Which SLR?

[oftheherd]

...

All makers made good SLRs and lenses. You'll hear all kinds of recommendations, just like in all the other threads of this sort. As you have the OM-1, the first thing I'd do is check if you need a correction eyepiece to make focusing as easy as possible, get the lenses cleaned, and keep them dry in the future.

Indeed, most of the major manufactures at one time or another made good cameras and lenses. Their cameras and lenses were well supported and lasted a long time between trips for CLAs.

I started out in 35mm cameradom with a Yashica TL Super, which was an M42 mount. It was a pretty good camera for its price. Having some lenses to use on it, when I decided I wanted auto exposure, the Fujica ST 901 was an easy choice.

That camera was never considered a pro camera despite some of the best lenses available. So it was never popular. I mean, M42 mount instead of bayonet mount? As time has gone by, the used Fujinon lenses suddenly increased in desirability and therefore cost.

It may not have been worth a hoot to most others, but it was perfect for me. Especially for crime scene photography. I still have it and the lenses that I had back in the 70s and 80s. That's the kind of camera you want: not the Fujica, but what is perfect for you.

Many of the other systems mentioned here would be good for a lot of people. The choice must only be yours. But it is good to question and consider the answers. It will help you make you choices good ones for you.

And we all get a chance to add to our camera knowledge.

 

[hap]

I asked a similiar question a while ago and went for a Nikon FA, I used to have an olympus om2n that was very nice. I'm happy with my FA, does everything I need it to. Main plus is lenses are amazing and cheap. Only bad point is i am a left eye shooter and the winder gets in the way a bit.

there is very little love for the FA around these parts. I have an FA, FM3a, and F100.

The FA is a fantastic camera and with matrix metering. IT is ridiculously inexpensive these days. Also consider ME Super. Fun and very small.

There is a guy in US who specializes in Pentax film camera repairs. can't think of his name right now. But quick service and very good prices.

 

[Fraser]

I just bought an FA as its one of the few Nikons I never owned, its got to have one of the nicest shutter sound I've ever heard, In my opinion it handles better than the Fe and the Fm almost like a smaller F3, fast shutter speed of 1/4000 and still can be used with limitations without a battery.

 

[Shab]

Don't forget the eyepiece issue! Your eyes may be changing over time.

Yes, the last year I have noticed my eyes are going a bit down. And it is more difficult to focus with my OM-1n than with my M5. This point is very important...

 

[Shab]

If you do go for another SLR, Shab, I'd suggest that you consider a Pentax ME Super.

I mention it because it's virtually identical in size to the OM1n, and for me it's got the right feel, just the same as the OM1n (and perhaps even slightly better). Of course the controls are entirely different, and it is a bit fiddly when used in manual exposure, but it's superb for automatic exposure, and although it doesn't have an exposure lock one can quickly use the exposure compensation dial that surrounds the rewind knob on the top plate. The viewfinder is just as good as that on the OM1n, both brilliant, the very best. And Pentax lenses are high quality, easily available and relatively cheap, and their range is extensive.

It's been totally reliable over the five years since I've had it, and based on the negatives I get, the electronic shutter has been accurate across a wide range of speeds. Also it takes modern batteries.

I never really considered the ME Super for some years, wrongly not seeing it as a serious camera, but then I saw a documentary about Willy Ronis, and noticed that he used it. So I did the research.

I just love using it, almost as a point and shoot camera. It's a pleasure to own. For me it's the film equivalent of my Fuji X100T. I either use it by itself or sometimes together with an M7 when the Pentax has a 50mm lens and the Leica my favourite 35mm, the Summaron 3.5.

Wow... thank you!! It seems the Pentax ME super also is a very good camera! But I have discovered Willy Ronis! I didn't know him and his work! Very interesting... thank you so much!

 

[Shab]

Just to add, that although I love my OM1n and still use it regularly, I prefer the ME Super for the pleasure it gives. I've also got a Pentax MX but I use it far less - it doesn't quite feel the same.

