Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-16-2019   #41
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.liam View Post
1+

Back in 1995, bought a Nikon FM2-T new and it has never failed me.

If I had to choose one film SLR right now, it would be the petite OM3/4 or Nikon FM2 or FM3a. The Olympus viewfinder is quite the revelation.

As mentioned by the OP, P&S cameras like Contax fetch stupid money; Kyocera no longer services them so they're pricey paperweights when their ancient electronics (will invariably) fail. The upside is that MS Optics can convert the lens to M mount and it gets a 2nd life.
I've had a Contax T (original) and T2 repaired in past 2 years. Electronic issues. Came back good as new
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #42
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nieuw Amsterdam
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
I've had a Contax T (original) and T2 repaired in past 2 years. Electronic issues. Came back good as new
Available electronic parts as time pass will diminish rapidly. As an ominous example, Leica recently announced it is no longer supporting the R8 & 9 while maintaining it for earlier mechanicals.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #43
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 620
I think the main issue about this class of cameras, is , yes they were auto focus/exposure/etc., so they could be used a an oversized point and shoot, but if I recall correctly, most of the autofocus schemes on these cameras was not so great compared to what we get today on modern digitals. I am sure there are exceptions (maybe some of the Nikons for instance), but for $9 I would not expect much and would rather get another Praktica body or something similar (not that I need one).

My Fujifilm XT-2 has all the features I could have dreamed of when I was young and could not afford the motor driven OMX's/Nikons/Canons/etc. with fancy zoom lenses, and 50' film backs, etc. And it works very reliably, even very reasonably quick autofocusing (for my shooting style). But 50% of the time I am more than happy (and even enjoy) just manually advancing the next frame. The other 50% I use the XT-2. And yes, there is some plastic on the XT-2, but is is a very solid camera, and metal where it matters.

Auto-exposure is nice, but for me only with visual feedback (i.e., digital)- other than P&S. I usually end up searching for the right exposure, and still need to think about it to avoid blowing out clouds, etc.. With manual cameras I use a light meter and think about it (takes a little longer, but for most cases, not an issue).
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #44
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.liam View Post
Available electronic parts as time pass will diminish rapidly. As an ominous example, Leica recently announced it is no longer supporting the R8 & 9 while maintaining it for earlier mechanicals.
This is a real issue, and would give me pause before buying one of the fantastic high end film rangefinders or even SLRs that came out in the late 80s through 90s and early 2000's (like the Contax G2, Zeiss Rangefinder, Nikon F6, etc.). With film at a low, these could become very hard to get serviced (especially with electronic shutters). But mechanical cameras will potentialy live on for another century or so. On the other hand I won't , so that is a consideration also .
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #45
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,352
And, while we are at it, the Contax SLRs are terrific, and now reasonably priced. Especially reasonable if you use Yashica brand glass.

Contax RTS (and the more-or-less) equivalent Yashica FR-1.
Contax ARIA is fabulous and small.
Some of the other Contax are beasts and very good looking.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #46
blan01
Registered User
 
blan01 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
I bought a Contax N1 with the Planar 50/1.4N to satisfy my dream of owning one when I was priced out at the time. I loaded it with Tmax 400 and off to target practice. Then it all came rushing back why I got into rangefinders in the first place. The Planar whirls back and forth minimum focus/infinity/minimum focus/infinity/minimum focus until eureka the green light glows and a shot is made. I’ll take the ground glass and light meter thank you very much. If I ever buy another late model film body it would be the F6 for the manual focus confirmation or the EOS 1n or 1v for the only truly decent AF technology in a film body. But these are no $50 bargains.
I had contax N1 for a while, the autofocus is awful and it's not cheap.
The N planar can be converted to canon ef, don't know if it focus better on EOS body
__________________
Cheap C41 and ultrafine xtreme 400
https://www.instagram.com/the_shutter_clicker/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #47
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,839
Y'all can keep yer cheap and nasty plastic cameras thank you!

