In your opinion, what are the best modern 35mm film SLRs ever built?

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,498
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
At the time a large number of PJs kept their F2s and even F rather than trust the new electronic shutter of the F3 and F3P, I covered Africa, my F3P never let me down. The F3 had a better motor drive, aperture preferred exposure when needed. Many Nikon fans still consider the F2 as the most robust of the standard F mount bodies. Still I liked the way the LX handled. My only grudge against both the LX and F3 was the somewhat slow flash sync. while in college I had a Konica T with a flash sync of /125, never understood why the LX and F3 with metal shutter could not sync at 1/125.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,866
Location
Elko, Nevada
Format
Multi Format

I agree on this.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,866
Location
Elko, Nevada
Format
Multi Format

Your history with Nikon reminds me of my own history with Pentax. I started with the K1000 back in the 70s and upgraded my way through several film versions and then on to digital. There were a few times over the years when the Pentax selections were a little less than attractive but they always managed to right the ship and go on to produce some pretty nice cameras. Over the past two or three years the LX and PZ1p have been my primary film SLRs.

I haven't upgraded my digital for awhile now since I don't use it that often anymore but I am putting together the coin to pick up the new Monochrome K3. I am actually looking forward to putting it through its' paces.

I still keep and use that same K1000 SE I bought in the 70s as my own truck and hunting camera. God only knows how much film has made its way through that camera. It has quite literally been around the world with me and never let me down.

These older cameras just seem to keep on ticking and it is a real joy to work with them.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
1,986
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format

In addition to Nikon, I own several Leica RFs that range in age from around 70 years old to a "mere" 50 years old. Each of them finally got a CLA within the last year. (Well, the 70 year old one may have had a CLA in the past, before I owned it.)
It's kind of astonishing to realize just how well screwed together and well built these old mechanical cameras were. I suspect that neither Leica nor Nikon could build cameras that way these days - it would bankrupt them. As nice as their new cameras may be, there's a lot more mass production in them as compared to the older hand fitting that took place, especially with Leica.

It's ironic that Leica, in particular, commands nosebleed prices for their new cameras, when a machine that's actually better built can be had for less than 1/4 of the price including a full CLA. A new M6 pushes $6000 US. I got a just-serviced M2 for $1200 US last year. What the M6 does that the M2 cannot, I just don't care about. Using that old camera is a complete joy.
 

vishalkullarwar

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
15
Location
Mumbai
Format
Medium Format

I would say Nikon FM2 or an FM2N is a workhorse. If you want to go for versatility then a Nikon F4 or a F4S (if you’re comfortable with a bulky body).

Why I recommend F4S? It takes up practically most of the lenses of the Nikon system right from the 60s (PreAI) to the newer VR and G lenses, but with few functions not usable. Cannot use the mirrorless lenses. In this way you get a wide range of lenses to use. The camera does not have an electronic display unit, which is a good thing considering it’s difficult to get the displays in today’s time. I had issues with my F90X and was redundant till I got a donor camera’s display unit. Coming to the F4, it’s a brilliant camera to use. I had done a month long research when getting a camera. I had considered F3HP and even a F6 but finally closed in on the F4S.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,498
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have a F4S, has some LD bleed, I use AIS and AI lens with it, the AF is slow I can hand focus faster with MF lens. This why Nikon lost so much market share to Canon EOS 1, the F5 was as good as the EOS 1N and very close to the 1V. In terms of build quality, the Minolta 9, last version is made of stainless steel, very rugged, but really heavy. I only shoot with mine when shooting wildlife. The AF is much faster than the F4S, maybe not quite as fast the the EOS1V, fast enough for me when using late model Minolta or 5 pin Sony lens. It will not focus with SSM lens as my example was not factory modified. I have a Minolta 5, 7, 9, 7xi, 9xi and 800si. But if I were to do it all over again I would have gone with Canon EOS, either a 1n or 1v and 3 or 5 for second body. Reason, all full frame EOS lens will work on both digital and film bodies, including the VR lens.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,123
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I think that the NIkon F100 is the best Nikon AF camera that Nikon built. It has all the best features without the weight and bulk of the F6, and without some of the unneeded features. I have the N75, two N80s, and F100. The F100 is the go to camera for my most serious AF 35mm work.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,619
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format
IMHO SLRs that are not AutoFocus make no sense.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,123
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Radost said:
IMHO SLRs that are not AutoFocus make no sense.
Click to expand...