Can you tell me which 50mm and 21/24mm lens would recommend? Thank you!


Love this picture from Willy Ronis a lot of more!

 

[Shab]

A few people mentioned the FM2, I will leave this picture here (a practical photography issue from the 90s)

Thanks Pan! It's a great camera, no doubt!!

 

[Shab]

FWIW, I have Pentax, Minolta and Olympus SLR's in the heap and like them all; so much so that I cannot and never have been able to choose between them. I'd like to add Konica and Topcon to that list but just can't afford to nowadays...

They are all individual cameras and they all have some very mice lenses; luckily for us they are overshadowed by the dearer ones.

OTOH, if I was rich enough I'd get another Leica R5/6/7 or 8 because that's another I like.

So I'll offer my 2d worth and say hang on to the Olympus and look for another lens, even a boring standard one. As for another, look at the controls; you have invested a lot of your time in the Olympus and changing now might just mean problems when it comes to handling them. F'instance look at how the shutter speed is changed on every camera mentioned, it's not like the OM-1.


Regards, David

You are right David, the OM-1n is a well known tool for me. It's a point to think about! Thanks!

 

[Shab]

I asked a similiar question a while ago and went for a Nikon FA, I used to have an olympus om2n that was very nice. I'm happy with my FA, does everything I need it to. Main plus is lenses are amazing and cheap. Only bad point is i am a left eye shooter and the winder gets in the way a bit.

Thanks AlexBG! It's another option, but I think if I would buy a Nikon it would a full mechanical camera.

 

[Shab]

Another point in favor of the OM-1—if you are on the far side of 45, you will find the film speed setting dial MUCH easier to use than any other manual focus SLR, as the numbers are big enough to read without glasses. (When I use my Nikons and Pentaxes these days, I am grateful that a reversed 50mm lens makes a good magnifying glass.)

Yes, this dial is so easy to use!

 

[Shab]

Taping up the M5 viewfinder really has seemed to work. Mine has some other issues as well, but I have this feeling that any repairs would just lead to more problems/money. That said, it's such a joy to use I can't give it up.

Olympus has my favorite SLR lenses, so I would stick with your OM1 if possible.

Yes, I love using my M5... it's so sweet, soft.. and strong when I feel it in my hands!


And yes also, Zuikos are really special. Love them also!

 

[Shab]

Getting a new lens for the OM, and possibly looking to see if there's a better focus screen and correction eyepiece, are possibly the most sensible options. They also have their own ergonomics which (although similar to the Nikkormats) is different to the other options. If you otherwise like the camera then there's something to be said for sorting it out.. there's also the dreaded option that a new used camera may go on to have issues too..

though old Nikons are pretty close to the photographic definition of mechanical reliability. From memory, I think my OM had a great viewfinder - definitely better than the early Nikkormats I've recently viewed.

Thanks! This info is very important. I need and want a great, bright and contrasty viewfinder.

 

[Shab]

After messing around with SLRs for 50+ years. I've found that I only really need or in my case use regularly two lenses: 50mm and a 28mm. Focusing has been a problem now that my eyes are aging. So I tend to use more RFs, but I have two Pentax cameras (I'm not trying to influence you) that have split image viewfinders. This makes it easier to focus. The fifty (f1.4) I can use any finder but when I start to use the 28mm or the 20mm I need the split image finder.

A 28mm (and I assume a 24mm would be better; I've never used one) are great for quick action: just set the f stop at 8 and the distance a 10 and you are in focus from 5 feet to infinity.

I think like you: in SLR my preffered lenses are 24mm and 50mm. In RF 21mm and 35mm.


Thank you for your words!

