What makes one SLR any better than another?

Southdowns

Southdowns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,820
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not comparing formats here, just 35mm SLRs. With a DSLR, the sensor and the processing engine are going to differ from one camera model to the next, so you'd expect the results to differ too, but given the same film, and glass of equal quality, isn't a film SLR just a box to hold a lens in front of a film?

In other words, if I was choosing an SLR, would it really matter which one I went for if IQ was the criteria?

I understand that features will vary (but do they vary much, as much as DSLR's do, between SLR's of the same vintage?), and build quality also, but for IQ is it possible to tell a Canon from a Nikon from an Olympus from a Minolta, etc etc etc?

I ask because a) I've just bought an SLR on a whim without knowing much about it, and can't see how its entry level (as far as I can tell) IQ is going to differ from a top of the range SLR's IQ (all other things being equal), and b) because at some stage I'd like to make a more considered purchase, and can't work out what I'd look for to achieve best IQ?

Or maybe with film, IQ is only a consideration when buying a lens or film, not when looking at bodies/manufacturers?
 
Assumming the filmplane is good and the lightmeter is of a similar standard then it's just a light tight box, if you put all the bangs and whistles aside it's all about the lens really. Later entry level cameras were much less likely to have manual overides and the camera would effectively make all the decisions whereas earlier entry level cameras had no aides like built in lightmeters and you had to make all the decisions.
 
Largely just a box, but of course there are numerous factors that separate SLR bodies on quality, some of which do have an impact on image quality or versatility:

film flatness
frame spacing accuracy
build quality/reliability
fast shutter speeds
long exposure functionality
accurate shutter speeds
flash sync speed
features (self timer, multiple exposures etc)
metering accuracy, esp in low light there can be a big difference in accuracy
metering features (flash metering, matrix metering, spot metering etc etc)
system compatibility (pro bodies often have interchangeable viewfinders, focusing screens, motordrives, myriad other accessories etc)
AF speed/quality
exposure modes (P, S, A, M)
mirror damping etc - better cameras usually have better damping so you get fewer vibrations through the body which can affect image quality
mirror lock up (to avoid these vibrations completely) - often only on high end bodies

and no doubt much more besides.

But nobody can really tell the difference betwen photos taken on a Leica or a Praktica, if both are in good working order, especially if they had the same piece of glass stuck to the front.
 
...and there is ease of use and ergonomics of the different manufacturers.
Not forgetting that Contax was the best!
Some of their later models had a vacuum function to flatten the film which I don't think any other maker did?

To add to the list above: changeable focus screens
 
Last edited:
Battery independence/dependence is another criteria.

And of course, the most subjective one, how it feels in the hand!
 
kendo1 said:
Some of their later models had a vacuum function to flatten the film which I don't think any other maker did?
Click to expand...

In 35mm? I know it was an option for the 645 medium format camera.

EDIT: It would appear that the RTS III could have a vacuum back.

Anyway, the Nikon F is the best 35mm SLR ever! No bells or whistles, just a box to keep the darkness in and a lens mount.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You guys forgot to mention the word "poser"....you'd get some smirks if you turned up at a camera club with a MTL3. :cool:
 
on autofocus models how good the AF is would be key - for me the Eos 3 was hard to beat
 
to me lens availability is paramount and being able to use the same lenses as my dslr rather than buying separate lenses so thats why i went with a nikon fm2 - very basic but does the job!
 
Steve Smith said:
In 35mm? I know it was an option for the 645 medium format camera.

EDIT: It would appear that the RTS III could have a vacuum back.

Anyway, the Nikon F is the best 35mm SLR ever! No bells or whistles, just a box to keep the darkness in and a lens mount.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the F2 is a bit better, but we can probably agree that they're both tremendous cameras :D.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I would argue that the F2 is a bit better, but we can probably agree that they're both tremendous cameras.
Click to expand...

If I had an F2, I might agree (I have two Fs). However, I think it says a lot for the F that when the F2 was introduced in 1971, Nikon continued to make the F, which was already a twelve year old design, for another three years due to demand, finally phasing it out in 1974.

