Best built mechanical SLR?

[css9450]

My F2s of course....

Of course!

 

[ChrisPlatt]

My Nikon F2 Photomic is working fine now but could probably use CLA.
Any recommendations for an experienced servicer in USA who won't charge a fortune?

TIA,
Chris

 

[Robert Lai]

Before a new internet myth becomes perpetuated, I should state that the slowing down of shutters a 1 second, or 1/2 second is not due to a design flaw. It is merely a symptom or what Gus Lazzari calls "lubricant failure". That is, the oils and greases that lubricate the shutter spindles and timing cams have become hardened, gummy, and probably contaminated with grit. This will happen with time to ANY shutter, not just the Nikon F2's.

Anyone who has ever had a vintage camera with a Synchro-Compur or Compur Rapid shutter will know the symptoms well. I have a mint appearing Voigtlander Bessa RF 6 x9cm format camera from circa 1947. The shutter behaved as described. After Gus Lazzari overhualed it, everything purrs as if it was built yesterday.

This about this: if you drive your car for 30 years without ever changing the oil, there will come a day when it starts to slow down, then eventually seize. My wife's aunt is one of those little old ladies who never drives on the highway due to nervousness. So, her car (1970s, the original Honda Civic) always ran at slow speeds on the city roads. One day when I drove the car from Toronto to Kingston, Ontario, it was burning oil so tremendously that I had to fill a couple of litres every 100 km. It also ran sluggishly so that it could barely keep up with highway speeds. I feared that the engine was going to seize and leave me stranded. Eventually, something happened and the engine had burned off enough of the decades of accumulated gumminess that all of a sudden it ran freely and sweetly. Now I finally got a sense of what made the original Honda Civic such a fun car to drive! However, if I had gone on my original impression, I would think ill of Honda Civics for the rest of my life.

 

[Calzone]

My Nikon F2 Photomic is working fine now but could probably use CLA.
Any recommendations for an experienced servicer in USA who won't charge a fortune?

TIA,
Chris

Chris,

I have had Nippon Photo Clinic here in NYC do CLA's on several Nikon F2's. Remarkably it is like a Japanese shop in NYC. Prices are not inexpensive, but they do good work.

BTW I think the F2 is the sexiest mechanical SLR ever built.

Cal

 

[Dwig]

hahaha really? first i've heard of it. Where's your source for disputing 45 years worth of operational F2 shutters?

The somewhat persistent legend that F2s had unreliable shutters likely stems from the rather poor track record of the very very earliest batch(s). These worked OK, but didn't survive the load presented by the MD-1 when it came into service. At the time I was selling F2s (beginning in '74) this was very much in the past, but the story I heard from our repair service was the Nikon often simply replaced the bodies when they were sent in for service.

There were also issues with the early bodies' mirror lock levers, generally those with the F style leatherette, that Nikon discovered when the MD-1 became available. It proved easy to accidentally move the lever slightly while gripping the heavy camera. If you shot with the lever moved part way the camera jammed. The changed the mirror lock so that you had to first press in before you could rotate the lever.

In my 20 years "behind the counter" handling sales and service, the F2 was one of the least frequent visitors to my service counter except for meter service and for repairing "stupid human tricks" (read: abuse and accident damage). Nikon Fs also rarely appeared for any reason other than meter service.

Personally, I would downgrade all of the otherwise excellent cameras that relied on foam light seals. Nikon Fs, F2s and F3s only used such foam for dust seals; they are light tight without any. Nikkormats, FM/FE variants, Olympus OM-anything, most Canons other than the F-1 variants, ... all fall into the "almost good" class.

 

[farlymac]

The earlier Contaflexes were quite substantial in their build, though like many German products, over engineered. Damn good looking too.

Zeiss Ikon Cousins by P F McFarland, on Flickr

PF

 

[Calzone]

The somewhat persistent legend that F2s had unreliable shutters likely stems from the rather poor track record of the very very earliest batch(s). These worked OK, but didn't survive the load presented by the MD-1 when it came into service. At the time I was selling F2s (beginning in '74) this was very much in the past, but the story I heard from our repair service was the Nikon often simply replaced the bodies when they were sent in for service.

There were also issues with the early bodies' mirror lock levers, generally those with the F style leatherette, that Nikon discovered when the MD-1 became available. It proved easy to accidentally move the lever slightly while gripping the heavy camera. If you shot with the lever moved part way the camera jammed. The changed the mirror lock so that you had to first press in before you could rotate the lever.

In my 20 years "behind the counter" handling sales and service, the F2 was one of the least frequent visitors to my service counter except for meter service and for repairing "stupid human tricks" (read: abuse and accident damage). Nikon Fs also rarely appeared for any reason other than meter service.

