Durable and Reliable 35mm for travelling

[ed_ponti]

<p>I will be travelling for 6 months later this year in South America, and need to find a camera that will stand up to all of the poor conditions it will be subjected to- it will be travelling with me through salt flats, through the desert, up in the Andes, and through the rainforest.... so could not get much more varied!<br>

Various bits of luck and inheritances have made me very fortunate in having a little collection of a Leica M3, Olympus Om1, Minolta AF7000 and a Sony Alpha 700 DSLR and Canon G12 digital. However, I value all these cameras too much personally to bring them with me... As such, my expectations of the camera are fairly high, and I would rather buy a QUALITY camera that is built to last as opposed to buying a cheap camera that I can chuck around, especially as ideally I would like it to survive and to have it to add to my collection.<br>

I am willing to spend a fair amount for the right camera, say £250, but would prefer a little (or even a lot) less. I would like a classic manual camera, not a 90's-2000's fully automatic thing (unless there is one I should seriously consider). Obviously it shouldn't be too brash, or be a target for thieves.<br>

Several have been suggested as a possibility, including Pentax LX, Nikon F3, Canon A1 and Olympus Om10... any comments on these/suggestions for others? Also are there any lenses I should look at?<br>

Thanks guys!!!</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<p>'t'would be hard to beat a Nikon F2 with DE-1 finder, and perhaps something like a Sekonic L-208 in your

pocket. The Nikon is reasonably light and virtually bullet-proof, and the Sekonic will go for years on a

single battery.<br>

<a href="http://www.soverf2repair.webs.com/">Sover Wong</a> should be able to furnish you with a fine working example within your budget.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Is battery dependence an issue for you? If so, then how about a Canon FTb or Canon EF? The EF is harder to find these days but the FTb is very common, and is a very nice camera, quite rugged.</p>

<p>If not, and you are seriously considering a Canon A1, why not a Canon T90? Built like a tank, relatively compact and light. It runs on AA batteries so you should be ok if you run out of juice. Take along a 50 1.4, 24mm f2(?) and a 35-105 3.5 (the fixed aperture version, not the 3.5-4.5) and you're in good shape. The T90 should run you around ~$150 for a good body, another $100 each for the 35-105 and 50 1.4. The 24 2(or is it 2.8?) is more expensive but the IQ Is supposedly outstanding, big favorite of the guys on the FD forum. If you don't like zooms you can swap out the 35-105 for an 85 1.8 or the 100 2.8, both very good medium telephoto portrait lenses.</p>

<p>FWIW, I like the A1 (I have one), but at the price point its at the T90 is a much better camera to own and use.</p>

<p>You might want to think about weather sealing issues given the varied environments you are going to be in. Again, the T90 is probably better weather sealed, though the LCD could have problems. </p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Both the F2 and T90 are excellent suggestions as both were made for hard professional use. That means they were made to survive a wide range of conditions, much like what you're going to experience. I'd also consider a Minolta SR-T body just because it's mechanical (aside from the meter) and it's quite durable as well. If you want one that's really well sealed though, the Pentax LX is awfully hard to beat. It's sealed pretty well against dust and moisture and it's got a tough body/chassis that can stand a lot of punishment, not to mention an incredibly accurate light meter. The Oly OM-4 is also sealed to some extent against the elements as well.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>You already have an OM-1? If so, then get a second OM-1 for the trip. It does not have to be pristine, a beater that works well will do fine and with the advantage of staying within a system you already have and are familiar with. The OM-1 will operate without a battery and if you want to use the meter a package of #675 hearing aid batteries will provide a useable replacement for the PX-13 mercury battery. I think you'll find the camera more than rugged enough for the trip.</p>

<p> However, and this is so vary important, never rely on ANY one camera in situtations that are not repeteable. I would also carry a second camera. Now for myself I would select a shirt pocket digital that runs on AA alkaline's. Yes, I said the "D" word on the classic camera forum and I'm already repenting but just let me finish. My wife and I travel a bit and besides my film kit she always has in her purse a little, cheap, digital shirt pocket camera. And it does an amazing job. More than sufficent for snapshots or web display. It operates for an amazing number of shots on 2 AA batteries and having an extra package of 6 AA's along is never a problem, takes up no more room than 2 rolls of film. </p>

