Under rated film bodies

<p>The lower end Maxxums (Maxxum 4, 5) also the XTSI and HTSI often go for cheap and are versatile picture takers, although I think the 4 and 5 are not as well made as the XTSI. You get multimode exposure, high speed flash sync with HS series flashes and wireless multiple flash on the 5, HTSI, and XTSI. The 4 and 5 are often less than 10 USD at KEH. For really cheap thrills look for a Maxxum 2xi. Only has one AF sensor, but it has 8 segment metering, multi mode expsoure and spot metering. Top shutter speed of 1/2000 second. Often sell for 3 or 4 dollars on occasion.<br>

In the non-AF arena, I'd vote for the Canon T70. Pretty much everything except AF and access to bargain priced Canon lenses.</p>

<p>I used to do a lot of motorsports freelance photography. I was at a drag race one day back during the mid-1980s, and struck up a conversation with another photographer who was shooting for a magazine that day. He was a real character. He was covering the drag race with a Canon T-50 and a nFD 200mm f/4 prime lens. That was it. He told me that was all he needed, the pair did a great job and if he had to move out of harm's way quickly and his equipment didn't survive, it was no big loss. Hard to fault his logic. He also showed me a cover shot from another magazine of a dirt bike and its rider that he took with a Canon QL-17 GIII. So both of those cameras are candidates for being underrated, in my book. Well, the QL-17 is certainly popular these days amongst vintage rangefinder aficionados, but how many of them would think to use their QL-17s for cover photos?</p>

<p>The Canon FTb is under-appreciated outside of the small circle of Canon users who have experience with Canon's manual/mechanical cameras of the 1970s. It ranks right up there with the Nikkormat and the Spotmatics as far as competing for any "workhorse" title goes.</p>

<p>The Pentax LX, not so much for being under-rated as for being under-the-radar. What a fantastic camera, one which must have been made from stealth materials because it seems that only a small select group of Pentax users are even aware of its existence. The same can be said for the KX as well, but to a somewhat lesser extent. The LX and KX are my two favorite Pentaxes, but when you mention them to an average Pentax guy, you're usually greeted with a "huh?" and a blank stare.</p>

<p>The original Olympus OM-2. Not the 2n, but the 2. This camera's auto-exposure and metering system was capable of metering off-the-film TTL for like up to 30 minute exposures, although you had to play around with the film ISO settings to get it to meter for that length of time. When the OM-2n was released, they changed the chip and it lost that extra-long low-light TTL exposure capability.</p>

<p>The Fuji GX-680. Especially the III model. Now, honestly, if you had a studio set up for medium format photography, wouldn't the GX-680 be your first choice? No? Why not? Cuz you've never heard of it? Or haven't heard enough about it? Precisely my point.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I certainly agree with the LX and KX, two incredible bodies. Another camera that I think is amazingly underrated is a compact camera, the Nikon L35AF. It often sells for dirt-cheap in thrift stores and on Ebay, if they sell at all. This camera has a lens that consistently delivers stunning pictures, with amazing color and sharpness. Plus, the build quality also feels first-rate. It's really impressive to read about the development that went into the lens on this camera, reminiscent of the lengths to which Maitani went to create the XA.</p>

<p>In days gone by anything that wasn't a Leica, Nikon or Canon in 35mm was a redheaded stepsister. But there were so many great cameras without those nameplates it is not funny. Olympus has fabulous glass, Minolta (and Olympus) great large viewfinders. Pentax was a workhorse back then and very well made. I used a bunch of Miranda cameras when they were new and they were fine. I knew a guy who used the Exacta for medical photography (throught a microscope, for instance) and it could do what most others could not. A camera is like a wrench. Use the one that fits.</p>

<p>I just passed up a cheap Nikon L35 AF, but I have an excuse. I already have another version of that camera which is waterproof! The Nikon Actiontouch is basically an underwater L35 which will still take pictures above ground, but you can swim with the fishes too. Just don't drop it. Unlike the underwater Minoltas this one does not float!</p>