 

[Shab]

Hello Xabier -

The Minolta X-700/X-570/X-370 suggested by peppard have very bright, contrasty viewfinders, thanks to their Acute Matte focusing screens (which they licensed to Hasselblad) and their multi-coated mirrors. My favorite is the X-570. I can also just see all of the finder with glasses on. (I can see all of the image area with my eye properly centered and using a little peripheral vision. I have to move my eye to see other viewfinder readouts. I can't see the whole image area in the finders of Nikon FM2, FE2, or Pentax Spotmatics.)

These Minoltas sometimes have failed shutter release capacitors, which many technicians are able to repair.

As far as fungus goes, I don't know if any brand is more resistant to this problem than others. Your only solution might be to take special measures to keep your photo equipment drier than the ambient humidity.

- Murray

Yes these minoltas seems to have a very bright and contrasty viewfinders! Good! But it seems they fail a lot in electronics as you said (capacitors). Well, I will think!


I have keep my equipment dry, really DRY always. So I was really shocked when I saw the fungus. So I thought it was a problem with Zuikos... but I don't know. My other brands lenses are clean.

 

[Shab]

Indeed, most of the major manufactures at one time or another made good cameras and lenses. Their cameras and lenses were well supported and lasted a long time between trips for CLAs.

I started out in 35mm cameradom with a Yashica TL Super, which was an M42 mount. It was a pretty good camera for its price. Having some lenses to use on it, when I decided I wanted auto exposure, the Fujica ST 901 was an easy choice.

That camera was never considered a pro camera despite some of the best lenses available. So it was never popular. I mean, M42 mount instead of bayonet mount? As time has gone by, the used Fujinon lenses suddenly increased in desirability and therefore cost.

It may not have been worth a hoot to most others, but it was perfect for me. Especially for crime scene photography. I still have it and the lenses that I had back in the 70s and 80s. That's the kind of camera you want: not the Fujica, but what is perfect for you.

Many of the other systems mentioned here would be good for a lot of people. The choice must only be yours. But it is good to question and consider the answers. It will help you make you choices good ones for you.

And we all get a chance to add to our camera knowledge.

Thank you! One must find his/her perfect camera! I thought my perfect cameras were M5 and OM-1n. And I used them a lot. But when I have found the problems I have written in the first post I share with you my doubts.

 

[David Hughes]

Yes these minoltas seems to have a very bright and contrasty viewfinders! Good! But it seems they fail a lot in electronics as you said (capacitors). Well, I will think!

Years ago one of those Minoltas of mine failed and when I took it in for a repair the tech. sniffed it and said that it wasn't one with the condenser but one of the ?older ones. Anyway, it was repaired quickly and I picked it up the next day.

As for the condensers, there are firms selling them on ebay...

But stick with your OM-1, at one time many years ago the best lens ever tested was a standard OM's Zuiko. I can still remember the crowds around R G Lewis the few days after the news broke.


REgards, David

 

[Anthony Harvey]

Thanks Shab. I’m delighted that you followed up and enjoyed Willy Ronis’s work.

The photo of his that you posted is a favourite of mine too. Other favourites are those elegant legs in the “Rain” photo of 1947 taken in the Place Vendome, and perhaps the best for me - the 1946 shot of the two young women in the fish and chip shop in the Rue Rambuteau. It’s the cheerful uplifting atmosphere and that vivacious smile that does it!

(I say fish and chips but in the picture it looks as if they only served bread and chips, such was food rationing at the time!)

Of course, I’ve no idea where you saw examples of Ronis’s work, but in case you - or anyone else - are interested may I mention a really superb gallery that displays not only his work but also that of just about any of the great photographers of the last 100 years - the Peter Fetterman Gallery. Its choice of photographers, and just as importantly its choice of their photos, is brilliant, and the presentation is absolutely beautiful, the best I’ve ever seen, just like seeing prints in an exhibition. Fantastic, a real visual delight.

