OT: vintage SLR advice

[Kat]

LOL! Yes, I'm in QC. I'm planning to drop by Hidalgo to check out the stuff, but I can do that too.🙂 Are you nearby?

 

[louis]

I started with Minolta SRT 102, then bought an Olympus OM1n in 1986 for it's small size & weight for biking & backpacking. I recently bought a second Om1n body and more OM lenses 'cause they're cheap now. I've been mounting the 2 OM1's side x side on a tripod with identical lenses and making stereo pictures.

I've also used Nikon Fs. Like it's been said before, you can't go wrong between any of the major brands. I've never met anyone who could prove to me that there was a 'Nikon', 'Pentax', "Canon', 'Minolta', or 'Olympus' look. Buy the one that appeals to you most. They're all very cheap on ebay because everyone's going digital. I'd stay with simple, mechanical cameras that don't need batteries to fire the shutter.

 

[ZorkiKat]

LOL! Yes, I'm in QC. I'm planning to drop by Hidalgo to check out the stuff, but I can do that too.🙂 Are you nearby?

Yep QC too. T Morato/Roces area. Speaking of Hidalgo, you'd have to be very lucky to snag a good used SLR there. Many of my students got their cameras there and most of these have been badly repaired or had a bad life. 😀

 

[Kat]

So the OMs are smaller than the SRT's? How would you guys compare the SLRs suggested by just size and weight? I do like something mechanical that won't need batteries to fire, but I also want a working, reliable meter when there are batteries.

Jay, thanks for the warning. Thank God I've never bought a cam in Hidalgo, the prices often seem kinda high compared to ebay, the cameras look like someone threw them around, and when I inquire, the sellers always seem to base prices on how gullible they think I look.

 

[ZorkiKat]

So the OMs are smaller than the SRT's? How would you guys compare the SLRs suggested by just size and weight? I do like something mechanical that won't need batteries to fire, but I also want a working, reliable meter when there are batteries.

Zorkikat, thanks for the warning. Thank God I've never bought a cam in Hidalgo, the prices are kinda high compared to ebay.

Kat

Fujica M42 slrs would probably BE the smallest in the breed. One concern about Olympus cameras which you should consider is the availability of lenses for it. OM lenses may be easy to get elsewhere but they aren't that common here. Unless you opt to get them via eBay or someplace similar. I'd still push for M42s. The lenses are easily adaptable for digital (if you plan to go there sometime) and quite cheap and plentiful (how do US$10 wide angles sound?)-for now- on eBay.

Another M42 SLR worth looking at is the Praktica. Slightly bigger and clunkier, and definitely noisier, than your average M42 slr. Still cheap and plentiful.

Jay

 

[rover]

So the OMs are smaller than the SRT's? How would you guys compare the SLRs suggested by just size and weight? I do like something mechanical that won't need batteries to fire, but I also want a working, reliable meter when there are batteries.

Jay, thanks for the warning. Thank God I've never bought a cam in Hidalgo, the prices often seem kinda high compared to ebay, the cameras look like someone threw them around, and when I inquire, the sellers always seem to base prices on how gullible they think I look.

Based on size, mechanical shutter and care free meter a Nikon FM or the like is a good choice.

 

[VinceC]

I've never used OMs but when I was shooting for newspapers 15 years ago, a couple photographers had switched from Nikon to Olympus for the smaller size and lighter weight. FMs and FM2s are also small and lilght, but they may cost a bit more than Olympus.

 

[scottgee1]

Kat, you might like this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4548

I started it last year and it took on a life of its own.

BTW, I chose Olympus OM for the combination of small size, quality of lenses, ergonomics and wonderful viewfinders (important if you're used to an RF). BTW, the single digit models (1, 2, 3, 4) are best.

Also, the OM mailing list is home to a lot of knowledgeable, friendly folk.

FWIW/ScottGee1

 

[Trius]

What Scott said. Be aware that the OM mailing list (zuikoholic.com) can be high very volume, and there are often a lot of off-topic posts. I quit after a year or so because of the sheer volume of posts. But the collected knowledge of the members is astounding.

I'm not sure the M42 lenses are any more adaptable to digitial than OM Zuikos; lots of high-end Canon digital shooters seek certain OM lenses, especially the shift lenses because of their quality. But I agree, supply issues in certain parts of the world may be important.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I'm not sure the M42 lenses are any more adaptable to digitial than OM Zuikos; lots of high-end Canon digital shooters seek certain OM lenses, especially the shift lenses because of their quality. But I agree, supply issues in certain parts of the world may be important.

