Manual Camera Classics

[dave_a4]

<p>Dear Photographers!<br /><br />I have a little question. I can't decide what camera to buy. I had a manual canon, two zenits, three minoltas. At the moment I have Minolta Xd-7, but I want to try something different. For instance Pentax, Olympus or something another. <br>

What manual camera would be interesting and will be not worse than Minolta Xd-7? (It has to be in the same price region).</p>

<p>Thank you very much!</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>Please be more specific so we can help by offering suggestions based on our experience. Rangefinder or SLR? Fully manual or battery dependent shutter? Interchangeable lenses or fixed? Prime lens or zoom? Let us know to better answer your question.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I can't imagine "worse" and Minolta XD-7 in the same sentence. Did you mean a camera that is less automatic or less battery dependent? If so there are certainly lots of choices (even among Minolta). The XD series require batteries except for the mechanical speed of B and 1/100 second. The Pentax ME Super has two mechanical speeds, but is otherwise just as battery dependent as the XD-7. However, the Pentax MX or K1000, for example, have mechanical shutters and manual exposure (also true of Olympus OM-1, Minolta SRT, Nikkormat FT-3, etc.) If you just want something other than Minolta then take a look at the Nikon FM, Nikkormat FT-3, Canon FTb, Olympus OM-1, or Pentax K1000, just to name a few.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Nikon F2. What else is there? :-)</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Are you steadfast in using 35mm or would you be willing to expand to at least medium format? The bigger the film, the better the pics.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You don't really give a good reason to buy another camera, which makes it hard to suggest something. The XD-7 is the same as the XD-11 but was originally badged to be marketed in Japan and Europe.The exposure modes include AP, SP and manual, and further when SP is the selected mode, if your setting won't result in a good exposure, the camera will automatically adjust to produce a well exposed photo, which in essence is a "Program" mode - as the camera selects both aperture and shutter. I bring these things up because you used the term "not worse than the Minolta XD-7". Outside of being a manual focus camera...the camera is almost a "no-brainer". So tell us what features you want.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I think both recent posts are spot on... Rick H. said You can't do better than the classic Nikon F2 I don'T

own this model.. but it seems like a logical extension for broadening the palette. Also as Rob H said MF is

a great experience that you often never look back from. The bigger the better!

[dave_a4]

Paul, yes, I have fixed it by inserting a little spring that I've made by myself. It was a little bit hard but everything is working

now and it looks very clean and mint. I also could not find a spanner here.

 

Generally, I want a camera that has an ability to update it with different accessories like auto winder.

Also, I want the shutter to be made of metal. I want precise shutter speed.

I think that I want and SLR superior to rangefinder, but if I see a good rangefinder I will definetly consider it.

What about a film format - I really like 120 film and I always wanted to have a 120 camera but they are very expensive. :-(

I generally lov using fixed lenses, I really don't like zoom lenses. My favorite lens is 50mm lens because I love making

portraits and playing with bokeh.

Very important for me is very good lightmeter and a good range of shutter speeds.

Automatic modes are not important for me but if there is one - it's definetly a plus.

What about batteries - I don't mind. I have Zenit 122 and it's fully mechanical but it can make a very good shots!

But I suffer of a lack of 1/1000 speed.

"Not worse than xd-7" means it's metal housing(but if there is better camera made of plastic - ok), a metal shutter and

many lenses available on market.

So in general the filters are:

1. Precise shutter

2. Good lightmeter

3. Interchangeable lenses and a good variety of them on sites like eBay

[Mike Gammill]

<p>There is a winder available for the XD series: Autowinder D. It will allow up to 2 frames per second. This winder is only compatible with the XD. The XG and X series take the G series winder and the XG-M, X-370, X-570, and X-700 will accept a motor drive that will go to 3.5 frames per second. BTW, if you want some automation along with manual control and great build quality, take a look at the Minolta XE-7 (in some markets the XE or XE-1). Aperture priority and metered manual. Minolta and Leica collaborated to build the Minolta XE and the Leica R3.</p><div></div>

[peter_j2]

<p>Study the Canon F-1N specifications (including it's titanium shutter). Determine which view finder suits your needs. Establish if the winder or motor drive with AA batteries would be appropriate for your style. Consider the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 lens as your workhorse.</p>

[dave_a4]

Peter J,

Thank you! That sounds interesting!

