• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Classic cameras

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
I very much like some of the work done by the Swiss illustrator Donald Brun
Donald Brun Gevaert Poster.jpg
gevaert-film-36512-agfa-vintage-poster.jpg.1600x0_q85_upscale.jpg
 
OP
J

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Crazy, I have a NIB Kiev 88CM sitting on a shelf. I haven't looked at prices, but should probably start selling my collection. I have two Contax 645 AF bodies, half a dozen film backs for them, and a P1 back. Other gems are an already-mentioned Yashica 124g, an HB 501C, and a Nikonos iii among dozens of other vintage cameras.

These days I mostly use my X100S or a 5DMk3, but when I'm feeling particularly OCD about a photo the Contax/Phase One kit comes out. I used to process film at home, but gave up on that a couple of moves ago. Had a studio with a darkroom ten years or so ago, and have unloaded most of that gear. Kept the cameras around to display and occasionally run film through.

I love that someone mentioned crossover between audio and photo gear- the thing that strikes me about the situation is that audiophiles with vintage gear don't care about measured quality, but photographers really do. I find it fascinating that old cameras can have similar or better image quality than brand new cameras. I taught photo students that the most important tool a photographer has is between their ears, not between their hands.

GAS is a disease that affects audio and visual nerds equally though, and no amount of lecturing or education is going to stop someone from buying the latest (and not necessarily greatest). Kyocera stopped production of the Contax 645 AF in 2005, yet it remains the single greatest camera ever made. To date, I haven't held or seen anything that beats it.

Seeing as how the first Contax 645AF cameras rolled off the line in 1998-99, they're more than 20 years old and are "vintage" now, yet they're made from carbon fiber, take two different styles of batteries (CR2 or AA) for easy power, have modern camera modes (PASM), great metering, autofocus (slow but accurate), fast lenses (80mm F2 in 645!), are light and comfortable, and the best of all- no damn screens. There is a locking button or switch for every function, so you're never going to wade through 6 screens of modes to figure out why 2nd curtain sync is enabled. The ability to switch between film and digital is just a massive bonus.

CONTAX made wonderful cameras, I used to use their 35mm SLR system and still say the RTS iii is the 'nicest' device I have ever owned. Not the best, technology marches on and even when released the market had decisively turned to AF, but the handling and tactile feel were quite remarkable and the features it did provide were very well thought through. The 645AF seemed to get a mixed reception on release, some loved it as bringing a more 35mm inspired design and technology ethos into MF, others seemed to hate it for the same reason, but over time it seems to have been recognized as the great camera it was.
Kyocera pulling the plug on Yashica/CONTAX was a sad day for photography but it had been on the cards for a while. CONTAX never really made up for the ground they lost by being so late to AF, thanks to Zeiss claiming AF lenses weren't as good as MF lenses and refusing to sully themselves. The N system which was an admission that Zeiss had been wrong was a well designed system, but changing the mount whilst technically justified really alienated a lot of existing users which had bought into the system precisely because of the lenses on offer. Nowadays it seems to be less of an issue as few look on digital cameras as the sort of long term companions people viewed film cameras as, but for many CONTAX users it basically begged the question - if we're going to start again what does CONTAX really offer? The lovely G system was a niche product, similar to the 645AF being a wonderful camera but a niche, the N series SLRs whilst nice were expensive and lost some of the tactile feel that made their film cameras so wonderful. That's when I lost my attachment to CONTAX, despite having entered photography as a hobby via a Yashica FX-D and having been a real enthusiast of CONTAX/Yashica for 20 years.
However, for all that I retain a love of those old CONTAX cameras and even now often think of buying a nice RTS iii, S2 and maybe a 139 quartz for old times sake.
 
OP
J

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I'll throw in a name and say they deserve a much better place in the pantheon of camera manufacturers which may be controversial - Cosina.

