DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Agree. I have two F65s (aka N65s) with the optional battery grips so I can use standard batteries. CR1s are expensive now (good ones anyway) so I'm saving a small fortune with those grips.
Admittedly these Nikons are plastic from the early '00s and at first glance they feel and look somewhat flimsy . I bought them new at knock down discount prices way back when, I've used them a fair bit and they have never ever broken down, so for me good value indeed.
I still use them now and then when the urge strikes to put a bit of film thru a camera. Along with my Nikkormats of course. The F65s use all my Nikon D lenses so in that sense, they are more useful to me than the older 'mats (which I prefer for their all-metal durability).
Nikon also made an F55 but it's a bit too basic for my liking, a small, easy to use P&S. A friend has one and says it is entirely adequate for everyday shooting. Also an F60, but I have to say I've never seen one.
I have had very good luck lately getting Contax glass for not much $.
Then again, I'm not going for the exotics like the 28/2 and 35/1.4 or the 21/2.8 which still demand a chunk of change.
Then again, I'm not going for the exotics like the 28/2 and 35/1.4 or the 21/2.8 which still demand a chunk of change.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I find my F90 would fill that role quite well if that's what I want but honestly? It wasn't.
OTOH, when I got my F4? THAT scratched the itch perfectly. I love the knobs, switches and just enough automation with the matrix metering and the ability to use all the lenses I own. It's a later one with all the fixes which helps but still, I really love that beast.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Perhaps but the problem is I already had a good selection of manual focus and auto focus Niklkor lenses. Buying into a different SLR system becomes a very different proposition for me and my limited resources. I just didn't feel I could afford them $300+ for, say, a Contax 50/1.4 when I could get a Super Takumar 50/1.4 for $60 and I already owned the camera.
I have no doubt about the quality of the Contax lenses (I own a number of Zeiss lenses for other cameras/systems). It's just not going to happen at this point in time though.
Pioneer
Mentor
Ah well. I am glad I didn't waste too much time with this. The usual Nikon and Canons along with a few odd ball cameras like the Beseler with nary a nod to a couple of the biggest selling cameras of all time with some of the finest lenses manufactured by anybody, both of them Pentax and both of them still very very attainable and usable today without spending a huge amount of cash.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear wlewisiii,I looked seriously at Contax/Yashica last year but didn't like the cost of the Zeiss glass which, to me, was the only reason to do it. Been slowly buying Pentax M42 instead. Super Takumar has made me not regret the tradeoff
Nikon screwdrive AF lenses on the silly FTZ adapter do MF nicely though and the electrical contacts are nice in that regard. Still I'll probably only use them on my D810 even once I get a Z5.
After accidentally buying a fully operational Spotmatic F last Spring I went all for Super Tak's. They even work great on my Canon DSLR's and Olympus mirrorless cameras with the proper adapter. Having a 480mm f4 on a Canon 7D or 600mm f4 on an OM D EM2, both with easy manual focus confirmation is sweet to me.
Don't tell anyone, but my most used lens on my Nikon Df is a 35-105mm Nikkor AF that isn't even the AF-D version. It just works and I am grateful for the Nikon's that still offer old school compatibility.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I've hated zooms for decades. But know what? I love my 28-105 Nikkor AF so I get what you're saying. Sweet sweet lens. It _lives_ on my D810 when it isn't on my F4.
so I get what you're saying. Sweet sweet lens. It _lives_ on my D810 when it isn't on my F4.ranger9
Well-known
The most likely source of a large-scale EMP (electromagnetic pulse) would be the detonation of a thermonuclear weapon in low earth orbit, and in that case there are lots of things the loss of which I'd be more worried about than my pictures! Meanwhile, your analog pictures are equally at risk from a house fire, a broken sewer pipe, or (the most likely photo-apocalyptic scenario) the indifference of non-photo-buff relatives after you're gone. I've given up chasing photo immortality… instead, now that Schneider had reminded me about the Topcons, I want to go chase one of those…
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Yup. My Celluloid heroes are just as vulnerable as my digital ones. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, sadly, fooling themselves.
The only way _I'll_ gain photographic immortality is if I pull a "Vivian Meyer" and someone decides after I'm dead that my photos are cool & that they can make lot's of money from them.
_SHRUG_
IF there is a god out there then perhaps my son will find a way to sue the bastard and get the coin for himself instead. That tiny bit of justice would be the only thing I could ever hope for...
Amen...
The only way _I'll_ gain photographic immortality is if I pull a "Vivian Meyer" and someone decides after I'm dead that my photos are cool & that they can make lot's of money from them.
_SHRUG_
IF there is a god out there then perhaps my son will find a way to sue the bastard and get the coin for himself instead. That tiny bit of justice would be the only thing I could ever hope for...
Amen...
Yeah, I figured out that in 1980. A friend in the Air Force looked at me, and stated - don't tell anybody.
BillBingham2
Registered User
There are so many great film cameras out there for the youngins to pick from.
It's fun to read about the rebirth.
Thanks! Jason for another great perspective.
B2 (;->
It's fun to read about the rebirth.
Thanks! Jason for another great perspective.