Personally, I would downgrade all of the otherwise excellent cameras that relied on foam light seals. Nikon Fs, F2s and F3s only used such foam for dust seals; they are light tight without any. Nikkormats, FM/FE variants, Olympus OM-anything, most Canons other than the F-1 variants, ... all fall into the "almost good" class.

At Nippon Camera Clinic they expressed that the later F2's had advances/changes that made cameras that were later as being the better cameras. I brought an early F2 with slotted screws and they informed me that the later camera with the SN starting with 77 or 78 as being the better more durable camera.

Cal

 

[nobbylon]

Dwig,
thanks for the information. My '72 in the first 60,000 cameras was just on change over.
Although type 1 leatherette it has the lock on the mirror lever.
It has early type 1 rewind and type 1 bottom plate however has the type 2 advance lever and front plate with early type slot screws on the bayonet and top and bottom plates.
It's a completely original spec' camera from new.
Inspired by this thread I just popped batteries in it and ordered a dioptre correction lens off of the bay. I'm looking forward to run some colour through it this weekend.

 

[Calzone]

Dwig,
thanks for the information. My '72 in the first 60,000 cameras was just on change over.
Although type 1 leatherette it has the lock on the mirror lever.
It has early type 1 rewind and type 1 bottom plate however has the type 2 advance lever and front plate with early type slot screws on the bayonet and top and bottom plates.
It's a completely original spec' camera from new.
Inspired by this thread I just popped batteries in it and ordered a dioptre correction lens off of the bay. I'm looking forward to run some colour through it this weekend.

The very early F2 with the slotted screws I had had some very nuanced differences that made it a very-very cool camera than the later cameras. I found it to be an interesting camera. Now that camera and my later black paint F2 is with an art dealer.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

and my later black paint F2 is with an art dealer.

That and your SL are my favorite cameras that you've had / have. truly beautiful cameras.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I wonder if this counts, my 1938 Exakta was OK until the shellac holding the mirror failed and the mirror came out and broke. That was a couple of years ago and I've yet to find someone who doesn't throw up their hands in horror at the thought of repairing it...

Regards, David

 

[Calzone]

That and your SL are my favorite cameras that you've had / have. truly beautiful cameras.

John,

Both are great cameras, but the SL2-MOT is the rare bird.

Cal

 

[sevo]

Hi,

I wonder if this counts, my 1936 Exakta was OK until the shellac holding the mirror failed and the mirror came out and broke. That was a couple of years ago and I've yet to find someone who doesn't throw up their hands in horror at the thought of repairing it...

Exakta (4x6.5) or Kine Exakta? If the latter, it is a museum grade collectible, of Leica A value and relevance (being one of the earliest remaining 35mm SLRs - there will not be many still around that have been made in the very first year). Repairing it is not that hard (indeed easy as far as mirror replacements go, and these are not that difficult in general), but it would be detrimental to its historical value. Good repairers, as qualified for that kind of work, do have a reputation to lose and will shun repairs where a restoration is warranted (and chances to find a original mirror will be close to zero, so a restoration to working order is unlikely). Give it a nice place in the cupboard, and get yourself another Exakta...

 

[tunalegs]

Really think the only people qualified to answer a question like this are camera repair people who've been up to their elbows in a wide variety of makes and models.
My experience is with virtually only with Nikons so how can I possibly speak intelligently about other brands?

I've been thinking about this, as I'm waiting out a layover on my way to Japan, and one of the cameras I'm taking with me is the rather clumsily made Edixa Prismaflex. If the insides were any indication you'd think it'd be rough and unreliable in use, but it's one of the smoothest cameras I've laid hands on, and at least since my cleaning and lubing it a few years ago it has performed without issue. On the other hand, I've had other Edixa cameras which just wouldn't work right no matter how much attention I gave them.

It makes me think that simply observing the quality of the inside of the camera counts for much less than the practical experience of using it and seeing the results. Sure we're talking about "best built" but I guess we must also remember that some fairly useless things have been built very well.

 

[GarageBoy]

The somewhat persistent legend that F2s had unreliable shutters likely stems from the rather poor track record of the very very earliest batch(s). These worked OK, but didn't survive the load presented by the MD-1 when it came into service. At the time I was selling F2s (beginning in '74) this was very much in the past, but the story I heard from our repair service was the Nikon often simply replaced the bodies when they were sent in for service.

There were also issues with the early bodies' mirror lock levers, generally those with the F style leatherette, that Nikon discovered when the MD-1 became available. It proved easy to accidentally move the lever slightly while gripping the heavy camera. If you shot with the lever moved part way the camera jammed. The changed the mirror lock so that you had to first press in before you could rotate the lever.

