|
Post by conan on Mar 14, 2016 19:47:00 GMT -5
Just returned from our two month trip to NZ the severe jet lag couldn't prevent me from "being at it again". Browsing through the small ads i came across a "lot of old cameras" , what really caught my eye where two mirandas between the usual heap of kodak instamatic and such. Though the ad seemed to be some time on the site i decided to give it a go and call the seller. Yep it was all still there and i could come around to have a look at it.The mirandas where both in good condition a pentax spotmatic F was jammed solid but looked good, then there was that pentax SFxn with short and long AF zooms,a kodak folder and box camera some small P&S cameras, enlarging lenses,a sixtar light meter and the usual lot of filters. The guy was happy that finally someone turned up and we met in what i was willing to pay and what he was willing to let the lot go for. I'm only going to keep the mirandas and the spotmatic, finally i've got a sensorex after wich i've been hunting for two years, the rest will be garage sale stuff. Miranda are fine cameras. The golden oldies will remember that Miranda and Topcon were bigger than Canon SLRs in the early sixties. The Mirandas were often referred to as the poor man’s Nikon. Miranda were particularly successful in the States because of their advertising and the Miranda ads are still discussed on forums today. Anyone have any Miranda ads they post here? that model really made people take notice.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 14, 2016 2:39:19 GMT -5
Personally I have enough film cameras and film to last the rest of my life. Especially if my wife finds all the ones I have hidden. Alex does that mean if she finds them you wont last very long? Where do you hide them? If you have problems I can look after any mint condition Leica's or Hasselblads for you and I'm sure she wont be rummaging around Australia for them. Camfiend might also help you out really hiding any treasures - he lives in NW Queensland -absolute back of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 14, 2016 2:31:35 GMT -5
Paul, Is that yours? A real piece of 35mm history! Is it the version designed by Bolsey?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 12, 2016 3:51:14 GMT -5
OK No more cameras EXCEPT!
When I tell family and friends I have a new camera they think it’s some vintage piece of gear until I surprise them with something 40 years old that has never been used – which to me – means new.
Today there was a NEW addition - a brand spanking new Exakta IIB –never been used- packed away for 50 years – in the pristine condition it left the factory in Dresden. I will have a good look see tonight but anything that’s been stored for 50 years is bound to have some dried up lubricants.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 12, 2016 3:39:30 GMT -5
It is just that fewer items are being sold now, and people are using film at the moment. It's an open market, supply and demand. A few years ago an OM10 went for scrap value, now a working item sells well. Prices come and go, they will drop again, perhaps as film supply begins to dry up. Truly antique cameras retain their value, and can only go up over time. Stephen There has been an upward trend on Australian EBay for the last 2 years and Olympus and Pentax’s among others are ridiculous money. Of course there are the absolute idiots that put stupid 'buy now' prices but there are also new sellers who look at these 'buy now' prices and think that is what their camera is worth and using the word vintage implies that magically the camera is worth a small fortune.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 12, 2016 3:30:44 GMT -5
