Classic cameras

[JeffS7444]

My Leica IIIf, (w/o self-timer) was stolen from me back in the mid-'60s only a few months after I bought it; I only got to take a couple of rolls of film.

Ouch!

But I think if I were looking for a camera that uses Leica 'M39' "Barnack" mount lenses I might check out something a little more recent and/or more capable. For a start there is the Voigtlander Bessa R; owned one for a while and it as pretty nice ...

I need another rangefinder camera like I need a hole in my head, but the Yasuhara T981 intrigues me:
https://cameraquest.com/yasu2.htm
Mostly because I understand that the inscription ("Isshiki") might be translated as "All you need"

 

[KR500]

A golden oldie I used and enjoyed

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A golden oldie I used and enjoyed

View attachment 185730

That was my first 35mm camera. I have no idea what happened to it.

 

[tuga]

It's possible that I got a bit carried away when film camera prices were lower.

View attachment 185528

The X-700 was the first camera I bought with my money, partly funded by selling my dad's old Spotmatic.

 

[JeffS7444]

FED-2, restoration and repaint by me. Painted with Sugar.

 

[JJB70]

I had a Contax point-n-shoot in the late 90's, loved it. It's now lost in my garage somewhere.

You should retrieve it, if it still works and the lens is in good condition you could sell it for a tidy sum. Some of the CONTAX compacts go for silly money.

 

[Gorgonzola]

ooh, so much rangefinder Pr0N!
Hubba-hubba!

Oh, yeah, I love the old rangefinders cameras. That is, especially those with high-mag, bright viewfinders -- which is by no means all of them. The precision of rangefinders is great -- manual focus sucks on my otherwise-beloved, mirrorless Fujifilm X-T10 and X-T2.

Looking once again at the old film rangefinders I notice the Canons and Contax are dirt cheap relative to Leicas. I'm sorely tempted but I know I can't tolerate dealing with film any more.

I'd be temped by a real rangefinder digital but the only ones I'm aware of are the Leicas M8 and so on, but these are far beyond my budget. Leica M11, sure, but not for Cdn$ 11,000 body only.

So that ain't going to happen. I have given some thought to the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-Pro3 to round up my Fuji collection. The Pro's have an optical viewfinder but has no real rangefinder. Unfortunately X-Pro's are pretty expensive vs. the regular mirrorless models, IMO.

 

[JJB70]

Ouch!

I need another rangefinder camera like I need a hole in my head, but the Yasuhara T981 intrigues me:
https://cameraquest.com/yasu2.htm
Mostly because I understand that the inscription ("Isshiki") might be translated as "All you need"

Yasuhara was slightly ahead of his time in a way, anticipating the resurgence of a small but quite lucrative niche for range finder cameras. Shortly after his entry we saw Cosina resurrect Voightlander, Zeiss with their iKON (also manufactured by Cosina), the Konica Hexar RF, Nikon reissues and no doubt others. It was a bit of a final hurrah at the end of the film era. CONTAX had quite a bit of success with their G series but there's always been some debate over how they should be categorized.

 

[JJB70]

So that ain't going to happen. I have given some thought to the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-Pro3 to round up my Fuji collection. The Pro's have an optical viewfinder but has no real rangefinder. Unfortunately X-Pro's are pretty expensive vs. the regular mirrorless models, IMO.

Going off the subject of classic cameras for a minute, I love the Fujifilm X-Pro models. The hybrid view finder is a gimmick, but I like it even though I'd almost certainly just use the EVF. They're beautifully made and feel like a high quality mechanical camera. I bought an X-E2 which is an old model and a full tier below the X-Pro models but even that is a lovely camera with a wonderful tactile feel. I'm very happy with it.

 

[Spocko]

Wow, are you in the habit of storing easy $500 sale items in your garage?

LOL less about "storage" and more about moving from one home to the next and just never unboxing it, I think it was the first gen T3 or T2.

 

[JJB70]

A nice little camera which offers the rangefinder experience for not a lot with a pretty good fixed lens, a usable exposure system and good build. You can pick up nice examples for $50-100.

 

[JeffS7444]

Oh, yeah, I love the old rangefinders cameras. That is, especially those with high-mag, bright viewfinders -- which is by no means all of them. The precision of rangefinders is great -- manual focus sucks on my otherwise-beloved, mirrorless Fujifilm X-T10 and X-T2.

Looking once again at the old film rangefinders I notice the Canons and Contax are dirt cheap relative to Leicas. I'm sorely tempted but I know I can't tolerate dealing with film any more.

I'd be temped by a real rangefinder digital but the only ones I'm aware of are the Leicas M8 and so on, but these are far beyond my budget. Leica M11, sure, but not for Cdn$ 11,000 body only.