Cosina are almost a hidden manufacturer, yes they make equipment under their own name but a large part of their output has been under other names. For many years they were the manufacturer of choice for Japanese camera companies wanting to outsource some of their production. Because the models outsourced tended to be low cost entry level models like the Nikon FM-10, Olympus OM-2000 and Canon T60 people tend to associate Cosina with being cheap low rent stuff for people that can't afford anything better. That ignores two things I think, firstly that the Cosina SLRs that were used as the basis of multiple cameras sold under other names were actually very well designed cameras which basically lasted from the late 70's until the end of the film era (for new production), and secondly that if you look at their optics they have made some seriously impressive lenses and are the manufacturers of many Zeiss lenses among others (Cosina also manufactured the modern Zeiss Ikon range finder). Their Voigtlander range has seen some wonderful cameras and lenses. I think the fact that Cosina bouth rights to use the Voigtlander name indicates they are realistic about the (lack of) cachet attached to the Cosina brand, but nevertheless it is a company which has made a much bigger contribution to photography than most realise.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
The last time that a medium format camera announcement caused me to stop dead in my tracks and think "Yes, yes, this is it!" was an advertisment in Japan Airlines's in-flight magazine for the Fuji GA645zi. And while I did not seek out the nearest BIC Camera or Yodobashi and buy it on that particular trip, I did get ahold of one soon enough. For me, GA645zi was the right thing at the right time. While not oblivious to the joys of parallax-free medium format SLRs, I had a pretty serious Fujifilm rangefinder jones, from the easy-to-carry 6x4.5s to the still-manageable 6x9s. In fact, when I recently got to try out the current Fujifilm GFX-50R, it gave me a rush of warm 'n fuzzies, because it felt almost as if I had gotten back my old GSW690 III film camera!

Friends of mine got into the Contax 35 mm and medium format systems, and while I admired them, Leica 35 mm cameras and lenses could often be had more cheaply because they were plentiful and had been in production for decades, whereas Kyocera/Contax was relatively new and commanded higher prices accordingly. And for medium format SLRs, the same was true of Hasselblad.

Autofocus wasn't a big selling point for me into the early aughties, but maybe it would have been, had I taken note of Canon's USM technology. But buzzy screw-driven lenses? Not so much.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
No particular story here, except that this was the styrofoam-encased camera shown in post #54. Gave it away, regretted it for some reason, but found a very similar replacement for $25, so all is good.
View attachment 183764
The Russians sure can make a camera look like a GAZ-14, can't they?

Rick "horrible memories of trying to make a couple of different Horizon 202's work" Denney
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
The last time that a medium format camera announcement caused me to stop dead in my tracks and think "Yes, yes, this is it!" was an advertisment in Japan Airlines's in-flight magazine for the Fuji GA645zi. And while I did not seek out the nearest BIC Camera or Yodobashi and buy it on that particular trip, I did get ahold of one soon enough. For me, GA645zi was the right thing at the right time. While not oblivious to the joys of parallax-free medium format SLRs, I had a pretty serious Fujifilm rangefinder jones, from the easy-to-carry 6x4.5s to the still-manageable 6x9s. In fact, when I recently got to try out the current Fujifilm GFX-50R, it gave me a rush of warm 'n fuzzies, because it felt almost as if I had gotten back my old GSW690 III film camera!

...
I always jonesed for the GSW690III--the Texas Leica--which just seemed the ultimate throw-in-the-suitcase travel camera. They were never cheap enough when the jonesing was upon me, and Mr. Jones had departed by the time they were.

Fuji has had a history of great cameras, but they tend to stick with them a bit less long than my emotional favorite, Pentax (recognizing that the Pentax of today ain't the same in this dimension as Pentax of old). Their optics have been excellent, always. While my best large-format lenses are all German (mostly because those were the deals that came my way), nobody but nobody who knows anything underestimates the Fuji large-format glass from back in the 70's and 80's.

I have a buddy who bought a Fuji SW 90/8 opposing biogon-style lens (a category that includes the original symmetrical Biogon, and also the Super Angulon and Grandagon, from Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock, respectively, along with the Nikkor-SW) about the same time I bought a Super Angulon 90/5.6, both multicoated. If there was a difference in quality, we couldn't tell it. But I think they were the first of the Big Four that entered the 70's with products (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji) to abandon large format.

The GA645zi was another example--a big splash and the whole GA645 line (along with the G line, except the 680 which held on a little while longer) was discontinued within four or five years. Fuji was then and still is trying to make a medium-format camera that looks and handles like a small-format camera. That's good and bad--good for those who want that kind of careless convenience of a miniature rangefinder (or mirrorless), but bad for inviting comparison with cameras that cost a half to a fourth as much. Fuji seems to be marketed to early adopters and that's about it. They have already discontinued their first medium-format digital camera (admittedly perhaps necessary).

