Classic cameras

[JJB70]

I’ve said this to you guys before, but my first SLR was a Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL. It was stolen, along with my Yashica Lynx, and I replaced it with a lightly used Canon F-1 and then bought a Pentax KX to provide a home for my (adapted) M42 lenses.

A college buddy going into pro photography was less impecunious than I was and bought a Bronica ETR. Nice camera. At the time, I had the hots for a Bronica S2 but could only afford a used Mamiya C3 for doing that sort of thing. That C3 earned its keep! Hasselblad was pure fantasy for all of us in my circle, but much higher on our want list than Leica.

Rick “already deep into large format using the school’s Linhof” Denney

I never got into medium format, in my film days it was a big step up in price and I was happy with 35mm, but I do sometimes think about trying it now. I often see good examples of the Bronica ETR family, Pentax 645 and some of the Mamiya and Fuji cameras at very enticing prices, and lenses and accessories seem very affordable now. Every now and then I even see Hasselblad 500 series cameras at surprisingly attractive prices. In my younger days it wasn't the price of the bodies that was the problem as the bodies weren't actually that much more than the better 35mm cameras, it was the cost of lenses which was frightening to me. MF lenses seemed to hold their value well at that time so going SH wasn't quite the path to affordability it was for 35mm. I had friends who did pay the money to go into the Pentax 6x7 system who never regretted it, but it was quite an investment for them. I did toy with the idea of dipping a toes in the water with a Kiev or Exakta when they were the entry points into 'affordable' MF but I always ended up just buying another body or lens for my CONTAX kit or cycling gear instead.

 

[rdenney]

One of the giant advantages of the Pentax 645z versus newer offerings from Fuji is that Pentax makes use of lenses made for film cameras. These lenses are excellent, professional-quality lenses that are not in the least embarrassed in front of a 50-megapixel sensor. Some are bit less perfect than others, and unlike some newer offerings, need to be stopped down a bit to be at their best, but I've never owned lenses for 35mm that can support prints as large and as detailed as these do. Part of that is the format advantage, of course, but they preserve that advantage.

And the lenses Pentax has made specifically for the digital 645 cameras are as good as anything made today, at least in front of a 50-megapixel sensor. I have the 28-45 zoom which, preowned, cost as much as the next four most expenses lenses combined, and more than all the remaining ten or so combined. I've paid as little as $125 for autofocus lenses of superb quality. The reason the prices are low is simply demand and supply--the Pentax 645 film cameras were hugely popular and there are lots and lots of lenses being traded on the secondary market. If Pentax had any brains (and that is an open question), they would immediately start buying up old lenses, refurbishing them, and selling them as certified preowned lenses with a warranty. Those would surely command a reasonable surcharge over the usual ebay pricing and still be an absolute bargain.

Even their zooms are excellent. I made a group photo with the 45-70 Pentax zoom with the 645z. I have owned that lens since new, bought with a 645NII, which I bought to do for-money work. There were 75 people in the group, and I can read their name tags. I own L-series lenses for my Canons and have never approached that level of image detail using 24x36.

It was the same with the 6x7 lenses, but prices for those are climbing again, it would seem. That's okay with me at this point--I have just about all of them. I bought into that system at the low point of the market, which is surely the only time I've hit that mark.

But back in the day? Yup. Shockingly expensive. As I said, I bought the 645NII and its lens new, but that was much later in life when I had the scratch. That's why I ended up with a Mamiya C3 when I was starting out, and the very reason why I ever messed with the Ukrainian cameras. The Kiev system included a 45mm lens, and that was wider than anything made for the C-series TLRs (which went to 55 and I have one of those). And then there was the 30mm fisheye. Those were all remarkably cheap

Of course, a lot of medium-format lenses had shutters in the lenses, and that not only made them expensive but it also meant every lens had separate corrections to account for the inevitable variation in shutter speeds. I own a couple of shutter testers for a reason to deal with that problem with my large-format lenses.

