[Alex645]

I have had my Nikon F3 since new in 1983. Tried others, but they don't even come close.

I've had two F3HP (new) since 1986 and they are gems. But I paid the price because they were my tools of my trade and when you're shooting 12 hours a day, you need that buttery advance lever, high eye point, and the 1/90" manual shutter when the power goes out. Also love the waist level finder sometimes. I would've gone with the LX but I got so much negativity because my prior system had MINOLTA on the pentaprism cover, I just went with Nikon. It's sort of the same thing today if I was a pro, showing up to a set without a Canikony actually affects your perceived value.

Good photographers know the mark is irrelevant, but often the people that hire them don't. The image business; like people and their vehicles.

Back to the F3. It was the third camera and system for me, a serious photographer. For an entry level user, it's overkill. For Nikon, any of their manual focus SLRs would do except the EM.
For Pentax, I think any of the manual focus models would be great except the ME. What's up with those two letters?

[martin42mm]

I've had two F3HP (new) since 1986 and they are gems. But I paid the price because they were my tools of my trade and when you're shooting 12 hours a day, you need that buttery advance lever, high eye point, and the 1/90" manual shutter when the power goes out. Also love the waist level finder sometimes. I would've gone with the LX but I got so much negativity because my prior system had MINOLTA on the pentaprism cover, I just went with Nikon. It's sort of the same thing today if I was a pro, showing up to a set without a Canikony actually affects your perceived value.

Good photographers know the mark is irrelevant, but often the people that hire them don't. The image business; like people and their vehicles.

Back to the F3. It was the third camera and system for me, a serious photographer. For an entry level user, it's overkill. For Nikon, any of their manual focus SLRs would do except the EM.
For Pentax, I think any of the manual focus models would be great except the ME. What's up with those two letters?

I don't seem to recall photographers back in the 60's having issues with the words 'Asahi Pentax' on their pentaprisms, otherwise half of Fleet Steet would have had no photographs to print! In fact many photographers did not 'upgrade' to Spotmatics because firstly, they didn't need through-the-lens metering, and secondly, the pre-Spotmatic cameras could be serviced more quickly since the pulling of the mirror cage was relatively simple if blinds needed attending to. But I suppose employers have short memories, so perhaps all pros should tape over the names on their cameras just to even the playing field up?
As for Pentax cameras, I can recommend ANY mechanical-only model as being reliable and capable of staying that way. The later MX is lovely, but as I outlined, the cords on the blinds can come off which is a pain to fix. The ME Super is pretty reliable electronically, unlike the Nikon EM, but does suffer from wind-on issues when used heavily. The LX is an excellent camera, but still expensive.
I still stand by my first recommendation reagrding a camera that gives complete control over everything,is relaible and is at a reasonable cost, namely the K1000. It is near enough a Spotmatic with a K-mount, and I have never had one fail on me, nor one to repair mechanically, although battery leaks can cause issues as with any camera if care is not taken to check the battery compartment regularly. But even without a meter, it still works 100%! Of course if you are wedded to AF, then you open a different can of worms......but to me an AF camera is not a 'simple SLR', capable of revival at a budget price.

[Lord Lucan]

I would've gone with the LX but I got so much negativity because my prior system had MINOLTA on the pentaprism cover, I just went with Nikon. It's sort of the same thing today if I was a pro, showing up to a set without a Canikony actually affects your perceived value.

What a shame.

For Pentax, I think any of the manual focus models would be great except the ME.

I thought the MV was the low point of Pentax manual focus film cameras, and the MV1 wasn't much better. Aperture priority mode only, like the ME, but not as solidly made (one MV1 reviewer said "fragile") and the viewfinder did not display the shutter speed - an essential with Av mode IMHO.

In order to have a clue what the MV's shutter speed was, one PF reviewer recommended opening the aperture until the red over-exposure light came on (meaning that 1/1000 sec had been reached) and then counting the lens aperture clicks as you stop back down again to estimate how many shutter speeds you were below 1/1000. The MV also lacked exposure compensation except by tweaking the film speed. No thanks.

[martin42mm]

What a shame.


