Classic cameras

[aslan7]

The mirrorless design thread seems to be morphing into a discussion of classic cameras, so it might be nice to have a thread for the subject.

I love classic cameras. To be clear, I'm not going to try and claim classic film cameras are better, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I want to return to film photography other than as an occasional indulgence. I love digital photography and my personal opinion is that the advantages are so compelling it would be crazy to even have the argument. But, what I will say is I love classic film cameras and although I am under no illusions over what is better I like classic cameras more than digital I guess it's like an automotive enthusiast recognizing that something like a Tesla 3 blows classic cars apart in every way except styling but still wanting something like an E-Type, classic Mustang, Lamborghini Miura, Ferrari 275 etc. I love the tactile feel, I love the sense of mechanical precision and I just find something wonderful, especially truly mechanical cameras like the Nikon FM, Olympus OM-1, CONTAX S2 etc. My 35mm system was CONTAX, and I've never owned anything which came close to the sense of pure quality exuded by the RTS iii.

So in case anyone shares my love of old things (and please, I'm not trying to start an argument that old film cameras are better - they're not) here is my top 5:

1. CONTAX RTS iii - this one is not so classic as it was a 1990's design and with the exception of being manual focus was a very advanced design and fully featured. It had a vacuum film plate, a fast built in motor-drive, mirror lock up, spot meter, built in vertical grip, data back and a wonderful viewfinder. The real selling points though were the Carl Zeiss lenses and the build quality and tactile feel, it had a sense of absolute quality of a sort which is very rare.

2. Olympus OM-1, the Olympus OM system was a true design classic. Very compact, lightweight and with wonderful build and handling. Putting the shutter speed selection around the lens mount was one of those ideas that after I'd used it I couldn't help wondering why nobody else did it as it worked really well. The matching Zuiko lenses were superb and the OM system was extremely comprehensive. The OM-1 was a true mechanical camera, the lightmeter was battery powered but if the battery died the rest of the camera was unaffected. The OM-1 wasn't the best of the OM line (I'd say that was the OM-4) but as the daddy of the line and as a classic design it is probably my favourite. The only criticism I have is the plastic flash hot shoe which after a while goes brittle and breaks apart from tightening. As an aside, the OM-1 was originally the Olympus M-1 but Leica weren't happy about them calling it the M system.

3. Nikon FM/FM2, probably the ultimate 35mm SLR cliché as it was a camera that survived in the Nikon catalogue as the original FM and later FM2 for years and even had a final hurrah as a mechanical - electronic hybrid FM3. Nikon never bettered the industrial design in my opinion, the things were pretty much bomb proof, the elegant simplicity was just perfect and of course it was supported by an immense system. A story, in my youth I worked for British Antarctic Survey and the Nikon FM2 was their standard camera as experience had led them to value its utter dependability in extremely challenging conditions. It was the only camera body they had any confidence in, which interestingly included the more expensive Nikon F professional series bodies. Someone once started a rumour that Nikon had ended production (prematurely) and they rushed out to buy any FM2's in stock in the local camera stores so they'd have a plentiful supply for many years into the future.

4. Pentax LX, this one is a bit of an odd one as the LX was the great forgotten high end 35mm camera. The LX was Pentax's contender in a market segment dominated by the Nikon F2/F3, Canon F1/new F1 and with the Olympus OM-1/2 then OM-3/4 enjoying a fair bit of acclaim. The LX shared the exchangeable prism feature with the Nikon F family and Canon F1 but was a much smaller, lighter camera and was closer to the slim and light OM family than the battlecruiser like Nikon and Canon bodies. Despite being compact and light it lost nothing to Nikon and Canon in terms of build quality and durability (if anything I always thought the Pentax was the benchmark against the others should have been assessed). While Pentax enjoyed a high profile in the medium format professional segment their 35mm contender was always seen as the poor relation of more successful rivals.

