Vintage Film Cameras [Archive]

TimmyBoston

06-23-2007, 03:24 AM

On my trip, before the car I was riding in tumbled through the desert, I went to the Grand Canyon, I took lots of pictures with both my Canon Rebel G Film Camera and my Canon Powershot Digital Camera and I confirmed my theory, I take much, much, much better pictures with a film camera. Side note: Amazingly both cameras survived the crash in perfect working condition.

I especially love the look of Vintage Film Cameras, but I know next to nothing about them, does anyone have any recommendations on which models are best and where to obtain them?

Thanks all!

ouch

06-23-2007, 03:28 AM

If you want something that will last forever, look at a vintage Leica.

Roman414

06-23-2007, 05:00 AM

I used to repair them. If you want a range-finder type, Leica. For a SLR, Nikon or Pentax, with Canon good too. TLR, a Rolleiflex. Those were the best made, in my opinion.

DoubleE

06-23-2007, 06:52 AM

If you want something that will last forever, look at a vintage Leica.

+1

I have a Leica M2 that was made in 1954 (if I remember correctly) and it is a joy to use. A Nikon FE2 is a great choice as well.

farace

06-23-2007, 08:24 AM

I can't afford a Leica. For my rangefinders I have a Konica Auto S2 (battery situation is a pain, though) and a Kodak Retina IIC (which requires the use of a light meter as it doesn't have in-camera metering). I repaired them both using Ed Romney's book as a guide.

For SLRs, I have several Konicas including an FS-1 and an FT-1. I know some folks don't think much of Konica, but others think very highly of them, and Konica was an innovator in its golden years.

Interestingly, I've been thinking I need to get back to using actual film. I think that because you can't save eleventy-thousand photos on a memory card it forces you to take more care in framing a good shot.

ratcheer

06-23-2007, 08:35 AM

I especially love the look of Vintage Film Cameras, but I know next to nothing about them, does anyone have any recommendations on which models are best and where to obtain them?

Thanks all!

If you want an SLR, another gentleman on this forum was offering to sell a Nikon F3HP, which is one of the great film SLR's ever made. It was just a few days ago, so he may still have it.

Tim

Jim

06-23-2007, 08:56 AM

I have a Canon A1 with a half dozen lens and data back speed winder and on and on. I have not used it in 20 years:mad: They are giving this stuff away on ebay, I hope to get it into the hands of a photography student at some point.

DoubleE

06-23-2007, 10:38 AM

If you want an SLR, another gentleman on this forum was offering to sell a Nikon F3HP, which is one of the great film SLR's ever made. It was just a few days ago, so he may still have it.

Tim

The F3HP would be an excellent choice for a mechanical camera. If it's still available, you really should take a hard look at it.

TimmyBoston

06-23-2007, 01:33 PM

What makes a RangeFinder better than an SLR and vice versa?

farace

06-23-2007, 02:14 PM

What makes a RangeFinder better than an SLR and vice versa?

My non-expert understanding is that a rangefinder will be better for those that desire smaller, lighter, quieter cameras. SLRs have an advantage of being able to see through the lens what the film will see, which is especially good for when you're using something other than the normal lens (rangefinders often have borders inscribed into the viewfinder to show the field of view for different focal lengths). Many rangefinders, because the shutter is built into the lens, are limited to the lens that's built onto the camera; interchangeable lenses are often not an option, different focal length are often achieved with add-on lenses. Also, while some SLRs don't stop down the lens until you press the shutter, some are always at the f-stop you've chosen, which can make for a dim view of your subject matter if you're at a tight f-stop.