Rick "who has posted full-size sample images from most of the 645 lenses on the Pentax forums" Denney

 

[rdenney]

Okay, here are some quick pics of several of my old cameras I’ve mentioned. I did not set up lighting or even wait for daylight. The stage was the top of a Revel F12.

Here’s the Canon F-1, with the extremely useful hi-eye-point prism. Man I loved that thing. Fast speeds are still good but not the slow speeds—it would need an overhaul to be usable. Lens is the 50/1.4 that I bought the TX to get.

Here’s the latest in the series of Mamiya C-series TLRs I used for paid work. The first was a C3, now in pieces. And I had a C33. I used this one until I had a film-advance problem at a wedding. I noticed it at the time and switched to my backup, thank goodness. That’s when I switched to the Pentax 645NII (that will be in a later batch):

This was my wife’s first Nikon. The 70-150 Series E zoom is really excellent and I have adapted that to my Canon. I also use a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, a 105 Nikkor, and a 180/2.8 Nikkor with adapters. That latter two are Sonnar clones—great lenses of the old AI vintage. She replaced an M-series Pentax with this EM, and has used Nikon ever since. Her current model is a D500.

I worked with a guy in the 80’s who traded me this Rolleiflex for a TV. Heh. It’s an early-50’s MX-2 with a 3.5 Schneider Xenar (Tessar type), so not as collectible as a later model with a Xenotar or Planar. Still a great, great camera. Note the Yashica Bay-1 shade—that came off my Yashica 635–my first medium-format camera—which is also in the closet.

Finally for this batch, the most brassed of my three Pentax 6x7’s. All three are in good repair and work great. Love, love, love these things, just a joy to use. This is an older Takumar 200/4, but I also have the newer model from the 90’s.

All of these are classics.

Rick “noting the irony photographing these with an iPhone” Denney

 

[JJB70]

On Pentax, I read somewhere that Ricoh are planning to reposition their photography brands as small boutique producers, they're already pretty much at the bottom of the pile size wise from what I can see (talking about cameras and photography, not necessarily corporate). Ricoh don't seem to have done that much with Pentax and they seem way off the pace of modern offerings. And that's when you can find them. Some of the lenses still seem excellent and the name still has some appeal for people who remember the actual Pentax company prior to its collapse and being bought by Ricoh. Unfortunately all their rivals also offer excellent lenses and much more competitive bodies. So trying to rely on some nice lenses and nostalgia doesn't cut it. Does Pentax have a mirrorless yet?
I must admit, I have sometimes wondered why manufacturers don't try and make more of the potential to refurbish old gear with a 'factory' restoration offering. There are good camera and lens specialists out there and with the support of a factory warranty there might be a nice market as older lenses are quite sought after once again for their character. They could indeed buy some of the sought after models to resell.
One area a factory backed operation might find a niche is restoring glass after fungal growth. Killing and cleaning fungus is easy, the problem is it wrecks the coating, and unless you jump on it very quickly you are still left with tracking marks and breaks to the coating. As each year goes by it seems harder to get lenses free of fungus or which have had fungus removed. I'm sure the manufacturers could offer proper restoration.
Although in years gone by my experience of'factory' service wasn't positive as it was generally just contracted out and some of the companies used weren't impressive. I was seriously disgruntled with Kyocera UK as they seemed incapable of repairing Zeiss lenses, and what they did do seemed to drag on for months. I ended up teaching myself how to strip down and service lenses.

 

[JeffS7444]

1958 Sears: Tower SLR 22, 23, 26 by Jussi, on Flickr

Thanks, prices shown in that ad answer a question of mine, which is why early Asahiflex SLRs were offered with waist level finders rather than pentaprisms: The difference between $77.50, 98.50 and 165.00 would have been no small matter in 1958.

 

[mhardy6647]

Thank "Jussi"/"Nesster" @ Flikr!
He's got a nice site there both in terms of vintage catalog scans (I love vintage catalogs... as some of y'all doubtless have noticed ) and his own photos as well.
Some hifi stuff, too.
... and cats!

