Which SLR system?

Which SLR system?

  • Nikon F3

    Votes: 50 49.5%

  • Olympus OM-1n

    Votes: 38 37.6%

  • Minolta X-700

    Votes: 13 12.9%
  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
Seems like someone desperately wants me to choose Minolta...
Prices on eBay are nuts, I can buy most items from a respectable secondhand camera dealer for less than eBay prices.
 
Hi,

I'll go along with the OM2n instead of the OM1 as the 2n is more versatile (auto and manual exposure) and no battery issues. Plus you can add an OM10 body as a back up and be surprised how good it is and how cheap.

But, a while ago someone was asking about screen brightness and I got most of mine out and looked carefully and decided that the Minolta with the f/1.7 standard lens had a brighter screen than my OM2n with an f/1.4 st'd lens on it.

Having said that I just wouldn't know which to keep if I just had to have one SLR outfit.

And if I had none and wanted to start again I'd go for the Leica R5 but you have to be very rich for a simple just one body and two lenses outfit...

Regards, David
 
people have spoken, OP should go for Minolta 😀

someone probably used a forum backdoor to rig the results.
 
David Hughes said:
Plus you can add an OM10 body as a back up and be surprised how good it is and how cheap.
Click to expand...
David, I'd agree with you....but - both my OM-20 and my Dad's OM-10 have their in-viewfinder meter readings way off now, in a way that's either unfixable or not economically fixable. I'd guess the cheaper metering circuits (or just the sensors) used in Olympus lower-end bodies weren't designed to last this long. (Note, however, that the metering which controls actual exposure in Av-mode still works just fine in both cameras.)

My father and I have greatly appreciated family photos taken with both cameras, and they still work well in aperture-priority AE mode. But given how cheap "professional-grade" OM cameras are these days, why not buy a "single-digit" OM where the viewfinder indication is good, rather than a "double-digit" one where it might be way off - and, if it isn't, might soon go that way?

...Mike
 
The most important part of any camera system is, in my opinion, the lenses and not the bodies, so I don't understand why you would be satisfied with less than top of the line bodies in your Olympus and Minolta packages but not in your Nikon set.
You will get everything the over-rated F3 has (with the exception of interchangeable prisms) and more if you were to select an FM series (FM, FM-2), FE series (FE, FE-2), or FA body, for less money.
 
rbsinto said:
the over-rated F3
Click to expand...
I'd have lot's to say about your whole post. But let's just take it at the one quoted, then note: I have 2 FMs, an FM2n, an FE2 and an FM3a as well as an F and an F3. My most-used Nikons are the FM3a (good light) and the FM2n (low light). Yet I don't regard the F3 as over-rated at all. Probably because I like it for different reasons from my actually-most-used bodies (and because it's both my best-preserved and prettiest Nikon) and also because the Nikon system is one that I sample rather than one I've made industrial-strength use of.

I know people who did (and do) make industrial-strength use of the Nikon system, and admire how well the F3 has been at the centre of their systems for decades without skipping a beat. I can admire those characteristics in a camera I bought more to experience than to use (my F3 has not displaced my FM3a for my use, and probably never will).

...Mike
 
mfunnell said:
But, really, don't these "honest" results feel so boring? Personally, I preferred the "seething masses" result. And have always liked the Minolta/Rokkor system in theory while having no experience of it in practice.

...Mike
Click to expand...

And, having been introduced in 1966 (like me), the Minolta SRT bodies were excellent. Rokkor lenses to my eyes are every bit as good or better than any other company's in optical quality and early on, build. Over time I think Minolta was quicker to use plastics and perhaps cheapen the quality of their products, I think it shows in their bodies, but never in the optical quality of the Rokkors. I don't know how common they are outside of the US, but here, at KEH and almost anywhere, Minolta equipment is everywhere.
 
rover said:
I don't know how common they are outside of the US, but here, at KEH and almost anywhere, Minolta equipment is everywhere.
Click to expand...
Taking this seriously:

...I've been eyeing off an SRT-102 (recently CLA'd, new seals and re-calibrated for SO batteries) and 50/1.7 combo from a local-to-Oz seller I know to be reliable. Not expensive, but not cheap. The only reason I've been holding off is that, well, how many cameras do I need? Probably more to the point, how many camera systems do I need? But as the Borg might say, resistance could be futile. My "collector" instincts are to find out what many (affordable, from "back in the day") systems are like to use, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Having no personal experience of Minolta, I'm tempted, just to use 'em and find out.

I'm highly unlikely to buy expensive and automated bodies. But a pure manual camera and a small-but-nice selection of lenses? I might well go there. I'm guessing the 50/1.7 is rather standard. What would you recommend in the Rokkor range? I'd like a wide, normal and medium-tele as at least a start to exploring the system. (As an example, in Pentax I have a 28/2.8, 50/1.7 and 85/2 in "SMC Pentax-M" and, quite deliberately, an original K "SMC Pentax" 50/1.4 which is far the best of the bunch.)

Given you're an enthusiast of the Minolta system, what would you recommend as Rokkor lenses for initial exploration?