One isn't necessarily better than the other; you need to decide on what features are important to you and choose accordingly. Better yet, get one of each. My old Kodak Retina will fit in a fanny pack but is primitive, while my Konica FT-1 has much more advanced features but is much larger.

mparker762

06-23-2007, 08:28 PM

Rangefinders tend to be small, quiet and unobtrusive. My Leica M3DS is only slightly larger than my hand, and makes a barely audible snick when I fire the shutter. Because you don't look through the lens, they are very fast to aim and frame your shot. Because you don't look through the lens, there's no mirror flapping around when you press the button, so it's easy to hand-hold shots down to 1/30 or so for no-flash low-light photography, especially when paired with the F1 noctilux. Unfortunately, because you don't look through the lens, high telephoto lenses and macro photography are a pain. My 50mm Summicron has a pair of spectacles that clip into a shoe on the lens to correct the rangefinder's vision so it can focus at extremely close distances. It works but is an awful kludge. But for action photography or low-light photography they're really great.

rickw

06-23-2007, 10:31 PM

The classic Leica is the 3G I believe. It had flash sync on the body. In the '70s they sold for less than $100 with the lens. The last time that I checked the prices, was around 1996. They had become collector items and the body went for $700. The Canon and Nikon versions were also great. I was pricing the Leicas because I was tired of hauling around my Nikon F.

Parker is correct about sound and low light applications. The Nikon mirror, at slow shutter speeds, moves with a CLUNK CLUNK. SLRs are harder to focus in lower ambient light. Advantage is the you can use a longer focal length lenses and you are viewing through the lense. With a RF camera, if you change to other than the normal lense, you must also use a viewfinder. With the 3G, it fits in a shoe in top of the camera and at close distances must be adjusted for parallax. I think that the focal length limit on the 3G is around 135mm. I have a Linhof press type camera also. If I change the lense, I also have to change the cam that couples it to the range finder.

Rick

TimmyBoston

06-24-2007, 12:37 AM

For a rangefinder what are some cheaper alternatives to a Leica? I'd love one, but I doubt I can afford the $1000 price tag.

Roman414

06-24-2007, 04:54 AM

I loved the lttle Canonet rangefinders. No interchangeable lenses, though.

gallantman

06-24-2007, 06:27 AM

DoubleE

06-24-2007, 06:58 AM

I will tell what I did. I bought a Yashica rangefinder from the 70s for $40.00, all refurbished. Beautiful cameras with a fixed 45mm lens. Then I bought a Bessa R new for $300.00 with a 35 mm lens and I bought a used 50 mm lens for $30.00. The Bessa is a reasonably priced camera new with a large assortment of interchangable lens', new and used. Check out this website for some good deals:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/

While I've never owned a Bessa.....I've come awfully close in past years. If I were looking for a new inexpensive rangefinder, that would be my choice. They typically get high marks in reviews.

gallantman

06-24-2007, 07:05 AM

Yep, very nice camera, and relatively cheap. The interchangeable lens' are great too.

mparker762

06-24-2007, 07:12 AM

I've also got a Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 that my grandfather used in WWII. It's a folding bellows camera, but the bellows is still light-tight after all these years, and from the chatter on the net it's quite uncommon to find one that *isn't* still light-tight. These old rangefinders shouldn't be too expensive, and still take gorgeous photos. The only real quirk with these is they want to be used, or the shutter will start sticking.

farace

06-24-2007, 07:26 AM

You can get a nice Konica Auto S2 for well under $100. (Don't get the Auto S; the S2 was a big improvement. An S3 would be better, but are harder to find and more expensive.) I was surprised to find reviews online praising the Konica's Hexanon lens as being as sharp as Leica's Summicron (some said sharper). Lenses are not changeable. If you're not handy at repairing cameras, make sure the camera doesn't have a sticky shutter and that the meter is working. I don't find them difficult to work on, but it's easier not to. The Auto S2 has a full range of shutter speeds (B-1/500), M and X flash sync (but no hotshoe), and automatic aperature set by the meter (it's also useable as completely manual). OTOH, it's a bit larger than some other rangefinders. It's been praised as being very ruggedly built.

