Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 22:49:29 GMT -5
Cool ... interesting to read all the comments !!!
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 9:19:26 GMT -5
You are right Mickey. "Valuable" could be questionable. I like Aires and Samoca as particular brands ( and Fuji in the "digital world" ), which are also just valuable for me and not necessarily in general. But well ... it might be okay too, if we see it that way.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 8:17:14 GMT -5
@mickey: Of course. Me neither ... but I mean, there are thousands of ( affordable ) cameras out there, we might not own yet ... or your collection is already that big, that it contains all cameras affordable for you. But event then ... think of the past  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 6:46:32 GMT -5
I wonder, which are the temptations for everyone, buying a "new" camera for his collection. I thought about some criterias:
a) Rareness
b) Beauty or an odd design
c) A certain valuable brand
d) Cheapness
e) Getting interesting results ( pictures taken with it )
Answering the question for me, I would say, b) and e) are most tempting, then maybe a), c) is not really important for me and well, d) just if I am really interested in buying this particular camera.
How about you ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 6:19:44 GMT -5
Very nice finds !!!
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 8, 2012 4:49:59 GMT -5
What would you consider as "too high" ? Just curious. Watching the Samocas for a while here on Yahooauctions ( the japanese E-Bay ), I would say app. 100-150 USD. The model doesn't make any difference ( if I,II,III or Super ), just the condition of the camera ( still working, junk, with/without bag, manual, etc. )
Hard to find a bargain though. It's a relatively rare camera ( here ), which means, that it get's noticed immediately. Pretty stable price over the years.
I got a little bit lucky with my Super, because it came with a bundle of other cameras, but it hasn't been a real bargain as well, because it's too difficult to repair for really using it. Basically better to pay a little bit more for a perfectly working one, because junk ( for parts ) is too expensive.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 7, 2012 8:48:05 GMT -5
Fantastic. If you will have some pictures taken with it, please post them. I own a Samoca 35 Super, which is unfortunately not fully working ( can't get the rangefinder properly adjusted, because the inner parts are too rotten and the film gets ripped into pieces if rewinded ) and a Samoca 35 III in very good condition. Both models are still without lightmeter, which is not too tragic though. I like their unique design  Congratulations again. Your Samoca looks really good !!! |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 7, 2012 3:32:54 GMT -5
Yes Bob and Wayne ... you might be right ... even I wouldn't wish so. And it might not only be about film. The digital photo industry might also see it's doomsday soon, because the camera market is quite saturated. If people are not camera collectors, they might buy a digital camera every five years and those became already so good, that there are only minor improvements from one model to the next. And there are no follow-up costs. Nobody needs to buy film, get it developed, etc. ... that's actually a tremendous loss ... not for us end users but for the industry. Plus the cellphones. Assuming that most of all camera users in the past have been actually just snapshooters, a photo-/video capable cellphone would be a satisfying tool for them ... and that's what I aready notice everywhere. At weddings, parties or seasonable photo spots, where usually thousands of people come together for taking pictures of the cherryblossom here in Tokyo or whatever ... most people are using a cellphone nowadays. The very few people, more seriously interested in photography are sharing classic DSLRs and film cameras, which I think, can be seen more recently and especially in the hands of younger people ... but that's more some kind of fashion, I guess ... and of course a minority, comparing to all camera/cellphone users. So ... all the poor Kodak employeers might knock on Apples door and build iPhones instead of developing film. But what if finally everybody owns a smartphone ? Kodak could feed families for more than hundred years, but we are living in fast times now |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 6, 2012 9:39:35 GMT -5