Nesster

Explore Nesster’s 19,682 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[JeffS7444]

You should look for an old Konica Autorex, the first of the Konica AR SLRs. It was a remarkable camera as I believe it was the first auto-exposure camera (though I may be wrong) and did it with a mechanical shutter, and it was switchable between full and half-frame. I'm not aware of another SLR that could do that. And it has that bomb proof heavy duty 1960's SLR feel. And it takes the outstanding Konica AR mount Hexanon lenses.

Perhaps someday I will. But at the moment, most of my half-frame activity is more Olympus-specific:

I've had the sense that film cameras have been more of a seller's market for the past few years, so most recent activity has been just that - selling. But maybe I'll splurge and buy myself an Agat-18, an inexpensive Soviet plastic camera which has a set of pictographs for setting correct exposure, and which apparently can take pretty good photos.

 

[rdenney]

Ricoh has been about as good for Pentax as has been possible. It was Hoya, who owned Pentax before Ricoh, that did the damage. Hoya stripped it of its profitable medical equipment division, for example.

Their 24x36 cameras are excellent and fully competitive with DSLR’s from Canon and Nikon. But Pentax is focused on SLR cameras, which they should be given their name. The EVF cameras are branded Ricoh. At least that’s how I think they are doing it.

Even their 645 digital is still competitive and still one of the most capable field cameras on the market. The 100-MP Fuji has captured interest, but as a camera it has only more pixels as an advantage over the 645z.

But their marketing is invisible and their dealer network either disloyal or unempowered.

Rick “form whom the 645z is an end-game digital camera, for as long as it lasts” Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

But I think my first exposure to half-frame 35 mm was via this Canon Demi EE17. Bit of a styling departure for Canon with finder window inspired by Nikon SP, and satin-finished aluminum covers. After usual freshening-up and repair of minor electrical fault, I had my only half-frame camera offering automatic exposure. As expected from a Canon product, I got perfectly spaced and crisp images, though camera itself isn't particularly small for half-frame.

 

[JeffS7444]

On Pentax, I read somewhere that Ricoh are planning to reposition their photography brands as small boutique producers, they're already pretty much at the bottom of the pile size wise from what I can see (talking about cameras and photography, not necessarily corporate). Ricoh don't seem to have done that much with Pentax and they seem way off the pace of modern offerings. And that's when you can find them. Some of the lenses still seem excellent and the name still has some appeal for people who remember the actual Pentax company prior to its collapse and being bought by Ricoh. Unfortunately all their rivals also offer excellent lenses and much more competitive bodies. So trying to rely on some nice lenses and nostalgia doesn't cut it. Does Pentax have a mirrorless yet?

Of course Pentax ventured into mirrorless, in their own sort of way:
https://marc-newson.com/k-01-digital-camera/

And of then there was the Q system:

I had hoped Pentax Q would be a high grade "art" camera for me, capable of amazing lo-fi results. But I ultimately decided that Q didn't quite tickle either my of fancies for deluxe or lo-fi, and the perceived value was lacking. IIRC, the LCD was unexceptional, and high-ISO performance of the sensor was sort of ugly, but not in an interesting way.

No idea how Pentax will fare by positioning the SLR as a premium product: The tactic worked for Leica with the M rangefinder, but only just barely, and even Leica failed to remain part of luxury conglomerate LVMH for long.

 

[rdenney]

The Q and the K-01 were both designed and developed before Ricoh ownership. I think Ricoh did a bit of repositioning, given their own presence in the compact camera market, after they bought and had a chance to incorporate Pentax into their product structure.

