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

[John Wiegerink]

I used to deal in used equipment and have tried most of the cameras mentioned here. I now use 35mm very little and shoot mainly medium and large format now. That said, I used Nikon 35mm a lot when I shot wedding. My Hasselblad did the main wedding and a Nikon F2AS and FE2 shot many shots at the reception. The FE2 was the main 35mm used simply because of a high flash sync (1/250sec) and paired with a largeSunpak potato masher flash with bounce attachment it worked perfect. The FE2 also had a pendulum shutter brake that reduced shutter shock. I believe the FA model had the same if I'm not mistaken. All of this was then and the question is what would I use for my "Hobby" today? It would be the Nikon F2AS, which I do think was the best and most dependable camera I have ever owned. If the DP12 finder battery goes dead? No big deal, just use a good educated guess on exposure and keep on shooting. If in doubt, bracket. My next pick is the best bang for the buck camera and that's the Nikon F4s. Great camera, but a bit on the heavy side now days. My third pick is probably be the one I would carry today if I were to use a 35mm and that is the Pentax LX. Great, great camera and some super glass. As good as Nikon in every way.
What, no Leica's? I have in the past owned M2, M3SS, M3DS, M4, M5, Original Leicaflex, SL, SL2, R4s and while the lenses are first rate I never really bonded to the cameras. Also, I spent more money keeping those cameras going than I did on any Nikon I owned. I still have all my Leicaflex R lenses and use them adapted to aSony A7RII. Great lenses, but I'll pass on the cameras for now. I will admit I kept the original Leicaflex in case I want to use 35mm film with those superb lenses.
Almost all the name brand cameras from the late 60's to early 90's were capable of top notch quality if you bought the mid to high end range they offered.
To cut this short, my personal pick would be the Pentax LX with the Nikon F2AS coming in second. JohnW

 

[Huss]

I sold off my LX as it started to have problems and looking into it they are starting to fail. No parts anymore, most techs don’t want to touch them.
When I did have it, it felt great in hand but it really bugged me that it did not have AE lock and the exposure LEDs are hard to see in daylight.

Keeping my F2as. Sover Wong serviced w the resistor ring replaced in the meter. Sweet camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

I was really tempted to move from Nikon to Pentax when the LX was released, had a few features the F3P did not have, but as my employer was paying for 1/2 of the F3P and was stocked with Nikon lens and spare bodies I could memo out, got the F3. Sorry I traded in the F2, should have kept it as by second body.

 

[Huss]

I was really tempted to move from Nikon to Pentax when the LX was released, had a few features the F3P did not have, but as my employer was paying for 1/2 of the F3P and was stocked with Nikon lens and spare bodies I could memo out, got the F3. Sorry I traded in the F2, should have kept it as by second body.

I take care of my gear, and still the LX got to feel old with fading LEDs compared to my F3P, which frankly still feels like a new camera! The LX had an advantage for flash photography and extreme long exposure times, but for my useage the advantages of the F3 were far more significant. The 80/20 meter pattern vs avg. And it has AE hold.
Even though I hardly use it, the motor drive on the F3 is so much better than the motordrive I had on the LX.

 

[Paul Howell]

Glad I passed, the motor drive on the F3 was really good for the day.

 

[film_man]

The best SLR? If you asked me 8 years ago it would have been the R8. Somewhere in the last 6-7 years it would be somthing between the F5, F100, EOS 1N and the F3. If you asked me last year it would be none as I sold all my SLRs (except a dinky EOS 300). But since you're asking this month, the best SLR is the Nikon F3 as I just bought one (again). Mint, even had the eyecup on it. I'm waiting for a ZF 50/1.4 to put on it and job done.

 

[Huss]

The thing about the F3 is the design is timeless. Look at a not beat up body today and it looks as if it is a current production camera.
The only major things that could be improved are the exposure readouts (especially in manual), an LCD illuminator switch and a faster flash sync. Right now that syn speed is very Leica-esque.
But man, in hand, that body feels perfect.

 

[Cholentpot]

The thing about the F3 is the design is timeless. Look at a not beat up body today and it looks as if it is a current production camera.
The only major things that could be improved are the exposure readouts (especially in manual), an LCD illuminator switch and a faster flash sync. Right now that syn speed is very Leica-esque.
But man, in hand, that body feels perfect.

I'd agree, the meter readout is pretty weak. Also the lack of hotshoe. Otherwise it's a prefect 35mm manual camera.

 

[ciniframe]

Look for an N75.