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Are Latter-Day Film SLRs Currently the Overlooked Film Camera?
Old 03-16-2019   #48
maigo
Registered User
 
maigo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 310
Are Latter-Day Film SLRs Currently the Overlooked Film Camera?

Two years ago I bought a Nikon F601 (aka N6006) at a thrift store for $18 CAD. It is in perfect working order with hardly a scratch.
I use it with a Nikkor 70-210/f4 zoom for action shots of my kids playing sports.

I bought the zoom a few years back at $100 CAD for use with my ancient Nikon D50 and found the controls on the two camera were exactly the same. No need to RTFM for the F601.

Excellent price for both and I do not know of a better combo at this price.
Image quality at higher ISO (800/1600) is better on film (box or pushed) than on the D50.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
---------------------------------
My Flickr Photostream
My Flickr Albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #49
PunkFunkDunk
Registered User
 
PunkFunkDunk's Avatar
 
PunkFunkDunk is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 161
Short answer: because they are ugly. Or, more accurately, what we here in Australia call fugly (fat + ugly).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #50
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,580
My favorite film camera in terms of functionality is my old Nikon f801s (Also known as f8008s). Dating from the late 1980s /early 1990s it is remarkably well made and although its AF is slow by today's standards it still has some advantages - it has spot metering in the S variant, it is built like a brick outhouse, it takes 4 x standard AA cells and hence has no problems with finding power sources. And unlike the later f90 and f90s does not have problems with its covering (which in the f90/ f90s becomes tacky over time as it degrades). It is also a cheap camera to buy for anyone who wants one (being very common back in the day) and will mount most AI lenses and beyond though obviously the latest lenses that lack an aperture ring and or screw AF drive are a problem. In general I quite like how the camera looks too - though I have to admit to preferring the looks of the older range of metal MF Nikon cameras. My only regret is that as far as I know there was never a Nikon or aftermarket battery grip made for this camera. Oh and another advantage is that the focus screen can be swapped out for one that works better with MF lenses if you are so inclined.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #51
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.liam View Post
Available electronic parts as time pass will diminish rapidly. As an ominous example, Leica recently announced it is no longer supporting the R8 & 9 while maintaining it for earlier mechanicals.
So here is the logic the repair folks passed on to me... Little electronic motors, ribbon cables, logic boards etc. are much easier to deal with than stamped or machined mechanicals. When those parts fail, it is much harder to replace unless your particilar camera was MASS produced and parts are plentiful.

My point being that i often comes across the 'useless paperweight' comment, when it comes to the point and shoot film cameras of not too long ago, however my experience has been the opposite.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #52
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
So here is the logic the repair folks passed on to me... Little electronic motors, ribbon cables, logic boards etc. are much easier to deal with than stamped or machined mechanicals. When those parts fail, it is much harder to replace unless your particilar camera was MASS produced and parts are plentiful.......
With 3D printing, it's relatively easy to reproduce new, mechanical parts. For that matter, it's already being done. Much easier for sure, than reproducing 1980 electronics.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2019   #53
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
So here is the logic the repair folks passed on to me... Little electronic motors, ribbon cables, logic boards etc. are much easier to deal with than stamped or machined mechanicals. When those parts fail, it is much harder to replace unless your particilar camera was MASS produced and parts are plentiful.

My point being that i often comes across the 'useless paperweight' comment, when it comes to the point and shoot film cameras of not too long ago, however my experience has been the opposite.
Who was your repair guy?
Almost all the service techs in the US no longer service electronic Contaxes, saying parts unavailable. I actually have not been able to find anyone who would.
I think that's a pretty bad sign.