Are there any alternatives to minolta x-700 but not of minolta company?

I had one already and I want to try another thing. Also x-700 has a cloth shutter.

[JDMvW]

<p>Here are some early "modern film cameras" that are available for very little hard cash these days, or ever, for that matter.<br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00clxe </p><div></div>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I don't have any experience with Minoltas, but you can't go wrong with any of the top Nikon or Canon cameras from the manual focus era.</p>

<p>I've had Nikon F, F2 and F3 - all very reliable. If you want battery independence, then the F and F2 are probably for you.<br>

<br />I also have the Canon FTb - great, basic camera.</p>

<p>There are also less expensive variants in each line, but since these top of the line cameras don't cost that much more, I think you would appreciate the stronger and more durable construction of these pro cameras.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The XD cameras have a metal bladed vertically running shutter. You may have confused its shutter with the cloth horizontally running shutter of the later X-700 model. The shutter of an XD series camera is also going to be as accurate as that of any other camera with the same range of shutter speeds. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The Minolta XE also has a vertical metal shutter. It is the Copal-Leitz shutter that is also used in the Leica R3. Also a bargain to consider: The Konica Autoreflex T, T2, or T3. They also have metal shutters and offer both shutter priority and manual operation. The later T4 retains the metal shutter, but can accept an autowinder. </p>

[astral]

<p>Broadly speaking, the (fairly minor) differences between most manual SLRs are such that adopting a new brand, let alone model, may not give a significantly different experience. Also, differences between brands and models may simply not be seen in the resulting photographs. On the other hand, expanding into a new 'system' may widen the choice of lenses and there may be specific camera functions or features that are of interest or value to you.<br /><br />In contrast, a fixed lens rangefinder camera, such as a Kodak Retina, will probably offer new challenges and opportunities despite what may superficially appear to be significant limitations compared most SLR cameras. Similarly, moving to rollfilm, using a folding camera or SLR, can take you in a completely new photographic direction with its own challenges and opportunities.<br /><br />Ultimately, the question is what sort of photography do you wish to do? That does more to define a type, brand or model of camera than just picking on a camera that looks interesting; although that itself may be a good reason for buying another brand of SLR. Also, flirtations with other brands (etc) start the slide down the slippery slope of having more stuff than you can use, and much of that may be of little practical photographic use to you . . .<br /><br />Setting all that aside, the Canon FD lenses are great bargains . . . but only if you find a camera body that meets your needs and within your price bracket.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>+1</strong> Alan Clayton.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If you want something other than Minolta, but with program automation like the X700 look for: Canon AE-1 Program and Olympus OM-2S, to name a couple of examples. Pentax should have a model or two that fits that description as does Yashica. <br>

Alan's recommendation is also worth a look, especially if you want something really different. If you can manage with scale focusing why not consider on the Rollei 35 models? Lens collapses into camera body when not in use. The Rollei 35 and 35S have match needle CDS metering and mechanical shutters. Or maybe a fixed lens rangefinder: The Canonet models, Konica Auto S2, Minolta Hi-Matic S and SII, Yashica GSN, and Olympus 35RC, just to name a few. Search Photo.net to find threads on these cameras along with images.</p>

[dave_a4]

<p>Thank you so much, guys! It's so sweet that you all did not pass by and try to help me! I really appreciate it.<br />For the SLR i've stopped my vision on Konica Autoreflex T4 or Minolta XE or Pentax KX for now but I'm still searching.<br />I also have one question: There is one Leica R3 in the shop in my city and it has a pretty low price. But after searching on ebay and elswhere I've come to decision that Leica R bayonet lenses are VERY expensive. And now I don't know - should I really buy that body or there is something similar but with many lenses available. I liked its weight and really good feeling of reliability, you know, metal stuff. Feels durable. </p>