<p>Now back to classic film gear. If you are going to carry along a second film camera then look for an Olympus RC. Works without batteries and the lens is really quite good. The meter will also run on 675 batteries.</p>

<p>Don't want to put you over budget but I take it this is a not to be repeted trip. Another advantage of the second OM-1 is that after the trip you'll still have a second body, not a bad deal at all.</p>

[nick_thearle]

<p>I think I would opt for an A1. I've got a good one which I've had from new when they first came out, and a rough looking, but fully functional, one I bought in case I need it for spare parts. I've also got a T90.<br>

Whilst I agree that the T90 is a more sophisticated camera, I don't agree that it's 'built like a tank'. Any camera with an LCD screen and a flappy plastic palm wing thing on the side is going to be more vulnerable to the odd knock in the bottom of a rucksack than a simpler style body like the A1. The T90's probably better weather sealed and the actual chassis may be tougher, but no camera is guaranteed to survive a 3 foot drop on to concrete say.<br>

If I'm going somewhere that a camera might get knocked or stolen, then I take the rougher looking A1. With a piece of black tape over the Canon logo and in a shabby looking half case (and the cases all are by now!), no thief would give it a second glance. The A1s are pretty reliable cameras if they've been looked after and don't have the dreaded squeal. The T90s can suddenly develop the 'EEEE' problem and they don't have a convenient half case. If you go fro the A1, just make sure you have a spare battery or two with you.<br>

As for lenses, the 50mm f1.4 is excellent but expensive. The f1.8 version is also very good and available very cheaply. The 28mm f2.8 is also very good value. I'd avoid the newer 35 - 70 plastic zoom lens as I think the build quality is poor, though optically it may be all right.</p>

[skygzr]

<p>The camera itself is a bit outside the scope of this forum, but consider putting an Olympus XA in your pocket. They run forever on commonly available A76 batteries and have great optics. I doubt it would survive a dunk in seawater but I've used mine in light rain many times. </p>

<p>When I want a film camera but don't want to carry a bag, that's the one I use.</p>

[james_ciclitira]

<p>Pentax MX or LX</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

The MX is a great little travel camera, far better than its size suggests. Add a 40mm f/2.8 SMC-M if space

is tight, or a 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4 otherwise, and you're laughing.

[frank.schifano]

<p>Here's my take on this, and it will be biased towards Nikon simply because it is the brand with which I am most familiar. One of the first things I'd look for is that the camera be totally mechanical and not reliant on batteries. The Nikon F2 is a good suggestion, but has age, size and weight working against it. The F3 doesn't work without batteries unless you can live with a fixed shutter speed of 1/90th second. Great camera, but without a battery not so good. The later, and fully automatic Nikons are out by your own reckoning, though I think the F5 is probably one of the toughest cameras out there. You will need a rather large supply of AA batteries to keep it running and it is big and heavy, more so if you have the auxiliary battery pack to go along with it. Which leaves us with two very good choices, the FM2 (n or not) and FM3a. Both these cameras need no batteries except to power the meter. In the case of the FM3a, the battery will drive the shutter and provide auto exposure if desired, but the camera is fully functional without. Both are relatively small and light weight, and are built to withstand less than ideal environmental conditions. I know my FM2n looks like it has been through the wars, and it has been; having been tossed in the bottom of my camera bag, dropped, dented, and exposed to salt spray and blowing sand on numerous occasions. Yet it continues to operate flawlessly. The only thing that has ever gone wrong is the PC connector to the flash and that was my fault for having forced a damaged PC connector cord on to it.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I realize that this is the "classic manual" forum. But do you really want to be in South America for 6 months with a 40 year old camera, that hasn't been rebuilt? The oldest camera I'd consider would be something along the lines of a Nikon FM2n or FM3. These are both quite durable and within your budget. If you win the lottery, consider a Leica M7 with a few lenses.</p>

<p>I'd definitely steer clear of the electronic shuttered cameras that you mentioned.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>Since the value of any camera you use will be a small part of the value of such an expedition, I'd take the Leica. You may already be familiar with its operation. Leica reliability is legendary. I've used one M4 for 40 years with no problems. My second choice might be a Nikkormat or Nikon FM with the very compact and sharp 45mm GN-Nikkor. For back-up, a Point and Shoot digital camera adds little cost and weight. For the P&S, do take spare memory cards and plenty of batteries.</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>I second the recommendation for the Olympus XA. 35mm f/2.8 lens, small as a modern P&S, but very durable.</p>