If you have a resource, it would be helpful to share it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #54
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,572
F801 has been mentioned. I think its loudness deserves a special mention also

One sleeper to be rediscovered is EOS mid-range 30V/33V. These were released only in 2004.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #55
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
My favorite film camera in terms of functionality is my old Nikon f801s (Also known as f8008s). Dating from the late 1980s /early 1990s it is remarkably well made and although its AF is slow by today's standards it still has some advantages - it has spot metering in the S variant, it is built like a brick outhouse, it takes 4 x standard AA cells and hence has no problems with finding power sources. And unlike the later f90 and f90s does not have problems with its covering (which in the f90/ f90s becomes tacky over time as it degrades). It is also a cheap camera to buy for anyone who wants one (being very common back in the day) and will mount most AI lenses and beyond though obviously the latest lenses that lack an aperture ring and or screw AF drive are a problem. In general I quite like how the camera looks too - though I have to admit to preferring the looks of the older range of metal MF Nikon cameras. My only regret is that as far as I know there was never a Nikon or aftermarket battery grip made for this camera. Oh and another advantage is that the focus screen can be swapped out for one that works better with MF lenses if you are so inclined.
Don't let the sticky back put you off its easily polished off and makes them an even bigger bargain!
18fbpicNikonf90x_01 by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #56
MrFujicaman
Registered User
 
MrFujicaman is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 61
Posts: 699
I agree with the poster that said that the late 80's-early 90's SLR's are dirt cheap. My N8008s was $8 from KEH a few Christmas's ago. I had a Sigma 28-80 that was given to me with a N6006. I gave the 6006 away because I didn't want to be dealing with weird batteries that I can only get mail order! I bought the N8008s for that reason-AA's I can buy anywhere! I later bought a Tamron 80-210 auto focus zoom for $19 to go with the 8008s.

I've got a grand total of maybe $50 in the camera and lenses and a cheap flash and bag. This rig has become the one I grab going out the door going anywhere. If the N8008s die, I'll find another cheap one.

These SLRs give you a great deal of bang for your buck!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #57
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,516
Been collecting Nikon F2 for some time. Up to 4 now, black & silver , plain & metered prisms. These are all metal mechanical cameras made for heavy professional use. F5 is electronic. F6 is plastic. Also have a Nikkormat and Nikkormat Ft. Same guts as Nikon F whiter not not bad.

Plastic junk age hardens and breaks. Even the spare parts are old.

The Nikons compliment my M6. Digital Leica and Nikons are fun too, but I like making prints in my darkroom.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #58
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Who was your repair guy?
Almost all the service techs in the US no longer service electronic Contaxes, saying parts unavailable. I actually have not been able to find anyone who would.
I think that's a pretty bad sign.

If you have a resource, it would be helpful to share it.
https://www.sunflowercamerarepair.com/
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #59
Ambro51
Registered User
 
Ambro51's Avatar
 
Ambro51 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 159
Best plastic camera is the Diana. Funny thing now a nice original Diana is worth more than most of the cameras mentioned in this thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2019   #60
richardHaw
junk scavenger
 
richardHaw's Avatar
 
richardHaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 417
no. the Nikon FM3a is expensive and still highly-desirable

but...the price of most plastic automatic cameras from the 80s to the 90s are cheap...because of parts or the lack of it.
__________________
Take me down to the Parallax City
Where the viewfinder's tiny
And the framing is tricky
http://www.richardhaw.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #61
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Okay -- just go my Nikon F75 in the mail today:

$9.40 (Amazon "other sellers" -- don't overlook this when gear shopping)
$5.00 shipping
____________

$14.40

Playing around with it. Now -- I haven't gotten any results back. Popped a couple CR2 batteries in -- the thing lit up. Loaded it up with Kodak BW400CN (how I miss thee! ). Slapped the 50/1.4 AF-D on it...

I have NOT, obviously, gotten film back -- might have an enormous light leak for all I know and it will be a little while before I get any prints back (three camera shops within walking distance from my house that developed film -- how I miss thee )

BUT early observations. Wow. Holy crap! What a NICE little film camera! Tiny/discreet (body is smaller than some point-n-shoots), verry light. Quiet shutter. Great Nikon matrix metering system. PSAM modes. (Scene modes if you want them). Autofocus points, DOF preview, diopter(!). Focuses with screw-drive and G-series lenses. Nikon really crammed everything but the kitchen sink into this, their last production consumer film SLR.

