If you were to add a 35mm 'manual' SLR...

[kenny_c.]

I would recommend OM1/2 with 50/1.4 lens first, and later 100/2.8 and 21/3.5. They are light and small. OM has great VF also. If you can tolerate older cameras then a well maintained SRT101 which has big VF (best I can see so far) and very smooth film winder but heavy (I like it). Also Pentax Spotmatic F with their cute, sturdy, samll, and excellent lenses. Spotmatic is also very smooth to use and fun to find all kinds of M42 crew-mount lenses.

[fotografz]

Patrick, if you're gonna do it, do it right.

 

Get a Contax RX for the film holding box (has focus confirmation in the viewfinder),

and hunt down some of the legendary Zeiss manual primes...all official gear of the

Panzer Division considering the built quality of these lenses...not to mention some of

the finest optics ever created.

 

55/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2, 70-200/3.5. German made versions. The 35/1.4 ain't all bad

either.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Nobody has singled out the OM-1. Small. Works without battery, focusses the right way, bright 97% finder, interchangeable screens, very quiet; perhaps the most "loveable" SLR.

[kens]

Adventurous? ALPA!

[vic_.]

The only consensus that seems to have been reached is that it doesn't matter what camera one chooses - they're all up to the task. The same applies to rangefinders, they're just tools.

 

The often repeated frenzy of constant buying and selling of equipment until the ultimate setup is reached is something that keeps this group alive more than anything else. Hint to newbies: Most never reach Leica Nirvana, they stew in their own juices of uncertainty and anxiety about not having the tabbed lens, about not having the concave or convex tab, the pre-Asph King of Bokeh, the ultimate, the penultimate, etc., it's a theater of the absurd, it's laughable.

 

Meanwhile, the film sits there unused.

 

The thrill seems to have been in the hunt, and not in the kill. I have danced this dance myself so I can laugh. Leica-M to some is the crack cocaine of cameras. In the end they abandon the M and in ritual purification, rush to the other extreme, a Japanese SLR. M has won out, as it always does. The M sits there tantalizing the next victim.

[james_.1]

I'd get a Leica R6.2. Along with the 100 macro, 180 APO, 2x extender, and (wishfully thinking) that 15mm! Complements my M of course.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The OM-1's are great; if the internal string cables are ok. I got one from a dealer; and returned it last year; both the internal cables were broken; and the camera didnt function at all positions.<BR><BR>I bought a new Nikon F when Johnson was president; in has never required a CLA; and still works great. I got a chrome Nikkormat FTn new in 1973; it still works well. I got a new Nikkormat Ftn-K about 1976; it died after two rolls; and was repaired twice at Garden City Nikon; It finally got stolen about 1977. It spent more time at Nikon repair; than me using it. It had a Mean time before failure of only about 2 to 5 rolls of film. The body cost me 205 bucks; I paid extra for the black paint; and super new K screen version. I got the camera as a spare; it turned out to be a total dud; ie junk. I got a spare Nikon F body 2 decades ago for 59 bucks; in case my other two fail. The Nikon F2 is quicker to load; mine is nice. My brother got a Nikon F3 new decades ago; it failed after about a dozen rolls. He bought another; and now both still work well. I saw a Nikon F4 jam at the sports arena; the local newspaper guy was using it; this was about 4 years ago.

[cd thacker]

There are so many great setups you could get. I'd be tempted by a <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm">Nikon F</a>, or equally by an <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/f2/index.htm">F2</a>/<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/f2/nikonf2a/index.htm">F2A</a>/<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/f2/nikonf2as/index.htm">F2AS</a>. On the other hand I have more experience with an F3HP, and while it's true that it isn't as fully mechanical as its predecessors, it's still proven to be pretty reliable - and the teensy bit of optional automation - AE - is easy to ignore, which I do. The F4 is frankly better built (arguably as well built as the F), but a real battery hog and thus out of contention.<p>

 

I'd wanted the <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm">Bessaflex</a> - until I saw that it requires stop-down metering - which I've never tried but am told (by someone whose opinion I value) is a royal pain.<p>

 

You probably also couldn't go wrong with a couple of Minolta SRT-somethings and a bag of Rokkors. (I saw an ad recently in the local classifieds for an SRT-101 - I think it was - six lenses, and two bags, all for $175.) Or any of those Olympus OM models, or Pentax.

