The film era

What were some of the best cameras back in the film SLR era ? Can anybody who is old enough and has some experience in the field of film photography list a couple of (2 or 3) cameras that were considered 'gold-standard' , high-end, or professional choice, in photography ? What models (and brand) were generally considered 'the best cameras money could buy' in the 80s and 90s, or the kind of cameras that every photographer would have dreamed of ? I am asking for a kind of Canon mkIII or Nikon D1-D3 series equivalent in the old days...

Hi,

Well, try the Leica R6 which was a mechanical SLR and there's the R9 (the latest) but it's difficult to say this or that was the ultimate. Many liked smaller cameras like the Olympus OM1 or the Pentax LX and, so far I've only mentioned 35mm.

There's also LF and MF which covers a wide range from people who used nothing more than a Rolleiflex TLR or the latest one and others who used the Hassleblad or Bronica, then there's the MF Pentaxes and so on.

There's almost as many people in favour of one particular film camera as there are digital. So you'll get votes for the Leica M4 or M6 and the Sinar F... But really there's no one answer to your question.

Have fun.

Regards, David

The kind of camera jingoism we see today didn't really exist back then. Then, as now, there was no such thing as a BAD camera from a major manufacturer, but before the internet, the community of users for a given brand was small and local. So while people had their favorite and would discuss cameras endlessly; there just wasn't as much smug, self satisfied, assery that we see today.

Generally, the legendary brands that people talk about today were the brands people wanted back then.

35 mm? - Leica - any of them, Nikon F - Not so much for Image quality (thiugh that was very good) but for rugged reliability. Contax. Canon? While very good, it was just another 2nd tier manufacturer, along with Pentax, Topcon, and Minolta. Third tier? Cosina, Yasica, Mamiya, Pentacon (E German)

Medium format - Hasselblad, Rollie (TLRs - Slrs not so popular), Second Tier, Mamiya (TLRs, large format RFs), Bronica SLRs. Third tier, Yashica Mat, Minotla Autocord. (These weren't 3rd tier in quality, but they were ending their economic usefulness by the 1960s and their manufacturers were starting to concentrate on 35mm)

To me, third tier doesn't mean lower in quality, they were all pretty good, but they did have lower sales numbers, and weren't considered as 'cool' as the other brands.
--

Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

In the film era, film choices were more critical than a particular brand of camera. And, IMO, pro film bodies were measured by their ability to withstand heavy pro use as opposed to having so many more features than consumers SLRs. But to answer your question, some pro cameras from various companies:

Nikon: F3HP, F4s, F5
Canon: Eos 1n, Eos 1V, F1(older)
Leica: M6, M7, R6-6.2
Olympus: OM-4Ti
Pentax: LX
Contax: RTSI-III

The list is subjective and my opinion only, as I'm sure others can add to the list.

In the period before the war the Zeiss Ikonta was considered one of the best along with the original Rolleiflex for pro–semi pro type work. Newspaper guys used Graflex and most serious photographers would use sheet/plate cameras rather than roll film.

Cameras like the Leica and Contax 35mm were considered expensive toys at first, then improvements in emulsions in the 1930's along with colour films like Agfacolor Neu and Kodachome cemented their popularity with serious amateurs.

After the war Leica bought out their M series cameras and Rollei TLRs seemed to be the choice among many. In the late 1950's Japanese SLR cameras started to show up Pentax I think were first I think the Canon R system came out around that time, but the one most pros adopted was the Nikon F.

Also in the late 1950's the Hasselblad system which is MF SLR became popular, this is the system NASA took to the moon.

In the 1970's cameras with auto and program modes became popular, I think the biggest seller was the Canon AE1 introduced in 1976 I think it sold over 6 million in the 6 years it was in production.

The 1980's saw the appearance of serious AF cameras the first of note being the Minolta 7000 which I believe had an AF system developed by Leica citation needed followed a year later by the Canon EOS 650 which I think was the first USM in the lens motor system..

