Best 35mm SLR?

filmfan said:
I think the OM-1 is all hype. Frankly, it's not what people here claim it tobe. I had the 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses which were, well, just as good as any other SLR lens. The body however had a terrible viewfinder (dark, too wide to the point of having to scan all around it), terrible shutter speed selection dial (on the lens mount), and loading film was always questionable. It's not a BAD camera per-se, but it's nothing special.
The Minolta X-370 I have is a better camera in ever way and it is $20.
Let the flaming begin!
EDIT: I have owned all the cameras out there, so don't say that I am ignorant or whatever. Just hate me for being honest and more resistant to hype than you (if anything).

Really, there is no best SLR camera but certainly over-hyped SLR cameras do exist.

As the OP stated, the Zeiss SLR lenses are the tits.
Click to expand...

My take on the OM is that if you dig the small size, then it's something special. Otherwise it's just a camera with funky controls.
 
I agree but...

I agree but...

Arvay said:
AF - Canon 1n
MF - Olympus OM4/Contax 167mt
Click to expand...

I agree, not about the Canon, but about the Contax and Olympus. I owned both the OM-4 (Ti with MD2) and the 167MT. Over the years I owned quite a few Zuikos (only the 50/1.4 for the Contax) and I guess I took it all for granted. Sold it all and started shooting digital, eventually ending up with the 5D et. al. for the commercial work.

Now I have a NEX-7 (for myself personally) with two Zeiss lenses (35/2 Biogon and 24/1.8 Sony) and a Leica 90/2. Finally a small system (a la OM) with great glass.

BUT, best SLR ever? If not the OM-4Ti, then the Contax 645.
 
If I haven't already, here's my plug for the Leicaflex SL. Never a big fan of the Nikon cameras. In my experience they're not as user friendly, although I like the eye relief of the F and F2. The FD and SRT cameras appear to be good bang for the buck for a mechanical beast, but I generally prefer Leica and Nikon lenses. There's lots of good options out there. And unlike rangefinders, they're inexpensive.
 
The F3 ist the "best for me. Reliable, easy to use, best viewfinder on a SLR i know, great lenses etc. My girlfriend disagrees, she complains about the heaviness. So, it depends.
 
Olympus OM-1 is the best 35mm SLR.

I have had my original for 37 years and it still works and takes beautiful pictures. It even works with a dead battery. (I converted mine to use a modern battery for a 10 cent diode)

The shutter speed control is genius because you use the left hand for shutter, aperture and focusing. The right hand for film advance and shutter release.

You don't have to look away or move your hand to change shutter speed and the shutter and aperture turn the same direction up or down stops.

They are rugged and easy to repair. If you have a truly dead one, a fine replacement can be found in minutes for 20 or 30 dollars.

They are small and light and you can carry one for days and not get tired. A body and 3 lenses fit in a small bag that doesn't scream, "I'm loaded with SLR gear here".

The lenses are getting expensive because the digital camera people have learned our little secret: Zuiko are high-quality compact lenses that deliver.

I find it impossible to accept that some are too clumsy to operate such a simple little jewel.
 
wblynch said:
Olympus OM-1 is the best 35mm SLR.

I have had my original for 37 years and it still works and takes beautiful pictures. It even works with a dead battery. (I converted mine to use a modern battery for a 10 cent diode)

The shutter speed control is genius because you use the left hand for shutter, aperture and focusing. The right hand for film advance and shutter release.

You don't have to look away or move your hand to change shutter speed and the shutter and aperture turn the same direction up or down stops.

They are rugged and easy to repair. If you have a truly dead one, a fine replacement can be found in minutes for 20 or 30 dollars.

They are small and light and you can carry one for days and not get tired. A body and 3 lenses fit in a small bag that doesn't scream, "I'm loaded with SLR gear here".

The lenses are getting expensive because the digital camera people have learned our little secret: Zuiko are high-quality compact lenses that deliver.

I find it impossible to accept that some are too clumsy to operate such a simple little jewel.
Click to expand...

Compared to a Leicaflex an OM is loud, not very smooth, and has significantly worse eye relief.

The only perceived benefit of an OM is the size, and that really falls down if you have big hands. Just like many big handed people prefer an M5 to a more traditional sized Leica M.

The OM also has that funky shutter speed dial, but in practical use it's not more convenient then a big shutter speed dial on the top.

And the viewfinder display, at least an OM1, is the pits. There's nothing. No shutter speed. No aperture.

And most people prefer Leica R and Nikon lenses to Olympus.

I'll got back to what I wrote initially; every manufacturer made good cameras. There is no best.
 