I think, it is never about what you are selling, just how. As stated, lomography is doing a much better job with that and they are growing. Releasing new types of films and (film!)cameras every year, opening new shops everywhere ( just last year here in Tokyo as well ). So why is Kodak suffering ? I could spontaneously tell 20 good reasons for using film as well as for using digital cameras. One can do things, the other can't ... and people start noticing that. But ... what I always say, it has been the digital world, that actually helped saving film from dying. Without good scanners, without the internet as a platform for communication and advertisement, film would be long dead. The reason, why I always mention the lomography guys is, because they did exactly, what Kodak should have done. They are promoting an "analog lifestyle", paradoxically by using the internet as their most powerful tool though I mean, just look at the homepages of both companies: www.lomography.com/www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Home.htmWhich does look more sexy or exciting ... or providing more information, support, etc. ? I think, those lomography guys have been truly smart. They built up a community, naming their films with fashionable names like "Earl Grey" and spreading the word with pictures, people take with their cameras. We veterans might smile about all that a little bit, because we grew up with film and know, that all these things are not really new ... but that's not the point. The whole thing is about sales and marketing. If people are not speaking the language of the new generation anymore ... yes ... than, the dynasty dies. But I think, it is not the horse, which became old, it has been the jockey The name Kodak might die. I also don't think, that there will be chance for them to turn everything around ... very unfortunately. What might happen is the same thing, what happened to Agfa. A few motivated and inspired people from the company, bought all the machines from the bankrupt's assets ... and producing film again ( under a different name though ). And their products sell well. It has been just, that Agfa has been too big to survive the tough times of film as a company. So, there is still a chance, that we can buy a good Portra or E100VS in the future ... but under different label. Maybe something like "vintage rainbow" or "Bluefire Murano". The Kodak Portra gets already sold, using this name by a canadian company. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 6, 2012 8:08:03 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 6, 2012 8:01:51 GMT -5
Sad news  From my opinon, Kodak has put too less effort into the film sector. There has been tough times, when Agfa went bancrupt as well and everybody switched to digital, but after that, new companies like lomography has been rising and they are still growing. Why ? Because they came up with "new" ( or old ? ) concepts, making film photography look sexy again for the young generation. Toy cameras, exhibitions and competitions in cooperation with the fashion and design industry. An excellent designed homepage, supporting a community of film- and lomo-loving people ... and an image change. Film has been a "common tool" for daily life photographers for decades and now, it got the image of something more "indy" or "art" like. Basically everything is just about marketing and advertisement ... and that's where Kodak failed. I owned a Kodak digital camera myself and it hasn't been a bad one ... but the name Kodak stands for film. That's what they have been famous for, that's what they have been strong at ... and that's, what they should have concentrated on. Rolex is also still manufacturing analog watches and surviving with that ... even digital watches are common now for decades. Anyway ... sad news |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 5, 2012 23:48:44 GMT -5
Looks beautiful !!! Does the lightmeter still work ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 5, 2012 7:37:38 GMT -5
Thanks Bob. Interesting and I also heard about this positive paper. I personally wouldn't use it though, because I like to scan my pictures anyway, which means, I can easily invert them.
Simply haven't had the chance for further and more detailed experiments yet, but I will certainly do so. Photo paper is indeed a more interesting medium then I ever thought. Big plus is the price, especially when it comes to large format. Photo paper costs nearly nothing ( comparing to film ) and can be developed so easily by everyone without any special experience.
Hope, I can try my largest 10x12 inch camera soon. I got the 210 mm Tessar mounted and seems to work perfectly on it. Biggest problem left ... is the tremedous weight of this camera ... and I don't have a decent tripod, which could hold it ... and I don't have a car as well :-( So what kind of pictures can I take ? ... hahaha ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 2, 2012 6:40:23 GMT -5
Looks cool. A selfmade camera. Wow !!!
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 2, 2012 6:37:58 GMT -5
Fantastic project ... and you are a skilled craftsman !!! Please keep us updated with your great work.
|
|
From my opinon, Kodak has put too less effort into the film sector. There has been tough times, when Agfa went bancrupt as well and everybody switched to digital, but after that, new companies like lomography has been rising and they are still growing.