Budget SLR decision ?
Hello, i have been using my fed4 with broken light meter and leaky door for a year or so now due to my massive poorness and the fact it was £2 however i really dislike the paralax focusing so now i am in the market for a replacement, perhaps with better focusing and a few more settings.
i am however shopping on a tiny budget, as much as i would love to buy a leica or a voightlander but my current choices are stuck between
Olympus OM-10 and the Canon AE-1, basically anything i can buy on ebay for under £100
since my knowledge of slrs is somewhat limited i was hoping someone could guide me on which choice is best.
ideally i would like a light meter or program/av, a good range of shutter speeds 1/50 - 1/1000 or higher would be ideal.
Personally i think they are poor choices, less reliable, too much electronics and auto functions.
I'd go for a Pentax Spotmatic II or F but if you want newer a KM, KX or smaller MX. I paid £25 for my Spotmatic F and it's mint :D Lenses are very plentiful at good prices.
Skip the OM-10 and go after the AE-1. I've been an Olympus shooter since before they made the OM-1 and own several OM-1's and OM-4's. I bought a couple of OM-10's when they first came out and they were junk. They are low quality entry level consumer grade cameras with plastic internals instead of brass. I picked up an AE-1 for my daughter, I'd buy several more. Much better quality and finish plus high quality lenses for cheap. I also picked up an AV-1 and T70 for her along with lenses and assorted accessories for next to nothing.
how about the OM-1 vs AE-1 i have wanted a ae-1 for quite a while so i am leaning toward that
Any Minolta Srt or Pentax K1000 would give you plenty of opportunities of future lens purchases. I suggest you look for a camera in good working condition, but with signs and scratches, something that the collectors wouldn't even look at.
You'll find a ton of cameras like this:
this costs €50,00 from a shop which tends to be not cheap (he checks all cameras, though, and gives 6 months warranty).
You might find some for $20 or $30, maybe you should add a cleaning, adjusting and lubricating for some $40 or so. Those cameras are entirely mechanical, very robust and were built and sold in great numbers, so you can find them very cheap, which doesn't mean they are not good, they are very good. They will last forever. Beware of the battery problem with Minolta Srt. There are easy solutions. External metering always better IMO any time you have time.
If you insist on aperture priority, anything of the eighties is fine. I would avoid esoteric lens mount. Stick to Canon FD, Minolta SR, Pentax K, Nikon, Olympus if you want to find cheap and very good lenses for a long time. Things like Rolleiflex and Contax (and Leica) will allow potential purchase of very particular lenses. In the normal range (let' say 28, 35, 50, 90, 135, 200) Minolta, Pentax, Olympus and Canon gave very good quality for money. Minolta in particular, and Pentax. Olympus lenses are smaller than usual and if you value compactness, go for Olympus OM-1 or OM-2 without hesitation, or for a smaller Pentax (ME, ME Super, MX). Pentax cameras can be very small, but the lenses are "normal". Olympus made small cameras AND small lenses.
Canon AE-1 has shutter priority not aperture priority. A Canon A-1 has both shutter priority, aperiture priority, and program. They sold tons of them, you should find one cheap, beware of the "squeak" problem. Konica cameras were the only alternatives if you wanted shutter priority, besides the "multi" cameras (with both priorities). Konica lenses were also very good but probably less easy to find.
Olympus OM-10 in its basic form doesn't have manual settings. I would avoid cameras without manual settings. There was an accessory to use it as a manual camera.
Olympus OM-1 (manual) or OM-2 (manual + aperture priority) would be better.
Program? Minolta X-700, and Canon AE-1 Program (not to be confused with Canon AE-1), if you really want to use that stuff. Or a Canon A-1, as said.
A Minolta X-700 is a wonderful camera, and it is auto (aperture priority) and manual (in manual not fully coupled, but the X-500 is), and Program (X-500 lacks program). Uses two normal LR44 (or SR44) batteries. The specification are nothing impressive if you look superficially. But it has a particularly good viewfinder, much above its class, possibly much above any class.
I suggest reading this:
After reading this, come here and read that a Minolta X-700 has 95% coverage, 0.9X enlargement. You do the comparison. Besides, it has the "acute matte" focusing screen, a Minolta patent which makes the difference, the screen is brighter than normal and also easier to focus than normal. Very good stuff.
Some old X-700 develop a problem with an electronic component, which is easy to replace. Mine (1989) didn't so far (touch wood).
PS If it appears I am partial to Minolta, it's just because I also use Minolta. :)
Yeah, what he said. He beat me to it.
I am partial to Nikon and Hasselblad now, but I owned and used Minolta SLRs starting with the SR-7 which was built like a tank.
Be vary careful buying on ebay. Half the things I have bought were over rated. Sometimes the photos are altered to make the item look better. The other half were trash. I never buy from ebay any more!
I love my OM-1's and wont part with any of mine. They are rock solid, dependable, fully mechanical, manual only work horses. AE-1's are battery dependant for everything, while the OM-1 only uses a battery for the meter. It's a toss-up for lens quality, with the Canon glass being less expensive. Zuiko lenses for the Oly's are smaller and lighter in weight, and the majority of them use 49mm filters.
Originally Posted by Samuelg
I'll go for the AE-1!
I would go for the Nikon FE.