film SLR under $150 - any recommendations?

[stompyq]

I'am getting more interested in shooting 35mm film now that I have a better hybrid workflow that can handle a larger volume. Specifically color negative as opposed to BW. What do you guys recommend I buy? Here are my requirements

1 - Has to be under $150 SLR (no RF suggestions please). The cheaper the better

2 - I only need a 50mm lens so any camera from any system is fair game (as long as it fits a decent 50mm lens). I only shoot with 28mm and 50mm FL's and the 28mm range is covered by my Ricoh GR

3 - Has to have a good BRIGHT viewfinder. This is a must. I need to be able to enjoy the experience

4 - Has to be small and most importantly light weight. The smaller the better. As a example I think the Nikon F3 and F2 cameras are too heavy.

That's it really. I'am not all that concerned with bomb proof build. I like mechanical metal cameras over fully electronic plastic ones but that's not set in stone.

I've been seriously eyeing the Olympus OM cameras (no experience with them) since they seem to satisfy all my requirements. Suggestions and comments welcome

 

[Gerry M]

OM1, OM2n fit your requirements. Hard to find a brighter VF. I have FM2N, FE2, F3HP and the OM's VF wins, hands down. Also, the OM's are smaller & lighter.

 

[ravilamir]

You already gave yourself one: Olympus OM-1. Any of the variants.

 

[ravilamir]

I have FM2N, FE2, F3HP and the OM's VF wins, hands down.

That's the reason I exchanged a FM for a OM-2N and a -1N. better viewfinders and very nice handling.

To the OP
I know you don't need a 28mm, but the Oly 28mm f2.8 is one of the nicest and lightest lens available.

 

[xyz3450]

Om1 or Om2. Om2 has auto exposure. Quick to work with....

 

[Jack Conrad]

Pentax MX or ME-Super, both have great vf's.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I imagine an OM1 ticks the most boxes here; battery appetite of later OMs may offset the advantages of spotmetering, P mode, etc.

 

[nongfuspring]

There's also the Pentax MX, and the slightly larger but very light Yashica FX-3. The FX-3 body is very very light.

I'm quite fond of my FX-3, only issue is that the shutter is on the loud side. I have one as backup to larger Contax bodies. They're extremely cheap, you can get one with a 50mm lens any day of the week for less than $25 buy now on ebay. They have plastic top plate with a metal internal frame, sounds bad but actually good in the hand and very tough. I have no doubt it'll outlast my Contaxes.

 

[nikon_sam]

I've never used the Olympus OM series of cameras but I have used and still own a few Pentax MX's...they are small, use a readily available battery and have a great line up of lenses and accessories...viewfinder is bright enough but not sure how it compares to the OM's...battery is just for the meter...

 

[mfogiel]

As said above - Olympus OM-1 to 4 or Pentax MX or ME Super. My preference is for the Pentax, although we are close. I find Pentax lenses better for the bokeh and bodies feel better in hand. This is a photo made with a EUR 30 OM 10+ 50/1.8

20148030 by mfogiel, on Flickr

And this one with a EUR 70 PENTAX ME Super and 55/1.8 (wide open)

20138022 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Also, take a look here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145229

 

[f16sunshine]

I prefer the Pentax MX as well.
The meter display is more functional for me than the OM's.
It's on the RH side of the VF where I grew up looking for it (spotmatics and Yashica/Contax).
The Brightness and focus ability between the MX and OM1/2 is a toss up. Both are excellent.
Beautiful glass in both systems especially at 50mm-100/105mm.
The OM system probably has the better wides from my experience (although the f2/35mm falls a bit flat)..
The 2/28 and 2/21 are absolutely superb.
Honestly I never tried many of the pentax wides so it's my very subjective opinion.
The few I did try were on the slow side which jaded my opinion for sure 😀 (4.5/20 and 3.5/28)

 

[adresaba]

I recommend OM also. I use OM2 all the time and few nice lenses and I am very satisfied, joy to use.

 

[clachnacuddin]

I've owned both OM-1 and Pentax MX, both nice cameras but my preference is the Pentax purely for the way it feels in my hands.

 

[Rodchenko]

I think it's been said upthread, but I'd definitely go for an OM-1 or 2. No brighter viewfinders.

 

[Addy101]

We can name any camera...
I would get the Minolta X700 (or X500) and buy film with the change.

 

[jschrader]

nobody votes for Nikon, so I have to speak up! :angel:

Nikon FM & 1.8/50.

 

[Mackinaw]

Several people have mentioned the OM-series. The Canon A-series cameras may be worth a look. The Nikon FM/FE too. And if you like a slightly bigger, all-mechanical camera, consider an old Nikkormat, Minolta SRT, Canon FTb, etc.

Try several, if you can, before purchasing.

Jim B

 

[zuiko85]

Another basic OM-1 fan here. The last production version, the OM-1n besides being the newest is supposed to be the best. Although getting thin on the ground, the interchangeable screens are nice. I prefer the 1-10 plain matte with grid lines. The Pentax MX also has interchangeable screens but I think by now they are much harder to find than OM screens.

 

[Ranchu]

I would pick the lens first, since you only want one get the one you want. I don't like om 2 s, om 1 s seem like they'd be OK if it doesn't have the prism foam or the broken plastic battery compartment screw. The first thing that I thought of was the Pentax P series. DX only though.

 

[FrankS]

Contax 139 is kind of cool. With Yashica 50 to stay under you price point.