You asked about my experience of 50mm and 21/24mm Pentax lenses. I’ve only got the M versions: 50mm (1.4 1.7, 2.0) and 28mm (3.5) and 40mm (2.8). All mine are sharp and none of them flare. I can’t see any differences in sharpness between them on 6x9 inch prints. Of course they differ a bit in contrast and tonality. For the 50mm I prefer the gentle old-fashioned lower contrast look of the f2 even though it was made, I believe, more as a cheaper lens. It works well for me. I find that in the way I use them - for B&W prints, not scanning - my Pentax lenses are just as good as my equivalent Zuikos, and in the case of the M 28/3.5 vs Zuiko 28/2.8 and M 40/2.8 vs Zuiko 40/2, my samples of the Pentax lenses are slightly sharper. (But in any event I’ve come to the conclusion that lens quality depends very much on individual variation between samples. It’s often the luck of the draw as between perfectly acceptable and good vs exceptional.)

 

[Freakscene]

I asked a similiar question a while ago and went for a Nikon FA, I used to have an olympus om2n that was very nice. I'm happy with my FA, does everything I need it to. Main plus is lenses are amazing and cheap. Only bad point is i am a left eye shooter and the winder gets in the way a bit.

I don't have a problem with the lever out 'on' position for these cameras but a lot of users dislike the FA/FE/FG/FM series cameras on this basis alone.

there is very little love for the FA around these parts. I have an FA, FM3a, and F100.

The FA is a fantastic camera and with matrix metering. IT is ridiculously inexpensive these days. Also consider ME Super. Fun and very small.

The only real downside to the FA is that if you need exposure compensation you need to switch to manual exposure or change the film speed. Nikon were so confident of the matrix metering that they left exposure compensation out. They only did that with the FA.

I just bought an FA as its one of the few Nikons I never owned, its got to have one of the nicest shutter sound I've ever heard, In my opinion it handles better than the Fe and the Fm almost like a smaller F3, fast shutter speed of 1/4000 and still can be used with limitations without a battery.

With a 3 series screen the FA is my favourite manual focus Nikon.

The only other consideration is that the FA doesn't work with non-Ai lenses and Ai converted lenses can't be used with matrix metering.

Rachel. Nikon FA, Nikkor 85/1.4 AiS, Neopan 400 Xtol.

Marty

 

[Sierra Club]

I don't have a problem with the lever out 'on' position for these cameras but a lot of users dislike the FA/FE/FG/FM series cameras on this basis alone.

I was puzzled by this aversion to Nikon's approach of arming shutter i.e. stand-off position unlocking the shutter button until I realised that there are two kinds of (film) photographers.

Some of them wind the shutter after each shot, stroll around and when the decisive moment occurs they bring their camera to their eye and just release the shutter. Granted, that's generally faster than winding just before the shot, and pulling film advance lever to the stand-off position just to unlock the shutter is, in this case, indeed a waste of time.

Other Nikon users (myself included) tend to follow the good ol' rule of not straining the shutter tensioning mechanism when it's idle and prefer to wind the shutter right before the shot. It's important to note here that this method may not even be necessarily slower than the first one as I, for example, tend to wind the shutter while I bring the camera up to my eye so that when I see the picture in the finder the only thing that remains is to push the shutter release. That way there is no issue with the shutter being locked by the advance lever folded flush. Plus it's easier to shoot follow-up frames with your thumb already placed under the advance lever.

I think Nikon expected that this system will be used as described in the second scenario... Not sure though.

 

[robert blu]

...

Other Nikon users (myself included) tend to follow the good ol' rule of not straining the shutter tensioning mechanism when it's idle and prefer to wind the shutter right before the shot. It's important to note here that this method may not even be necessarily slower than the first one as I, for example, tend to wind the shutter while I bring the camera up to my eye so that when I see the picture in the finder the only thing that remains is to push the shutter release. That way there is no issue with the shutter being locked by the advance lever folded flush. Plus it's easier to shoot follow-up frames with your thumb already placed under the advance lever.

I think Nikon expected that this system will be used as described in the second scenario... Not sure though.

When I use my FM2 I'm in this club ! And it becomes automatic with a little practice