up spool after the back was closed, and I lost a few rolls until I religiously checked that the rewind knob was going around. Caught it a few more times not taking up and then got rid of it. So no, I wouldn't get another!

 

[Ste_S]

Absolutely I would. My father was a keen photographer and bought me a Zenit and a Praktica SLR at various points in my teenage years. I traded one of them for a pair of speakers, and not sure what happened to the other. For sentimental reasons would love to have them back

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's hard to believe that my Minolta SRT 101 is turning 49 years old this month. I still have it, it's original box, packing, USA tag, case and even the Japanese battery that I chose not to use at the time. For it's time it was a wonderful camera that did everything I wanted it to. It still works along with it's 58mm f1.4 MC Rokkor PF which moved on to many other Minolta bodies in time. It was a present from my dad and I had the option of picking any camera under $250US. It was a difficult choice between it and a Nikkormat FTn w/ f2 lens, a Honeywell Spotmatic w/ f1.4, or a Miranda Sensorex w/f1.4 (which my dad wanted me to buy because it was rated #1 by "Consumer Reports"). Since then I switched to Nikon and use their FX DSLR's, so the Nikkormat might of been a smarter choice, but I don't regret my pick.

1) What was your first 35mm SLR?

2) If you could go back in time would you pick the same one?

APraktikaSL!which I would buy again for sentimental only.the original purchase died within a week.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

My first SLR was a Canon FTb that I purchased circa 1975 and used to shoot at least 10,000 frames of B&W through high school (yearbooks, school newspaper, freelance news, a few hired jobs, and creative. I put that camera through a lot. I then replaced it in the Summer of '77 with a Nikon F2AS which I took to college when I embarked on an undergraduate major in photography and film making at Bard College in upstate NY. Many years later I repurchased both in eBay in excellent condition - mostly for nostalgia and had the foam seals replaced - they both work great, but sit on a display shelf for conversation and reminiscing. For current shooting I now use a Pentax 67II system.

 

[StanMac]

A Miranda Sensomat RE. I sold it or gave it away in the mid-79s when my career consumed my spare time. I acquired another this past summer off the Goodwill auction site, complete with case. Both were in unbelievably good condition, as if the original owner had run a roll through it, decided photography wasn’t for them, and then placed the camera in its case into a hermetically sealed container in controlled environment storage. A new battery in an MR9 adapter and it works perfectly. I won it for $11.99 plus shipping. Phenomenal!

Stan

 

[tokam]

AT high school in 1973 a Zenit-E in a kit with Industar 50/3.5 and a Hanimar 135/3.5 plus a small electronic flash for about $NZD 120. Spotmatics and FTB's etc were all over $500 with their standard 50mm lenses, (New Zealand was very expensive for film gear). Shot many memorable pics with it. Some were even good. All B&W was developed and printed downstairs in the laundry at home - difficult in winter with ambient temps around 10 C. Pinched mum's baking trays to use as a water bath with the Patterson 10 x 8 developer tray inside it.

A bit of a love / hate affair with the Zenit-E body as it had a very flimsy catch to secure the camera back. It would tend to rub on the ER case and occasionally the camera back would spring open and fog several frames. I fixed this with a home made C clamp affair made of brass strip which went over the end of the body and held the door catch down. The Hanimar 135 mm was a preset lens and I occasionally forgot to shut down the aperture before shooting.

It broke around 1977 and when I was in the UK in 1978 I treated myself to a black AE-1 for Christmas. Went on to buy several more FD Canons - A-1, T90, EF and F1-N. Couldn't go back to the Zenit even though I also have a small Pentax M42 collection.

 

[alanrockwood]

Hi!
I just bought one of these, after considering several small light AF SLRs for me. I've been shooting Olympus OM-2n and 35 RC for several years now and I wanted something like a p&s with controls. I hope I made a good choice! I'm thinking about getting a 40mm 2.8 STM or a 50mm 1.8 STM, haven't decided yet.
Would you share some of your experiences with this camera, please? Metering, viewfinder, seize and weight?

Thanks a lot!

