Cameraboos and collecting
At the onset of Digital, a lot of really, really good film cameras went begging, and i have a locker full of cameras that were literally given to me.
Some are junk, and some are very nice, and many are in between.
And it all speaks to how people took photographs. See, the real hardcore film junkies, back in the day, wanted a camera that would allow them to do anything. Long exposures. Short exposures. Double exposures. Guys went looking for more and more lens, and if you go through old issues of Popular Photography (From the thirties and forties, not the nineties) you will discover that a LOT of the magazine was about gadgetry and tricks. How to make an impromptu film processing lab out of some old sheets and visqueen in an African Savannah. How to adapt your Leica lens collection to your fancy new Pentax SLR. How to process reels of movie film in your bathtub.
Because Camera geeks are like all other geeks. Off the shelf is just not good enough- or for that matter, fast enough or slow enough or anything enough. So they tinkered. Experimented. Argued over the best methods for doing anything.
Manufacturers faced a serious dilemma. How to make a camera simple enough to operate that a casual user would be able to take a decent picture, and complex enough that the cameraboos would load up on them and everyone and their brother would make accessories. One of the companies in the early days that really did this well was Argus. You had focus, a film advance, a shutter speed, and an aperture, those were the basic controls you needed. It came with a chart that showed you how to set those values based on observable data. A Leica had enough controls that it intimidated a lot of people, it wasn’t an amateur’s camera. The Russians made knockoffs of Leica and Hasselblad and Pentax and they were mostly rubbish. Kodak continued to make cameras for the sole purpose of selling their film.
Cameras started out as boxes with simple lenses and spring loaded shutters. You took your picture and then took your chances. Unless conditions were perfect, your pictures were going to suck. Adjustable shutter speeds, aperture, focus as well as varying film attributes changed that, but it got complex. And then years were spent trying to re-simplify it.
The distillation of all of this was the Instamatic. Kodak figured out that most people didn’t want to be a camera geek, they wanted a picture of Suzie and Brad’s prom. So the instamatic, with it’s easy to load cartridge, and one speed shutter, and fairly decent quality (For molded plastic) lens, was the fastest selling thing since sliced bread. I am to this day surprised the earth isn’t covered in a layer of Instamatic cameras about 10 feet thick. They must have all been recycled into Glocks and football helmets.
The higher end makers figured out that they could make decent cameras with good lenses which had automatic exposure and speed and even, eventually, focus. This got some people back into high end cameras, but not a lot. And then digital came along and film all but disappeared. Digital does it all for you, and you generally get a picture that is recognizable right away, and if you cut Aunt Edna’s head off, you can take another picture right away and it doesn’t cost a dime.
There was a window when you could get a leica which was once a months pay for an average person for the cost of a really nice lunch for four. I did not at that time, though I should have. Now, the prices are going up because of a new kind of cameraboo, and I consider myself lucky to have latched onto the few gems I have. Still, the ‘Simple” cameras are common and cheap enough, and it’s still very inexpensive to be a collector of early Argus, or old Kodak folders, or even some of the better low end german stuff. The Russian cameras are a hoot, just because there are so many variations, and i am told that the very early Kiev cameras contained some very good lenses before socialist quality control kicked in, but as shelf warmers they’re interesting.
Personally, I like the “Consumer” cameras. The ones that had minimal controls, were aimed at the guy who wanted to have memories of their trip to the Grand Canyon or Disney and were designed to be as simple as possible without having to know too much about “Emulsion sensitivity” And those cameras are still cheap, even on Ebay, and once in a while you can see them at flea markets for next to nothing. I just bought a Canonet, a really nice fixed lens rangefinder, and leather case, for $2. Auto exposure with manual settings.
So you can be a collector of nice cameras as cheaply as once you might have been a collector of small autoloaders. And yes, they’ll often still work, the ones that do fail generally do so because of complex focal plane shutters. Happy hunting!