It's cheesy plastic so must be terrible right? Well, they're awesome. But since they are plastic and you might have to use alcohol to de sticky them you can get them for $35-50 at places like Goodwill, they do everything any Nikon film camera does, take all lenses the 2000s era Nikon film cameras will (including powering VR) and have fantastic matrix and spot metering.

They're really small and light, too, so slap an af50 on and you can use them like a light weight point and shoot for walkin' around with minimal size and heft.

These type of ’consumer’ 35mm SLR’s from the 80’s are probably some of the best sleepers in bang for your buck. But I do admit to being a total snob when it comes to owning one. Since I already have my fully established OM system there is no need. But if I came across a crazy good deal on some Nikkor then putting aside that prejudice would be the smartest course.

 

[Moose22]

These type of ’consumer’ 35mm SLR’s from the 80’s are probably some of the best sleepers in bang for your buck. But I do admit to being a total snob when it comes to owning one. Since I already have my fully established OM system there is no need. But if I came across a crazy good deal on some Nikkor then putting aside that prejudice would be the smartest course.

I bought Huss' for a great price. I got it for a young friend who wanted to shoot film, but I really liked it. Would have kept it and used it for a few more rolls before selling it to her but when she saw it she was too excited so I had to let her have it right away.

I told her I'd take it back any time, but that was last year, she still uses it. I'm not getting it back. Probably a good thing, I have enough camera bodies.

$35 goodwill deals on these things are common. So folks might as well take advantage of the prejudice!

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I was very found of the F2, rugged, fit my hand well, the F3P was much more functional, built in meter, hot shoe, weathered sealed. The Nikon Rep in London told me that some of the internal gears has been replaced by "military y grade" parts, repair techs have told me that this is true. The F2 stayed in production as many pros did not trust the electronics. As noted the low flash sync was a negative. The Canon T90 was more advanced but have held up as well.

 

[flavio81]

Although I was very found of the F2, rugged, fit my hand well, the F3P was much more functional, built in meter, hot shoe, weathered sealed. The Nikon Rep in London told me that some of the internal gears has been replaced by "military y grade" parts, repair techs have told me that this is true. The F2 stayed in production as many pros did not trust the electronics. As noted the low flash sync was a negative. The Canon T90 was more advanced but have held up as well.

I also had a F3P briefly. Liked the titanium prism + hot shoe.

But sadly it has the same flaws of the F3: an inferior quality viewfinder image (compared to the later F2 cameras), tiny hard to read shutter speed, IMPOSSIBLY tiny "+/-" meter display that is a big insult to common sense, useless display illuminator (it always fail), an AE lock button that often falls out, no battery check (you either have enough power or you don't, and then you're stuck with only 1/80)...

But the biggest flaw of the F3 is that the meter's most critical component, the FRE, is made out of glass and is located below the hot shoe (rewind shaft). Thus, if you fit a dedicated flash and somebody knocks your flash, you risk breaking the glass FRE and rendering your meter useless.

It is as if Nikon was bought by another company and replaced their whole engineering staff with new guys that spent zero effort on looking back and understanding what made the F2 great.

The fact that the direct competitor, the Canon New F-1, has none of these flaws isn't even funny and makes me furious as a Nikon lens owner. Basically i can't get a good pro-quality AE camera from Nikon that is good for manual focus lenses, unless i pay a ton for a F6.

 

[Cholentpot]

I also had a F3P briefly. Liked the titanium prism + hot shoe.

But sadly it has the same flaws of the F3: an inferior quality viewfinder image (compared to the later F2 cameras), tiny hard to read shutter speed, IMPOSSIBLY tiny "+/-" meter display that is a big insult to common sense, useless display illuminator (it always fail), an AE lock button that often falls out, no battery check (you either have enough power or you don't, and then you're stuck with only 1/80)...

But the biggest flaw of the F3 is that the meter's most critical component, the FRE, is made out of glass and is located below the hot shoe (rewind shaft). Thus, if you fit a dedicated flash and somebody knocks your flash, you risk breaking the glass FRE and rendering your meter useless.

It is as if Nikon was bought by another company and replaced their whole engineering staff with new guys that spent zero effort on looking back and understanding what made the F2 great.

The fact that the direct competitor, the Canon New F-1, has none of these flaws isn't even funny and makes me furious as a Nikon lens owner. Basically i can't get a good pro-quality AE camera from Nikon that is good for manual focus lenses, unless i pay a ton for a F6.

