Are Later Film SLRs Now Overlooked?

Hmm. Well, most of the cheaper plastic fantastic cameras had cheap viewfinders that were difficult to focus manually with. Not a big deal if you are going to use AF most of the time, but I prefer to focus manually. They still could take good photos.
 
I was only having this discussion the other day with the owner of an old camera shop which has gone from being a curio shop to hip in three years. He sells as many P&Ss as he can lay his hands on, ditto Pentax K1000s (city with two university degrees in photography), but the plastic fantastics linger - well, one fewer as I bought it.

Some of them really are very plasticky, and the epitome of anti-styling - most photographers are interested in aesthetics after all - but things like the mid range Eos and the Nikon F90s etc are immensely capable things. Is it a matter of time, possible, but everybody young I've spoken to who is into film is doing it as an antidote to the point phone and capture selfie. So I wonder if it is as much the ease and capability of these things that makes them less desirable as well as their absence of simple style that appeals to the Apple generation.

Meanwhile I am rather enjoying using them for not a lot and if they go wrong, who cares?
 
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.

:D
 
I treat cameras as tools and there are the right tools for the right trade. I have a Barnack Leica that I rarely use, it slows me down when I need to act fast - the cheap plastic EOS5 or F90x get the job done for me.

I wouldn't hesitate buying those cheap cameras if they work well and use them. At the end of the day, the pictures I bring back home are the most important, not the camera I took them with.
 
Gear or photographs?

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

This brand or that brand?

Rangefinder or SLR?

Follow your own path or the crowd?

Just pictures, or Art?

It is interesting how all threads rise or sink to the same common denominator. Preferences.

The OP has "rediscovered" a sub-market of inexpensive gear. I have had those cameras since they were new. Now, in 2019, all the darlings/icons of the gear world, those beautiful Leicas, are gone as are the Rolleiflexes and Hasselblads. But the older Nikons, some metal and some plastic, remain. Total net worth of those cameras is probably only a few hundred dollars. :)

And yet, I am making images and memories everyday and enjoying the experiences more.

Preferences. We all have them and all is good. These days I enjoy the latest technology to use it for my purposes, and I am just as happy with my old $25 Nikkormat. Why? Because I am free to create what I want and how I prefer to do it. Freedom is a wonderful thing.:)
 
Certainly plastic SLRs can be found for peanuts, much better value here (Sydney) than p&s cameras - but they're only bargains if good, inexpensive lenses can be found for them, unless you already have a collection of legacy lenses. The temptation to build a small prime collection for every bargain SLR camera could easily get out of hand.
 
Last time I looked, many metal and mechanical SLRs were still very affordable (e.g., SRT, FTb, ect.). Film SLRs still a great value compared to their original price, and the going price for rangefinders.
 
The problem is pro or semi pro SLRs from the 90s are so cheap why bother looking at lower level bodies shame really. In the last couple of months I've bought an EOS 5 and a F90x both for around £25 and both built to a high level with good features and even good autofocus.
 
A Nikon N75 kit with a 50 and chipped 3.5/28 is lighter than my equivalent M6 kit. And not much larger.

I have 4 N75's at present (plus other AF and MF Nikons and two F2's in excellent condition.) I use them mostly with manual focus lenses.
 
I had a Canon EOS 1n for a brief while (3~ months) and if I were honest, I would tell you I shot more photos I kept than with Leicas etc. due to it being quicker and easier to make a well-timed, exposed, composed photo of things that happen in a fleeting moment. Photos of our Dog (since passed.) running around etc.

Photographers are a fickle bunch, they want the credit of taking a good photo in addition to having a good photo. After all, what Cameras did Cartier-Bresson use? Or Bert Hardy? They certainly didn't use an automatic focusing and exposing Nikon (with bells and whistles.)

I understand I am talking about people who like photographs, not cameras, on a forum about cameras. I am myself included in those people.

Why do you think I don't use it anymore...?
 
steveyork said:
Last time I looked, many metal and mechanical SLRs were still very affordable (e.g., SRT, FTb, ect.). Film SLRs still a great value compared to their original price, and the going price for rangefinders.
Click to expand...

I purchased Nikkomar for 24 cad locally. Just because of the all ravings on forums about it. It came with huge flash, huge hard case and zoom manual.
It works, but as usual with all affordable old mechanical SLRs, no seals and to get to seal pooping at the focus screen, camera needs to be disasmbled.
My plastic EOS300 is superior to this forums fuss item. In all aspects.

Oh, I also fixed FTb after getting it and let it go quick. Another inferior camera if you are into photography.
 
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 use two Pentax P3n bodies, they have to have batteries. But the batteries last forever. What I like about them is they are very small, have split image finders, with manual lens you can have Auto-Shutter, and with an 'A' stetting lens you can set it to full manual. They also are meter connected to full manual match. The big thing is they don't have a screen. I don't like the no DX adjustment, and the only 1/100 flash synch.

Here it is next to a 6x7:

Two SLRs by John Carter, on Flickr
 
NickTrop said:
Exactly, Terry Richardson starts shooting one prices shoot to $300.
Click to expand...

Here in Chile they go for a lot more $ than in the US and young people are buying them. However, that is because they are cheaper still than the more desirable cameras.
 
Huss said:
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.
Click to expand...

They will soon be popular... because they are different. The next generation will think they are awesome looking in a retro way. It is sure to happen.
 
I have what many would consider an insane amount of vintage manual SLR and rangefinder 35mm cameras, and I enjoy using them. But when I know that I need to get the shot, the camera that is most often in my hands is this Nikon F90. It is not fancy or flashy, but it is a solid, dependable camera with excellent metering that does everything that I want to do, with virtually every Nikkor lens ever made. It just works.

40106880461_b343d79145_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom