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

[Cholentpot]

The EOS-1 had only the single point for focus, and the 1N had just that weird line in the middle of points. The EOS3 and 1V have more modern point spreads.

You also do have to give it to Canon re glass of that period. Those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses are amazing. Nikon zooms were less than stellar for a while, and it took years for them to build out impressive AF-S primes. Now, however, the Sigma art lenses would be the ones I'd buy. They're as good or better than the on-brand stuff, and a loooot cheaper.

I've been using mid range Canon and Nikon bodies for a few years. The AF-S vs EF is not even a question. I've taken to using manual lenses on my AF Nikon bodies because the autofocus was so terrible. I have two decent lenses and the rest are not very good. The 35-70 2.8 is excellent but weights a ton and sounds like a Christmas train set when it tries to focus. I have a 24-50 3.3-4.5 which is far lighter but also crunches its way into focus. Contrast that with the EF 17-40 f/4 and the EF 24-105 f/4.

However I'm not trashing Nikon. Nikon is head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to manual focus. Other cameras are nice, I'm currently shooting an OM-1 a wonderful camera, but it's not an F.

 

[Steve-CA]

Depends on what you mean by "modern" - and how much automation you want. I've been shooting Canon and Nikon since the early 60's and both systems offer some pretty good used value. I think its significant to note that during this period - Nikon was a standout choice for pro's. Canon made some inroads in the consumer sector but really didnt gather their current head of steam into the "pro" market until the digital era. My opinion and experience was that Nikon "pro" film stuff from this era ran circles around the other manufacturers. Watch any 60's/70's presser and you'll see nothing but Nikon. Buyers of used stuff dont get this point today because - since the advent of Digital, Canon made healthy strides into the "pro" space. For fully automated focus and exposure - the Nikon F5 is the pinnacle of the film era. Last "professional" body that Nikon built. That said - many of its features will be somewhat lost on the amateur shooting street photography or candids. You are paying for a very fast film transport and autofocus and exposure systems. The thing can easily be more than most of us need. The newer products in Nikon's Pro line up - the F100 and F6 were beginning to move in the direction of well-heeled amateurs. Others have mentioned the fully manual F2 already. A great robust and classic Nikon. You can strike a balance between full automation and no automation with the F3 which offers an aperture priority mode but full manual focus. If you want to part with a little more cash than a plain F3 the F3T (full titanium) or F3P (Press) are rock solid tanks. You can mount virtually any Nikon glass ever made AND shoot (full manual) on any of these bodies . . . . you'll need to be a bit more selective in your choice of lenses if you demand auto capability(ies). Ken Rockwell's site has some really good reading and comparisons I highly recommend. You asked about the "best" . . . the "best value" would be a very different answer. If the "best" isnt within your price range - consider the Nikon N90s. At its core it's a slightly thinned out F4. . If you must go the Canon route - the A-1 and AE-1 are solid auto exposure bodies. Your actual mileage may vary.

 

[madNbad]

Hopefully, the OP will return with some input to all of this advice.

 

[reddesert]

It depends on what you mean by "modern" and by "best." The best camera for some use may have nothing to do with the spec sheets, and likely for most uses and most people, there are a lot of cameras that meet the threshold of good enough.

If you want sophistication and focus aided operation but are put off by excess noise in the pursuit of speed, of course, the best modern film SLR camera is probably the Nikon F3AF - one of the very few autofocus SLR cameras with a lever wind.

 

[Huss]

Hopefully, the OP will return with some input to all of this advice.

We don’t need any clarification here! The consensus is that the individual respondent’s answer is the correct one.

 

[4season]

Any significant gains in hand hold-ability at low shutter speeds will require some sort of image stabilization.

 

[Cholentpot]

We don’t need any clarification here! The consensus is that the individual respondent’s answer is the correct one.

We all know the true answer.

It's the Pentax Auto 110.

It's not 35mm, no control, no way to deal with low shutter but it's an SLR and I like it.

 

[flavio81]

However OP said 'best modern' SLR.

The OM-1 was firs sold in 1972, that's 50 years ago. By any definition that is not modern. Would anyone call a 50 year old car modern? 50 year old guitar? Bike? Radio?

Come one people, lets get real. We're just spouting our personal favorite cameras.

How's about defining modern?

It was on the cover of "Modern Photography" magazine in the 70s, so it is modern!!!

 

[M-88]

You wrote, and I quote:

And what's wrong with Canon T90? That's a hell of a device, far ahead of its time.

I pointed out exactly what was wrong with that. Once upon a time it was decent. Now it is a brick in waiting.

