What about an old 35mm SLR?

I agree with you in general; but why haven4t you mentioned Leica and Contax/Zeiss? Especially older bodies (e.g. Leica R4 or Contax RTS II) aren4t that expensive; the same holds for used Zeiss lenses.

I beg to gently differ to the list of what you "lose" in using an older manual SLR system - the list is highly specific to this particular camera and not generally applicable, and besides some modern SLRs address some of these issues too.

- "low-contrast low-sharpness slow cheap zoom lenses" Nothing's stopping you buying prime lenses with a modern SLR. Canon's EF50/f1.8 lens is really cheap but delivers the goods when it comes to sharpness.

- "surprises at the photo lab; the F2A shows you 100% of the image in the viewfinder and has a convenient depth of field preview button". Not all old SLRs have 100% image viewfinders, and not all modern SLRs don't - the professional ones such as the EOS-1 series certainly let you see 100% of the image.

-"fun getting down on your stomach for low-angle shots; the F2A lets you remove the viewfinder for wasit-level composition". Buy the Canon angle-finder - they're not expensive. However, admittedly you'll be squinting down a little 'ole instead of viewing directly.

What is lacking in modern SLRs is the interchangeable viewfinders - a sports finder would be a useful addition to the Canon EOS range for a start - curse the meagre exit pupil of Canon's viewfinders!

-"vibration from mirror slap; the F2A has a mirror lock- up button" And the EOS-5 has mirror prefire. But the downside is that you have to remember which custom function it is, and it gets devoted to that CF button which you were probably using for something else... Possibly the most useful feature is that it will keep working without battery, which is reason enough to carry a spare manual Nikon body if you're a Nikon AF user, since the mounts are compatible.

Hey, how about Pentax? Far as I know, they used to make the best "school cameras" around, with properly placed controls and all the nice features you need (DOF button, for instance), together with excellent prime lenses. The K1000 and P30T were wonderful cameras, and high quality Pentax gear can be found cheap second-hand. The new MZ-M with 50 1.4 or 50 1.7 will take vastly better pictures than an F50 or EOS 500N with a lousy consumer zoom.

As an owner of a Nikon F2A, I agree with most of the review. One thing not mentioned that may be of interest to readers is the Achilles Heel of the F2A. The ring resistor in the DP-11 is prone to failure (after 20 years or so). After the ring resistor starts to go, the dreaded "jumpy needle" problem begins and the meter is on its way out. According to my sources the ring resistor parts are no longer made.

I really dig my F2A, but the needle is jumping intermittedly and the camera repair guy says he "may" be able to find parts and fix it. He has warned me that the longer I hold out, the harder it will be to find the parts to repair it.

One forgotten classic is Pentax LX - light but quite rugged (I have used mine for only 17 years so who can tell). No other camera lets you bracket your autoexposures with mirror up and even with special viewfinders - great for macro work.

About old Nikons, Phil says: "You can use all the new lenses on old cameras and old lenses on new cameras."

While technically true (for Nikon-made lenses only!), doing so is neither obvious or easy. A while back I purchased a Nikkormat FT2 as "the camera I won't cry over if I drop it while hiking down a cliff". At the same time, I purchased two lenses, a 50/1.4 and a 35/2.8.

The 50 is non-AI, which means that it is roughly of the same vintage as the body. The 35 is AI, which makes it slightly newer, but still compatible. I wanted a telephoto, but the only ones on-hand were AIS or AF, which lacked the indexing prongs to interface with my body's metering system.

So, while it's technically true that I can use newer Nikon lenses on my old body, to do so I must use stop-down metering or retrofit the lens with prongs. Old lens/new body requires jumping through similar hoops, except that you are unlikely to find someone who is still capable of reliably "AI-ing" a non-AI lens.

If you went out to a store with the assumption that any F-mount lens is compatible with any F-mount body (or worse, mail-ordered the pieces), you'd be in for a rude shock, and you might even manage to damage the camera body if you found just the right (wrong) combination. The Magic Lantern books on classic Nikons will save you a great deal of trouble in assembling a system.

Something else no one has mentioned is to be careful to find out what type of battery the meter uses before you pay for it. Buying an SRT-101 might look like a great deal until you find out that it uses now-banned mercury batteries.

Don't forget Pentax and the K-mount lenses. The mount has remained the same for 20 years. The LX and MX bodies were both offered with very complete systems to back them up. Nikon is probably the way to go with an older system if you must have the more exotic lenses and equipment. But if you simply want lenses in the 24-400 range and don't need fancy extra gear, Pentax can be perfectly acceptable and sometimes cheaper.

The Konica SLR system offers great value and probably the highest quality/price ratio of any used photographic equipment available. Hexanon lenses, in their time, were at least on par with those of Canon and Nikon. I only stumbled upon this system by accident, and I was more than pleasantly surprised when I found that I could buy 3 Nikon caliber lenses for under $150 (28mm, 50mm, 135mm). In talking to other users of Konica SLR equipment, I have found similar experiences. And if you must use an expensive Nikon lens, you can get an adaptor for $15 that lets you mount them on your Konica.

As the owner of an F, an F2 and (recently) an F3HP I LOVE my manual cameras. I looked at the F5 and decided that they take all of the fun out of the hobby. I find that the 'feel' of the old Nikons is nicer and that I have more latitude to mess up a shot... I look at the F5 as just being a super-expensive point and shoot. Mind you, who am I anyway.

Ahem.. No one has mentioned the old Canon FD mechanicals yet so I'll unearth them..

Yes Nikon cameras will take the same lenses from the F through the F5 which will give you flexibility if you wish to use your old F era lens on an F5, but BECAUSE of the compatibility, old Nikon equipment is much more expensive.

$150 for an F2A with a working light meter? Maybe but not unless you cheat some poor fool. $50 for a Nikon lens? Not likely even from the most gullible fool. You'll pay around $200 for each good old lens. and MUCH more for 'legendary' lenses.

Might as well just go buy an Elan IIe with a 28-105..

On the other hand consider Canon FD. TOTAL system incompatibility with current EOS systems means REALLY inexpensive prices. A Canon A-1 will cost you maybe $180 and get you a beautiful great working camera. If you don't need no stinkin' program modes then go with a Canon AT-1 for a grand total of $90. Both these cameras are admittedly less rugged than F's or F2's but also don't have meter heads so large that they look like they belong on Medium Format SLR's.

Lenses? $50 for a standard Canon 50/1.4. Legendary lenses? $65 for a Canon 50/1.4 SSC. Both in mint condition. $75 for a 28/2.8 $75 for a 100/2.8.

admittedly all the lenses out of the range from 24 to 135 or so are more expensive, but oh well.

What you lose of course is any real zoom lenses from Canon or any other maker in those days. Of course you could buy new from the 3rd parties, but what's the point..

My system: Canon AT-1 $90 28/2.8 $75 50/1.4 $50 50/3.5 MACRO $150 (yeah yeah but I HAD to have it) + 25mm auto extension tube $0 135/3.5 SC $60 2x auto teleconv $20

And all these items are MINT or near mint.. (the macro is like new I can't imagine what the original owner did with it..) So with stuff so cheap that will depreciate little if any in the future (unless you break it) why BOTHER with system compatibility??

What about an old 35mm SLR? What about durability of mechanics or electronics? What about spare parts? Sooner or later both electronics and mechanical parts will fail. Many electronic parts are build to last 10 years, maybe 20 years if used seldom. One of the first things prone to failure are LCDs. Mechanics will possibly last longer than electronics, dependend on usage (all-mechanical cameras seem to hold up better if exercised often). However, if problems occur, the camera can be repaired only as long as spare parts are available either from the manufacturer or ripped from other bodies. Nikon and probably other japanese brands tend to keep spare parts for up to twenty years (at least Nikon SAYS so). Of cause some models need more care (e.g. the Nikonos I,II...) and spare parts will be out sooner. To my knowledge Leica is the only 35mm brand supporting mechanical cameras older than twenty years, offering the possibility to rebuild or convert even older items. No surprise these repairs can't be cheap, but who wants to own a Leica doorstop? Only the future will tell if Leica is able and willing to support electronic models as well. Currently they still have spare parts for twenty year old R3s. Maybe only small manufacturers like Leica can offer service for old models. But if one thinks about keeping this planet for future generations (not a bad thought, or?) the best camera is the one that can be repaired.

Many photographers use older mechanical cameras as backups for their F5, EOS or whatsoever. Seems they doubt the reliability of their electronic equipment. But anyway, most byuers seem to believe in making improvements as a photographer by consuming and don't seem to expect/want a N90 or EOS to last more than twenty years. An really expensive hobby.

Ideal systems depend on personal photographic style, and requirements.

