FM3a + Voigtlander SL or .. ?

[Matus]

Originally Posted by Field

This popped up on CL in my hometown, maybe she would ship it?

http://spokane.craigslist.org/pho/2405867878.html

Thanks, but I am not yet decided and the package linked contains lot of stuff I am not really after (flashes, zoom lens).

[Paddy C]

I've been mulling over the same sort of purchase since I had the chance to hold and look through a mint F3HP at a store here. Goodness! that is a nice camera. And prices on all this stuff are very good.

My thoughts:

Having owned a G2 kit and a T3, a Contax is very tempting. Especially the Aria. But the glass is expensive and you do not have the selection that you would with Nikon. To me, the Contax defeats the purpose of the "cheap MF slr." It gets pricey quickly.

I've also owned a Leica R4. I can't speak for the R8/R9 (those are getting bulky and expensive), but the Leica R-system runs behind everything else and is nothing to get excited about. Obviously you are buying it to use the lenses but what I said about Contax applies here.

I'm leaning towards an FE2 or F3HP and a few primes. Great value and I don't think I'll miss the Zeiss or Leica lenses at all.

[Riverman]

I have an FM3a and Voigt SL 40mm and it's certainly an awesome and very compact combo. However, I'm going to chip in here for Minolta. An SRT or X700 plus 50mm f1.7 can be had for practically pennies. I still have a Minolta body and a few lenses. I've shot Nikon, Minolta and OM in SLR and I just can't quit the Minolta for the beautfiul rendering of their lenses.

[Matus]

- Paddy C -
thanks. I have to admit that I noticed the F3 / F3HP too. The prices for nice ones are more than say FE2, but still very reasonable. It seems that everybody who ever used that camera loves it. Indeed it is larger and heavier than FE2. I agree about the Contax - I have checked the prices and while Aria is priced rather reasonably (it is still rather new compared to FE2)., but a lens kid composed of 25/2.8, 35/2.8 and 85/2.8 + Aria would come at around 1000 euro - not cheap indeed. And not the smallest or lightest either (well, not fighting for 100g here). And than there are all the guys who keep telling you how nice the FM3a with the VC 40/2.0 is (not to mention those who keep bugging about the OM2n )

- Riverman -
I stopped counting how many keep liking the FM3a + VC SL 40/2.0 - makes me wanting one. You mention Minolta MF cameras - I do not have an overview there (yet). But which lenses did you find to your likings? What would be the best camera bodies to look at? How is the reliability? How would the Minolta MD compare (in general) to sa Olympus OM or Nikon systems?

[hellomikmik]

FM3 is nice theoretically but it's still lot of money compared to FE. In practice the difference is no so big (there are couple of details that can be decisive or not - depending what you can live with). I use sometimes Ultron 40 SL2 on D700 so just for fun I got FE to try it on film. Really nice lightweight combination - very smooth camera in my opinion. I also got a FM as I'll be probably shooting in very cold weather soon. The only details I'm missing sometimes is the backdoor window (I don't use that camera so often) and AE lock button (I'm used to it from Zeiss Ikon).

[Matus]

I had a brief look at Pentax LX - a nice camera indeed, but it seems that it is a hard to find camera and the lenses are not too abundant either. I have yet to look at Minolta.

For some reason I feel an attraction to Nikon F3. Hmmm. Bigger and heavier than FM3a, but a bit cheaper. Somehow just looks right.

For the next few days I plan to shoot my wife's Minolta Dynax 7 with 28, 50 and 100 lenses to see that it is indeed slr that I am after.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Matus

I had a brief look at Pentax LX - a nice camera indeed, but it seems that it is a hard to find camera

True.

and the lenses are not too abundant either.

I guess that depends on what lenses you're looking for. There are a lot of k-mount lenses out there. A LOT.

[jmilkins]

Matus. Despite my enjoyment of the FM3a and 40mm, I would heartily echo the OM2 and zuiko camp - just fantastic.
The Minoltas and their rokkors also have a fabulous signature see The Rokkor Files to keep you very happily researching for hours.

And here is a great view of leitz vs zeiss vs minolta lens design philosophy.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by jmilkins

Matus. Despite my enjoyment of the FM3a and 40mm, I would heartily echo the OM2 and zuiko camp - just fantastic.
The Minoltas and their rokkors also have a fabulous signature see The Rokkor Files to keep you very happily researching for hours.

And here is a great view of leitz vs zeiss vs minolta lens design philosophy.

thanks. The second link was really interesting reading. I am wondering what was the philosophy of Olympus though. But it really makes me wanting to try out older Minolta Glass too

OM2 is definitely a candidate. After all - I do not really need super fast lenses - to have one 35/2.0 would do the trick for low light - the rest could be f/2.8 or even more for very wides.

[ferider]

To summarize my experience with OM lenses (pretty much all of the ones I used): beautiful, smooth OOF rendering, contrast on the lower side with neutral color, some distortion (but never an issue), very sharp, peak resolution typically at f5.6 or so. Then very sharp.

With some exceptions (for example the 35/2 is bigger than the 28/2), OM Zuikos are also all pretty small.

Roland.

[Matus]

that all sounds good ... with the exception of the low contrast. My experience is that the lower contrast of the capture the more it needs to be boosted after scanning in post processing what boosts also the grain (in particular in BW). But I definitely not a show stopper.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Matus

Thanks. I read a bit on the OM lenses and got surprised by not too flattering comments about the 32/2.0 which would probably be my main lens (my most used focal length). It seems that every camera producer has at least one great 50 lens, but what about the 35?