Mm-hmm, like I said, I'm trying to figure out what's "best" in people's opinion. If T-90 is a basket case, then moving on to something else. In fact we should probably move on straight up to the last generation, since they should be built considering mistakes of the predecesors.

And what's with this 'Hardan' business? My first name is Huss, and everyone here is on first name basis, right, er, M?

Ah yes, I beg you pardon on that!

It's not about what's good and bad. They're still cranking out Leica's without meters. They're not modern in the same way the Morgan isn't. Some people prefer the old way, even updating the old style doesn't make it modern. It's just an updated old design.

Yes. And can you imagine what will happen if someone calls Leica non-modern? And a rangefinder system obsolete, as a whole? God forbid! Aaaand we're back to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" concept, where everyone has their own preferences and their own idea on what's "best" and even what's "modern". This topic is mostly academic anyway.

 

[Cholentpot]

Mm-hmm, like I said, I'm trying to figure out what's "best" in people's opinion. If T-90 is a basket case, then moving on to something else. In fact we should probably move on straight up to the last generation, since they should be built considering mistakes of the predecesors.


Ah yes, I beg you pardon on that!

Yes. And can you imagine what will happen if someone calls Leica non-modern? And a rangefinder system obsolete, as a whole? God forbid! Aaaand we're back to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" concept, where everyone has their own preferences and their own idea on what's "best" and even what's "modern". This topic is mostly academic anyway.

For some reason the RF has stuck around but you don't see TLRs anymore. Nor do you see scale focus cameras. Obsolete products are still manufactured and sold, see film in general for this idea.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Depends on what you mean by "modern" - and how much automation you want. I've been shooting Canon and Nikon since the early 60's and both systems offer some pretty good used value. I think its significant to note that during this period - Nikon was a standout choice for pro's. Canon made some inroads in the consumer sector but really didnt gather their current head of steam into the "pro" market until the digital era. My opinion and experience was that Nikon "pro" film stuff from this era ran circles around the other manufacturers. Watch any 60's/70's presser and you'll see nothing but Nikon. Buyers of used stuff dont get this point today because - since the advent of Digital, Canon made healthy strides into the "pro" space. For fully automated focus and exposure - the Nikon F5 is the pinnacle of the film era. Last "professional" body that Nikon built. That said - many of its features will be somewhat lost on the amateur shooting street photography or candids. You are paying for a very fast film transport and autofocus and exposure systems. The thing can easily be more than most of us need. The newer products in Nikon's Pro line up - the F100 and F6 were beginning to move in the direction of well-heeled amateurs. Others have mentioned the fully manual F2 already. A great robust and classic Nikon. You can strike a balance between full automation and no automation with the F3 which offers an aperture priority mode but full manual focus. If you want to part with a little more cash than a plain F3 the F3T (full titanium) or F3P (Press) are rock solid tanks. You can mount virtually any Nikon glass ever made AND shoot (full manual) on any of these bodies . . . . you'll need to be a bit more selective in your choice of lenses if you demand auto capability(ies). Ken Rockwell's site has some really good reading and comparisons I highly recommend. You asked about the "best" . . . the "best value" would be a very different answer. If the "best" isnt within your price range - consider the Nikon N90s. At its core it's a slightly thinned out F4. . If you must go the Canon route - the A-1 and AE-1 are solid auto exposure bodies. Your actual mileage may vary.

Actually Canon made major inroads into the pro space with the advent of autofocus. They did one thing that initially pissed off a large section of their user base by switching away from the FD mount to the EOS mount. The big advantage for them was that they were able to put the focus motor in the lens instead of in the body, so with the big fast telephotos people use for sports and wildlife, they focused much faster than comparable Nikon lenses.

 

[Moose22]

We don’t need any clarification here! The consensus is that the individual respondent’s answer is the correct one.

The internet in a nutshell.

In this case, it's mostly true, too. Like if you ask "what's the best pizza in Chicago" of a local, you'll get any of 10 answers and all of them are likely to be correct. Everyone is looking for something slightly different. And the OP is never coming back, it was a troll question that everyone will chime in on because camera enthusiasts like to talk about their gear.

 

[Cholentpot]

The internet in a nutshell.

In this case, it's mostly true, too. Like if you ask "what's the best pizza in Chicago" of a local, you'll get any of 10 answers and all of them are likely to be correct. Everyone is looking for something slightly different. And the OP is never coming back, it was a troll question that everyone will chime in on because camera enthusiasts like to talk about their gear.

Painters love to talk about their brushes, guitars love to talk about their guitars, drivers love to talk about their cars.

