Favorite Underappreciated Under Priced Cameras?

[tbhv55]

Olympus XA for me... I'd love a digital version.

+1 on this. I know that I'm repeating myself (from a thread on RFF some time ago) but I still reckon that a digital XA should be technically possible. Whether it would be *viable* is another question, of course.

When you see what Sony has crammed into the small volume of the RX100 series, it's easy to imagine a digital XA with:-

• full-frame sensor located in the film pressure plate position
• lens as per the original XA
• electronics filling the voids where the film canister and take-up spool are located

I accept, of course, that there could be technical problems with my simple analysis, of which I'm unaware. However, if it *could* be done, provided that the quality was good, and the cost even remotely sensible😉, I'd buy one without hesitation!

 

[tbhv55]

Konica C35

Nice, tiny and simple with a lovely lens, and it cost me $5... 🙂

That's a perfect summary of the c35 - except that, IIRC, mine cost £10 (but who's counting? 😀)

 

[kiss-o-matic]

Yashica Electro GX

I like the CCN (35mm focal length), and almost always go for 35mm over 40mm, but I seem to get sharper pictures out fo the GX, and the shutter is faster of course. Why did they mess that up I wonder?

 

[David Hughes]

How about the little Olympus µ [mju] - V? which no one seems to want on ebay and yet has a lot going for it and I think it was the last of the Olympus µ range to be made...

Regards, David

PS And a lot of the early chunky AF 'compacts' are unappreciated and take lens hoods.

 

[Prest_400]

+1 on this. I know that I'm repeating myself (from a thread on RFF some time ago) but I still reckon that a digital XA should be technically possible. Whether it would be *viable* is another question, of course.

When you see what Sony has crammed into the small volume of the RX100 series, it's easy to imagine a digital XA with:-

• full-frame sensor located in the film pressure plate position
• lens as per the original XA
• electronics filling the voids where the film canister and take-up spool are located

I accept, of course, that there could be technical problems with my simple analysis, of which I'm unaware. However, if it *could* be done, provided that the quality was good, and the cost even remotely sensible😉, I'd buy one without hesitation!

It's interesting to see an OM1+50 1.8 side by side with a Pen EPL+sigma 19 2.8 (smaller format, m43 is like 110 IIRC) and they are about identical.
No full frame compact akin to the contax T's, Fuji Klasse or such? Smaller but nice f2.8 lens to keep it compact.

 

[Dirk]

Ricoh 500G. Excellent Rikenon 40mm 2.8 lens, great ergonomics and hard to find in working condition. Has issues with the lightmeter and the light seals, but if that's fixed, handles like a dream and yields great results. Around $35 in working/overhauled condition.

 

[madNbad]

After being perfectly happy with the cameras I already own, I started reading this thread and started poking around in the 'bay. Found a chrome Nikkormat FT2 with 50mm 2.0, hood, filter, eyecup and soft release for a hundred bucks including shipping. Pictures looked good but have to wait till Saturday to see what it really looks like. Might have to revise my poll!

 

[Huss]

After being perfectly happy with the cameras I already own, I started reading this thread and started poking around in the 'bay. Found a chrome Nikkormat FT2 with 50mm 2.0, hood, filter, eyecup and soft release for a hundred bucks including shipping. Pictures looked good but have to wait till Saturday to see what it really looks like. Might have to revise my poll!

Hope it works out for you!

I picked the FT-2 over the later FT-3 or the earlier ones because:
1/ The FT-2 is able to use non AI and AI lenses. FT-3 can only meter with AI lenses.
2/ The FT-2 uses a modern 1.5v battery (only one needed!), the earlier models use the old no longer available mercury cells, or need an adapter. Or those crummy Wein cells that loose charge in a few weeks once uncorked.
3/ The FT-2 has a brighter/better screen than the earlier models.

 

[Scope79]

Cheap and cheerful Yashica FX-3, and then it gets even better when T star lens is attached ! 😉

 

[Pfreddee]

Dear Roger,

I lucked out and bought my Zeiss Ikon Contaflex with the ordinary back. I was astounded when i read about the rigamarole you needed to go through to use the removable back(s). In the case of my camera, the back comes off in one piece and I load the film and then go about shooting using the quirky thing quite easily. Takes lovely pictures, too. They're technically lovely, I mean. Someone else might think they aren't so hot...

With best regards,


Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[shawn]

Interesting question..... my initial though was a Rollei 35S (a camera I love to shoot with) but that is fairly well regarded with people split down the middle of love/hate the ergonomics of it. I love the ergonomics of it and it is incredibly tactile camera to hold. But enough people love them to rule it out.

