Classic cameras

[dlaloum]

When my grandad got his IIIc in 1947 it was up with the very best in the world... and at the time they were good value... - now it is an heirloom and a piece of history.... not really useable as the rangefinder mirror has started to flake off.... (and I don't know of anyone capable of repairing that in australia )

 

[JJB70]

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

That's always been a very touchy subject in the CONTAX/Yashica world, I believe some (but not all) of the Yashica ML lenses were as near makes no difference to equivalent Zeiss lenses minus the T* bit. Years ago I stripped down and cleaned a Yashica ML 50mm 1.7 at the same time as a Zeiss 50mm 1.7 and I couldn't identify any difference.

 

[JJB70]

I think CONTAX went the same way as Leica, beautifully made cameras for well heeled enthusiasts wanting a luxury product, whereas the older models like the RTS, RTS ii, 139 quartz etc were designed as working cameras with ambitions for the professional market. The RTS iii was a gorgeous camera but by that point the professional market wanted AF, ditto the Leica R8 & R9, and even professionals have an eye on price tag.

 

[JJB70]

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.

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?

Lovely cameras!!! Very few are familiar with Mamiya today, and far fewer remember their 35mm cameras. Which is a shame as they made some excellent 35mm equipment. Some of their MF equipment was superb, I remember when there was quite a rivalry between Bronica and Mamiya in MF.

 

[KR500]

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.

 

[JJB70]

Those old Canon SLRs were sturdy, it is that feeling of bombproof solidity that I love about old cameras.

 

[rdenney]

Lovely cameras!!! Very few are familiar with Mamiya today, and far fewer remember their 35mm cameras. Which is a shame as they made some excellent 35mm equipment. Some of their MF equipment was superb, I remember when there was quite a rivalry between Bronica and Mamiya in MF.

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

 

[JeffS7444]

Half-frame 35 mm cameras are a favorite niche of mine, typically yielding 72+ exposures from an ordinary 36-exposure roll of film. Not so much for thriftiness's sake, but because it makes wandering about carrying nothing more than the camera itself a viable proposition. I've handled some half-frame cameras which had spotless film chambers, and wondered: Maybe many such cameras never saw more than one roll of film loaded by their original owners! It isn't too hard for me to imagine 72 exposures representing several year's worth of holiday snapshots for some casual shooters.

Perhaps Fujifilm thought the same thing. Submitted for your consideration, Japanese-market TW-3 half frame camera, circa 1985 with lithium batteries soldered in place. Did they anticipate dealers installing new batteries as needed, or did they just assume that 5+ years was effectively the useful life of the camera? Whatever the case may be, 35+ years later, the original batteries still had a faint spark of life left in them (not enough to actually do much, mind you), and I was able to replace them readily enough.

 

[mhardy6647]

Only one Canon here* (not counting Bell & Howells, which were rebadged Canons sold in the US).
This one, indeed, belongs to Prof. Hardy and is just visiting up here in the Granite State.

source:

Canon TX

Camera: Canon TX circa 1974 - 1979 Lens mount: Canon FD "breech lock" Shutter: 1 - 1/500s plus bulb Depth-of-Field Preview: yes, b...

icouldbeahero.blogspot.com

So... I swear that I thought this Canon TX was upstairs. I just went up to take a photo of it and... well... I do think it is here someplace
It may be packed up rather than out on the shelf -- so I had to substitute one of my son's photos of it.
I've even shot with that camera




___________
* I think

 

[mhardy6647]

While I was upstairs... i saw something lurking behind the Contax, so I picked the Contaxt up to see what might come scurrying out.
This is what I found...

Sorry about the depth of field -- I think it was nervous...

I guess this one was an Asahi made for Sears.
I have no idea where it came from. I might've bought it on eBay, or maybe Prof. Hardy picked it up someplace and dropped it off here on a visit, Johnny Appleseed-like.



EDIT: Oh, and look closely at that photo! I found where the Mad Scientist Audio Black Discus thingies are now!