[bueh]

<p>My Voigtländer VF101 took a lot of punishment and is still going strong. The smaller Yashica rangefinders are also pretty rugged (Electro 35 CC, GX).</p>

<p>However, I would <em>definitively</em> take a good digital camera with me (even a small dSLR -- say, a EOS 20D with a sturdy prime like the EF 24mm f/2.8 or the heavier but versatile Sigma 30mm). You only live once, baby!</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I would advise a Nikon FM-2n, a very small flash, and something like the little 28-70/3.5-4.5. But I would still take a 2nd body for back-up in the form of a P&S like the Olympus Stylus Epic (MJU-II), which is rainproof and pretty dustproof.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Instead of taking an expensive camera and hoping for the best I suggest a pair of Nikkormat FT2s or a pair of Canon FTbNs. Before you take them anywhere have them overhauled. The FT2 takes regular MS-76 batteries and works equally well with pre-AI, AI and AIS lenses. You have to index them each time you change lenses but that's something you get used to. As long as you don't need a shutter speed over 1/1000 or a motor/winder, the FT2 should be fine. Some old mechanical Nikkormats need service to correct a jumpy meter needle. That's part of your overhaul. All of the shutter speeds on the Nikkormat FT2 are mechanical so a dead battery will not stop you completely. The metering is center weighted and the K focusing screen works well in most situations.<br>

The FTbN was made to take 1.35 volt mercury batteries. There are many work-arounds for this. As part of an overhaul an FTbN can be adapted to take 625A (alkaline) batteries. An alternative is to get a pair of MR-9 adapters from C.R.I.S. This will allow you to use MS-76 or 386 batteries. The FTbN also has a top shutter speed of 1/1000 and no motor/winder. All of its speeds are mechanical. It has 12 degree spot metering. In temperate or warm weather both cameras should work equally well. In very cold weather you might be better off with the FTbN. The meter should work as well as that of the FT2 as long as you use silver oxide cells and not alkaline ones. The shutter is another matter. The FT2 has a vertical metal shutter while the FTbN has a cloth horizontal shutter. I have noticed with some of my cameras that have vertical metal shutters that when the temperature gets down to about 20F or below, the shutter can freeze up. Both cameras have mirror lock-up and depth of field preview. The mirror lock-up is easier to use on the FTbN. Flash synch is 1/125 for the FT2 and 1/60 for the FTbN. Canon manual focus lenses, exotic glass excepted, cost less than comparable Nikon lenses because they do not work readily with DSLRs or MILCs.<br>

I used an F-1 and an FTbN in Alaska last summer. The F-1 had an L D screen. I found the FTbN easier to focus with the 21mm lens. Both cameras have the same 12 degree spot metering. </p>

[jodys]

<p>Suggestions so far that I have personal experience with: T90 is definitely too fragile for this. Sadly, I have to say the same for the A1, and possibly AE1. FTb, great camera, dirt cheap these days, I would consider but only if you find a good little-used one and you have a reputable person to do a CLA just before. If you want Canon glass, also consider the F1-N. Good metering, uses readily-available batteries but will work without one (hybrid mechanical-electronic). And it was designed for just this sort of thing; it's one of the few cameras with factory service specs for rebuilding for cold-weather use (with graphite lube), I suspect there's an equivalent procedure to make one ready for hot & humid. Canon made excellent zooms for this sort of travel as well, if space and weight is at a premium. I have no personal experience with Nikons, so I can't say which ones take the abuse.</p>

<p>Next: Minolta? SRT201. Same as with Canon FTb, get a good one and pay for a CLA. Pentax? I have more experience with the Spotmatics, they're small, incredibly rugged for such a diminutive camera, very basic metering, incredible range of lenses available. Stay away from the plastic-geared later M- series Pentaxes. Same for Olympus OM1, I guess, and stay away from the later plastic wonders (though the Olympus ones are better than the Pentaxes). Much as I love the East German cameras, I won't recommend any of the Prakticas either, because when their shutters get dirty or mishandled they tend to suddenly refuse to cock, or block open. And the focal-plane shutters of the earlier ones are now 60 years old. Konica? Well, there's some great lenses, but I don't think they're well-known for handling abuse. </p>

