Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Home > Equipment > Old Beaters: The Joy of Bottom Feeding

Old Beaters: The Joy of Bottom Feeding

by Gene Wilburn

To her discomfort and undoubted dismay, my wife has witnessed my discovery of eBay. In the past two months I have won bids on three used lenses, all screw-mount Pentax Super-Takumars: a 50mm f1.4, 35mm f2, and 135mm f3.5. The total cost: less than $150 USD. The lenses all arrived safely, and all were in good condition, ready for use.


Three of the author's old beaters

The reason for the purchases was that I had acquired (been given, actually) an "old beater" -- a working Honeywell Pentax H1a 35mm SLR that predates the Spotmatic, has no built in metering, and has shutter speeds only to 1/500. Old Beaters are cameras that are past their prime, in most eyes, and have been left behind in the wake of "progress". Castaways, if you will. And as the tidal wave of digital sweeps through every boulevard and alleyway of photography, more and more older film cameras are destined for the midden heaps of garage sales, pawn shops, uncles' closets, and auction sites. To younger photographers these items may look like the jetsam of the past, but to those of us who grew up with them, many of these cameras and lenses are old friends and acquaintances. Nothing to do with sentimentality (that's not entirely true but pretend it's so), there are treasures out there: early Nikons, Leicas, Canons, Hasselblads, Pentaxes galore, Contaxes, Minolta SRT's, Olympuses, Besselers, Fujicas, Ricohs, Rolleis, Yashicas, Voigtlanders, Kowas, Bronicas, Kodaks, Arguses, Zorkis, well ... you get the drift.

Why would anyone want to bother with these old beaters, assuming they're in working condition? The simplest answer is that many of these cameras and their lenses were, and still are, very, very good. The solid mechanical workmanship of the bodies and the respectable lens quality offer excellent value and good shooting. They're bargains, and they're fun to use.

At least I find them fun to use, but I'll concede that you may need to be the right kind of person to enjoy shooting with older cameras. I've found that being an older photographer helps -- growing up with mechanical, non-auto-anything gear I still find it natural to shoot by turning a focus ring, setting an aperture and shutter speed either by guess (Sunny 16) or by hand metering, and advancing the film with a flick of the thumb or a turn of the crank. No big deal. You get quite fast at it if you do it enough. In fact, I get a bit flummoxed by modern cameras. Too much whizz, whirr, kachingazip for my taste.

It goes without saying that the definition of "old beater" will vary from photographer to photographer. For many, an old beater is a camera you can keep in your car for shots as they arise, without worrying if the camera gets stolen. Ditto for cameras you can take into harsher environments without overt concern for the equipment. I once worked with a guy who was an avid fisherman and carried a beat-up old Fujica with 50mm lens on his trips to take photos of his catches. One photographer I met swears by his FED2 with retractable 50mm lens as his "walkabout" camera. In general the connotation of "old beater" is a camera that is somewhat beat up, like some of the Leica M2's and M3's still carried proudly by their owners. Cameras with war stories.

But a lot of old beaters are not beat up, they're just ... not current. They may actually be in fine condition but are so far behind the technology curve that they've been left behind and forgotten. My Olympus OM-1's are old beaters of this type. I bought them new, have taken good care of them, and they still work a treat after thirty years. The Zuiko prime lenses are quite respectable by any standards, but, as with most old beaters (Leicas being a notable exception) the lenses are now bargain priced. This presents an opportunity: I've picked up some used Zuikos for very reasonable prices. Being a bottom feeder has some serious financial rewards.

Not that I'm not a collector, as I keep reassuring my wife. It's just that I have a few cameras that are over thirty years old: six of them actually. They drifted into my house over the years and stayed, like stray cats. I use all of them, some more than others. I like to change pace by grabbing one of them, like my Rollei TLR, and head out the door for a different style of photo shoot. Or switch to rangefinder from SLR or vice versa. With the relatively low cost of these cameras, you can afford to experiment with different camera formats.

Or collect. I'm delighted to hear stories about individuals who collect certain kinds of cameras simply for their historic and sentimental appeal. They had one and always liked it and now they collect. One person I read about collects Exactas. Another collects (and repairs) Contax cameras and lenses. There's a Fujica website maintained by a Fujica collector, and similar collector sites exist for Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leica, even Argus C3's. These collectors are creating small, contemporary museums of cameras and lenses. At least someone is enjoying these treasures of the past.