One thing to watch out for with any of these older cameras (not just Konicas) is the battery issue. Many, many of these older cameras used a mercury battery, like a PX625. These were 1.34 volts, and the voltage remained fairly constant until they died. Most of the meters in these cameras require a steady 1.34 volts to accurately determine exposure. Mercury batteries are no longer available, and there is no completely satisfactory substitute. Alkalines are 1.5 volts, and the voltage drops constantly, making correct exposure difficult. Silver oxide batteries have a similar discharge curve to mercury, but they're 1.55 volts. It's possible to have the camera modified with a diode to allow the use of silver oxide batteries. Zinc-air batteries (like hearing aid batteries and Wein cells) are 1.34 volts, but they die quickly; they might only live 1-6 months. (Mercury batteries lived for years.) The problem is not insurmountable, but it's at the very least an annoyance and something you should be aware of beforehand.

Buzz

06-24-2007, 08:22 AM

While I've never owned a Bessa.....I've come awfully close in past years. If I were looking for a new inexpensive rangefinder, that would be my choice. They typically get high marks in reviews.

Agreed. Those can be had for reasonable money, without getting into all the issues surrounding vintage cameras.

At one time, I had a Konica Hexar RF. Really nice little camera. Great lenses. However, they are reasonably rare and probably near-Leica money now.

I also love older Canons -- like the A1. Different beast than a rangefinder, but you can get L-series glass for an old Canon for decent money.

Doc4

06-24-2007, 02:23 PM

Interestingly, I've been thinking I need to get back to using actual film. I think that because you can't save eleventy-thousand photos on a memory card it forces you to take more care in framing a good shot.

Couldn't agree more! I've had a Pentax K-1000 since highschool (about 1984) and it's still going great. I tend not to be snap-happy, so film is fine for me (although a digital might help with the SOTD threads :sad: ).

BTW, my K-1000 is one of the 'old' ones made in Japan, before they outsourced them to the third world, opted for more plastic parts, and quality declined.

chrish

06-24-2007, 08:44 PM

I own a voigtlander r2a with a 35/1.2 lens and it is a blast. For something cheap you could always start with an Olympus XA. Gets great reviews and can be easily found for under $30 on the bay. Very small and unobtrusive.

But if you're talkin real vintage, go with something truely old school like a Brownie box camera. For older cameras that take odd medium format films you can always use 120 or 220 and roll it on to the spool found inside the camera. Just remeber that you might have to go every other number on the film so images dont overlap.

mparker762

06-25-2007, 08:05 AM

Just remeber that you might have to go every other number on the film so images dont overlap.

Yeah, I forgot to mention this. On my Zeiss Iconta I had to put a layer of tape around the takeup spool to increase the diameter a bit so the photos wouldn't overlap. The old medium format film was thicker than the current stuff. But once I did that then everything worked normally, I didn't need to skip frames or anything (good because at 6x9 I don't get too many frames per roll).

Roman414

06-25-2007, 08:23 AM

icemncmth

06-25-2007, 08:32 AM

Nikon....FE-2....or the FM's are great cameras...the FE-2's have electronic shutters and settings...the FM's are manual.

I have a couple FM-2T's that are great and I have an FE-2 that I really like..

The one thing about the old SLR's is the preview button......

I also have an old Contaflex that is a great camera...

But I would stick with the Nikon's because the lenses are easier to find..

Haiku

06-25-2007, 09:22 AM

t.

One thing to watch out for with any of these older cameras (not just Konicas) is the battery issue. Many, many of these older cameras used a mercury battery, like a PX625. These were 1.34 volts, and the voltage remained fairly constant until they died. Most of the meters in these cameras require a steady 1.34 volts to accurately determine exposure. Mercury batteries are no longer available, and there is no completely satisfactory substitute. Alkalines are 1.5 volts, and the voltage drops constantly, making correct exposure difficult. Silver oxide batteries have a similar discharge curve to mercury, but they're 1.55 volts. It's possible to have the camera modified with a diode to allow the use of silver oxide batteries. Zinc-air batteries (like hearing aid batteries and Wein cells) are 1.34 volts, but they die quickly; they might only live 1-6 months. (Mercury batteries lived for years.) The problem is not insurmountable, but it's at the very least an annoyance and something you should be aware of beforehand.