My gold standard cameras for the film era would be:
Leica IIIg
Leica M3
Nikon F and F2 also SP rangefinder
Canon F1n and A1
Olympus OM1 and OM4Ti
Pentax LX and spotmatic

Hasselblad 500c/m
Rolleiflex F
Mamiya 7 and RB6x7
Zeiss Super Ikonta (special prize for big neg small package)

Lots of large format stuff too, I have always wanted a Gandolfi 8x10....

Hi,

A thought triggered by reading the others' answers was that for years and years a large number used just a Rollieflex TLR, a Weston meter and a Metz flash. Tripods were left behind most of the time (except for weddings) and the lot would be carried around in a bashed and a battered old leather case, usually filled with B&W film... This went on well into the 80's.

The M2 was more popular than the M3 as the M2 took a 35mm lens and that and the 90mm were a well known lightweight outfit. But really it depends on what sort of photography we're talking about. A lot would never leave the studio and had a large 8" x 10" bolted to the building's foundations that took - perhaps - 2 or 3 shots a day...

But the idea of "outfits" as some claim to have these days ie ten lenses, two bodies and a smart fitted case wasn't often seen.

Regards, David

We are still waiting for the digital equivalent of Pentax Spotmatic (cca 1970).
potorog

Glen Barrington said:

The kind of camera jingoism we see today didn't really exist back then. Then, as now, there was no such thing as a BAD camera from a major manufacturer, but before the internet, the community of users for a given brand was small and local. So while people had their favorite and would discuss cameras endlessly; there just wasn't as much smug, self satisfied, assery that we see today.

Generally, the legendary brands that people talk about today were the brands people wanted back then.

35 mm? - Leica - any of them, Nikon F - Not so much for Image quality

Click to expand...

There was not then, nor is there now any such thing as "image quality" in film in that the film and lens used determined what you would get.

Glen Barrington said:

(thiugh that was very good) but for rugged reliability. Contax. Canon? While very good, it was just another 2nd tier manufacturer, along with Pentax, Topcon, and Minolta. Third tier? Cosina, Yasica, Mamiya, Pentacon (E German)

Medium format - Hasselblad, Rollie (TLRs - Slrs not so popular), Second Tier, >

Click to expand...

Glen Barrington said:

To me, third tier doesn't mean lower in quality, they were all pretty good, but they did have lower sales numbers, and weren't considered as 'cool' as the other brands.

Click to expand...

Quiet as its kept ( amongst digiheas that is ), in pure film days IQ ( no such digiterms or digishorthand bacl then ) meant lens quality and the film used, camera be dimmed.

What killed most old film cameras was their short (les than 50,000 snaps) shutter lives.

Canon F1 and F1n's . . . yesteryears equivalent of todays 1DSMrkIIII or Nikon D3/3x.

I bought this camera in 1974 when I was 14 (still have it):



I bought this camera in December of 1989 (still have it):



And had two others in between (they were stolen) . . .

They just don't build cameras like these anymore.

My secondary (AKA - backup cameras) were two of these (still have them both):



--
J. D.
Colorado

I do understand its a Jeep thing . . . thats why I bought a Dodge!

You asked... for the best cameras that professionals used back then.

For 35mm SLRs, that would mean Leica R, Canon F1, Nikon F.

But just like now, the thing that made a camera "professional" was feature set and build quality. Because if you mount a poor lens on a professional camera you won't get any better results than if you mounted it on a cheap camera.

There is no sensor in a film camera. The film is the sensor. And the lab was your "processing engine."The camera is just a light sealed box, with some buttons and dials on it.

So if you put the same film in a professional Nikon F4 and a consumer grade Nikon FE, and used the same lens on both, and had them processed by the same lab, then you will get exactly the same result.

