What made a good film camera body?

I have used film camera's as I have plenty of age to have been around, but never a film slr. So what made a good film slr body verse an entry level slr? I ask because as I think about it with digital, a better digital body gets me better ISO noise levels, often times a faster frames per second, and the ability to do a whole plethora of things that only became possible due to digital.

With film bodies the ISO was set based on the film you were using. Aperture was set by the lens. Shutter speed by the camera body. What more would/could a film slr camera body do for you to justify a higher price. Example: If the D3000 was a base level film camera, and a D4 was the high end film camera, what differences would there be to justify any kind of a mark-up?

Thanks for entertaining my mental wandering and curiosity.

Things like AF points, metering modes, strength, durability all still played a big part in what made 1 SLR better than another.

The shutter action, vibration etc were all as valid as they are these days.

I didn't think about the AF points and metering. Were both of those around for a long time or relatively late in the life of film? Reason I never thought of those two is I was thinking manual focus and just having to know your stuff in regards to metering.

Strength and durability - good point.

Anyone else?

Film transport mechanisms too... Big powerful, fast winders.

My first camera was a Canon AE1 Program and I added a Canon A1 soon after. The attraction was a fancy computer control 'program' mode (Auto!, it was a good thing back then). Manual focus only and the ability to easily change focus screens was a plus. Mostly I chose those models because my friend recommended them as he was a Canon guy and was willing to teach me the basics. He had a more pro-leaning Canon F-1

Other features people looked for in various cameras were the ability to add a motor drive and removable backs so one could add a 'data back' or a bulk roll of film.

You got me curious, so I looked up my old A-1 and my buddy's F1

Canon A-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canon F-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting articles about what was great about these cameras.

Followed the links. One thing I can say is that cameras really looked serious compared to today's with all the knobs and numbers.

Faster AF ability, higher shutter speed capability (my first SLR topped out at 1/1000 sec), and higher flash sync speed (I believe my Nikon N70 might have been 1/125 sec while my N90s was 1/250 sec). Also a heavier duty body in the pro cameras.

Mechanical noise level,TTL flash,off camera TTL flash,exchangeable focus screen choices,motor drive options although most of us could never afford to use them at full speed flash sync speed if you wanted to balance to daylight in macro and hide photography,durability was just taken for granted with the top makes as we had no idea how many shots had been taken if we bought secondhand,although there was a rumor that nikon knew this with the F3 and of course they had to look sexy when all kitted out

Models "F" to "FM": they were much more durable, dust and humidity resistant. Mechanical shutter control made them independent of battery (used only for the light metering and/or aperture priority auto).

It would be interesting to see how these legacy bodies would have fared had the internet been around in their day. Older gear is somewhat worshiped for it's flawless performance, but there was no rampant internet scrutiny to expose flaws.

This has been a great thread to read and appreciate these older cameras and what went into them.

Anyone else with something to add?

The only thing I can think to add is that back in the '70's really good fully manual cameras had a sense of refinement that I just don't get from today's bodies. It's the old saw about the difference between a Chevy and a Mercedes; they'll both get you there, the difference is the RIDE. Handle, say for instance, a vintage Leica M and you'll know what I mean. It's not just solid, it's smooth in a thousand small ways that just ooze quality and make you smile, even if only on the inside. Dials didn't just rotate, they had a gliiiiiide to them, a particular almost buttery feel of finely tuned metal on metal that you just didn't get from lower end bodies.

...

DraganDL said:

Models "F" to "FM": they were much more durable, dust and humidity resistant. Mechanical shutter control made them independent of battery (used only for the light metering and/or aperture priority auto).

Click to expand...

This type of camera was really good. Even if the batteries fizzled out, with the use of a handheld light meter and setting things manually, those cameras could still take the photo. :triumphant: Let's see that done with today's DSLR's.

Cant remember the details now but F3s where tested with drop tests vibration tests and probably other drastic tests,my late wife had a spell of time as a manageress of a camera shop some one threw a brick that went through the shop window hit an FE with 50mm lens attached,the camera traveled 20ft into the shop and hit the floor,the front element cracked and the camera had a dent on the edge near the winding lever,i bought that camera cheap and used it for two years without it even going back to nikon,sold it locally and never heard of it going wrong.

What makes a great film SLR? Look at an F2 and you will have all of your answers.