I couldn't agree more: look very closely at the battery issue. You may find that what looked like a great deal on a great camera is not such a great deal at all. Many of the older cameras take batterys that are simply unavailable today.

Also, with respect to the older Leica's make sure that the model you're looking at actually has a light meter built in. Otherwise you'll be looking at using a seperate handheld meter.

Finally: Lots of old film cameras use manual lenses that are compatable with newer digital cameras. So if you have a new digital Canon for example, the old Canon EOS lenses will work or should work. The older FD line of lenses will not. New Pentax and Leica as well are compatable with older lenses. So take a good look at the compatability question of the lenses.

gglockner

06-25-2007, 10:17 PM

jfl

06-25-2007, 10:35 PM

I sold all my cameras about 8 years ago. Mainly because I seldom used them. The only one I truly miss is the Hasselblad. It's actually as compact as you can get for a 6x6 SLR. The 6x6 negative yields MUCH better resolution than 35mm. Think of it as seeing the pores on the skin or the weave on a polo shirt.

I dream of getting one again, but it's not going to happen as I know I really wouldn't use it much.

Jim

Haiku

06-26-2007, 06:09 AM

Thirty years ago or so, I got to use a Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic camera. The large 4x5 format was a thrill to make large prints. Known mostly for being a tripod camera, years ago they were always used by the press. I wonder what megapixel camera will match there format?

Glen

There are no digital cameras that can come close to a 4X5 using even medium speed film. Actually, from what I can tell, there are no digital cameras that can come close to the smaller 2.25 Hasselblad format. If one uses a 50 ASA film in a 35 mm camera one is guaranteed better results than anything digital that's on the market.

Now in fairness, I am excluding the gigantic Sinar cameras with their digital backs. I am also excluding the $40,000 Hasselblads as well. The reason I am excluding these is that if a $5.00 roll of film which if one processes oneself can be processed for about $1.00 can out-compete a $40,000 camera, then the $40,000 camera can be ignored.

farace

06-26-2007, 06:29 AM

Several of my older cameras were designed to use PX625 mercury cells, no longer available. The Wein cell replacement, which is zinc-air (the only type that has the correct voltage among drop-in replacements) is pricey and lasts only 1-6 months. Last night I discovered that the Wein 625 is simply a 675 with a metal ring friction-fitted on. 675 size zinc-air hearing aid batteries are available at CVS for less than a dollar apiece (I think it was a pack of eight for $6 and change). AFAIK, the only difference between these and the Wein cell is that the hearing aid batteries have four air holes, the Weins have two to try to prolong life. Last night I managed to pop the metal ring off a spent Wein 625 cell and press it onto a drugstore 675. I covered two of the four holes with clear fingernail polish and voila, a sub-dollar Wein workalike. For that cost, I'm not going to bother opening the camera to solder in a diode or spend $30 for the CRIS silver cell adapter.

rickw

06-26-2007, 07:11 PM

HoustonianYankee

07-03-2007, 09:24 PM

My non-expert understanding is that a rangefinder will be better for those that desire smaller, lighter, quieter cameras. SLRs have an advantage of being able to see through the lens what the film will see, which is especially good for when you're using something other than the normal lens (rangefinders often have borders inscribed into the viewfinder to show the field of view for different focal lengths). Many rangefinders, because the shutter is built into the lens, are limited to the lens that's built onto the camera; interchangeable lenses are often not an option, different focal length are often achieved with add-on lenses. Also, while some SLRs don't stop down the lens until you press the shutter, some are always at the f-stop you've chosen, which can make for a dim view of your subject matter if you're at a tight f-stop.

One isn't necessarily better than the other; you need to decide on what features are important to you and choose accordingly. Better yet, get one of each. My old Kodak Retina will fit in a fanny pack but is primitive, while my Konica FT-1 has much more advanced features but is much larger.

The great photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica rangefinder. Why? It was silent and unobtrusive. This enabled him to take furtive photos and capture what was for him that "decisive" moment in time that made that photo what it truly was, a unique depiction of reality as it existed. He NEVER cropped a photo and his captures of life in Paris during the early part of the 1900's were incomparable.