So - what system would you choose if 35/2.0 (or faster, 40mm woud be OK too) lens would be the most important one in the line for you?

Again??!!

Please, do yourself a favor, get one and decide for yourself. OM 35/2 is a great lens.

(feeling very tired mentally...)

[andreios]

A regular OM4 shooter here, recently I came across a Nikon FE2 which is not bad, but I can't think of anything it gives me over the OM which I prefer being the smaller. But alas, there are the Leica SLR - particularly Leicaflex SL. It is a hefty piece of steel, mind you, but that shouldn't be a problem for MF/LF shooter. The sturdiness, the handling and the lenses are really superb and worth considering, I think it has something over the lot of other SLRs.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Again??!!

Please, do yourself a favor, get one and decide for yourself. OM 35/2 is a great lens.

(feeling very tired mentally...)

Sorry, I did not intend to become a burden - I did not join too many SLR discussions yet so did not know that some lenses get too much unearned criticism. OM system is a candidate and so is the 35/2.0. I am just looking at the prices what takes a while as this lens is not so common.

Right now, for a reason unknown, I feel quite a strong attraction towards Nikon F3 and Contax Aria. Will see how this develops

[Field]

Get the F3 $150. Go for it!

Then choose from...

Wide
Budget Choice:24mm f2.8 $150
Medium Choice:28mm f2.8 $320
High Choice: 20mm f2.8 $400

35mm is too close to 40mm (OM 35mm F2 $250)

Standard
Super cheap: 50mm f/2, great lens always sharp, higher resolution than 1.4 or 1.2 50mm (huge waste of money) $60
Budget: 55mm f2.8 micro, probably sharper than CV open
Medium: 40mm F2 CV, FANTASTIC lens. $400
High end: 58mm f1.2, amazing but... $3,000

(OM 50mm macro f3.5 $150, macro f2 $650)

Portrait/telephoto:
Only real option: 105mm f2.5 P.C (Not the newest, and not perspective corrected, it is just an upgraded sonnar) $150-200. (unless you come across an AI'd old P for cheap, still an amazing lens)

(OM 100mm f2.8 $200, f2 $1200, 90mm f2 $700)

Vivitar F3 flash adapter $45

[Matus]

Thanks - now we are taking :-)

Actually - from the Nikon stable my choices would be following:

WIDE:
Budged & light: 20/4.0 Ai or 20/3.5 AIS
Light & great: VC 20/3.5


Medium Wide:
Semi-budged: 30/2.0 AF-D (reportedly better than either AIS version)
Light & great: VC 40/2.0 - the lens seems to be so good that it is worth it

Tele:
maybe some 85 or 100. For the 100 I would go with the E version as it is light and users seem to love it.

------------------
The above does not rule out either OM or Contax systems of course

[Ade-oh]

I would go back to my original point. In practical terms you will not be able to distinguish between transparencies taken with Canon, Contax, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus or Pentax manual focus SLRs and lenses, provided they are properly exposed. IMHO, the best lightmeter on a cheap, used SLR is on the OM-2/OM-2sp/OM-4 but in most situations the others will be equally as good, so just go with what you're comfortable with.

[Field]

Nikon F3 can not use Autofocus lenses.... There was a special autofocus version but the lenses for it fit no other Nikon camera.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by Field

Nikon F3 can not use Autofocus lenses.... There was a special autofocus version but the lenses for it fit no other Nikon camera.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I guess that F3 can use AF lenses in MF mode - as most of other MF Nikon bodies ...

[Field]

True, but no VR or G series. They removed the aperture ring on them.

You should note that many AF lenses are plastic... which to me loses a little bit of an appeal when buying a metal brick.

The F4 will do AF but no VR... often sold of peanuts. I am thinking about getting one because of the much more advanced mirror and shutter. Is it attractive? Nooooooo but it works pro.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

I am surprised at the lower speed lenses you have decided to look at for the different sizes. Personally I am all for slow lenses that perform well. They allow me to use 400 speed film in daylight and still select the DOF I want to some degree. For the same reason I often prefer slower film because it allows more fill options with flash, and total aperture control.

I went walking around with a f1.4 50mm lens a month back and found it irritating because at 400asa it almost exhausted my shutter speed capability on my Nikon F (getting rid of now). I know I know... it sounds silly but seriously I would never want a .95/1.1/1.2 lens for daaperturey work unless my camera had 1/4000's or higher shutter speeds.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Matus

Sorry, I did not intend to become a burden - I did not join too many SLR discussions yet so did not know that some lenses get too much unearned criticism. OM system is a candidate and so is the 35/2.0. I am just looking at the prices what takes a while as this lens is not so common.

Right now, for a reason unknown, I feel quite a strong attraction towards Nikon F3 and Contax Aria. Will see how this develops

If you can pick up a Contax ST. Do it, that block of granite is my current favorite SLR.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

If you can pick up a Contax ST. Do it, that block of granite is my current favorite SLR.

I had a look at different Contax SLRs and I have to admit I have a hard time to somehow get a grasp of the relevant differences between different models like 167, 159, ST, RX (Aria is latest, lightest and with matrix metering - so that puts it a bit aside) from the user point of view and not just a spec sheet. I guess I could make use of some enlightenment here ...