Photography students are natural candidates for old beaters. A beater SLR kit with a set of excellent prime lenses can cost as little as a new SLR with a slow, crappy, zoom. And because most beaters are manual cameras, they reinforce learning the fundamentals of aperture, shutter speed and focus. Getting an older camera that is in good shape and works reliably is the trick, of course, and there are some old beaters out there that are in worse shape than some old cars in the junk yard.

Things to watch for

The most obvious disadvantage of old beaters is that they're, well, old. All cameras can break and older cameras can be particularly difficult to repair due to lack of parts. Many of them (Leicas being a notable exception) may not be worth repairing. If you have, say, an old Pentax or Minolta system and the body goes, it is often cheaper to pick up another used body rather than repair the broken one. Or to proactively pick up an inexpensive used, but working, body to keep around as a spare.

Forget the built-in metering. Light meters in most older cameras are a weak link. They frequently have not stood the test of time as well as the rest of the camera and either don't work, work inaccurately, or require specialty replacement batteries. You may luck out and find a beater with a good meter, but on the whole, plan to use a hand held meter. I use a Sekonic L-389M Studio Deluxe II incident meter partly because I enjoy its wonderfully retro design, but any modern external meter will do. Some models, like the Gossen Digisix, are small enough to be mounted on a camera's accessory shoe.

Earlier lenses are frequently not as well coated as their modern counterparts. Old beaters favor B&W photographers who are unconcerned about how well a lens renders color. On the other hand, some older lenses, because they're softer and less contrasty than modern ones, make nicer portrait lenses, even for color. It's a tradeoff. There may be more tendency towards flare and lower contrast in older lenses, but not always. Lenses are individual and generalizations are just that.

Most older zoom lenses are not as good as today's zoom lenses, but the prime lenses are usually at par. Stick with primes if you want the best results with older gear. And stick with name-brand primes -- you'll enjoy your Rokkors, Super-Takumars or Zuikos more than third-party lenses.

The main culprits in old lenses are scratches, fungus, embedded particles or noticeable discoloration and fogging. Aperture blades should be free of oil and the focus ring should work smoothly. Watch for dints that can prevent filters from being screwed onto the lens. If a lens is clear, and free of these defects, it should still give years of good soldiering.

Where to buy? I'd first check the classifieds here on photo.net. With old beaters it's nice to know where they've been and dealing with honest fellow photographers is comforting. I've personally had excellent dealings with KEH, a used camera exchange in Atlanta, Georgia. Used lenses classified as "bargain" at KEH are true bargains, good lenses at reasonable prices and not too beat up. If my recent purchase of a used Zuiko 35mm f2 lens is typical, their "excellent" rating equates to "mint" on eBay. And that brings us to eBay. To be honest, I've had nothing but good experiences purchasing used camera equipment on eBay. I check the ad carefully, check the seller's ratings, ask questions of the seller if I have any (partly to judge the manner of the response), then check the going bid prices to see if they've remained reasonable. They often go too high so knowing your prices is important. My largest purchase on eBay was a Leica CL with 40mm Summicron, and it turned out to be every bit as nice as described. But there are negative stories about eBay too, so caveat emptor.

I think the best place to obtain old beaters, particularly camera bodies, is from family and friends. In the 1970's it seems everyone owned a mechanical 35mm SLR. Many have sat idle for years, and if the shutters haven't seized up through lack of exercise, they can be excellent acquisitions and are frequently sold for pennies. Sometimes (as with my Pentax H1a) they are giveaways from someone who hasn't used them in ten years and who would now rather go digital anyway.

Savoring the Experience

Sure, a camera is just a mechanical-optical device for capturing light on film. Just a tool in the hands of the photographer. All real photography takes place between the ears of the photographer. Great photographers can take good pictures with any equipment. Yada yada yada.

Phooey. Yes, these bits of received wisdom are true, but they only tell half the story. Photographers are also equipment lovers, connoisseurs of mechanical minutiae, aficionados of quality lenses, appreciators of fine design. Some cameras and lenses simply "speak to us": something visceral happens when we hold them and use them.