I thought the MV was the low point of Pentax manual focus film cameras, and the MV1 wasn't much better. Aperture priority mode only, like the ME, but not as solidly made (one MV1 reviewer said "fragile") and the viewfinder did not display the shutter speed - an essential with Av mode IMHO.

In order to have a clue what the MV's shutter speed was, one PF reviewer recommended opening the aperture until the red over-exposure light came on (meaning that 1/1000 sec had been reached) and then counting the lens aperture clicks as you stop back down again to estimate how many shutter speeds you were below 1/1000. The MV also lacked exposure compensation except by tweaking the film speed. No thanks.

Again, if you want FULL information on shutter-speed or aperture, go for a 100% manual mechanical Pentax camera. Near enough bullet-proof from a reliability point of view, and not battery-dependent, apart from the meter if fitted. And they will teach starters how the controls interact with each other, including depth of field, and experienced users will have everything they need , except AF and automation.

[Alex645]

I don't seem to recall photographers back in the 60's having issues with the words 'Asahi Pentax' on their pentaprisms, otherwise half of Fleet Steet would have had no photographs to print!

Good point. I was still a kid in the 60s and didn't go pro until the early 80s. What is apparent is that a majority of the SLRs were very good and capable as affordable and entry level. It becomes more apparent is that the iPhone and Androids have replaced "real" cameras with today's youth and the masses. Photo students, hobbyists, and pros are the exception.

[Cerebum]

That is exactly what I thought as well! With the film increasing in price one starts to hesitate before loading it - is the walk/trip worth enough to spend your precious roll? Like a remark by Michael Caine on a seasoned vine: "You cannot drink it, Freddy, it's too valuable", in "Dirty rotten scoundrels" movie . :-)

But on a serious note - probably must be completely unfeasible to attempt making a home-brewed roll of 135 film?

Bulk load I got a bulk loader for £40 and 30m of fomapan200 for £35. Effectively £3.25 per roll. Subsequent rolls are cheaper (£1.75) because the cost of the loader was covered by the first bulk roll. Home dev in coffee and scan with a macro lens and film becomes as cheap as chips

---------- Post added 12-05-22 at 10:53 AM ----------

Re cameras. My MX cost £42, the CLA cost a further £135. I still feel this is cheap for a mint MX. A decent LX will cost £250, whereas, my £25 spotmatic sp is chugging away quite happily and the M42 lenses are gorgeous

[martin42mm]

Bulk load I got a bulk loader for £40 and 30m of fomapan200 for £35. Effectively £3.25 per roll. Subsequent rolls are cheaper (£1.75) because the cost of the loader was covered by the first bulk roll. Home dev in coffee and scan with a macro lens and film becomes as cheap as chips

---------- Post added 12-05-22 at 10:53 AM ----------

Re cameras. My MX cost £42, the CLA cost a further £135. I still feel this is cheap for a mint MX. A decent LX will cost £250, whereas, my £25 spotmatic sp is chugging away quite happily and the M42 lenses are gorgeous

But that was the great thing about film-you treated it as a precious, frame-limited resource , which meant you were careful about composing and exposure, especially with reversal film. If I didn't get 34 out of 36 frames that were 100% spot-on, I was disappointed. We are now spoilt with the digital 'not quite right, do it again' age.

[Alex645]

We are now spoilt with the digital 'not quite right, do it again' age.

Or rather:
a) Not quite right, buy a better camera.
b) Not quite right, fix it in post.
c) Not quite right, I suck; give up.
d) Not quite right, it doesn't matter if I overlay a good meme.

I really thought that digital would have sparked student innovation with way more experimentation than my film students. The opposite has been my experience.

[martin42mm]

Or rather:
a) Not quite right, buy a better camera.
b) Not quite right, fix it in post.
c) Not quite right, I suck; give up.
d) Not quite right, it doesn't matter if I overlay a good meme.

I really thought that digital would have sparked student innovation with way more experimentation than my film students. The opposite has been my experience.

100% correct-more paint doesn't make for a better painting.

[TwoUptons]

Or rather:
a) Not quite right, buy a better camera.
b) Not quite right, fix it in post.
c) Not quite right, I suck; give up.
d) Not quite right, it doesn't matter if I overlay a good meme.