11 comments Og | Uncategorized
Between all the books and the radios I already have, if I started collecting film cameras, I would not be able to complain if my wife decided to kill me :)
Still have my C-3 with an original Argus telephoto lens. Getting the rangefinder to sync when switching lens was a serious PITA with that outfit.
Also have a couple of Kodak flash(bulb) holders that used the bulbs that were the size of a 100w light bulb. Those suckers would light up a block after dark, heh, heh.
I’ll let you know when I find a mint Kodak Retina IIc (small “c” variant)
The razor sharp Schneider-Kreuzach 50mm f/2.8 lens wasn’t a low light wonder, nor was the dim diamond shaped rangefinder as seen through the viewfinder.
But with a Syncrho-Compur shutter, with X synch to 1/500th sec., there wasn’t much the camera couldn’t do with a little knowledge, skill and practice.
I also had the 35 mm and 70mm lens sets for the interchangeable front elements.
The fact that this little German made beauty would fold into a briefcase sized package was icing on the cake.
Unlike you, I don’t want to collect ’em all.
Just that, a good Hassleblad 500 C/M with prism finder and A-20 back, and pretty full set of Nikon F-3 gear, to replace the F-2a system I’d sold off a decade back.
But for digital?
I’m going to get the Nikon Df.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/df.htm
Full modern digital, with controls that work like a Nikon F2 or FE.
This, I like. Lust. Make that Lust. Want!
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Back in the late 80’s I bought a Canon A-1 and 135 and 300 mm lenses to go with it (it came with a 50). Had everything but hot-and-cold running ice cubes, could do aperture priority, shutter priority, program (where the camera set both), and manual control. Shot lo many rolls of film, developed and printed my own black-and-white, tried color at one point but found it too much hassle.
It’s now in the top of the closet and hasn’t been used in over a decade. We had a point-and-shoot digital camera which we’ve misplaced, but our phones take better pictures anyway.
I’d probably get a Canon DSLR, but they changed the mounts so I can’t use my old lenses. AFAIK nobody makes a DSLR body that would work with my old lenses.
Sigh, very sigh.
Mark D
The A-1 was indeed, one hell of a fine camera. Probably only 2nd to Canon’s vaunted F-1 of the 1970s, for professional use in the film era.
But, if you get back into it, consider Nikon. Backward compatibility of lenses, all the way back to the early 1960s.
Otherwise, the two brands are the “Chevy vs. Ford” argument, as they’re both excellent systems.
But there’s a reason that the pros of the era went with Nikon 4:1 over Canon, and that only two brands of camera have ever been on the moon.
Hasselblad and Nikon.
Check out the digital Nikon Df in my preceding comment. If that doesn’t fire up some vintage camera lust, what will?
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Jim,
I just took at look at the Df, if I suggested to my wife that I spend that kind of money on a camera she’d have my head on a pike in the yard. Over two grand just for the body?
Mark D…. I’ve seen Df bodies on eBay for $1,700 ish, new in box.
Pricey? Yep. But really mid-range, compared to the pro series Canon and Nikon DLSR bodies, such sports and news photographers use.
Keep in mind, that the 1977 made Nikon F-2a, sold for a list of $1,399, and street price of +/- $1,100, all the way back in 1977 dollars. That’d be what, a four grand camera, today?
What makes the Df so attractive though, is the straight-analog dial set up for ISO, shutter speed and aperature, even though the full range of digital SLR goodies is available on the back cover.
Makes my built-in muscle memory from decades of Nikon use, instantly accessible when using the Df.
The previous “Menu Screen” bodies, were so counter intuitive to me, as to render a Cherry 11″x14″ view camera a viable option in their place. (yes, I exaggerate, but only a little)
A Df, for me, will be a “last in a lifetime” body, unless they come out with something a decade from now of equal or greater impact.
Hell, if they’d have just put a fully digital back onto an F-2 system, I’d have been more than content to stay right there with that platform.