[astral]

<p>If you really, really must buy into a new system I would suggest thinking again about the Konica range because of a few reliability issues and a fairly poor choice of lenses and accessories (however, that varies by model and also availability around the world).</p>

<p>The Leica R3 is not the best choice from the Leica stable: the R5, R6 and R7 are much better bodies. However most Leica SLR lenses are grossly overpriced, especially ones that can be adapted for use on digital cameras. There are however a couple of 'stand-out' Leica lenses: they should provide the motivation for changing to Leica, not the bodies. Several 'commonplace' Leica SLR lenses have a performance equal, but not necessarily surpassing contemporary Canon and Nikon lenses, etc, by a significant margin, especially considering their cost. There are some incompatibilities with Leica R mounts which can ensnare the unwary -and even the wary.</p>

<p>Pentax KM mount is a good choice, with many affordable and high qualtiy lenses and (generally) affordable accessories. However, the KM and KX models are nowhere near as interesting or as capable an a LX which is a top class camera. Again, with the Pentax system, there are several stand-out lenses, but there are many more average-to-mediocre ones: lens choice, not body, is a better basis for any decisions in my opinion. For me, Pentax primes outshine Pentax zooms by a very (very) wide margin.</p>

<p>The earlier Pentax screw-mount system is invariably good fun, and generally affordable. The only real day-to-day downside is that changing lenses can be frustratingly slow. SMC Takumars are more highly prized than Super-Takumars, but both perform exceptionally well. A Pentax Spotmatic (preferably a SP-II) or SL or even an older model can be fun if you want to re-discover 1970s -style photography, with stop-down metering and a somewhat dim focussing screen. Many Pentaxes are "high-mileage" and not quite as durable internally as the tougher Canon and Nikon semi-pro cameras, so parts do wear out resulting in poor shutter speed, etc. I have literally worn out two Pentax SV cameras since 1970 and am now on my third.<br>

<br />The Olympus OM system is broad and deep: a good system can be build at a reasonable cost. The most durable body is the OM2n; other models are somewhat either less reliable (OM4) or have fewer features (OM-10): Olympus electronics can be quirky. I do not know about the OM30SP, it is a less common camera here in the UK. Olympus lenses are no "worse" than anyone else's in normal use, but the choice between early and late lenses, and the difference in coating can be a distraction. Later 'multicoated' lenses are not necessarily any better, overall, than earlier simple coated lens versions. The earlier Olympus bodies are small and the ergonomics are good.</p>

<p>Finally, the Nikon F, F2 and later Nikkormats (FT2/3), along with the later FM, FM2, FE and FA are usually affordable, dependable and good platforms for many excellent Nikkor lenses of all periods. A good system can be built to almost any reasonable budget, but much research is needed to ensure that lenses and cameras are fully compatible. Not all Nikon lenses are "exceptional", many are in reality just mainstream, but there are some real standout lenses that - again - should be the basis of a system rather than a superficial choice of body model.</p>

<p>Out of all of the above systems, Olympus is for me, by far the more "interesting" one. But I feel that even it doesn't provide very much more interest or excitement in the medium to long term than, say, buying another, "better" or more useful lens for a system that is already owned. With SLRs the novelty soon wears off, because - as I asserted previously - all SLRs are "much of a muchness."</p>

<p>Good luck, tread warily.</p>

 

[astral]

<p>Les, a quick question: what has been your experience with the reliability of the XE-7 (XE-1 in Europe) please? There are a couple of 'stand-out' Minolta lenses I'd like to use, but I am unsure about the later X-series cameras or indeed the SRT-series.</p>

[astral]

<p>Thanks Les, I am looking for an early Rokkor 50mm f1.4, which may have a different <em>'signature'</em> (wide open) to my other 1.4 optics. The body is more-or-less a secondary consideration as long as it's reliable. Regards AC. </p>

[dave_a4]