It's hard to imagine a digital camera design lasting a couple of years but the F managed fifteen and the F2 another nine.

I think the F3 did best though, lasting from 1980 to 2001, continuing to be available when the F4 and F5 were introduced.



Steve.
 
F2 shades it agreed, but having both, I would struggle to part with either.

Back to the original question. I get the vibe that as 35mm SLR's go, Nikon tend to be more reliable than Canon. Not sure how others feel about that? Canon cough is common with the AE's, & the T90 has a common EEE problem. I am not aware of anything similar widespread with Nikons of that era beyond the foams turning to goo. Later Nikons can have problems with the rubber coating getting sticky. Annoying as it is, it doesn't stop the camera working though I guess.

A lot comes down to what you are planning to shoot. it will tell you what features you need in the camera & allow you to narrow the choice.
 
Steve Smith said:
Anyway, the Nikon F is the best 35mm SLR ever! No bells or whistles, just a box to keep the darkness in and a lens mount.
Steve.
Click to expand...

TheGreatSoprendo said:
I would argue that the F2 is a bit better, but we can probably agree that they're both tremendous cameras :D.
Click to expand...


Hi, My first 35mm SLR was a "Nikon F" which I've still got and it still works perfectly. I also still have a "Nikon F2" which also still works perfectly. Both are terrific cameras to use and are built like tanks but If I had to choose between them I'd prefere the F2. For me it's every bit as good as the F just more refined.

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Both are terrific cameras to use and are built like tanks but If I had to choose between them I'd prefere the F2. For me it's every bit as good as the F just more refined.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think I should get an F2... then I think I should stop buying cameras as I have far too many!


Steve.
 
The later F2 bodies, or rather finders, SB and AS, have meters as accurate as anything made today (within their centre-weighted limitations), and will meter down to -2 EV! I think the F2 production also spilled into the F3 era, as many pros took a while to trust a camera that needed batteries. I agree that the F2 was a refinement of the F, with slightly better ergonomics, easier loading, and a faster shutter. But there's not a big difference otherwise, except in the metering as mentioned. I had F through to F4 but kept only the F2 (see separate thread about GAS!). Sorry to hijack the thread, but in any case whatever the question, the answer is F2AS :-)
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
You guys forgot to mention the word "poser"....you'd get some smirks if you turned up at a camera club with a MTL3. :cool:
Click to expand...

or my olympus trip 35 filles with Velvia Slide Fillum
 
Yeah, exactly the same thing happened with the F2 when the F3 came out - the F was a fantastic camera, although only really groundbreaking in the sense that it brought lots of other innovations into one single package, but the F2 was a refinement of that - which is often why it is referred to as the ultimate mechanical film camera.

The F3 is a wonderful camera, and actually the camera I choose to take over the F2 (aperture priority!), but shooting with the F2 is very rewarding.
 
One other feature that hasn't been mentioned (I think) is the availablility of a motor drive - or even a winder. I haven't quite got used to the idea of film cameras with auto focus etc. as I stopped in 1984 with the OM4. If a camera can take a motor drive, it says something about the build quality, as well the possibility of wasting film more quickly. Add in interchangeable backs - both in terms of 250 exposure backs and interchangeable in the sense of swapping film like most medium format cameras - and you have a couple of other features.

Size and weight might matter - that was tipped me from a Nikon F2 to an OM1 when I had to change systems. The thing I really missed on the OM cameras was a waist level finder.

Although image quality is largely independent of the body, ease of use isn't; and if one camera is easier to use than another, the chances are that the photographs it produces will be better, because of the effect on the photographer.
 
I loved my F3 too but it was sacrificed as part of the cull, along with the F, F4, FE2 and others. I've always favoured shooting in A too but decided to be ruthless, can still do so with the F100 even though in a less traditional way. I do think F2s will generally outlive F3s too if looked after, since F3s are reliant on electronics which do fail, and it's not uncommon to have shutter problems (my previous F3 suffered with shutter lag and didn't expose the frame properly). If you get shutter or electronics problems it's probably scrap, like most cameras. The F2 just instills confidence in a way few cameras can, and everything about it is repairable, just about. The meters can be unreliable with ring resistor wear problems (like Nikkormats) but mine has Sover Wong's super-duper replacement resistor with lifetime guarantee (I guess that's the shorter of his life or mine!!).
 
