Was there ever a "Best" 35mm Film SLR? ... if so, what was it, in your opinion? (Page 16): I have a Nikon FTn, still in working condition. I wouldn't compare it to a modern DSLR on any...

therwol Loc: USA

Chris T wrote:

This one's open ... you can include any manufacturer - past or present. Just trying to get an accurate assessment from everybody who's used them (or, still is ....)

I have a Nikon FTn, still in working condition. I wouldn't compare it to a modern DSLR on any level, but it could do everything a film SLR could do in its day, and probably more than any other one made at the time. The F2 was a worthy refinement. If I were buying a used film SLR today, I would look at a lightly used Nikon F3. That had a run of over 20 years and was the workhorse of the pros, still being sold beyond the F4 era and into the F5 era. That tells you what people thought of it.

adm

weedhook wrote:

My Canon TL-QL may not have been the best, but it had the quickest film loading system and the solid FD mount.

The Canon TL-QL was my first serious camera (at age 15). When it was stolen, I used the insurance money to buy an FT-QL, which had just been discontinued. The only big difference between the FT and the TL was that the TL had only up to a 1/500 shutter speed, as opposed to the 1/1000 on the FT. They were equally well made. These cameras were as solid and well made as the Nikkormat line. However, if I could have known that Canon would change its lens mount 20 years later, I would have gone with the Nikkormat. I actually stayed with Canon until 1999, which was when they stopped supporting the FL lens mount system. At that point, I switched to Nikon and am a Nikon user to this day.

ShooterRod

Canon Pellix. Nothing to break! Mine was with a 50mm f1.2 lens.
A real trail breaker that didn't break any trails because it was a
bad idea, but was at least an attempt at addressing the mirror problems of the time...was also
very quiet. f1.2 WAS trail breaker at that time..It probably wasn't real good
wide open, but Canon was ahead of the game ..good marketing skills. They
sold a lot of that lens, and the following f1.4, which was a comparative
nice lens, also a market leader.

No, I'm not serious that it was the best 35mm I ever owned...but the one
I think about when I think of older 35mm cameras.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Chris T wrote:

This one's open ... you can include any manufacturer - past or present. Just trying to get an accurate assessment from everybody who's used them (or, still is ....)

Nikon F with non metered pentaprism

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

adm wrote:

The Canon TL-QL was my first serious camera (at ag... (show quote)

Yes, well .... nobody knew they would stop supporting the FL mount, OR the FD mount - in favor of EOS ... but when you look back on it, Canon was clearly paving the way for the transformation to Digital ....

It was a speed-bump ... which slowed down traffic, temporarily ... but once you got out in the open once again ... everything flowed faster and more evenly, Adm ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

ShooterRod wrote:

Canon Pellix. Nothing to break! Mine was with a 5... (show quote)

So what was, Rod?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

therwol wrote:

I have a Nikon FTn, still in working condition. I wouldn't compare it to a modern DSLR on any level, but it could do everything a film SLR could do in its day, and probably more than any other one made at the time. The F2 was a worthy refinement. If I were buying a used film SLR today, I would look at a lightly used Nikon F3. That had a run of over 20 years and was the workhorse of the pros, still being sold beyond the F4 era and into the F5 era. That tells you what people thought of it.

The F3 was a fine camera, Therwol ....

I had an F2 ... and a few Fs .... never did get an F3 ....

amazing run ... the various F models had, huh?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wj cody wrote:

Nikon F with non metered pentaprism

Interesting choice, WJ ... just your basic F, huh?

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Chris T wrote:

The F3 was a fine camera, Therwol ....

I had an F2 ... and a few Fs .... never did get an F3 ....

amazing run ... the various F models had, huh?

the F3 with the md 14 motor was the finast ergonomic match of any outboard motor on a camera body. just brilliant. you can see Sean Penn using a titanium F3 in the movie "Walter Mitty". sort of funky, for sure

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Chris T wrote:

Interesting choice, WJ ... just your basic F, huh?

yes. i still have my 1959 f body with the f36 motor which i've continued to use this side of forever. love the damn thing.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wj cody wrote:

the F3 with the md 14 motor was the finast ergonomic match of any outboard motor on a camera body. just brilliant. you can see Sean Penn using a titanium F3 in the movie "Walter Mitty". sort of funky, for sure

How many HP did it have, WJ?

Enough for pulling two skiers, simultaneously?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wj cody wrote:

yes. i still have my 1959 f body with the f36 motor which i've continued to use this side of forever. love the damn thing.

Didn't even realize the original F even offered a motor ... how 'bout that!

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Chris T wrote:

Didn't even realize the original F even offered a motor ... how 'bout that!

yes, it offered 2 models of the f36. the first was tethered to a separate battery pack.

the second had the battery pack attached to the motor for complete freedom of use. the only modification was the bottom "plate" on the F body. the standard one was removed and a modified one put on.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wj cody wrote:

yes, it offered 2 models of the f36. the first was tethered to a separate battery pack.

the second had the battery pack attached to the motor for complete freedom of use. the only modification was the bottom "plate" on the F body. the standard one was removed and a modified one put on.

And, then, later - came the bulk film magazine ... that gave you - what - 250, or was it 500?

therwol Loc: USA

Chris T wrote:

And, then, later - came the bulk film magazine ... that gave you - what - 250, or was it 500?

250.