First of all, weighing in here 3 years late or whatever, if you want the best built SLR then you have to go with the Leicaflex. There is one -- famous, you should look up the story -- on display at their HQ in Sohms or their original site in Wetzlar, not sure, -- that went out of a US air force jet traveling at high speed and altitude over the desert out west; it was later found, buried some number of feet in the sand, with a trail behind it. The Leitz boys got it back and unbent a piece here or there and it still worked. I don't think any mfr is going to step up and say "We can beat that."

For the record: I've never owned one. I do have a Leica R4s, which joins my Contax RTSII as the best looking SLRs I've owned. Close behind the Nikon F2 plain prism in black; the OM3 in black; and the Minolta XD-11.

None of these cameras is difficult to use. So part of what makes for one's favorite is mood; the second part is that moment that comes when the camera just melts into your hands and you are working without noticing it at all. This has never happened to me, for instance, with any Pentax (tried SP2, SP-F, and ME-Super, not to mention the fabulous 67). It happens with -- above all my other Nikons, it's funny -- the Nikon FE. The RTSII. The XD-11. I'm close, I think, with the F3HP, but I haven't had it that long. And it happens too with what has to be the best SLR I've had, technologically: the Nikon F100. I long to try the F6 one day.

So what's my favorite? A theortical one, with aperture and shutter priority AE, a needle meter behind LED guidelines, so sunny or dark you can see it; and it takes the following MF lenses:

Nikkor AIS 20mm f/3.5
MD Rokkor W 21mm f/2.8
MD Rokkor-X 24mm f/2.8*
Nikkor AIS 28mm f2 OR f/2.8
OM Zuiko 35mm f/2*
Canon FD 35mm f/2 concave
Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2
Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 (joined by SMC Takumar 50/1.4, MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and Canon FD 50/1.4, covering my favorite 50s...)
Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L
Nikkor AIS 85mm f/1.4
Canon FD 100mm f/2
MD Rokkor 100mm f/2.5
Nikkkor AIS 105mm f/2.5*
Canon FD 135/2.5
AIS Nikkor ED 180mm f/2.8*
Minolta 200mm f/2.8
AIS Nikkor ED 300mm f/4.5
Leica Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4*
Leica Elmar-R Macro 60mm

The ones with the *'s have always seemed to me kind of miraculously beautiful on top of being excellent.

So who has this camera for me?
 
steveyork said:
And most people prefer Leica R and Nikon lenses to Olympus.
Click to expand...

the truth is a lot of people like a McDonald's cheeseburger a great bit more than a proper cheeseburger.

relating popularity to quality is a dangerous game. I've had some Nikkors and while they were sharp the color likely mostly appeals to people who put the saturation slider in photoshop up to +30.

one thing that puzzles me about your post is that you put forward the idea that not having a bunch of information in the viewfinder is necessarily a bad thing. I consider that more to be a lack of clutter, rather than a shortcoming.

btw if you find the OM-1 too short (as I do), the leather half case for it is cheap and solves that problem completely. large glove size here.

p.s. the best SLR lens Ive ever used might be the humble zeiss 50/1.7; if I could get a reasonably price mechanical c/y body with a viewfinder anywhere close to the OM-1, I wouldnt sell it. anyone got any suggestions? batteries ok if they only power the meter.
 
I'm more of a Nikon than Canon guy, but I do have a Canon EOS 55 and love it. As an earlier commenter said: "silent and precise," indeed. Olympus is one of the last camera brands I've yet to delve into, so I really can't opine about the OM-1.

That said, I believe the best camera is the one that's with you, and which feels right to you. There's very little difference between most of the major Japanese brands. So I can't pick which SLR is best, only which feel right to me personally. So far, my pick is the Minolta X-570. I love the "touch" metering of the X-series. The sharp Rokkor glass r0kk0rz my s0xx0rz. 🙂

One of my first Minoltas was an SRT-200 that a friend gave me when he found I was interested in shooting film. The shutter wasn't working, but he had two lenses with it. I bought an XG-A off APUG for cheap just so I could use the lenses. I fell in love and ended up buying more cameras of the SRT- and X- series, culminating with my X-570 with motor drive.

As I write this, a recently bought Nikon FM that I've outfitted with a motor drive is getting ever more jealous. It thinks it can unseat the Minolta as my favorite, if only I'll take it out for a spin, but right now the summer weather is much too hot! We'll see. I have an F4s already and I love it, but it's a monster.
 
redisburning said:
p.s. the best SLR lens Ive ever used might be the humble zeiss 50/1.7; if I could get a reasonably price mechanical c/y body with a viewfinder anywhere close to the OM-1, I wouldnt sell it. anyone got any suggestions? batteries ok if they only power the meter.
Click to expand...
About the only "budget" bodies that I can think of, that aren't battery-dependent would be the FX-1, the FX-2, and the FX-3. The FR series nicer VF, but have electronically controlled shutters, as does the FX-D. So unless you find a super deal on the Contax S2, your choices are few.