Rick “and 2012 predates the mirrorless craze, too” Denney

 

[Gorgonzola]

I really enjoyed using the Canon FT camera after picking a mint version of it used with 50mm Canon lens at the local camera store in the late 90's.
Everything about it was solid and impressive, including the matching Canon FT lenses I bought from a pair of wide angles to Telephoto, all very sharp and contrasty.
A classic.
Unfortunately my vision/focusing issues worsened and I sold them on the big online auction place. I have regretted that decision ever since.
It was replaced with a Canon Rebel G w/ zoom lens. Meh, not so good AF, dim viewfinder and lots of lens distortion. Traded it in for a Nikon.

From the same era as the Canon FT, I owned for a time a Canon Pellix reflex. It used a semi-transparent "pellicle" mirror instead of the standard moving mirror.

It was quieter than the standard reflex as you might expect and had TTL metering, but had about 1.75 f-stop reduction in brightness. All the Canon reflexes used a "breech lock" less mount instead of the more typical then and now, bayonet mount. I owned it for just a couple of years, selling it for to get a Nikon F.

 

[JJB70]

Ricoh has been about as good for Pentax as has been possible. It was Hoya, who owned Pentax before Ricoh, that did the damage. Hoya stripped it of its profitable medical equipment division, for example.

Their 24x36 cameras are excellent and fully competitive with DSLR’s from Canon and Nikon. But Pentax is focused on SLR cameras, which they should be given their name. The EVF cameras are branded Ricoh. At least that’s how I think they are doing it.

Even their 645 digital is still competitive and still one of the most capable field cameras on the market. The 100-MP Fuji has captured interest, but as a camera it has only more pixels as an advantage over the 645z.

But their marketing is invisible and their dealer network either disloyal or unempowered.

Rick “form whom the 645z is an end-game digital camera, for as long as it lasts” Denney

I think Hoya basically did something similar to Olympus Corporation, though as a buyer rather than as a corporate decision within the original company. In both cases there were attractive divisions in medical and industrial equipment, and a camera decision that had been left behind. In the case of Pentax Hoya were always interested in Pentax minus the camera division and pretty much put the camera unit up for sale as soon as they bought the company, Olympus made the decision themselves. And really, if it was my money, I'd advocate the same, even as a camera lover. Either make something of the division or sell it to someone who is interested in making a go of it. Pentax cameras was a shadow of what it had been long before Hoya bought the company. Pentax cameras really needed a buyer like Konica-Minolta found in Sony, I know not everybody likes Sony but Sony invested serious money to make the camera unit successful, innovating and jumping into mirrorless in a big way early. I think they've been treading water under Ricoh and steadily fading from the public conscience. Which I find sad as I love Pentax cameras. If I had the money to really collect vintage cameras in a big way an LX, MX, K2, KM, ME Super and others would be on my shopping list, especially the LX.
The current Pentax camera line is pretty much invisible, and DSLRs are already looking like a hard sell as the market pivots more and more towards mirrorless. A few camera dealers here have the Ricoh GR premium compact on display but Pentax cameras are very hard to find and last time I looked Ricoh Singapore were advertising their 645 demo unit for sale to try and offload it. I think Pentax were one of the companies left behind by the technology revolution of the mid 80's and onwards as camera design was increasingly dominated by electronic technology. Pentax made the the transition better than Olympus, Yashica, Fuji, Ricoh and others (some of which dropped out of SLRs) and their AF SLRs were pretty good but they seemed to lose a lot of ground to Canon, Nikon and Minolta. And they seemed to lose more ground as film was replaced by digital.
I don't think there is anything inevitable about decline. Fuji are an example of a smaller company (in cameras, not corporately) which saw an opportunity in digital and built up a very strong range of cameras and really increased their presence and profile. I really hope the new owners of Olympus cameras return that name to something like what it once was in photography.

 

[JJB70]

Of course Pentax ventured into mirrorless, in their own sort of way:
https://marc-newson.com/k-01-digital-camera/

And of then there was the Q system:
View attachment 184454
I had hoped Pentax Q would be a high grade "art" camera for me, capable of amazing lo-fi results. But I ultimately decided that Q didn't quite tickle either my of fancies for deluxe or lo-fi, and the perceived value was lacking. IIRC, the LCD was unexceptional, and high-ISO performance of the sensor was sort of ugly, but not in an interesting way.

