1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What camera?

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by KierFX, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I would. It's a much nicer camera than the ghastly Nikon F anyway IMHO - the camera I've been happiest to sell, and least happy to use.
     
  2. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Well, given that you already own it, and presumably have the M42-EOS adaptor, it makes sense. If there was a battery grip made for the camera you may be able to find one at a low price now, which would enable the use of standard AA alkaline cells.
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    There isn't. There were I think 3 grips for the 600, but they're all for the front of the camera - standard, standard with release socket, and a larger one.
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I'm not absolutely sure, TBH - and I have a bucketful of both. The Pentaxes feel nicer (although there's less in it than one might imagine), but the Prakticas are generally easier to use and have brighter screens IMHO. Both are vastly more pleasant to use than a Nikon F, for sure.
     
  5. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    You really don't like the Nikon F! It's advantages lie in it's robustness, which in this instance isn't really needed. In this case Canon is the way to go, since he already has Canon and the EOS 600.
     
  6. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    I'm only guessing, but a Praktica body is probably cheaper than a Canon lens. Especially since the craze for putting M42 lenses on CSC's started.

    S
     
  7. Ffolrord

    Ffolrord Well-Known Member

    Definitely dump Canon. In addition to Nikon, consider Pentax. Something like a K1000 would serve you well - simple, reliable, plentiful, cheap. K mount lenses abound (earlier M42s you can use too with a cheap adaptor) and you can use all of them on any Pentax digital DSLR body too.

    I have plenty of lenses that I picked up for peanuts and very good they are too.
     
  8. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    Odd how popular it was, in that case. And how, in its day, it was overwhelmingly the professional choice.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  9. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Quite correct, Roger. Canon were not really in the frame, then, as a pro camera maker. They were making the transition from their successful rangefinders (which included a Model 4, btw;), now there's a thing!) into amateur kit with the FT series. Things changed when they introduced the Canon F1, which together with its successor the F1n, could be said to be highly underrated 'classics', if not in the mainstream of collectable cameras. Certainly they are really good user-classics.

    That self rotating ring on FD lens mounts can keep Olympus & Nikon owners amused for hours! :eek: Well, maybe not hours, but it is - in my view - a great, very clever and very thoughtful bit of design work.

    This is all a bit 'neither here nor there' as Kier forgot to tell us about the EOS600 and a Nikon F, even a tatty one, will set him back the best part of a ton unless he gets lucky in a junk shop or on-line. Then a lens or three will push the cost up to closer to £500 unless he goes for independent ones.

    Much better to spend the money on film, chemicals & paper. If the EOS600 ist kaput, Kier should get a cheapo EOS 300/300v. Can't be beat for the money. Yes CR2 batteries are a pain, overpriced and over here. If you get lucky, you can sometimes find them cheap in supermarkets. Cheers, Oly
     
  10. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I don'y know the relationship between the 650 and the 600 but a S/h 650 was the only real mistake I ever made in buying a camera, AF performance was just terrible. I replaced it wit a 300 which is / was a delight to use, I have read a lot of criticism of the 28-90 zoom it came with but it seems to do perfectly good A4 prints from colour negative film although it is not up to digital standards. You can get CR2 batteries on the web for under £2 a pair
     
  11. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    ^ I rather liked the EOS 33, I added the battery grip to mine which allowed the use of cheap readily available AA alkaline cells. It's now long sold!
     
  12. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    The 600 came out a bit later than the 650 and is a bit better specified. Mine, while not being quite as fast as the latest bodies is still pretty quick to focus, especially coupled to a proper USM lens. Where it does struggle is in lower light where it can get a bit dithery... AF I suspect was not helped by the very early EF lenses with their rather slow motors and long focus throw...

    I still have a nice EOS 30 which I picked up cheap - a rather nice combination of size and features.:)
     
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Not really, there just weren't many other choices. Certainly a classic, but a very nasty one IMHO, and I wouldn't recommend one to my worst enemy, never mind someone I've nothing against.
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The relationship was that the 600 was the slightly later, more upmarket version that featured a cross sensor - and thus had substantially better AF. The 650 was the lowest model in the 6xx range.
     
  15. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    There are two people that I would!:D
     
  16. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    Well, apart from (in the 1960s, naming only the obvious candidates) Alpa, Canon, Exa/Exakta, Kowa, Leicaflex, Konica, Olympus, Pentax, Petriflex, Praktica, Praktina, Topcon, Voigtlander, Yashica, Zeiss, Zenith...

    Why might Nikon have been the professional choice when these so seldom were?

    Now, I don't like TLRs. I admit this puts me in a minority. But I don't pretend that Rolleis are "ghastly".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Oh don't be so disingenuous, Roger. Only Praktina had a true 35mm SLR system camera before the Nikon F, complete with interchangeable viewfinders, backs, screens, winders, and lenses - so say nothing of all the other accessories. And the Praktina system isn't any more pleasant to use than the Nikon F, and certainly isn't as well designed. Absolutely nobody thinks the Nikon F was competing with Zenits in anyway whatsoever short of use as a doorstop, where they're pretty much on a par. The F had a lot going for it through the 60s - but it's still a horrible camera to use, and I would say an utterly stupid choice for someone who has a perfectly good film camera already that he can share lenses with. Fs - especially plain prism Fs - are expensive, heavy and rough as a badger's backside in comparison with many other available cameras. The F2, for example, is a much nicer camera to use IMHO, although neither is as nice as any of Canon's F models in my opinion, although that's partly down to the nasty if clever for the time Photomic heads, although they look positively delightful compared to a Canon FTb with meter booster attached...

    As to if you wish to call Rolleis ghastly, that's entirely up to you - you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, as am I. And mine is that the Nikon F is one of the nastiest cameras I've ever owned. Doesn't change it's historical significance or indeed its capability, but it's a warning as to its handling, and people can take that or leave it as they see fit.
     
  18. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Since the original poster is a young lad going to college, wants to learn the basics, is probably broke, and has a M42 lens, why not stay with M42 cameras - Praktica, Cosina, Fuji, even Zenit or whatever. Cheap all manual camera, simple meter, lens. Then he will learn the hard way. ;)

    S
     
  19. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    Sorry, you're losing me here. I chose the 1960s because the F was introduced in 1959, so what existed before was of limited importance. No-one even began to catch up during that decade and with the exception of in-body metering most of the bells and whistles added since the early 1970s have simply made for bigger, fatter, more expensive and more unnecessarily complicated cameras.

    The Nikon F is the AK47 or Land Rover or Singer treadle sewing machine of cameras: simple, reliable, almost unbreakable and always ready for use. I actually like using Fs -- I still have five -- so I can't quite understand your antipathy; nor can I recall meeting anyone who agreed with you.
     
  20. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    So now you're agreeing with me that there was no real competition in the 60s, contrary to your previous position.

    In your opinion. I disagree vehemently. Besides, the F was $359.50 at launch - what's that in today's terms? Pretty much where modern equivalents are.

    Don't disagree - it's just not nice using the thing.


    You must need to keep lots of doors open, then. ;)

    I have to say that equally, I've never met anyone who agrees with you on this one, but hey, opinions are free, which is pretty much what most of them are worth. ;) Thing is, though, it's not a very helpful recommendation for the OP regardless of if you like the camera or not.
     

Share This Page