There is one feature (though not all M42 lenses have this), IMO, which make M42 lenses more adaptable and useful for adaptation to another mount. This is the manual aperture switch or the preset ring. These features are only found (? for 35mm format?) on M42 lenses. Either allows the user to focus at full aperture and then stop down to working aperture by either flicking the A/M switch or turning the Pre-setting ring- without removing the camera from the eye or ever interrupting the focusing/viewing sequence prior to shooting. Full aperture focusing is quite important when using AF cameras whose screens aren't optimised for manual focusing.

Any other lens, or an M42 lens without these features for that matter, would require the user to remove camera from eye, and set the f-stop to the necessary value. Focusing at working f-stop can be difficult.
🙂
Jay

 

[oftheherd]

So the OMs are smaller than the SRT's? How would you guys compare the SLRs suggested by just size and weight? I do like something mechanical that won't need batteries to fire, but I also want a working, reliable meter when there are batteries.

Jay, thanks for the warning. Thank God I've never bought a cam in Hidalgo, the prices often seem kinda high compared to ebay, the cameras look like someone threw them around, and when I inquire, the sellers always seem to base prices on how gullible they think I look.

Kat

Fujica M42 slrs would probably BE the smallest in the breed. One concern about Olympus cameras which you should consider is the availability of lenses for it. OM lenses may be easy to get elsewhere but they aren't that common here. Unless you opt to get them via eBay or someplace similar. I'd still push for M42s. The lenses are easily adaptable for digital (if you plan to go there sometime) and quite cheap and plentiful (how do US$10 wide angles sound?)-for now- on eBay.

Another M42 SLR worth looking at is the Praktica. Slightly bigger and clunkier, and definitely noisier, than your average M42 slr. Still cheap and plentiful.

Jay

I don't remember on the size difference between the OM1's and the Fujica 801/901. It would be close, but I think the Fujicas may have had the edge a little bit. The Fujicas did predate the OM1's by a little. The Fujica glass didn't take a back seat to anybody though. On one earlier question, I remember when Modern Photography had one of the best labs, a comment once in Modern about one of the lab techs that only with all his lab equipment, that he thought he could detect a slight difference between Nikon and Olympus. That was probably subjective and may have been biased. I never saw such a comparison between Nikon, Olympus, and any others, such as Fujica. Fujica just was never marketed as well so never got the press of some of the others. Time has proven Fujica glass to be some of the most sought after. Pentax M42 glass was manufactured heavily if not marketed as much as well.

As to the Fujjca 801/901: Both take batteries that were not mercury, and are still available; 544s or 944s or some such. Both worked manually without batteries. The ST901 was aperture preferred, and had the silicon SBC so was a great performer. Something like EV -3 to 18 with asa 25 film and f/1.4. That works out to something like 20 seconds at f/1.4 to 1/1000th second at f/16.

I have both and they are great. Rather, when I gave my daughter the ST801 hoping to interest her in SLR cameras, it worked too well 😉 . I still have the ST901 though and would never give it up. Light weight, small but fits my hands well, bright almost 1:1 viewfinder, easy to change lenses in dim/low light (as are all M42 lenses). I have Yashica/Contax cameras and glass. I like them but you simply can't change them or any other bayonet mount lens in available darkness as well as a screw mount lens. At least I can't. I can put a screw mount lens on the mount and turn it counter-clockwise until I feel it set, then turn it clockwise until it is mounted. If anybody has figured out how to do that with all bayonet mount lenses, please let me know how. I can't do it. It will take all M42 lenses and remain autoexposure by setting it so that all lenses work in stop down mode.

In SLR's, I have/had the Fujica ST801/901, Yashica TL Super, Yashica Electro X, Pentax SV, Yashica FX103, Yashica FX 3, Contax 139Q. My favorite remains the ST901. It wouldn't fit everyone, but it sure fits me. So if I sound a little prejudiced, I am.

Sorry to make this so long a post, but neither I nor anyone else has mentioned the Yashica FX 103. That was Yashicas low end answer to their Contax 139Q, and added shutter preferred as well as program exposure. It is rather small also, and will take the great Zeiss T* lenses. Not that they are cheap, but they are some really great glass. But beware, the FX 103 will not work without a battery. That is how I got my first two so cheap off evilbay. The sellers didn't know. I took a chance and got the first as non-working for $20 with shipping. It still works quite well thank you.