5. Olympus OM-3, this was the mechanical sister camera to the OM-4 and the claim to fame of these cameras was what was for the time an extremely advanced light metering system with multi-spot metering and highlight/shadow functions. It all sounds a bit primitive today, but at the time it was transformational and if people are willing to make the effort to learn how to use multi-spot metering it remains a superb system. As with older OM cameras the OM-3 was compact, superbly built and a joy to hold. This is my personal preference, if looked at logically the OM-4 was the better camera but I like the mechanical OM-3.

I offer an honorable mention, the CONTAX AX. The AX is unique, I know the word "unique" is devalued by overuse and most things touted as unique are anything but, the CONTAX AX really was something special. As AF took over the market Zeiss wouldn't build AF lenses for Yashica/CONTAX despite Japan being desperate to move CONTAX into AF. Without the Zeiss lenses CONTAX was stuck (Yashica developed its own AF SLR, the 230). Thinking laterally, CONTAX questioned whether if they couldn't use the lens to auto-focus, could they move the film plane instead, the result was the AX. The precision needed to make such a system work speaks volumes for the precision and production quality standard that CONTAX worked to, it offered AF using manual focus lenses. The body was pretty similar to the RTS iii (though it lost some of the higher end features of the RTS iii) but the extra depth needed to accomodate a moving film plane made it a bulky body. The AF couldn't match competing Canon EOS or Nikon AF bodies but it did function, and the focusing was much quicker and more accurate than I would ever get close to focusing manual. The CONTAX AX was a truly remarkable achievement and one of those things that if looked at logically was a futile attempt to re-invent a wheel which didn't need to be re-invented (AF), but which was glorious. Sadly, Zeiss's refusal to make AF lenses until it was far too late with the CONTAX N system left the brand up the proverbial without a paddle.

All of you who like classic cameras ought to get a copy of Ivor Matanle's book Collecting Classic Cameras. It is a wonderful reference book on the subject and explains the nuances of all the models. It is illustrated with photos he took using these cameras and many of them are outstanding.

 

[JJB70]

Now, that is a hole with no bottom.

I still pay a little every month to sustain the largely defunct Kiev Report forum. And I still have three Kiev 60’s, and Arax-overhauled and refinished 88CM, a Pentacon Six, and an Exakta 66. None are really reliable except the best of the 60’s. Fun lenses, though, adaptable to my Pentax 645z.

Rick “not classics in any sense” Denney

The thing with old Soviet gear was to get a good example. I have a soft spot for old Soviet 35mm gear, it was basic and low tech and QC hit and miss but if you get lucky with a good example of a Zorki, Zenit, FED etc they were pretty much bomb proof, built like tanks. Similarly the lenses were a bit hit and miss but if you got a good example they could be superb. When I was growing up Zenit and the East German Praktica company were really popular brands of entry level SLRs, an awful lot of people learned how to use cameras with them. They were cheaper than Japanese alternatives such as the Pentax K1000 (another camera that provided a sense of solidity seldom found today). People used to sneer at those old Soviet cameras but I still have a soft spot for them.

 

[JeffS7444]

Lomography lured me back to occasional film use, and I still like the emphasis on fun. I did more selling of film cameras than buying in 2020-21. Which is fine, because I had accumulated too many of the things when prices were low, and sold them when demand was high.

Am most pleased with recent repair of Agfa Isolette III folding 6x6 camera: Rangefinder and lens focusing mechanisms had been frozen solid, perhaps for decades, so I was able to buy it cheaply. The infamous Agfa green grease lived up to it’s reputation by solidifying into a substance which didn’t seem to soften when gently heated, or when soaked in common solvents, but I eventually succeeded in clearing the wretched stuff away. A nice little camera, now that it’s working once again.

 

[JJB70]

I listed five personal favourites as part of the fun of making any list of that kind is trying to identify a top how ever many. I could go on and on as there are so many wonderful old cameras, a few that I put pretty much on the same level as my top five include the Nikon F2 (which is a whole story in itself given the number of F2 variations), Canon new F1, Topcon RE Super, Yashica FX-D and Pentax MX. And that is still just scratching the surface, the Olympus Trip 35 is another.