<p>Minolta X-570, which, were it not high-end plastic, would be hands down the best MC/MD camera Minolta ever made. Contax 167-M. Pentax ME Super. Nikon FE. (Yes, I believe it's underrated, especially by Nikon F aficionados.) In that same sense, the OM2n, which gets not nearly the respect of the OM3 and OM4 but which is magnificent, smooth, almost perfect. Leica CL/Minolta CLE. And the Leica M5: they're expensive, but you'll be hard pressed to find a loving tribute to one.</p>

<p>Nikon FA<br>

Any of the Nikkormats<br>

Nikon N8008s<br>

Minolta SR-1 and SR-2<br>

Pentax ME Super</p>

 

<p>Pentax Program-A</p>

<p>Everything you need - Manual Exposure and Aperture Priority. Everything can be operated by feel - big chunky on switch, aperture rings. Compact and solid steel body. Batteries last several months.</p>

JDM, since when were the T90 and

N8008 underrated? AFAIK they were

always known as great cameras. T90s

were used by press photographers.

<p>Vince, I'll second your nod for the Minolta X-570. A little known, or at least under-reported, fact about this camera that is a result of it being designed and produced <em>after</em> its "big brother," the X-700 is one feature it has that the X-700 lacks, which actually makes it a more useful camera: when in manual mode, the meter responds to changes in shutter speed. That is, the meter is coupled with both the aperture and shutter speeds. With the X-700, the meter is coupled to aperture only, and shows a <em>recommended</em> shutter speed in manual mode, and not the one actually selected. Anybody who frequently uses a camera in manual mode will tell you that, if the meter is not coupled to both aperture and shutter speed, it makes for a PITA to use. I'm not positive of this, but I'm pretty sure, that the X-370 also has this same ability in manual mode.</p>

<p>So why did the two less full-featured siblings have this capability that the older one lacks? My guess is precisely because it is the <em>older</em> one. When the X-700 was designed and produced, cross-coupling the meter was probably an option that was decided against for cost reasons. But by the time the X-570 came out, this problem had been overcome, so the feature was included.</p>

<p>Contax SLRs have been mentioned a couple of times. I don't know if I'd consider any of them to be under-rated. They certainly aren't amongst Contax users. Compare the used selling prices for just about any of the modern Contax SLRs with their equivalents from similar years, and what you'll find is they sell for quite a bit more money. A Contax RTS III will routinely sell for more than a Nikon F5 or a Canon EOS 1n.</p>

<p>Michael, the lowly X-370 does indeed show both real and recommended shutter speeds, another reason one might consider it underrated. I'd discount the lack of a DOF preview, but it still has more features than a Pentax K1000. </p>

<p>Nikon N90s, Minolta 800si</p>

<p>The Minolta x-9<br>

Just as good as if not better than the x570 and way cheaper, If you ignore TTL Hot shoe that the x570 offers.</p>

<p>Minolta models are funny, and like many are different depending on country. But as far as I can see from the instructions, etc., an X-9 is a black body (and thus rather nicer looking) X-370. The latter was released outside the US as an X=7S or something like that. </p>

<p>Bu the way, you can get a "poor man's" DOF preview on these by loosening the lens and turning it slightly. Just remember to click it back before taking the picture. It takes a bit of practice to do it without turning the wrong part, especially on small lenses, but it works. </p>

I think the Nikon N75 must be the most underrated modern film camera I've used. Nobody ever bought it, probably

because it came along too late, and the few who did were mostly using it with a fairly crappy kit lens. But it's got all

the features most people will use - several exposure modes, built in motor, compatible with all the newer lens

technologies - and it's tiny. You can put a 50mm 1.8D lens on it and pocket it. It has that weird reverse film winding,

but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If you accidentally open it with the film in, most of the shots you've already taken

are in the canister and protected.