I really thought that digital would have sparked student innovation with way more experimentation than my film students. The opposite has been my experience.

And the film students are likely looking to be innovative, not looking for "how do I set white balance?"

-Eric

[ChrisPlatt]

But my point stands-if you want a reliable K-mount camera at a reasonable price and that feels good to use, buy a Pentax!

I agree with respect to used cameras i.e. give me a used Pentax mechanical model any day.

However Pentax will never make another *new* 35mm film camera; Cosina might (fingers crossed)...

Chris

[richard0170]

Personally I would be prepared to pay around $1000 for a good quality decent SLR like a KX/MX or FM, new give or take. Somewhat less than that for a Cosina type one. As for reliability, all of these should be more than adequate for current day use. It's not as though they are going to get the full press treatment anymore by anyone. Most would only be fired off now and again, as for many purposes which require numerous shots (sports, wildlife, press for example) the marginal cost as well as the immediacy of result of digital make that medium a no brainer. I shoot film these days just for fun or when I travel and on occasion for landscape or still life using 120 film. Those old tanks from Pentax, Nikon, Canon etc are nice to have and to hold and are worth a premium for many because of that, but the cheap Cosina made cameras are still quite nice to use. Once the source of old working cameras dries up a bit I can see a new film camera being offered by someone. At present though, even though prices are going up there are still too many out there to make this viable IMO. However looking at the prices commanded by Voigtlander Bessa models now the time may be closer than you think before we see a new model from someone.

[Digitalis]

looking at the prices commanded by Voigtlander Bessa models now

Really not worth buying as their RF mechanism is prone to getting out of whack rather quickly, better off getting a Zeiss Ikon, Hexar RF or one of Leica's less desirable models: the M4 and M5.

[Cerebum]

But that was the great thing about film-you treated it as a precious, frame-limited resource , which meant you were careful about composing and exposure, especially with reversal film. If I didn't get 34 out of 36 frames that were 100% spot-on, I was disappointed. We are now spoilt with the digital 'not quite right, do it again' age.

It is still a limited resource, but bulk loaders open up the possibility of experimentation. You can make a ten frame roll just to see how the film works, stand developed in rodinal. You still go out with a finite number of frames, each one costing you money, so you still take time on the composition the other restraint is the fact that you can do far less in post. If you mess up the exposure, it stays messed up. Film has changed my approach to digital

You are right about the digital lethargy though. Another factor in this is high quality zooms. Zooms are great but a lot of people who call themselves photographers find a spot to shoot from and don't move, knowing they can crop and it will still be sharp enough. Film photographers get much more of a workout

Re the OP, it could be that firms like Cosina have been put off by the woeful performance of the Yashica kickstarter campaigns. Whilst the first was well supported, the camera wasn't great and the mkii hasn't even made its target. I feel any new film camera would have to be something special to work as a loss leader as opposed to a loss maker. Although, something like my pocketable Ricoh 500 RF rangefinder should be easy enough to produce and it is a belting little camera.

[richard0170]

Really not worth buying as their RF mechanism is prone to getting out of whack rather quickly, better off getting a Zeiss Ikon, Hexar RF or one of Leica's less desirable models: the M4 and M5.

Indeed, I cannot fathom the current prices for them based on their quality, but the point still stands that at those prices (used mind you) for a second tier camera, the closer we might be than we think to seeing a new film model from someone.

---------- Post added 05-13-22 at 07:55 AM ----------

Although, something like my pocketable Ricoh 500 RF rangefinder should be easy enough to produce and it is a belting little camera.

I had not considered the possibility of a Ricoh 500 or even an Olympus Trip like camera, but now you mention it they may well seem to make more commercial sense:-

1. You get the retro vibes which will appeal to a certain type
2. No need to worry about a lens range, just one of about 40-45mm does for everything and a relatively cheap and slow Tessar design can be of great quality and can appeal to enthusiasts.
3. If one foregoes a rangefinder, a zone focused design would be even cheaper to manufacture.

Personally, using my head rather than my heart, my Olympus 35 RC is the most sensible choice for most of the film photography I currently do. Discreet, small and compact, a great little lens, reliable and looks dead cool. I still enjoy my stupidly large range of SLRs too much though!