Looking right at it and didn't see it. However, this kind of parallax comp isn't as elegant as that used by Leitz on theirs. David Probably a patent issue, as Leitz were very litigious, often taking people to court about copies, or their methods being copied. They even sued over cases looking like the ones they used. Zeiss were later than Leica in 35mm and dozens of features on the Contax were governed by this problem, even the shutter. Stephen Stephen Leitz and Zeiss were both extremely litigious. Remember Zeiss's quite nasty war with Zeiss East and then the fiasco with Nikon. Rumour has it (not exactly correct) that Leitz had so many patents round their camera that Zeiss who would not pay royalty fees had to go their own way. Of course Zeiss had to do everything their way and build complex designs.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 12, 2016 3:21:55 GMT -5
Conan I am totally jealous of your ability to find new in box and display, old cameras. I have taken the no more cameras pledge. I agreed with my beloved that I have plenty. Then today she called and said there is a Ricoh KR-5 Super in a thrift store. Has a couple of flashes and a couple of lenses. Do you want me to bring it home, it's only $5.00? I love that girl with all my heart! Alex sometimes we just get lucky. Perhaps I should have written 'No more Cameras' EXCEPT! The old saying seek and yee shall find sometimes does not apply. As soon as I stop looking something just pops up. The KR5 is a good beater of a camera and for 5 bucks how can you go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 2, 2016 4:34:39 GMT -5
I sort of get a little bit stuck on U but just to get things rolling again.. here's one from my "Unknown" group have a few ideas but all help welcomed if you recognise this camera
It bears a Family resemblance to a No2 Brownie. Same film winder, same release catches and same pull up controls on the top. Kodak did emboss the back of their cameras. I have one with a tiny metal Eastman Kodak plate nailed to the back. Since Kodak made about a trillion of these there could be many manufacturing variations by both date and the country that it was made in.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 2, 2016 2:38:50 GMT -5
Oddly - I've never owned a Nikon. I found an F in a shop, for a good price, once. I didn't buy it, and of course when I changed my mind, and returned to buy, it was gone. Thats a great shame, as a Camera its a great tool and in a toolbox can serve as a great hammer. Of course if youre into ice hockey it could be used as a hockey puck.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Mar 2, 2016 0:57:32 GMT -5
Monday 2nd March 1959 was the official release/announcement of the Nikon F a few days before the Philadelphia Camera Show. There can be little argument that the Nikon was the most important 35mm SLR of the 20th Century. No product had more influence on the perception of Japanese quality or played a greater leadership role in the spearhead of Japanese domination of the SRL market. It would become the benchmark for 35mm SRLs.
The Nikon F caused a lot of direct and indirect casualties in the 35mm market. Nikon got it 98% right on the first try and it was the camera that ticked all the professionals’ wish lists of features together with a ruggedness and durability and ease of operation that only Leitz had been offering. It was also not going to be properly challenged as the market leader until Canon released the F1 eleven years later. Some cameras such as the Topcon RE Super would try but would fail. By the early sixties if you wanted a professional ‘tough as nails’ full system 35mm SLR you had no choice but a Nikon F.
The Contarex which was the Zeiss idea of the king of cameras and their idea of the future benchmark for 35mm SLRs would play a poor second fiddle to the Nikon F. In the early years Zeiss would engage in a childish war of trade name protection against Nikon possibly because even in the early years the F was out selling the Contarex by 6 to 1. Zeiss also blamed Nikon and well as the main culprit Leica for the demise of the Contax. Kodak would stop the development of their new 35mm SLR (and only release a cut down instamatic version) because it would not compete price wise against the F and would not be a full system camera. There were probably many more projects that got shelved because of the effect the F had on the marketplace.
I believe that are many users here that probably still take their F+ models out for the occasional spin.