<p>If you don't need a system camera, there's an incredible range of fixed-lens cameras (rangefinders, viewfinders, fixed-lens SLRs) from 1950 through 1975 or so that would do. Leaf shutters can withstand some pretty abusive treatment, including being dropped in salt water. I regularly handle leaf shutters that are 75 to 100 years old and have never once been serviced, yet still work reasonably well. To be fair, I've had some of these cameras that were left in a hot trunk for a summer, that were completely seized because the grease on the focusing helicoidal had migrated to the shutter blades. But, if you have your camera serviced before leaving, modern hi-temp grease is much less likely to melt from a bout of 200 degree mis-storage. If you're not firmly in the 35mm camp, I have personally travelled much of Europe and a chunk of central Africa with a Rolleicord, it performed flawlessly (though it did develop a fungus in the lens, 2 years later).</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>I second the recommendation to take your Leica, which will take the rigors of your trip in stride [unless you drop it off a cliff, or the equivalent]. It should be CLAed before leaving if that hasn't been done in the last several years.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>A Nikon FM2N body. If the light-meter battery goes dead, the shutter speeds will work without a hitch. [You may have to estimate exposure without the meter, but the camera body will work.]</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Several film cameras come with professional grade weathersealing, one is the still very 'current' in terms of features Canon EOS3.<br>

However, like some of the others, I think that one of the cameras you've already got could easily do the job with some caution (using plastic bags or sealed containers for them when you're not shooting, for example).</p>

<p>Of course, never travel on anything like this with only one camera. You always need a backup; even the best environment sealed (like a Nikonos) camera can fail in any number of ways for reasons that may have little direct relation to the immediate environment.</p>

<p>When I traveled in South America in deserts, rain forests, etc. I just went with ordinary Nikon equipment, took care of it, and carried a Rollei 35 for backup.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>The Nikonos will survive the bites of a hungry piranah. (III or maybe IV)?<br>

Well under $200 on Ebay lately. ... if you have to have film. O-rings may be the bug-a-boo.<br>

For film I use the mucho simpler Nikon Action Touch ~ waterproof, but that's nowhere near as flexible but fits a pocket fine. It's my film option for canoe, kayak or the beach.<br>

I 2nd the idea of a durable digital camera. It's the trip of a lifetime. Take some instant feeback with ya.<br>

Jim</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>If I were traveling and needed a dependable and reliable 35mm camera that could handle adverse environmental conditions and was not so brash that it would be a target for thieves, here is what I would consider:<br>

　<br>

1. The Canon G12 does not meet your 35mm specification. However, of the cameras you listed, I would take the Leica M3, Olympus OM1, or G12 because I am familiar with them. I am unfamiliar with the Sony and the Minolta.<br>

　<br>

2. If you value the cameras you own because they were left to you as part of an inheritance and have great sentimental value (or for whatever reason), I would get a duplicate or something similar. A Leica M6, an Olympus OM1 black body to go with the chrome you already own (or vice versa), or another G12 or even a G11. Any of these would make a nice addition to your collection.<br>

　<br>

3. Other 35mm SLRs I would consider are the battery independent (except for the light meter) Nikon F2, Nikon FM (any in the FM series except the FM10), Pentax Spotmatic, and Fujica ST705. There are probably many others but these are the ones with which I am familiar.<br>

　<br>

4. Other 35mm rangefinders I would consider are the battery independent (except for the light meter) Canon Canonet QL17 or Minolta Hi-Matic 9. There are probably many others but these are the ones with which I am familiar.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>Good question. I would only consider cameras that used currently available batteries that only served to measure exposure. Among my current cameras that would include Pentax Spotmatics, Nikkormats FT2 and FT3, a Canon FTb that was modded to to take 1.5v batteries, and the FM2n. Since the FM2n has the more desirable silicon cell meter, that would be my first choice. The FM3a exceeds your budget. As a backup, I would consider a Kodak Retina IIa. My last one only costs $25. The F2 with plain prism could also be a choice. It is rugged and heavy. I would also bring a small digital P&S and keep it in a ziplock bag. My Canon A650IS, with fresh lithium AA batteries, is good for over a year of shooting.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Someone recommended an Olympus RC. I would avoid those cameras. My shutter went bad and was fixed once. The second time it failed they told me no more parts were available.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I would go for the Nikon FM2n or FM3A. I suggest you pick something with minimal electornics and as little plastic as possible. Nikon AI and AIS lenses are widely available and excellent quality.</p>