Beginner SLR?

I was thinking of cameras such as Canon F-1 New, Pentax LX, Nikon F2, Minolta XK, Leicaflex SL, Leica R3, etc.

Leica R series - I would vote against.. Glass is relatively expensive due to the Leica branding and the collectors market.

Leicaflex SL - For the same reason above.

The OP mentioned cheap and beginner..... I don't think "old" is going to work because of the possible cost of CLA and maintenance. I don't think high end will bring enough value to the table for a beginner. Now throw "old" and "high-end" together doesn't make a good beginner user camera either.

Leicaflex SLs and 2-cam lenses are (or have been) relatively inexpensive. The point is they'll last indefinitely.

KEH has SL bodies starting at $144:

Leica R Camera Bodies - KEH.com

Lenses are here:

Leica R Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com

And I disagree altogether about getting the old high-end stuff. That's exactly what I would recommend. It's still far far cheaper than digital gear and lenses of comparable quality. I have had my Leicaflex stuff for 35 years. I had the shutter worked on once during that time, after it was damaged by an impact.
 
I have a good Minolta X-370 that is a spare in good condition with a 50mm lens that I would sell for a bout $50.00+ shipping if the OP is interested. These are based on the XG bodies and are good beginner/intermediate cameras. I could post some pictures taken with it.
 
That would be really awesome! I'm definately interested. Are lenses for Minoltas expensive?
 

Have you looked at the prices for R lenses? $465 for a 50mm f/2 isn't exactly considered the price range of what most people consider a "beginner slr".

And I disagree altogether about getting the old high-end stuff. That's exactly what I would recommend. It's still far far cheaper than digital gear and lenses of comparable quality. I have had my Leicaflex stuff for 35 years. I had the shutter worked on once during that time, after it was damaged by an impact.

You don't compare old gear to modern lenses and digital gear then end with "see its cheaper". That's just dumb and has no basis. I have old glass that cost several times the cost of modern "digital" glass. Some are better and some are not. There is no basis here unless you understand the market is influenced by more than just age. The Collectors market is very strange.... and often doesn't make sense. 1950s Summicron in EX condition is almost $1000 for example. An old 85mm f/1.9 Takumar are fetching $200-300.. because they are difficult to find. Both are valued highly in the used market BUT neither have the advantages of modern multilayer coatings. The list goes on and on.

For a beginner looking for a user camera, you are looking for price versus value/quality.

Old high end stuff == more than most would look for in a beginner User. Value it brings to the table is often not worth it. CLA goes incrementally high.

Old classics == priced higher because of parts/collectibility. Even items that are no longer functioning.

Really old stuff == CLA prices out weigh the cost of buy in into the system.



The offer of a minolta X-370 as posted by another is an example of what I was stating.
* Its a 1970s camera... not too old that a CLA is immediately assumed
* No cloth shutter
* Lenses are known to be good
* NOT THE HIGH END.... as to demand the premium of one RELATIVE to other cameras of similar make/model/age. Its a cheaper version of the X-700.
* Lenses are not currently holding value because of current DSLR (sony) popularity/compatibility.
* Not considered a popular classic and does not attract collectors.
* Parts are not highly prized.
 

Have you looked at the prices for R lenses? $465 for a 50mm f/2 isn't exactly considered the price range of what most people consider a "beginner slr".

And I disagree altogether about getting the old high-end stuff. That's exactly what I would recommend. It's still far far cheaper than digital gear and lenses of comparable quality. I have had my Leicaflex stuff for 35 years. I had the shutter worked on once during that time, after it was damaged by an impact.
You don't compare old gear to modern lenses and digital gear then end with "see its cheaper". That's just dumb and has no basis. I have old glass that cost several times the cost of modern "digital" glass. Some are better and some are not. There is no basis here unless you understand the market is influenced by more than just age. The Collectors market is very strange.... and often doesn't make sense. 1950s Summicron in EX condition is almost $1000 for example. An old 85mm f/1.9 Takumar are fetching $200-300.. because they are difficult to find. Both are valued highly in the used market BUT neither have the advantages of modern multilayer coatings. The list goes on and on.

For a beginner looking for a user camera, you are looking for price versus value/quality.

Old high end stuff == more than most would look for in a beginner User. Value it brings to the table is often not worth it. CLA goes incrementally high.

Old classics == priced higher because of parts/collectibility. Even items that are no longer functioning.

Really old stuff == CLA prices out weigh the cost of buy in into the system.



The offer of a minolta X-370 as posted by another is an example of what I was stating.
* Its a 1970s camera... not too old that a CLA is immediately assumed
* No cloth shutter
* Lenses are known to be good
* NOT THE HIGH END.... as to demand the premium of one RELATIVE to other cameras of similar make/model/age. Its a cheaper version of the X-700.
* Lenses are not currently holding value because of current DSLR (sony) popularity/compatibility.
* Not considered a popular classic and does not attract collectors.
* Parts are not highly prized.

1970s Leica R stuff would still be my recommendation if you want a system you can keep. It still has lots of life left, the quality is superb, and often better than anything you can get today, for much less money.
 
