manual film slr with brightest viewfinder:

[paulfish4570]

well, i do have an f2a, and i enjoy its snappy viewfinder. i am looking for a more compact, lighter version of the f2, you might say, which is why i am attracted to the idea of an fm2n. i had an fe2, and enjoyed it, too, but i much prefer manual exposure for film. and good glass, in general, is much less expensive for slrs (yes, i know there are exceptions). but i'm a simple, 35-50 FL guy, with an occasional interest in what a 24-28 FL might do for me. for example, i could buy very good to excellent nikkor 24/2.8 AND 28/2.8 for much less than the cost of an excellent used cv nokton 40 f1.4 SC for my r2m.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Like Rover, I've had an OM-1 and an OM-2n and was not wowed by the view. A Konica FC-1 I have right now rates higher.
I was impressed by the F3 for its clarity and size, the F for it's focus snap, and several Pentax models, including the ME Super,
and especially a Pentax SF-1, which is a friggin beast of an old loud auto focus model I would never recommend. Fantastic viewfinder, though.

Oddly though, I've become comfortable with the view through my ordinary Olympus e-520. It's small and not very bright, but I can find the focus about as easily with it as any of the manual focus slr's I've thus far used.

Weird, I spect.

My most preferred criteria at this point, is not brightness or size, but the ability and ease by which to clean the screen.
That's where the F and F3 really take the cake.

I hate those tiny flecks of crap in the view that inevitably seem to find there way in.

 

[newspaperguy]

OK, Paul... I think you know I'm a big fan of the OMs.

My vote for an affordable version would be the OM -1n. One of the OM-3s would be fabulous, but the price would shock you.

Several members have pointed out that the lens used will make a huge difference. Another factor is the focusing screen, of which there was a large selection. Most of the versions differed in the type of focusing aid - split screen, microprism, etc.

But the biggest difference was in the series of the screen. The earlier cameras all came with some style of the series 1 screen. With the advent of the OM-3 and 4 cameras - or thereabouts - came the series 2 screen, a much brighter animal.

Two of my OMs have bright screens installed. One has an Olympus 2-13 (I think) the other has a Beattie Brightscreen - they are equally brilliant.

Here is my favorite OM-1n: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=128811&ppuser=20714

Incidentally - there are three variation of the OM-1:

Original OM-1

OM-1 MD added the socket for motor winders and drives - they made both.

OM-1n was the last in the line with numerous improvements, many of which have bee already mentioned.

For more information, check out John Hermanson's OM site. He is an ex-factory tech and the resident USA expert and ace rebuilder.

http://www.zuiko.com/

John has reworked all of my current cameras... and several others that I foolishly sold or traded.

 

[paulfish4570]

thanks, rick. very helpful.

 

[David Murphy]

The OM-1 finder is probably the brightest for its generation of SLR, and very good even by the standards of late model film SLR's like the ones from Contax (C/Y SLR's). I'm not a huge cheer leader for the OM system (it's good, but sort of over-hyped IMO), but they really did the finder well - naturally bright with nice eye relief and the Beattie intenscreen makes it even better.

 

[ddutchison]

A point that's been overlooked here are the interchangable screens available for some SLRs.

For Nikons (F, F2, F3 f???) it's hard to imagine anything brighter than the "G" (Clear glass with a very large micro-prism circle in center) or "H" (100% micro-prisim - corner to corner) screens. IIRC, on the F & F2, you had to adjust the sensitivity of the cameras light meter by 2 stops to compensate for the extra brightness of these screens.

These screens were either usable or different versions were available for the F3. Not so sure about later F's. Since you have a Nikon, you might want to consider this option

There's more info on the screens here http://www.mir.com.my/michaeliu/cameras/shared/ff2screens.htm

 

[paulfish4570]

i am happy with the f2a screen. looking for the f2a's viewing equivalent in a smaller slr ...

 

[johannielscom]

Leicaflex SL2.

Had a peek through one when I was over at John's to drop of my M2 to have it painted.

It has micro prisms over the whole of the ground glass and as a result you can also focus it accurately when the focus point is in the corner of the screen.

It was amazing. Bright as day, really.

 

[sircarl]

I used to own a Contax Aria, whose finder I was very impressed with. After I sold it I got an R7, which has a splendid finder. Noticeably brighter, in fact, than an M6 of mine that Sherry Krauter recently did an MP finder upgrade for.

 

[paulfish4570]

the Rs and SLs and Contaxes are out for me because of lens cost.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Hey Paul--regarding the battery--I buy Duracell 625As at Wing's---Batteries Plus carries them, too.
The 625A is the same size as the old 625 mercury battery, and it is 1.5 volts rather than the 1.35v for the older battery. We tested the OM1 with old and new battery, and there was not that much difference in the meter readings. Same with a Minolta SRT 202. The new 625A style works great in my old Nikkormats, too.
Paul

That is correct. The only problem with doing that is there is a variation in output from the Alkaline battery between "full" at 1.5v when it should be giving 1.35v to the camera circuitry, and a more rapid loss in output over the life of the cell which leads to variable readings on the meter. The Silver Oxide batteries maintain stable voltage for much longer, then "fall off the cliff" as it were at the end. The difference with new batteries is not that great, as noted but the decline over time in Alkaline cells usually goes unnoticed. Read the reference material I quoted and you'll see performance graphs there which illustrate what's happening quite graphically. And you can get the 44 size batteries anywhere.

