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

[Paul Howell]

Topcon D, Super D was used by Navy, the story that was going round that because some bodies were marked Bessler, someone in Navy procurement thought it was made in the U.S. I attended a conference put on the Navy, the Navy officer who was the OC of the photo division attended. When discussed he was really pretty annoyed, told us that the Navy tested all the top pro level cameras and picked the Topcon due to build quality, built in light meter, lens quality and excellent motor drive. The Navy used Topcon and later added Canon F1 for photo recon by the back seater on the F14, when Topcon left the 35mm market the Navy bought more Canons. Someone told me that sometime in the early to mid 80s the Navy did buy Nikon F2s, then bought EOS 1s.

 

[Cholentpot]

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

Great. My next Unicorn.

 

[Moose22]

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

Trust me. This kind of magic moment ain't happening with an ETRsi, no matter how much I love it

And, yes, I am sorry for so besmirching your F4 with such misuse.

 

[wiltw]

Topcon D, Super D was used by Navy, the story that was going round that because some bodies were marked Bessler, someone in Navy procurement thought it was made in the U.S. I attended a conference put on the Navy, the Navy officer who was the OC of the photo division attended. When discussed he was really pretty annoyed, told us that the Navy tested all the top pro level cameras and picked the Topcon due to build quality, built in light meter, lens quality and excellent motor drive. The Navy used Topcon and later added Canon F1 for photo recon by the back seater on the F14, when Topcon left the 35mm market the Navy bought more Canons. Someone told me that sometime in the early to mid 80s the Navy did buy Nikon F2s, then bought EOS 1s.

Back in the day when the Super D was launched, I was a young teen. The price of the Super D with 58mm f/1.4 was $425 in a day when median family annual income in US was only $6600...it was made of unobtainium! How I lusted for that camera, but I had to settle for my dad purchasing a $159 Auto 100 instead. Fast forward 50 years and I found a Super D in pristine physical condidition in a thrift store for only $25, and the only thing that did not function perfectly was the self-timer...all the shutter speeds were perfect! That same year I found three more Super D bodies at good prices (more than 25!) and the only thing wrong with any of them was the self-timer on one body, yet the shutter speeds were perfect in all three.

 

[markjwyatt]

Back in the day when the Super D was launched, I was a young teen. The price of the Super D with 58mm f/1.4 was $425 in a day when median family annual income in US was only $6600...it was made of unobtainium! How I lusted for that camera, but I had to settle for my dad purchasing a $159 Auto 100 instead. Fast forward 50 years and I found a Super D in pristine physical condidition in a thrift store for only $25, and the only thing that did not function perfectly was the self-timer...all the shutter speeds were perfect! That same year I found three more Super D bodies at good prices (more than 25!) and the only thing wrong with any of them was the self-timer on one body, yet the shutter speeds were perfect in all three.

Compared to the 1970s, I sometimes feel like a kid in a candy store recently (well that is changing now as prices climb)

 

[film_man]

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.

The LCD illuminator button must have been added as a joke by an engineer only for noone to notice it before getting to production...

 

[Paul Howell]

Topcon D and Super D are now hard to find, motor drives, winders viewfinders even harder to find. Navy Super Ds are quite collectable.

 

[flavio81]

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.

Your point is that you need something fast and versatile for action shoots like kids, guitarists etc.

Well, i understand your point but if that's what you want to shoot, then the F4 isn't a good choice either. You could carry a Canon EOS 5, you will need no motor-drive, even the flash is built-in, and the AF is faster than the one in the F4. The EOS 5 weights 675g... not over 1kg. It even tracks the position of your eye. A later Nikon plastic-fantastic camera like the F100 would be a better proposition too.

Your main point is that you need quick response for action shooting. I would contend that nowadays this kind of action shooting is in the professional world already better, much better, covered by the plethora of digital cameras.

Personally the kind of photography I do doesn't need motor drives nor AF, thus I choose my cameras based on weight and the image quality that the format gives, using this criteria the ETRSi is a far better proposition than carrying a F4.