My style is for ultra wide-angle lens, available light -- usually early morning or evening -- and hand held. The ideal system for me was an Olympus OM2n with the unique and superb Zuiko 21mm F2 lens. Still no manufacturer makes a lens in this class so fast, and what with the technology going into zoom lenses, nobody probably will. Leica might if they felt fast lenses were something more than a gimmic.

Add onto the body the motordrive MD-1 with ni-cad pack, and you have a system that is fast, compact and solid.

Auto-focus is completly unnecessary with a system that provides depth of field from around 1 metre to infinity at f4!

This lens is sharp enough to cope with the rigors of b+w photography too. It's subtle handling of colur is remarkable even wide open. And, it is still available new. Pricey, but available.

Olyumpus have not left the SLR market: they still make about 75% of the OM range and have even released a new model, the OM2000!

I regularly use an F and an F2. These are the only 35mm cameras in my bag, and they really are wonderful old cameras. The F is about 30 years old, and the F2 is 25. When I pull them out of the bag, I know they will always work. The meters worked last time I tried them, but I hand meter now (I shoot LF also, so use hand metering for all my photo work). You can indeed find Nikkor primes for 50 bucks (and less). Usually for the older non AI lenses. I snagged a 135 f3.5 for 40 bucks. The mount showed some wear, but the glass is perfect (and sharp as a razor). Ive seen 50mm f2's for under 50 bucks too.

After a fair amount of window-shopping at used dealers, mail-order catalogs, and a few camera shows, I'd say that the average price difference between Nikon's used manual SLRs/lenses and most other brands is pretty consistent: for non-AI, you'll pay $75 extra for the body and $25-50 extra for each lens; for AI, add an additional $75 for both bodies and lenses.

As with most rules, there are exceptions; 50mm primes have less variance across brands, and in many cases more than one lens of the same focal length is available from the same maker (budget lines include "Series E" for Nikon and "Celtic" for Minolta, and there are less-obvious cases).

In practice, I think purchasing a used manual Nikon is more of a stylistic choice than a financial one. There are good bargains in other brands (and even Nikon, if you look at the Nikkormats (I paid $115 for a recently-CLA'd FT2 at a local dealer)), but unless you're a savvy shopper (or have one working for you), you're probably better off with a Minolta X-700 or a Pentax ZX-M. New product warranty, plenty of good affordable glass, and reasonable pricing.

I have been in and out of auto-focus several times. I am basically a MANUAL guy. Back in the 70'es I used to have an Olympus OM1 and I have also been using various Hasselblads for more than 20 years. In the early AF years I then decided to buy a Nikon F-301 for my wife, but I changed it for the F-501AF, because there was one less parameter to confuse her. I obviously should have bought her a simple P+S camera, because she only used it a couple of times anyway. One day I part exchanged it for a nice used F3 for myself, but unfortunately it got stolen together with all my MF prime lenses. In a moment of dispair I replaced it with an F-801s with new AF prime lenses. Funny enough I never really felt happy about my new equipment, but I could not figure out what was wrong, until one day when I brought my old El-Nikkormat home from my work where I used it attached to a Medical-Nikkor 120 for dental shots. There was something about the "feel" of the old metal Nikkormat difficult to discribe, but best of all no more howling noise from the motor advancing the film or the focusing of the lens. From now on the F801-s became my dental camera, which was in fact much better because it had a brighter focussing screen and it was easier to hold stedy with the heavy Medical lens, and the El-Nikkormat became my private companion. I think the simple and mechanical cameras from the era of the 70'es are unsurpassed for no- nonsense photography - all major brands can be considered - by I obviously prefer Nikon. I still use the El-Nikkormat a lot, but I have added an F2A, which I found in almost mint condition a year ago - and that is without any doubt the best Nikon I have ever used. It was love at first sight and now I am considerering buying another one - just in case.... and because they might be difficult to find in "near mint" condition after you all have read this article.

So if you do not really need AF for action or wild-life shooting I can only recommend you to buy a good old Nikon or Nikkormat or perhaps the newer FE2, FA or the manual FM2n which is still available as new. With the FE2, FA and FM2n you have flash-sync. to 1/250 sec. which makes them more suitable for fill-in flash.

Get back in control - and take better pictures!

I've only ever used manual older systems, a cheap Canon RC rangefinder for many years, and got a lot of satisfaction from comments on my work like 'wow these snaps are great, what sort of camera have you got?' Like it really mattered.

Well anyway I eventually decided on moving to Spain that I would upgrade, Nikon F3 and FM2 35mm 1.4, 55mm macro + 85mm f2, the content my snaps did not improve, what these 'new' machines presen ted were a new set of challanges: to understand how each lens reacted under different circumstan ces, which to use and when, learn to focus fast, manualy, to effectively use the meters to achive given results etc...

Now after more years of experience for the first time I feel I am ready for one of the newer machin es.

WHAT ABOUT AN OLD 35MM SLR?

I am not in a prefessional situation, photography has grown with me, the experience I have gained has made me a mature (albeit amature) photographer capable of producing professional quality 35mm work in many different situations. I don't think a fully auto camera woud have given me this learning opportunity.

My vote is the F3 with an MD-4 attached. I owned an F with photomic F and it was(is)a great camera. The F3 of course is still being made. I also have a FE and FM which are very compact cameras. I can pack two bodies and three-four compact(28E,50 f1.4,55 micro and 75-150E)lenses in an old small bag and carry it all day and almost forget I have it with me. The F3/md4 is a little more formatable with a 80 to 200 f2.8 AF and B&L Bracket. I love nikons but must now admit I have the MF bug with pentex67. The p67 reminds me of the old F a lot. That's my two cents worth! I have never had any nikon equipment fail in 29 years!

Any true pro who uses old gear professionally should be on a suicide watch! However since I am a rank amateur, I use oly and mostly Topcon. The Topcon system was tops in its day and the rugged bodies and great glass and full line of accessories makes this line great to own and use. And, super d and re super bodies are available at half Nikon prices. Ditto for the re auto topcor lenses except for the long focal lengths such as the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/5.6 and the thinly produced such as the 20 f/4 and the 85 f/1.8. That said I recently acquired a 300 f/2.8 for about half the price of a comparable Nikon. I know, I know, Topcon doesn't produce 35mm anymore and Nikon does, so that's a + for the older Nikon user. Topcon parts and quality repair services are still available like Nikon...and you can't beat the used prices.

Many of the comments I read today were very good and informative, however, one good reason to use a manual camera is because you want to. I get so tired of cheap plastic cameras with plastic lenses sliding through cheap plastic barrels! I admit that some of the glass now-a-days may be as nice as anything that preceded it, but it doesn't feel as nice. My brother Ralph who is a very accomplished photographer reminds me that the ends justify's the means and the photos are the real treasures. That, as true as it may be, doesn't make me feel better about using affordable modern cameras.

After 10 years of not having an 35m SLR (use Hexar), I decided to get one. I found I had to put on my reading glasses to see all the buttons and LED readouts on the newer cameras so I started looking at older, less automated designs. I wound up getting a used Minolta X-700 with 3 prime Minolta MD lenses, a dedicated 280-PX flash,and miscellanous goodies for under $400.The camer uses a combination of manual focus and film loading with Program, Apature Priority, or manual exposure controls. Used Minolta MD and MC lenses are plentiful and very reasonably priced. Since this camera is still being manufactured, spare parts or service are no problem.

I recently bought a 1972 F2 w/50 1.4 w/dp-1 finder for under $300 in mint cond. I just got back a roll I shoot in our back yard, and boy was I impressed. This camera was perfect and flawless. The exposure was perfect and really sharp. I also have an N90s, and the pictures came out the same if not better than what I have taken with my N90s. This is a great F camera and every Nikon users should have one as a mechancial back up or as a great learning tool. You can learn a lot more and have more fun with a manualy camera than a automatic modern camera. Just my two cents. TKS

FWIW, I've owned two F2s at different times. I respect the camera as a fine, durable piece of equipment, but did not keep either very long. I kept banging my fingers against the prism housing every time I rewound film, usually causing my fingers to slip off the rewind crank. A small nuisance, perhaps, but one I did not care to live with. I used Olympus OMs with great pleasure for 13 years until aging eyes dictated a switch to autofocus. Tried Nikon's AF for about a year with increasing dissatisfaction, then learned about Canon's wonderful Custom Function 4. Made the switch to EOS in '93 and have never looked back!

I agree, mostly. Not experienced with Canon systems, but I really don't trust the autos so I don't have any. I can focus faster than what I have seen any auto do. They tend to want to think about it when I want to hear a CLICK.