 

[Paulbe]

Excellent point, Leigh.
Thanks for the reminder.
I saw bunches of 44 batteries at WalMart just his very day!
Thanks again...
Paul

 

[oftheherd]

the Rs and SLs and Contaxes are out for me because of lens cost.

Then you probably wouldn't want a Fujica either. Their screw mount lenses have tended to stay pricey for quite some time now. That is mostly due to their quality, but probably also due to the fact there probably weren't as many made as some other brands.

Of my SLR, Yashica TL Super, Fujica ST 801 and 901, Pentax HV, Contax 167mt, and Minolta XG-1, I would say the Fujica ST 901 and Minolta are brighter, but the Contax is clearer (don't know how else to put it). The ST and Minolta are surprisingly close. I didn't have time to do anything but some quick checks inside the house with the newer low energy bulbs. If I took more time to study I could probably say better and describe it better.

I have never had an OM series camera, but I remember looking through some in the 70s, that friends owned. They were bright, but I don't recall thinking the were better than my 901. But 30 some years later, I can't really say hew I thought of them. I personally didn't care for the OM because of the control placement. I have often thought since it was pretty smart.

Prior usage must be considered as well. I have another 901 and an 801. The other 901 has a dirty viewing screen, and it is much dimmer. Pretty much the same with the 801. Both still usable, but not as good. Its been too long to remember on the Contax 139, but I seem to recall it was pretty bright as well.

 

[mfunnell]

the Rs and SLs and Contaxes are out for me because of lens cost.

If you're looking for good lenses at relatively cheap prices, I've found that Canon FD mount works well. They don't mount easily on other systems (especially the older style FDs) and there's essentially zero compatability with newer EOS cameras (incredibly expensive converters notwithstanding).

But if you already have and like Nikon SLRs then they're pretty good too. Given that I've never shot Nikon stuff before, I've assembled an amazingly good Nikon kit (FM3a, F3 non-HP, FM2n, FE2, FM) with good lenses (only the modern CV 40mm was expensive) for very few dollars. (OK, the FM3a was a lucky bargin, due to an entirely cosmetic but big ding on top of the prism housing.)

Then again, if you don't already have a sunk investment in Nikon-mount, you can get awfully nice Canon FD gear for cheap prices with a little care and attention (and patience) for far less than I paid for that single Nikon-mount CV 40mm/f2 SLII lens (which I do love). I've picked up a New F-1, an AE-1 Program and an A-1; along with 50mm/f1.2, 50mm/f1.4, 35mm/f2, 24mm/f2.8, 135mm/f2.5, 70-210mm and 100-300mm, and a Soligor off-brand zoomish thing for less than the oft-quoted cost of a Nikon F3HP plus not especially fast 50 (total kit less than US$400). My equivalent but less expansive Nikon kit (mentioned above; and don't ask why because I can't explain) cost a good deal more.

...Mike

 

[rxmd]

the Rs and SLs and Contaxes are out for me because of lens cost.

How many lenses do you think you need??

 

[39per1]

I owned, in the past, Nikon F with Photomic T and a Contax RTS (still in use).
The first seems bright, with a comfortable magnification, but the second is even better (althought magnification is smaller....). I choose the second and sold the first (damn, a mistake, building quality was stunning!).
The Contax RTS series shutter is electrically activated, but You can use it in manual mode....on RTS I nothing works without the battery....

 

[paulfish4570]

rxmd: just two, but back into RF price territory ...

 

[rxmd]

rxmd: just two, but back into RF price territory ...

Are Contax and Leica R lenses that expensive around where you live? It seems to me that at least the Contaxes are well inside that territory....

In Germany (where I tend to buy these things) a Planar 50/f1.7 for Contax will set you back around 100 EUR, a 50/f1.4 around 250 EUR, a Distagon 28/f2.8 around 200 EUR, a Sonnar 85/f1.4 around 450 EUR. Those prices seem well inside RF price territory to me, certainly an order of magnitude cheaper than some RF gear.

It gets expensive when people get GAS attacks and start to buy everything under the sun, but that will happen to you with any system.

 

[paulfish4570]

the 50/1.7 planar is about the same; the others on up there.
if this is a gas attack, it soon will wear off ... 😉

 

[noimmunity]

In Germany (where I tend to buy these things) a Planar 50/f1.7 for Contax will set you back around 100 EUR, a 50/f1.4 around 250 EUR, a Distagon 28/f2.8 around 200 EUR, a Sonnar 85/f1.4 around 450 EUR.

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

The Aria is big and bright, in a package about the same size as an M...