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.
The Russians sure can make a camera look like a GAZ-14, can't they?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
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.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!
...
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!... 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.
GAZ-14 looks seriously un-proletarian; how's about a VAZ 2121 aka Lada Niva?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
Yup—that’s the most important difference between my Canon 5DII and my Pentax 645z—the ability to pull up shadow detail.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.
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.
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.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 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...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.
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.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.
…
Yeah Leica's don't make a lot of sense in value for money terms.