From my perspective, the Nikon FM2 is one of the most overlooked bodies around. It's nearly unchanged in 16+ years (except that it's faster than the original 2000 that I bought in '82....it's now 4000 and synchs at 250...used to be 200) and guess what....it's STILL MADE. Any other nominees for the Continuity Award? My favorite portrait lens is an old 200.

I have used mine for all my wedding candids since I bought it. I have at times gone 2 years without batteries in it. It has had one repair: I dropped it and had to have the titanium shutter replaced.

Above this system, I use Mamiya M645 stuff. Very antiquated by some standards, but very practical equipment. Shutter synch is the only drawback I see. The lenses are all still usable on the newer Mamiya 645 system, so you won't find any bargains there, either. I do plan to upgrade the bodies and viewfinders within the next 2 years. The two 645 bodies I have are getting very tired and need repairs at least annually. But YES....I gladly get to keep all my lenses.

Gosh, another quite reasonable article; I've only been reading this site for a week! I can't really agree with the recommendation to get a new Canon. Here's some experience from years of taking pics. Note I have a Nikon F3.

Canon vs Nikon: In my travels through the world, I have consisently found an F3 in every city I have been to. Tai Yuan, China had F3's and no Canons.

Reliability: My experience is mechanical cameras are just a reliable as the new cameras. Mechanical cameras make a certain kind of noise and if that noise changes, be suspicious. Otherwise, I almost always have a few rolls of film developed while travelling. The biggest problems with the new cameras are switch failures, bad contacts, and battery unavailability. All of these failures tend to be fatal; in other words, you need a new body.

Batteries: As far as I can figure, AA batteries are the only ones with 100% world wide availability. Any other battery is dicey, esp. the funky lithium ones. Many people with p&s found this out in China. To reduce battery problems, a camera with a separate battery for the flash is a great asset.

Nikon tips: If you are going to get an older Nikon, get one with works the AIS lens. These lenses don't use the external f-stop coupling.

Other tips: Manual focusing speed and accuracy can be much improved with a different focusing screen. I have the 45deg oriented split image surrounded by a micro-prism. The F3 screens are still available and quite cheap.

Manual focus is great for copy work and shooting through glass. Esp, since the front of the lens doesn't rotate which is important for polarizer use.

The older bodies generally have more metal in them and that makes them IR proof. If you are not going to shoot IR film, ignore this.

Size: The older bodies tend to be more compact and lighter (no motor drive and huge battery packs) so they are more reasonable to carry around. I think this point desires careful consideration. If you travel to hot/humid places, it's really wearing to lug something around. And you will soon start thinking about a place to sit down or the next refreshment stand.

Will I get the picture?: Many people I run into want motor drives so they are sure they will get the picture. Here's a test for you. Review all your contact sheets (or slides) and see how many pictures of a scene you take. I take 2 or 3, not 10. The first picture is a warm up shot and the next one is nailed.

Let's face it, every camera has its own personality that make it suited to some situations more than others. The important thing is not to concentrate on the photos you are missing, but to work on the ones you can get.

About Nikons acccording to you: "You can use all the new lenses on old cameras and old lenses on new cameras."

It's only true for PENTAX(except ZX-50) not Nikon. I don't know how you're going to use the new AF lenses on old cameras if they don't have an aparture ring.

In my last message I meant open aparture metering... not aparture ring. Sorry for the mistake.

I personally prefer a Leica Thread Mount Rangefinder like my Canon 7sz as a classic 35mm camera. It has numerous LTM lenses that can be used on it (ones made by CANON, Leica, Nikkor & Zeiss), is lighter, quieter and more compact than a SLR. One of my favorites is a Carl Zeiss 21mm Biogon that was made for Contax (in 1955), but mounts on the Canon with the aid of an adapter. The Canon 50mm/ 1.2 lens is fast, sharp and produces excellent results.

Whilst it is true that Nikon have maintained the same bayonet fitting over the years, the notion that all lenses will work on all bodies (give or take some functionality) isn't strictly true. Some later Nikon bodies don't have a retractable AI lever meaning that fitting a non-AI lens could damage the camera. This point is well documented in an online article by Ross Alford in a comparison of the FE & FE2 bodies - http://photo.net/photo/nikon/nikon-fe.html - Apart from reducing production costs, why on earth did Nikon take this reverse compatibility feature away?

I use an Olympus OM2s and love it. The camera body is solid, it has a nice spot meter in manual mode, the shutter speed ring is placed around the bayonet (easier to move than those on top of the camera), aperture priority mode with exp. compensation....a classic tool with modern electronics. I use it with a winder. Its a very good macro camera, and good for learning. It really has the right "feeling".

The bad things? Oh, yes. the depth of field button is situated on the lens barrel and a bit tricky to use. No double exposures. (To press down the rewind button when advancing the film never worked.)No AF compatibility. Difficoult to get original lenses. (Not expensive, but few of them). The camera sometimes doesn`t work in cold weather.

Probably, I will sooner or later switch to an AF system anyway, so then the choice is between Nikon and Pentax - because I want a manual camera in addition, for macro and landscape work. (see also discussion on this at the N90s site.) Probably I will choose Pentax because: - The Nikon manuals have a STUPID feature: you must have the film advance lever arm helf way out to be able to press the shutter=hopeless to see in the wiewfinder with the left eye, which I use. - Used Pentax lenses are lower priced, and the compatibility problems are, IN CONTRAST TO NIKON, almost nonexistent. - The AF body Z1p is cheaper than N90s, but has more usable features and fewer unusable gimmicks. On the other hand, the AF is quite slow. The XZ5n is much faster.) -Pentax LX has interchangeable wiewfinder.

I've owned many Minolta SRT's for nearly 3 decades and currently use a SRT-101, SRT-303 and two-700's with about 16 MC/MD lenses.

I do quite a bit of hiking-photography and the X-700's are excellent cameras for that work. They're compact, light weight and have a lot of features. I especially like that the peripheral equipment (motordrives, flash units, etc) are available but not in the camera itself, reducing its size and weight, and especially improving its durability and reliability.

The X-700 has the basics of what a good 35mm photographer would want in a camera, manual mode, aperature priority and full program mode, EV-control, exposure lock, etc. These cameras easily do 95+% of what I need. I keep my original SRT-101 for mirror lockup (some lenses still need it), and the SRT-303 (recent acquistion) for macro work with mirror lockup.

Minolta has develop quite a bit of peripheral equipment for the X-series and especially the X-700 camera, such as ring flash, powergrip-flash control, wireless flash sync., two decent powerful flashes with TTL metering and program mode operation, bellows, etc. Add the MD-1 motordrive and you have a pretty adaptable, capable camera.

You also get the full range of Minolta pre-MC, MC and MD lenses, from 7.5mm to 800mm including some excellent to outstanding lenses from the 1960's, 70's and 80's, such as the 35mm f2.8 shift-CA lens, 50mm f3.5 and 100mm f4 true macro lenses with 1:1 extension tubes, 7.5mm and 16mm wideangle lenses, 85mm f1.7 lens, and one of my personal favorites, 58mm f1.2 'normal' lens.

Well - I have learned a lesson today: FIRST try ALL cameras - THEN write about them. I found that the film advance lever problem is very little if you use a rubber eye piece. And F3 has not that problem at all. As old lenses are easier to get for Nikon, I probably will change my mind and go for Nikon.

Having owned and used camera's from Canon (AE1-P -- stolen!!!), Minolta X-700 (traded) and Nikon (FG, F, FM2n) I can honestly say that they all took comparable photos's and you would not be able to tell them apart from prints I have made (8x10 being the largest).

However, I feel that Nikon offers the most durable system of the three. I also appreciate the fact that they have not changed their lense mount over the generations of cameras they've produced (I was heartbroken when the Canon FD mount was discontinued). My primary camera is the Nikon FM2n. This has to be the most reliable camera I've ever owned. As far as lenses are concerned , I will only use Nikon. I've tried Tokina and some other off brand zooms and I was very disappointed. Now I shoot 80% with Nikon primes and the rest with Nikon zooms. Flash is a Sunpak 383 super wich I am extremely pleased with. Next month I will be picking up a mint condition FE-2 for the aperture priority.

As for autofocus, I feel it is very useful, and considering my eyesight is not what it used to be I am considering autofocus more and more. Possibly a 6006 or N90s. I just dread the day that "film" will no longer be available in the wake of the digital revolution!

If you're considering a manual-focus system, don't overlook Minolta's XE and XK series bodies. For a start, they use batteries that can be found almost anywhere (as compared to the SRT series, which you have to buy across the border in Mexico); they are reliable (I own two of each and have never had one fail), as well as readily available and relatively cheap. Minolta's MC & MD lenses are usually good, if not great (although there are a few gems hidden throughout the product line) and they can likewise be found cheaply and in good condition if you shop carefully.