As for your claims that "you would need the grip, metering prism, multiple film backs", I don't get it. You don't need the grip to advance the film in the camera. Using the waist level finder is easier without the grip. And how would one need "multiple film backs" to "use it like a 35mm", when almost every 35mm camera out there does not support multiple film backs? Or you mean, "to reload film faster than a 35mm camera?" Because with multiple backs you can reload film faster than waiting for the camera to rewind your roll, putting the new one, etc.

Finally, i find your claim of ""goddamned guitarists and drummers are worse to photograph than unleashed puppies" strange. In the early 2000s i used to do concert photography with a medium format camera (TLR), and a 135 manual focus camera, a Canon A-1 It wasn't that hard. I guess everyone has different ways to approach such photography. There are techniques to cope, like pre-focusing, etc. And by the way, I play drums... we drummers don't abandon our drum stool, nor run around the stage like goddamed singers. I fail to understand how they would be harder to photograph than little children, which, YES, are a hard subject.

 

[Cholentpot]

Your point is that you need something fast and versatile for action shoots like kids, guitarists etc.

Well, i understand your point but if that's what you want to shoot, then the F4 isn't a good choice either. You could carry a Canon EOS 5, you will need no motor-drive, even the flash is built-in, and the AF is faster than the one in the F4. The EOS 5 weights 675g... not over 1kg. It even tracks the position of your eye. A later Nikon plastic-fantastic camera like the F100 would be a better proposition too.

Your main point is that you need quick response for action shooting. I would contend that nowadays this kind of action shooting is in the professional world already better, much better, covered by the plethora of digital cameras.

Personally the kind of photography I do doesn't need motor drives nor AF, thus I choose my cameras based on weight and the image quality that the format gives, using this criteria the ETRSi is a far better proposition than carrying a F4.

As for your claims that "you would need the grip, metering prism, multiple film backs", I don't get it. You don't need the grip to advance the film in the camera. Using the waist level finder is easier without the grip. And how would one need "multiple film backs" to "use it like a 35mm", when almost every 35mm camera out there does not support multiple film backs? Or you mean, "to reload film faster than a 35mm camera?" Because with multiple backs you can reload film faster than waiting for the camera to rewind your roll, putting the new one, etc.

Finally, i find your claim of ""goddamned guitarists and drummers are worse to photograph than unleashed puppies" strange. In the early 2000s i used to do concert photography with a medium format camera (TLR), and a 135 manual focus camera, a Canon A-1 It wasn't that hard. I guess everyone has different ways to approach such photography. There are techniques to cope, like pre-focusing, etc. And by the way, I play drums... we drummers don't abandon our drum stool, nor run around the stage like goddamed singers. I fail to understand how they would be harder to photograph than little children, which, YES, are a hard subject.

Just take photos of the bassists. We only move to argue with the drummer.

 

[MattKing]

Just take photos of the bassists. We only move to argue with the drummer.

But after you take one photo of the bassist, you can go home because your work is done.
Where is the fun in that?

 

[Cholentpot]

But after you take one photo of the bassist, you can go home because your work is done.
Where is the fun in that?

Bassists run the band.

The Doors? The pretended not to have a bassist and then used one in studio.

 

[flavio81]

Just take photos of the bassists. We only move to argue with the drummer.

Or to compliment the drummer on how great they're sounding.

Bassists are essential to the drummer and viceversa. The more tight they are as a unit, the better the music. I have a friend, bassist, we used to live together and clashed quite a bit at home, but when he picks his bass and i'm at the drums, it's like we can read each others' mind. Total telepathy and we can play for hours.

 

[Moose22]

Your point is that you need something fast and versatile for action shoots like kids, guitarists etc.

Well, i understand your point but if that's what you want to shoot, then the F4 isn't a good choice either. You could carry a Canon EOS 5, you will need no motor-drive, even the flash is built-in, and the AF is faster than the one in the F4. The EOS 5 weights 675g... not over 1kg. It even tracks the position of your eye. A later Nikon plastic-fantastic camera like the F100 would be a better proposition too.