B2 (;->
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Only one mention of the Minolta SR-T series.
C'mon guys.
C'mon guys.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Happy to find I own several of the cameras you listed...BUT of all of them on the list I was completely stunned by seeing the Olympus 35-S II. Truly didn't think anyone would consider it worthy of being among the other cameras listed.
Thank you...
Currently, I own three such bodies, one gets used two sit in a drawer as back-ups just in case.
Fun little camera with a fantastic lens...
Thank you...
Currently, I own three such bodies, one gets used two sit in a drawer as back-ups just in case.
Fun little camera with a fantastic lens...
das
Well-known
I looked seriously at Contax/Yashica last year but didn't like the cost of the Zeiss glass which, to me, was the only reason to do it. Been slowly buying Pentax M42 instead. Super Takumar has made me not regret the tradeoff
Nikon screwdrive AF lenses on the silly FTZ adapter do MF nicely though and the electrical contacts are nice in that regard. Still I'll probably only use them on my D810 even once I get a Z5.
It seems that during the 2010s, there was an extreme enthusiasm among Canon digital SLR users and cine-converters for Contax glass. That craze seems to have died down a bit as many of the newest Zeiss ZF / ZE lenses are really great successors to the original 70s-90s Contax lenses and are often CHEAPER used than used pro Contax glass. If I ever went back to MF Nikon, it would only be to use those new Zeiss lenses. I have often debated whether an F4/F3 + new (but used) Zeiss lenses may be a better value-performance proposition than a high-end Contax body with Contax lenses. Unfortunately, I made my bed.
Compared with Canon FD and Nikon AI-S glass, with plenty of exceptions, Contax lenses generally have superior performance and the brand has a nice, coherent line of high performing primes that are affordable for what they are. $250 or less for the 50mm f/1.4 Planar, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8, the slower short telephotos, etc. can be very good deals. No one has to overpay for the "prestige" lenses to get the Contax performance.
.
hilltime
Well-known
I have owned the 35-Sll w/42-1.8 and the 35-Sll w/42-2.0 (which is much harder to find) for years. Great compact RF cameras with wonderful optics but the truly great one is the 35 Wide S Super w/35-2.0 Zuiko. Fantastic camera and of all the (wide 35's) I have, has the best lens. By the way, love the Red soft touch shutter release!Happy to find I own several of the cameras you listed...BUT of all of them on the list I was completely stunned by seeing the Olympus 35-S II. Truly didn't think anyone would consider it worthy of being among the other cameras listed.
Thank you...
Currently, I own three such bodies, one gets used two sit in a drawer as back-ups just in case.
Fun little camera with a fantastic lens...
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Takumar M-42 screw mount lenses by Asahi Optocal Co. are outstanding. I’ve used the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 with great satisfaction, but they’re all great! Good shooting!I looked seriously at Contax/Yashica last year but didn't like the cost of the Zeiss glass which, to me, was the only reason to do it. Been slowly buying Pentax M42 instead. Super Takumar has made me not regret the tradeoff
Nikon screwdrive AF lenses on the silly FTZ adapter do MF nicely though and the electrical contacts are nice in that regard. Still I'll probably only use them on my D810 even once I get a Z5.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Thanks for your input. You’re right—the Olympus 35 Wide S with 35mm f/2 H. Zuiko 8-element wide-angle lens is fantastic. Unfortunately it’s desirable, fairly uncommon and consequently pretty pricey at $300+ per copy in pristine condition.
Yes indeed.No one has to overpay for the "prestige" lenses to get the Contax performance.
The key is patience. If one just wants to go out and purchase a given lens, there are many options that provide instant gratification, at a price.
But wait a bit and deals will appear, just be ready to pull the trigger quickly! Like the 100/3.5 Contax Sonnar that popped up in a local store last week for $100, less than half what they are available for on 'buy it now' listings.
Great lens!I love my 28-105 Nikkor AF
Other excellent Nikkor zooms are available for nearly nothing. Picked up a 50-135/3.5 (no zoom creep) for $50, and 80-200/4 for $39 at local store. Both cosmetically and optically perfect.
CMur12
Well-known
Not much Minolta love here.
I might note that Minolta and Nikon made their own optical glass. I'm not sure if any other Japanese lens maker did this.
Also, Minolta lenses - at least the MD line - were made to all have the same imaging characteristics (hue, contrast, and such) across the entire lens line. To accomplish this, they varied the multi-coating on different lens element surfaces, unique to each lens. I'm of the impression that most other lens makers, even Zeiss, applied the same multi-coating to all lens surfaces, so I don't know if brands other than Minolta created lens lines with consistent color and contract in all lenses.
- Murray
I might note that Minolta and Nikon made their own optical glass. I'm not sure if any other Japanese lens maker did this.
Also, Minolta lenses - at least the MD line - were made to all have the same imaging characteristics (hue, contrast, and such) across the entire lens line. To accomplish this, they varied the multi-coating on different lens element surfaces, unique to each lens. I'm of the impression that most other lens makers, even Zeiss, applied the same multi-coating to all lens surfaces, so I don't know if brands other than Minolta created lens lines with consistent color and contract in all lenses.
- Murray