Of course, you won't earn as much "street cred" if you've got a Minolta slung around your neck versus a Canon or Nikon but that has its merits, too (and if you're a confirmed manual-focus "dinosaur" like me, who cares what other people think, anyway?).

*******Begin quote: However, unless one is an extremely quick thinker, and consquently fast with the hands .. by the time all the various aperture, speed, and focus settings are ready, Nessie would have already sunk back into the depths of Loch Ness, and Elvis would have piloted his UFO up up and away.

For however much we love the "basic" approach to photography using mechanical cameras, the fact remains that in todays fast paced world many striking and stirring photographs would not have occurred had the photographer not been using a newfangled AF-Auto-Everything camera. One pic comes to mind, that of the Fireman carrying Baby Allie (-5sp?) after the Oklahoma City bombing. *******End quote.

*******Begin rant:

Horse poop!!!

This may be the case for people who are not skilled photographers. Indeed, it may on occaision be the case for seasoned pros. Hence the brisk sales of 5-8 FPS autofocus, zoom, etc. cameras targeted to the pro market.

Nevertheless, a look at any of the last twenty photojournalism annuals, or at a compete collection of Pulitzer photos (or any other collection of photojournalism) reveals that photos with the immediacy of the OK City photo have been made since before the advent of the 35 mm format - and made with great regularity ever since the intro. of 35 mm.

The fact is that the average quality of photojournalism has NOT improved dramatically over this period (sports and wildlife photography - essentially similar games, requiring long lenses and fast film, have benefitted from such advances more substantially).

There is a simple reason for this: small cameras today are not substantially better - for the expert user in the field - than when the Leica M3, Nikon F, Pentax Spotmatic, and Rolleiflex were introduced. Most award-winning photos - I would add, most great photos of people, and most great landscapes - are made in the 35-50 mm range of (35 mm) focal lengths. The 85-180 mm range would follow in importance (and it's worth adding that it was specifically the Nikkor 180/2.8 lens that extended the range even that far).

Improvements in film have had MUCH more impact than imporvements in cameras.

But for what it's worth, when I am walking around with a camera - a Nikon FM or FE2, or a Leica M6, it's ALREADY set at or near the correct exposure (sunny 16 or an incident reading, taken periodically by habit), and at or near correct focus (infinity or hyperfocal for a chosen aperture). I can therefore react IMMEDIATELY and get a decent frame. And if I'm looking for pictures, I will almost invariably have at least a few seconds to react, because I'm paying attention.

Do I want an EOS5+grip and an 80-200L? Of course I do. But the money is spent instead on a Leica M6 with 35 and used 50 f/1.4 lenses. These will go with me when the Canon never would, that is, nearly all of the time. They work without batteries, in light 2 stops dimmer, and with greater sharpness and contrast than the EOS equivalents. Oh, and the Leica viewfinder lets me see OUTSIDE the frame area, which allows MUCH swifter and more certain composition in changing situations. And the shutter lag is 10 milliseconds, compared to a typical SLR lag of 60- 100 ms.

I'm not saying that my choice is the best choice. I am saying that there is NOT a single best choice, and that a careful person can take great pictures with any of several cameras. One more time, folks, THE ONE WHO *CARRIES* A CAMERA GETS THE SHOT. Even in "todays fast paced world", whatever the hell *that* means.

*******End rant.

What about a new manual SLR? As nice as the old classic stuff is I worry about it being worn out. Sure, a Nikon FM or FE can last 20 years and shoot a 1,000 rolls of film, but the used ones have already. Besides, a good used camera is as expensive as a new one. Why recommend an old camera? If you want a good manual camera it seems to me the way to go is a new Nikon FM2n or Minolta X-700 for full manual or manual focus/auto exposure respectively. These cameras are as functional as any of the classic cameras, and not really any more expensive. The Minolta is especially nice if you don't plan to (upgrade?) to auto focus since Minolta seems to be the only major manufacturer still making a basic selection of manual focus prime lenses for very reasonable prices.

i use a canon/pellix from 1963. there aren't many around now. the light meter has been broken for the last17 years, and so everything is manual. i have a 70-200 soom that i use with it also. It has won me awards, contests, people's choice awards, etc, and has never failed me. there isn't any battery to go bad. It makes terrific double exposures. I also have a minolta sx-5 ( think) because every time i go to use it, it ends up in the shop for repair. It is TRASH!!!! The canon is heavy to use, but once you get used to it, you won't want to go to a point and shoot camera again .

As the oroginal purchaser of an F2 back in 1973, I enjoyed the article. It is still my favorite camera and, until very recently, has served without any problem. However I recently encountered the problem with the DP-1 meter mentioned by Paulo. I posted to the 35mm NG about it and Robert Decker in Utah responded that he fixes these things. I have sent my finder to him for repairs and am hoping this works out. I also inquired of a shop in Toronto about the availablity of functioning DP-1. They informed me they do indeed have one and I have ordered it as a "spare". In case others are interested in getting a DP finder repaired, try contacting Robert Decker at drwyn@aol.com I don't expect mine back until the end of Nov., 1998. After that time I will be willing, or unwilling, to recommend Mr. Decker's work depending on how my meter functions. I share Milton's complaint with the rewind crank on the F2. It is a pain but I am willing to put up with it. I just love the camera. I originally had 2 F2's but traded on in on an F3 back when the F3 was introduced. Bad move on my part. I know many love the F3 but I prefer the F2 and regret the trade to this day. Incidentally, Bill was VERY fortunate to get a "mint" F2/DP-1/50mm f/1.4 for "under $300"! I wish I could find deals like that too.

I'm thrilled to see so many remain passionate to the "less is more" ideal, at least the idea that bells and whistles don't always get one closer to the finish any faster. I'd be willing to bet that those intent on maintaining the older models see the photo before their eye makes it to the viewfinder. I've used 2 Pentax KX bodies, at one time professionally and am continually amazed at what they've edured over the past 20 years and will miss their familiar feel should regular maintance ever fail to prolong their lives. Thanks for the original article that induced such vibrant responses from your readership-the passion continues!

I read here and elsewhere folks saying "The Konica Hexanon's are at _least_ as good as the Nikkor lenses". Well, let me tell you....as a life long photographer, I can assure you that the Hexanon's are far better lenses than the Nikkors! I used Nikon's for 22 years when I too stumbled across an old Konica outfit. I kept noticing the konica stuff seemed much sharper than the Nikon photos. I set out and did the ultimate tests with same film, tripods and subject matter etc. Low and behold the Hexanon's were far sharper than any of my Nikkors. I was an instant convert. I sold all my Nikkor gear (save for one F body w/plain prism and 55mm micro-nikkor) and bought all used Konica SLR's and Hexanon lenses. I have never been sorry. There is one caveat to the Hexanon's however they are not as heavily multi-coated as the Nikkor's and you can have flare problems if your composition includes strong backlighting and you are not careful to compose around this problem. I have often had fellow photographers look at 11x14 portraits I have made with the Konica Autoreflex T2 with an old 85mm f1.8 lens and ask "Which Mamiya RB 6x7 do you use?". The Konica Hexanon's - as good as NNikkor's...or far better? I say far better, you can see the difference in wallet sized prints! -=[ Bruce ]=-

My boss loaned me his Olympus OM-2s for a week. What a pain. Loading the film cartridge took about twice as long as loading my EOS. You first have to thread the bloody leader, make sure it catches, and pull it through. Even so you have to watch to make sure that it takes up. With the EOS, just slap a cartridge in, pull to the green line, slap the camera back close, and you're ready to shoot. If there's a problem, the camera will tell you, and it won't shoot. The manual cameras will happily keep shooting blanks even though nothing's properly loaded.

Then there's the metering. With the dim LCD displays of yesteryear, you can barely see the meter move. And don't forget that all of these old cameras are center-weighted, so if you want a spot meter, better carry a long lens with you. Ah, and the joy of rewinding that cartridge when you're done. No DX coding means you get to play with the exposure compensation knob for each new roll.

Then the battery on the OM-2s went out, turning the meter off, forcing me to guess exposure. Because it was one of those tiny button batteries, and the OM-2s had a bug that drained those batteries regardless of whether the camera was on or not, I didn't have a spare. Even if I had had one, it wouldn't have lasted 3 days. My EOS batteries last 60-90 rolls, and stay in the camera for months with no ill effects.

Oh, did I forget to mention that I really prefer to have all my controls accessible from my right hand? The EOS has nice thumbwheels that let me control the camera all without taking my eyes off the viewfinder, giving me feedback through the viewfinder. With the manual camera, I had to use my second hand for aperture selection, and could never tell whether that stiffness in the aperture selection ring was because I'd reached the end of the aperture range, or because it was just stiff. And the exposure compensation knob in aperture priority mode is a joke. You end up taking your eye off the viewfinder and fumbling with the bugger. This camera didn't have a mirror lock up, while my EOS at least had a mirror pre-fire.

