Question - Best fully Manual 35mm SLR ever?

This is likely going to be a controversial (or at the least, subjective)

question, but:

 

- What is considered to be the best 35mm SLR which is fully manual?

Some criteria may include (but are not limited to) ease of use, functionality,

practicality, construction, versatility, etc.

 

The context of this question is not so much "What is YOUR favourite 35mm SLR"

but rather, what is historically held to be the best manual 35mm.

Nikon F

I agree, but Paul, you do have to include the F2 as well. :)

It is still just a matter of opinon. Who is historically held to be the best boxer of all time? Aside from the standard settings for shutter speed, aperture, and ASA (ISO) I suppose it should also include DOF preview, mirror lock up and, of course, through the lens metering.

I vote Nikon F2AS.

/Clay

Since I started out as a Canonite, I'd lean toward the F1.

 

But as I'm now a Nikonista, yeh, the F2.

 

And as a former Olympian, gotta love the OM-1N, improved just enough over the OM-1 to make it a classic.

 

Tossup between 'em.

Well Bob, you have a point but Michael is only allowing one choice and that would be the F.

The Granddaddy. The seminal force behind the SLR transition. The camera, from the gate,

that set the standard for all that would follow. The camera that shoved rangefinders into the

shadows. The camera of photographic history. Damn that F.

How about the OM-3 or 2 (Cannot remember which was manual)? Revolutionary in its

small size and capabilities. Like Nikon, you had to choose your lenses carefully, not

all of equal performance. For impact alone, the Pentax K-1000 can get some votes as

a great learner's (student's) manual SLR camera that contribute a lot to the

advancement of photography.

The OM-3 was all manual and way overpriced for what you got. Beautiful thing, just too precious. The OM-2-series and OM-4's had great features, but weren't technically all manual, tho' some of the series could function without batteries.

Nikon F2, the back that does not have to be taken off is the only thing that gives it a edge over the F.

I'm a Nikon F voter too (as one who still uses it as main camera), but must confess that the F2 has a couple of advantages, not only in the back, but in a more functional mirror lockup. Add to that that the meter heads use more modern batteries, and the F2 might have an edge. Either one is hard to beat, though.

Pentax LX.

 

Small, light weight, fully mechanical operation for all speeds, DOF preview, MLU, OTF metering, TTL flash, interchangeable screens, interchangeable viewfinders, weather sealed.

Nikon Fe2 !

The one I liked using most was the Nikon FE2. Small, chunky, the excellent AI lenses, manual and auto exposure modes.

Now I may be nit picking here (there are other less polite terms) but the question is "fully"

manual. Where do you put the batteries? And I don't want to hear the light meter doesn't

count. Without the meter the F2 is an F with frills.

I can't give a qualified answer because I don't know. But Minolta and the excellent Rokkor X lenses would have to fit in here someplace. I still shoot an X-9 part of the time.

Historically I'd say it's the Nikon F. Personally it's the Nikon FM2n.

For historical purposes only, the first eye-level prism SLR - the Contax S out of the ashes of Dresden (aka Pentacon, please, I know about the Start and I still say this). Otherwise, I think the Nikon F probably takes the prize.<div></div>

Historically I'd say it's the Nikon F. Personally it's the Nikon FM2n.

Re responses from Harry and Colin -

 

the Nikon FE2 has an automatic exposure feature.

 

Now the FM-2 is manual, and mine has served me reliably for more than 26 years.

I have tried and used many manual cameras. I have used the Zenith 11, the Fed 2, 5C, the Cosina CT1-g, Praktica MTL-3, Nikon FM, Pentax K1000.

 

I liked the lightweight of the Cosina. I liked the ruggedness of the Nikon FM (still have 2 that I bought 20 years ago from a press photographer and which still work). I like the simplicity of the Zenith and the Fed. I wasn't too keen on the K1000's silk shutter.

 

I can't say I have a real "favourite". If I were to pick a camera to climb Mount Everest then trek through Bangladesh and generally have tossed around by airport baggage handlers then I'm going to have to say that I'd go with the Fed 2 and 28, 50, 90 lenses. I just like the Fed - even though it needs a pocket light meter (for which I would always choose the Lenningrad 8).

I'm with David Scott. Pentax LX. I've still one in perfect working order. Had the shutter adjusted to specification in order to get perfect zones. After more then 10 years it's still working perfect (I regularly check test negatives with a calibrated professional densitometer). Apart from that you can virtually roll it around on the beach, it's so perfectly sealed no sand will ever reach the interior. And all this from a real Nikon adept.

Yes. The LX was a good camera. The MX was good also. I was never that struck by Pentax lenses though.

For build, finish, construction, someone is sure to nominate the Zeiss Contarex.

 

For "ease of use, functionality, practicality, versatility, etc."...Nikon F was my second camera and fits the bill, but the Spotmatic was my first camera and fits my hand. It doesn't suffer in comparison to the F except in the mount.

Everyone forgets the first successful SLR, which was the 1936 Exakta. The war and its

aftermath apparently weren't too kind to the producer, but apart from Nikon F kicking

butt of their own rangefinders (the S2 and S3 were great cameras), this was a

landmark camera.

 

 

Yep, historically, the Exakta is I believe the most important of SLRs, even if it is not

the best. Nor was the F. Best is a moving target. Maybe the Leica R6.2 can be

consdered high on the list of best manual SLRs, in part for its difficult to equal lenses.