Metering: Good. Several modes are available.
Viewfinder: Adequate, possibly a little dim because it is a pentamirror, not a pentaprism, but as I say, adequate. When shooting in auto focus mode a slightly dim viewfinder is not important anyway because you will be using the viewfinder mainly for framing the photo. In manual focus mode it is a little more of an issue, but really, it's not that big of a deal.
Size and weight: Small and light, which I like, especially if carrying it all day.
Handling: Good when using automatic modes, which is what I use most of the time these days. A little fiddly when using manual modes but usable nevertheless.
Film handling: I very much like the "count down" film counter rather than the "count up" film counter that most cameras have. Film loading is easy.
Autofocus: Generally good on the lenses designed for full frame cameras, like the T2.
Manual focus: Works OK, but not as nice as a manual focus only system.
Image stabilization: Available on some lenses, and generally works well.
Selection of available lenses: Legendary, even if most are out of range price-wise
Electronic flash systems: Very good. Nikon's flash system is said to be a little better

What lens to buy? Good question. Both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 (Nifty Fifty) are optically good and relatively inexpensive. The build quality of the 40mm is said to be a bit better and the image quality is possibly a little sharper. I have a 40mm, and it is very small, which is nice. I had a 50mm f/1.4, which I eventually sold. I replaced it with a Tamron 45mm f/1.8, mainly because it has image stabilization but also because it is said to be optically a little better than the 50mm canon lenses. It is quite a bit more expensive however. I bought 50mm f/1.8 lenses for both my daughter and my daughter in law. The 50mm f/1.8 is often called the greatest bargain of all lenses.

If I were you and choosing between the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8, I would make the choice based mainly on what field of view you prefer, wider (40mm) or narrower (50mm). If you have enough money try to buy the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 lens. Another contender would be the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens, which is said to be optically superb, but it is even more expensive than the Tamron and doesn't have image stabilization.

I actually wish they made an 58mm f/2.0 because I prefer a slightly narrower field of view for my normal lens. (Even better would be a 58mm f/2.0 image stabilized lens.) Also, a 58mm lens would be great on a digital crop format camera, like a digital Rebel because it would be a an ideal portrait lens (93mm equivalent on a crop format camera), so it could do great double duty, but I digress into a fantasy land.

Anyway, with the T2 under almost all ordinary conditions and most less-than-ordinary conditions you can take photos that are just as good as you could the top end of the Canon (or Nikon) camera line, and for a lot less money too.

 

[Ozxplorer]

My first? A Nikkormat FTn... still in use today! It is a terrifically engineered camera... weighs a ton and feels as though it will last for ever! So, yes, I would buy it again! A sentimental favourite! At present my walkabout camera is a Canon EOS 30 only because I have stabilised consumer lens plus auto everything functionality. It’s quite chunky with good ergonomic balance particularly with the optional AA battery holder added. My camera/photo journey has included the Canon A-1 - another well built unit with auto- exposure modes & double exposure capability. I would regard this classic camera as my all time “best buy”!

 

[guangong]

My wife and I bought a Nikon F in 1960-61. The first slr I bought for myself was a Spotmatic, which I later traded in towards a Leica M4. I was unable to afford both. The Spotmatic is a great camera. What I liked about it, besides its photographic potential, was the relatively small size of the camera. Would I buy one now? I have too many cameras and now prefer Leicaflex and Nikon for 35mm slr.

 

[Jim Jones]

In 1962 I bought a Practica FX3 and a 300mm lens with preset aperture in hopes of doing a little wild life photography during a tour of duty in Alaska. The dim waist level finder was handy for photographing the profusion of flowers around Kodiak, but otherwise the camera was no fun to use. Several years later a Miranda seemed like a fine upgrade and its lenses performed well, but body durability was poor. The many advertised accessories were awfully scarce in the real world. They did have intriguing ads and a 3-year guarantee. In a few months I went to Nikon and still use that brand.

 

[darkosaric]

Not only I got Nikon F801s again, I got myself also my first nikkor lens: nikkor 28-80 f3.5-5.6 AF-D. Plastic fantastic - but super sharp .

 

[ITKI]

1) What was your first 35mm SLR?

2) If you could go back in time would you pick the same one?

YES

 

[Born2Late]

Minolta SRT-202
Yes, I woud do it all over again. But wait, I have, I have 3 of them now.

 

[Ronix18]

Metering: Good. Several modes are available.
Viewfinder: Adequate, possibly a little dim because it is a pentamirror, not a pentaprism, but as I say, adequate. When shooting in auto focus mode a slightly dim viewfinder is not important anyway because you will be using the viewfinder mainly for framing the photo. In manual focus mode it is a little more of an issue, but really, it's not that big of a deal.
Size and weight: Small and light, which I like, especially if carrying it all day.
Handling: Good when using automatic modes, which is what I use most of the time these days. A little fiddly when using manual modes but usable nevertheless.
Film handling: I very much like the "count down" film counter rather than the "count up" film counter that most cameras have. Film loading is easy.
Autofocus: Generally good on the lenses designed for full frame cameras, like the T2.
Manual focus: Works OK, but not as nice as a manual focus only system.
Image stabilization: Available on some lenses, and generally works well.
Selection of available lenses: Legendary, even if most are out of range price-wise
Electronic flash systems: Very good. Nikon's flash system is said to be a little better