Next thought was the Olympus XA2/3 which I prefer to the XA due to just being quicker to shoot with. That seems to be the point of those cameras. XA2s are dirt cheap but they too have their followers.

Mamiya Six (folders) are very inexpensive for how nice they are to shoot with and the quality of their lens but again they have a pretty strong following.

But... the camera I have that seems to almost never be considered is the Kodak Monitor 620 with the 101mm Anastigmatic Special lens. Mine is an earlier one that takes clipped 120 reels. I preferred its lens to the Fuji GW690II I had. It is more fun to shoot with the Monitor (IMO of course). I sold the Fuji after starting to use the Monitor.

Even I don't take the Monitor seriously enough... I rarely shoot it but that is more because scanning 6x9 takes forever on my LS8000.

Shawn

 

[tunalegs]

I don't know why anybody would say Nikkormat or Nikon F in a thread about underappreciated cameras, since both of those have huge swarms of fans. The F is hardly under-priced either.

I'd recommend the Zorki 4, which is often overlooked in favor of lesser cameras like the Zorki 6 or Fed 2. The Zorki 6 may have lever wind, but it has a smaller viewfinder, no slow shutter speeds, and at least of the ones I have seen, doesn't seem as well made as the 4. People think the slow speeds are trouble prone, but that could be said of any camera from the era.

 

[tunalegs]

I'll also add the Foldex 6.3 (sometimes known as the Foldex 30) - it is an extremely sturdy, American made 6x9 folder, fitted with a German shutter and Steinheil f/6.3 triplet. Although it is somewhat limited by the simple Vario shutter and slow lens, the combination of a big negative and sharp lens make it a very satisfying camera to use. I understand Foldex made these into the 1960s, which means they're also newer than a lot of similar folders.

 

[ferider]

My picks:

Canon P
Hasselblad 500EL
Minolta 7000i (bought my last one for $25)
Nikon FM + 50/1.8 "pancake"​

Roland.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

The Nikon 28Ti and 35Ti are often overlooked as well. I absolutely love the analog readouts on top of them but the AF has a bit of a delay so I wouldn't call it a good street camera but they are awesome landscape or general purpose point and shoots with amazing quality.

 

[flavio81]

In my country, Mamiya TLRs are expensive.

Agree with most names here, my personal take would be:

- ALL minolta film SLR cameras and lenses
- ALL pentax film SLR cameras, except for the (massively overrated) K1000 and the spotmatics.

Considering that the best of Minolta and the best of Pentax was the equal of the best by Nikon and Canon, those two brands (M and P) are currently underpriced.

For example the ME and MX cameras here are sold for nothing while the Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 are highly priced. This despite the MX is the superior camera and the superior lens system, in my opinion.

 

[hilltime]

I've also got to go with one of the very first posts, The Ambi-Silette.
Best and brightest viewfinder ever for all it's focal lengths; underrated Agfa lenses 35/50/90 and even the 130 which makes the camera a bit heavier.
Gary Hill

 

[flavio81]

Nikkormats have been mentioned several times now on this thread, and they get the vote from me too.
I picked up a perfect FT-2 for under $20.
In it's day it was a pro camera, the only difference compared to my Nikon Fs was not in build but in accessories.

I own the FT2 and of all my cameras it's the one with the darkest viewfinder. This i don't like.

Also the lever for switching speeds makes it a bit awkward to use. There are a range of shutter speeds where the lever gets in the way of the lens release button (!!). A horrible design flaw.

Don't get me wrong, my best picture was made with the FT2 and i love how it feels in the hands. Also i have some reasons to think this machine is intrinsically more reliable than my Nikon F and F2.

3/ The FT-2 has a brighter/better screen than the earlier models.

Wow... the early models' viewfinders must be a darkroom then.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,

I lucked out and bought my Zeiss Ikon Contaflex with the ordinary back. I was astounded when i read about the rigamarole you needed to go through to use the removable back(s). In the case of my camera, the back comes off in one piece and I load the film and then go about shooting using the quirky thing quite easily. Takes lovely pictures, too. They're technically lovely, I mean. Someone else might think they aren't so hot...

With best regards,


Pfreddee(Stephen)

Dear Pfreddee,

Fair point. I'm sure I'd like mine a LOT more with a plain, non-removable back; even to the point of being able to use it.

I was given it, so presumably at least one other back (interchangeable or not) is likely to have got lost before it was given to the person who passed it straight on to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've also got to go with one of the very first posts, The Ambi-Silette.
Best and brightest viewfinder ever for all it's focal lengths; underrated Agfa lenses 35/50/90 and even the 130 which makes the camera a bit heavier.
Gary Hill

Dear Gary,

Underrated perhaps; but still not outstandingly good.

Cheers,

R.