Doc4

07-03-2007, 09:41 PM

Great camera, Doc4. The Pentax K1000 was the classic Spotmatic, updated from screwmount lenses to a bayonet mount. Best thing about it, it was pure mechanical. The only thing the battery does is operate the light meter, and you don't need that to operate the camera. You can use an inexpensive hand-held meter, or just follow the old "sunny 16" rule to estimate exposure. I can't think of a better camera for someone wanting to learn the art of photography.

Thanks! I couldn't agree more. I'm not a real shutterbug ... I like to dabble and basically take photos on holidays and vacations and special occasions ... but I do like being able to frame my shots the way I want, underexpose or overexpose as I see fit to get the right exposure on whatever I'm really interested in, and put the focus where I want it. I like being in control, not being subject to the whim of a computer chip or dying battery, and 'having to do it all myself.'

I'm sure there's a 'Rolls Royce of cameras' out there that's better for the real pros, but that'd just be too many bells and whistles for me. :biggrin:

krawlx

07-03-2007, 10:28 PM

Everyone seems to be, and understandably so, recommending the Leica. I've never used a Leica, but of course their reputation is spotless. If you want to save a considerable amount of money, and still get a fine camera, I recommend a Kiev, manufactured in the Ukraine. However, if you decide to go down the Kiev road you need to do some research. Apparently quality control was not of great concern and there are stories of cameras being delivered and upon their first use having light leaks and other problems. But, that didn't really scare me off.

I paid approximately USD$100 for my Kiev, and it's indestructible. It handles colour film very well, and does even better with black and white. Because it's a Nikon knock-off, it will handle most lenses that will fit Nikon bodies. This camera has been through China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and America with me and has never let me down.

As far as where to get one....that presents a different problem altogether. I picked mine up at an antique camera shop in an underground shopping center in central Seoul. I doubt that's convenient for you. But, if you look around, I'm sure you can come across one.

CapeCodJay

07-04-2007, 03:23 AM

Does a Pentax K1000 count?
I love using that camera with Ilford film...but, it looks like I will have to get some lessons from Jim sometime!

HoustonianYankee

07-04-2007, 06:26 AM

Thanks! I couldn't agree more. I'm not a real shutterbug ... I like to dabble and basically take photos on holidays and vacations and special occasions ... but I do like being able to frame my shots the way I want, underexpose or overexpose as I see fit to get the right exposure on whatever I'm really interested in, and put the focus where I want it. I like being in control, not being subject to the whim of a computer chip or dying battery, and 'having to do it all myself.'

I'm sure there's a 'Rolls Royce of cameras' out there that's better for the real pros, but that'd just be too many bells and whistles for me. :biggrin:

Ian,

Most of today's DSLR's have a Manual mode that enables you to take COMPLETE control over the camera...just like the old days. My first camera was a spotmatic and I loved that thing.

chrish

11-02-2007, 08:51 PM

Ian,
Most of today's DSLR's have a Manual mode that enables you to take COMPLETE control over the camera...just like the old days. My first camera was a spotmatic and I loved that thing.

over exposing on film is very different than overexposing on digital though, digital gets very sensitive and tends to lose highlight detail.

For the OP or anyone looking for a new rangefinder w/o battery issues. Voigtlander makes a "M" version of their models now that requires no batteries to operate and takes any M mount lens (leica, cosina voigtlander, zeiss ikon zm). It takes a watch battery to power the light meter but all other functions are mechanical.

Aneurysm

11-03-2007, 05:10 AM

Sabledog

11-03-2007, 07:07 AM

the F1 noctilux.

:drool:

Sabledog

11-03-2007, 07:16 AM

While not really a vintage rangefinder, I think the Contax G series (G1/G2) is a pretty decent rangefinder system with excellent lenses and very well built but it still runs on batteries (CR2, I think) and the shutter is definitely not as quiet as the Leica Ms.

