Best Built Mechanical Cameras

[christian_fox]

<p>I wish to thank all of you for posting a response to my inquiry. I had anticipated a varied response, but I did not realize the path to research would be so open-ended. I just can't believe so many designers created cameras. For some reason I like the M42 and L39 screw mount lenses - an attempt to standardize. It reminds me of the early attempt to establish WWI airplane props in the rear. With hindsight, I wish there was more effort on external metering as an modular option. </p>

<p>Photo.net seems like a nice community. Due to a unique lifestyle with poor hearing since birth, and chosen to be streamlined, I live in a quiet no-man's land between the hearing and the deaf. With a sextuple bypass (6) behind me, I also see how delicate life can be like a flicker of a candle in the wind - petty things are not worth holding on to. Because of this, I have a tendency to talk to individuals one-on-one, so if any of you were taken aback if I used your Photo.net email or send private message links with less attention to grammatical editing, I apologize. I value life with personal conversations highly. </p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>I have owned and used my Rolleiflex 3.5F for the last 36 years. The last time it was serviced was just before I purchased it. It works perfect except for the meter which I have to jiggle sometimes, it's been this way since I purchased it so I have always used a hand held meter. It is not the easiest camera to use but the quality makes using it a joy. It doesn't need a battery for the meter. The other camera I purchased at about the same time and finally gave up the ghost 4 years ago was a Canon TL QL. I purchased it when I started college and it was my workhorse camera for almost 30 years. I purchased an A-1 instead of repairing the TL QL.</p>

 

[gunbu]

<p>Interesting thread! As I go - a hardcore RF Contax user - over the years I have to admit that the most reliable RF I have used (and still use!) is my Nikon S2. It proved to work and work, just some minor problems here and then... but never broke down.<br>

For SLRs I would like to put the Leicaflex SL in the race, seems to be indestructible, though one problem might be mirror deterioration one day. And it's not THAT larger than a Nikon F... ;-)<br>

For medium format my Rolleiflex 2.8 C seems to be of great quality, extremely reliable, can only second those comments above, but also the Super Ikonta BX is a real outstanding piece of work - it's a tank!<br>

Funny - am I wrong or has nobody mentioned the Hasselblads yet?<br>

Difficult choices in the end, all this of course just based on my personal preferences and use.</p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>Good point Gunnar, I too am surprised that Hasselblad has not been mentioned.</p>

[christian_fox]

<p>My original post attempted to focus the conversation to 35mm format, so that may have been the reason Hasselblad has not been mentioned. I am not even aware of 35mm Hasselblads.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Topcon RE series. The attributes of the professional Topcon bodies have been well documented here; they deserve space next to the Canon F1 and Nikon F. I've owned and used all three. A look inside a Super D, DM, or RE Super will reveal robust castings, precision brass gears, and a chain-driven metering system. It's an engineering marvel. I'd say the build quality matches or bests the more popular pro cameras of those days. The plain prism Nikon may be better looking, but it doesn't beat Topcon in any areas except marketing and popularity. The Topcor lenses have the same optical and mechanical quality as the bodies. IMO.</p>

[gunbu]

<p>Christian, that's right, it was about 35mm, but as you mentioned the Rolleiflexes in the entry I thought I could comment on these too... (and then the Hassy came to my mind).</p>

[christian_fox]

<p>I enjoy your surprises with any format, and fond memories of specific models are always a pleasure to read. Now I need to research Topcon - such an odd name.</p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>Hasselblad did market a 35mm called the XPan and XPanII they were rebranded Fuji TX-1 and TX-2 cameras. These are no longer being produced but an interesting side note none the less.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Christian, there is a fair amount of information about Topcon on this forum. Basically a Japanese, system-oriented camera aimed at the professional market in the 60s and 70s. Used by the US military. First with open-aperture metering in the body, not the prism, a range of lenses from 20 mm to 500 mm, with a very fast 300 f2.8 and a very fast and crisp 85 mm f1.8. Gorgeous 58 mm 1.4, which is still copied with Voigtlander and maybe Nikon mounts. Motors, interchangable finders, screens, backs, bellows, the works. Here's an image I lifted from another post here called "Topcon is King." Good info there. Once you hold one, wind it, and trip the front mounted shutter button, you're hooked. Search this forum.<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00Uoes-182627684.JPG" alt="" width="675" height="507" hspace="5" vspace="10" data-original="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00Uoes-182627684.JPG" /></p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>My choices, based only on my personal experience, would be the Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon F2 and the Leica M2.</p>