 

[JeffS7444]

For grins, I recently went shooting with a Canon Rebel G, which is a last-generation film camera. Mostly plastic, and the sort of camera which was commonly sold by big-box stores. When it was new, I took my Leica M cameras far too seriously to consider one, but the joke was on me! Coupled with the current 40/2.8 Canon EF pancake lens, it proved a swell performer. I came away thinking that being able to make something relatively inexpensive, yet so smooth, quiet and refined in operation, takes some real mastery. There's nothing particularly vintage-feeling about the hardware, but if you just want to shoot film, you could do lots worse than to pick up one of these plastic SLRs while they can still be had cheaply.

 

[JJB70]

For grins, I recently went shooting with a Canon Rebel G, which is a last-generation film camera. Mostly plastic, and the sort of camera which was commonly sold by big-box stores. When it was new, I took my Leica M cameras far too seriously to consider one, but the joke was on me! Coupled with the current 40/2.8 Canon EF pancake lens, it proved a swell performer. I came away thinking that being able to make something relatively inexpensive, yet so smooth, quiet and refined in operation, takes some real mastery. There's nothing particularly vintage-feeling about the hardware, but if you just want to shoot film, you could do lots worse than to pick up one of these plastic SLRs while they can still be had cheaply.

Cameras are like a lot of things, in terms of performance you really don't have to spend much to get one that works extremely well. In a way there are real parallels with audio gear in that many of the technologies achieved maturity decades ago. I keep seeing reviews claiming such and such has faster focusing, but every AF camera I ever had going back to a Minolta 8000 had very fast and accurate focusing. Light metering has been so reliable since the advent of matrix mult-segment metering in the 80's that few even think of the meter anymore. Program exposure has worked well for decades and now the vast majority of enthusiast and professional photographers seem to do all their shooting in program (albeit with shutter speed or aperture shift). Just as with DACs, amplifiers and such like it's harder to find a camera which doesn't just work, but plenty build a mystique around these things. I am not saying there's no reason to get a nice camera as the tactile feel, build quality, system support and some esoteric functions can differentiate nicer cameras but if it is just about getting a good camera then you can get really nice, clean 1990's and later 35mm cameras that work superbly.

 

[mansr]

I keep seeing reviews claiming such and such has faster focusing, but every AF camera I ever had going back to a Minolta 8000 had very fast and accurate focusing.

Canon (D)SLRs (which is what I'm familiar with) vary in the number of AF points, ranging from just a few near the centre to a grid covering the full view. The good lenses (USM) also focus much faster than the cheap ones. The act of reading the focus sensor(s) has of course been plenty fast for a long time.

 

[JeffS7444]

But of course, if shooting an occasional roll of film were merely an alternate medium of expression for me, why on earth do I have so many old cameras?

Part of the fascination is holding a bit of history in one's hands: Often the companies and even the countries of origin no longer exist (DDR, Yugoslavia, USSR). And it's easy to forget how many were seriously lusted-after! Really enjoyed this account by "Sergei" of his quest for a Kiev-19 in 1980s Ukraine:

I feel a wee bit guilty when I recall owning a Nikon F3 around the same time (unimaginable wealth!) but I happened to live in a wealthier part of the world, and was starting to learn the art of buy/sell/trade. I repurchased an F3 the other year, very similar to the one I used to own. Cheap because I bought a broken one and fixed it.

Kiev 60 and 88CM are no longer so cheap, and it can actually be cheaper to get a Hasselblad, Bronica ETR, or SQ-series camera. Can scarcely find an 88CM on eBay these days, and when you do, asking prices are astronomical.

 

[rdenney]

But of course, if shooting an occasional roll of film were merely an alternate medium of expression for me, why on earth do I have so many old cameras?

Part of the fascination is holding a bit of history in one's hands: Often the companies and even the countries of origin no longer exist (DDR, Yugoslavia, USSR). And it's easy to forget how many were seriously lusted-after! Really enjoyed this account by "Sergei" of his quest for a Kiev-19 in 1980s Ukraine:

I feel a wee bit guilty when I recall owning a Nikon F3 around the same time (unimaginable wealth!) but I happened to live in a wealthier part of the world, and was starting to learn the art of buy/sell/trade. I repurchased an F3 the other year, very similar to the one I used to own. Cheap because I bought a broken one and fixed it.