...Mike
 
Mr Hughes' comment on viewfinder brightness is noted. Many Minoltas used their 'accumatte' screen that was very bright. Olympus has their '2' series screens but they are hard to source now. However it needs to be noted that our eyes focus on contrast, not brightness. That is why, even in room light, I can accurately focus my old dim Olympus Pen F with the standard 38mm f1.8 lens mounted and even with the slowish 100mm f3.5 lens.

There seems to be quite a chorus singing the praises of the OM-2n and they are in good company. John Hermanson, Olympus repair guru and owner of Camtech has stated he feels the OM-2n was the 'perfect' OM, with just the right feature set, but simple enough to be a reliable workhorse. True, later single digit OM's had very fancy metering etc., but I have a OM-2sp and the film advance/shutter charging stroke is quite unpleasant compared to any of my OM-1's. The shutter release on that camera also produces an odd double clunk sound, due to the sub mirror operation I'm told.
 
mfunnell said:
David, I'd agree with you....but - both my OM-20 and my Dad's OM-10 have their in-viewfinder meter readings way off now, in a way that's either unfixable or not economically fixable. I'd guess the cheaper metering circuits (or just the sensors) used in Olympus lower-end bodies weren't designed to last this long. (Note, however, that the metering which controls actual exposure in Av-mode still works just fine in both cameras.)

My father and I have greatly appreciated family photos taken with both cameras, and they still work well in aperture-priority AE mode. But given how cheap "professional-grade" OM cameras are these days, why not buy a "single-digit" OM where the viewfinder indication is good, rather than a "double-digit" one where it might be way off - and, if it isn't, might soon go that way?

...Mike
Click to expand...

Hi,

Well, um, my only answer is that, if you like a camera, then get it repaired. Luckily there's lots of people prepared to service and repair them; it's one of the nicer aspects of using an OM.

But, a big "but" coming, in this country the OM10 sells on ebay for the opening bid quite often if it sells at all. And they are a pleasant camera, in more ways than one

Plus you can get all the OM lens at reasonable prices and they are made to the same standard. Even my f/1.4 was a cheap one but most standards for that sort of quality.

Regards, David
 
mfunnell said:
Taking this seriously:

...I've been eyeing off an SRT-102 (recently CLA'd, new seals and re-calibrated for SO batteries) and 50/1.7 combo from a local-to-Oz seller I know to be reliable. Not expensive, but not cheap. The only reason I've been holding off is that, well, how many cameras do I need? Probably more to the point, how many camera systems do I need? But as the Borg might say, resistance could be futile. My "collector" instincts are to find out what many (affordable, from "back in the day") systems are like to use, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Having no personal experience of Minolta, I'm tempted, just to use 'em and find out.

I'm highly unlikely to buy expensive and automated bodies. But a pure manual camera and a small-but-nice selection of lenses? I might well go there. I'm guessing the 50/1.7 is rather standard. What would you recommend in the Rokkor range? I'd like a wide, normal and medium-tele as at least a start to exploring the system. (As an example, in Pentax I have a 28/2.8, 50/1.7 and 85/2 in "SMC Pentax-M" and, quite deliberately, an original K "SMC Pentax" 50/1.4 which is far the best of the bunch.)

Given you're an enthusiast of the Minolta system, what would you recommend as Rokkor lenses for initial exploration?

...Mike
Click to expand...


The 50/1.7 like similar lenses from all makers is the bread and butter, simple good lens. Top notch in my book are the MD W.Rokkor-X 24/2.8 and 35/1.8. Both lenses were developed during Minolta's period of cooperation with Leitz. The 24 has a shared optical formula with the R 24/2.8. The MD Rokkor-X 50/1.4 (55mm filter ring) is my favorite SLR fast 50. I am a fan of the 100mm focal length over 135, and the MC Tele Rokkor-X 100/2.5 is the one in my kit. The MC 58/1.2 is just full of great character, and the MC 85/1.7 is similarly attractive. The MC 58/1.4 is a very good lens too.

Look up the Rokkor Files on the web for some good reviews of these lenses including comparisons of a lot more.
 
mfunnell said:
I'd have lot's to say about your whole post. But let's just take it at the one quoted, then note: I have 2 FMs, an FM2n, an FE2 and an FM3a as well as an F and an F3. My most-used Nikons are the FM3a (good light) and the FM2n (low light). Yet I don't regard the F3 as over-rated at all. Probably because I like it for different reasons from my actually-most-used bodies (and because it's both my best-preserved and prettiest Nikon) and also because the Nikon system is one that I sample rather than one I've made industrial-strength use of.

I know people who did (and do) make industrial-strength use of the Nikon system, and admire how well the F3 has been at the centre of their systems for decades without skipping a beat. I can admire those characteristics in a camera I bought more to experience than to use (my F3 has not displaced my FM3a for my use, and probably never will).

...Mike
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I've never questioned the "industrial-strength" build of the F3, (or any of the other F bodies), but only its features, and controls.
And for me (who has has used FE and FE-2 bodies in the past and currently uses F, F2, FM and FA film bodies on a regular basis) based on features alone, I'd take the F2 or FA over the F3 every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom