I've got a Nikon F and F2--had the F for many years, the F2 a relatively recent purchase as "backup," but have come to prefer it, especially since Mr. Wong cleaned it up. It just feels and works a little better. And yeah, you can use them for self-defense, if necessary.
But I have been tempted to pick up an older Olympus M-series camera since they can be had for so little money now, but a certain spouse might complain about more cameras. My first photo teacher had an M-1, and I remember it as being a pretty nice piece of kit.
All of my cameras except the little Fuji d****l are mechanical, no auto-anything cameras.
I have been thinking of the Minolta line including the SR-1 and the SR-7 as suggestion, but held back because of the Nikon F2, F3 reputation. The early Minoltas were rugged, well built, inexpensive, and run forever. The MC and MD lenses are readily available and inexpensive too.
Originally Posted by unohuu
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Did you know that Olympus had to change the name of the camera to "OM-1" from "M-1" after Leica complained. That's what I read a couple of years ago in an article in a photography magazine. The Olympus M-1 is now considered a collectible.
Among my favorites are the Nikon F2A, Pentax MX and KX, the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex I and II and Contarex Bullseye and Rolleiflex SL 35.
I had a Minolta SR T 202 a few years ago. It was a very well built camera, and the lenses can be bought very inexpensively.