manual film slr with brightest viewfinder:

[rlouzan]

Leicaflex Original, SL and SL2
Contax RTS III

 

[Vics]

The brightest I've ever seen is the F3HP.

 

[paulfish4570]

thanks to all of y'all's advice, i'm going to try an om-1; the body, thanks to a fellow RFF'er, and a 50/1.8, thanks to keh. i didn't mention it in the original post, but compactness is an important feature to me for an every day kit ...

 

[Paul Luscher]

Hmm, paulfish, not my experience.

Always had difficulty with Nikon SLRs. Never found the FE & FE2 to be good for low light work. Viewfinder always seemed dim and not very crisp. Too many times I came back with rolls of film that were mostly soft or out of focus. Same with the F, which supposedly has the best viewfinder of them all. Good with a long lens, but with wides, focusing in low light became a guessing game--which I often lost.

For me, Leicaflex SL & SL2 have the brightest viewfinders, followed very closely by the Olympus OM2. Those are the only manual focus SLRs I will use for low light work.

Leicaflex viewfinders are amazing--almost as bright and easy to focus in dim light as a Leica M. Think Leica was trying to build that experience into an SLR...

 

[paulfish4570]

well, with cost of lenses a big issue, then om is the way for me to try.
i do have an r2m and other rfs for stygian work anyhow ... 🙂

 

[1750Shooter]

I'd go with either the Leica R's (I have an R3) or a Rollei SL35M. All bright & big. It's a shame they never really cought on. I've heard the Contax SLRs are nice too, but have no experience.

 

[David Hughes]

thanks to all of y'all's advice, i'm going to try an om-1; the body, thanks to a fellow RFF'er, and a 50/1.8, thanks to keh. i didn't mention it in the original post, but compactness is an important feature to me for an every day kit ...

Hi,

Hope I'm not too late but look at the OM's f/1.4 50mm as well. It's not designed just for screen brightness and cheap for what it is.

Regards, David

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

Contax Aria

 

[Matus]

Excuse me, where do you find prices such as these? I have been looking for a reasonably priced 25/2.8...

I am watching certain Nikon and Contax gear prices since a few months (ebay) and the Contax looks as follows (in EU, only lenses I would consider buying, no broken or dirty or such:

Aria: € 150 +/- 50
RX: € 180 +/- 50
167MT: € 50 +/- 20
18/4: € 390 +/- 20
25/2.8: € 350 +/- 50 (only after 722****)
28/2.0: € 500 +/- 100
28/2.8: € 250 +/- 50
35/1.4: € 900 +/- 900 (Canon users drive the prices up)
35/2.8: € 200 +/- 50
45/2.8: € 130 +/- 30
50/1.7: € 140 +/- 30
50/1.4: € 230 +/- 40
80/2.8: € 230 +/- 30
80/1.4: € 450 +/- 50
100/2.0: € 630 (only 1 lens so far)
100/3.5: € 220 (only 1 lens so far)
135/2.8: € 160 +/- 50
28-85: € 250 +/- 30
35-70: € 320 +/- 30
80-200: € 150 +/- 30
Yashica ML 21/3.5: € 200 +/- 50 (the contax lens is €1000+)
Yashica ML 24/2.8 € 240 (only 1 lens so far)

hope this helps 🙂

 

[skahde]

Minola Srt 101 < Nikon FM/FE < FM2/FE2, OLy OM 1,2,3,4 < Minolta X700, Nikon FM3a, Oly 1,2,3,4 with 2-13
as far as my memory goes...

 

[helen.HH]

thanks to all of y'all's advice, i'm going to try an om-1; the body, thanks to a fellow RFF'er, and a 50/1.8, thanks to keh. i didn't mention it in the original post, but compactness is an important feature to me for an every day kit ...

GREAT Choice Camera & Lens,Paul...
It was and is Jane Bowns
FAVorite and ONLY Lens the 50mm 1.8 / on an OM1 as well


Take a peek at her Stellar Portraits...From Bresson, Hollywood, to Queen Elizabeth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/interactive/2009/oct/22/jane-bown-photography

Gawd You will LOSE YOUR Mind .... sooooo GOOD
looking at her Work from the 1940's to 2000's.... 😉

Cheers- H

 

[nobbylon]

Compaired an R4 I have with my Nikon F5. Same aperture and fl. Nikon is a tad brighter but more yellow in the tint. Leica is colour neutral, I see exactly the same colours through the finder as without.
Compaired Leicaflex SL & SL2 with F5. Leicaflex brighter than F5 by approx 1 stop but looks even brighter due colour neutral. Same view colour wise between the R4 and Leicaflex's.