Your main point is that you need quick response for action shooting. I would contend that nowadays this kind of action shooting is in the professional world already better, much better, covered by the plethora of digital cameras.

Personally the kind of photography I do doesn't need motor drives nor AF, thus I choose my cameras based on weight and the image quality that the format gives, using this criteria the ETRSi is a far better proposition than carrying a F4.

As for your claims that "you would need the grip, metering prism, multiple film backs", I don't get it. You don't need the grip to advance the film in the camera. Using the waist level finder is easier without the grip. And how would one need "multiple film backs" to "use it like a 35mm", when almost every 35mm camera out there does not support multiple film backs? Or you mean, "to reload film faster than a 35mm camera?" Because with multiple backs you can reload film faster than waiting for the camera to rewind your roll, putting the new one, etc.

Finally, i find your claim of ""goddamned guitarists and drummers are worse to photograph than unleashed puppies" strange. In the early 2000s i used to do concert photography with a medium format camera (TLR), and a 135 manual focus camera, a Canon A-1 It wasn't that hard. I guess everyone has different ways to approach such photography. There are techniques to cope, like pre-focusing, etc. And by the way, I play drums... we drummers don't abandon our drum stool, nor run around the stage like goddamed singers. I fail to understand how they would be harder to photograph than little children, which, YES, are a hard subject.

Yeah, you're being obtuse. Probably willfully.

In my specific example, they are young, wild, and the nature of the shoot was chaotic. I only mention it because, literally, I had an F4 and an ETRSi with me, but it was only an example. Other chaotic environments exist. For these kids, they wanted to do a specific thing in a specific way, and it was difficult and hectic. It was what we wanted it to be, though, to get the kinds of shots the band leader was looking for. You just have to accept that one.

Stage shots are way easier. Most musicians in general are way easier. Planned, posed shoots with these guys will be way easier. But then you risk nothing but "Jeremy standing in front of a brick wall" shots, and they don't want to be brick wallers.

Concert photography is way slower. MF works great for it if you have a fast enough lens or bright enough stage lights.

Chaotic environments are the bread and butter of 35mm. ETRSi is as good a MF as I've tried to shoot like I shoot 35mm, but it's just slower in all aspects. And if you don't understand why I'd need the accessories on an etr for walkin' around shots, well anyone who can shoot in portrait with a waist level finder is a better man than I, and shooting fast with the mirror locked down, wind wind wind (or crank crank on the grip) before you recompose... its as fast as MF gets, but it's slow.

I'm not going to switch to Canon when I have a crapload of Nikon lenses just because you think I should save a little bit of weight, even though Canon made some really nice cameras. I have an F100, I use my F6 instead almost every time I want a "modern" film camera. I just don't care about weight if I'm not carrying the camera for a long time, so weight is NOT the point. My point is specifically that 35mm are NOT interchangeable with medium format, regardless of your personal priority for less weight. MF are more bulky, slower, less lens selection, narrower depth of field, etc. etc... they're wonderful in many ways. But they're not the same. None of these things are weight related.

And I'm not going to use digital for everything because the client very specifically approached me because I use film. They wanted film, period, and they paid for the film. Digital is technically better and significantly easier in almost all aspects to either 35mm or the ETR, and my camera is amazeballs. But that was not the job, and that camera is neither film nor 35mm, so not what we're talking about here.

Everyone has their own requirements. If you can't consider someone else valuing something you don't, or someone else encountering an environment different than one you experienced, that's just your lack of imagination. It's why "best" is an impossibly nebulous term for cameras, too. Everyone values features differently.

 

[Cholentpot]

Or to compliment the drummer on how great they're sounding.

Bassists are essential to the drummer and viceversa. The more tight they are as a unit, the better the music. I have a friend, bassist, we used to live together and clashed quite a bit at home, but when he picks his bass and i'm at the drums, it's like we can read each others' mind. Total telepathy and we can play for hours.