I returned the camera, glad that I got a whiz-bang EOS camera, and certain that my pictures *are* better for it---with a manual camera, I would have given up SLR photography for good within 10 rolls and stuck with point and shoot cameras. The automation on film loading, if nothing else, would have gotten me to "trade up" to an all-electronic model if I was using one of the antiques. The fact that I got fancy program modes (hey, shutter priority is cool, and the program mode is useful sometimes), a built-in fill-flash with 1/125 sync that popped up at the push of a button, and a sane user interface that lets me place a reflector with one hand and have full control over the camera makes the modern EOS so much more compelling than an Olympus OM-2s that it is not even funny. I hope more people who read this article will use manual cameras, because that way, I'll have less competition to contend with.

Piaw Na wrote amongst others: "I hope more people who read this article will use manual cameras, because that way, I'll have less competition to contend with"

I hate to burst your bubble dude, but if you believe that people using manual cameras are at a disadvantage you are mistaken. You just need to know how to use your equipment in each sistuation. In your case, the fact that you became admitedly so aggravated loading film in the OM-2s makes me wonder whether you should try APS. It beats the heck out of 35mm in loading convenience. Not to mention that weird roll-film stuff. ;-)

By the way, why are you still using EOS? If you want the ultimate auto camera get an F5 (too bad it isn't APS). You will be surprised at how inferior your "competition" will become in this case. ;->

You did't mentioned old Pentacon made Practica cameras between '70 and 80'. These cameras hav shutter speeds from 1s to 1/1000s and B. They all have vertical travel, metal leaf shutter, with flash syncronization of 1/125s. Non of the Canon cameras made in this period has a flash syncronization of 1/125s, and only the top of the line cameras has vertical travel metal curtain, shutter. And what about the lenses? There is a range of Pentacon and Zeiss made lenses from 20mm super wide angel from 1000mm super tele lenses. Nice isn't it? The lenses are multi coated, and they offer excellent performance. The cameras are very reliable, there was Practica wich did 100000 shuts. That's not o common thing for a consumer camera isnt'it?

I own an old Nikon F2 and DP-1 viewfinder. I usually use a Nikkor 55mm micro lens. I've had it since my freshman year in High School, I've traveled all over dragging this guy with me. I love it, and it has never failed me. It's been banged around a bit too, to the point there are dents. I'd take one of these over a new SLR, I tried an EOS, ewwww, plastic. I also didn't use the automatic settings. I've gotten accustom to the F2, for the most part I don't even look at the light meter. I frame all my pictures in the viewfinder, I've never had to crop a picture (I like printing with a filed neg carryer) The only thing I don't do with the F2 is keep it in my car's glove box, don't want it stolen (besides I think it's too big) so I keep an old Cannon AF35M in there good for those "I wish I had my camera" situations ;) oh BTW, I'm a Photo student now, and I want a medium format camera, or a large format... money is such a problem....

Greenspun's account of his foray into the world of 1970's era mechanical, manual cameras (great mechanical 35mm cameras are still available new: Contax S2, Nikon FM2n, Olympus OM3-Ti, Leica M6, Yashica FX-3, more from Ricoh, Vivitar, others) provoked a lot of comment. This was the comment that finally made me decide to add mine:

For however much we love the "basic" approach to photography using mechanical cameras, the fact remains that in todays fast paced world many striking and stirring photographs would not have occurred had the photographer not been using a newfangled AF-Auto-Everything camera.

How true: in the old days of World War II, Weegee's New York, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, the Hindenburg disaster, Cartier-Bresson's Paris, and the wilds of Nature before the lions and the zebra had booking agents hurrying them up all the time, life really did roll along slow enough for that basic approach to photography using mechanical cameras to be feasible.

Back in 1969, when photojournalists were more respected, and life more genteel, it was possible for Eddie Adams to ask General Loan and his North Vietnamese prisoner to please redo that bullet through the head, over and over, until finally poor Eddie was able to catch the decisive moment with his primitive, unresponsive, unreliable mechanical equipment. If he had just had multi-pattern autofocus- middle of the photo was at infinity and the two close-range subjects at the far right and left, one closer than the other- he might even have gotten it right on only the second try. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have run out of batteries that day, or had to have a replacement "wonder body" FedEx-ed in from B&H. And how many times ill-equipped Nick Ut had to ask Kim Phuc to get napalmed, and run naked screaming along the road! Those were things people would still do for you back in mellow 1973. Thank God photographic equipment has advanced enough to allow today's great shots- without idiot-friendly cameras, who would we hire to take a full 36 exposure roll of Princess Diana hiding her face behind a covered tennis racket, in under 5 seconds, each shot a winner?

I was/am using a Pentax 645 and recently (to celebrate my financial meltdown in the speculative stock markets ;-)), bought an N90S with a 28mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. I just cannot bring myself to buy a zoom lens since my style is available/night photography. So far the quality of the shots is fine, but not as good as the Pentax. I also am avoiding the dipshit canned "modes" that Nikon seemed to go to a lot of trouble with.

Still, most of the time I have the Nikon on full manual, unless there is a candid opp. and I have no time for the meter, etc...

My bread and butter camera is an Olympus OM-1 with Olympus Zuiko 85mm/f2.0 lens. Camera is bulletproof and the lens can shoot under low light. Recently took a 41 state tour in my Jeep Wrangler and the OM-1 took the trip in stride. I use an Olympus Sylus Epic (non-zoom) for severe dust conditions when off-roading in my Jeep.

Very interesting. :)

First of all, I am a Nikon fan. I own a Nikon F90 and F601 and a Nikkormat FTn, along with lenses ranging from the 200/4 from 1963 to the AF 28/2.8D from 1994. I use all this equipment with varying degrees of regularity.

I agree with some of the comments here. There is a certain pleasure involved with using older cameras. My Nikkormat feels silky smooth, beautifully well-made; it's a true pleasure to use. It is heavy, huge and relatively devoid of features, but it is truly enjoyable to photograph with it.

The obvious advantage of it being a mechanical camera is the reason why I bought it. (Having battery difficulties while photographing Comet Hyakutake on a -25 C night made me aware of that issue.) Since I had the Nikon system, I had the option of adding old equipment. I took advantage.

Don't get me wrong: I love my AF gear, too. The F90 is the finest camera I have ever used. It is a joy to use as well, but in a different way. I would be loath to be without either of these two cameras.

First, about Nikon lens compatibility: it is nearly total. Don't believe what you hear about the incompatibilities. With a few exceptions (such as the 21/4 from 1959 that needs bodies that have mirror lock-up, because it intrudes into the mirror box), all Nikon lenses mount on all bodies. YES, YES, YES, some older lenses (the non-AI ones) have to be modified to work on most post-1977 Nikon bodies, but this is cheap and easy to have done. My 50/1.4 and 200/4 were purchased as non-AI optics and I had the modifications done.

Autofocus lenses DO work fine on older Nikon bodies. They all have aperture rings and focusing rings. A very small number of cheap, consumer zooms have very narrow manual focusing rings, and may not be wonderful to use on MF cameras, but they will work. My 35-135/3.5-4.5 and 28/2.8D are perfectly useful as manual-focus optics. They must be metered in stop-down mode on really old Nikon bodies (those pre-1977) or a metering crown can be added to the aperture ring. I use stop-down mode; Nikkormats are not fast cameras anyway.

I have had many people argue about the compatibility being moot, but it is not. Suppose you are on a trip and your trusty F90x dies. If you can rent ANY Nikon body (even an old F2 or FM), you can use ALL your lenses. Yes, you could bring another body (and you should), but it's nice to have this flexibility. I also often use my Nikkormat in conditions where theft is a concern - it doesn't look modern, so nobody would want it.

Durability has been brought up. There is no question in my mind that modern SLRs will not last as long as the older mechanical ones. Plastic is not as durable as metal. I think they will last long enough, but not as long. Furthermore, liquid crystal displays exist in nearly all modern cameras. They have a FINITE life span. They start deteriorating after only seven to ten years. That is not a long time. Sure, you can replace the displays now, but for how much longer? Does Canon still sell the displays for the 620 & 650? Does Nikon for the FA? I don't know, but I have my doubts.

If you haven't tried one lately, go shooting with an old camera. It is very different from using a modern SLR. It is true that you can slam a 50/1.8 or 1.4 on a modern AF body, but that defeats the purpose. (Incidentally, you can throw Nikon's newest AF-S 80-200/2.8 on the F2 and F also, so it works both ways. :) )

An interesting article, again! Thanks for writing it.

