The most reliable one

[chuck_foreman1]

I think JDM mentioned all the semi automatic camers from the 70s. As we all seem to agree the "electronic" meters are the weak link. Sure the inevitrable Nikon Fs and the Leica Ms are legendary for their robust performance, but take away the electronics and the others alos perform well over a long period .. and there is no perfect maintenance free camera. Even the beloved Leicas and Nikons need and should receive maintenance. Well exercise is good for us and our cameras!

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Some of the most long term reliable meters I've come across seem to be on old Minoltas, but if you are willing to skip the meter, then there's little that can touch an old Nikon F. If you've ever had some old cameras in pieces, you'll appreciate how beautifully the F is made. I imagine an F3 is pretty hard to beat where a meter is required. At least I hope so. I hope my F3 lasts forever.</p>

[fred_haeseker]

<p>I like my Nikkormat FT3. Bought new in 1977, has never failed me since.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I have to agree with the Canon F-1. It's an incredibly durable and reliable camera with a wonderfully accurate meter. Plus, it looks good!</p>

[randyjay]

<p>If you are talking affordability, you can't beat any of the Minolta SRT models.</p>

[bobbollinger]

<p>My SRT 101 purchased brand new 38 years ago last month has never needed servicing and is still going strong......</p>

[brett_rogers]

<p>I've never owned one, but after I read about <a href=" McCullin's experience</a>, I decided that nothing could beat an F for durability.</p>

 

[wendell_kelly]

<p>Any Leicaflex model, then the Nikon F and F2.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"what is the most <a id="itxthook0" href="../classic-cameras-forum/00aonk?start=0" rel="nofollow">reliable</a> and durable manual 35 mm SLR body?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For these listed requirements <strong>plus</strong> the least repair issues, <strong>easy</strong> use of manual functions and affordable lens choices; <br>

I give my votes to:<br>

</p>

<p><strong>Nikon</strong> F2AS, Nikkormat FT3, Nikon FM3a, Nikon FM2 and FE2<br>

<strong>Pentax</strong> ME Super and MX<br>

<strong>Topcon</strong> Super D and Super RE<br>

<strong>Canon</strong> F-1n<br>

<strong>Minolta</strong> XE5 and XE7<br>

<strong>Olympus</strong> OM-1n and OM-2n<br>

<strong>Fujica</strong> ST605 and ST801<br>

<br>

If lens prices aren't a concern, the Leicaflex SL, SL2, R3 and R5.<br>

If not perfect to begin with, when serviced properly all of these offer many years of trouble free service.<br>

</p>

[igord]

<p>Nikon F2 seems to have advantage according to your experience.</p>

[igord]

<p>Thanks everybody for comments, I still read them and pick up a lot.</p>

[bonsignore_ezio]

<p>Just to put things in perspective, I own and use (more or less regularly) the following:<br>

- Nikon F Photomic (meter working & accurate)<br>

- Nikon F2S<br>

-Topcon SD<br>

- Canon F1 (original)<br>

- Minolta STR303, 202 and 101<br>

- Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II<br>

- Miranda G, Sensorex and Sensorex II<br>

- Minolta XD 7 (a.k.a. XD11)<br>

- Olympus OM-1 and OM-2N</p>

<p>While I keep al of these in working conditions and thus rely on all of them, when I do need to have top reliability my choice is always the F2S (even though the XD7 is the camera I like best in use).</p>

<p>Please note, however, that a LOT of the reliability business rests with the photog himself. I just recently discovered that a great part of the slides I took during a long trip to Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia came out ruined, because I failed to notice that one of my lenses had developed a bad case of internal fungus...</p>

<p> </p>

[igord]

<p>Les, I own Canon New F1, one day I just saw a hole in the shutter, I used a black tape to "fix" it.</p>

 

[igord]

<p>When one looks at it from your point of view, it is an advantage ;)</p>

[bonsignore_ezio]

<p>I'm neither an industrial designer nor a technician, and thus I'm rather wary of passing judgments beyond the strict limits of my own personal experience. What I would suggest is that reliability depends in part on the quality of materials and the controls along the manufacturing process, but to a far greater extent on an exceedingly well thought of robust design. Many cameras in my user experience (as listed in the previous post) but the Nikons do show design flaws and quirks, that adversely affect reliability to a lesser or greater extent - particularly if the photog is not immediately aware of them.</p>

<p>Let's take, for instance, my beloved Minolta XD-7/XD-11. During the early part of our relationship, I lost quite a few shots because the small lever that controls deliberate over/under-exposures protrudes forward from the camera's body just where the photog's left hand fingers will be, and it is thus exceedingly easy to inadvertedly move it. I've since learned to keep it in place with some tape. (Incidentally, this flaw was corrected during the late production runs, so if you are shopping around for a XD-7/11 check this detail).</p>