Rick "not usually an early adopter" Denney
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,217
Likes
24,183
Speaking of second-tier (at least in the 35 mm film space*) manufacturers who were also important OEMs... :)
My first camera. A Christmas present in 1973 which serves well to this day -- although the light meter died somewhere along the line. Fully mechanical, large, heavy, and unsophisticated -- but reliable.

DSC_1643s.jpg

My son's photo of it from his blog: https://icouldbeahero.blogspot.com/2012/02/this-old-camera-mamiyasekor-500tl.html

A mamiya OEM, wearin' a snazzier suit of clothes...



___________________
* and... yeah, yeah... I know all about the various flavors of medium format mamiyas (mamiyae?)... so, don't start with me, 'K? ;)
 

thunderchicken

Active Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
146
Likes
120
Location
Seattle
I love the new Fuji dMF cameras- if I were to take my original studio budget from 2005 and do it all again, I'd go straight to the GFX 100 and not even bother with my Canon or Phase One stuff. The reason I haven't sold my current kit for one is that they're still not true 16 bit capture the way my P1 back is. Dynamic range is hard limited to 12 bits or so per channel. Better than even prosumer "35mm" dSLRs (they're 8 bits/ch.), but not as good as true pro stuff. P1 went to full 16 bit capture early and that was the selling point for me. Shadows don't block up that way unless you underexpose by 5 or more stops(!). I almost didn't have to light anything. Compare that with my 5DIII, where I light the entire scene to the subject's level to flatten DR into the first stop of exposure just to add shadows back to the scene in post.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
... I think [Fujifilm] were the first of the Big Four that entered the 70's with products (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji) to abandon large format.

The GA645zi was another example--a big splash and the whole GA645 line (along with the G line, except the 680 which held on a little while longer) was discontinued within four or five years.
At the time, that never entered my mind, because I felt these were standalone purchases, not part of a larger system. And whatever thoughts I might have entertained regarding the GX680 system were immediately silenced when I saw how freaking large the thing was: Leave that one in the studio!

As with investing, I try to concentrate more on where I think a camera system is headed, and not so much about where it's been. Of current systems, I put my money mostly on Sony's E-mount, while also keeping an eye on mobile devices: I may not be prepared to use iPhone 11 as my primary camera today, but tomorrow's a different day.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
The Russians sure can make a camera look like a GAZ-14, can't they?

Rick "horrible memories of trying to make a couple of different Horizon 202's work" Denney
GAZ-14 looks seriously un-proletarian; how's about a VAZ 2121 aka Lada Niva?
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
I went through a few phases of my own. Dec 2006, and I had just taken delivery of the era's must-have camera, the Leica M8. And the only way I could reasonably afford it was by selling off the past, so this was a farewell photo of my M3, M6 and R4sP. I used the M8 enough to put a couple of dents in it. A few years later, the M8 was in turn sold off in order to finance an M9. A few years after that, the M9 itself gave way to mirrorless! Really was very fond of M8 and M9 in their time, but realistically, the writing was on the wall when the first Sony E-mount cameras arrived.

DSCF0748.jpg
 

dlaloum

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
3,092
Likes
2,353
My Camera voyage:

A Kodak instamatic birthday present when I was 7 started the voyage

My mothers old Box Brownie found its way to me a couple of years later (courtesy of my grandparents)

Things took a step up with a Pentax Spotmatic F circa 1980...

I tracked down some used "glass" for it, and along the way picked up a Praktica as well

In the mid 80's the Pentax was replaced with my first brand new camera since the instamatic - an Olympus OM2

I purchased some lenses for it as well over time, and then purchased another OM2 body so I could run two film types

A gorgeous heirloom Leica IIIc (which has it's own history) found it's way to me from my grandparents - and was used a lot for candids, and various shooting where a QUIET camera was needed .... this led to

Leica CL - slightly smaller than the IIIc, but with onboard through the lens metering - I purchased a 40mm and 90mm lens - both the minolta rather than Leica versions (could not afford the Leica version!)

I still have most of these - I sold the Leica CL (and have missed it since!)
 