I suppose this could be labeled In Praise of Older Cameras, with the same pros and cons as one titled In Praise of Older Women. ( reliable, plentiful on the used market, tried and true, etc) Seriously, I think that a lot of us still use older manual equipment and early design lenses because we realize that today's hot item is tomorrow's inventory closeout and that some stuff right out of the box has been not so much improved, just styled up. I bought into the Canon FD system ridiculously cheap because at the time Nikon was the real hot pro seller. Friends laughed," so you are a Canon user, eh?" Patronizing look. Some cameras, like the Canon F1 and A1 just two examples, are so reliable I guess I secretly hope they will break so that I can justify a new EOS system. I use, but tend to coddle mine. I think I have learned to fall on my ribs in a stumble, while cradling the camera in safety. The thing I deplore most about the older bodies is the fumbling in loading them,( Canon had some reels that wound in reverse on takeup spool for a while) and the weight of the old winders vis a vis modern micro -motors. I use whatever is a hand, and don't worship any vintage or level of automation.( Hand it to me and show me the On switch, please.) Some cameras have a special feel to them. A je ne sait quoi. Some don't E.g.The Elan IIe doesn't and I cant explain the lack of chemistry. Like selecting a puppy from a litter I suppose. Updated viewpoint as of 2/99: Having stumbled on a fine working model of the sturdy T-90 recently, Its almost like an organ transplant(a$500 one,but worth it IMO) and will extend the life of my manual FD system for several years if I choose. Do I covet an EOS 3 and an L series zoom set? Sure, but I think it won't improve my photography enough to offset the costs. That day will come I know,just as I will probably be driving a gas/electric hybrid car too. No turning back the clock in the real world.

Most of my shooting is either magazine illustration for article I write (generally tabletop), portraits and some travel photography. I used to do astrophotography. None of this really requires any automation at all, and as often as not I use a meterless F2 for critical work with a hand-held meter. More automation often just results in faster shooting. I find the older manual cameras are cheap, reliable and of higher quality than their new automated cousins. As for photojournalism- cameras have nothing to do with photojournalism. It's all f/16 and be there, right?

I have been using a Practica MTL 3 camera, which I purchased new in 1979. This uses the screw mount lenses which, although they are hard to find, are quite reasonably priced if you are careful. I am blessed by a local camera shop that does manage to keep a small and ever changing stock of lenses. This camera has never failed me. Although I truly rank myself as an amateur, I can't complain that the camera has ever caused me to 'miss' a shot. I suspect that there is much to be said for using such a fully manual camera, but I must admit that if funds were more plentiful, I would be sorely tempted to upgrade. For now, I will be happy to continue to use the camera that has taught me more than I could ever hope to have learned from a fully automatic model. I currently have Mamiya 50mm/f2, Pentax 135mm/f3.5, Pentacon 29mm/f2.8 lenses, along with extension tubes, which give me an amazing range of capabilities, on a very modest budget.

I think using MF or AF cameras results in different pictures. Namely in situations where you have to act fast (people, wildlife). With MF you have to preset the camera or use aperture priority and rely on DOF. The more DOF the better. With AF you can use the lens wide open and isolate the subject by sharpness (if you know how to use it). Though with MF wide angle lenses should be preferred, while AF excels with tele lenses. With MF you can compose pictures at will, with AF you set focus and recompose or keep objects covered by one of the AF sensors and therefore place them in a certain region. None is better, but indeed different.

I finally succumbed and bought an AF camera. (No need repeating what I had to say about the Canon Rebel - the letter's on Phil's Canon Rebel Page.) I still use my Olympus OM-1MD, principally to carry bigger glass or B/W film. It's a beautiful camera that I'm still crazy about after all those years. And here's why.

I know that this sounds like advertising hype, but the OM was designed as a SYSTEM from the ground up. By way of contrast, the Nikon (and Canon, to a lesser degree) grew like Topsy. If a new feature was added, it was pasted on the previous model - and the camera LOOKED like it. (This is an entirely separate issue from how the Nikon WORKS. After all, can all of those photo pros be wrong?) In addition, the Zuiko lenses were (and are still) superb, e.g. the 85mm, f/2.0 mentioned in a previous note.

To me, the key word about AF is CONSISTENCY. I can get more quality photos per roll, i.e. more bang for the buck! When you spend all that money, time, and effort to get to, say, Lake Solitude in the Tetons, the cost of film and processing is NOT the big factor. What you see may be a once-in-a-lifetime situation and you want to grab it. (If you're not in a hurry, you can always bracket the exposure to CYA.) I am NOT trying to be a National Geographic photographer on the cheap or be another Elliot Porter without paying my dues.

If you think that I'm going to try to teach my wife how to zone focus, use exposure compensation, or about the virtues of a circular polarizer - think again. For HER purposes (which are perfectly legitimate), a point-and-shoot camera is the way to go. (And, BTW, the Olympus "transition" point-and-shoot is a dynamite camera!)

When I am traveling, there are other people to think about whose interest in photography is significantly less than mine. Thus, although I have an excellent Bogen tripod, I don't generally have time to do an Ansel Adams-type setup. And both the OM-1MD and the Rebel will allow me to shoot manually - IF I wish. Hey - this is the best of both worlds! (BTW, always have a spare battery for the OM too - nothing worse than having no light meter, even though I do carry my old Weston Master II just in case!)

****RANT*** I must add my two cents to the remarks made by "Cam Era". The pure fact of the matter is that Ansel Adams (for example) could take a better picture with a pinhole camera than 95% of the techno-dweebs who try to stay at the crest of the latest wave of "features". It remains the person BEHIND the camera that principally determines the content of a photo. Of course - right time and right place DO help. Some "photographers" remind me of an "audiophile" friend of mine. He is more concerned with SNR and a flat response up to 100 kc than with music. Why buy several thousand dollars worth of audio equipment to play Flatt and Scruggs! Similarly, there are "photographers" that are more interested in their photometers, Macbeth color checkers, and optical resolution charts than in pictures. ****END OF RANT****

Again, thanks for a fine photo resource.

I finally succumbed and bought an AF camera. (No need repeating what I had to say about the Canon Rebel - the letter's on Phil's Canon Rebel Page.) I still use my Olympus OM-1MD, principally to carry bigger glass or B/W film. It's a beautiful camera that I'm still crazy about after all those years. And here's why.

I know that this sounds like advertising hype, but the OM was designed as a SYSTEM from the ground up. By way of contrast, the Nikon (and Canon, to a lesser degree) grew like Topsy. If a new feature was added, it was pasted on the previous model - and the camera LOOKED like it. (This is an entirely separate issue from how the Nikon WORKS. After all, can all of those photo pros be wrong?) In addition, the Zuiko lenses were (and are still) superb, e.g. the 85mm, f/2.0 mentioned in a previous note.

To me, the key word about AF is CONSISTENCY. I can get more quality photos per roll, i.e. more bang for the buck! When you spend all that money, time, and effort to get to, say, Lake Solitude in the Tetons, the cost of film and processing is NOT the big factor. What you see may be a once-in-a-lifetime situation and you want to grab it. (If you're not in a hurry, you can always bracket the exposure to CYA.) I am NOT trying to be a National Geographic photographer on the cheap or be another Elliot Porter without paying my dues.

If you think that I'm going to try to teach my wife how to zone focus, use exposure compensation, or about the virtues of a circular polarizer - think again. For HER purposes (which are perfectly legitimate), a point-and-shoot camera is the way to go. (And, BTW, the Olympus "transition" point-and-shoot is a dynamite camera!)

When I am traveling, there are other people to think about whose interest in photography is significantly less than mine. Thus, although I have an excellent Bogen tripod, I don't generally have time to do an Ansel Adams-type setup. And both the OM-1MD and the Rebel will allow me to shoot manually - IF I wish. Hey - this is the best of both worlds! (BTW, always have a spare battery for the OM too - nothing worse than having no light meter, even though I do carry my old Weston Master II just in case!)

****RANT*** I must add my two cents to the remarks made by "Cam Era". The pure fact of the matter is that Ansel Adams (for example) could take a better picture with a pinhole camera than 95% of the techno-dweebs who try to stay at the crest of the latest wave of "features". It remains the person BEHIND the camera that principally determines the content of a photo. Of course - right time and right place DO help. Some "photographers" remind me of an "audiophile" friend of mine. He is more concerned with SNR and a flat response up to 100 kc than with music. Why buy several thousand dollars worth of audio equipment to play Flatt and Scruggs! Similarly, there are "photographers" that are more interested in their photometers, Macbeth color checkers, and optical resolution charts than in pictures. ****END OF RANT****

Again, thanks for a fine photo resource.