When the drums and bass are tight a headnod and slight grin will do it. Gotta stay cool and in the groove. Also, tell the keyboard guy to knock it off. No, keys aren't bass ok?

 

[flavio81]

When the drums and bass are tight a headnod and slight grin will do it. Gotta stay cool and in the groove. Also, tell the keyboard guy to knock it off. No, keys aren't bass ok?

Tell that to soulive... I think the keyboardist's feet are a dope bass player.

 

[Huss]

Your point is that you need something fast and versatile for action shoots like kids, guitarists etc.

Well, i understand your point but if that's what you want to shoot, then the F4 isn't a good choice either. You could carry a Canon EOS 5, you will need no motor-drive, even the flash is built-in, and the AF is faster than the one in the F4. The EOS 5 weights 675g... not over 1kg. It even tracks the position of your eye. A later Nikon plastic-fantastic camera like the F100 would be a better proposition too.
..

Had the F100, much prefer the F4. And now you are introducing cameras that weren't even in the initial discussion. But then again neither was the Bronica when we are talking about 35mm cameras.
"You like the F4? Use a Bronica!"

 

[Moose22]

Had the F100, much prefer the F4. And now you are introducing cameras that weren't even in the initial discussion. But then again neither was the Bronica when we are talking about 35mm cameras.
"You like the F4? Use a Bronica!"

I'm digging the F4 so much, I'll use it and the F6. I'd have to be in a spot where I want two cameras loaded using both G lenses before I'd pull the F100 out first. I don't see that happening.

And when I say that, I LOVE the F100. Recommend it to lots of people as a bang for the buck and even bought the latch replacement in case mine went snappy. But that's OK, there has to be a second place. Well, third place. Or fourth, I shoot my F3 a ton when I am doing black and white. It's that or the Leica for MF these days.

I have too many cameras.

Anyway, like I said above, Canon made great cameras. Makes -- their digital mirrorless kick ass -- but I don't own any. I got back into film with a collection of Nikon lenses. I only know what I shoot, and of what I shoot the lower weight of the F100 does not win over the knobs and general handling of the F4, which I was comfortable with by the middle of the second roll.

Tell that to soulive... I think the keyboardist's feet are a dope bass player.

You aren't kidding. He's good. VERY good. Pedal bass is a lost art, and I love it when it's done so well.

Doors never used a bass guitarist live, either. They did ok in their day.

 

[Cholentpot]

Tell that to soulive... I think the keyboardist's feet are a dope bass player.

That's not a keyboard my friend.

 

[flavio81]

That's not a keyboard my friend.

Alright. It's an organ. An electromechanical tonewheel organ, if you want me to be more precise.

 

[MattKing]

Bassists run the band.

Depends.
But just so you know where I am coming from, I can listen for hours to:
1) Mick Fleetwood and John McVie working with any guitarist who isn't named Lyndsay; and
2) Ray Brown and Oscar Peterson - particularly Oscar Peterson's left hand:

 

[MatchaCub]

Pentax MZ-S.

 

[Cholentpot]

Alright. It's an organ. An electromechanical tonewheel organ, if you want me to be more precise.

An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

Depends.
But just so you know where I am coming from, I can listen for hours to:
1) Mick Fleetwood and John McVie working with any guitarist who isn't named Lyndsay; and
2) Ray Brown and Oscar Peterson - particularly Oscar Peterson's left hand:

Tickle those ivories!

 

[manfrominternet]

If you like Oscar Peterson, you must love Art Tatum who is basically a musical god to me...

 

[Cholentpot]

If you like Oscar Peterson, you must love Art Tatum who is basically a musical god to me...

That whole era, melody was still in the music.

 

[MattKing]

If you like Oscar Peterson, you must love Art Tatum who is basically a musical god to me...

I could go even farther afield in this discussion, but the moderators only allow a certain amount of thread drift .
I'll just add two more piano player names for consideration:
1) Teddy Wilson; and
2) Nat King Cole (as a piano player).