I shot an entire airshow at 1/90 because my batteries died and I didn't bring a backup. It was a fun challenge in the end.

 

[Paul Howell]

The F4, best manual focus 35mm Nikon ever made. I bought one, got a really good price, I had a 50, 105 and 28 AsI that were left over from the F3. Focus with manual focus lens is easy with focus confirmation, top shutter speed of 1/8000, early matrix mitering, decent flash sync, not crazy about the viewfinder LED readout, like that it is dial and button driven and you can set the shutter speed with a dial. I don't have any AF lens, might pick up a couple of kit D zooms just to round out my kit.

 

[GregY]

The F4, best manual focus 35mm Nikon ever made. I bought one, got a really good price, I had a 50, 105 and 28 AsI that were left over from the F3. Focus with manual focus lens is easy with focus confirmation, top shutter speed of 1/8000, early matrix mitering, decent flash sync, not crazy about the viewfinder LED readout, like that it is dial and button driven and you can set the shutter speed with a dial. I don't have any AF lens, might pick up a couple of kit D zooms just to round out my kit.

Maybe....in some respects. I'd used the F,F2,F3 for years, but couldn't get used the the size/shape of the grip. For me it was just too big & I wear a medium to large men's glove. The F5 & 6 were more comfortable.

 

[flavio81]

The F4, best manual focus 35mm Nikon ever made.

Weight with MB-20 small grip (and batteries) is quoted at 1200g without lens. A Bronica ETRSi, with standard lens, film back, and wlf, weights 1285 grams.

I'd carry a medium format camera instead.

 

[Moose22]

Maybe....in some respects. I'd used the F,F2,F3 for years, but couldn't get used the the size/shape of the grip. For me it was just too big & I wear a medium to large men's glove. The F5 & 6 were more comfortable.

The F6 grip is perfect. I don't own an F5. But I wear a wrist strap and can just sort of let go, my fingers touch the red thing in the grip and I don't have to hang on to anything, it just stays in place dangling on the strap and my fingertips until it's time to pull it up to my eyes.

That said, I like the F4. I got Huss' old one a couple weeks ago and used it in anger this weekend on a very chaotic shoot. It's a joy to use. It works great with all those manual focus lenses, and everything AF up to when Nikon deleted the aperture rings on the G lenses. And it was instantly comfortable, though not as refined as the F6.

I have baby girl hands, BTW. Way too small for my burly frame and wear a medium golf glove. No problem with the size of the F4 grip. but I can see how people would get uncomfortable. For all the well deserved love of the F2, the grip on my F3 (and FA, with the bolt on thing) is a small but really palpable improvement to comfort when holding the cameras, compared to the older body style. The F4 just went a little... extra.

A Bronica ETRSi, with standard lens, film back, and wlf, weights 1285 grams.

I'd carry a medium format camera instead.

Interestingly, one OTHER camera I had at the weekend's shoot was an ETRSi, which I'm learning to really enjoy. Fantastic image quality from really affordable lenses.

But even for the weight, it's NOT the same. Not as easy to use, not as quick, shooting half as many frames per roll is rough, and if you want to use it like a 35mm you need the grip, the Metering prism (which adds even more size), you need to carry multiple film backs, and that double pump winder with the mirror staying down until you ratchet it up to the next shot means it's just TERRIBLE for action shots. If course, there's a power winder but that and its stack of batteries add a bunch of weight.

The F4 is not for the same kind of shooting. Weight is decidedly not the only thing that matters in choosing what to carry. The F5 is beastly large for 135 (1500g loaded, without lens) but had its purpose and was used to death by so many press and sports photographers for years because it was fast and versatile. F3s with an Md-4 are in the 1400g ballpark. they're 800-900g stock, the MD4 is 400g before batteries. That's just what 80s/90s pro cameras weighed.

Trust me, I couldn't have gotten this kids to hold still for more than 15 frames over the weekend. Goddamned guitarists and drummers are worse to photograph than unleashed puppies. The F3 and F4 got lots of shots the ETR missed. I never thought once about the weight of what was in my hands, all three were configured perfectly for their respective roles.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot with a Minolta 9 with battery grip, a 9000 with 12 AA battery motor drive, the F4 is so heavy in comparison. Truth be told, I've taken to the Minolta 800si and 9xi due to the weight of the 9.

 

[abruzzi]

shooting half as many frames per roll is rough,

this is probably the number one reason (for me) to shoot medium format. I hate, hate, hate 36 exposure rolls, even 24 is too many, 15 is a little high, 10 is reasonable, and 8 is perfect. Which is why, more and more, I prefer two formats--6x9 and 5x7.