I must say, this is rangefinder forum (in case you haven't noticed...), and if you want the "film rangefinder experience" -- I get it. Go for it. That said, if you're looking for "bang for the buck"? This camera is the cat's pajamas. The cat's pajamas, Jerry!

1. It's not 100 years old. I have bottles of Scotch older than this camera. It will likely last a long time, trouble free. Really, this camera might "only" be 13 years old -- just getting broken in. This as opposed to something from the 50's or 60's that -- let's be real, is knocking on death's door. (Yes -- some here will argue, but nothing lasts forever...)

2. Cameras are light tight boxes. I'm of the opinion (lately) that it's a camera's feature set that, largely, adds value. Purists are welcome to their opinion. Being a later model from this century, it has all the modern features you could want. A digital display on the top panel with important NFO. Shoot aperture priorty, shutter priority, full manual, or "point-n-shoot" mode -- etc. Shoot 1.5 fps. Matrix metering, spot metering, and scene average metering etc.

3. Great ergos. Practically weightless. I LOVE plastic. Yes. That's right. Doesn't ding, dent, rust and is lighter, and brings costs down. I have zero problem with it. None. I wouldn't want a metal keyboard, metal laptop, a metal monitor, a metal deck of cards etc. The durability of metal is overrated. The durability of plastic is underrated. It's funny. People will speak glowingly of the Oly OM1. Never owned one. A fine camera, I'm sure. This camera can't be much larger (if at all) than an OM1. Can't. My guess is it's definitely lighter.

In conclusion, IF you are a pragmatist. And IF you want the most bang for your buck from a film camera. Bypass rangefinders (sorry). Bypass point-n-shooters. Get a LATE model SLR, like this one. They are much newer. They are well-made. They have a MODERN feature set. You can always "go back" and shoot in manual everything mode with a modern camera. You can not, however, force a 50 yr old vintage camera to auto focus or use advanced metering technology, etc. What about Hexars? Contax G's? If the electronics go, you're out how much? Yes -- those lenses are stellar purportedly. However, nothing wrong with primes from Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or Nikon. Plus more to choose from. Plus zooms.

Did I mention? $15 shipped? (I got a deal, admittedly... Most go for around $25...)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #62
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Don't let the sticky back put you off its easily polished off and makes them an even bigger bargain!
18fbpicNikonf90x_01 by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr

Thanks, that's good to know. If I need to (i.e. if my "brick outhouse" F8001s ever does turn up its toes), I would be happy to consider an F90x in that case. Though right now I do not really need another film camera of course. In some ways I wish I did but I shoot so little film these days it would be wasted on me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #63
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,989
Nothing wrong with plastic AF bodies... Got a Nikon N75 for under $30 -- not quite as good a deal as Nick, but good enough. Works with all AF lenses (AFS, G, VR) except the "E" lenses.

I just wanted a cheap film body that was compatible with my Sigma ART lenses.

Also, I happen to have a Nikon 18-55mm AFS VR II - a DX lens! Haven't shot this combo yet, but anecdotally and just looking through the viewfinder, no vignetting starting at 24mm. If this works out, it makes for a very nice lightweight combo.
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #64
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
Thank you!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #65
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
There is zero charm to those sticky backed plasto cameras which is why they only appeal to people who like the idea of paying more for the batteries than the cameras.
Metal mechanical cameras have a feeling of history, permanence and quality. P&S cameras have a feeling of carefree joy.
DSLRs (disposable single lens reflex) film cameras feel like a stepping stone between "here Honey look what I bought for you" and the trash can.

No-one cares if they can take great pictures, as no-one (ok maybe 5 guys who need to get out more) likes using them.

