Under rated film bodies

<p>What film bodies do you consider under rated or the Rodney Dangerfield of film photography? This past summer I picked up a Nikon N6000, Minolta X370s and Pentax ZX-M and P30T bodies. I couldn't find much info or recommendations on them yet they are gorgeous easy to use autoexposure bodies that deliver the goods. I hope to soon finish the rolls in the N6000 and ZX-m and post pics as soon as I get the film back.</p>

<p>K-1000</p>

<p>The pentax KX. The Pentax K1000 is way over rated. </p>

<p>Sears KSX Super ( a Ricoh chassis)</p>

<p>The series of Konica rangefinders released between 1948 and 1958, predating the S series of the 1960s, were charming cameras. I have the original 1948 Konica and the 1957 <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00YB9g">Konica III</a>, and I'm currently waiting to receive a Konica II purchased on eBay. The Konica III is the finest fixed-lens rangefinder I've used, with an excellent 48mm f/2 Hexanon lens; its only downside is the LV interlock that was briefly fashionable at the time it was made. I still need to pick up a <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/koni3.html">IIIA</a>, which features a larger 1x magnification viewfinder.</p>

<p>Nikon N80.<br>

Takes great pix and around 35 dollars. About 5$ more for the grip.<br>

Really underrated because it's so light.<br>

Does pretty well for most lighting conditions.</p>

<p>Minolta maximum 7; Konica TC, T4. </p>

<p>Most of the Olympus and Pentax of the same period are overrated in my opinion. Canon and Nikon are known commodities and get the recognition that they deserve. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Anything Chinon. Nikon N2000. Nikon FG. Olympus OM-G. Canon T70. Canon TX.</p>

<p>It's tough to name a truly underrated film camera amid fans of classic and modern film cameras. Much as I enjoyed using the Ricoh-made Sears KSX and Canon T70, I'm not sure they were underrated or under-appreciated. In particular, the T70 was singled out for kudos by a late 1990s Pop Photo magazine article.</p>

<p>I'd nominate the Canon T50 as an underrated 35mm film SLR. It fit the same niche as the Nikon EM - a user friendly, auto-everything manual focus camera that gave newbies access to the same top notch lenses as serious amateurs and pros. Basically, high end point and shoot capabilities with interchangeable lenses. Great ergonomics, easy to load, long life from AA batteries, good flash results when paired with the matching Canon auto-flash.</p>

<p>But in my experience the T50 was far more reliable than the glitchy EM. Over the years I'd handled a dozen or more used EMs and never found one that was fully operational. The only flaws that seemed to plague the T50 were the same flaws that occasionally occurred in the T70: the metal lens mount ring collar screws would occasionally loosen up from the body; the motor winders would eventually fail.</p>

<p>I think I might throw in the Minolta X-370. A plain no-extras camera whose meter is usually dead accurate, ready for motor drive which can often be found very cheaply too, and it has a very nice viewfinder. A good performer overall, though I wish they'd put in a DOF preview. Other low end cameras can be found with this or that drawback, but most of what will determine your preference is what lenses you like. </p>

<p>Some of the early Nikon autofocus cameras can be had for peanuts and may be qualifiers but I have not tried them myself, so can't say. I bought an FM-10 this summer at a yard sale for $6, along with its disreputable kit zoom lens, but have not run film through it yet. It may well qualify even though it's more Cosina than Nikon. It looks pretty capable, and it certainly is shunned by many., but results may have to wait a couple of weeks. </p>

<p>The Minolta Maxxum 7000 is a great performer if you manually focus it, but its autofocus is slow, only works well with fast lenses, and gobbles batteries. </p>

<p>Minolta Dynax / Maxxum700xi - the control interface was not well regarded but I found it quite intuitive and easy to use. If you ignored all the silly bells and whistles like auto standby zoom, eye start, expansion cards etc you were left with a fast, powerful and responsive piece of kit. The 700SI was very similar but had more dedicated controls, although it was actually slower than its predecessor in terms of frame rate.</p>

In agreement with Lex's ideas, I nominate the Pentax

MG/MV cameras. Very nicely built, autoexposure-only.