[rino_juan]

<p>1-The best of all, <strong>ALPA 10 D</strong>. Better than Nikon, by far<br>

2-Leica M3.<br>

3-Leica M4.<br>

4- Nikon F.</p>

 

[jason]

<p>Nikon-F. NikonF2. The F3 surely there but too new for this forum. It was 20+ years in production..Quite a change from camera of the week. The Rolleiflex TLR gotta be some of the very best. So beautiful. A dog to use, but the "look".<br>

Leica M. not there with Nikon, more services and adjustments(for me). Still outstanding.<br>

The Alpa from friends experiences, were troublesome, finicky and very difficult to service.<br>

Spotmatics go on and on. The meter may not.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

The Nikon F is definitely the king of the hill. The F is the camera upon which Nikon built their reputation, and it was

well-earned. Nikon seemed to spare no expense in the construction of the F. The body and mechanism were made

ruggedly enough that the camera could be used as a blunt weapon to fend off angry bears, and still take pictures

afterward. Pros quickly picked up on the F, and it became the legend that it is today.

 

Canon copied the F qute closely when they designed their F1. I love the F1, and I shoot with one occasionally, but the

F1 is simply not quite as good as the Nikon. I also dislike the locking collar on the old FD lenses. It's true that the new

FD lenses did away with the collar, but I like to use my old lenses, and it sometimes takes a bit of fiddling around to

change lenses.

 

The Minolta SRT cameras are very simple, sturdy and reliable. I also like the old MC Rokkor lenses, though there

aren't so many to choose from. What I don't like about the SRT is the lack of interchangeable focusing screens, and

the "universal" compatibility that the Nikon F has.

 

The old Pentax M42 cameras like the SP, SV, S2, etc. are small, simple, and easy to use. I also love Takumar lenses.

But the shutters often stick on these old cameras, and the cloth shutter curtains are sometimes burned or rotted. Also,

the battery cap is also prone to sticking permanently.

 

For a compact SLR, the Olympus OM cameras are tough to beat. They are truly professional quality, and some of the

lenses are simply outstanding. The 90mm f/2 macro is one of the best lenses I have ever seen by any manufacturer. I

love the small size, smooth operation, and beautiful viewfinder the OM sports. But the meter in the OM1 requires

obsolete batteries, the mirror foam deteriorates, and I have seen a lot of sample variation in OM lenses. Later OM

cameras are not so reliable, and the better cameras (the OM3 and 4) are quite expensive.

[christian_fox]

<p>Many of you have images on display when you contribute to the forum. I get embarrassed and just stare at some these images. You can imagine how I feel shooting with a LX5 sensor. Now, this little digital camera has taken me out to experience photography more than any camera in my life, but that is besides the point. This forum post was not about that. Anyways, I admire your images posted on this forum.</p>

<p>After all of these responses, my interests settle on the Nikon F/F2, Topcon due to its military connection as well as its build, the Olympus OM1 (perhaps due to my personal reverence to Olympus, the new OMD, and MZ lenses), and the Nikon F3 despite being off key in this forum post. There is something unique about the F3/FA (FE?) meter that allows <em><strong>automatic</strong></em> long exposures for low light on a tripod. I am obsessed with very low light photography. I know - I am mixing themes a bit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[bonsignore_ezio]

<p> "I am obsessed with very low light photography. "</p>

<p>Then you need an Olympus OM-2n. I share your obsession, and this is why I got one. The trick is that the OM-2n uniquely meters off the film plane, and for this reason it enables automatic metering at far longer exposure times than any other film SLR I know of. You simply set the camera on "auto", select the aperture, press the release button --- and a couple of hours later the camera will say, "OK, that's enough" and close the shutter.<br>

A word of caution, though: this procedure will produce night/low light images that look like exaxtly as if they were taken at noon in a sunny day. I've since learned that in order to get a "nightish" feeling, I need to at first waste a shot as above, recording the exact exposure time - and then take a second shot in manual mode, with 1/2 or 2/3rd the previous exposure time.</p>

 

[jeff_z.]

