Manual 35mm Camera

[Dzerzhinski46]

Here is the situation. I currently am using an old Canon TLb that is well used, and I am looking for a replacement. I would like it to be a manual focus, manual exposure 35mm camera. I like Canon, but wouldn't sneer at a Nikon. I don't have any lenses stored up, so I am starting from scratch here. Used is alright.

I looked at the Nikon FM3A, but I don't need the aperture-priority. The FM10 is a little too plastic. I was curious about the earlier Nikons, like the FM series.

The Bessa R looked very nice, but I am not sure about rangefinders. I am used to an SLR. The one thing I liked about the Bessa R was that the range of lenses was very nice.

I also looked at a Canon F-1.

The thing I am most concerned about is service. Since Canon doesn't make manual cameras any more, I am afraid that parts could become a problem.

Thanks for the help.

Drew

[92135011]

Bessa R has been said to be pretty cheaply made compared to the Bessa R2.
The R2A and R3A are also out that are Leica M mount, so you can use the new 40/1.4 and 35/1.2. Although...the 40/1.4 wide open has a really terrible swirly bokeh that I hate. The newer R2a and R3a have the aperture priority whereas the R2 doesnt. Oh yeah...the R2 is thread mount, but so are the earlier lenses, so thats no big deal. I used to shoot SLR, but I love my M4.

I shot with the FM series of cameras and they arent too bad. Cant comment too much on them sice i only used them for a few days

What you wanna do with it?

[Dzerzhinski46]

I just looked at the Cameraquest site and they seem to say that the R2 is an M mount camera. Plus, the R2 was discontinued. If I went rangefinder, I think I would want to go with a screwmount. Lots of lenses for those kind. Especially Voigtlander's 15mm beauty. Imagine, 110 degree field of view. And the vintage of the camera dosen't matter.

As for what I want to do with it, well, landscape, architechture, people (occasionally), and still lifes. Not much action or portrait stuff.

Oh, I was looking at Zorkis and FEDs also. I know the Russian cameras aren't all that great in the build department, but I figure it is a cheap way to find out if I like rangefinder photography.

Glad for the input.

Drew

[drg]

Drew,

There's also the question of how much you want to spend on glass.

The Nikon is worth the $600 or so and the Ap Priority is just a plus. Its fully manual shutter is pretty amazing in this electronic age. And you don't have to worry about batteries dying.

One little known alternative, if you can find one is the Voightlander Bessaflex which comes in a Nikon Mount and the old M42 Pentax screw mount. The only reason I know about it is that I picked up one of the M42 mounts about a year ago to use with two unusual Zeiss lenses in M42 mount that I refuse to sell. I believe the only new source for these in the USA (very limited production) is via www.cameraquest.com. They are a 'clone' of an old Topcon camera, not exactly but close.

As far as new cameras and the Bessa/Voightlander offering these are the only real quality offerings in something new in 35mm. I'm not touting Bessa by any means, there lenses on a case by case basis are certainly used by a many Leica owners as 'everyday' shooters.

There's always the new Leica R9, if they don't go out of business.

Vivitar marketed a camera for a time for student use. I can't speak to its worth or otherwise. There have been store branded cameras for students and 'beginners' for awhile but . . . Some of the old Soviet Union manufacturing is back up and producing cameras but what is what at this time I'm again uncertain.

Good luck !
-CDP

[92135011]

if you want to try rangefinder photography, i suggest the Canon GIIIQ17. Good price. pretty good glass...but not interchangable lenses.

[Michael Fanelli]

Here is the situation. I currently am using an old Canon TLb that is well used, and I am looking for a replacement. I would like it to be a manual focus, manual exposure 35mm camera. I like Canon, but wouldn't sneer at a Nikon. I don't have any lenses stored up, so I am starting from scratch here. Used is alright.

I looked at the Nikon FM3A, but I don't need the aperture-priority. The FM10 is a little too plastic. I was curious about the earlier Nikons, like the FM series.