These tiny metal SLRs give nice results and access to the

huge store of Pentax K and M42 lenses. How often do you

need more than Aperture Priority anyway :)

<p>Compared to the Pentax Spotmatic, the Fujica ST705 has been under-rated for too long.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

<p>I'd add the Nikon EM to this list. It's the cheapest way to get into Nikon lenses, and as those lenses are pretty good, an EM will yield excellent results. Sure, it's aperture-preferred auto, but it has a mechanical shutter speed that can be a lifesaver if the battery goes. It also has a handy feature, a backlight exposure compensation button, which I sorely miss on the F3, which LOVES to expose for the highlights, even if the highlights are in the background!</p>

<p>One comment and question though - I recently picked up the motor winder for this camera and it's the loudest winder I've ever used. If you have a MD-E does yours whine loud enough to wake the dead?</p>

<p>Canon T80. The negative comments are usually from those who have never seen one, let alone used one. My comments from an earlier post in the Canon FD forum:<br /> <br /> <em>"As Henry said, the T80 was not a commercial success. It was also not designed for critical applications. However, my experience is that it's a very well made and engineered camera for its intended purpose. The first generation autofocusing is slow and noisy but surprisingly accurate. It only needs four AAA batteries to provide motorized film advance and rewind. I believe its metal chassis is similar to the T70's. The outer skin is made from a high quality plastic that is very durable and impact resistant. The laser matte focusing screen is bright and uncluttered.</em><br /> <br /> <em>The T80 will work with any FD, FL, R mount or preset lenses except for the usual handful that won't work with most Canon bodies. Further, the T80's audible focus confirmation feature works with any of these lenses.</em><br /> <br /> <em>My T80 has been a very reliable snapshot camera since I bought mine in 1989, though I rarely use the AC lenses. It wouldn't be my choice if I only owned one body, but it's a funky, unique and usable camera. And, as Canon's only FD mount autofocus SLR, it's the granddaddy of the EOS lineage."</em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikon N80 and N75.</p>

<p>Canon T90, Canon EOS 3, and the Nikon 8008s are likely candidates. I like the Nikon F80/N80 too, but it is not as flexible as the 8008s in taking older lenses, etc.</p>

<p>Agreeing here with John Seaman, older Minolta Maxxums have a pushbutton-only interface that dial users tend not to like, but they're very quick and easy to use once you're used to them, and well organized. Using button pushes rather than dial positions makes it possible to dial in an exposure even in the dark once you learn the layout. If only the lenses were as dirt cheap as the bodies, it would be a greater sleeper.</p>

<p>BTW, I meant to add that almost any of the late superb FILM bodies are "under-rated" these days.<br /> If you meant "underrated" by comparison to other film models of the heyday, then I might list different models including a number of "Second-World" cameras from the former Warsaw Pact area.</p>

<p>How about Prakticas?</p>

How about the koni-omega series? It seems that they always got a ten on performance and a 1 on style and that for a

time they were quite popular but they're hardly ever mentioned in discussions on classic mf or 6x7 cameras.

<p>The Kyocera/Yashica Contax SLRs are great cameras. Expensive when new, they're dirt cheap now and the lenses can't be beat. The common contax SLR lenses are pretty reasonable too.</p>

<p>The Canon rangefinder cameras, especially the P and the 7 are underrated these days for Leica thread mount cameras. </p>

<p>For absolutely dirt cheap, the Minolta XE-5 is hard to beat. They almost pay you to take it, along with the old Minolta Rokker or Celtic lenses.</p>

<p>I like the Canon AE-1 Program a lot. Very capable camera w/ a wonderfully bright viewfinder and the ability to use M42, Nikon, and all sorts of lenses w/ adapters. I have a Leia lens w/ a Nikon mount, and screw it onto a Nikon to FD adapter to use on the FD cameras. Pretty neat.</p>

<p>In Nikons, I like the EM. My first one I hated. It felt plasticy and under featured. Now I've come to love it's simplicity and good design. Just point the thing, focus and shoot. There's a Leica R 50 Summicron attached to mine now, and sometimes a non ai 50 Nikkor. Image quality is outstanding.</p>

<p>In rangefinders, the Retinas have wonderful lenses, but the cameras are fiddley and require a bit of practice to use properly. Excellent build quality. The Ektar 50 3.5 lens on the Retina I once owned was truly a great lens.</p>

<p>I was going to mention Yashicas, which work nicely, but glass is a bit hard to find and many use an unusual battery. The battery is not hard to find, but few casual sellers seem to have one, so yard sale and thrift store Yashicas almost never work when you pick them up. The Cosina made FX-3 and FX-7 were surprisingly good little cameras, very compact, using a regular button battery for the meter alone. The chrome FX-7 came with a Yashica 42-75 mm zoom which is really pretty decent and nice for carrying around. But I have never seen another camera that requires so much foam in so many places, and you must beware of old ones that may need refoaming and may goop up a roll of film if they do. Yashica also, for some reason, had the worst leatherette. The cameras get shabby looking and the cases fall apart.</p>

<p>I think the Canon EOS A2/A2E (EOS 5, to those outside of the US) was, and still is, a phenomenal camera, definitely on the leading edge back in the day. I know a lot of people used it, but I don't recall hearing its praises sung too often. I also agree that the Nikon N80 is an underrated camera. There's a lot of capability packed into that little, lightweight body.</p>