So that ain't going to happen. I have given some thought to the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-Pro3 to round up my Fuji collection. The Pro's have an optical viewfinder but has no real rangefinder. Unfortunately X-Pro's are pretty expensive vs. the regular mirrorless models, IMO.

I am a sucker for really good luxury branding and presentation, but there's always a faint whiff of BS (or is that ambergris?) involved! We humans seem to love stories, and successful luxury brands are masters at suggesting that we can be part of their fairy tales if we buy say, a $2500 Hermes blanket. Which, btw, looked like a swell blanket, but would I give it a second glance if it were stripped of it's branding and sold via discount stores?

Lomography was partly what inspired me to dip my toes back into film once again: It's a reminder that I don't have to pursue film the same way I did in the 1980s-90s. My film volume is much lower now: If I shot a dozen rolls of film/year today, that would be a big deal. Film tends to be grainier and less linear than a digital sensor, and sometimes that's just what I want. If I could have just one 35 mm camera, I think my pick might be a chrome pre-"Apollo" Nikon F with meterless eye level prism: To me, a great combo of classic looks and still a fine picture-taker.

Digital cameras: Sony seems to have me figured out I find the technical aspects of RX1/RX100/A1/A7/A9 top-notch, while design-wise, they're kind of a blank slate: Modern, understated, neutral. Sort of like a movie with an ambiguous story, in which meaning develops over time, and I seem to keep them long enough to get glimpses of that meaning. Not immune to the charms of something more overtly classical (hello Nikon Zfc?) but those sorts of things are really more pleasant indulgences, and I've already got an Olympus Pen-F.

 

[JeffS7444]

LOL less about "storage" and more about moving from one home to the next and just never unboxing it, I think it was the first gen T3 or T2.

Might want to check recent eBay final sale prices for T2 and T3, even for parts/as-is cameras

 

[JeffS7444]

Early Zenit-E with 39 mm threaded lens mount, silver shutter speed dial, engraved markings

Excerpt from owner's manual ("Macro photography")

 

[JeffS7444]

Another one from my earlier, more impulsive-buying phase (cough)

 

[JeffS7444]

A random assortment of stuff which has come into my life recently, including my mom's old Canon Sure Shot 70 Zoom

 

[mhardy6647]

Early Zenit-E with 39 mm threaded lens mount, silver shutter speed dial, engraved markings
View attachment 186001
Excerpt from owner's manual ("Macro photography")
View attachment 186002

Those were all the rage when I was big into cameras (early/mid 1970s) -- for those of limited means.
The other craze in those days: the Chinese made "Seagull" [sic] rollfilm TLR.

I was poor enough to resist both.

 

[JJB70]

Wasn't the Seagull a reverse engineered Rollei? I always thought a second hand Rollei was more attractive than a new Seagull, but that was just me (and I never bought either). However I did have a soft spot for Soviet 35mm gear. For all that QC was uneven and there was a lot of junk, if you got a good one or were up to reworking one to correct less than great manufacturing they were as tough as nails and surprisingly good given the low cost. Some of the lenses were superb if you got a good one and are still worth keeping.

 

[rdenney]

Wasn't the Seagull a reverse engineered Rollei? I always thought a second hand Rollei was more attractive than a new Seagull, but that was just me (and I never bought either). However I did have a soft spot for Soviet 35mm gear. For all that QC was uneven and there was a lot of junk, if you got a good one or were up to reworking one to correct less than great manufacturing they were as tough as nails and surprisingly good given the low cost. Some of the lenses were superb if you got a good one and are still worth keeping.

More like a knockoff of a Yashica Mat. But that also followed the Rolleiflex pattern (or, really, the Rolleicord pattern) at least initially. Only Rollei, though, automatically sensed the beginning of the film on the backing paper to align the first frame (hence “automat”).

Rick “who has a Yashica 635 that is similar to a Rolleicord from longer ago that the Seagull” Denney

 

[JJB70]

A few threads up we mentioned Konica, today I had the opportunity to play with something rather impressive, a Konica Hexanon 35 - 100mm varifocal F:2.8, a real monster of a lens. This is usually described as a zoom lens but it isn't really a zoom as the focus point floats, meaning you have to refocus if you change focal length. And it is enormous, on the upside it is fixed length and the end element doesn't rotate, but it is a monster, 82mm filter fitting. The lens is very impressive given that it is a mid-70's design with a pretty wide focal length and a constant F:2.8 maximum aperture, Konica apparently decided they could either make a true zoom with a fast constant aperture over that focal length and sacrifice optical performance, or maintain the optical performance that they were famous for and accept a varifocal design, so they went for the latter. I suspect almost any other manufacturer would have gone with a true zoom and lowered optical performance. It was one of those lenses I'd always wanted to have a go with but never previously had the opportunity.