Good luck on your quest and your final choice.

 

[George S.]

I'll add another vote for the Olympus OMs. The advice/opinions that Scott and Trius gave are good and sound. I've used the OMs since they came out in the 70's and you can't beat them for the size, weight, and reliability/repairability factors. That would normally be enough reasons, but the Olympus Zuiko lenses are the best there is in the vintage SLR category, and they achieved that level of performance without making the lenses heavy. they're small and light also. I had also tried Nikon and Minolta of that era, but the Zuiko lenses quickly showed me much better images were possible than either of those two.

 

[oftheherd]

I'll add another vote for the Olympus OMs. The advice/opinions that Scott and Trius gave are good and sound. I've used the OMs since they came out in the 70's and you can't beat them for the size, weight, and reliability/repairability factors. That would normally be enough reasons, but the Olympus Zuiko lenses are the best there is in the vintage SLR category, and they achieved that level of performance without making the lenses heavy. they're small and light also. I had also tried Nikon and Minolta of that era, but the Zuiko lenses quickly showed me much better images were possible than either of those two.

I perhaps did not make it clear in my post that I do have a great respect for the early OM line. When I was in Korea the first time, and purchased my ST901, I knew many who had the OM1, and could compare them. I still preferred my ST as I think it was smaller by a bit, and was autoexposure. The OM1 was not. BTW, one way they made their lenses small was not having large apertures. If I recall, they made an effort to keep their lenses with 49mm filters. That meant that they often had to have an f/3.5 or smaller, where others could have an f/2.8 or larger, excepting the 50mm lens.

That was also true of the Fujica M42 lenses (and I think for many of the early Pentax lenses) except for the 50mm lens. It was not true for the majority of M42 lenses of other brands.

 

[Andy K]

My standard OM 50mm runs to f/1.8. Spend a little more and there's the 50mm 1:1.4.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Michael I is offering a good deal on a K1000 at the moment

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=240642#post240642

 

[Kat]

Thanks, Kim, I checked it out earlier, but I decided against a K1000 (not to mention I'm broke, anyway, purchase will have to be after I find a job). I realized I appreciate extra features, and the K1000 seems very simple/basic. Since everyone has been so informative and helpful, I've narrowed things down to an M42 or the OM. I will just have to check out the different cameras which take the M42, and make comparisons from that.

Scott, I'm checking out your thread, thanks!

Jay, while availability is a concern, it's not a dealbreaker for me as I really don't plan on buying stuff locally. Electronics often seem more expensive here compared to the US market. I need every cent I can save.

 

[louis]

Olympus OM1

Olympus OM1

By the way, when checking out Olympus equipment on ebay, I'd vote for the 50mm f1.4 for low light, 35mm f2.8 (tiny, tiny lens) 28mm either f3.5 or f2.8 and the 75-150 f4 zoom, also light & small. All these lenses share 49mm screw in filters and are the smallest I've seen.

If you're lucky you might find the legendary 40mm f2.0 'pancacke' lens at a low price. Its the smallest of the Olympus lenses, focuses closer than the 50mm f1.4 and it's razor sharp, good bokeh. Originally priced the same as the 35mm f2.8, it was not popular because it was slower than the 50mm and not as wide as the 35mm. It was not properly marketed, but word of mouth regarding it's exceptional qualities have caused collectors & Cartier-Bresson wannabees to compete for it. It now commands higher prices than a 40mm Leica Summicron!

I've compared it with my 35mm f2.8 and there's not that much difference except that the 40mm is a wee bit smaller, focuses much closer and is faster.

 

[KoNickon]

The thing about the Zuiko and Pentax (Super Multi Coated Takumar) lenses is that once you get beyond the "common" lenses, meaning the slower ones in the standard focal lengths -- 28, 35, 50, 135 -- they do start to get expensive. The Zuikos, especially, seem priced pretty high. I guess for that reason alone I'd lean more toward the M42 cameras.

 

[wtl]

Did not read through the entire thread and don't know if anyone mentioned that Nikon F or F2 has a 100% viewfinder, that is if you care. I do not believe Olympus or Canon provide that. Pentax has a model that does 100% but I can't remember the model now. Plus Nikon has a line of lenses if later you decide to add. Just my 1 cent.

 

[pshinkaw]

For Nikon F's and Nikkormats that predate the AI indexing, the non-AI lenses can be very reasonably priced. Actually, they are downright inexpensive.

-Paul