William Duggleby

In 1973, I began shooting seriously in 35mm with the typical manual metered cameras of the era. In 1992, I "went autofocus" and acquired several zooms to replace my old-fashioned prime lenses. While preparing a slide presentation in 1997, I had the opportunity to closely compare my slides from the 70s and 80s to those I had taken with my newer 90s "whiz-bang" system. The difference was alarming -- not from a technical standpoint, but from a composition and content standpoint. I realized the auto-everything system had made me lazy! I had gradually learned to let my equipment select the focus, exposure, perspective, proximity (just zoom in or out, after all) when shooting, and my shots had suffered for it! I immediately sold my autofocus gear and bought a used Nikon F2A and several ruggedly-built used Nikkor prime lenses. I've never looked back. The moral of the story for me is that it wasn't the equipment that helped make me a poorer photographer -- it was the convenience factor. I simply shoot better photos when I have to actually do the thinking, focusing and framing for myself.

I've been quite happy with my Nikon F801s for the past 7 years, but when I recently had a chance to borrow a friend's FM2, I was reminded of the pleasures of working with such a simple and classic body. It's almost inevitable to spend more time contemplating composition and exposure when working with the FM2, which probably results in a higher rate of good pictures. On the other hand, I would not want to miss some of the 801's advantages, such as a much brighter viewfinder image, spot meter, and aperture priority automatic. I also used to have an FE-2 and continue to think of it as one of the best cameras ever made. The most fun I ever had with a 35-mm camera, however, was with a Contax 159 mm, which I believe was discontinued after only a few years in the late 1980's. The Carl Zeiss lenses were superb, in their optical performance, durability, and overall feel. Unfortunately, they're a bit expensive, they're harder to find 2nd hand, and the system is much more limited than, say, Nikon.

Like many of the previous respondants here, I grew up with manual focus SLR's and only time and a little presbyopia (age aquired inability to focus closely) prompted me to experiment with autofocus. It was with no small amount of misgiving then that I packed up my old manual focus Nikons and traded up to autofocus bodies. Now, after some time with the new equipment, I have formed some definite philosophical opinions. So rather than extol the virtues of one brand over another, I thought I would go in a different direction and share some of them. To begin with, to call any modern autofocus SLR a camera is misleading - let us be honest here, these are computers that expose film. Comparing them to older manual focus equipment is truly "apples and oranges". Like many of you, I have owned every F professional series manual camera that Nikon ever made as well as sundry FAs, FMs, Pentax and Minoltas. Do any of you really miss calculating fill flash compensations in your head? Do you really miss discarding multiple slides from that long lens sports shoot due to minor focus problems or losing the peak moment because you just didn't feel like carrying the motor drive today and couldn't thumb the film advance fast enough? Do you really miss fussing with settings and trying to remember if that last bracket shot was the two stops over or under? Finally, do any of you really miss the weight of say two bodies and four lenses hanging off you for eight hours on a summer's day. I hardly think so. Modern autofocus bodies and lenses are marvels. Having said that, I invariably advise anyone who represents himself as serious about photography and who asks me what to buy as a first camera to buy a good manual focus SLR. Modern autofocus bodies are marvels indeed but they can only be used effectivly if the photographer behind the machine has an understanding of what the machine can or can't do for him. Manual focus equipment remains unsurpassed for teaching that. In addition, older manual focus systems offer a level of durability that I wonder if the newer systems will never match. Some of my old Nikon's were 25 years old and still functioning perfectly despite a quarter century of benign neglect - I often wonder how many of our newer auto everything cameras will still be going 25 years out of the box? Modern autofocus bodies and lenses are fragile. Finally (a pet peeve of mine) - why is it that camera manufacturers feel that I only need to see 92% of what will be on the final frame? In the final analysis though photography is about making images and the bottom line is that a good quality older 35mm SLR and lens system can produce anything it's newer cousins can - it's just that the photographer may have to use a little more of the one accessory he can't put in his camera bag - his brains.

I live in St. Louis and, during the recent visit of Pope JP II, decided to sieze the opportunity to take some photos of the parade. I was standing along Lindell Boulevard with my camera bag on my shoulder and my Minolta XG-7 around my neck, with a 200mm, f/4 telephoto, not particularly fast, but very sharp. On my left stood a "petulant yuppie" (as Phil so succinctly put it) with a Nikon N90s and a Tamron (!?) zoom lens, which appeared to be a 28-200mm, f/very slow! I overheard his incessant bitching to his wife regarding the fact that his AF wasn't working, and laughed inwardly to myself. I know that my pictures are superior to his, despite the fact that my camera and entire bag of lenses, including the bag, cost less than his frivolous little toy!

In addition to the above comment, may I say that the gentleman to my right, with the Nikon F, was probably taking better pictures than I was.

hi all shutterbugs

I started off with Canon EOS 50, then as I shot more and more.. I got more ambitious... I upgraded from EOS-50/28-80/540EZ to EOS-5/28-105 then to Eos-5/28-135.. then EOS-1N/28-135/540EZ

while I love the ergonomics and AF features of Canon... i felt that I'm missing a lot of stuff. Pics are looking clincal sharp with no mood.

So I tried medium format photography.. by using a Seagull TLR and a light meter. I discovered that manual photography wasn't that bad and all the satisifying.

Then I took a deep breadth and sold off my entire Canon gear.. incl my priced used EOS-1N.

I bought used Nikon F3HP/Nikkor 50 f1.4/135 f2.8/28 f2.8 and metz 40. I've since then got back pretty and nice portraits. I love the imperfection of pics and I get to learn a lot from each roll. My confidence rose with every roll I took. I gradually know each step I take and can change setting intuitively.

Of course.. this manual bug bites me hard. I saw a minty Nikon F2AS on the shelf.. and I bought it later. Now as I fiddled my way thro' F2AS, I found that it is much more solid than F3HP. My huge hands could spread out comfortably. Adding a soft shutter release... helps to take stable shots. I like the feel of this camera very much. I'm using my F3HP less nowdays. I've also acquired Nikkor 105/1.8 lens. This lens is great for portraiture. IT is so sharp and contrasty.

Recently i saw a used 85/1.4 on the shelves. I was tempted to sell off something to get it. I could not let go my F2AS and 105/1.8 ... therefore I thinking of letting go my minty used F3HP.

What do u guys think?

anyway.. I love my Nikon Manual system.

Reading Piaw Na's comments about a borrowed Olympus SLR reminded me of my first foray into AF SLR. I got a ***** and loaded it up with film and $12 worth of batteries. After shooting 20 frames, that was it. I rapidly found I needed $12 for batteries to shoot 20 frames and then another $12 for batteries to rewind the roll. On top of this, I found if the tongue of the film wasn't extended far enough, I could hear "Bzzzz, slap, slap, slap..." until it died and I replaced the batteries. After two trips back to the factory and being advised that "The camera is fine; you need to try a different brand of battery" I trashed the ***** and went back to my Konica T3n. Since then I got another AF SLR (Pentax), slapped a 28-4/f2.8-4 zoom on it and happily use it for my snapshooting and tourist stuff. The Konica is still my main squeeze and I expect to continue so for my lifetime.

I swear by a 1958 Nikkormat FTn and my collection of Nikkor lenses... (24/1.8, 50/1.4, 105/2.8 and 200/4) no AF camera I've ever touched gives me quite as much creative freedom, in virtually any situation. Newer cameras are best for convenience as the downside to the FTn is that if I were to spot a UFO or some other "blink and it's gone" moment, there'd be no chance in hell of capturing it based on the fact that it's fully manual. My only other complaint is that it only rates film up to ASA 1600, but the 50/1.4 lens can usually compensate for the loss of the extra stop (I would still point out that for a 1958 camera, 1600 is pretty good).

I will also note that no camera shop has ever had trouble repairing this (it's over 40 years old, it certainly has needed work on occassion). Just last year it needed a new meter: had the camera back in less than a week. Several other mechanical problems have been resolved, as well, quickly and efficiently.

In all, a great SLR body. Forces you to learn how to take real photos.

Scott, the Nikkormat FTn was first produced in 1968, not 1958. Your Nikkormat is 30 years old, not 40, still an impressivly durable piece of equipment.

In all the comments, I didn't see mentioned one thing: some features aren't present in current cameras which were present in the older ones--or are markedly more expensive.

The one which comes to my mind is Canon's Speed Finder, a eye- and waist-level finder in one, with eye relief sufficient to use the thing 2-3" away from your eyes.

The only modern cameras I've seen which permit this are the Nikon F4 and F5, but the viewfinder itself costs more than a Canon F-1 and the finder, and the camera bodies aren't particularly cheap either.

As someone who has to wear glasses *and* contact lenses to see, this isn't a luxury item--but the current cameras make it cost like one.