Carver Crimson 275 Review (Tube Amp)

Tell us about that blue disc thingy on your right output channels I have copped to those before. :oops: They're the free trial versions of... ahem... the Black Discus thingies from Mad Scientist Audio in New Zealand. ;) One of the few utterly audiophile tweak thingies in the house. They were...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[mhardy6647]

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

 

[rdenney]

Only one Canon here* (not counting Bell & Howells, which were rebadged Canons sold in the US).
This one, indeed, belongs to Prof. Hardy and is just visiting up here in the Granite State.

source:

Canon TX

Camera: Canon TX circa 1974 - 1979 Lens mount: Canon FD "breech lock" Shutter: 1 - 1/500s plus bulb Depth-of-Field Preview: yes, b...

icouldbeahero.blogspot.com

So... I swear that I thought this Canon TX was upstairs. I just went up to take a photo of it and... well... I do think it is here someplace
It may be packed up rather than out on the shelf -- so I had to substitute one of my son's photos of it.
I've even shot with that camera




___________
* I think

Really nuts. I also have a TX. I had never bought the 50mm lens to go with my F-1 and later T90, and found a TX with a FD 50/1.4 on it for chump change, maybe in 1986, when I lived in Austin. I bought the camera just to get the lens. The camera is just a good, basic SLR like the Pentax K1000. I doubt I’ve put two rolls through it.

There’s a Canonet 28 in the pile somewhere, too. That 40/2.8 lens on it is really exceptional, too.

(No Tower camera in my pile, though.)

Rick “gotta go dig around in the camera closet” Denney

 

[mhardy6647]

Not the aforementioned EVIL Nikon FM... but an evil Döppelganger, I suppose.

 

[mhardy6647]

In the interest of closure:
I pinged The Other Dr. Hardy and he said he believes that the Tower 23 was "my doing" -- lending credence to my eBAY theory, I suppose.

 

[JeffS7444]

Advertisment for Nikon's 2005 reissue of the famous SP rangefinder camera, in an edition of 2500 pieces. Image copied from http://nikonfan.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/

 

[JeffS7444]

And it really was an amazing thing, like receiving a brand-new 1957 camera out of a time warp:

 

[mhardy6647]

Junior has one rangefinder Nikon, S2 (umm... well, maybe he has a couple... not absolutely sure...)

 

[JeffS7444]

Not mine. (belongs to a friend)

Mine.

 

[JJB70]

Half-frame 35 mm cameras are a favorite niche of mine, typically yielding 72+ exposures from an ordinary 36-exposure roll of film. Not so much for thriftiness's sake, but because it makes wandering about carrying nothing more than the camera itself a viable proposition. I've handled some half-frame cameras which had spotless film chambers, and wondered: Maybe many such cameras never saw more than one roll of film loaded by their original owners! It isn't too hard for me to imagine 72 exposures representing several year's worth of holiday snapshots for some casual shooters.

Perhaps Fujifilm thought the same thing. Submitted for your consideration, Japanese-market TW-3 half frame camera, circa 1985 with lithium batteries soldered in place. Did they anticipate dealers installing new batteries as needed, or did they just assume that 5+ years was effectively the useful life of the camera? Whatever the case may be, 35+ years later, the original batteries still had a faint spark of life left in them (not enough to actually do much, mind you), and I was able to replace them readily enough.

View attachment 184127

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.

 

[JJB70]

Not the aforementioned EVIL Nikon FM... but an evil Döppelganger, I suppose.

I adore the Nikon FM and FE (and the FM2 & FE2), to me they were the ultimate expression of what made Nikon SLRs great, even more so than the legendary F and F2. I don't think they ever bettered the industrial design, build quality and durability was remarkable, handling superb and they really did beg the question 'why spend more' (and I say that as someone who did spend a lot more on CONTAX). Good ones hold their value very well and you don't see many bargains unless you're willing to do a bit of work bringing a beat up example back to life. And they were what might be called a 'prosumer' model today, sitting below the F models. When I look at the thought Nikon put into the design, the quality of construction and utter reliability of the things I really don't think we will see their like again. They were built with the idea of lasting a lifetime, whereas modern cameras are built in a fast rotation world in which people are expected to upgrade on a regular or semi-regular basis. With digital technology I kind of get why that is the case as software evolves, sensors improve, digital components are only manufactured for a finite time meaning they quickly become throwaway if broken etc.