The Bessa R looked very nice, but I am not sure about rangefinders. I am used to an SLR. The one thing I liked about the Bessa R was that the range of lenses was very nice.

I also looked at a Canon F-1.

The thing I am most concerned about is service. Since Canon doesn't make manual cameras any more, I am afraid that parts could become a problem.

Thanks for the help.

Drew

Back in the old days, I really loved my Pentax MX cameras. Fully manual (no modes at all) with more K glass on the market than you could possibly wish for.

[another view]

Second vote for the Canonet GIII QL17 if you want to try a rangefinder. Find one in excellent condition (including the light seals) from a seller who knows what they're talking about and you still should get it for well under $100. Batteries can be a hassle for them but Wein makes a replacement for the old mercury battery it was designed for. They don't last too long and are a little expensive but B&H is cheaper than most. If you end up not liking it, you could probably sell it for what you paid for it. It's a very different experience than SLR shooting.

For Nikons, look for an FM2n. It came out before the FM3A and doesn't have AE or a mechanical shutter - just manual exposure and electronic shutter. I wouldn't be too worried about service - replacements might be cheaper than repairs anyway. The "n" version doesn't show up on the front of the camera (says FM2). The serial number on the back will start with an "N" if it is - that means 1/250 flash sync and maybe a couple other things over the earlier FM2...

[OldSchool]

Hi Drew,

My most trustworthy camera is my Olympus OM1. I've had it 20 years; taken it climbing to frigid elevations of 18,000 ft; taken it to the humid tropics, and never had a problem. The tiny batteries last forever. It is fully manual though, but I've taken some of my best shots with it.

Sounds like there are many other great options. Oh what fun! To be shopping for a camera...
Cheers,
Tim

[Dzerzhinski46]

Drew,

There's also the question of how much you want to spend on glass.

One little known alternative, if you can find one is the Voightlander Bessaflex which comes in a Nikon Mount and the old M42 Pentax screw mount. The only reason I know about it is that I picked up one of the M42 mounts about a year ago to use with two unusual Zeiss lenses in M42 mount that I refuse to sell. I believe the only new source for these in the USA (very limited production) is via www.cameraquest.com. They are a 'clone' of an old Topcon camera, not exactly but close.

As far as new cameras and the Bessa/Voightlander offering these are the only real quality offerings in something new in 35mm. I'm not touting Bessa by any means, there lenses on a case by case basis are certainly used by a many Leica owners as 'everyday' shooters.

Good luck !
-CDP

Thanks for the suggestion drg. I did just a small amount of research, and the range of glass for the M42 mount is amazing. Plus, it is very affordable . Just what I like. Actually, B&H has the Bessaflex (the M42 camera) for only $10 more than cameraquest. A question though, what are your thoughts on shooting with it, handling, weight, feel, etc. Just general impressions would be nice.

Another nice little plus I noticed, is that a lot of Russian lenses are available in M42 mounts. Zenitar 16mm 2.8 wideangle. Drool. Thanks for the tip.

Drew

[drg]

Drew,

The Bessaflex feels like a small camera to me. Then again I use big pro bodies most of the time. I've probably run less than twenty rolls of film through it and I believe most were C-41 b/w.

The shutter release/break took a little getting use to (first new manual camera I'd had in a loooong time) but seems to be dependable and smooth if a bit soft?

The film advance has an easy stroke. The self timer (which maybe has been used half a dozen times?) seems if not flimsy sort of delicate. It is set out from the body more than I thought and I believe I could flex it at the shaft, though the lever is solid. Its not snagged anything though that I recall.