I personally think this visceral hit occurs more often with older cameras. There is something in the heft and feel of older, mechanical cameras that is missing from many of the newer polycarbonate models. Some of these new cameras are superb instruments, to be sure, and are just what the professional needs, but they don't bring the same aesthetic to the table. Call it "design as art form" or even "form follows function", many older cameras are beautiful machines you can enjoy and savor like a single-malt scotch or a fine red wine. Some are not so beautiful, but have a scruffy personality that makes them endearing. And they still take good pictures. And they're cheap (Leicas being a notable exception). So in addition to being a literal description, "Old Beater" is also a term of affection and endearment. If the term bothers you, you can use the more upscale term "Heritage Camera", but "Old Beater" suits me fine.

So, hats off to the fine cameras of yesteryear! Keep 'em snapping and keep 'em alive! Salut!


Gene Wilburn is an Information Technology professional who lives in the Greater Toronto Area of Ontario, Canada. His hobbies include music (folk singing and acoustic guitars), reading, writing and, of course, photography. He maintains a website at www.NorthernJourney.com

Article created March, 2003

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins , March 02, 2003; 11:47 P.M.

Beaters? Treasures!

A photographer after my own heart. Thanks, Gene.

Todd Peach , March 03, 2003; 12:47 A.M.

Thanks, Gene.

After dabbling in modern electronic 'wonder cameras', I find that most of the images that please me are made by 'Old Beaters'.

Ross Hight , March 03, 2003; 04:26 A.M.

As someone who recently learned using an old beater, I can happily concur with the praise they get here. I borrowed a 20-year-old Sears brand manual SLR outfit when I first started studying photography. It had a Pentax K-mount, and it was a pleasure to use and to learn on. As I got more ambitious, I started building an EOS system of my own, which of course does a ton of things that no beater will. But if you're a student and you have only two or three hundred dollars to spend on your SLR kit? Rest assured that the desirability of many old cameras is not nostalgia or any kind of old-timer conceit-- if I'm on a student budget, I'll go with some nice old manual SLR stuff over (let's say) a Rebel and standard zoom, even today.

(Granted, mine was in good working order, with well-cared for lenses, and it had an okay light meter which ran on modern batteries. If those things had been otherwise, I would definitely have had some extra work on my hands. So do take my advice with a grain of salt if you can't verify that the old camera works properly.)

Andrew Tierney , March 03, 2003; 07:18 A.M.

I'm only young (20), but still find these older cameras better than most modern offerings. I have a large amount of OM camera gear, and I love it. It's low cost compared to modern systems, has some great prime lens (55mm f1.2 and 24mm f2). I think my main reasons are:

  • Doesn't eat batteries - the OM1 doesn't even need them at all
  • I like film, you can carry lots of film with you in a bag, and buy more when you need it, anywhere.
  • They are made of solid metal and won't break

I would still be upset if they were stolen.

Mike Connealy , March 03, 2003; 09:51 A.M.

<b>Nice job on the old cameras article.</b> In addition to appreciating the oldies for all the reasons you mention, I also like them for what they can teach me about photography. Using an older mechanical camera makes you think about what you are doing and causes you to focus on aspects of the process you may take for granted in modern equipment. I tend to take much different pictures with older rangefinder, tlr and box cameras than what I get with my automated digitals. The viewing systems, shutters, and aperature settings -- or lack thereof -- all put an unexpected twist on what comes out. In many cases the same pictures could be produced with a more modern automated camera, but one doesn't know to look for the special characteristics inherent in the scene without the constraints or help of the old camera.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp; The one other thing I would stress about old cameras is that they very often need some cleaning. In a box camera that means removing a screw or two and doing a good dusting. In rangefinders with between-the-lens shutters and coupled rangefinder mechanisms, the process can be a lot more involved. So, you either have to be an adventurous gambler, or you need to cultivate a relationship with a skilled repair technician.

Jason Orth , March 03, 2003; 02:01 P.M.

It's nice to see an article like this, given the fact that technology is often pushed down our throats, esp. in photography. I agree that there are advantages to a new camera and the old cliche about the manual cameras making you have to think about your exposure still holds true. I'm amazed by the people who will decry manual cameras and their clumsy operation while at the same time spout endlessly of the advantages of the new digital "wunderbox" in between reading the 100 page manual and sifting through endless menus on a tiny LCD while the picture passes them by. These are the same people saying the Nikon N70 was complex! ;-)

Though outside the scope of the article, I think there is a place for electronic/mechanical cameras as well. Piles of (squeak-free)AE-1s still provide excellent service as well as ME Supers (one of my favorites), Super Programs and X-700's and 370's.