There is a new mechanical SLR bing offered by Kenko with the C/Y mount

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kenko_KF-3YC

http://www.kenkoglobal.com/kf-3yc.html

but I have no idea on price or availability.
 
redisburning said:
p.s. the best SLR lens Ive ever used might be the humble zeiss 50/1.7; if I could get a reasonably price mechanical c/y body with a viewfinder anywhere close to the OM-1, I wouldnt sell it. anyone got any suggestions? batteries ok if they only power the meter.
Click to expand...

Now if you were just flexible about this electronic thing you could get a Contax 167m from KEH for like $45, as I did. The RTS II costs five times that.

But one hears the Yashicas are good and they're available quite cheap.

The idea that "Nikon glass" is superior to Olympus is dumb. Neither company should get any awards for their 50mm's, the best of which are quite good but not up to the standards of Canon, say, or Pentax certainly. But the Olympus 24/2 and 35/2? They dust Nikon. And the Nikon tele's are often the tops --especially the 105s, 180s and 200s. Above that I have little experience. It seems everyone who made a 100mm f/2 made a very good one but the Nikon 105/2.5 has a look like no other. Nikon's own f/1.8 tests better and so, probably, do the other great 100s, but that lens has been magic ever since the RF Sonnar version of the early 50s.

All the major known makers, competing as hard as they did, and with business as good as it was in the 50s through the 80s, came out with remarkable cameras and some brilliant lenses. But it's fun to say: this is my favorite.
 
At one point I had on my shelf the OM4, Lecaflex SL, Leica R3 and a Nikon FE2. I won't say anything about the lenses, for that I have too little experience, but I want to chime in with my attitude towards the cameras themselves.
I have to agree with above said - the best feel of handling and fondling a camera came with the Leicaflex.. BUT not when it was near the end of a long walk and the strap was already half buried in my neck and shoulder.. It is quite big and heavy, even comparing to other SLRs than the OM series which I like and which I have kept... (Stupid me, really shouldn't have sold the leicaflex...) As far as Nikon goes - it is what a simple camera ought to be - unobtrusive, just fits in your hands, you don't think at all about putting it to your eye... But although it was very good, the FE2 left me without any sense of joy when shooting - I thought about it just as a "tool of the trade", to do the job and put it in the bag.. Not as something that you could just play with it - like the heavy Leicaflex or the petite OM..
 
sparrow6224 said:
The idea that "Nikon glass" is superior to Olympus is dumb. Neither company should get any awards for their 50mm's, the best of which are quite good but not up to the standards of Canon, say, or Pentax certainly. But the Olympus 24/2 and 35/2? They dust Nikon. And the Nikon tele's are often the tops --especially the 105s, 180s and 200s. Above that I have little experience. It seems everyone who made a 100mm f/2 made a very good one but the Nikon 105/2.5 has a look like no other. Nikon's own f/1.8 tests better and so, probably, do the other great 100s, but that lens has been magic ever since the RF Sonnar version of the early 50s.
Click to expand...

the OM and F standard 50s may not exactly be the greatest lenses in the world, but both companies 50/55 macro/micros are fantastic. the two f3.5 lenses are both pretty good, even if I would only use the Nikkor for b&w.

Ive heard great things about the faster ones.

back to Contax, I will evaluate the 167 and fx-3. I had heard that the VF in the latter wasn't so great, the OM-1/2 are really the only SLR VFs that I have found satisfactory; I really am much more of an RF kind of guy. Maybe I should look for another S2.
 
The Contax Aria has a nice bright viewfinder and the size is small. Many have had good luck with the camera. The RTS III has a really stellar viewfinder. Prices have come way down on them and they can still, for a while longer, be repaired. Huge and heavy, but great viewfinder.
 
The SRT-101 was my first SLR. What a great camera! The only thing I didn't care for was the meter switch on the baseplate. It survived a motorcycle crash that ground most of the front lens element away on the asphalt. We parted ways years ago when I bought a medium format camera (RB67).
 
This is my pragmatic answer, Nikon lenses. A ton of copies that I can easily replace, plenty of bodies that can use a very large lens library. My experience is limited with slrs, but as a dad with young kids I need fast lenses and fast auto-focus. I shoot film which my wife thinks is crazy, but archival wise it's easier. Those Nikon lenses will work on the newer dslr's, so if I decide to drop serious Euros on a Nikon D4 I don't have to spend a fortune on all new glass. Pragmatic.

As a crazy romantic I'd splurge on a Leica R9 with a digital back. I always wanted one of those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom