| Author |
Message |
    
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 02:58 pm: | 
|
I travel overseas a lot and tend to pack 2-3 different cameras, one for backup and perhaps one to shoot B&W, as well as color print film. I realize this is a question which will have several different responses, or more. What would you consider a good all around dependable backup camera, would it be a rangefinder, i.e. Canon GIII, or a Yashica GN/GSN/GTN, or perhaps a Russian rangerfider like a Fed 5/5C, Zorki 4? Or would it be a manual SLR, and if so what would you look for in it, af, manual, ZLR? |
Gary Turner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 04:30 pm: |
|
So many cameras meet the 'good knock about' criteria! I suggest a compact SLR such as Pentax MX, ME Super. Others might prefer Nikon FM, Konica T4 or the versatile compacts in Yashica FX series. More affordable yet but very nice are early all metal Chinon M42 or later Chinon with Pentax PK mount (mostly compacts). Then again the 'bargain basement' Prakticas L series and Zenit 12 series SLRs will normally get the job done quite well. I like the Kiev rangefinders but Zorki 4K or 6 and the Fed 3 are fine too unless you need an attached meter then a Fed 5 will do. Canon GIII can be great if you can find a reliable one (!) but I much prefer Olympus 35-RC or the simple Minoltina AL-s. Lots of opinions but really, lots of good cameras will fill the bill. |
Jan Dvorak
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Harlee,
As much as I like rangefinders, I would recommend a solid, mechanical SLR. Lens interchangeability is a huge plus and manual focus lenses can be had for a song lately.
My recommendations would be any of the Pentax K series or M series cameras. The K's are larger, the K1000, KM and KX would be fully mechanical, while among the smaller M series the MX is the only mechanical body.
I would stay away from the ex-Soviet and East German cameras, even though I grew up with them (maybe that is why..). Their lenses can be very good, but mechanically they can be hit and miss, specially if not adjusted properly.
After all, you are looking for a 'back-up' camera; one that would take over when the others failed.
Good luck,
Jan |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 05:55 pm: |
|
Hi Harlee,
I'd go for an "A series" Canon SLR (AE-1, AE-1P, etc.). They are lightweight, tough, compact and proven - and can be had now for a song. Along with that, is the advantage of Canon's massive line of FD/FL lenses, and accesories easily found on Ebay. A good working one with 50mm lens can be purchased for less than the cost of a GIII.
Will |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 08:50 pm: |
|
Being as you mentioned travel, I believe topcs such as reliability, battery availability, ruggedness and replacement cost are big issues. I would strongly favor an SLR for this.
My suggestion would be the Nikon FE for a "traditional" SLR or a Nikon N6006 if you're looking for something more automated. Each has a number of unique strengths and each is commonly available in the range of $100 US. I suspect you can't spend much less (in the Nikon line) without losing considerable capability, but that you would have to spend much more to do better. Of course, if a backup to you is a $1,000 camera, then your best choice will be much different.
My other advice on this would be to consider your shooting style. Do you prefer aperture priority or shutter preferred? Do you enjoy manual focus SLRs? Do you expect the backup to provide the same level of versatility as the primary camera? The answers to questions like these will lead you in the right direction.
Above all, have fun! |
Andrew Yue
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 07:08 am: |
|
When travelling overseas, I prefer the less is more approach.
For 35mm I now have the Rollei 35S, which replaces an Olympus 35 XA that served me well for 17 years. I've been using the diminutive Rollei for two years now. While not nearly as fool proof as the Olympus XA, the Sonnar equiped Rollei truly delivers superb enlargements and allows for the use of filters.
The Rollei 35S is truly a throw back an earlier era of photograhy. It only allows for manually set exposures. Film loading is more akin to a 1950's Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex rather than the quick load Canonets of the 70's. One needs to carefully extend the lens barrel, then smoothly lock it into position with a twist before shooting. The left-handed film winder doesn't inspire confidence. You can feel the gears pulling the film. Therefore, like most its other functions, I make it a point to advance the film in a graceful manner.
In addition to a small hand-held meter, I also like to bring along an Agfa Isolette III medium format folder which is fitted with a 75mm Solinar and a Synchro-Compur MXV shutter. It's almost like a Rollei 35 S for medium format. Although, that honor should go to the Voigtlander Perkeo II. Anyway, with the Isolette III along, I have on occasion used its uncoupled rangefinder when setting the focus for a wide open shot with the Rollei.
With the exception of the built-in meter, the Rollei 35 S doesn't require a battery to shoot with.
Batteries are a problem for the Rollei. So if you want to use the built-in meter, I recommend getting a 29.95 Criscam adapter that uses a #386 silver oxide. A silver oxide will last at least a year, so long as the camera is cased when not in use. I prefer my small Gossen Digisix hand-held light meter.
The Olympus XA is child of the electronic age. It has an electronically controlled shutter, which in this case only allows for a semi-auto aperture preferred mode. The XA also has an electronic self-timer and utilizes an electronic push pad shutter release to minimalize camera shake. Consequently, batteries are most definitely required. It uses two PX76/SR44 silver oxides. Again, the batteries last at least a year.
With regards to the knock around requirement, the Olympus XA wins this category hands down. Also, it seems to attract very little attention and with proper bracing of both ebows, is capable of hand-held indoor photography without a flash. |
M. Currie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 08:43 am: |
|
When I've traveled and not wanted to take the "big guns" I use a nasty-looking but reliable Konica T3, which is nearly worthless on the market, with a very nice but also nearly worthless Sigma 35-70 zoom. A normal lens, tele-extender, etc. can be added to the kit if needed.
I also have a Minolta X370 which occasionally does similar duty. I think any competent SLR that you don't have much money in will work for this. I prefer the Konica for most occasions because I have a couple of extra lenses for it, and the shutter is battery independent. The Minolta is smaller, though. As a backup I have an Olympus XA2 which slips into a pocket. I second the XA as an ideal inconspicuous camera, which under the best conditions can take incredibly sharp pictures. Its exposure control is good, it's very quiet, and with the 35 mm. lens it can often be aimed without even looking through the finder. My only real complaint about the XA2 is that the flash cycles very slowly. but I've had mine for many years, and it's a great, rugged little camera. |
M Currie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:34 pm: |
|
I should add that I am assuming here that one criterion for a traveling camera is that it will not break your heart or your bank if it is stolen. Hence the dented Konica with its own lenses rather than, say, a better Nikon that shares lenses with my principal camera, and the XA2 rather than some exotic small machine like a Leica. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Hey guys, these were all great responses and I really appreciate them. I used most all of the cameras mentioned above, and all of them have their pros and cons. Most of my travels nowadays is in the former USSR, where ther's lots of good stuff to photograph. Some of the cameras I've used as backup and knock-arounds have been the XAs, Rollei 35s, several different Minoltas, as well as Canons. I've pretty much settled into a couple of mechanical SLRs which accompany me on my trips. One is a Canon TX and the other a Canon EX Auto. Both are solid all metal antiques, which are still capable of taking some really great pics. One of the best pictures I've taken a few years back in Yugoslavia was taken on a Canon FTBn, with a Canon f1.4 lens, all black with a lot of brassing which was basically given to me by a pawn shop owner for $29.00. It was a great combination, but alas, I parted with it for a mere $50.00. Next month when I'll be in the Ukraine, I'll have my Canon AE1P with me, along with, most likely, the Canon TX, two 50MM lens, a 70-150MM Vivitar, and a 28-80MM Zoom which I've had for 25 years, plus a couple of flashes. I may also throw in my EX Auto as well along with it's 50MM, 35MM and 125MM lens, just to give it a workout. One other camera I think very highly of is the older Minolta STR series. I presently have a Minolta F1.2MM lens on one of the SRTs, and it's a real workhorse. So, thanks again for your input. I love hearing what cameras photographers use and love. There are a lot of great ones out there to be had, as so many are now going for all the bells and whistle AF plastic jobs. I must admit, I have a few of them myself and they generally do a great job too, but they just don't have the feel of a rock solid, all metal, mechanical Canon, Konica, Minolta, etc. |
Charles Fallis
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 04:14 am: |
|
Whether a rangefinder, a good P&S or an SLR will be better depends on what you are shooting. Rangefinders are great for low light and people photography, P&S cameras are unobtrusive and good for street photos, and SLRs are like Swiss Army knives - you can do a lot with them, but some things they do less well than others. |
David
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Must be a camera needing no battery with a good quality lens. I suggest a Yashica Lynx 1000 or 5000. Both are fairly light, take normal filters/lens shades and have good lenses and shutters. Another true 'knockabout' camera is the Argus C3 'brick'. This camera is very underrated and has a first-class lens. None of these cameras should cost more than $25. |
Alan Rockwood
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 11:15 pm: |
|
How about an Exa, provided you can find one that works? The beauty of the Exa is that it is very small, needs no battery, and takes most Exakta lenses, though the longer telephoto lenses have the image cutoff problem in the viewfinder.
I have a Rollie 35, and that is also a great little camera. Also, Petri once made a very small Rollie 35-inspired camera that might be interesting... actually had better ergonomics, but not as high quality as the Rollie.
One problem with some of the 60s-70s vintage cameras is that their built in meters require mercury cells, and you can't buy them in the USA anymore. In some cases there are some kind of adapter gizzmos that allow you to use batteries that are available still. For example, there is one for the Rollie 35 series cameras. (Oops, I just noticed that someone else already covered the battery issue.)
Alternatively, you could simply do without the meter. You can actually make a pretty good guess for exposure for most common lighting conditions based on published tables. If you are using negative film you can rely on some exposure latitude to take up some of the slop on exposure estimation. As I am sure you already know, slide films are less forgiving, but slide films are not much used anymore. |
|
