|
Post by Randy on May 8, 2006 22:13:45 GMT -5
Curt, I've lost quite a few auctions to Iggers...he has deeper pockets than I do.
|
|
|
Post by unclebill on May 9, 2006 15:08:05 GMT -5
Tough topic, I collect Nikon, Asahi Pentax M-42, have one Olympus OM-1, Leica M3, Contax IIIa, Kiev III and a Canonet. I would love to collect Leica but that can get expensive really fast, I would love a black OM-1 in really good shape and fill in the blanks in Nikon F mount lenses. I would like to get a voightlander R3a as it is an M mount and its cheaper than M7. I resolved to restrict myself to the F mount, M-42, OM mount, M bayonet mount, and the Contax/Kiev mount. Partially to stop myself from going nuts, but also to leverage the lens systems I already have. I had a Canon AE-1 but I switched to Nikon because of the durablity and quality of optics, also my late dad had Nikon gear and I wanted compatablity. I
Bill
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on May 10, 2006 3:33:01 GMT -5
I think I've tended to be driven more by practicality and budget restrictions than brand preferences. My early shooting included a Kodak Signet 40, Minolta HiMatic 7, Ikoflex IIa TLR, and Yashica A TLR. I later got into Pentax gear, then Olympus OM. I sold and traded all my Olympus gear last year after 30 years of excellent service, just so I could try some Nikon film gear in my lifetime. Picked up a used F3HP and FM2n with some Nikkor primes. Have really enjoyed the Nikon stuff, though I think Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax etc are also excellent. And with the bottom falling out of the film camera market, I was able to fulfill two early dreams: some Leica and Hasselblad gear, which are now cheaper than good DSLRs.
In digital, I've used mainly Canon and one Panasonic. All have been good cams, though without the elegance and beautiful aesthetics of the older film gear. Practical though!
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 10, 2006 9:20:24 GMT -5
The F3HP is a drop-dead fine piece of machinery. If I could only keep one camera I suspect the F3 would be my choice.
One nice thing is the Nikkor manual focus lenses seem to be dropping in price fairly quickly now because they are difficult for the digital crowd to use on their cameras. They want the AF models. Just picked up an ai 24mm Nikkor--Mint for $75.00. A year ago it would have been at least $200.
|
|
otthe
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by otthe on May 16, 2006 5:52:21 GMT -5
My favourite camera-brand? Zeiss Ikon – definitely As a boy, I always dreamed to own an camera – that continued to be just a dream. Years later – at the university, I earned some money in a side job – and decided to finally buy MY CAMERA. I went to the photo shop and asked for an inexpensive SLR. The guy told me that I could definitely buy some of that “Japanese Junk” – or buy a real camera – he had just the right one for me – a used – but very good condition – Zeiss Ikon Contaflex. Had already seen quite a few years – but was in perfect condition. I bought it – along with 2 close-up lenses - for 180 German Marks (at about the same time my fathers new Ford 12m car cost 6800 Marks – just to get the relations right.) To bad I couldn’t get any interchangeable lenses – too expensive! After maybe 2 years (and many good pictures taken with the Contaflex and its superb Tessar (2,8/50) – I wanted to get some interchangeable lenses after all – so I traded the Contaflex for a used Cosina-built M42 SLR – plus 35 and 135mm M42 lenses. I still own – and use – that camera – but I continued to regret that I didn’t have the Contaflex anymore – unsurpassed in engineering heftiness, solidity, good looks and the beautiful sound of the Synchro Compur. Years later, I got into camera collecting – and now I own – and use – several Contaflex outfits – with all the Pro-Tessars and accessories; along with many other Zeiss Ikon cameras. And the other thing I collect are cameras from the mail-order house Photo PORST - many of the later ones built by Cosina – because that first M42 SLR was branded Photo PORST. Bets regards from Germany Josef www.kamera-geschichte.de
|
|
|
Post by kamera on May 17, 2006 18:57:26 GMT -5
Wayne,
My very first experiences in photography were with old kodaks, the latest being a Pony 135.
But then after college I got the urge to own a real camera, an SLR. I was easy to impress back then and just knew it was going to be one of those status symbol Nikons. But the price deterred me and my final selection was between a Pentax K1000, a Canon Ftb and a Minolta SRT 101. I settled on the Minolta and have liked manual Minoltas ever since and never regretted my choice.
However that urge that I 'needed' a Nikon never went away and I eventually purchased a Nikon N70, which I later traded for a Nikon N80 which I still have and use today. My other Nikon cameras...EM, F3HP and F4s came later.
For awhile, my stables of Minolta and Nikon were the only SLR users. As I got more into 'collecting' I acquired Canon, Mamiya, Leica, Practica...all manual as even today with my age degrading eyesight I still prefer them over the AF cameras I have.
I have also learned over the years that no matter what brand you have, you can get away with a less expensive model camera if you buy the best lens you can afford.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 17, 2006 20:34:10 GMT -5
Ron:
Right on as far as lens v. camera importance. The camera body essentially is a place to store the film and keep the lens a specific distance from the film plane. The bodies do have bells and whistles for figuring exposure, etc., but a cheap handheld meter could serve the same purpose. Glass, however, does make a difference. And, as we all know, that doesn't mean the best lens is the one made by the manfacturer of the camera body. There are plenty of aftermarket lenses capable of outstanding results for a lot less money. Sometime the only "edge" the body manfacturer's lens has is that it may be able to take more punishment.