They do for photographers want to control exactly what is in or out of focus.
They do for photographers want to use lenses that are not available for AF lenses such as Perspective Control lenses.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,493
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Let's not forget macro/micro photography. Even when I use AF cameras, manual focus is essential when the DOF is so thin. The AF can function, often with difficulty, but chances are it will lock on something other than what you want. Plus, the choice of suitable optics is much great in MF than AF.
 
Last edited:

ant!

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
412
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
I think both AF and MF have their place, but I agree as well that in a discussion about modern 35mm cameras, the choice would be an AF camera...
 

JerseyDoug

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
370
Location
Jersey Shore
Format
35mm RF
Based on the the three examples the OP mentioned I'm going to assume that by "modern" they meant just cameras with computers and LCD screens. The best camera in that category, for me, is my Nikon F6. But it mostly sits on the shelf and the SLRs I actually use are a pair of plain prism Nikon Fs - a black one and a chrome one.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
1,986
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format

You and me both, although my chrome one is for sale. My black one is an Apollo model with a working FtN head, though I do have the plain black prism as well.

I've never much liked the AF, AE SLR ethos. When I finally bought a serious Nikon digital SLR (a D750), I kind of got stuck with that, but I often use it with older AI-S lenses and manually meter.

Personally, I wish Nikon would reintroduce the F body as a newly available camera, much the way Leica did with the M6, M-A, and MP.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,498
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Nikon did release a new version of the S2 rangefinder for collectors, sold out in a few days, only in Japan. Now that Nikon has moved camera production to Vietnam not sure if Nikon will ever make a film camera again.
 

dave olson

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
146
Location
Nevada
Format
Medium Format
I would have to say the Canon F-1n, the last upgrade model. I have used this model since the 90's. It's big, heavy, built like a tank, absorbs punishment, and still keeps clicking. I've always had at least one, at the present time I have two. I also have two Nikons the FE2 and FE2. Both are excellent cameras and considerably light than the F1's.The Canons made me money when I was shooting editorial and assignment photography.
 

Gaston 012

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
475
Location
New York/Austin
Format
Multi Format
If you go for the F2 or F3 please let me know , I gave some lenses I can sell you.
Obviously, it is clear I am biased but they are great cameras in all aspects and you can get them relatively cheap.
 

ant!

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
412
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
I'm still confused about the people listing the Nikon F as best MODERN SLR. I have only two explanations:

  1. Either they don't read the title completely.
  2. Or they think the F is indeed modern (since it's not about best or preferred SLR), then I wonder what the best non-modern SLR would be. Leaves basically only Exakta (since the 30s) and Praktina (1952, many features were copied by Nikon for the F)?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,123
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

Exactly why I did not mention the Minolta SR7 or Minolta SRT-101 et al.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,248
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Late to the fray, the Pentax Spotmatic F. Well any Spotmatic really or the S1a/SV, just beautiful ergonomics and simplicity.

In the 1970s I used a Spotmatic F and a pair of S1a's for commercial work, in the end I sold them and switched to K/M mount. I have a lot of K/M mount kit, it made sense at the time as I was shooting rock bands live, often with a stringer.

However, I have re-built my M42 Pentax kit with another Spotmatic F, a mint SV for £10 2 years ago with meter, and a S1a for about £2 - sold for parts but an easy fix. I have 3 more Spotmatics.

The lens U miss most is the first Vivitar 70-210mm S1, I have the later, faster, K/M mount version.

Ian
 

Axelwik

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2023
Messages
298
Location
Albuquerque
Format
Large Format
Not so modern, but very high quality and built like a tank are the old Leicaflex cameras. I have a Leicaflex SL2 which was probably the best one that Leica made before handing SLR production to Minolta in Japan around 1977 (starting with the R-3).

Traded almost all my Nikon gear for mine and glad I did. Viewfinder is very bright and clear (best one I've ever experienced), and the camera has only what's needed - no extra unneeded crap. Very solid.