No idea how Pentax will fare by positioning the SLR as a premium product: The tactic worked for Leica with the M rangefinder, but only just barely, and even Leica failed to remain part of luxury conglomerate LVMH for long.

The Pentax Q struck me as something like the Nikon 1 series, something seen by the manufacturers as an accompaniment to serious cameras at a time when Sony and Fujifilm jumped into mirrorless with both feet.

 

[JeffS7444]

One of the giant advantages of the Pentax 645z versus newer offerings from Fuji is that Pentax makes use of lenses made for film cameras.

There's nothing to prevent a person from using those same lenses on a Fujifilm GFX camera via inexpensive adapters, is there?

 

[JJB70]

Thinking about manufacturers better known for medium format than 35mm made me think of Rollei. Rollei had a very diverse range of products including 35mm compacts and SLRs as well as 110 pocket cameras and digital cameras, but at least in the UK it was their medium format models that people generally thought of. The Rollei story is particularly complicated as the company seemed to spend several decades lurching from one crisis to the next, with ownership changing hands frequently, and many of the more consumer oriented cameras were made by Japanese manufacturers. Trying to figure out what is what with Rollei cameras is a minefield, which is a shame as at one time it was one of the great names of camera manufacture. The reason it popped into my head (other than thinking about the crossover between medium format and 35mm) is that there is a link with my current home of Singapore. In the 1970's Rollei moved most production to Singapore along with hopelessly optimistic dreams for their Asian manufacturing hub. One of the key products was the SL35 35mm SLR line. The SL35 series was in that large group of camera models which were competently designed and solidly built, but unremarkable, average. They had some excellent lenses, but so did other cameras, and are now all but forgotten. When I say average I don't use that as a pejorative term, rather an acknowledgement that most products are by definition average, they were good cameras. I don't know if it is still the case but at one time Rollei SL35 bodies and lenses marked as being made in Germany commanded significantly higher prices than those marked as made in Singapore even though Rollei Singapore had a pretty good reputation for building to a good standard. Sadly, decades of mismanagement and corporate convulsion took a toll and what had been a proud company ended up as not much more than a brand name swapping hands and an increasingly forgotten one at that. A sad story.

 

[JJB70]

I've had the sense that film cameras have been more of a seller's market for the past few years, so most recent activity has been just that - selling. But maybe I'll splurge and buy myself an Agat-18, an inexpensive Soviet plastic camera which has a set of pictographs for setting correct exposure, and which apparently can take pretty good photos.

I think part of it is the normal dip that old generation tech initially sees values nose dive and then it recovers as collectors emerge and also those who still use it. Usually supplies reduce as most stuff is thrown out or ends up as junk, so good examples become more sought after. And in the case of photographic equipment there has been a resurgence in interest in classic lenses as with adapters they can be used with digital cameras. As with many things if you want a mint example of a specific item it can become expensive (especially if you want it boxed with paperwork as some collectors do), but if you are flexible or willing to do a bit of work to restore beat up examples then you can pick stuff up for peanuts.
As a general bit of advice, for anyone with an interest in mechanical things who would like to find a hobby and use their hands, buying a beat up 'parts only' camera and trying to bring it to life and restore it is great fun and a hobby in itself. Some people have turned it into quite a useful source of income too.

 

[rdenney]

There's nothing to prevent a person from using those same lenses on a Fujifilm GFX camera via inexpensive adapters, is there?

You can, but with some loss of convenience, I expect.

I don’t know how they would look to pixel peepers using a 100-megapixel sensor in all cases. But I look on that the same way I do people who sell a DAC with a SINAD of 115 dB to buy on that’s 120 dB, and then judge it through real speakers in a real room. For the size actual prints any pro would make using medium format, they are excellent.