 

[Paul Howell]

Nikon F became the pro choice as they were first of the gate with full system 35mm camera, 1959. The did not invent the 35mm, the motor drive, interchanable viewfinders , focusing screens, or the 250 ex backs, they put in a rugged package with an outstanding line up of lens. The Air Force, AP and I think LA Times tested the Olympus, did not hold as well to hard daily use. In the AF's case it also came down to cost, replacing Fs with F2s without buying lens. The Nave picked the Topcon super D, and replaced the Topcon with Canon F1s. In may respects the Topcon and Canon were as good or better than Nikon, what got in the way was the economics. Most papers, wire services, Nat Geo, governmental agencies were too invested in the Nikon to make the jump to another system. Not just a camera but all the stuff that fitted the camera. Then came autofocus. Canon and Minolta beat out Nikon's AF. Canon granted Nat Geo a new set of EOSs with full line of lens. Although Nikon's early auto focus bodies worked with legacy MF lens, what was the point of an AF body with MF lens? By the time of the F5 it was too late, Canon and it's L lens had become the staple of the professional world. What killed off Minolta was losing a $100,000,000 lawsuit to Honeywell, they did not have the funds to bring out another Pro level body until they were well back of the field and sold it's camera line to Sony.

In terms of the OP needs, I have back peddled, I think a N80 and set of good lens will work just fine. If AF is a need then Olympus OM 4.

 

[Moose22]

Painters love to talk about their brushes, guitars love to talk about their guitars, drivers love to talk about their cars.

Absolutely. It's the reason clubs, special interest groups, and internet forums exist.

And different things tickle different shooters. One guy complains about mirror slap or winder noise. I generally don't care (if I do I won't use an SLR as the cloth curtain on the leica is super quiet) but, to those shooters, the noise of a mirror really does matter. I'm never going to discount something like that, everyone's wants and needs are slightly different.

It is telling, though, that some people define "modern" in this context as cameras made before I was born. Strange in the internet age, when things are obscolescent in a few years, not decades.

 

[Cholentpot]

Nikon F became the pro choice as they were first of the gate with full system 35mm camera, 1959. The did not invent the 35mm, the motor drive, interchanable viewfinders , focusing screens, or the 250 ex backs, they put in a rugged package with an outstanding line up of lens. The Air Force, AP and I think LA Times tested the Olympus, did not hold as well to hard daily use. In the AF's case it also came down to cost, replacing Fs with F2s without buying lens. The Nave picked the Topcon super D, and replaced the Topcon with Canon F1s. In may respects the Topcon and Canon were as good or better than Nikon, what got in the way was the economics. Most papers, wire services, Nat Geo, governmental agencies were too invested in the Nikon to make the jump to another system. Not just a camera but all the stuff that fitted the camera. Then came autofocus. Canon and Minolta beat out Nikon's AF. Canon granted Nat Geo a new set of EOSs with full line of lens. Although Nikon's early auto focus bodies worked with legacy MF lens, what was the point of an AF body with MF lens? By the time of the F5 it was too late, Canon and it's L lens had become the staple of the professional world. What killed off Minolta was losing a $100,000,000 lawsuit to Honeywell, they did not have the funds to bring out another Pro level body until they were well back of the field and sold it's camera line to Sony.

In terms of the OP needs, I have back peddled, I think a N80 and set of good lens will work just fine. If AF is a need then Olympus OM 4.

I annoy Sony shooters by complimenting their Minoltas.

 

[manfrominternet]

I don't want to start a brand war, so I wanted to rejoin to clear up my definition of "newish." Originally I was thinking of cameras at least from the 1990s and after. (While I don't particularly care about looks or the sound the shutter makes, I will admit that the Olympus OM-4, Nikon F3 (even though it's older), and Nikon FM3A all look gorgeous.)

By far, the most important aspect of this camera purchase is the lens ecosystem. Since I'm aiming to make some large prints (larger than 16" x 20") with my potential 35mm film camera, I'm looking for a camera that'll let me use the very best/sharpest prime lenses. (I suppose zoom lenses, even the very 'best' ones, are out, but you tell me!) While this is totally subjective (and thus perhaps even meaningless to mention), I also do like lenses that have 'character.'

