Camera design peak ?

[css9450]

The era where my favourite cameras were made was 1974-1983....

I would agree. By this time, the technology had matured and the various Rube Goldberg metering attachments of the 1960s were gone, and every manufacturer had something to offer for all interests: Nikon had the F2 and F3 but also the FM and FE series, Canon had FTb and EF and A-1 and AT1 and AE1 cameras to go with the F-1.... Pentax had various K and ME cameras, etc, etc.

Everything changed in a big way when AF was introduced so the AF era probably is best considered in its own category.

 

[Ricoh]

FM3a, by a country mile.

 

[Ronald M]

Late model F2 ( 1978 on) unless you have special needs like sports.
Family, friends, dogs, cats, nature, travel, are all there.

Basic Hasy for MF. Zone VI in 4x5 + bag bellows for LF.

 

[David Hughes]

Olympus, Pentax and Minolta all had peaks on and off. I'd be looking at the OM-1 and what followed once they decided that was the right size for an SLR.


Regards, David

 

[charjohncarter]

For me I never use more than what is already on my Spotmatic. But I do like the AE and SE and full auto (E) all occasionally used with my P3n. But a screen on a camera no way.

 

[Doddle]

From a tech perspective I would say the point when SLRs in the 90s had good spotmeters and decent focus screens for manual lenses without too many AF points / clutter. EOS 3, F4, n90s, Oly OM-4 that sortha thing.


From a user perspective, two generations earlier. late 70's. Minolta XD, Olympus OM2n, Pentax MX, Contax 139Q

 

[keytarjunkie]

For SLRs: the Nikon F2 is perfect. Although personally I prefer to use the original F despite its quirks.

The Rolleiflex 3003 is definitely the most unique approach to a 35mm SLR system, and deserves more recognition.

Peak camera design in general...two cameras stand out to me. The Linhof Master Technika, and the Leica M3.

 

[Ambro51]

Camera design peaked on March 23, 1947.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

By 1986, the 35mm cameras we now view as "the best ever" (Nikon F3, Canon F-1, Leica M6) were widely used/available. Medium format camera development peaked even prior to that. By the end of the next decade AF would be widely used, brass lens construction would be replaced with plastic, and early digital sensors were in development, and albeit expensive and what we now consider very low resolution, digital cameras were becoming commercially available. We didn't know it then, but by 2000 film was doomed.

So I'd say the decade of the 1980s.

However, since the roots of the "the best ever" (Nikon F3, Canon F-1, Leica M6) can all be connected back to the Leica M3, you could argue the "pinnacle" was set 30-years earlier.

 

[Freakscene]

The problem is that design and construction peaked differently. Everyone raves about ‘hand assembled’ Leica M3s, but really precision engineering and total parts interchangeability came later.

I’d probably agree that the overall peak was the 1980s - irrespective of the purity of design of the earlier cameras, it was when design, construction and simplicity of purpose all peaked. By 1987 when the EOS mount and system debuted and 1988 when the Nikon F4 was introduced, cameras, to me, got over complicated (and it has only got worse since).

Having said that, get your son a Nikon F80 and a 50/1.8 AF. Light, super capable, with an adequate viewfinder, and no real loss if he decides he doesn’t want to take it too seriously.

Marty

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

For me it depends very much on use, and which photographic niche you're talking about.

For my film photography I would say sometime around the late '70's. By this stage the mechanical 35mm camera had pretty much reached perfection, and we had the last generation of pro/enthusiast cameras before plastics and electronics became ubiquitous.

All of my favourite film cameras had been released by this point (M2, MX, SV, F2, OM1, 2.8D etc.). Later tech advancements brought huge improvements in things I don't need/value in a film camera (metering, focus, automation etc.), at the cost of a lot of the things I do...

For digital things are a bit different. Most of my digital work is either bushwalking/landscape or native orchids. For both of these things mirrorless brought significant, tangible improvements.

For bushwalking I think things peaked with the Olympus EM5 in 2012. Tiny form factor, the first time 'serious' weathersealing was used on a mirrorless body, and image quality that was 'good enough'.

For native orchids, the Pen F. The combination of side articulating screen (low level portrait orientation shots) and IBIS makes a serious difference to how I can shoot these tiny flowers.

 

[PKR]

Having had some discussions with my early twenties son who is looking for a 35mm slr it made me think about when did cameras reach their peak as far as what you actually need. To my mind the aperture priority/manual slr with the facility to take a winder/motor drive would be about it. As a dyed in the wool Nikon user the F3, FE, FE2 era would be the pinnacle. I've had AF multimode 35mm cameras and used them mainly in manual mode when working. DSLR's the same the auto modes never seem to get it quite right. As far as I can see it's all just fluff to make you keep buying more stuff you don't need or want. I've worked as an advertising photographer for over 30 years and I'm used to the concept of selling people things they neither want or can afford.

What for you would be the peak ? A year ? A camera ?

Just wondering if I'm the only one

Dave

Peak for Nikon, the FA.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Pentax LX with it's hybrid shutter and lightmdter which went down to -6.5EV. My second vote would be for the Nikon FM2n/3. I own both the LX an FM2 for 3 decades

Yeah. These were my two too. I replaced them in 1991 with a Nikon F4s. So that is where I locate the pinnacle. Nothing in film got better in performance than that camera.

 

[Doddle]

In an alternate universe where the Pentax LX has the reliable electronics of the Nikon F3, thats all I'd ever shoot.

 

[Armoured]

Having had some discussions with my early twenties son who is looking for a 35mm slr it made me think about when did cameras reach their peak as far as what you actually need. To my mind the aperture priority/manual slr with the facility to take a winder/motor drive would be about it. As a dyed in the wool Nikon user the F3, FE, FE2 era would be the pinnacle. I've had AF multimode 35mm cameras and used them mainly in manual mode when working.