<p>In relation to what Christian and Bonsignore mention in connection with long exposures in very low light, I have an F3, and although I don't know how it compares exactly on this with the Olympus OM-2n, I used it for this purpose on automatic just once. I think that this exposure lasted for about 12 to 15 minutes, and it too, rendered the image as if it were broad daylight. Interesting looking, but not what I wanted, and I wondered if there might be a faster, easier method for determining an exposure that would render a scene closer to reality for these kinds of situations?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Set the ASA/ISO to a higher value, and the camera will take care of that "as if it were broad daylight" problem, without needing to first sit and wait to record the duration of a test exposure.<br>I used my OM-2 like that too, but reciprocity failure made sure it did not look as if taken at noon in a sunny day.

[jeff_z.]

<p>Thanks Q.G. How much higher would you recommend going with the asa/iso?</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Just sticking to 35mm SLR's I would nominate the Nikon F2, Topcon Super D and Leicaflex SL2. The coolest to look at is the Contarex Bullseye. My opinion is that if you could just own three mechanical cameras they would have to be the Contarex, Rolleiflex 2.8F and the Leica M3 or 2.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,<br><br>Depends (i.e. you really need to test to find out what works for your film and your liking), but double would be a good beginning.<br>I must say i never did compensate for the as-if-broad-daylight effect. The film and its Schwarzschild-behaviour did that for me.<br><br>But unless there is something in the picture that shows it is taken at night time (for instance street or other lights), making sure an exposure does not render the scene as shot at midday on a sunny day by shortening the exposure (either manually or by biasing the expsouremeter using the ASA-dial) will still render the scene as an underexposed shot taken at midday on a sunny day.<br>The inclusion of things that make it clear that it is indeed a night time shot, like street lights and the pools of light they create, will also bias the exposuremeter towards the desired result. You then have to worry about the brighter bits (those lamps and the pools of light) are not over exposed (too much).<br>As a beginning, just letting the OM-2 (or similar camera capable of long exposure metering) do its thing will get you close to the desired result. You build up experience from such attempts, learn what to do in what situation.

[jeff_z.]

<p>Q.G., Thank you very much for the thorough answer! I've done very little of this type of photography, but had a decent result a few years ago when I came across a full moon rising. It was completely dark, and there are a few street lights in that picture. Especially from what you mention if I understand it correctly, I'm guessing that maybe that's why the exposure was pretty good; i.e., it was basically a happy accident on my part. I will definitely keep everything you mentioned in mind for the future! Thanks again!</p>

[stephen_york3]

<p>Most companies made good, reliable mechanical cameras.</p>

<p>I've used the following mechanical SLRs over the last 25 years: Leica R6, Canon FTB and FTBn, Nikon F, Topcon R, Contarex Bullseye, Contaflex IV, Leicaflex SL and SL2, Minolta SRT 101, and original Leicaflex. I can't say any of them were 'bad' (although the Contarex was funky), but the one I enjoyed the most, and retained, is the Leicaflex SL. Spare part availability for this camera is still good, and repair techs (albeit Leica people) sign its' praises.<br /> <br /> I'ved used the following mechanical rangefinders over the last 25 years: Nikon S2, Leica M4, M5, M6, and MP. They're all good and durable. I like the M5 the best. Nikons are supposedly reliable, but their viewfinders suck.</p>

<p>What lenses do you like best? Answer this question and you're on your way to finding the "best" mechanical camera for you.</p>

<p>Don't listen to what others write. Only you know what is best for you.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I bought a 1938 Rolleiflex Automat that probably hadn't been shot since the 1950s. I put a roll of Fuji Velvia 50 color slide film through it about 2 years ago, and it worked flawlessly. It's my favorite shooter. </p>

<p>That's 74 years since manufacture, about 60 years on a shelf, no CLAs ever, and still going strong!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's not a 35 mm film SLR or RF though. ;-)