It's like carpet. Years ago we discovered the quality and price of the carpet may not be as important as the pad under the carpet. An expensive carpet (camera) on a cheap pad (lens) may not perform as well as a as durable as a medium priced carpet on a top notch pad.
|
|
|
Post by mikemichaelski on Jun 2, 2006 18:16:07 GMT -5
My Favorite Camera - Konica AutoReflex T (2).
In the Army after college, one of my buddies had a Minolta SRT 101, but liked the features of the Konica, and after i described what kind of shooting I wanted to do, recommended it. I was a messenger driver in Washington DC the summers of the see-thru blouse and the hot pants, and being able to set the camera on a fast enough shutter speed, at the hyperfocal distance, letting the camera adjust the F stop was the best way to get pictures while driving. I still have that first body, now with a jammed shutter, but the second body, bought a year later still works just fine (1971-2006 so far). While I don't have 985 cameras like some others, I do count the ones I have by dozens, not each'es IE, 1 T-1, 5 T-2, 2 T-3, 1 NT-3, 2 TC, 1 T-4, 2 FS-1, 3 FT-1 and 1 or 2 of the other three (FC-1, FP-1, TC-X) combined. And of course an average of 2.5 lenses per camera.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Jun 2, 2006 21:57:15 GMT -5
Mike
Very nice Konica Collection....Hmmm that's about 22 Konicas.... Yes! A man after my own heart.
I have 57 SLR's all together...with 10 being Konicas.... 6 T3's, 2 FS-1's, an A1000 and 1 T2. Love them all......they still feel the best in my hands of any.....and oh those Hexanon lenses...Wow! And Mike, your reasoning for choosing Konica way back then was sound.....an excellent reason for choosing a particular brand.
Thanks for sharing Bob
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 20, 2006 10:59:23 GMT -5
Yeah, Curt is a sick man but in a very nice way from personal experience. Me , I started out with a Yashica 230 AF but switched to Nikon MF because a friend of mine intoduced to to that brand and they seemed simple to use and had a logical layout of controls to me. I just got comfortable and never felt the urge to leave. I have tried other brands and they all work well but I still stay with what I know. Strange thing is my friend switched to Pentax. I think with digital I will keep all my options open for now. The other nice thing about the Nikon system was the there was a never ending list of extras you try out/collect.
Bob Hammond
|
|
|
Post by Dan Vincent on Jul 30, 2006 21:27:17 GMT -5
Practicality. My first 35mm camera was a Minolta XE-7. I was totally satisfied and after buying extra lenses it was important to me that my second camera could share the same lenses.
I accumulated four Minolta SLR's and they all worked fine.
If I had started with Nikon or Canon I'd still be using them.
Any name brand SLR will give excellent results and the pictures would be of magazine quality. It's all a matter of what feels comfortable to the individual.
As my collection grows I hope to eventually get a Canon, Nikon, Olympus and whatever else presents itself when I have a few spare bucks in my pocket.
Rangefinders are also appealing to me and the Russian stuff looks like it could be enjoyable and inexpensive as well.
|
|
|
Post by mayokevin on Aug 24, 2006 13:39:59 GMT -5
I bought my first camera in 1980 my wife worked for a department store chain and they carried the Nikon EM or the Canon AV-1. I picked the Canon though I can't remember why at this point. I started reading all the camera magazines and decided that medium format was the way to go so I traded the Canon towards a Mamiya RB67. I couldn't afford any additional lenses or backs so I traded the RB for a Olympus OM2n. I was an OM man for 10 years but the lenses started wearing out which bothered me so I moved to Nikon. I have been with Nikon for 15 years now, I love the F3 with the MD-4 on it. I am not a real collector I buy something use it and then sell it to buy something else. To get back to the main point I use Nikon because of the quality of construction coupled with the quality of the images.
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Aug 24, 2006 15:23:35 GMT -5
Just an interesting(?) comment.
In my Minolta lineup, all the lenses are manual...nary an AF. With my Nikon gear and even though I have some manual focus bodies...with the exception of the E Series lenses for my EM...I have all AF lenses.
Thus...it is now when...no longer if...I go digital body it will be one of the Nikons as I will be able to use all my present AF lenses.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Aug 24, 2006 17:10:34 GMT -5
One aspect of camera ownership no one has mentioned is service from the manufacturer or importer.
Why I mention this is because of an early experience with a Yashica TL Electro. When I could afford a "modern" SLR after a bit of wheeling and dealing with Zeniths I went to the local photography shop to buy a Pentax. However I was shown a Yashica TL Electro with the same M42 screw mount and an LED exposure indicator which in the dim light of the shop was easier to see than a swinging needle. As the Yashica was the same price as the Pentax (around £125 I think) I bought the Yashica. In reality the exposure indication was the reverse in bright light because as a spectical wearer light entering the viewfinder made the LED hard to see.
I had only owned the Yashica a week or two and I dropped it damaging the filter thread and making the focussing stiff. Sent the camera back to Photax in Brighton who were the importers of Yashica at that time and then rang them up to find out what the cost would be. The engineer looked at the camera and told me he was waiting for focussing rings from Japan but thought he could repair the camera. The camera was repaired, checked and returned as new in about a week!
The cost...............50p !!!
Since then I have aways had a soft spot for Yashica cameras; though recognising that many others in our collection do give better results.
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Aug 24, 2006 18:42:11 GMT -5
I tried a Nikon once, but I found it to be a little unstable, it kept flying apart in my hands....Look! Snicker....giggle....nyuk, nyuk!
|
|