In my 20 years "behind the counter" handling sales and service, the F2 was one of the least frequent visitors to my service counter except for meter service and for repairing "stupid human tricks" (read: abuse and accident damage). Nikon Fs also rarely appeared for any reason other than meter service.

Personally, I would downgrade all of the otherwise excellent cameras that relied on foam light seals. Nikon Fs, F2s and F3s only used such foam for dust seals; they are light tight without any. Nikkormats, FM/FE variants, Olympus OM-anything, most Canons other than the F-1 variants, ... all fall into the "almost good" class.

+1 on early F2s - my dad's tenure at a NYC repair shop reflected those notions

 

[Harry Lime]

If you had to get inside for a repair - the camera broke. 😉

Not really. It's called 'preventive maintenance'. Most of these camera are decades old and need a full overhaul. Lubricants dry up and breakdown.

Would you fire up a 20 year old car without an overhaul and an oil change? Probably not.

 

[oftheherd]

I've never owned a Nikon, Canon, or Leica. I doubt I ever will. AFIK, the Nikons and Canons were generally good cameras. I always suspected they got their first good reputation from being Leica clones, but much less expensive. Then they began to support professional photographers. That didn't hurt their reputation at all. I have never doubted they were good, but I never thought they were that much better.

I have used a Yashica TL Super. I bought it in Vietnam, but didn't use it much until I got to Korea. I used the heck out of it and a Fujica ST 901. I mean I really used them a lot. Both professionally and personally. The TL finally got finicky, but wouldn't take much to get back working. I just don't need to. The Fujica still works fine. It isn't a full mechanical camera, having an excellent electronically controlled shutter, but it does have B, 1/60 to 1/1000 fully mechanical shutter controls as well.

I know neither has the reputation or following of 'greater' brands. But I know how and where I have used them. And it's just a personal thing, but I have also always preferred M42 screw mount lenses over bayonet lenses. For me they were easier to change in very dark situations than bayonets. But everyone is entitled to their own preferences.

 

[David Hughes]

Exakta (4x6.5) or Kine Exakta? If the latter, it is a museum grade collectible, of Leica A value and relevance (being one of the earliest remaining 35mm SLRs - there will not be many still around that have been made in the very first year). Repairing it is not that hard (indeed easy as far as mirror replacements go, and these are not that difficult in general), but it would be detrimental to its historical value. Good repairers, as qualified for that kind of work, do have a reputation to lose and will shun repairs where a restoration is warranted (and chances to find a original mirror will be close to zero, so a restoration to working order is unlikely). Give it a nice place in the cupboard, and get yourself another Exakta...

Hi,

Thanks, it's the 35mm version and, yes, it's in the display cabinet along with the Rollei and Rio and Contax and so on. They are all usable but I don't use them often as, at present, I'm trying to thin the collection down to the most important ones: an impossible task. And I can't get glass plates any more and don't fancy cutting down 5 x 4 sheet film...

I ought to put some film in the Exakta and use it as a scale focus but I only get 24 hours a day, at present...

Regards, David

 

[steveyork]

Over the last ten or so years I've owned and used the following mechanical SLRs -- Contarex Bullseye, Nikon F and F2, Topcon R, Leicaflex (original, SL, SL Mot and SL2), Canonflex, Canon Ftb and Ftbn, Zeiss Contraflex IV, and Zeiss Contax D. Probably some others too that I forgot about.

My favorite by a good margin, and the one that keeps drawing me back, is the Leicaflex SL. Most of the other I sold but I still have a gaggle of SLs through which I average 100 rolls or more a year. In fact it is the camera that broke my decade long love affair with rangefinders.

"Reliability" is such a red herring, because all these cameras are going to withstand today's likely usage. There are far better criteria for selection (i.e., viewfinder, lenses, ect.)

Everyone of the above cameras needed a CLA before use, or were purchased already serviced. Some I put only a few rolls of film through before passing them on to others, but with the Leicaflex SL I've put close to 650 rolls through a trio of cameras with only two issues (one issue was operator error; the other a failed plastic part).

Someone mentioned limited spare part availability for the Leicaflex SL, and that has not been my experience. In originally getting some Leicaflex SL up and running I needed a few spare parts (replacement prism, meter board, plus some other minor stuff) and at the time (circa 2008), all these items were still available from Leica. I frankly was stunned (in a good way) regarding the spare part availability.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

So little love because so few around?
Open most cameras mentioned and the innards look, well crude almost in finish and casting. Open an Alpa, if you dare, and it's like a fine watch, finished to perfection although destined to remain unseen by most owners.