Rick “whose 645z still fulfills all his requirements and then some” Denney

 

[rdenney]

Thinking about manufacturers better known for medium format than 35mm made me think of Rollei. Rollei had a very diverse range of products including 35mm compacts and SLRs as well as 110 pocket cameras and digital cameras, but at least in the UK it was their medium format models that people generally thought of. The Rollei story is particularly complicated as the company seemed to spend several decades lurching from one crisis to the next, with ownership changing hands frequently, and many of the more consumer oriented cameras were made by Japanese manufacturers. Trying to figure out what is what with Rollei cameras is a minefield, which is a shame as at one time it was one of the great names of camera manufacture. The reason it popped into my head (other than thinking about the crossover between medium format and 35mm) is that there is a link with my current home of Singapore. In the 1970's Rollei moved most production to Singapore along with hopelessly optimistic dreams for their Asian manufacturing hub. One of the key products was the SL35 35mm SLR line. The SL35 series was in that large group of camera models which were competently designed and solidly built, but unremarkable, average. They had some excellent lenses, but so did other cameras, and are now all but forgotten. When I say average I don't use that as a pejorative term, rather an acknowledgement that most products are by definition average, they were good cameras. I don't know if it is still the case but at one time Rollei SL35 bodies and lenses marked as being made in Germany commanded significantly higher prices than those marked as made in Singapore even though Rollei Singapore had a pretty good reputation for building to a good standard. Sadly, decades of mismanagement and corporate convulsion took a toll and what had been a proud company ended up as not much more than a brand name swapping hands and an increasingly forgotten one at that. A sad story.

Rollie’s central product has always been their rollfilm twin-lens reflex camera. That went the path that single-lens reflex cameras now seem to be going, sadly (in both cases). But the lack of interchangeable lenses was the key failing.

They made a conventional 35mm SLR camera only as an afterthought. They tried to innovate with the very tiny compact 35S and the SL-2000 box SLR with interchangeable backs. The latter didn’t take and the former still probably has a cult following.

Rick “who once owned an excellent handle-mount Rollei thyristor flash” Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

Thinking about manufacturers better known for medium format than 35mm made me think of Rollei. Rollei had a very diverse range of products including 35mm compacts and SLRs as well as 110 pocket cameras and digital cameras, but at least in the UK it was their medium format models that people generally thought of. The Rollei story is particularly complicated as the company seemed to spend several decades lurching from one crisis to the next, with ownership changing hands frequently, and many of the more consumer oriented cameras were made by Japanese manufacturers. Trying to figure out what is what with Rollei cameras is a minefield, which is a shame as at one time it was one of the great names of camera manufacture. The reason it popped into my head (other than thinking about the crossover between medium format and 35mm) is that there is a link with my current home of Singapore. In the 1970's Rollei moved most production to Singapore along with hopelessly optimistic dreams for their Asian manufacturing hub. One of the key products was the SL35 35mm SLR line. The SL35 series was in that large group of camera models which were competently designed and solidly built, but unremarkable, average. They had some excellent lenses, but so did other cameras, and are now all but forgotten. When I say average I don't use that as a pejorative term, rather an acknowledgement that most products are by definition average, they were good cameras. I don't know if it is still the case but at one time Rollei SL35 bodies and lenses marked as being made in Germany commanded significantly higher prices than those marked as made in Singapore even though Rollei Singapore had a pretty good reputation for building to a good standard. Sadly, decades of mismanagement and corporate convulsion took a toll and what had been a proud company ended up as not much more than a brand name swapping hands and an increasingly forgotten one at that. A sad story.

With their medium format SLRs, I felt that Rollei was aggressively playing the planned-obsolescence game. I really enjoyed the Rolleiflex SL66 when I had it, but decided not to pursue their MF SLRs further, because I felt it was a bottomless cash-sink.

Rollei 35SE was a good little camera, but I never really got the hang of it. I got along with the Minox 35EL better.

For whatever reason, to date, the twin-lens reflex and I have never really "clicked", but I've thought that I might like to try the pint-sized 4x4 Baby Rolleiflexes.