I've never owned a professional grade camera. But the "best film cameras" I own arre the Leica M3 and the Minolta XD/11.
--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
Olympus E-30
Zuiko 9-18mm
Zuiko 14-54mm II
Zuiko 40-150mm I
Zuiko 70-300mm
Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 macro

Film is still widely available today if you buy over the internet and the choices have never been so large. A lot of magazine covers are still shot with film!

Have a look at what B&H in New York sells:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Film-Tapes-Media/ci/1731/N/4294540609

Here's one photographer shooting film:
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/

As for cameras:
MF:
Hasselblad,
Mamyia 6, Mamya 7, Mamiya 645, Mamiya RB67, RZ67, Mamiya C series (C2 to C330s)
Rolleiflex series
Pentax 67,
Bronica SQ, SQA, ETR, ETRS, ETRSI. RF645

35MM
Leica R, Leica M
Nikon F1 to F6, Nikon FM series
Canon EOS series

--
Villebon

Pre 1930's (Ancient History even to this old dinosaur)

The 30s to the 50's (the intro of 35mm with medium format dominant for both amateur and pro),

The 1950's (the intro of SLR's with the decline of consumer grade MF)

The 1960's (The ascendency of 35mm film technology - film gets better, the first really usable 35mm SLRs, MF as a healthy but niche pro market),

the 1970's to the mid to late 1980's (film gets really good, Canon in ascendency, Nikon forced to share it's niche with Canon, Leica becoming less relevant to the industry as a whole, withdrawal and consolidation of 2nd/3rd tier manufacturers, the awareness that the medium format manufacturers are in some serious trouble.)

Your original question is almost too broad.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

Glen: I've specified towards the end of my original post that I was researching about the 80s-90s period, or the 'late' film-era, before the introduction of digital.

The replies however made me understand, that the question was not very well formulated because of me not realizing that with film, the importance of the body is diminished considerably, the film used being somewhat equivalent with the sensor of a DSLR, so the question should have probably been about a camera-film combo.

Thanks for the replies everybody

Hi,

Well, yes and no.

The lenses were pretty specific to each body and some lenses were one body only. Plus lens were often made for one film or - perhaps it would be truer to say - each film and lens gave a slightly different result.

But you didn't get millions of adapters like you do today with digital. Plus a lot of cameras we know today weren't availbe everywhere then. I've a 50's Fedf'instance and the Fed's export varied from country to country. So you'll also get replies from (say) people in the USA that totally trash the replies from us in Europe. There's not many Arguses about in Europe and we'd look to Germany for several cameras that had USA built counterparts.

Also, I know several people from the USA who couldn't believe that we had the same make equipment that they did as our version was clearly superior. I won't mention any names but several firms had factories in Europe and the USA.

Regards, David

the_aDb said:

What were some of the best cameras back in the film SLR era ? Can anybody who is old enough and has some experience in the field of film photography list a couple of (2 or 3) cameras that were considered 'gold-standard' , high-end, or professional choice, in photography ? What models (and brand) were generally considered 'the best cameras money could buy' in the 80s and 90s, or the kind of cameras that every photographer would have dreamed of ? I am asking for a kind of Canon mkIII or Nikon D1-D3 series equivalent in the old days...

Click to expand...

The film counterpart to the Canon EOS 1D-series digital bodies was the Canon EOS 1V film body.



The 1V is on the left, the 1D is on the right:

The phrase

the_adb said:

'the best cameras money could buy' in the 80s and 90s, or the kind of cameras that every photographer would have dreamed of "

Click to expand...

simply did not apply to a 35mm film camera in the eighties to me or the clients I dealt with. MF derived contact sheets were easier for clients to evaluate. The difference between an image shot on 35mm film compared to the same image shot on 120 then each blown up to 20" x 24" was vast.

AgfaPan 100 was always AgfaPan 100 whether it was cut to 35mm size or 120 or 4x5 sheets. Bigger insured better IQ.