Thanks for all the replies, which make complete sense to me. It's interesting about the film plain/flatness, as I'd assumed that above a very low price threshold, that'd be a given. I'm guessing you'd have to be very unlucky to see any issues with that on any decent quality SLR?

Anyway, I'm having fun already with my purchase (still to see the first results though), and will keep looking out for bargains :)
 
Southdowns said:
It's interesting about the film plain/flatness, as I'd assumed that above a very low price threshold, that'd be a given. I'm guessing you'd have to be very unlucky to see any issues with that on any decent quality SLR?
Click to expand...

Other than exotic things like vacuum plates, just about every SLR uses the same method for getting the film as flat as possible. There is a sprung film pressure plate which despite its name, doesn't impart any pressure on the film.

The springs hold it against a pair of raised rails above and below the film. This leaves a fixed gap which will be just slightly larger than the film thickness between the pressure plate and another pair of raised rails at the film's edges.

Basically, it provides a narrow slot for the film to pass through. As I said, the pressure plate doesn't actually put pressure on the film. If it did, it would be difficult to overcome its friction when winding on.

EDIT: Like this... http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/...ameras/nikonf/fbody/images/illusfilmplate.gif

Southdowns said:
Anyway, I'm having fun already with my purchase (still to see the first results though), and will keep looking out for bargains
Click to expand...

So what did you get? (If you did tell us, I must have missed it).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Hi Steve, I posted it in the "Holga and other......" thread, but I'm not sure that's the right place. I got a Minolta SPxi, 70 - 210 Sigma UL, 35 - 80 Sigma DL, TTL flash, bag, battery and two rolls of film for £35 :)
 
Last edited:
Personal preference and the features you need determine what camera to buy - broadly speaking, all 35mm SLR cameras will take identical photos with a similar lens (e.g pretty sure ALL manufacturers made approximately a 50mm f/2 type lens) so the only reason to choose a particular one is personal needs or brand preference :)

But yeah, Nikon F <3
 
Don't go anywhere near Nikon F2's they needed all sorts of attachments just to do what other cameras could do as routinely.
If you want to use a flash you have to buy a bracket that fits on top of the film rewind knob then you cannot get to the rewind knob to use it!
The photomic head had a light meter that used the light from a little hole on top of it to illuminate the exposure needle in the viewfinder.If it was dark or even dull the needle was not visable in the viewfinder so you had to buy a contraption with a built in light that screwed onto the viewfinder eyepiece and went on top of the photomic head! If you wanted to use a cable release you had to buy a connector that screwed into the rim of the shutter release button so a cable release could be attached!
I could not get rid of mine fast enough.I once viewed a Nikon F2SB (1977) very rear because in short it was utter rubbish and discontinued and replaced by the Nikon F2A or F2AS.The Nikon F2SB had an LED meter readout in the viewfinder that was so bad it could not be read. The only one that was reasonable was the F2AS as it had the LED read out for the meter.

As regards Contax they had one major flaw.When the camera was being used in Shutter priority if you changed the lens it reverted back to a default of aperture priority so you had to reset it to shutter priority every time you changed a lens!.Needless to say that I got rid of that quicker than the Nikon F2.

The cameras I found excellent where the Olympus OM1 and the Canon T90.
 
shapeshifter said:
Don't go anywhere near Nikon F2's they needed all sorts of attachments just to do what other cameras could do as routinely.
If you want to use a flash you have to buy a bracket that fits on top of the film rewind knob then you cannot get to the rewind knob to use it!
The photomic head had a light meter that used the light from a little hole on top of it to illuminate the exposure needle in the viewfinder.If it was dark or even dull the needle was not visable in the viewfinder so you had to buy a contraption with a built in light that screwed onto the viewfinder eyepiece and went on top of the photomic head! If you wanted to use a cable release you had to buy a connector that screwed into the rim of the shutter release button so a cable release could be attached!
I could not get rid of mine fast enough.I once viewed a Nikon F2SB (1977) very rear because in short it was utter rubbish and discontinued and replaced by the Nikon F2A or F2AS.The Nikon F2SB had an LED meter readout in the viewfinder that was so bad it could not be read. The only one that was reasonable was the F2AS as it had the LED read out for the meter.