Nikon FE's still hold a dear place in my heart. What a wonderful machine, lovely walkaround camera with a 24/2 and a sports machine with motordrive and 80-200/2.8.

Doug Bennett , March 03, 2003; 02:25 P.M.

"Too much whizz, whirr, kachingazip for my taste". Exactly. My $700.00 Nikon digital does not, to my dismay, actually take a picture when you press the button; it begins the process of taking a picture. Ughhh........

I love being out in the woods in the early morning, pressing the shutter release on my Minolta Autocord, and hearing the sound of the self-timer counting down and the shutter firing. There's something simple and elegant about the sound of a leaf shutter.

Without going on a long winded rant & rave: I work in a technical industry (theatrical lighting), and I see a constantly increasing reluctance among my customers to buy anything where they'd actually have to know how to do something. What a shame. Thanks for a great article, Gene.

Mike Kovacs , March 03, 2003; 02:36 P.M.

A finely crafted summary of my feelings. I shoot with Manual Focus 35mm Nikons and a Rolleiflex MX-EVS 120 format camera. I'm in my 30's and a scientist but I'm a photographic luddite! Sometimes I just need a break from the cutting edge and photography is my creative outlet.

Gary Stark , March 03, 2003; 03:56 P.M.

Bottom-feeding? You sound like a man after my own heart. While the oldest of the cameras in my household, a Nikkormat FTN, is in fact an old beater, and was purchased by me as such, your article highlights the fact that not one of my SLRs is younger than about 12 years old, and as such, probably all them could possibly be referred to as "old beaters"

Regarding the FTN, in the days of yore I worked for an insurance company here in Sydney, and we had recovered this camera - complete with a 55mm Micro Nikkor - following a claim. As the claim had been settled, the camera was the company's to deal with as it saw fit, and as the resident photography expert I was asked to put a valuation on the unit.

A couple of days later, and quite to my surprise, I was asked if I was interested in purchasing the camera at that valuation. I did, and the camera fits in well when I'm travelling around in my '72 vintage Alfa GTV. Over time and (ab)use, the camera has sufferred some physical damage through dropping, but is still in good working order, including the meter.

My elder son used this to learn the basics of photography, and now has the newest SLR in the household (an F65) as he continues his studies majoring in photography at Sydney's National Art School.

John Lund , March 03, 2003; 05:58 P.M.

I love digital photography, but the chemistry and machinery of film shooting is still satisfying. (Sometimes it's even magical.) I wonder how soon most people will think of recently discontinued digital cameras as "beaters". Will collectors need to hoard antique computer equipment to make use of these "new beaters™"? (If you thought APS was rare and unpopular, try getting support for old software.)

Carrick Mundell , March 03, 2003; 07:41 P.M.

A very inspirational piece. It's now time for me to pull out my 20 year old Fujica STX-1 and start shooting. Thanks!

Orlando Andico , March 04, 2003; 06:10 A.M.

I think the widest array of "old beaters" are the M42 (Pentax-screw) mount cameras. I've started collecting these, and there are an amazing variety of new M42 lenses from the ex-USSR. Some of these are quite good. And even if they're not so good, where else can you get a 300mm f4.5 prime lens for $89? why, the Ukrainian Tair-3 telephoto, of course! sure it's clunky and has a preset diaphragm, and sure it won't stand up to a modern prime, but I bet it'll do just as good as a cheapie xx-300mm tele zoom (probably better). And at a lower cost.

Among the best M42 cameras are the Fujica's (ST605n, ST-701/801/901, AZ-1) which have nice big 0.98X viewfinders, compared to the 0.7X or 0.8X you'll find on a current SLR. The Fujica's even have aperture-priority automation. And the Fujinon M42 lenses are excellent.

Then again, almost all Japanese M42-mount cameras are excellent. I have a 1978 Pentacon Praktica SLR with a non-working meter. But for such an ancient Communist relic, it has 1/125s X-sync and a very robust metal shutter. The Japanese SLR's with Copal Square shutters are just as robust.

Martin Krobbach , March 04, 2003; 06:25 A.M.

I picked up an old ('59-'62) Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super in full working order for next to nothing and I am still surprised how often I prefer this camera over my EOS System.

Clayton Haynes , March 04, 2003; 09:53 A.M.