Wouldn’t sell them enough new gear, I expect. Such is the market. I’ll adapt.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Oh, I’m not saying it’s not a good camera, and as noted it is comparable to the high-end Nikon and Canon film bodies. It’s just that my A-1 cost me under $300 in the late 80’s and gave excellent service for many years (including a number of photography classes in college, which I took for my art requirements). If I were going to go DSLR I’d be looking for something comparable to the A-1 I know and love. Not necessarily Canon, because as noted the lenses won’t work, so I’m not married to the brand.
The real reason I haven’t bitten the bullet yet on a good digital camera is that the tech is advancing so quickly. Maybe five years ago we bought a point-and-shoot camera. Two years ago we got phones with better resolution. I’ve little doubt that if I dropped four figures on a phone, the iPhone 12d will have higher resolution in a couple years.
Mark. Put that A-1 back to work, and fiddle around with a few rolls of film.
It’ll help the camera survive longer, as the movement will keep the shutter, mirror and other gears lubed.
And, it’ll help you enjoy it a bit more, wringing every penny of your long-ago purchase from it.
Like I said, I’m a huge fan of the A-1, and sold many of them over the counter, back when I worked in that industry.
Know what else is a piece of jewelry of the camera maker’s art? The Olympus OM-1 & OM-2, and related systems. About 7/8 to 3/4 the size of comparable 35mm SLRs, including the lenses. Quality out the wazoo, as well.
For a while there, the pros were gravitating to Olympus, and those that didn’t switch were at least watching with close attention.
Alas, Olympus never responded with a true “pro” system, w/ interchangeable focus screens, viewfinders and other system bits that were considered vital to the trade in that era.
Even the Canon F-1 of the day had interchangeable prisms, screens, etc.
Nowdays, we don’t see the prisms being modular, as the electronics are too tightly woven into the design. And a “sports finder” ain’t a thing, anymore. Large digital screen on the back does the same job, only better.
The one thing I’ll disagree with you on here though, is this;
At some point, you can’t keep watching for future-tech to arrive.
Yes, things will get better, after you buy. They always will.
But always trying to get newest n’ bestest, is one reason why the F-35 is such a fiasco. Rather than “freeze” the design and just build the damn thing, they keep trying to be screamingly up to date, with changes flowing into the assembly line, as they develop.
Used to be, they’d save up a bunch of changes, and give an “F-35 E or F or G” model, as time goes on.
Get the best camera your budget allows, and figure on it being a hoss for a decade. Might seem dated by the end of that time, but believe me, it’ll still be delivering (very acceptable) results.
Hell, I can’t afford a Df yet, either. I just want it because of how the controls work. Makes it worth the price, for me.
Oh, and for sticker shock?
Look up a digital Hasselblad. Forty grand isn’t unexpected.
Might as well be made of unobtanium.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
I learned photography on a Leica IIIf and it’s Japanese clone. I still take it out and run a roll of film through it for old time’s sake. You could do ANYTHING with a IIIf if you knew what you were doing, and it’s 100% mechanical, which means no batteries to go dead in the middle of a session.
When I became a working man I bought a Ricoh XR-7. Lovely, rugged little SLR that took Pentax lenses as well as it’s own (very good) Ricoh glass. The epitome of the 1980’s non-professional SLR. 1990’s SLR’s are all plastic. Back in the 1980’s they were metal and lasted forever. I still use the XR-7 and it works like the day it was new.
If I had to go digital I’d get a Pentax K-1. Pro-level features, a full-frame sensor and it takes every Pentax-mount lens ever made. Only problem is it costs close to two grand, which I can’t afford post-Obama. If I went to another manufacturer like Nikon or Canon I’d probably be out another $5000 to replace all the lenses I already have in K-mount.
Indeed, GregMan. Truer words are seldom spoken.
If you ever find yourself wishing the Leica was used more often, and that it was lonely, I would be tickled to keep it company for you, for as long as it likes.