Best manual camera, ever?

<p>You'd have to put in a vote for the least expensive Yashica, because it was a cheapish platform for Zeiss lenses</p>

<p>Nikon F2, hands down. It did everything than any camera could do in its day and still does some things better than today's cameras. Feels better in my hands than anything today. Absoluetely never ever fails to produce a picture for any reason (other than user error) for any reason whatsoever. Any picture that I've ever had not "come out" with an F2 was something I did, not some mystery thing that the camera did. They are solid as a rock, built like a locomotive. My first one got dropped onto concrete twice before it noticed, and then the prism was only a little loosened up and still kept working. No battery, no problem (you lose the meter and the motor but who really needs those?) I have four, with various combinations of prisms, meters and motors, and I'm pretty sure I could drive nails with them without any problem.</p>

<p>An R series Leica, without a doubt. I had a few R4 bodies. The results of an R body with Leica lens is head and shoulders above the Japanese cameras. I also, at various times, used a Pentax, a Mamiya 1000 and some FM2 and F3 Nikons. When you put a Leica picture in the same portfolio as a Nikon picture it looked like a larger format. This is not Nikon bashing, Lex. It is fact. I still have an FM3 and a few digital Nikons.</p>

<p>Marty Forster, who used to run Professional Camera Repair in NYC, had a very few cameras he called "hockey puck" cameras for obvious reasons. They were cameras that could take anything and still work. He designated them as the Leica M, the Nikon F, and, I think the Canon F.</p>

<p>Having used all three, I must concur, with a slight edge to the Leica M because it has so much less to break than the other two. Simple, solid, dependable, the sort of camera you could hit someone with and then take their picture with it.</p>

<p>If that's how you define "best," that's it.</p>

 

<p>If you want to hit someone get a Graflex Super Graphic.</p>

<p>It is also pretty good as a photographic instrument.</p>

<p>I think there was kind of a high point in 35mm cameras just prior to the introducton if the first auto exposure slrs. There were similar cameras from several of the makers and some of those brands are gone now. I happened to have the Minolta SRT-102, Canon and Nikon and others had similar models, many makers had "professional" or consumer models above and below them as well. Even some of the smallish rangefinders were a step above the the "point and shoots" and still fondly remembered. I do agree that the OM series was special because they did try to get out of the same mold as the others with a smaller, lighter system. I wonder a bit if they might not have captured a larger share of the pie if they had come out with them somewhat sooner?</p>

<p>But instead of trying to parse that still popular group of cameras (as in "Why can't a get a digital SRT-102 or FTb or ....?"), how about the perhaps more universally sold and now widely panned, "Never-ready" case as the classic "worst" accessory?</p>

<p>The answer is more a matter of you are not asking the right question and the right question is virtually impossible to phrase. Everyone has a different "feel" behind the camera. There are many many GREAT cameras out there, and each one has different characteristics that make it great. Durability and flexibility are only two quantities, but there are other factors. While durability and flexibility are quantifiable things that can be listed in charts and make for easy debate, the less quantifiable aspects are just as, if not MORE important. How a camera feels in your hands and how comfortable the controls feel for you are factors that are not quantifiable but will arguably lead you to more satisfaction in your image making experiences. To generalize this concept, people with small hands like myself are often attracted to cameras like the OM1 and similar small cameras with large controls. Cases like large vs. small may chartible data with fairly predictable results, but other cases are more based on simple preference. Starting from the perspective of someone who has never used a 35mm film camera, how would one know if they prefer a match needle meter over an LED meter or no meter or completely blind automated metering? Each style of metering has its merits and there are cameras having each of those styles which MAY be categorized as the "best" despite the vastly different user experience. The same is true for things such as focusing screen style, shutter ring style, aperture ring style, dof preview, width and style of the grippy focusing ring and aperture surface, handgrips, position of strap lugs, orientation and position of controls, and feedback such as exposure and frame information. I am aware that Nikon makes great cameras, but I find just about everything about them to be backwards, awkwardly placed and in some cases simply confusing. Canon and Minolta are a little better and for me Olympus OM is the perfect fit... especially the OM-1 which for my taste is an absolutely perfect machine from every aspect. </p>

<p>Big: Pentax 67<br>

Small: LX for its -6 EV</p>

<p>Best 35mm slr I used was Nikon F2.</p>

<p>Canon F1.</p>

<p>By the time the FM3a came out everybody was talking Digital so I skipped on that one. I do own the Nikon FE2 and the FM2N, both bought used on eBay. The FE2 does give you a little speed but the Light meter on the FM2N is absolutely accurate. I also owned an Olympus OM-4 until the light meter went out. </p>

<p>My Norita was my hammer of choice during my wedding stage. Excellent lenses, easy handling. Built like a rock.</p>

<p>Yashica FX-3 fitted with any of the fixed focal length Contax lenses, say a 28mm f2.8 lens</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>Pentax Spotmatic and a 50mm f1.4 Pentax lens</p>

<p>Ditto on the Yashica FX-3 (super 2000) with Contax lenses. An FX-3 and a Contax 35 2.8 sets you back, oh, $200, and has stunning optics.</p>

<p>The Nikon F with the Nippon Kogaku logo on the top in front of the shutter release is my choice. All the parts were machined to finish. When the logo on top changed to just "Nikon" some parts became stamped, and the quality dropped a little.<br>

8x10 Deardoff View Camera with bulb release is the ultimate manual camera.</p>

<p>FM3A and Leica M6</p>

<p>Best camera ever was the one I used that got me the best picture ever.</p>

<p>Best camera ever was the one that opened my eyes to the possibilities (for me, it was the Miranda Sensorex).</p>

<p>Pentax Spotmatic, and what I replaced it with -- the Pentax KX</p>

<p>Contax S2b, Canon F-1 (original) & Leica R-6....all superb for slightly differing reasons.</p>

<p>But the Nikon F must remain the seminal manual SLR for it started the SLR craze.</p>

<p>I'll put in another plug for the Nikon FM. The LED meter helps in low light and if you lose the batteries, you still get to keep your camera. The Olympus OM1 is compact, quiet and just plain fits the hand. Minolta SRT 101 was my first real SLR and the match needle metering was hard to beat along with the depth of field preview.</p>

<p>They're not all "just light tight boxes". If a camera has controls that readily come to hand (for you) and gives the information most essential (for you) allowing a transparent interface to express or capture whats most important (for you) then you hold in your hands the best manual 35mm SLR camera(for you). The previous sentence may of course be subjective(for you).</p>

<p>For 120 rollfilm: Super Ikonta B, Rolleiflex 2.8f; 35mm Nikon F2AS ; Canon F1, Olympus OM1; I have used Pentax MXs for nearly thirty years but I would put them a little below the three I have chosen. Others may contest this judgement.</p>

<p>Only somebody who has never taken a photograph with a Contax would not include it on this list. I love the Contax AX, RTS II for simplicity, the Contax N1 for handling. All remarkable cameras.<br>

mrh.</p>

 

<p>Nikon F, Minolta SRT, Spotmatic</p>

<p>My votes, in no particular order, Canon F-1, Kodak Retina Ia and Pentax K1000 </p>