The great thing about them is the Leica glass, which is RELATIVELY inexpensive but is just as good as what they made for their M rangefinder cameras at the same time. Yes, the lenses are more expensive than Nikon or Canon, but in almost all cases consistently better quality. Certainly not as expensive as the same lenses made for the Leica M cameras. If you get a Leicaflex learn about which lenses fit your camera - for the SL2 the 2-cam and 3-cam lenses work.
 
Last edited:

Hassasin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2023
Messages
1,307
Location
Hassasstan
Format
Multi Format

Leica never gave R series to be built by Minolta. Collaborating does not equal manufacturing. And even with collaboration only R3 looked and felt pretty close to Minolta's XE. Differences were evident already between R4 and XD, then there were only R's, constantly improved, and none ever built by Minolta. R8/9 was a totally different yet short lived chapter in Leica's history.

CL is different story, one that eventually ended with Minolta solely redesigning it to CLE model, quite a different beast too.

Leica glass is a myth, especially comparing to what Canon/Nikon/Minolta were making those days. But it is true, R versions have always been well below M ones, with exception of new retail, which only contributed to complete lack of Leica SLR commercial success. At least now we can enjoy the R series for much less, imperfect as it were, yet unique.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
1,986
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Hassasin said:
Leica glass is a myth, especially comparing to what Canon/Nikon/Minolta were making those days.
Click to expand...

I pretty strongly disagree with this.

I have owned (and still own) Nikon glass since the 1970s with a fair number of upgrades in the intervening years. The best Nikon glass is every bit the equal of Leica. The 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and 85mm f/1.4 AI-S both leap to mind here, as does the 105mm f/2.5 AI-S.

But Nikon made a lot of "meh" lenses like the 50mm f/1.4. They also made some real dogs, like the 43-86mm zoom of the same era.

Leica lenses, on the other hand, are consistently good across the range. Well, at least the RF lenses I have tried are. I cannot speak to their SLR glass, but my understanding is that these lens designs follow from their RF lenses.

I own a number of Leica RF lenses that span manufacturing dates from 1945 to the 2000s and they are all very, very, very good. Even the uncoated Elmar made in 1945 is pretty great so long as you keep in mind its lack of coating.

What none of even the best Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Leica lenses can do is cross over a certain threshold of final image quality because of the format limitations of 35mm. The best of these lenses can take 35mm to its very best ... which can start to approach medium format if you use fine grained film, develop carefully, use a tripod, and so forth. But in the end, a quality MF camera is going to win the image wars because of the square cm of negatives they produce.
 

Hassasin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2023
Messages
1,307
Location
Hassasstan
Format
Multi Format

I do agree all the "lesser" brands made some "meh" glass, which is expected given the audience they had to cater too outside of pro level. Yet I'm not even comparing Canon L glass to Leica. Everyone can feel how they do, and see things they do, and yet it is rather natural when a mass production enters market, QC is simply impossible to maintain within very tight tolerances. By comparison Leitz made only fraction of what others put out, and as such had much higher rate of consistency. So in that sense it is harder to find a Leitz glass visibly outside of what it was meant to be.

When I called it a myth, it was to those who think that Leica glass has the magic they are missing and the moment they can afford it, their photography will make a quantum leap. At the same time there have historically been tests done proving the differences were rather minor, if any, and on some accounts Leitz glass lost.

You mention Elmar, so I will stop here. Elmar is nothing but nostalgia (and I'm looking for one too, as it's a must have with a Barnack), but numerous lenses of not much younger age, including uncoated, are at least comparable in "performance". But a picture taken with Elmar, to a lot of people, will fare much batter to one taken with any "lesser" lens, the same as picture taken by well known photographer has automatically higher perceived aesthetics than exact same scene shot by an unknown.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
1,986
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format

Anyone who thinks any equipment will make them better automatically is kidding themselves. I don't care if it's Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, or Lomo...


I have a Zeiss Jenna 10.5cm on a Maxomar 2x3 body of similar uncoated vintage to the Elmar. They are absolutely not "comparable" - they're just different in some ways. The Elmar glows around light sources, the Jenna, much less so. The Elmar is razor sharp and shows good contrast (if you protect it from light sources). The Jenna shows lower contrast generally.

It's not about better- or worse in this case, it's about which brush you want to paint with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…