Example portrait with the 1965 Canonet QL19

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments put forth in this article. I recently decided that it was time to get back to basics (I'm tired of my Canon EOS with dull consumer zooms). I chose a non-working Canon Canonet QL19 from eBay. US$25 and a few days later, I had the strikingly handsome beast in my hands. It took a few days to CLA the thing (a first for me, and a great learning experience), and now I have a fully functioning camera that predates me by one year, and almost looks like it came off the production line yesterday!

I was skeptical when I put my first roll of film through it, but the pleasure I received was immense when my friends looked at the photos and said "Wow, they look really '60s!". To you and me that means low contrast and flared, but I've really taken a liking to the soft and "large" aperture f1.9 lens. It's put some life into my photographs, and it takes wonderful portraits!

I'm already on the lookout for a slightly later f1.7 version. Or maybe a Konica Auto S1.6 or Olympus 35RD from the same era. It looks like I'm hooked on the fast prime lenses that were common then, and for a way to find out if I like the rangefinder way of taking pictures, the Canonet couldn't have been a better investment. Not only will I be collecting and using more old beaters, but this Canonet has got me looking at modern "real" cameras too, such as the Voigtlander Bessa R2, which I now covet.

I thoroughly recommend grabbing yourself an older camera with a fast prime lens. Get it from eBay, following the good advice given in the article, and you won't be disappointed.

Daniel Iggers , March 04, 2003; 03:13 P.M.

Gene, Gene, Gene. What have you done? Do magicians go around publishing the secrets of their favorite magic tricks? Does a restaurant reviewer publish a glowing review of that special favorite out-of-the way place that he or she does not want to see ruined by success?

I too am addicted to beaters. I recently bought a Yashica J-5 with a 50mm Yashinon lens in parlous cosmetic condition, probably working, and I am excitedly waiting for it arrive.

OK, maybe there's some sort of weirdness, um, pathology here. I actually prefer my old beaters to my entry level Nikon autofocus SLR. Too much plastic.

My treasures include a working Canonet QL17 G-III, bought for $10, that the previous owner tried to convert into a coveted black model, using black magic marker.

But I am already saying too much.

Douglas Green , March 04, 2003; 04:38 P.M.

I certainly agree with the sentiment of this article, however, I DON'T agree with calling these cameras "Old Beaters". In fact, I would contend that several of these instruments, including the Rolleiflex TLR, the Leica CL, and the Olympus OM-1, are still, to this day, among the most capable photographic instruments PRESENTLY available. I own a high-end Nikon Autofocus SLR (an N90s), but in fact, other than focusing the lens for me, it's not any MORE capable than a 25 year old Nikon FE2, and in many ways, it is much LESS capable. What is MOST impressive about these older CLASSIC cameras, is just how much BETTER they are for the craft of making fine photographs, than much of the current crop of auto-everything cameras. Take the OM-1, for example in the article. It is ergonomically SUPERB - FAR MORE than any present-day SLR for carrying around, and unobtrusively shooting pictures, where the photographer wishes to blend into a crowd, while at the same time controlling the elements of composition and exposure that render the image on film. The Leica CL is even better at these particular attributes. Today's current SLRs are optimized to insure a baseline level of proper exposure and focus. But they are actually LESS suited to making unique and distinctive photos than the classics from 30 years ago.

Christian Deichert , March 04, 2003; 05:54 P.M.

Apparently it wasn't bad enough that I chose to be an attorney, or shyster, or ambulance chaser, or [insert legal epithet here]. Now I'm a bottom feeder because I own old cameras. :)

I didn't start out to be a "bottom feeder," I became one due to economics. When I was in law school and started looking for an SLR, it became pretty obvious that a law student without a regular job (and with little remaining credit available) could not shop for brand new Nikon AF gear. Thank goodness for the manual focus Minolta system (and, later, the Mamiya TLR system). The only pieces of equipment I've ever boght new were my tripods, my bags, my flash, and my off-camera flash cords. Everything else is a steal. (Going to law school 5 miles from KEH's headquarters didn't hurt, either.)

Gene Wilburn , March 04, 2003; 06:00 P.M.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their kind comments. The thing I really like about photo.net is the way an article like this becomes extended through community participation and through time. I'm enjoying your stories and anecdotes about "old beaters" (you can call 'em "classic cameras" if you prefer, Douglas). Glad to hear I'm not the only one hooked on these fine older manual cameras!