The only problem I have with these older lines is that most of the glass isn't very fast at all. <p>

 

 

 

For greater speed and something newer, I've thought about Contax - great glass from all appearances, and the RTS III in particular looks rock solid. But on closer examination, I notice that their whole manual line is geared toward AE shooting - the shutter speed dial being on the left of the prism, with an exposure compensation dial on the right - rendering it, I would think, very difficult to use in non-AE mode.<p>

 

Which leaves us with Leica SL/R options (depending on how liberal your interpretation of "manual" is); or, Nikon. Since we know without doubt that the entire F series is reliable; and since F3s are still available in mint condition; and since the bodies, along with the glass, can even be bought new (and <i>fast</i>, in the case of the glass), at a fraction of Leica prices; my vote would be for the F3HP (or, F/F2/F2A/F2AS). Shalom.

[cd thacker]

As for the lenses (almost forgot): 24/2.8 (or, 28/2.0); 50/1.4; 85/1.4 - all Nikkor AIS. Both the 24 and the 28 are very strong - the 28 is probably stronger, but the 24 is no slouch, and compensates with greater field of view. The 50/1.4, while not as good as the 1.8, is definitely worthwhile for its speed. The 85 I haven't used (very unfortunate), but I see it compared quite favorably, all the time, to the 75 Summilux-M, so it's probably pretty good.

[stephen_jones4]

I'd buy something that repairers are happy to work on - that probably rules out a Contax RX although it's a lovely camera to use - smooth shutter etc. Leicaflex SLs are nice, R6/6.2 has a wonderful viewfinder (like looking into a black tunnel) and quiet shutter, nikon fm2s are apparently good to work on but the lenses are over-priced (ais) given their optical performance (28/2 and 105 2.5 possible exceptions). It's certainly true that CZ lenses are good and (relatively) v. cheap - maybe you could put up with something like a Yashica FX3 - they're pretty affordable and easy to fix - you'd be hard pushed to beat the optical quality of the CZ 28 2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. Still, I'm sticking with the R6.2 I've got - I bought 3 RX's, only one of which worked correctly, and had an RTS3 and 167mt die on me (the vacuum cleaner of the rts3 gave up the ghost). Now who do I sound like?

 

Isn't it funny how so many people (like me) just can't resist answering this question?

[david_chananie]

I have a Nikkormat and an F2AS. Bought the Nikkormat in 1968, and it has a lot of life in it yet. Got the F2AS I guess 10 years ago, and it too is going strong. Bought a Canon F because the prices were so cheap, and a bunch of lenses. Good camera and good glass. Thought about getting a Contax 137 or 139 because I'd like to try out the Zeiss glass. I read somewhere that Scavullo uses Contax, although I would expect he uses medium format. I bought my daughter a Pentax screw mount system which is also cheap and good. I believe Pentax was the first to coat lenses??

 

What I find telling about this group is that nobody mentiond doing macro work and almost nobody mentioned wanting to use long glass, say in the 300mm to 600mm range. Most people seemed to restrict themselves to wide angle up to 105mm or so, with the occasional mention of something a bit longer. Kind of sounded like just replacing a rangefinder with a slr without capitalizing on some of the strengths of the slr. Just an interesting observation. Self-selection, I guess. All best.

[henry_ting2]

Started my photography years ago on Nikon F, then F2, then F3.

Sold every piece of it and started on the Leica R, which was a very frustrating ordeal. Now I got rid of all my Leica Rs and started back on the Nikon. I just bought a FM2N and its a joy to use. I have just one complaint about the poor eye-relief.

[john_alexander_dow]

Nikon F - no question - and with a plain prism, 50mm and 105mm F lenses. Can't understand the emphasis on metering in a Leica forum unless everybody has M6 or M7, in whch case guessing is pretty much as good anyway,

except in low light where the meter don't work anyway...

 

JayDee

[d._p.1]

Ideally: a nikkormat-like body with a *good* lens with 10-blade aperture. Contax and leica SL both seem very interesting alternatives ... which one is better? Somebody told me about unreliable Contax bodies.