(5x7 since it is the widest of the 'common' LF sizes, almost the same aspect as 6x9 and 35mm.)

 

[Moose22]

this is probably the number one reason (for me) to shoot medium format. I hate, hate, hate 36 exposure rolls, even 24 is too many, 15 is a little high, 10 is reasonable, and 8 is perfect. Which is why, more and more, I prefer two formats--6x9 and 5x7.

(5x7 since it is the widest of the 'common' LF sizes, almost the same aspect as 6x9 and 35mm.)

You're not shooting what I shot over the weekend.

When I'm doing landscape or walkin' around, 8 or 9 shots is enough. 6x9 6x8 and 6x6 formats don't hamper me. The dozen frames sometimes makes me bracket because I feel rich, but I don't need 20 more shots. The few landscape shots I bother to share sometimes took a week of waiting for the light to be good before I shot a few frames, then another week for the next scene to finish off the roll. 36 of that kind of shooting would take me a month to kill off.

Doing the band shoot I burned a couple rolls of 120 and 4 rolls of color 135, one of tmax, in short order. And still shot some digital. They wanted scenery, they wanted some poses, they wanted freaky 70s (I shot a 120 roll of Lomo Purple and 35mm in B&W as well as some shots with a fisheye), and they wanted more normal "environmental" shots. And they're kind of insane, so you end up burning 10 frames of the drummer mooning the camera or the bass player trying to shove a flower he found up the singer's nose or something.

Horses for courses.

 

[abruzzi]

yeah, I'm a very slow shooter. The only time I shoot 36 exposure rolls is when I go on a vacation where I expect to shoot a lot over the course of 7 days. Last trip (Colorado, SE Utah, Arizona) I actually shot two whole rolls in 7 days--Mesa Verde, San Juan Mountains, Unaweep Canyon, Canyonlands, Arches, Dead Horse Point, Monument Valley, Moki Dugway, Natural Bridges, Capitol Reef, Kodachrome Basin, Bryce Canyon, Grand Canyon North Rim, Lee's Ferry, Marble Canyon, and Grand Canyon South Rim--72 total shots (and about 20 4x5).

 

[Karl K]

Back in the day of high flying 35mm SLRs, I discussed this very same question with Marty Forscher, the famous owner of Professional Camera Repair in NYC. Marty repaired just about everything for the NYC pros for decades.
His answer: the Nikon F2. Marty said they rarely broke down, and if they did, it was usually the fault of the photographer.

 

[markjwyatt]

I'd say "NEWISH" means something from THIS CENTURY -- or at least so ahead of its time that it belongs in this century.

Call me crazy!!!

In that case, I would propose an Exakta (or Topcon) . True tanks of an SLR, all manual and some great features (like film cutter in Exaktas). Great glass is available for these also.

 

[Huss]

I'd agree, the meter readout is pretty weak. Also the lack of hotshoe. Otherwise it's a prefect 35mm manual camera.

My P version has the hot shoe. And Ti build.

 

[Huss]

....



Interestingly, one OTHER camera I had at the weekend's shoot was an ETRSi, which I'm learning to really enjoy. Fantastic image quality from really affordable lenses.

But even for the weight, it's NOT the same. Not as easy to use, not as quick, shooting half as many frames per roll is rough, and if you want to use it like a 35mm you need the grip, the Metering prism (which adds even more size), you need to carry multiple film backs, and that double pump winder with the mirror staying down until you ratchet it up to the next shot means it's just TERRIBLE for action shots. If course, there's a power winder but that and its stack of batteries add a bunch of weight.

The F4 is not for the same kind of shooting. Weight is decidedly not the only thing that matters in choosing what to carry. The F5 is beastly large for 135 (1500g loaded, without lens) but had its purpose and was used to death by so many press and sports photographers for years because it was fast and versatile. F3s with an Md-4 are in the 1400g ballpark. they're 800-900g stock, the MD4 is 400g before batteries. That's just what 80s/90s pro cameras weighed.

Trust me, I couldn't have gotten this kids to hold still for more than 15 frames over the weekend. Goddamned guitarists and drummers are worse to photograph than unleashed puppies. The F3 and F4 got lots of shots the ETR missed. I never thought once about the weight of what was in my hands, all three were configured perfectly for their respective roles.

Are you sure about that? cuz Flavio thinks they are interchangeable.
;p