film SLR under $150 - any recommendations?

[JMQ]

yeah, I have seen your F3 rig, and I too, would do the "serpentine" get away.

 

[Calzone]

yeah, I have seen your F3 rig, and I too, would do the "serpentine" get away.

Jean-Marc,

My right arm is more muscular than my left from carrying that "Monster" as John calls my cameras.

Carrying my F3P all rigged out is like carrying a deadly weapon in plain sight. I'm surprised the NYPD hasn't stopped me.

Cal

 

[Wulfthari]

W,

Thanks for the post. I agree the F2 and F3 are dinosaurs, but that is why I love them.

The small light but robust camera for no money is also a very cool way to go. Even though I like the chunky Nikons, I always admired the smaller size of Pentax and Olympus for a different charm, especially if you want to carry two rigged cameras to avoid lens changing.

Cal

Don't misunderstand me, my favourite cameras are a Canon F-1N with motordrive and 50mm f1.2, and a Nikon F2AS.

The Canon if definitely the most versatile slr I have with all its screen, finders, AP, SP...but it's too much if I've to walk in London for six hours looking for casual targets, for that an humble spottie or a Pentax K do the job and my back is happier.

Regarding the finders, it's true they are smaller, I think 0.88 or so but they were using 55 or 58 mm lenses so the image is still about the 1:1 size. When they introduced the MX with bigger finder the K55mm f1.8 and 2.0 were replaced by the smaller M50mm f1.7 and 2.0...that was not a case.

 

[John Bragg]

You can get a clean Nikon F100 for under $150. Pair it with a $99 Nikon 50/1.8 AFD, and you've got a film SLR kit that is hard to beat. I know it's not what you asked for, and no, it's nowhere near as small and lightweight as the OM's and Pentax, but it is one hell of a combo. I'm just sayin'....

+1 for the Nikon F100. I just scored a near mint one on evilbay for under £100. A lot of camera for the money !

 

[Addy101]

Some people really don't understand the concept of light weight.....

 

[RObert Budding]

There are a lot of nice Contax RX's on eBay now, for very little money. Just pair with a nice Zeiss 50/1.7 and you're set. Aria is a nice body, too.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

My film cameras were Pentaxes and Nikons. The Pentax LX was just a great fit for me. Until the rewind crank fell off while I was working in a middle eastern country where Pentax had no distribution... Ug. So that was why the other pros were using Nikon . . . duh. I would actually go about this backwards. Choose the lenses you like and then work backwards to a camera that will fit 'em. If I was starting today and had small hands . . . Olympus? (Smile . . . actually it was just the main brand I never got to try). But seriously. Choose your lenses, and THEN choose your camera. It is a buyer's market, after all. And there is some GREAT glass out there. I recently picked up a bunch of Konica Hexinon lenses for less than $10 each. Man, that is some sweet glass. I didn't need it, but at that price I couldn't just let it sit there. . .

 

[kxl]

Some people really don't understand the concept of light weight.....

"light weight" is relative.

 

[RObert Budding]

Yes, Indeed

Yes, Indeed

"light weight" is relative.

My wife's expectations when she says "little weight" are very different from mine. Same thing with the budget for camera gear.

 

[tunalegs]

An Exa + Pancolar.

 

[Wulfthari]

"light weight" is relative.

570 gr. is lighter than 620 gr that is lighter than 795 gr. that is lighter than 840 gr.

So on the light field LX>K1000>F-1N>F-2AS, this is not disputable, then if your name is Arnie, you're an Austrian born American citizen with a bicipes circumference of 90 cm then I assume that holding an F-2AS with motordrive and 70-210 mm zoom for two hours with an hand is not a problem.

 

[nongfuspring]

Some people really don't understand the concept of light weight.....

No kidding, some of the cameras suggested are massive.


Oh, OP, if you're interested in the FX-3 Cosina made a few bodies that are essentially identical to it (same specs, plastic top plate, extremely light at around 400 grams each) for different mounts. I think there are M42, K and Nikon mount versions under various names that are worth hunting for if you're not so keen on the C/Y mount. There's also the FX-3 2000 Super that has a faster top shutter speed, better leatherette, and a built in grip.

 

[Ezzie]

An Exa + Pancolar.

Just sold mine. Sure is light, and compact. Though not heavily spec'ed.

 

[Ezzie]

Exactly what may be considered light and compact is a matter of perspective. I mostly use medium format stuff, so anything in the 135 category is refreshingly small and featherweight in my book.

As such I rather like the Canon EF. You may get a good'un with 50/1.8 S.C.C. For $150, maybe even with a 1.4 S.C.C. Unsual in the day, it has shutter priority automation. Or can be shot fully manual. If the batteries die it can still be used with all speeds from 1/1000s to 1/2s. Only the longer speeds are electronically controlled. The shutter speed dial overhangs the front edge and can be shifted without taking you eye from the finder.