[douglas k.]

"But it doesn't sound strange at all coming from you, since you purposely snipped and quoted just the last portion of my post deliberately in order to take it out of context and make it seem to fit your convoluted anti-logic."

 

Actually I didn't "snip" anything...I quoted the entire paragraph. If you have difficulty making arguments clearly, creating the intended context, etc., that's your problem.

 

"What I said was that if you happen to be so dense as to believe that only someone who has produced great photos has a valid opinion as to which camera is better, then by all means survey all the famous,

published nature pros and see what cameras *they* use."

 

I re-read your post. That's actually not what you said. If that's what you intended to say, perhaps you should have written it as it appears in the above paragraph.

[Robin Smith]

I vote : SL, SL2, R6.2, Nikon F3, FM2 in whatever order you like depending on whether you want Leica or Nikon and the price you want to pay.

[christopher_junker]

I vote: Pentax"Spotmatic",LX,MX,Leicaflex SL. Just amazing on how good a senior citizen SLR system you can buy for so little money. Can a manual SLR plus the three lenses in good shape be purchased for $300 or under?

[icuneko]

My Nikon FM2N. It'll probably be functional longer than I will be.

[ray_moth]

<i>"Old style 'manual' SLRs like Canon AE-1, Nikon F's of various sorts, even Contax's are falling and falling in prices." </i>I guess when you say 'manual' SLR, you mean 'manual focus'. If not, then your question is self-contradictory (e.g. Canon AE-1 is not totally manual). If I bought SLR manual focus gear again, it would be <b>Leica SL or Leica R7</b> (my favourite camera when I owned Leica R). <br><br>

A few people have praised Olympus OM. I had Olympus OM SLR cameras for 20+ years and I quite liked the bodies . . . but the <i>Zuiko lenses! </i> Yuck! Most Zuiko lenses are poor to mediocre, with a few good to very good ones. I realized what I had been missing when I started using Leica gear. For a while, I owned both Olympus OM and Leica (first R, then M) but got to the stage where I never took any pictures with the OM any more, because of the poor quality of the lenses. So, I sold off all my OM gear and have never regretted it. <br><br>

 

I have insufficient knowledge of Canon, Contax, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax to be able to comment on any of them.

[roger a.]

Not quite what you were asking for, but...

 

EOS RT - 8 millisecond shutter lag, no mirror black out, cheap, solid.

135mm f2.0 - truly outstanding lens

 

or Canon F1N,

135mm f2.0 (very very good, if not quite as good as the EOS version).

[cd thacker]

Roger, I've never seen an RS but have heard good things. What about that pellicle mirror, though - doesn't it cause significant dimness in the viewfinder?

[cd thacker]

Sorry, meant RT (though they offered the similar RS, too, didn't they?)

[lutz]

Patrick, even if you are already dizzy with answers, here are my 2 (Euro)cent: ANY OM, but preferably an OM2spot or OM4 (if you can afford one). The 3 "fast primes" you mention are an easy pick: 28/2, 50/1.4 (with a serial# above 1.000.000, for the better coating!) and the 90/2 macro - and you're set. These three are among the best in their class. And the OM is THE natural complement to the Leica M. Period. ;o)

[roger a.]

Doug,

 

Yes, the finder is dimmer, but not by as much as you would expect.

The lack of mirror bounce more than makes up for it - you can hand hold it at similar speeds to a Leica M, and people don't seem to notice the noise as much as I expected. The AF may be poor by modern top-level standards, but it's good enough, and the instant response is very addictive. I bought it for shooting horses jumping, and it's fantastic for that and for people photography.

 

I have been trying to sell my F1N and 135 f2.0 for 8 months - decided to keep them now, as they don't fetch anything near their true value at the moment. There's also a tactile pleasure from using a piece of heavy metal like the F1N which none of the modern AF SLRs can match.

 

The other thing which may be a factor is the Bokeh - It's good on the 35/f2, 50mm/f2 and 135/f2 Canon lenses - both FD and EOS, whereas it doesn't seem to be a major design factor in many Nikon lenses.