Huss,

I pulled the plug at the end of 2017 for the US version of F80, which came with a plastic zoom for under $35.00 shipped. I figured that I could leave it at work on my desk and no one would steal it

Cleaning up the sticky back and front grip areas was major undertaking. Not only is the film door and latch made of plastic - but so is the lens mount.

Batteries and charger were half the price of the camera.

It is capable taking a decent, well metered photo - but with the 28-80mm zoom set to 50mm, f/4.5 is wide open. Life is good at f/8.

I generally use my 50 f/1.8 AF-D, which is from my digital SLR collection.

The camera looks great from across the room. It's got spot and matrix metering in addition to center weighted. It also has continuous shutter and full PSAM mode options as well. Did I mention a built-in flash, which works great for close in fill flash?

With that said - I've only run two rolls of film through it and have since plunked down triple the cost of the N80 and lens on a FE2 body. With the FE2, I'm more at home with the traditional layout of the controls and match needle metering. On paper the N80 is better camera.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #66
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Okay -- just go my Nikon F75 in the mail today:

$9.40 (Amazon "other sellers" -- don't overlook this when gear shopping)
$5.00 shipping
____________

$14.40

Playing around with it. Now -- I haven't gotten any results back. Popped a couple CR2 batteries in -- the thing lit up. Loaded it up with Kodak BW400CN (how I miss thee! ). Slapped the 50/1.4 AF-D on it...

I have NOT, obviously, gotten film back -- might have an enormous light leak for all I know and it will be a little while before I get any prints back (three camera shops within walking distance from my house that developed film -- how I miss thee )

BUT early observations. Wow. Holy crap! What a NICE little film camera! Tiny/discreet (body is smaller than some point-n-shoots), verry light. Quiet shutter. Great Nikon matrix metering system. PSAM modes. (Scene modes if you want them). Autofocus points, DOF preview, diopter(!). Focuses with screw-drive and G-series lenses. Nikon really crammed everything but the kitchen sink into this, their last production consumer film SLR.

I must say, this is rangefinder forum (in case you haven't noticed...), and if you want the "film rangefinder experience" -- I get it. Go for it. That said, if you're looking for "bang for the buck"? This camera is the cat's pajamas. The cat's pajamas, Jerry!

1. It's not 100 years old. I have bottles of Scotch older than this camera. It will likely last a long time, trouble free. Really, this camera might "only" be 13 years old -- just getting broken in. This as opposed to something from the 50's or 60's that -- let's be real, is knocking on death's door. (Yes -- some here will argue, but nothing lasts forever...)

2. Cameras are light tight boxes. I'm of the opinion (lately) that it's a camera's feature set that, largely, adds value. Purists are welcome to their opinion. Being a later model from this century, it has all the modern features you could want. A digital display on the top panel with important NFO. Shoot aperture priorty, shutter priority, full manual, or "point-n-shoot" mode -- etc. Shoot 1.5 fps. Matrix metering, spot metering, and scene average metering etc.

3. Great ergos. Practically weightless. I LOVE plastic. Yes. That's right. Doesn't ding, dent, rust and is lighter, and brings costs down. I have zero problem with it. None. I wouldn't want a metal keyboard, metal laptop, a metal monitor, a metal deck of cards etc. The durability of metal is overrated. The durability of plastic is underrated. It's funny. People will speak glowingly of the Oly OM1. Never owned one. A fine camera, I'm sure. This camera can't be much larger (if at all) than an OM1. Can't. My guess is it's definitely lighter.

In conclusion, IF you are a pragmatist. And IF you want the most bang for your buck from a film camera. Bypass rangefinders (sorry). Bypass point-n-shooters. Get a LATE model SLR, like this one. They are much newer. They are well-made. They have a MODERN feature set. You can always "go back" and shoot in manual everything mode with a modern camera. You can not, however, force a 50 yr old vintage camera to auto focus or use advanced metering technology, etc. What about Hexars? Contax G's? If the electronics go, you're out how much? Yes -- those lenses are stellar purportedly. However, nothing wrong with primes from Canon, Minolta, Pentax, or Nikon. Plus more to choose from. Plus zooms.