The Nikon F3HP is a great classic and is worth thinking about, Nikon's FM2(n) is another wonderfully camera, fully manual (operational even with batteries althought you will need batteries for metering) and is built like a tank. Legends are abound of its hardiness in the field and it used to be the backup body of many.

If I remember correctly, the F3 has a single mechanical speed, the rest relies on battery power. Otherwise, I agree all around, Also look at the Contax RX for SLR. I went from Nikons (F, F2, F3) to Contax [before digital] for the Zeiss lenses Contax uses. The RX has many of the great qualities as the F3 but is quieter and more electronic, but very sturdy, accurate, and reliable. The 21, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 100 macro are exceptionally good lenses!

One Pro photographer said of Contax: "Made for Professionals, bought by doctors! They're just too nice to take into a coal mine!"

Mike in Cincy

11-05-2007, 04:03 AM

I currently own a Nikon F3HP and FM3a that I've yet to put up on Ebay. I was going to but got a job offer out of state, moved, and haven't had time to set up the Ebay ad. If any are interested, just PM me.

moses

11-06-2007, 11:31 PM

I really don't know a darn thing about this stuff. But I am mighty fond of my Canon AE-1P.

-Mo

Haiku

11-07-2007, 11:15 AM

I really don't know a darn thing about this stuff. But I am mighty fond of my Canon AE-1P.

-Mo

And for good reason, it's one of the great ones.

Radman

01-22-2008, 08:40 PM

Have a Pentax k1000 and an old Mamiya but love black and white and my go to is my old Graflex press with a 2.25x3.25 back for 120 rollfilm. Just cant get into the digital medium even though I was a desk top publisher and design graphics guy for over 20 years........something just fun about film!

Walravine

01-22-2008, 09:43 PM

My father-in-law is an avid camera collector. His home office looks like a camera and film museum.

I love the feel and sound of a film camera. I have an old Minolta X-700 that takes great pictures but most of my camera gear was stolen years ago so I don't use it much anymore. I also have an Exacta that must have been built in the late forties or 1950-51. Talk about a well made German tank. I don't know much about it but you can push a little button and little metal flaps pop up so you can peer down into the viewfinder. Cool.

Sabledog

01-23-2008, 05:15 PM

I don't recommend this as a starter, but man, they're beautiful!

This one is from 1946-'47:

Walravine

01-23-2008, 08:45 PM

Gosh that's a nice camera.

rickw

01-24-2008, 03:10 PM

I don't recommend this as a starter, but man, they're beautiful!

This one is from 1946-'47:

That looks as though it may be a collector item. In the mid 70s those went for about $100 with the lense. When I went looking for a 3G in 1995 they had become collector items and the body was $700.

Sabledog

01-24-2008, 07:52 PM

Apparently the IIIg is the best of this series. I'm selling the lens hopefully for $250 and hope to hold on to the body and replace the lens. I see the IIIc body on ebay sometimes selling for $150 or less!

rickw

01-25-2008, 08:28 AM

If memory serves correctly, that is an Elmar lense. The 3G had flash sync and all of the other goodies. I was looking at it because my Nikon Fs were getting too heavy. I generally had a 35, 85 and 70 - 210 in the bag.

tony mack

01-25-2008, 12:38 PM

To throw in my two cents worth, vintage Nikon film cameras are nice because the old lenses--widely available and inexpensive--are compatible with their new, higher-end digital cameras.

The same is true for Leica lenses, but as always there is the incredible Leica cost premium. Lenses go for 1K to 5K, and the digital M8 body costs 5K.

You can get excellent old Nikon lenses for a couple of hundred each and they will work on the old F-series film cameras as well as on the D-300, which costs less than 2K.

That said, if money were no object, I'd rather carry the more compact and higher quality Leica, in both its film and digital versions.

Sabledog

01-25-2008, 02:41 PM

The Nikkor 105/2.5 (non-AI) was my favorite before I went to Contax. It's a super lens and was very cheap!

Sabledog

01-25-2008, 02:42 PM

rickw

01-25-2008, 06:37 PM

The Nikkor 105/2.5 (non-AI) was my favorite before I went to Contax. It's a super lens and was very cheap!