What lens to buy? Good question. Both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 (Nifty Fifty) are optically good and relatively inexpensive. The build quality of the 40mm is said to be a bit better and the image quality is possibly a little sharper. I have a 40mm, and it is very small, which is nice. I had a 50mm f/1.4, which I eventually sold. I replaced it with a Tamron 45mm f/1.8, mainly because it has image stabilization but also because it is said to be optically a little better than the 50mm canon lenses. It is quite a bit more expensive however. I bought 50mm f/1.8 lenses for both my daughter and my daughter in law. The 50mm f/1.8 is often called the greatest bargain of all lenses.

If I were you and choosing between the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8, I would make the choice based mainly on what field of view you prefer, wider (40mm) or narrower (50mm). If you have enough money try to buy the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 lens. Another contender would be the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens, which is said to be optically superb, but it is even more expensive than the Tamron and doesn't have image stabilization.

I actually wish they made an 58mm f/2.0 because I prefer a slightly narrower field of view for my normal lens. (Even better would be a 58mm f/2.0 image stabilized lens.) Also, a 58mm lens would be great on a digital crop format camera, like a digital Rebel because it would be a an ideal portrait lens (93mm equivalent on a crop format camera), so it could do great double duty, but I digress into a fantasy land.

Anyway, with the T2 under almost all ordinary conditions and most less-than-ordinary conditions you can take photos that are just as good as you could the top end of the Canon (or Nikon) camera line, and for a lot less money too.

Incredible useful!
Thanks so much. I think I'm getting the 40mm. Do you know if it vignettes a lot?

 

[alanrockwood]

Incredible useful!
Thanks so much. I think I'm getting the 40mm. Do you know if it vignettes a lot?

According to this lens test

http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-40mm-f2.8-stm-page-2

it does have quite a bit of vignetting on a full frame camera.

In regards to overall image quality the conclusion of that test says "In regard to image quality the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is really a high-end lens... Overall the image quality is quite astonishing for a lens that's as small as the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and that comes at such a low price tag."

 

[MattKing]

Interestingly, I haven't observed that vignetting on film.
I don't have a full frame digital camera to compare those results with.
Of course, I've been using it in real life situations rather than with test targets/ And I wouldn't be looking to this lens first to photograph large, evenly illuminated flat surfaces where corner detail is of paramount performance - I have lenses better suited to that task.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

My first SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, that I bought in 1968 at the famous Lechmere Sales in East Cambridge, Massachusetts. With 50mm f/2.0 lens, it was $220. The Nikkormat was rugged and reliable, and the center-weighted meter was usually foolproof. The camera never gave me any trouble whatsoever. But it was heavy, and the finder dim (which did not affect my then-young eyes). And you could not change the finder screens, unlike the Nikon F. Today, I would not bother buying another one. My later Nikon F3 was much more sophisticated and had a much brighter finder.

 

[cooltouch]

Minolta SRT-202
Yes, I woud do it all over again. But wait, I have, I have 3 of them now.

Perzackly!
I have one each of the first two I ever owned, three copies of my third, and another two of my fourth. After that, I lose track.

 

[Arbitrarium]

I think my first SLR was a Pentax ME Super. And I'm currently using a Chinon CE-4s which is basically an ME Super with exposure lock, so I suppose my answer is yes. =P

 

[ic-racer]

Zeint-E...No.
Funny thing is my parents got a brand-new Zenit-B for me for Christmas 1972 and my older brother got an OM-1. I was not upset, because I know my parents were taken advantage of and duped into buying the Zenit brand new by the shady local camera shop. Knowing they had used Nikon rangefinders in their showcase for the same price. Funny thing is my brother gave up photography and I went on to get an MFA.

Fast forward 40 years and a friend of my parents passes along a box of old cameras. I gladly accepted them. What is in the box? Another Zenit (Kalimar) ! So now I have TWO of them against my wishes.

 

[ic-racer]

The first SLR camera that I bought myself (not a Christmas gift), was a Rolleiflex SL2000F. That led to decades of Rolleiflex use and acquisitions.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The first SLR camera that I bought myself (not a Christmas gift), was a Rolleiflex SL2000F. That led to decades of Rolleiflex use and acquisitions.
View attachment 193116

Wow, fantastic: Rolleiflex 3003s. Please tell us a bit more. Are they working? Did you need to rebuild the NiCad batteries? Are the backs advancing correctly? These Rollei cameras are so rare in USA, I have seen maybe 1 or 2 in 30 years.