Sure, I'd love auto fill-flash; that's something I hate calculating on the fly, wondering if I got it right in the fraction of a second semi-candid portraits take, but if I can't *see*, I can't get anything.

I have owned a Canon AE1-Program for a long time now. When I want to think about what I am shooting and composing, I use the AE1. DOP, lock down, etc.. My wife likes her Canon Owl, which has a huge viewfinder and takes very nice pictures. I prefer the heft, control and deliberateness of my AE1. As far as reliability, my camera has never been cleaned, I replaced the focus screen with something more to my liking in 5 minutes 11 years ago. I've never had a problem of any kind. I shoot roughly 5 rolls of film per month. That's approximately 1200 rolls with nary a failure. I'm keeping it till it dies, then my, now 9 year old, son will learn on it. I doubt that any of the new cameras will be cross generational.

What About an Even Older 35mm Rangefinder?

I was quite taken with the article describing your experience with a Nikon F2. Try dropping back yet another 20 years into the mid to late 1950's. Forty years ago, one of the photo journalist's cameras of choice was the Contax IIIa Color Dial (or IIa Color Dial without light meter). No mirror or prism, but it does have a superb rangefinder.

The "Color Dial" refers to the shutter speed dial which is coded in red, yellow and black to indicate which flash synchronization would be switched in. The 1/50th second is yellow for X-sync and allows use of electronic strobe. In addition this version also had a standard PC connection. Prior to 1954, the Black Dial only synchronized for flash bulbs and the sync was accomplished with an outboard adapter that plugged into a proprietary connector. Aside from an odd sync method on the Black Dial, the Contax IIa/IIIa BD and CD were still ahead of their time in spite of a basic design dating to the mid-1930's. The original Contax I was created to compete with the very first Leicas. Obviously development and growth of the Zeiss Ikon product line was sunted by WWII and the partitioning of Germany into East and West that became permanent a few years after the war ended.

The Contax was the flagship of the Zeiss Ikon line. It featured a rangefinder integrated into the viewfinder versus separate ones on its primary competition, the Leica screwmount rangefinder. The vertical, metal focal plane shutter allowed a top shutter speed of 1/1250th second and on the CD versions it would X-sync for a strobe flash at 1/50th second. This is old hat now, but it was considered blistering speed 45 years ago. Most of the lesser focal plane cameras today have a top shutter speed of 1/1000th with X-sync at 1/60th. Only top end models are faster. All this was done with a single shutter speed dial compared to two dials on its competition. The pre-war III and post-war IIIa featured a built-in selenium meter. Albeit uncoupled from the shutter speed or lens aperture settings, nearly all the rest of its era had no meter (most notably the Leicas). The rangefinder windows are sufficiently separated that one can easily distinguish between 100-150 feet and infinity while focusing the lens. The viewfinder is small by today's standards, but was considered bright in its time. After 40-plus years many are dirty now making them somewhat dim. If it is clean, it is sufficiently bright to focus accurately under normal indoor lighting. Lenses are bayonet mounted. Changing one is not very difficult and easier than a screwmount.

Film loading was immensely easier compared to the Leica screwmount rangefinders and many other cameras from its era. The entire back and bottom remove as one piece. Film loading is similar to today's manual load cameras except the take-up spool is not permanently attached to the fork that winds it. While this may be a drawback today, it was designed that way to allow photographers who loaded their own loaded film cartridges to use cartridges on both sides of the camera. By being able to remove the spool and use a cartridge on the takeup side, you could unload film for processing partway through a roll, replace the takeup cartridge with another and continue shooting. This wasted less film for those who had loaded the supply cartridge with a long roll and needed to immediately process images.

What Do You Get with a World-Class Professional Rangefinder from the Mid-1950's?

a. Superb world-class lens(es). The standard lens found on most is a coated (post-war) Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar with seven elements in three groups. Still a world-class lens, it is razor sharp in resolution, has excellent contrast, and is noted for its flat field.

b. Mechanical shutter and self-timer (with no less than three timing positions), and on the IIIa a selenium meter. NO BATTERIES REQUIRED. This means you never have to worry about the dreaded shutter lockup when you're shooting in sub-zero weather and your batteries poop out.

c. The viewfinder does not go black when you press the shutter release. This is helpful when panning to capture a race car going by 180 MPH and other action photography. You can see your subject before, during, and after taking the photograph. Being able to follow through and stay with a fast-moving subject with an SLR when the viewfinder goes blank for 1/60th second is not an easy task. I find this much easier with a rangefinder.

d. The rangefinder does not care how fast or slow the lens is mounted on the camera. This means you do not have the SLR problem with split-images and micro-prisms going black with slower lenses. You can quickly adjust the focus turning the lens itself and fine tune if you want to (and have time to) using a wheel near the shutter release (all but the longest telephotos engage this wheel). There is also an infinity lock missing on most modern cameras.

e. The focus helical is on the camera body, not the lens. What does this mean? Your lens is better sealed against crudmium showing up inside the lens. A lens that has been cared for and not abused will be cleaner and clearer on the inside than some of the ten year old manual SLR lenses considered to be in 9++ condition.

f. The body is built like a tank. There is nothing flimsy about it. The body and caps are heavy gauge over a massive die cast frame. No fake leatherette either. This has the real McCoy and if not abused will last longer than the man-made stuff. Foam seals cannot rot after 20 years because there aren't any. Not that someone should bounce a camera around unnecessarily, its sturdiness will easily survive minor bumps and jolts and is less likely to take a visible dent.

g. You get to experience a little of what professional 35mm photography was like 40, 50, 60 and nearly 70 years ago, before the Japanese SLR's (notably Nikon) took the professional 35mm market away from the Germans. You must know more about the science of light and capturing it on a photograph as everything is manual operation. *You* make all the decisions about focus, shutter speed and aperture. If you like to blame your camera for the poor shots, then one of these is not for you. If you like the comfort of knowing you will never encounter an odd depth of field or lighting situation that will drive a pre-programmed microprocessor into the wrong settings, then it's a real benefit. Then again, I believe one of the great secrets of better photography is turning all the automatic stuff off.

What Don't You Get?

a. You don't have a huge battery of interchangeable lenses to choose from; there aren't any super long telephotos or zoom lenses. The telephotos are slower than the more expensive ones for a modern SLR, but still as fast, or faster than the cheap ones. Finding ones in excellent user condition other than standard lenses can be difficult also. For other than standard lenses you need to use a separate viewfinder on an accessory mount. Nothing but primes also means you get to use your feet instead of a zoom to frame a subject.

b. Old rangefinders have knob winders and knob rewind instead of levers and cranks. This takes a bit longer. There is no such thing as auto-wind or auto-rewind. However, there is a long-lost technique of two-handed winding that can advance to the next frame quickly using two twists if you're willing to pull the camera away from your face. If you're not, you can wind the Contax with one hand while looking through the viewfinder with the thumb and forefinger. It just takes a little longer. You also have to remember to reset the film counter when loading the film. It's easy and fast, but you do have to remember.

c. These cameras are not light. All the sturdiness without the benefit of petroleum-based man-made materials (a.k.a. plastic) means they weigh more, but only perhaps twice as much as a modern SLR. If that's a consideration, then look elsewhere. However, remember when you bolt that 9x one-lens-does-all-focal-lengths zoom onto your SLR, you will undoubtedly be back up to the weight of an old rangefinder with a prime. The balance on the SLR will shift to out in front of the body requiring you to hold it by the lens and you won't be as steady for that 1/30th second shot.

d. One of the few things missing on the Contax IIa and IIIa is parallax correction found on some current rangefinders and older accessory viewfinders for other older cameras. You must remember with close subjects (closer than about 10 feet) that you are *not* looking through the lens. You are looking a couple inches away from the lens. This means you need to remember to compensate for this when photographing close subjects. It is a particular problem, but not wholly insurmountable, for macro-photography using close-up lenses.

e. You can run into more scrutiny going through airport security checkpoints. The guards are the best money can buy at not much above minimum wage level. Few have ever seen these old cameras and some have been known to call for extra help to give very old cameras a thorough examination. Ultimately pointing out it *is* a camera by virtue of lens, viewfinder and shutter release will get you through, but I take mine through without film loaded so it can be opened to prove nothing nasty is hidden inside. Just remember to be nice about it and be patient. They do *not* have to let you through and have the long arm of the law to back that up.

f. I'm certain given enough time someone somewhere will think up one or more items to more than fill this paragraph.

I consider my Contax IIIa CD a phenomenal camera. Do I use it for everything? No, I have a MF aperture priority (with manual exposure mode also) electronic shuttered SLR and a number of lenses for it. I do use the old Contax regularly though. It produces photographs technically as