Is this for your son to use, or mainly discussion?

If it's to use, the big question is whether he needs/wants autofocus. And the question of what hit the right balance in autofocus of usability and reliability for what are now already pretty old cameras is a lot more tricky than for the manual focus film era.

For me: manual focus Nikons of the FM/FE/FE2 series and era pretty much hit a peak - and they are still pretty damn reliable, simple, effective, not too large, and eminently usable. Now, there are a lot of others that were close and had some nice features, but these were close to ubiquitous for very good reasons. I'm also partial to the Olympii and the OM-4 is just a beautiful thing, but on reliability doesn't compare (similarly the Nikon FA is beautiful on paper but not so reliable). The OM-1 is also very elegant but I don't find them as consistent nor as well made as the FM/FEs. I'd be okay with giving up all of my manual focus SLRs if I could keep my FE2. The other electronic one I had and quite liked was the Minolta X700 - but lens choice nothing like what will work with the Nikons.

Autofocus era cameras are much more difficult. If it's to use, and you can get a good working one for not much money, I think it's hard to beat the F100, but a lot of the Fxx's also work fine. I don't think they'll last or be serviceable anything like the FM/FE series - on my F100 the plastic rubbery-grip stuff is deteriorating slowly and I have much less confidence it'll last. And that's mostly where my personal experience with autofocus film SLRs ends.

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, one or two say "the best" and one or two say "favourite" and then I thought that counting the films through them would be simple and would show which is my favourite.

To my surprise the one I've put the most films through is the Olympus OM10 possibly because it cost so little and so I pick it up and just use it without worrying, as I do with the Leica M's.

The second place goes to the Minolta X-300 which is similar to the OM10 in many ways and the third place to the Leica R5, Olympus OM-2n and Pentax ME super.

Note 1, all MF, auto or manual exposure and no little motors anywhere; meaning less to go wrong and that is probably why they have lasted so long and been used so much.

Note 2, the Leica R5 would have been a lot higher in the list if it hadn't failed and the estimated cost of repairs been so high.

That is, of course, a list of my favourites; I can't say which is best but as the list covers 30 or so years I reckon it's meaningful...


Regards, David

 

[John Bragg]

Without a doubt the Nikon FM2n wins for me where mecanical precision is the measure of perfection. Shutter mechanically timed up to 1/4000 second and 1/250 flash synch. Light in the hand and perfectly ballanced and non battery dependent. For AF the Nikon F5. Last of the line (excepting the F6 which has many pointless bells and thingemy jigs). The inbuilt winder, self adjusting shutter, matrix metering and sheer "brick shi¥house" build quality are astounding. I got a near mint example when prices had hit rock bottom in late 2013.

 

[davethesnapper]

I think it really interesting to get the views of such a diverse range of photographers. As a bit of background I'm now in my early fifties and when I was asked to leave skool I worked in a central London camera shop for about 3-4 years before becoming a working photographer ever since. Working in the shop gave me the chance to use pretty much all the 35mm systems that were around at the time. In the end I plumped for Nikon and have stuck with it ever since. At the time the fact that the FE/M/2's had both aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder was a big factor for me.

I have always found it interesting the reasons people make that initial commitment to a system. A friend of mine said in the late seventies he would of chosen Nikon FE's but because the meter is turned on by putting the winder on lever into the stand off position and he's left eyed he would of had his own thumb in his right eye. So he bought a Canon. When I worked in the shop I sold a man a camera who was so crosseyed that he put the camera viewfinder on the bridge of his nose !!

I always had a soft spot for the OM's Minolta XD7 & XE1 and pentaxes but nikons did it for me personally. I've now had F2,3,4,5's FE/M FM2 FE2 F100, D2X,3,4s

I've got 4 young adult children and they all shoot film none of them seem to want AF cameras. I think the tactile quality of the manual focus generation of cameras is very appealing to the digital generation

Dave

 

[John Bragg]

I think it really interesting to get the views of such a diverse range of photographers. As a bit of background I'm now in my early fifties and when I was asked to leave skool I worked in a central London camera shop for about 3-4 years before becoming a working photographer ever since. Working in the shop gave me the chance to use pretty much all the 35mm systems that were around at the time. In the end I plumped for Nikon and have stuck with it ever since. At the time the fact that the FE/M/2's had both aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder was a big factor for me.

I have always found it interesting the reasons people make that initial commitment to a system. A friend of mine said in the late seventies he would of chosen Nikon FE's but because the meter is turned on by putting the winder on lever into the stand off position and he's left eyed he would of had his own thumb in his right eye. So he bought a Canon. When I worked in the shop I sold a man a camera who was so crosseyed that he put the camera viewfinder on the bridge of his nose !!

I always had a soft spot for the OM's Minolta XD7 & XE1 and pentaxes but nikons did it for me personally. I've now had F2,3,4,5's FE/M FM2 FE2 F100, D2X,3,4s

I've got 4 young adult children and they all shoot film none of them seem to want AF cameras. I think the tactile quality of the manual focus generation of cameras is very appealing to the digital generation

Dave

Your kids have got taste. Film photography is suddenly very trendy again and the price of decent gear is going up. Nikkor glass is in demand and it is hard to get good stuff at realistic prices. A nifty fifty is useful and a lot can be achieved with it. Beyond that there is a lot of bang for the buck in independent zooms. I got a Tamron 80-210 f3.8 for £25 as new. Huge plus point is the adaptall mount. I dreamt of owning this lens back in the day, but couldn't afford it. Now at nearly 60 I can.

 

[splitimageview]

when did cameras reach their peak as far as what you actually need.

Not much is actually needed, so maybe the Brownie from 1900?

😀