As regards Contax they had one major flaw.When the camera was being used in Shutter priority if you changed the lens it reverted back to a default of aperture priority so you had to reset it to shutter priority every time you changed a lens!.Needless to say that I got rid of that quicker than the Nikon F2.

The cameras I found excellent where the Olympus OM1 and the Canon T90.
Click to expand...

:canon: but have to say I'm liking my Nikon f90X, but who knows a Canon EOS AF camera might have been better...well I ain't going to buy one to find out so I'll never know.
 
What makes a good SLR camera?, IMO, a reliable full manual and mechanical body (no batteries needed), a little bit heavy for stability, with a big and bright viewfinder, and also with the most compatible mount system, like the M42 screw mount, with it you will have a large variety of prime lenses, brands and prices to choose from. And, please, don't follow any particular brand, a well made camera it's such regardless of the brand.
 
^ that's a nice ideal to not follow a specific brand, but apart from the M42 mount, there were very few other widely adopted lens mounts so buying into a system necessitates a bit of brand selection regardless. No doubt, a well-made camera is such regardless, but unfortunately practicalities do take precedence!
 
I never came across a problem with Contax and shutter priority.
But there again I've always used aperture priority... :) (or manual!)

I was bought into Contax and Yashica lenses so I didn't have much option about following a brand.
 
freecom2 said:
^ that's a nice ideal to not follow a specific brand, but apart from the M42 mount, there were very few other widely adopted lens mounts so buying into a system necessitates a bit of brand selection regardless. No doubt, a well-made camera is such regardless, but unfortunately practicalities do take precedence!
Click to expand...

I agree with you, my father gave me his old Yashica FR1 and now I have to follow the Contax mount system, and it's ok, Contax/Yashica have great cámeras and lenses. But for a person who wants to start from zero, my recommendation is to use a widely adopted mount system like M42, and then if this person wants to follow a particular brand for the body or lenses, ok, there's nothing wrong with that.

IMO, the most important thing here is to have as many options possible to choose from and don't be tied by a specific type or brand, sadly, that is only possible with M42.

Note aside: Mark, if you want the best camera ever, buy a Contax IIa with a set of Carl Zeiss lenses, and problem solved. :D
 
It is such an open question is this, there are loads of variants, my personal fave is the Nikon FE2 and FM2 as it all fits my hand, the place I like the controls.
Also things like maintenance, I can clean/replace the focus screens and keep then tip top. Also light seals are easy. The lenses are good and reasonable priced.

Also they will hold there value into the future as that is also important for me.
 
If you're not after autofocus, and autodiaphragm isn't too important, you can use adaptors to mount lenses for one system onto another. It all depends on the flange to focal plane distance of the camera body, and from that point of view, Canon are the most flexible because their bodies are thin enough to allow the extra extension needed by an adaptor.

From reading this forum though, it seems most people have enough bodies to accept any lens ever made :D
 
Can't let the 'don't go near a Nikon F2' comment pass... :-)

They are of course simple mechanical cameras without bells and whistles but then you could say the same thing about most Leicas, Hasselblads or Rolleis.

I would advise caution when buying any of the above, given their age and price variation, and common need for servicing, but they are highly valued for good reason.
 
The FM2 was a brilliant camera but F2 / F3 were defining cameras in Nikons History.

I always used to back-wind the film, just taking up the tension in the sprocket so It was taught.
 
StephenM said:
From reading this forum though, it seems most people have enough bodies to accept any lens ever made :D
Click to expand...