Last edited:
1970s Leica R stuff would still be my recommendation if you want a system you can keep. It still has lots of life left, the quality is superb, and often better than anything you can get today, for much less money.

If you will just ignore everything including budget and common sense..... and get your head stuck around the Leica branding.

then

The better choice would actually be the Leica M. Faster/easier focusing mechanism. More compact. Much more reliable than the Leica R bodies. Modern lenses are still available. Old optics are still better than R. Upgrade path to digital (R-D1, M8, M9, even m4/3 and Leica has confirmed future in the M-mount.)

You can hold your breath until you are blue... and keep repeating "Leica R". The R system is a dead end. I enjoyed the system (R9 + DMR sold to fund more M-mount stuff) but commercially Leica screwed up.

* R3, R4, R6 are based on Minolta bodies in exchange for Autofocus technology they developed. DOH! Bang Head. Minolta continues to make a big splash with the first commercially successful 35mm autofocus camera maxxum 7000 (I have one of those as well). Success that could have been Leica's.
* R8, R9 - ergonomically a nightmare. Big and heavy and no clear advantage over the M-mount system. Yes.. You can go telephoto the R system but DOH! the competitors have Autofocus!. oh well.. there goes the sports market.
* DMR+R8+R9. Wonderful... Make a big body even bigger with no future source for that darn battery. Users spent $20K+ on these systems only to be "abandoned" a few years later. Way to go!



and before you call me a Leica hater... you should look closely at my avatar.
 
Nikkormat FT. Full manual, heavy, metal and no electronics. Made in the 60's, took me 5 minutes to figure out how to load film into it, and I've been shooting 35mm for literally a week.

Any of the 80's Nikon F-series (FG, FM3, F3, EM, etc.) as well. They have some neat automatic this and that toys but still retain the full-manual functions. A couple are full manual only. The FG has two automatic modes and a full manual mode.

Also I like the film spool on the Nikons the way it grabs the end of the film when you load it.
 
1970s Leica R stuff would still be my recommendation if you want a system you can keep. It still has lots of life left, the quality is superb, and often better than anything you can get today, for much less money.

If you will just ignore everything including budget and common sense..... and get your head stuck around the Leica branding.

then

The better choice would actually be the Leica M. Faster/easier focusing mechanism. More compact. Much more reliable than the Leica R bodies. Modern lenses are still available. Old optics are still better than R. Upgrade path to digital (R-D1, M8, M9, even m4/3 and Leica has confirmed future in the M-mount.)

You can hold your breath until you are blue... and keep repeating "Leica R". The R system is a dead end. I enjoyed the system (R9 + DMR sold to fund more M-mount stuff) but commercially Leica screwed up.

* R3, R4, R6 are based on Minolta bodies in exchange for Autofocus technology they developed. DOH! Bang Head. Minolta continues to make a big splash with the first commercially successful 35mm autofocus camera maxxum 7000 (I have one of those as well). Success that could have been Leica's.
* R8, R9 - ergonomically a nightmare. Big and heavy and no clear advantage over the M-mount system. Yes.. You can go telephoto the R system but DOH! the competitors have Autofocus!. oh well.. there goes the sports market.
* DMR+R8+R9. Wonderful... Make a big body even bigger with no future source for that darn battery. Users spent $20K+ on these systems only to be "abandoned" a few years later. Way to go!



and before you call me a Leica hater... you should look closely at my avatar.


I own Leicaflex SL2 bodies and six lenses...and plan on buying more. Nothing else comes close. I started with a used Leicaflex SL and a 90mm Elmarit-R in 1971 and never looked back.
 
1970s Leica R stuff would still be my recommendation if you want a system you can keep. It still has lots of life left, the quality is superb, and often better than anything you can get today, for much less money.

If you will just ignore everything including budget and common sense..... and get your head stuck around the Leica branding.

then

The better choice would actually be the Leica M. Faster/easier focusing mechanism. More compact. Much more reliable than the Leica R bodies. Modern lenses are still available. Old optics are still better than R. Upgrade path to digital (R-D1, M8, M9, even m4/3 and Leica has confirmed future in the M-mount.)

You can hold your breath until you are blue... and keep repeating "Leica R". The R system is a dead end. I enjoyed the system (R9 + DMR sold to fund more M-mount stuff) but commercially Leica screwed up.

* R3, R4, R6 are based on Minolta bodies in exchange for Autofocus technology they developed. DOH! Bang Head. Minolta continues to make a big splash with the first commercially successful 35mm autofocus camera maxxum 7000 (I have one of those as well). Success that could have been Leica's.
* R8, R9 - ergonomically a nightmare. Big and heavy and no clear advantage over the M-mount system. Yes.. You can go telephoto the R system but DOH! the competitors have Autofocus!. oh well.. there goes the sports market.
* DMR+R8+R9. Wonderful... Make a big body even bigger with no future source for that darn battery. Users spent $20K+ on these systems only to be "abandoned" a few years later. Way to go!



and before you call me a Leica hater... you should look closely at my avatar.


I own Lecaflex SL2 bodies and six lenses...and plan on buying more. Nothing else comes close.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top