<p>Also, the entire assembly of concentric/superimposed rings, wiskers and spacers on the left (film rewind lever, ASA values scale, the above-mentioned deliberate over/under exposure lever) is kept in place by a single center screw, that engages into the film cartridge shaft and doubles as the pivot around which all the above rings etc. rotate. Not a very well considered solution, because the continuous movements will unavoidably cause the screw to progressively loose its thightness - particularly if the camera is being subjected to vibrations and shaking. I had the whole thing disintegrate in from of my very eyes during a bumpy jeep ride across the Karakorum mountain region, and even though I was miracolously able to recover all the pieces and reassemble them, it was not an experience I would wish to repeat. I've since made a conscient habit of automatically checking the tighteness of the rings against the shaft every time I load a new film.<br>

My Nikons do not require any such precaution. Fungus is a different matter.</p>

<p> </p>

[igord]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=571344">Bonsignore Ezio</a>, good point.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a>: I owned numerous Russian and East German cameras, generally not reliable.<br>

Olympus: I still have om2n - problems with shutter, rewind knob feels very insecure.<br>

My om2sp is very good, but the battery drain... it suddenly stops working.<br>

Canon F1N - had to tape the shutter, there is something wrong with the shutter speed scale. My 28/2 lens has problems with drying cement.<br>

Voigtander VSL1 - shutter problems although the color ultron is a perfect lens.<br>

Aslo own Mamiya RB which works perfectly, but it's not 35 mm slr.</p>

 

[andrew_brown3]

<p>Hi,<br>

Best, without any doubt from me....the Nikon F.<br>

I have 3 (with Photomic Tn heads), all bought cheap at car boot sales with non-working meters, but after putting new batteries in, the meters all came back to life! I thought maybe one would work and the others could be donor cameras, but they are so solidly built, all 3 will go on for another 45 years. I'm inclined to think they were hand made.<br>

I like OMs but I always worried about the cloth shutter curtains developing pinholes..my OM3, which was a lovely camera, was stolen soon after I'd bought it and I'm hoping it has developed 4000 holes in each curtain and that the meter underexposes by a random number of stops with each photo taken. And I've hoped that since 1983.<br>

Worst? ..... Contax S2, the one with spot metering. It took pictures alright, but I left it in a draft one day, it caught a chill and died.<br>

<br />Andy.</p><div></div>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"I like OMs but I always worried about the cloth shutter curtains developing pinholes" <em><strong>Andrew B.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tough to do when you have a mirror in the way of the offending "focused Sun"...</p>

<p>Besides, Olympus produced "in house" their own <strong>very high quality</strong> rubberized silk curtains; they're currently holding up very well.</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>I recall John Hermanson commenting that he has seldom, if ever, come across an OM with perforated shutter curtains</p>

[andrew_brown3]

<p>Hi,<br>

<br />My bad..I was thinking both of my 111a, which had pinholes and of the OM3, which didn't and as you say, couldn't and just lumped all cloth shutters in together. Thinking on it properly there is no chance of pinholes in an SLR, so my apologies for a lazy post.<br>

My thoughts were by then on the theft of my OM which I hope has developed faults unknown in any other SLR, such as pinholes and fallen arches.</p>

<p>Andy.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>My F3T has served me very well for many years.<br>

Now gathering dust AND being admired on a shelf in my working room..</p>

[enrico_v.]

<p>Hi, this is my 2 cents answer...<br /> Nikon F, F2, Canon F1, Spotmatic Sp II was tested for 100.000 - 150.000 shots, and Leicaflex SL.<br /> Real life? I don't know.<br /> However it seems that the most reliable one is Leicaflex SL: I have hearded one of its with more 1.000.000 shots, but working in a laboratory for scientific purposes, so best inviroment (no rain, cold, and so on...).<br /> The most reliable camera ? Leica M3, but no SLR: Gianni Berengo Gardin, a famous italian photographer, calculated that during his life his M3 shoted more than 1.000.000 and never need a work...<br /> My opinion? All are great, it depends if the photographer treat them right, and when they need, do the right maintenence...<br /> I suggest Spotmatic because are very cheap,cheap lenses, cheap to do maintenance, with S-M-C lenses seconds only to Leica and best of other japaneses, in my opinion.<br /> By the way, I'm a Leica users...</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Looks like the winners are the Nikon F2 and F3, and Canon F-1. Not really a surprise! </p>

[randyjay]

<p>I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned a Chinon or Cosina. Both companies made very reliable cameras with Copal Shutters, and some very nice features.</p>

[igord]

<p>Randy, can you give examples?</p>