Did I mention? $15 shipped? (I got a deal, admittedly... Most go for around $25...)
The more time you spend trying to be convincing, the less convincing it is.
There is a reason no-one wants these nasty plasticky things. They are no fun to use, unless your fun is convincing yourself how fun it is...

If we want easy, 'great' pics, 'we' just use whatever digital camera/phone is around.
If we want to immerse ourselves in the glory and creative tradition of real photography, we'll pick up something that can leave a nice dent in whatever accidentally comes into brusque contact with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #67
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
1. It's not 100 years old. I have bottles of Scotch older than this camera.
Nick, good luck with the camera. High-end, auto-focus, point & shoot 35mm cameras now sell for $600 and up.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #68
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solinar View Post
Nick, good luck with the camera. High-end, auto-focus, point & shoot 35mm cameras now sell for $600 and up.
It's laughable. If I want a point-n-shoot? P mode. If I want the manual experience? M mode and turn off auto focus. Drop it? Get wet? Electronics crap out? I'm out 10 bucks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #69
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
The more time you spend trying to be convincing, the less convincing it is.
There is a reason no-one wants these nasty plasticky things. They are no fun to use, unless your fun is convincing yourself how fun it is...

If we want easy, 'great' pics, 'we' just use whatever digital camera/phone is around.
If we want to immerse ourselves in the glory and creative tradition of real photography, we'll pick up something that can leave a nice dent in whatever accidentally comes into brusque contact with it.
I am pointing out why this camera is overlooked and a great value for "$10-25". I'm trying to convince no one. You, however, are "projecting".

There is nothing wrong with plastic. It's light and durable. That's why the keyboard you're typing on is made of plastic. I've had both plastic and metal cameras and lenses. I never had a plastic camera or lens "crack". I've never even seen or heard of one. I've had dinged up and rusted metal cameras. Why make something heavier than need be?

And why is it "nasty". The ergos of this camera is nearly perfect. No, they have no cachet. That's fine with me. That's why I wear Seiko and Orient automatics instead of Swiss watches. Both tell the time, both about as accurate. One costs $150. The Swiss ones cost thousands.

I have zero bias either way. Strip away nostalgia and "history" (which I care about less with cameras than watches) and the frankly irratioalities... I can care less about manufacture "pro" designations -- especially when the feature set is nearly identical.

... and what I have is a modern camrera, that has already lasted around a decade. It keeps the light out and advances the film. It gives me important information on the top plate. I control the aperture from the command dial on the camera body with my thumb and see the setting in the VF. This is a much, much better system than having to do it blindly or stop what I'm doing to look at the lens barrel.

In terns of camera bodies -- they benefited much from modern electronics. From a purely practical standpoint they are simply better camera bodies. They have more useful features. They are smaller and lighter. They cost way less.

And they keep the light out.
And they advance the film.

Technology made cameras better and cheaper. Not worse or more expensive.

And I reiterate. These cameras are underappreciated. They are more useful photographic tools than the overrated and dare I say long obsolete "classics". I can do anything a manual camera can do. I can do anything a point-n-shoot can do. But if I want to shoot 1.5 fps -- I can. I have matrix metering. Spot metering. Scene average metering. I can shoot in shutter priority, aperture priority -- not stuck with either or. I have an accurate electronic shutter that can go from 30 seconds to 1/2000th. Again. Accurate. Not off by stops.

It's way lighter than an Olympus OM1, It's not as long. It's only taller because it has a built in flash. It's slightly wider because it has a photographically useful and ergonomically better grip.

And it costs 10 bucks. And they're much newer.

Such cameras are undervalued for precisely the biases you expressed, which are emotional appeals not logical ones. In terms of camera bodies - they're just better.