 

[Ronny]

Pentax MX.

 

[jmilkins]

GREAT Choice Camera & Lens,Paul...
It was and is Jane Bowns
FAVorite and ONLY Lens the 50mm 1.8 / on an OM1 as well


Take a peek at her Stellar Portraits...From Bresson, Hollywood, to Queen Elizabeth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/interactive/2009/oct/22/jane-bown-photography

Gawd You will LOSE YOUR Mind .... sooooo GOOD
looking at her Work from the 1940's to 2000's.... 😉

Cheers- H

Helen -what a tremendous series of links - the photos,the video, the lot. really makes me realize how much can be done with one camera an done lens. Just WOW!

 

[mifo2000]

Canon F-1n , Screen PJ, Canon FD 50mm F1.2 asph.

 

[mdarnton]

Great link. The OM viewfinder doesn't have great eyepoint, which is why my eyeball moves around, growing tired, with my face planted against the eyepiece.

I'm going back through my old photos from when I was an active news photog. I had Leicas and Olys, and I'm realizing that I hardly ever shot a good photo with the Oly. At the time I was aware that I couldn't really frame well, and blamed it on an SLR v RF thing. I was also aware that I couldn't see the whole photo at once through the finder--it was too big, and I had to hold my eye too close to the finder, then look around to see the picture. Because of that, I would never get a "feel" for the cohesiveness of the final image.

This time around, because of the eye relief thing, because I sometimes wear glasses, I went Nikon. Last night, before reading this thread, I told my wife I don't miss the Leicas and Olys at all, and I don't. What I'd blamed on SLRs was strictly an Olympus problem. At the time they were bragging about their large-image finder, and I think they went too far. After my Nikon experience, I wouldn't touch an OM with a ten-foot pole.

The other problem I had with the OM was focus, which was always off. Now, 35 years later with worse eyes, I seem to be doing better with any of the Nikons I have. I have no idea at all what that's about. While I'm trashing the line, they're too darned small on the right hand side, too. My OMSP was an improvement, with it's grip, but too little too late for me.

What's all that OM excitement about, anyway? I don't get it. Did that and would NOT go back. Great lenses, but what good is that if everything else is wrong?

 

[paulfish4570]

helen, thank you so much for the bown links. i had seen some of her before, but i enjoyed looking back for 60 years. my favorite portraits were those of samuel beckett and the queen. beautiful, beautiful light.

mdarnton, i've got an r2m and nikon f2a and an x100. i much like them all. with glasses i have no problem with the om viewfinder. it's all right there for me. and i have small hands. the om comes to hand just fine, and it is compact, more so than the fe2 i had. very compact, bright/contrasty viewfinder, very RF like in handling, focuses closely for detail shots, inexpensive prime lenses = om-1. thanks again all of you om fans.

 

[mdarnton]

I didn't mention that I finally settled on Nikon FG for a simple camera--about the size of the OM-1, but with a better finder and a grip, plus Aperture priority, which I enjoy since I'm shooting entirely wide-open these days. I wish the lenses were more OM-sized, though. Frankly, though, my favorite film camera these days is my Nikon N90. It's a bit heavy, but that adds a lot of stability for slow speeds, and I find the plain ground glass in it the easiest to focus of any body I've ever had.

Just ordered the Jane Brown book after looking at her gallery. Wonderful portraits.

 

[David Hughes]

Well, after reading that I went through my prints and then looked at the cameras. The OM2n turned out the best and most consistent shots, followed by the OM10 and then the OM1 but the OM1 was the oldest (late 70's) and bought second hand. Also most were taken with the OM1 so more failures, mostly grab shots.

Then I got out the few SLR's I've left that I use (not old display ones) and would say that, to my surprise, the Minolta X-300 with the f/1.7 prime had the nicest to use VF followed by the OM2n but with the f/1.4 lens on it. So the lens should have made the OM2n have the brightest image but it didn't. Then the Pentax ME super and the f/2 prime.

Having said that I'll add that all of them are from the late 70's to mid 80's and so long overdue for a general clean etc, etc.

BTW, I wear glasses and don't have problems with them. But I can't help wondering how bad your eyes were when you realised glasses were needed. It might just have a bearing on the results as the Nikon would have been used with glasses on and corrected eyesight. Hope this doesn't sound rude...

Regards, David

 

[paulfish4570]

oh yeah, another key point: i prefer all mechanical; it is easier for me to manipulate light ...