Kiev 60 and 88CM are no longer so cheap, and it can actually be cheaper to get a Hasselblad, Bronica ETR, or SQ-series camera. Can scarcely find an 88CM on eBay these days, and when you do, asking prices are astronomical.

Probably time for me to have a sale.

Rick "three Kiev 60's and an 88CM" Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

Gone but not forgotten.

Sideways "K" was the quality mark of the USSR. Not a surefire bet for getting a good product, as it was based on prior performance of the factory, but for grins I seek out products bearing the mark when available.

 

[rdenney]

Gone but not forgotten.

Sideways "K" was the quality mark of the USSR. Not a surefire bet for getting a good product, as it was based on prior performance of the factory, but for grins I seek out products bearing the mark when available.

But for the Kiev cameras, the CCCP export mark evaporated when the USSR broke apart and the Ukraine was independent. The Arsenal factory that made Kiev cameras and Arsat lenses was kind of hopeless in terms of quality control, and most who got a reliable one went through a third-party ex-factory tuner to fix them up first. There were several of those, and usually they employed workers who were retired from the factory or moonlighting. In the US, it was KievUSA in New York, Kiev Camera (Mike Fourman) in Atlanta, Kalimex SRO in Prague, Hartblei in Kiev, Arax in Kiev, and I'm sure several others faded into the mists of memory. I knew them all at the time. Some were more reliable than others, but they all only had what the factory provided to work with, and that was always flawed. But unlike the Lomography stuff, they did not intend to be cheesy--they were made for Second-World professionals to use. Lenses were uneven but the good ones could be very decent, considering the format advantage.

Probably all the Kiev 88's (Salyuts) that bore the export mark used the old Kiev 88 mount, which was a tiny variation on the original Hasselblad 1600f mount--the camera they copied. In the late 90's, Arsenal followed the example of some of those downstream tuners and installed a Kiev 60/Pentacon Six breech-lock mount. But that mount was never standardized, and I've had to use a file on many occasions to get Lens X to fit on Camera Y. That was part of the hobby.

Rick "fun memories--mostly" Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

A sampling of stuff acquired cheaply in parts/as-is condition. Note visible seam of gray epoxy on righthand side of Jenaflex pentaprism - my attempt at kintsugi camera repair. Jenaflex works great. Nikon and Olympus are ready for film testing. Have not decided how I want to refurbish the Pilot 6x6 SLR.

 

[JeffS7444]

But for the Kiev cameras, the CCCP export mark evaporated when the USSR broke apart and the Ukraine was independent. The Arsenal factory that made Kiev cameras and Arsat lenses was kind of hopeless in terms of quality control, and most who got a reliable one went through a third-party ex-factory tuner to fix them up first. There were several of those, and usually they employed workers who were retired from the factory or moonlighting. In the US, it was KievUSA in New York, Kiev Camera (Mike Fourman) in Atlanta, Kalimex SRO in Prague, Hartblei in Kiev, Arax in Kiev, and I'm sure several others faded into the mists of memory. I knew them all at the time. Some were more reliable than others, but they all only had what the factory provided to work with, and that was always flawed. But unlike the Lomography stuff, they did not intend to be cheesy--they were made for Second-World professionals to use. Lenses were uneven but the good ones could be very decent, considering the format advantage.

Probably all the Kiev 88's (Salyuts) that bore the export mark used the old Kiev 88 mount, which was a tiny variation on the original Hasselblad 1600f mount--the camera they copied. In the late 90's, Arsenal followed the example of some of those downstream tuners and installed a Kiev 60/Pentacon Six breech-lock mount. But that mount was never standardized, and I've had to use a file on many occasions to get Lens X to fit on Camera Y. That was part of the hobby.