Handles very nicely with a 28mm Pentax-Takumar lens mounted. With the Zeiss 85mm its a little bit heavy in the front, I wonder why! I took the Bessaflex out of the cabinet earlier after I read your post and mounted a 135mm Soligor F2.8. Seems to balance it quite well though I don't remember using it with the 135mm. The 135mm F2.8 is a neat little lens and I hope to have some time later this year to get it out for a weekend somewhere. The Zeiss Pancake lens I really bought the body for makes for real compact and thin camera that just slides in a big jacket pocket or under a winter coat. It stay warm that way when I'm outside.

One other note about older M42 lenses. Many of them have coatings that are not up to snuff when it come to modern color film! Some don't really have a coating like were used to now and thus b/w looks better or certainly different. They are very prone to flare and the contrast may take some getting use to (more or less) depending on the design of the lens.

Hope this helps. I can ramble on about old lenses far longer than anybody wants to hear.


CDP

[another view]

Have you guys seen this thread? Gerry Widen has a couple of shots that give you an idea what old lenses do. Like he says, it's especially evident in the background.

[Dzerzhinski46]

Thanks drg. Very helpful.

But would there be any difference between a K-mount system and a M42 system? Any disadvantages to the M42 system? Any suggestions for a K-mount camera while we're at it?

Drew

[drg]

Thanks drg. Very helpful.

But would there be any difference between a K-mount system and a M42 system? Any disadvantages to the M42 system? Any suggestions for a K-mount camera while we're at it?

Drew

The K-mount is newer, its a bayonet and you can use M42 lenses with an adapter. The M42 is a threaded mount and can be notorious for thread wear. That is either the lens threads or the body. I hardly ever change lenses as the M42 I have is just an occasional user.

The biggest disadvantage to the M42 is it doesn't support big lenses well. It is a real pain as I recall to mount anything much over 150mm lens just because of the weight. You stand the lens on end and thread the body onto it very carefully! Plus its a 30+ year old system (started more like 40+ years ago). Very few newly manufactured lenses.

Off hand I don't know of a K-mount specifically that I'd recommend other than something with an adapter.

[Michael Fanelli]

Off hand I don't know of a K-mount specifically that I'd recommend other than something with an adapter.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but all Pentax cameras post screw-mount, even current models, are K-mount.

[Dzerzhinski46]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but all Pentax cameras post screw-mount, even current models, are K-mount.

But of course it doesn't end there. Some are better than others. I want mechanical if possible. I have seen your recommendations for the MX. Anything beyond that? Is the K series somehow less desirable for some weird reason?

Drew

[drg]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but all Pentax cameras post screw-mount, even current models, are K-mount.

Thanks Michael

You are right! I was a little vague and ambiguous in my answer. I was thinking of a Manual camera for film. My understanding is that the new DSLR's from Pentax will even take the old M42 mount lenses with an adapter! No particular K-mount camera came to mind in consideration of . . .

We had sort of started down a path with this something along the lines what to replace much older mechanical SLR's with in a newer body or something very mechanical and manual for film. i.e. No Batteries Required. Or something like that!

If anyone has tried the older lenses, K-mount or M42 with an *ist or *istDS(?) I'd love to hear about their experience!

[Michael Fanelli]

But of course it doesn't end there. Some are better than others. I want mechanical if possible. I have seen your recommendations for the MX. Anything beyond that? Is the K series somehow less desirable for some weird reason?

Drew

The K-series was bigger and heavier. The MX was smaller, lighter, and, for me, lots nicer to carry and use. The battery only runs the meter as the shutter is purely mechanical. It is also totally manual, no aperture, shutter, etc. priority modes. The meter uses match diodes instead of a match needle design. It was extremely cool when it first came out.

The Pentax LX was the pro camera for Pentax and my favorite. But this one uses the battery for the electronic shutter. It also has aperture priority mode. The shutter will work without batteries but only for a limited set of shutter speeds.

The extremely old K lenses work in full manual mode on modern Pentax film cameras. The KA lenses can use aperture priority. Newer lenses can be used all the way to full auto mode. I have no idea how they work with the Pentax digital cameras but these cameras are still K mount so I suspect they would.