Besides the lens ecosystem, the ideal camera should be and include the following:

-is lightweight (if I want to carry something heavy, I'd either just bring my Linhof Master Technika Classic or Technikardan 45S, or even my Pentax 67II which is even heavier!)
-a very bright fresnel viewfinder, preferably with high magnification
-has incredibly good metering capability (where even snow wouldn't confuse or trick the meter)
-includes mirror lockup (for night photography. At the 35mm film body size, is mirror lockup even necessary at ultra-low shutter speeds?)
-autofocus would be nice, especially for street photography, but it isn't vital

It seems like the Nikon F6 or F100 might be the best way to go, but I have to say that I'm equally impressed with the Minolta Maxxum 7 (Dynax 7/Alpha 7), particularly because it's so lightweight and the lenses are apparently very good and can be used with my Sony a7R IV (albeit with an A-mount to E-mount adapter). Evidently, you can also pop in a roll of film, use it halfway, rewind said film, use another roll, go back to that half-used roll of film and go back to the frame you left off from. It also has a flash on the body, which I'm sure I'd find handy.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that there seems to be little love for Minolta Maxxum 7... or the Leica R8 or R9 for that matter...

 

[Don_ih]

I have to admit that I'm surprised that there seems to be little love for Minolta Maxxum 7... or the Leica R8 or R9 for that matter...

Very few people have the Leica R8 or R9 - even fewer have more than one lens for it, if they have it. And Minolta is constantly ignored and underrated. Ten yell Canon, twenty yell Nikon, one whispers Minolta.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't want to start a brand war, so I wanted to rejoin to clear up my definition of "newish." Originally I was thinking of cameras at least from the 1990s and after. (While I don't particularly care about looks or the sound the shutter makes, I will admit that the Olympus OM-4, Nikon F3 (even though it's older), and Nikon FM3A all look gorgeous.)

By far, the most important aspect of this camera purchase is the lens ecosystem. Since I'm aiming to make some large prints (larger than 16" x 20") with my potential 35mm film camera, I'm looking for a camera that'll let me use the very best/sharpest prime lenses. (I suppose zoom lenses, even the very 'best' ones, are out, but you tell me!) While this is totally subjective (and thus perhaps even meaningless to mention), I also do like lenses that have 'character.'

Besides the lens ecosystem, the ideal camera should be and include the following:

-is lightweight (if I want to carry something heavy, I'd either just bring my Linhof Master Technika Classic or Technikardan 45S, or even my Pentax 67II which is even heavier!)
-a very bright fresnel viewfinder, preferably with high magnification
-has incredibly good metering capability (where even snow wouldn't confuse or trick the meter)
-includes mirror lockup (for night photography. At the 35mm film body size, is mirror lockup even necessary at ultra-low shutter speeds?)
-autofocus would be nice, especially for street photography, but it isn't vital

It seems like the Nikon F6 or F100 might be the best way to go, but I have to say that I'm equally impressed with the Minolta Maxxum 7 (Dynax 7/Alpha 7), particularly because it's so lightweight and the lenses are apparently very good and can be used with my Sony a7R IV (albeit with an A-mount to E-mount adapter). Evidently, you can also pop in a roll of film, use it halfway, rewind said film, use another roll, go back to that half-used roll of film and go back to the frame you left off from. It also has a flash on the body, which I'm sure I'd find handy.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that there seems to be little love for Minolta Maxxum 7... or the Leica R8 or R9 for that matter...

Top of the line EOS camera and L lenses.

It does everything you ask and comparatively light.

 

[Cholentpot]

Very few people have the Leica R8 or R9 - even fewer have more than one lens for it, if they have it. And Minolta is constantly ignored and underrated. Ten yell Canon, twenty yell Nikon, one whispers Minolta.

minolta

 

[velvet]

I don't want to start a brand war, so I wanted to rejoin to clear up my definition of "newish." Originally I was thinking of cameras at least from the 1990s and after. (While I don't particularly care about looks or the sound the shutter makes, I will admit that the Olympus OM-4, Nikon F3 (even though it's older), and Nikon FM3A all look gorgeous.)

By far, the most important aspect of this camera purchase is the lens ecosystem. Since I'm aiming to make some large prints (larger than 16" x 20") with my potential 35mm film camera, I'm looking for a camera that'll let me use the very best/sharpest prime lenses. (I suppose zoom lenses, even the very 'best' ones, are out, but you tell me!) While this is totally subjective (and thus perhaps even meaningless to mention), I also do like lenses that have 'character.'