Last edited:

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
I love the new Fuji dMF cameras- if I were to take my original studio budget from 2005 and do it all again, I'd go straight to the GFX 100 and not even bother with my Canon or Phase One stuff. The reason I haven't sold my current kit for one is that they're still not true 16 bit capture the way my P1 back is. Dynamic range is hard limited to 12 bits or so per channel. Better than even prosumer "35mm" dSLRs (they're 8 bits/ch.), but not as good as true pro stuff. P1 went to full 16 bit capture early and that was the selling point for me. Shadows don't block up that way unless you underexpose by 5 or more stops(!). I almost didn't have to light anything. Compare that with my 5DIII, where I light the entire scene to the subject's level to flatten DR into the first stop of exposure just to add shadows back to the scene in post.
Yup—that’s the most important difference between my Canon 5DII and my Pentax 645z—the ability to pull up shadow detail.

Rick “who doesn’t need or want 100mp” Denney
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
At the time, that never entered my mind, because I felt these were standalone purchases, not part of a larger system. And whatever thoughts I might have entertained regarding the GX680 system were immediately silenced when I saw how freaking large the thing was: Leave that one in the studio!

As with investing, I try to concentrate more on where I think a camera system is headed, and not so much about where it's been. Of current systems, I put my money mostly on Sony's E-mount, while also keeping an eye on mobile devices: I may not be prepared to use iPhone 11 as my primary camera today, but tomorrow's a different day.

Yes, I think my Sinar F with a rollfilm holder is lighter than the GX680 and not much bigger.

I don’t think I can ever be happy using a phone. Too little control.

Rick “who can drive stick-shifts” Denney
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
Leica CL - slightly smaller than the IIIc, but with onboard through the lens metering - I purchased a 40mm and 90mm lens - both the minolta rather than Leica versions (could not afford the Leica version!)
Was there any optical difference between the 40/2 Leitz Summicron-C and 40/2 M-Rokkor? Was somehow under the impression they were pretty much the same thing. Had the former and was very fond of it! MTF-wise probably not so great, with most of the "pop" concentrated in the center of the image. But I found it a pleasing look which worked well with the digital sensor, I enjoyed the in-between focal length, and the petite dimensions of the thing. But I wouldn't consider it a bargain at $500, let alone $900.
 

dlaloum

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
3,092
Likes
2,353
Was there any optical difference between the 40/2 Leitz Summicron-C and 40/2 M-Rokkor? Was somehow under the impression they were pretty much the same thing. Had the former and was very fond of it! MTF-wise probably not so great, with most of the "pop" concentrated in the center of the image. But I found it a pleasing look which worked well with the digital sensor, I enjoyed the in-between focal length, and the petite dimensions of the thing. But I wouldn't consider it a bargain at $500, let alone $900.
I honestly don't recall - I used the 40mm for general use - but I particularly liked the 90mm with the super quiet shutter, and the 90mm it made an excellent too for candids, and candid portraits - but this is all a long time ago, I onsold it in the early 90's...

Yeah Leica's don't make a lot of sense in value for money terms.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,509
I honestly don't recall - I used the 40mm for general use - but I particularly liked the 90mm with the super quiet shutter, and the 90mm it made an excellent too for candids, and candid portraits - but this is all a long time ago, I onsold it in the early 90's...

Yeah Leica's don't make a lot of sense in value for money terms.
You read my mind: Have noticed that the 28 and 90 mm M-Rokkors are still somewhat reasonably priced, and maybe very tempting for situations where small and lightweight lenses are called for. But meanwhile, I scored an old pre-AI 105/2.5 Nikkor: Excellent build quality and very decent performance with FF digital sensors for $30? Yes please.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857


Yeah Leica's don't make a lot of sense in value for money terms.

They did 50 years ago and more. But they’ve been really a fetish object for a long time.

Leitz and Zeiss both specified designs and glass types from their Japanese partners, were operating under license. Some were able to use those designs (unattributably, of course) in their own products. I’m trying to remember if Yashica-branded lenses were the same as Zeiss-branded lenses for the Contax, and my fuzzy memory suggests they were not. Minolta had great lens designs before Leica came along, so I’d be surprised if there was a lot of crossover.

In Zeiss’s case, rumor, probably apocryphal, has it the Zeiss provided specialty glass to Yashica through their relationship with Schott, for use only with Zeiss-branded lenses.

Rick “Which may or may not have been advantage” Denney
 
Top Bottom