That was my favorite also until I got a 85/1.8. Inexpensive!

Sabledog

01-25-2008, 07:10 PM

I miss the old Nikkors! I just don't think Nikon holds the competition since about the mid-90's.... Nothings quite the same compared to the old metal lenses and the F, F2, and F3! It was oddly fun grinding the AI slot in my 105 to fit the F3, just can't do that sort of thing any more....

I had to go to Contax, though.... Got a great deal on the 85/1.4; the best that Nikkors get is what that 85 gets EVERY shot (super sharp, fast, great contrast)! And then you get to Zeiss/Leica bokeh... that's a treasure in it's own (then you listen to Leica nuts discussing why they have 3 50mm lenses and why one is ABSOLUTELY BETTER with this film but not that subject....but that's a whole different conversation :001_rolle)

My new plan is a Canon d40 and lens adapter for my Contax 85/1.4 and 50 1.4 (in stop down mode, manual focus, focal length conversion, etc). :thumbup1:

rickw

01-25-2008, 07:28 PM

I worked for Vivitar in the late 70s. Ariel resolution on the Leica lens was fantastic. For photo resolution, one of the Vivitar 50s could match the Leica. Although the Leica glass was better, they were both better than the film.

RayG

01-25-2008, 08:46 PM

Oh my, this can lead to one serious AD :)

Here is a good article (http://photo.net/equipment/beaters/) written by a friend.

Sabledog

01-25-2008, 10:08 PM

Tell me about it! I worked at a camera repair shop for 5 years... people brought boxes of stuff regularly and we cleaned, played, repaired, tested, bought, and sold, bought again, sold again..... I can't count how many lenses and cameras I've at least put a roll or two through.

It was great for everything except the wallet! One thing I like about the shaving thing: razors are CHEAP! :thumbup1::w00t::lol:

rickw

01-26-2008, 09:33 AM

Oh my, this can lead to one serious AD :)

Here is a good article (http://photo.net/equipment/beaters/) written by a friend.

Correct. It can grow into a Linhof http://www.linhof.com/ or the Mamiya 645 or 67. To do your own lab work you need a Bessler or Omega 4 X 5 with a color head. A color processor is also handy.

Sabledog

01-27-2008, 05:03 AM

I've lusted for a Horseman 2x3 for a LONG time! :001_tt1:

Mr. Gillette

03-09-2008, 01:43 PM

Oh my, this can lead to one serious AD :)

Here is a good article (http://photo.net/equipment/beaters/) written by a friend.

I had this AD from about 1972 to 2002....I finally got rid of the rest of the stuff, 4x5 enlarger, 16mm cine stuff (including a cine printer and processing tanks) any number of cameras, from old rangefinders (Canon, Leica) to 4x5 view cameras, with TLR's in the middle, and a couple of 6x7...AND my favorite old camera, a Kodak Medalist, which was a beast but FUN to use.

It's a TERRIBLY addicting hobby, and there was this AWFUL store in Chicago, (still there) called Central Camera that fed this addiction terribly. My children had no shoes because of this place!

I'm glad it's over.

180gVinyl

03-10-2008, 04:34 PM

Mainly use a Canon Digital nowadays

(Pestered by SWMBO because of "ease of use" etc)

Tend to take most pics for "The Speakeasy" :blushing:, holiday snaps of the kids etc

Before needing shots for imageshack, I was fond of the following (which I still have):

Olympus Trip 35

Ricoh GX500 Rangefinder

Pentax Program A SLR

Bluestaco

03-10-2008, 06:33 PM

I took a big streak of that a couple years ago, enrolled in a darkroom class, and scored me some old cameras.

I eventually got a Rolleiflex, a Canonet GIII, a Minolta X-700, a Ricohflex, and some toy cameras. They're all really fun. As it turns out, I really stink at photography, but with these film cameras, who cares? It's fun to play with old film cameras, even if I've yet to capture anything worth looking at. (Yeah, I'm that bad.) :blushing: