Low End/Bottom dwelling models: your favorites?

I forgot to add, THE CONTAFLEX
Gorgeous Tessar lens, nice tiny size, compur shutter and cheap (prepare to pay for a CLA, though)
 
i forgot my first ever "real" camera -- mamiya nc1000. it wasn't even the "s" model with the film tab reminder. amazingly sharp little camera - now i lend it to girlfriends who show an interest in photography.

and i'm glad there are more fans of the canon at-1, there's a very special soft-spot for that camera in my heart.
 
CameraQuest said:
many of the high end film SLRS are so cheap now
cheaper than the low end used to sell for
I would not bother with the low end

Stephen
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. But see the highlighted part of GarageBoy's post below. 🙂

GarageBoy said:
I know that even high end film SLRs are cheap ($150 F3s? These were at least $400 when I was growing up), but theres something fun about owning cameras that double their value when you put a pair of batteries and a roll of film in it
Click to expand...

Made me laugh, but I feel exactly the same.

Phil_F_NM said:
Film: Nikkormats, Nikon FM, Pentax Spotmatics, Pentax ME Super, Fujica ST 801, Leica Barnack bodies.

Digital: Nikon D2Hs

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Wise man! 😛

I guess some of the models mentioned above were low end, but that doesn't necessarily mean bottom-dwelling. My Yashica FX-3 produces the same fine photos as my Contax 167mt if it has my Contax 50mm f/1.4 lens on it. My Yashica TL Super was low end compared to Nikon F, Minolta ST101, Canon F, etc. But at the time it was Yashica's top camera. It worked well and Yashinon lenses are quite good.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I don't think anyone has mentioned any cameras which were really bottom end. I think the spirit of the thread has been paying bottom end prices for excellent quality gear.
The Pentax Spotmatic was not a cheap camera when it came out but was one of the first bodies mentioned here. Same with the H1v and the Fujicas and the mid-range Nikon and Canon film bodies. Bottom end is a disposable and some of them provide excellent results.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Well, the Minolta X300 I mentioned was their entry level model, the Canon EOS 3000v was their entry level model. Granted, the Dynax 4 wasn't the cheapest, as that was the 3L, but it was close enough imho.

Also, I saw the Nikon N2000/F301 being mentioned, I think it is close enough. The Nikon F801/n8008 hardly is a bottom end camera, nor is the Canon EOS 30/Elan7e :bang:
 
The Nikon FM10 comes to mind. But as has been said, virtually every 35mm SLR is dirt cheap now.

Canon EOS 300's, plastic but devastatingly capable go for 5 Euros (I have two), Minolta Dynaxes (even the magnificent Dynax 7), or indeed the Nikon F90 and F90x... all go for peanuts.
 
Penny Lane said:
I've opened up both of these at seperate times, and having seen their insides this statement is somewhat surprising. The Edixa is built... Well, actually, like a tractor. There's an article floating about on the web that states that this was the norm for the Wirgin Kamerawerk. This while the Praktica Nova is within tolerances of being built like a camera.

On the other hand, I've also handled these cameras in a more normal setting and I do know what you mean. It's just odd that their respective build quality seems to point in the other direction.

Favourite low-end camera? I have a very nice Praktica L that I bought for €1,- with case and Pentacon 50/1.8. I have a weird soft spot for these 😎 Also, a Zenit 3M is a very nice, very basic SLR of wonderfully simple design inside and out.

Cheers,
Derk
Click to expand...

I think the looseness of the Edixa is probably what helps it operate so smoothly. That and the gearing is all brass which I didn't expect on such a cheap camera. Advancing the film on the edixa feels very smooth and easy (oddly it is smoother when film is in the camera) whereas advancing the film on the Praktica feels like you're trying to crush something as you push the lever through its swing.
 
Low end consumer model, niiice!

U29503I1349520304.SEQ.0.jpg
 
farlymac said:
Is this low end enough?


...

Manufactured under several different names, and built by at least two different companies, it does a decent job (with a little help from PS).
...
Click to expand...

I think you win. But help from PS or not, it does look like it can be useful.
 
Penny Lane said:
... Also, a Zenit 3M is a very nice, very basic SLR of wonderfully simple design inside and out.

Cheers,
Derk
Click to expand...

Hi,

Well, the 3M is based on the FED/Zorki 1's and they are based on the Leica model II, so the design is classic. I've often wondered what the best bits of the 3m combined with the best of the FED/Zorki 1's would be like, meaning the opening back etc.

Regards, David
 
Has anybody used the Canon/Cosina T60? I had the opportunity to hold a Yashica FX-3 lately and it really made me want a lightweight camera that can use my FD glass.
 
Nikon F301, which is the European N2000. Great reliable workhorse of a camera. Konica A3, not so reliable but handles great and accepts old Hexanons.
 
farlymac said:
Is this low end enough?


664_2 Front by br1078phot, on Flickr

Manufactured under several different names, and built by at least two different companies, it does a decent job (with a little help from PS).


002_2_4 Ghent Grace Brethren Church by br1078phot, on Flickr

PF
Click to expand...

A local photo shop had one of these marked down to $25 and I still turned it down at that price. It seemed like a camera grandma would buy her grandson. It really works though. But $25 can get you a lot of SLR these days.
 
tunalegs said:
A local photo shop had one of these marked down to $25 and I still turned it down at that price. It seemed like a camera grandma would buy her grandson. It really works though. But $25 can get you a lot of SLR these days.
Click to expand...

Have you seen what Ultrafine gets for a brand new Great Wall PF-1 these days? Way more than $25, I'll tell you. These have a bit of a cult following from what I understand.

Other names this camera was manufactured under:
Hanimex Reflex 35
Naigai ST-F
Original design was then sold to Fuji, who made some changes, and came out with the
Fujica ST-F
Then Fuji either manufactured it under different names, or sold the tooling to another company
Aviva PF-1
Yumica PF-1
Great Wall PF-1
B&H RFX-1

PF
 
farlymac said:
Have you seen what Ultrafine gets for a brand new Great Wall PF-1 these days? Way more than $25, I'll tell you. These have a bit of a cult following from what I understand.

PF
Click to expand...

The flickr group seems pretty dead... but I have a feeling that may be flickr's fault more than the camera's. For me $25 was just a tad too much (I admit pondering it for about 20 minutes before putting it back on the bargain shelf).

But I've gotten a lot of cameras and nice lenses for under $25 so I couldn't bring myself to buy it.
 
tunalegs said:
The flickr group seems pretty dead... but I have a feeling that may be flickr's fault more than the camera's. For me $25 was just a tad too much (I admit pondering it for about 20 minutes before putting it back on the bargain shelf).

But I've gotten a lot of cameras and nice lenses for under $25 so I couldn't bring myself to buy it.
Click to expand...

Well, I got mine at Goodwill, so it didn't set me back much.

PF
 
CameraQuest said:
many of the high end film SLRS are so cheap now
cheaper than the low end used to sell for
I would not bother with the low end

Stephen
Click to expand...

I picked up a Nikon N90s with an MB-10 grip for $25 this week. Dirt cheap, though certainly not a bottom-feeder camera in its day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Downsized SLR Revolution of the ‘70s and ‘80s
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
shawn
S
Back
Top Bottom