Hasselblads, Mamiya RB/RZ 67 and Pentax 67 were the names I grew up to. Pentax 67's are out of production but still being used today for everything from Vanity Fair editorials to major advertising campaigns.

As for film, for me it was/is: B&W AgfaPan 100 Ilford 125 and Across Neopan 100. Color Fujichrome Velvia 50 / Provia 100/ Astia 100.

the_aDb said:

Glen: I've specified towards the end of my original post that I was researching about the 80s-90s period, or the 'late' film-era, before the introduction of digital.

The replies however made me understand, that the question was not very well formulated because of me not realizing that with film, the importance of the body is diminished considerably, the film used being somewhat equivalent with the sensor of a DSLR, so the question should have probably been about a camera-film combo.

Thanks for the replies everybody

Click to expand...

You are right, the choice of film played quite a significant part as well as the camera & lenses in terms of the choices photographers made to try and get the results they sought.

From a purely personal point of view I used Kodachrome 25 initially and at some point switched to Fuji Velvia or Provia. FWIW in the 80's I used a Nikon FM, then an FE2 and then when seduced by AF a Nikon F801 and later an F4. In retrospect the FE2 was probably my favourite.

Shay

Not pro and not AF, but with a production run that lasted almost two decades, when most other cameras came and went, it belongs up there with Nikon's F-3 and F5, which many consider the top of manual focus and autofocus of all times.

The Dynax 9 is also a very fine camera, but, like the F-6, it doesn't have exchangeable viewfinders.

Back in late manual focus days there were Pentax LX (Roman numerals for 60, the anniversary it celebrated), Olympus OM-4, Minolta XM Motor (known by other names as well), Nikon F-3, Canon F-1 and, of course the German Leica R's and Voigtländer (later manufactured by Yashica).

Then came computerisation and AF, boosted by the Minolta 7000. The first pro-level, modern AF camera body was the Minolta 9000, which became the second camera for many professionals, irrespective of the dominant attitude at the time that AF was not for serious pros.

Hi Glen,

Good overview. Let me finish your story as I see it.

Glen Barrington said:

the 1970's to the mid to late 1980's (film gets really good, Canon in ascendency, Nikon forced to share it's niche with Canon, Leica becoming less relevant to the industry as a whole, withdrawal and consolidation of 2nd/3rd tier manufacturers, the awareness that the medium format manufacturers are in some serious trouble.)

Click to expand...

1980's: the SLR race: Canon and Nikon start a performance race for faster AF, better light metering and faster shutter speeds. Where in 1980 the cameras did 1/1000s or 1/2000s, by the 1990s they did 1/8000s. Second/third tier brands either try to follow (e.g. Minolta), try other ways to innovate (Olympus) or give it up altogether.

1990's: the brands get bored of the SLR race, because they've basically invented all they could do with a film SLR. The attention switches back to small cameras and some very nice "snob cameras" are introduced. Google the Nikon 28Ti, Ricoh GR, Minolta TC-1 and enjoy a selection of tiny, but very high quality cameras.

If you're into 1980's or 1990's cameras, you can go 3 ways. Either you seek out the classics that came before the big races (Olympus OM-4Ti, Nikon F3, Minolta X700, ...), or you look at the race models (Minolta 7000, Nikon F5, Canon EOS-1, ...), or you take a look at the compacts, which are very much worth your time and money as well.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens

Hi,

All this assumes the photographer was equiping himself in the 80's or 90's. But an ex-student starting out would be strapped for cash and someone at the top would be on a retainer and probably with an advance royalty. So we are covering a wide range.

And one or two students didn't bother with up-grading their camera. About three years ago I was watching a "pro" setting up in town (yelling at assistants about the lights covers it in detail) and there was a K1000 on the tripod...

And others would own and use a couple and hire the rest for a day or two. They still do.

And a lot of the time we had no say in it, slide might be specified and such and such a make for repro or very contrasty B&W...

Regards, David