Gene

andrew schank , March 04, 2003; 10:44 P.M.

I also dug up a Fujica ST 705 screw mount system out of ebay recently, and have enjoyed shooting with the 4 old "EBC" Fujinon lenses that I found- (28mm f3.5, 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8, 135mm f2.5)some of the same ones I started photography with years ago. They are damn good lenses even by today's standards! Paid about $220 for everything. The camera bodies have a great feel to them and very bright finders. I really like the leather ever ready cases cameras used to come with. You can toss the camera in case in the trunk or back pack and not worry about it. No wonder many of the 30 year old cameras still look nearly new. Most of these classic cameras do need to have the felt light seals replaced-I bought a kit and did my own.

J. Pandolfo , March 05, 2003; 03:04 A.M.

Great reflections on the heritage afforded us by 'old beaters,' Gene. For me, it's the mechanics of the camera that contribute to a feeling of completeness when I push the button. The sounds of the shutter, gear train, and various springs are their own types of music and simplicity. Even when a little grit gets in there, they just keep working and they gracefully let you know when its time for a cleaning. The modern, whiz-bang cameras I use for on-location work can simply stop working in fractions of a second (did I just jinx myself?) but offer an amazing amount of flexibility and control, especially in time restricted situations.

Although I've grown up with electronics-laden and plastic-covered SLRs, I leave those computerized wonders behind in favor of a few favorite, classic beaters whenever I travel or hike.

Bart Steenman , March 05, 2003; 10:02 A.M.

Great Article!

When I was 18 years old I owned my first camera; a second hand Rolleicord V from 1954. Five years ago I had the shutter cleaned and I bought a new screen from Maxell. The camera is now good for another 45 years. Today the Rolleicord still outperformes my EOS system in photo quality, and even more for pictures taken by any digital camera today. It will still take some time before the digital cameras will catch up with medium format. For sure the digital cameras bought today will not live for 50 years like my old Rolleicord

Six months ago I bought a complete Bronica SQ system including 80, 150, 250 lenses, three backs, light meter and suite case. The whole kit for $700,-!! The previous owner was selling the kit because he wanted to buy a digital camera.

It is great time to buy "Old" Beaters from people who are going for the digital hype!

Douglas Green , March 05, 2003; 06:38 P.M.

Christian, apparently, you are a Nurse Shark! Why, because you are a Shark (a.k.a Barrister/attorney) that is also a bottom feeder.

william anthony , March 05, 2003; 08:55 P.M.

I've handled cameras for over 40 years, but mostly intermittently -- vacations, hikes, a idle saturday morning in the spring -- and I find my modern Nikons maddening in their ability to turn off my brain. I forget to choose my aperture, let the camera pick my shutter speed, don't make the exposure adjustment I needed, or worse, forget that one was already dialed in... it is always 'centers' me to pull out my old screw mount Spotmatic, or the C220, savor the mass, smoothness of operation, all that fine machining and finish, even after all these years (still have boxes and manuals even...) and go through the process thoughtful photographers know so well... I cannot imagine teaching photography to a classroom full of beginners, all holding shiny automatic SLRs -- the first instruction would HAVE to be -- set 'em to manual exposure, and focus -- and use 'em that way the rest of the semester!

Carter M , March 06, 2003; 07:59 A.M.

Old beaters are fun regardless if they are a '63 volvo or a vintage Yashica Electro 35 GSN. I found the Yashica at a yard sale that became a Christmas gift for my nephew. There is another Yashica that I may have to rescue. Other oldies are a Petri Color 35 and my trusty Rollei 35. I dig these out from time to time. My Rollei 35 lives in my glove box with a roll of Kodak Gold 200 just in case aliens land. eBay has been a great place to find examples and dont have enough space to praise KEH. Adorama in New York is also a great place to find used equipment. Don't even get me started on 8mm and Super 8 movie cameras.

jeroen dommisse , March 07, 2003; 09:15 A.M.

As all wannabe-semi-pro-but-yet-still-amateur photographers, I'm saving up for a digital can't-go-wrong-SLR. But for the time being, I have a fairly complete Nikon system, including a wonderfully beat-up F Photomic from '65. That one takes the best pictures of all. On the last roll of Superia 400, none of the photo's came out badly exposed.