Rick "fun memories--mostly" Denney

Russia has continued the tradition with a similar quality mark, though I haven't seen it applied to any photographic equipment to date. Saw one proposed design which incorporated a bear motif which would have been awesome, but it wasn't selected.

I met "Mike" briefly when he was living in San Francisco. He was selling Kiev cameras out of a nice place near the Moscone Center, but how he could afford that rent, I didn't ask.

I still got a couple of P6-mount camera bodies in the form of Praktisix and Praktisix II. They're actually a good deal smaller and lighter than a Kiev 60, and clearly the designers were concerned with mirror slap, though I'm not sure whether the friction dampeners used cause more problems than the solve.

 

[rdenney]

Russia has continued the tradition with a similar quality mark, though I haven't seen it applied to any photographic equipment to date. Saw one proposed design which incorporated a bear motif which would have been awesome, but it wasn't selected.

I met "Mike" briefly when he was living in San Francisco. He was selling Kiev cameras out of a nice place near the Moscone Center, but how he could afford that rent, I didn't ask.

I still got a couple of P6-mount camera bodies in the form of Praktisix and Praktisix II. They're actually a good deal smaller and lighter than a Kiev 60, and clearly the designers were concerned with mirror slap, though I'm not sure whether the friction dampeners used cause more problems than the solve.

Mike is Mikael—a reasonable nickname. When I last saw him, he was in Atlanta in an apartment filled to the brim with the contents of a container-load of Kiev cameras and Arsat lenses. I’ve lost touch with him since, and that was over 20 years ago.

I have a Pentacon Six Tl that I bought from Hans Roskam in the Netherlands. And also an Exakta 66 Mk. II that was factory upgraded to Mk. III. It’s just a Six in an updated skin. I adapted a Kiev 60 prism to it—a better prism for viewing than the Pentacon version. Both would sometimes let the film counter star wheel slip on slick color film once in a while. When that happened, it would be impossible to resync the advance and the shutter and mirror. In my view, these cameras were beautifully over designed.

I loved messing with them but for productive photography, give me a beat-up old Pentax 6x7 any day.

Rick “made a lot of good photos with the Kiev 60 supplied by Mike” Denney

 

[JJB70]

The last I heard Zenit were working with Leica to produce expensive digital range finder style cameras and lenses. Very nice and a long way from Zenit models of old.

 

[JJB70]

I just bought a Topcon RE Super with a 58mm 1.4 lens, pure indulgence but it's one of those models I always kind of lusted after. Just slightly before my time but the rivalry between Topcon and Nikon was quite the thing in the 60's and early 70's. Make a nice toy

 

[JeffS7444]

I loved messing with them but for productive photography, give me a beat-up old Pentax 6x7 any day.

In the unlikely even that I feel the urge to do something productive with rollfilm in the 21st century, I got this kintsugi Bronica: I previously sold it, but it got wrecked in transit. After refunding the buyer, I didn't know what else to do, so I replaced the cracked viewfinder and pieced the shards of the camera body back together, and thought the result wasn't half-bad.

 

[JeffS7444]

I just bought a Topcon RE Super with a 58mm 1.4 lens, pure indulgence but it's one of those models I always kind of lusted after. Just slightly before my time but the rivalry between Topcon and Nikon was quite the thing in the 60's and early 70's. Make a nice toy

Will be curious as to how you like it: Never seen or handled one but was seriously tempted by a set engraved "US Navy". But it was close to 300 USD, and I usually like to stay well below 100.

 

[JeffS7444]

The last I heard Zenit were working with Leica to produce expensive digital range finder style cameras and lenses. Very nice and a long way from Zenit models of old.

Looked to me like unsold Leica M240 bodies sporting new top covers.

 

[mhardy6647]

I just bought a Topcon RE Super with a 58mm 1.4 lens, pure indulgence but it's one of those models I always kind of lusted after. Just slightly before my time but the rivalry between Topcon and Nikon was quite the thing in the 60's and early 70's. Make a nice toy

Identically one Topcon here FWIW, a Super D (from my son's collection, so, not technically mine).