But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #70
besk
Registered User
 
besk is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Carolina (USA)
Posts: 451
As I said in an earlier post I now have 4 N75's. With a 50/1.8 AF lens it is a very capable & light P&S camera and is suitable for more serious 35mm photography.
I use mine for travel and casual stuff.

Thanks NickTrop for mentioning it again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #71
JPSuisse
Registered User
 
JPSuisse's Avatar
 
JPSuisse is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Don't let the sticky back put you off its easily polished off and makes them an even bigger bargain!
18fbpicNikonf90x_01 by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr
Ah yes! I have one of these too! I personally enjoy using it.

My F90X has Ultramax in it right now and works like a top!

The AF works fine. Even takes good pictures of cats (except black ones)!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #72
nickthetasmaniac
Registered User
 
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Being a later model from this century, it has all the modern features you could want.
Alternatively, it has all the modern features I don't want, and shoot mechanical film cameras to avoid
__________________
Ricoh GRII | Pentax SV, SP-F, MX & LX | Leica M2 | Olympus Pen F + 35RD | Minolta Autocord | Hasselblad 500cm + SWC/m

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #73
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is online now
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I am pointing out why this camera is overlooked and a great value for "$10-25". I'm trying to convince no one. You, however, are "projecting".

There is nothing wrong with plastic. It's light and durable. That's why the keyboard you're typing on is made of plastic. I've had both plastic and metal cameras and lenses. I never had a plastic camera or lens "crack". I've never even seen or heard of one. I've had dinged up and rusted metal cameras. Why make something heavier than need be?

And why is it "nasty". The ergos of this camera is nearly perfect. No, they have no cachet. That's fine with me. That's why I wear Seiko and Orient automatics instead of Swiss watches. Both tell the time, both about as accurate. One costs $150. The Swiss ones cost thousands.

I have zero bias either way. Strip away nostalgia and "history" (which I care about less with cameras than watches) and the frankly irratioalities... I can care less about manufacture "pro" designations -- especially when the feature set is nearly identical.

... and what I have is a modern camrera, that has already lasted around a decade. It keeps the light out and advances the film. It gives me important information on the top plate. I control the aperture from the command dial on the camera body with my thumb and see the setting in the VF. This is a much, much better system than having to do it blindly or stop what I'm doing to look at the lens barrel.

In terns of camera bodies -- they benefited much from modern electronics. From a purely practical standpoint they are simply better camera bodies. They have more useful features. They are smaller and lighter. They cost way less.

And they keep the light out.
And they advance the film.

Technology made cameras better and cheaper. Not worse or more expensive.

And I reiterate. These cameras are underappreciated. They are more useful photographic tools than the overrated and dare I say long obsolete "classics". I can do anything a manual camera can do. I can do anything a point-n-shoot can do. But if I want to shoot 1.5 fps -- I can. I have matrix metering. Spot metering. Scene average metering. I can shoot in shutter priority, aperture priority -- not stuck with either or. I have an accurate electronic shutter that can go from 30 seconds to 1/2000th. Again. Accurate. Not off by stops.

It's way lighter than an Olympus OM1, It's not as long. It's only taller because it has a built in flash. It's slightly wider because it has a photographically useful and ergonomically better grip.

And it costs 10 bucks. And they're much newer.

Such cameras are undervalued for precisely the biases you expressed, which are emotional appeals not logical ones. In terms of camera bodies - they're just better.

But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone.
It's nice you like something no-one else does.
(and yes, 3 codgers in anoraks on this site counts as no-one).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #74
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is offline
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nieuw Amsterdam
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
It's nice you like something no-one else does.
(and yes, 3 codgers in anoraks on this site counts as no-one).
There's a cover for every pot. Even plastic ones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #75
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 274
I think the idea of "maintainable" varies with what an individual is trained to do. I find camera mechanics and optics to be very maintainable, but two of my colleagues are electrical engineers, and they find it trivial to diagnose electrical faults that challenge me, but the mechanics and optics challenge them.