....because the silly Japanese camera makers couldn't sit around a table and agree on a universal mount :( and the Germans might have joined them.
 
taut :)
 
excalibur2 said:
....because the silly Japanese camera makers couldn't sit around a table and agree on a universal mount :( and the Germans might have joined them.
Click to expand...

Fair's fair - the Edixa mount was taken up by Asahi and used by many other companies until the world went bayonet mad; the Ricoh Singlex caused a stir at the time by using a Nikon bayonet; and Topcon chose to go with the Exakta bayonet mount. The successor to the Edixa screw, the K mount, was used by quite a few people.

The mount wars went back at least to the Leica screw (self tightening, no play) and the Contax bayonet (quick change, fixed distance for accuracy). I make no clains to support either of these reasons/arguments, so don't shoot me.
 
excalibur2 said:
....because the silly Japanese camera makers couldn't sit around a table and agree on a universal mount :( and the Germans might have joined them.
Click to expand...

Does it matter though? If one stumbles across an interesting lens but doesn't have a body for it, it'll cost all of a few pounds to get a functional body in the correct mount; it might not be top of the line but if it was a system one was actually interested in one would probably already have a good body for it.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
Does it matter though? If one stumbles across an interesting lens but doesn't have a body for it, it'll cost all of a few pounds to get a functional body in the correct mount; it might not be top of the line but if it was a system one was actually interested in one would probably already have a good body for it.
Click to expand...

Not much of a problem now, but when cameras weren't cheap :(...... but the way I look at it is:- giving the public what they want and not what a manufacturer decides for you....why they thought that the only camera uses are the ones who don't wear spectacles, I'll never understand as what would be the extra cost to put an easy diopter adjustment wheel on all but the very cheapest cameras. I knew there was a reason to get the Nikon F100 as the F90x I've just got, doesn't have a diopter wheel :( h'mm and Canon's top of the range T90 doesn't have one either..outrageous :(
At last they have woken up as quite a few people use the digital Nex as it can take nearly any lens......but I suppose in the past the big makes thought they could knock out the competition (and indeed quite a few cease trading e.g. Konica) and then there would be no point in a universal mount (sorta like microsoft in the computing world).
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
I suppose in the past the big makes thought they could knock out the competition (and indeed quite a few cease trading e.g. Konica) and then there would be no point in a universal mount (sorta like microsoft in the computing world).
Click to expand...

Not quite - they weren't seeking to knock out the competition just to lock you in to their system. Still happening to this day - I shoot a Canon DSLR but if I wanted to switch to Nikon/Olympus/Sony/Etc I'd have to get a complete new set of lenses as well as the body. This makes it much more likely that my next upgrade will be another Canon, which is great for Canon because it means more money in their pocket rather than losing it to somebody else.

This is also why the little guys and new brands are much more keen to share lens mounts. They don't need to worry about losing their user-base and it makes it easier for them to steal users from others.
 
"excalibur2, post: 6213817, member: 17847"]Not much of a problem now, but when cameras weren't cheap :(...... but the way I look at it is:- giving the public what they want and not what a manufacturer decides for you....why they thought that the only camera uses are the ones who don't wear spectacles, I'll never understand as what would be the extra cost to put an easy diopter adjustment wheel on all but the very cheapest cameras. I knew there was a reason to get the Nikon F100 as the F90x I've just got, doesn't have a diopter wheel :( h'mm and Canon's top of the range T90 doesn't have one either..outrageous :(
At last they have woken up as quite a few people use the digital Nex as it can take nearly any lens......but I suppose in the past the big makes thought they could knock out the competition (and indeed quite a few cease trading e.g. Konica) and then there would be no point in a universal mount (sorta like microsoft in the computing world).
Click to expand...

But when cameras weren't cheap each of the manufacturers would have produced a range of lenses comparable to each other and third parties would have a made their lenses in each mount so it still wouldn't matter. The only way manufacturers really had to discriminate their products was the quality of the glass.

What would have been nice were bodies only made by one group of manufactures and lenses only by another so there was no manufacturer lock in either way. A bit like large format.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top