Ofcourse there's no matrix metering, no bracketing an no autofocus or whatsoever, but a little common sense, fast thinking and fast fingers get you there as well. Lessons to be learned? To me, 'Old Beaters' proved to be the best way to understand photography. Any camera is nothing more but a light tight box with a piece of glass in front, and a little door that must be opened and closed. Start off with the old, affordable basics to improve your eye.

Dan Fromm , March 07, 2003; 12:41 P.M.

There's nothing like cheap thrills. The Leica CL figured at the top of the article isn't cheap, though using it may be thrilling. Of course, some old gear is less thrilling than others. I've always found SLRs with stop down TTL metering to be a pain, but as we all know tastes differ.

Much old gear works well, some of it will work well nearly forever. Although, to be fair, I'm not sure if using young lenses on old press cameras should count as using old gear.

Many of the improvements to photographic equipment since around 1960 -- auto exposure, with more and more sophistication; auto focus; power everything -- have aimed to improve ease of use and consistency of results, and don't seem to have done much for the quality of the results a skilled user can obtain. The modern conveniences are nice to have, but get in the way of learning technique and sometimes of controlling what happens.

In my limited experience, about the only improvements that have made a huge difference in the results have been in relatively fringe areas. Long focus lenses with less chromatic aberration and distortion than older ones, for example. But how many of us use those monsters? Better extreme wide-angle lenses for SLRs, for another. Again, how many people use them, and how often? The one mainstream improvement is that fast normal lenses seem to be a little better than they used to be; I'd accept without testing the proposition that today's new 50/1.4 lenses for 35 mm are all better than the 50/1.4 Nikkor I bought in 1970.

I seem to use slow normal and moderate tele lenses most often, and for out-and-about use similar lenses from the early '60s seem to give as good results as the latest most modern. The one exception, which I use on a 2x3 press camera, is an extreme wide-angle, a 38/4.5 Biogon; the design came to market in 1952 and hasn't been improved on since.

What has changed a lot is peoples' willingness to learn technique and control the process. I sometimes give aquarium societies presentations on closeup photography as applied to shooting fishes in barrelses or tanks or whatever. When I make the point that getting good results requires learning how and controlling nearly everything, the folks with auto-everything SLRs who just want to point and shoot and get good results tend to be dismayed. Since I show them some of my better pictures to prove I know what I'm talking about, and some of my worst to prove that I understand that too, they don't dare throw rocks, but they show signs of not liking the message. The digital characters like the message even less.

Steven Clark , March 08, 2003; 04:58 P.M.

I would like to say that even for a younger photographer starting out bottom feeding is a good way to get a very good camera. When I took a photography class in high-school I had the good fortune to have access to a Canonet GIII QL17 because my dad shopped around when he bought it years before. Only recently did I discover that if I remove the hard case and the strap that it is actually pocketable and I have borrowed it pretty much permanently. Even if I had purchased it myself at $100 average it would have been a steal!

These days I'm using a Canon A-1 based system which was actually an estate sale find by my parents. Someone died, the widow didn't know what the stuff was worth, (her other prices were stupidly high) and my dad was the first on the scene. Even after buy a second body because the first one had a dying shutter bearing they still spent less on the whole system than a new decent AF SLR would cost and alot less than a pro model.

I'll admit I might not have had the wisdom to have purchased either myself at the time, but I am certainly thankful that my dad did. I think some of my perspective is that being a programmer and having grown up with computers I recognize the limitations of the technologies and how little real added value alot of these electronic features give. To me the mechanical stuff and having the more powerful features like autoexposure is has a much more tangible value then something like a date back or even autofocus for that matter.

Walt Dunbar, Sr , March 09, 2003; 11:43 A.M.

While this article does a wonderful job of pointing out the value of older equipment,the one point all film photo buffs need to worry about is camera & film makers forcing us to choose between fewer formats.

Already film is down to the basic choices of 35mm & medium format (view cameras are so special to me they will always have a market) with medium format getting squeezed out in the consumer market place.

I don't care for digital as it's just another quick /dirty way to satisfy the "can't wait" consumers. oh, well....

I, too, prefer to buy my cameras used to get the full value out of my dollar. And to that end I've done nicely buy equipment that I couldn't do otherwise.

On balance the concept is well presented and very infomative. A must read for all new photo buffs.

Chris OMeara , March 09, 2003; 10:06 P.M.