<p>Like David Haas mentioned, the Minolta Maxxum (or Dynax outside of the US) 7 is a camera loaded with an amazing number of functions and has outstanding capability. Plus it's pretty compact. It ranks high on my list of favorite film SLRs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=869561">Matthew Currie</a>, Sep 30, 2012; 09:59 a.m.<br /> Minolta models are funny, and like many are different depending on country. But as far as I can see from the instructions, etc., an X-9 is a black body (and thus rather nicer looking) X-370. The latter was released outside the US as an X=7S or something like that. By the way, you can get a "poor man's" DOF preview on these by loosening the lens and turning it slightly. Just remember to click it back before taking the picture. It takes a bit of practice to do it without turning the wrong part, especially on small lenses, but it works.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yea...But that's the reasons why I like my X9. <strong>It is not</strong> <strong>"Just a nicer looking x370."</strong> It has all the features of the x370 but it also <strong>HAS</strong> the DOF preview button which makes it as good as the X570 in my opinion (if TTL flash doesnt matter). Then it also has the Black body with the rubberized grip and the rear thumb grip on the film door and the Unique Diagonal Split micro prism focusing screen. That makes it better to me. It was never released as any other model other Thain the x9. And it was the last camera Minolta designed with the MD mount. Now if only they went a little further and added a PC socket and the TTL flash Shoe, & an +,- EV dial. I bet then it would have been chosen over the X700 and x570 by customers..</p>

<p>I looked at the instructions and never saw any mention of a preview button on the X9. That does make it a very nice bargain indeed, a small but nice step up from the X-370, and that much more undervalued. You can get a little gadget that puts a socket on a hot shoe.</p>

<p>There's a preview button on the X-9 body's lens mount (lower right, from camera front) that in A or M allows for DOF preview. {page 29 in user manual }</p>

<p>I nominate the EOS 600 series. A peculiar interface, but a very capable series of cameras. And nobody cares about them, the local camera store wouldn't even look at them when I offered a pair of 630 a year or two ago. Until five years ago (or thereabouts) I certainly didn't care about them, I was only interested in the EOS 1 series. Until I got hold of one for astrophoto use and was blown away by the T90-like feel of the thing. Over the next several years I had accumulated something like nine 600-series bodies, which I have pared down now to three EOS RT.</p>

<p>The EOS Elan IIe (EOS 55) is one that gets surprisingly little attention, considering how good a camera it is. Small, quiet, and light weight are what sets it apart, but is a solid picture-taker with plenty of features. Plus the -e model has Eye Control Focus, albeit with only three focus points... But it's still a great camera; a IIe with BP-50 (LN) cost me $20 last spring, an all-black EOS 55 (LN) cost me $26 a few months ago.</p>

<p>Apart from this thread the N80 doesn't seem to get any love, though it's a fabulous camera and kept me from throwing away $250 on an F100 a few years ago. A like-new one cost me $25.</p>

<p>Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7 and the 5. The 7 is just a fantastic camera. And the autofocus is staggeringly fast - when I first got it, when shooting moving targets, I couldn't believe it was actually locking on until I processed the film. And it's light, even with the vertical grip on there - and AAs will run the camera for an amazing amount of time.<br>

The Maxxum 5 isn't as sturdy, but the FPS decent, it has DOF preview, and it weighs nothing. With a 50mm lens on it, you can fit it in a coat pocket. I've seen them used, in good condition, for as little as $80. </p>

<p>Futura range finders. The bodies are as solid as Leicas and use interchangeable lenses, including a 50/1.5 and a 70/1.5!</p>

<p>Minoltas with the custom function cards.</p>

<p>NTIM, really, but</p>

<blockquote>

<p>JDM, since when were the T90 and N8008 underrated?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By digital shooters who never shot film at all. <em>As I said</em>, by the broader standard, all film cameras are underrated, just because they're film.</p><div></div>

<p>I'll second the vote for the Canon EOS Elan IIe. It somehow got totally lost in the EOS shuffle. I just shot mine a couple of week ago with perfect results. Why would anyone need another camera, I thought. Silly me. </p>