As for film SLR's of the late Nineties and early Naughties, for the last year I've been really enjoying the Olympus IS-1dlx. I have no idea how long it will last, but it works really well for now, electric micro-motors and electronic wizardry considered. My Leica M3 will likely run for decades, or even centuries, with infrequent maintenance. My EOS Elan IIe also seems to be holding up, as does the EOS 650 I bought last year. Who knows how long the electronics will last, but they're fun while they last.


Scott
__________________
1917 No. 1A Autographic Kodak Junior
1940 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonet QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1987 Polaroid Spectra
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #76
nickthetasmaniac
Registered User
 
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
...

I control the aperture from the command dial on the camera body with my thumb and see the setting in the VF. This is a much, much better system than having to do it blindly or stop what I'm doing to look at the lens barrel.

...

From a purely practical standpoint they are simply better camera bodies.

...

Technology made cameras better and cheaper. Not worse or more expensive.

...

In terms of camera bodies - they're just better.

...
Yeeeeeah, I think we'll have to agree that 'better' is highly subjective in this case...
__________________
Ricoh GRII | Pentax SV, SP-F, MX & LX | Leica M2 | Olympus Pen F + 35RD | Minolta Autocord | Hasselblad 500cm + SWC/m

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #77
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,340
Not a superwhizbang SLR, but my Dad's Pentax ME from the late '70s is still chugging along nicely. It seems to need new light seals, but apart from that, exposure is good, the viewfinder is clear, and it looks as good as the day it was bought. With the 50mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.8 SMC Pentax-M lenses I can do 90% of the film photography I want, assuming I don't need stealth (that shutter sound is like a gunshot). Do I really need motor drive, autofocus, and all that jazz in a film SLR?


The only problem is that prices are starting to get weird. Good copies are selling in Australia for a few hundred dollars, which is pretty expensive for a camera made in the 70s. Plastic fantastics of the 90s and very early 2000s might be a good bet, but they won't feel or look like the ME.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #78
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickthetasmaniac View Post
Alternatively, it has all the modern features I don't want, and shoot mechanical film cameras to avoid
This I don't understand. What features does this camera force you to use? If you want the manual experience, you can avoid these features be turning them off. Viola. A manual camera. I can turn this into a manual camera by setting the dial to "M" and flicking the AF switch.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #79
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
It's nice you like something no-one else does.
(and yes, 3 codgers in anoraks on this site counts as no-one).
No one else likes them for reasons that are totally irrational. No one "liked" the Yashica T4. You could have gotten then for peanuts -- until Terry Richardson started using them. Now they go for $100's used.

I say they are actually better than the classic cameras of yore. Decades of R&D went into their design.

You might "like" a '67 Impala. You might think it has certain charms. "Look cool". But a 2005 Camry is a better car.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #80
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiver View Post
Not a superwhizbang SLR, but my Dad's Pentax ME from the late '70s is still chugging along nicely. It seems to need new light seals, but apart from that, exposure is good, the viewfinder is clear, and it looks as good as the day it was bought. With the 50mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.8 SMC Pentax-M lenses I can do 90% of the film photography I want, assuming I don't need stealth (that shutter sound is like a gunshot). Do I really need motor drive, autofocus, and all that jazz in a film SLR?


The only problem is that prices are starting to get weird. Good copies are selling in Australia for a few hundred dollars, which is pretty expensive for a camera made in the 70s. Plastic fantastics of the 90s and very early 2000s might be a good bet, but they won't feel or look like the ME.
1. If a camera has autofocus I use it, except in instances where I can't. Then I manual focus, which is very rare. Your car doesn't need air conditioning. But it's sure nice to have. I can used auto focus or turn it off. It is a useful feature because it focuses faster than you can typically focus manually. It rarely misses.

2. No you don't "need" these extra features. But most of them help you take better pictures, set things more quickly, and avoid errors.

3. Manual focus cameras are essentially shutter priority cameras. More on that in a separate post.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:45.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.