which manual cameras would you guys recommend

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

i have been using my fathers ricoh kr-15 for a long time, with a 35-105 sigma zoom lens, and a 50mm ricoh lens, well i know these arent the greatest toys but my father was young and very poor when he purchased these items, and if anything they serve as a memento. they seem to function nicely but i am itchin for my own camera. i really do enjoy all the features of the classic nikon fm2n, but the new fm3a entices me as well, but only because of the needle metering, and more metal parts, (can u tell im a sucker for tank like equipment, the less plastic the better :)) and then theres a part of me druling at the new autofocus slr's. but then theres the more dominant macho manual part of me that looks down upon those automatic pansies. no offense intended. but id like to know what your opinions would be for the best manual slr, (old school and the newer fm3a) but i have to say that for the manual cameras nikon has got me sold (i love the tank-like construction), it seems to me that canon has blown manual off to the side. but as for the autofocus system, im somewhat drawn in the middle.

-- miguel rilloraza (migstbird@netzero.net), January 22, 2002

Answers

A few years ago, when I was looking for a high-build-quality manual-focus camera, I chose Nikon; but in the end I didn't buy an FM2n.

Canon FD and Minolta MD cameras and lenses are readily available secondhand in England, where I live. I've used both, and like both, but both marques changed mounts on going to autofocus, which caused me to fear that repairs would gradually become impossible. Having said that, the Canon F1 has the tank-like construction that you and I both love, and -- just because the FD mount is no longer current -- bodies and lenses are very reasonably priced.

Pentax has preserved lens-mount compatibility longer than any other SLR manufacturer (I believe you can still use Pentax M42 thread-mount lenses from 1957 on the latest cameras). The currently available manual-focus Pentaxes are not the most robust, but the Pentax LX is a joy. Pentax, however, is the smallest of the four main SLR manufacturers, and this means higher unit costs of development, which in turn means that the best Pentax lenses (and there are some excellent Pentax lenses) are rather expensive.

Then there's always Rolls-Royce and Bentley ... Leica and Zeiss/Contax. How do you feel about those? No, I couldn't afford them either.

All of which led me to Nikon. Manual-focus and autofocus cameras use the same mounts; the range of lenses and accessories is the largest of any marque; there are lots of items readily available on the secondhand market; and, joy of joys, the build quality is really good and Nikon seems to have an ongoing commitment to both build quality and manual focus.

At the time, the manual-focus cameras available new were the FM2n, with very good build quality, which I could afford; and the F3HP, with very very good build quality, which I couldn't. After I had gazed at the FM2n for a while, the shop tempted me outrageously: they said that an F3 Titanium had come in as secondhand stock. So I bought an F3/T. Since then I have discovered how useful it is for an eye-glasses wearer to have a high-eyepoint viewfinder, and how useful it is for a photographer of flowers to have a removable viewfinder: each year I try to capture to essence of the Hamshire bluebell, and I refuse to lie face-down in the Hampshire nettles to frame the shot.

So I'm a completely impartial F3HP enthusiast. FM2 users are equally unbalanced: they praise the light weight, high build quality, and battery free nature of their "zen camera". Users of the long-discontinued F2 drool about the heft of their handmade all-mechanical marvels. Users of the F4, which has spotmetering and proper modern TTL flash, call it the greatest of Nikon's manual-focus cameras. And doubtless FM3A users are going to be as bad.

Now you have to choose your own point of imbalance.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 23, 2002.


I could'nt help admiring the way Dr Owl put across his practical philosophy on camera equipment selection. I use both the manual and automatic Nikon cameras for different requirement but always prefer the manual F3HP for its simplicity (and reliability). Somehow, a slow manual camera forces you to think harder about what you want to do with your shots, as it is just too "easy" to press the shutter with the automatic.

I also own some old Canon FD equipment. This line of cameras and lenses are the greatest bargain in photographic equipment. They are excellent designed products, and well built. The craze with digital photography and the fear of films being discontinued make many non- digital equipment owner to unload their gears cheap (as seen on eBay). For manual equiment lovers, Canon FD-system users are having the greatest time of their lives. Use FD equipment are generally 50% cheaper than the equivalent Nikon, and the old Canon F1 or F1n are as tank-like in construction as any Nikon, but cheaper. An excellent condition Nikon AI 50mm/f1.4 lens cost about Singapore $250 to 300 while I bought a mint Canon FD 50mm/f1.4 last week for $150.

I use and love both products and I can say they are both excellent. Take your pick, the choice may rest with your wallet.

-- Huang Guoqiang (hguoqiang@yahoo.com.sg), January 26, 2002.


I never liked the F3.

So when I heard Nikon was about to stop producing the F2, I rushed to my camera shop and picked the literally last F2AS they had.

The reason I prefer the F2 are the tank-like built quality, the 100% viewfinder, excellent metering and removable viewfinder.

Hmm, funny enough those could be the reasons to buy a F3.

So I guess both are excellent camera's, which they are, and the choice really comes down to personal taste.

Same with going instead for a FM(2) or FE(2), or a FM3A. Excellent camera's all and of course all Nikon lenses will fit, maybe with some restrictions with the lastest AF lenses.

But there's no denying the old Canon FL and FD lenses are indeed a bargain, especially considering the excellent quality, and the New F1 or T-90, or even a FTb or EF (the camera, not the lens) are monuments to the manual bodies Canon used to make.

Although I use Nikon for all my professional work, I still have a Canon TX with an old 1.8/85mm FL lens in my closet I love and cherish and refuse to part with.

So I guess you are in an enviable position, as you know enough to know what you don't want, and have a wide choice of excellent camera's and systems to make a pick from.

Paul K

-- Paul K (photopp@wanadoo.nl), January 27, 2002.


Same as many of the above, I'd say Canon New F-1. It's arguably the most tank-like camera of all time. And as has already been said the lenses are comparatively very cheap (but very good). I think that if you've a part of you that condemns modern autofocus'ers as wimps, then you'll never be satisfied with one. I made this mistake a while ago when I bought an F90. Soon after I went back to an F-1N and fell back in love with it. It just gives such satisfaction and makes you feel that you're doing something worthwhile and special. I was also considering the FM-3a-basically because it's got the same major features (especially the hybrid electro-mechanical shutter), but to me it feels a little small and 'wimpy' and I didn't get that exhileration that I did with the F-1N. I have also had that feeling with Leicas, though. The R4s is a beauty, with a unique sound and feel to the shutter and feels like it made of granite. Quite cheap too (about £400), but lenses are collectible and so pricey (28mm is about £400, Canon 28 FD about £50). Don't fall for the autofocus trpa. If you're serious, keep control, keep it manual and preferably mechanical!

Best wishes Steve

-- Steve Phillipps (steve@redvixen.freeserve.co.uk), January 28, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