<p>Alan, your post really helped me out in ordering my thoughts! <br />With that information in one hand, what rangefinder camera can I consider on the other hand? <br />If it has the fixed lens or interchangalbe - it doesnt matter. My main criteria is sharpness and speed of lens. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>For shutter priority automation plus full manual consider: Konica Auto S2 (45mm f1.8 lens), Canonet GIII 17 (40mm f.17), and Olympus 35 RC (42mm f2.8). All three have sharp lenses. Advantages: Konica is a good value, Canon give compact speed, and Olympus is most compact.<br>

Automatic only: Yashica GSN (45mm f1.7) and Konica Auto S3 (38mm f1.8). Yashica is aperture priority only and Konica is shutter priority only.<br>

Programmed automatic: Konica C35, Minolta Hi-matic F, Minolta Hi-Matic E. </p>

[astral]

<p>Dave A, thank you. Mike rather "nailed it"</p>

<p>I can't give you any hard answers, but there is plenty of choice in 35mm rangefinder (RF) cameras: <em>folders</em> (usually fixed lens); <em>fixed lens</em> (non-folding);<em> interchangeable lens</em>. There are all sorts of variations on these basic types, such as folders and fixed lens cameras that do not have coupled rangefinders. Here is a very broad perspective on what is possible:</p>

<p><em>Folding fixed lens 35mm rangefinders:</em> these include Kodak Retina, Agfa Super Solinette and several Voigtlander models, plus numerous other makes. Some have f2 50mm lenses (meaning higher prices), but the f2.8 variants are much more common. These cameras do not normally have coupled meters. A good starting point is to look at a the Kodak Retina range from the model II through to IIIC.</p>

<p><em>Fixed lens non-folding 35mm rangefinders</em>: there are far too many models to even start listing the more popular ones, but they include Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Rollei, Konica and many other well known brands. Most of these cameras have coupled meters and many have auto-exposure (usually but not always shutter priority). Beware of cameras that look like rangefinders but which are zone focussing only - it may not always be self-evident. Several Canon and Olympus models have fast (f1.7-1.9) lenses that are at least as good as most SLR 50mm lenses.</p>

<p><em>Interchangeable lens 35mm cameras</em>: again there is much choice here, so research is essential. The top brand is Leica of course (bayonet or screw-mount lenses), but other manufacturers produced compatible bodies and lenses, which are now usually a fraction of the cost of Leica gear. Examples are vintage Canon LTM (Leica thread mount) cameras and bthe more recent Voigtlander "demi-classic" LTM and bayonet mount cameras. There are a few brands that are not Leica-compatible - Contax/Kiev for example. Kievs can be fun and fairly inexpensive; Russian lenses can vary in quality, model to model and specimen to specimen - mine are very good performers.</p>

<p>That is a very basic outline, and in reality the choices are much wider to the point of being bewildering.</p>

<p>Having a folding or rigid RF camera can be a useful addition to one's SLR arsenal. They are quite simple to use, although a separate meter is usually needed; they are fairly unobtrusive, pocketable, and near silent in operation. They may require a bit more forethought when taking photos than does an SLR, but that is a debateable point. For example, by using HFD focussing (hyperfocal distance) and knowing about light levels and scene contrast (rather than <em>relying</em> on a meter), these cameras can be really quick to deploy for, say, street photography.</p>

<p>My personal preference is a Kodak Retina IIa (1947-49) or a late 50's-60's IIIc or similar model, with an Agfa Super Solinette (with a 'premium lens') coming second. However, if you want an interesting, quirky, 'learn-more' or 'talking piece' camera there is far more choice in RF cameras than for mainstream SLRs and usually at a price that won't break that bank. If you are aiming in <em>that</em> particular financial direction "plump for a Leica!" . . . . . And then there are rollfilm cameras . . "a whole new ballgame!"</p>

<p>Finally (!), earlier suggestions about alternative SLRs all have merit, although no-one mentioned ALPA or EXAKTA. If you want <em>"interesting"</em> they are ones to look at (albeit that Alpa ain't ever been cheap). In the right hands they can/will produce exceptionally good photos - although the person behind the camera is almost invariably the most critical factor. I've always wanted an Exakta, but so-far commonsense has prevailed. Happy hunting.</p>

<p> </p>