Besides the lens ecosystem, the ideal camera should be and include the following:

-is lightweight (if I want to carry something heavy, I'd either just bring my Linhof Master Technika Classic or Technikardan 45S, or even my Pentax 67II which is even heavier!)
-a very bright fresnel viewfinder, preferably with high magnification
-has incredibly good metering capability (where even snow wouldn't confuse or trick the meter)
-includes mirror lockup (for night photography. At the 35mm film body size, is mirror lockup even necessary at ultra-low shutter speeds?)
-autofocus would be nice, especially for street photography, but it isn't vital

It seems like the Nikon F6 or F100 might be the best way to go, but I have to say that I'm equally impressed with the Minolta Maxxum 7 (Dynax 7/Alpha 7), particularly because it's so lightweight and the lenses are apparently very good and can be used with my Sony a7R IV (albeit with an A-mount to E-mount adapter). Evidently, you can also pop in a roll of film, use it halfway, rewind said film, use another roll, go back to that half-used roll of film and go back to the frame you left off from. It also has a flash on the body, which I'm sure I'd find handy.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that there seems to be little love for Minolta Maxxum 7... or the Leica R8 or R9 for that matter...

Based on this I think the OM-4 would be your best bet so long as you’re okay with giving up autofocus.

It has a fantastic metering system that’s more advanced than the FM3A (a personal favorite,) and F3. It’s much smaller than the F6 or similar autofocus 35mm options. And the glass will be plenty sharp for whatever work you’re doing, many photographers have stood by Zuiko glass for years —and the small lens sizes compliment the small OM bodies very nicely.

Otherwise your best bet would be one of those modern autofocus bodies.

 

[reddesert]

I don't think mirror lockup is critical in 35mm unless you use long and/or heavy lenses. On some cameras you can use the self-timer to prefire the mirror.

Expecting to make prints larger than 16x20" from 35mm may be a stretch (depending on what you want in a print of course). It's not just the lens but the combination of lens, film, reproduction all gets pushed to the limit.

If you want automatic metering that is more foolproof, then later cameras with multi-segment or matrix metering are indicated. Most, not all, of these are AF. Even many later inexpensive cameras of the AF era have very solid metering. However, the inexpensive ones tend to have less nice viewfinders, so that pushes you towards the higher end bodies. The pro-level AF bodies tend to be big and heavy and use a lot of batteries, so the one-step-down from pro level are a good place to be. In Nikon terms, I would say the N90 ticks a lot of the requirements and costs very little (freeing up money for lenses). Other brands have equivalent bodies.

In 35mm, you save on weight from the lenses as well - that is, even if you carry a moderately heavy 35mm SLR and 3 prime lenses, it's much less bulky than a 6x7 SLR and 3 prime lenses.

 

[flavio81]

minolta

we need to keep prices low

 

[flavio81]

I annoy Sony shooters by complimenting their Minoltas.

I annoy (modern) Contax / Zeiss shooters by complimenting them on their japanese-made Cosinas (or Yashicas), while I carry my Contax IIIa with Zeiss Sonnar 50/2.

 

[Huss]

I don't want to start a brand war, so I wanted to rejoin to clear up my definition of "newish." Originally I was thinking of cameras at least from the 1990s and after. (While I don't particularly care about looks or the sound the shutter makes, I will admit that the Olympus OM-4, Nikon F3 (even though it's older), and Nikon FM3A all look gorgeous.)

By far, the most important aspect of this camera purchase is the lens ecosystem. Since I'm aiming to make some large prints (larger than 16" x 20") with my potential 35mm film camera, I'm looking for a camera that'll let me use the very best/sharpest prime lenses. (I suppose zoom lenses, even the very 'best' ones, are out, but you tell me!) While this is totally subjective (and thus perhaps even meaningless to mention), I also do like lenses that have 'character.'

Besides the lens ecosystem, the ideal camera should be and include the following:

-is lightweight (if I want to carry something heavy, I'd either just bring my Linhof Master Technika Classic or Technikardan 45S, or even my Pentax 67II which is even heavier!)
-a very bright fresnel viewfinder, preferably with high magnification
-has incredibly good metering capability (where even snow wouldn't confuse or trick the meter)
-includes mirror lockup (for night photography. At the 35mm film body size, is mirror lockup even necessary at ultra-low shutter speeds?)
-autofocus would be nice, especially for street photography, but it isn't vital

It seems like the Nikon F6 or F100 might be the best way to go, but I have to say that I'm equally impressed with the Minolta Maxxum 7 (Dynax 7/Alpha 7), particularly because it's so lightweight and the lenses are apparently very good and can be used with my Sony a7R IV (albeit with an A-mount to E-mount adapter). Evidently, you can also pop in a roll of film, use it halfway, rewind said film, use another roll, go back to that half-used roll of film and go back to the frame you left off from. It also has a flash on the body, which I'm sure I'd find handy.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that there seems to be little love for Minolta Maxxum 7... or the Leica R8 or R9 for that matter...

Hey I pointed out the R9 is the bestest manual focus 35mm slr ever

Recently took these pics w it using a Summilux 50