Of all my Nikons my personal preference is for the F2AS which is generally referred to as the ultimate product of the gears and levers manual era. My next is the incomparable F4S a great balance of speed and sheer convenience and of course the first Nikon F model that was totally battery dependent. I have a couple of F models but the F2 is just that much easier to use. I never really got the hang of the F3 despite its convenience. The F5 – well a super super souped up F4 with virtually digital controls (push buttons everywhere) and incompatibility with AI Nikkors and an auto focus that could rip 3rd party lenses apart just doesn’t balance well with me.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 13, 2015 2:29:27 GMT -5
Hello: Meanwhile I learned a lot about the OM-2[n] I was surprised about the difference in look and feel between OM 2n and OM 10. The OM 10 is so much lighter and has a cheap plastic feeling. Tahts becasue the OM10 was made by Cosina using the CT-1G chassis
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 30, 2015 3:12:01 GMT -5
Just love those EBay ads We have a good looking Rollei probably an E model “last serviced in 1995” - ah well it was only 20 years ago. A Bessamatic that has been in storage for 35 years “may need a CLA” - no kidding A Spotmatic in perfect working condition except “the shutter is jammed” A “hard to find rare first Japanese version” of a K1000 - that has an assembled in Hong Kong sticker on the body and a made in Taiwan label on the lens And those ads that have cameras with selenium meters “Don’t know how to test the meter” - wonder if they typed the ads in the dark
Perhaps this site should have a weekly competition for the most hilarious or misleading ad.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 30, 2015 2:59:05 GMT -5
It was felt in the camera trade that Nikon had made a mistake with a cheaper version of the F, it cost sales of the F, as people bought the just as competent Nikkormat. Obviously swings and roundabouts, what they lost on the F, they gained on the Nikkormat, but at the expense of gaining quite a lot of basic customers who were not really interested in buying Nikon brand Lenses etc. Nikon made a good margin on the Nikkormat, a lot of parts were bought in, to minimise disrupting the F production. Many customers were put off by the general perception that Nikon brand was expensive, and it took a long time for sales to match other budget models from top makers. Stephen. I am not certain on what you base your information on. My experience of Nikon goes to extensive contacts with Nikon in Japan and USA, Japanese and Australasian retailing. Nikon always had problems supplying Nikon Fs to meet demand. The camera was due to be released in third quarter 1958 and it slipped to 1959. In 1969 the Japanese press were in arms that there was a 3-4 month wait for an F body. The F2 was originally slated for a 1969 release and even with their new factories coming on Nikon had serious supply problems with the F and F2 until the end of 1973. The Nikkormats were always planned as a mid-upper mass market SLR that could take most of the Nikon system. Its positioning was the same as the Nikon rangefinders for example against the Canon rangefinders of the late 1950s. It was never intended to be a budget model and Nikon never considered it had stolen sales from the F. Nikon had learned the problems of using other companies (Mamiya/Ricoh) and the damage they could cause to reputation and the Nikkormat provided a good balance against the F. There are often internet statements that are in reality unfounded concerning who built what and the level of subcontracting. There were not many parts bought in and those that were inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 29, 2015 0:11:43 GMT -5
I do hope I can learn to post pics as well. I have problems finding info especially on the very common nothing type cameras Its easy enough to get shutter speed and aperture info etc. straight from the camera but I like to also find info such as release dates.. price at time of release etc. and all that seems to be recorded for older rarer cameras more then the simple focus free and self focusing ones such as all the Pentax Espios etc. I use Camerapedia and few similar sites but there must be more out there but being new to computers I have trouble finding things Oh and yes.. displaying this number of cameras is difficult I only have a little over half on display at the moment Sorry if my times are off.. I'm in Australia and times for rest of the world are always off Bob Camfiend from your posts I get the impression you are way out in the bush especially with 500 acres. Now let me see - a big farm shed could display 500 cameras. One shed on each acre still leaves lot of farming room. With that much space its small wonder you have such a giant selection of cameras or perhaps you have one of those 200 square farmhouses. Us poor buggers in Sydney tend to be land poor and property size reduced. Even if I converted the lounge into a dedicated camera museum I doubt I could display even 500 cameras.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 29, 2015 0:03:02 GMT -5
The Camera that was demoted
I had one of those “take it all” purchases which was a small batch of older stuff like lamps and pictures. With it “take it all” was a Zeiss Ikoflex which the seller had priced at $40. Some research says it’s an Ikoflex II/III852/16 of 1938-1940. Apparently it was released as the model III and then Zeiss immediately released a slightly more advanced model which they also called the III. So this camera was demoted to a model II. To avoid confusion it was even referred to as the II/III. The existing model II was demoted to I. Ah Zeiss – didn’t they do some strange things. Cosmetically for its age it is very good nick but the shutter is locked on one speed – so it might need some TLC – which I won’t give it. Spec wise it can hold its own against the Rollei’s from the period although it suffers from some of the strange things Zeiss did. Beautiful solid construction but a folding hood made of the softest and easiest to bend metal.
|
|