[redbirdpete]

I put in my review of the Z-1p that if I was forced to have only one film SLR that would be it. And then I thought about it a bit more.

The Z-1p does absolutely everthing I'd want in a film camera. I have one that works perfectly. I have another that works perfectly well but has some cosmetic damage. And a Z-1 that works perfectly except for a faded (but still legible) viewfinder display. So , given I'm in my mid 60's , they should last me out. But that's not sticking strictly to the rules, is it? If I had just the one Z-1p and it went wrong, who would fix it?

Would i in fact be better off with my SV or my K2? Both hopefully being repairable way into the future - maybe, in fact the SV best of all as so many spare parts still about?

My ME-F would have the same criticisms as the Z-1p - as long as I have a supply of backups and spares OK, but a limited number of people who could fix it, and anyway like all the M series (except the MX) it is a little bit delicate - I've had to have it repaired several times.

And anyway - which is the best, and which do I enjoy using the most? Different slant again. Maybe the older cameras score here - the Z-1p is a wonderful piece of mass produced electronics, but the SV, my Electro, and the K2 are tools that give a different kind of pleasure as well as, 95% of the time, being able to take a picture just as well as the Z-1's. . .

What do you all think? Rules are - One SLR to last you the rest of your days. Repairs allowed, spare cameras not.

---

Last edited by redbirdpete; 11-19-2021 at 08:12 AM.

[termy]

If "bending" the "rules" is allowed (as in "interpretation" of it).

Then my choice will be >>

A) for manual focus Pentax film SLR, the LX will be it.

B) for AF film SLR.
MZ-S will be it (was a tussle between MZ-S and MZ-3 and MZ-L)

[cpk]

First choice, the LX; barring that, the MX. Of course, these are the two I have; other than the K1000, I haven't used any other Pentax SLRs.

[Wheatfield]

I put in my review of the Z-1p that if I was forced to have only one film SLR that would be it. And then I thought about it a bit more.

The Z-1p does absolutely everthing I'd want in a film camera. I have one that works perfectly. I have another that works perfectly well but has some cosmetic damage. And a Z-1 that works perfectly except for a faded (but still legible) viewfinder display. So , given I'm in my mid 60's , they should last me out. But that's not sticking strictly to the rules, is it? If I had just the one Z-1p and it went wrong, who would fix it?

Would i in fact be better off with my SV or my K2? Both hopefully being repairable way into the future - maybe, in fact the SV best of all as so many spare parts still about?

My ME-F would have the same criticisms as the Z-1p - as long as I have a supply of backups and spares OK, but a limited number of people who could fix it, and anyway like all the M series (except the MX) it is a little bit delicate - I've had to have it repaired several times.

And anyway - which is the best, and which do I enjoy using the most? Different slant again. Maybe the older cameras score here - the Z-1p is a wonderful piece of mass produced electronics, but the SV, my Electro, and the K2 are tools that give a different kind of pleasure as well as, 95% of the time, being able to take a picture just as well as the Z-1's. . .

What do you all think? Rules are - One SLR to last you the rest of your days. Repairs allowed, spare cameras not.

Nikon F2s.

[AlwaysAl]

Along the trail, enjoyed the ME-F (before it succumbed to electronic failure) some p-3's and P-30s that were basic and functional (punishing the electronic gods for what the did to my ME-F) Finally found true love with the MZ-S and it continues to bring me pleasure. Whether the memories of the acquisition (finding one), the feel, the sound, the functionality and the look. It's still got it.

[redrockcoulee]

Nikon F2s.

If not Pentax i would go for the Hasselblad 500 CM. Love that camera.

For 35mm i have settled on the MX. Simple, small and beautiful.

[dms]

Either of following, They do everything I need in a film camera, including (I believe) easily repairable, and a donor body for parts is likely cheap/easy to get.
-- Nikon FM-2
-- Pentax K-1000 (given it has the unadvertised mirror up ability)

[gofour3]

What do you all think? Rules are - One SLR to last you the rest of your days. Repairs allowed, spare cameras not.

Pentax KX, still using mine after 45+ years. I have over 30 Pentax film cameras and even though there are technically better cameras than the KX, it's still the best overall when you factor in reliability, features, build and so on.

Phil.

[Wheatfield]

If not Pentax i would go for the Hasselblad 500 CM. Love that camera.

For 35mm i have settled on the MX. Simple, small and beautiful.

I was being a bit 35mm centric there. In reality, I would probably go back to large format, probably a Wisner or similar 8x10 field camera.

[garywakeling]

Hmmmm my signature shows my bias, I do love my Z1 but I must have the optional grip on it. How lovely are the LX, great over the decades, so many choices for customising it through viewfinders, backs, motor drives and flashes. However, the first roll of film through the old professional workhorse, the immersive feel of the large 6x7cm negative means I would chose a late model 67II, clunk

[Wasp]

Make mine an LX or an MX. I used both back in the day and each has its own appeal. These days, an MX is probably the better bet - not as delicate...

[From1980]

My first impression was that this was intended for 35mm film and I was about to give another shout out for the LX. But then I saw the Hasselblad post and I'm torn between that LX and the Pentax 645NII.

[jopenmx]

I agree with redbirdpete: my first choice should be my wonderful Z-1p , it was my first Pentax camera ( coming from Nikon ) , very advanced for its time and yet in perfect shape and order , after 22 years.
As a manual camera ( not AF ) , i would choose my LX .

[Alex645]

What do you all think? Rules are - One SLR to last you the rest of your days. Repairs allowed, spare cameras not.

645Nii

I have had a 645 for 35 years and a 645N for about 15 years. I don't feel like I need the 645Nii, but if I had to scale down to one SLR only and forever, then it would be the 645Nii (which I don't own).

[redbirdpete]

I never quite got the MX - in fact I had one and gave it away to a son of a friend who was taking a photographic course. For me the KX (I had one back then, it was stolen) or the K2 are far better cameras.

The LX is in a different class. I have never had one so can't directly compare. Ditto the top end MZ's, but on paper they don't compare to the Z-1p, and there is the reliability issue. I can't see any good reason I'd pay out for any of them given the Z's.

I was thinking of a 35mm SLR, true. No experience of the more professional cameras outside of that.

And anyway it's only a bit of fun to pass a tolerably miserable November night - We no doubt all have our own favourites and reasons therefore, but that's what enthusiasm is all about.