My first camera was a Canon Powershot A40. I took some great pictures with it. I read the manual from cover to cover 20 times. I took pictures, cropped and edited in Photoshop, printed them and gave them away. Digital! Wow. I started saving for a Canon G2. I know knew that I loved photography and wanted the extra control the G2 offered. I was happy. Then something happened. I was given a Minolta SRT 101. It was heavy and a little dark through the viewfinder. It was love at first sight. 1.4? What does that mean? I soon found out. This camera has brought me so much joy. I have 4 "beaters" now. I invite friends out for photography shoots. I give them a lesson and a camera and off we go. We talk about techniques and lighting and composition and have a hell of a good time. Those old cameras really can excite and inspire people. Am I still saving for a G2 or the now available G3? No. I can't see spending the money. The next time someone wants 150 bucks for an old kit? That's a done deal.

richard ragsdale , March 10, 2003; 03:40 A.M.

i am a hobbyist photographer, i make my living as a composer. i write music for television, movies and video games as well as contributing to the occasional record. i gotta tell you that the whole digital thing is ruining music. due to the "advances" in digital technology in music over the last decade and a half we live in a time where there is a sameness to the way everything sounds. for the most part everyone is making music with same (digital) tools, creating a uniformity of sound that has led to an incredible blandness across the board in the music industry. why do i mention this here? well the enthusiasm i see for digital photography now reminds me of the way people freaked out over the digital music stuff about ten years ago. the convenience and slickness mollified everyone and people began discarding all their old analog equipment. but then a funny thing happened. musicians began to notice that under the glossy digital sheen there was something missing. things were sounding sterile and plastic and a bit cold. the ambience was wrong. now the really good producers composers performers and engineers are scrambling for all that old ("vintage") gear, trying to recapture something that has been lost. people discovered that the analog warmth and quirky imperfect nature of these beasts was actually what gave these things their personality. over a decade ago most this stuff was super cheap - nobody wanted that old junk---but now skip over to ebay and see how much that stuff goes for---it aint cheap. so these old "beaters" are plentiful and cheap now but i will bet ten years from now people who want to distinguish themselves from the uniform masses will be hunting them down and paying a fortune for them.

D Colucci , March 10, 2003; 07:06 P.M.

Great Article - will feature an upcoming issue of my Antique & Classic Camera Newsletter Links !

Visit my site to learn more about the classic "beaters"

Antiqaue & Classic Camera Web Pages

My Favorite Classics ? Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4 lens, Yashica ML 55mm macro, zeiss planar 50mm 1.7, minolta 58mm 1.2...all great "beater" lenses...

Pierre Phaneuf , March 10, 2003; 09:59 P.M.

I'm a nerd, and I love my Canon Elan 7e (fast, silent, whizzy, etc), and I'm wishing for an EOS-10D right now.

But a Canon FTb with a 50mm/f1.4 kicks serious ass, even for a EOS-boy like myself. A friend (hi Philippe!) has a bunch of Spotmatics, but I can't stand these screw-mount cameras, or the awful light meters they have, but I can take an FTb, focus, pick an exposure and get the picture in less than 5 seconds, which is pretty darn good, being used to autofocus and autoexposure. The bayonet mount makes for quick lens changes and sports wide open metering (which also enables DOF preview and an easy to use needle indicating aperture in the viewfinder).

I wouldn't trade my EOS for one, but I'd recommend this body to anyone looking for an excellent SLR system for cheap! Also, if you get a bunch of lenses, you can still get one of the later AE1, T70 or T90 for more automation/sophistication, if you are so inclined, I'm told that they are still decent bodies.

Jim Simmons , March 11, 2003; 09:46 A.M.

OK, I didn't buy my Leica CL as a used beater; I bought it new in 1974. But it's certainly "beat" on the outside, the result of newspaper work and being on bicycle trips all over the US and Canada. However, the inside is clean as a whistle, and the surfaces of the 40mm Summicron glass look like new, as I've kept a UV filter on it religiously. Nearly 30 years later, the camera is worth at least the $350 I paid for it new. And now I can pick up "beater" lenses for it that I've drooled over for years, like the 90mm f/4. Sure, I've got a digital camera now, but it didn't take long for the bloom to fall off that rose. I'm back to the Leica as my main camera these days. Someone mentioned 8mm cameras. My ebay 8mm camera collection has now grown to about a dozen cameras, most in mint condition because they got almost no use in their day. Most were purchased in the $15-40 range, although I did pay $90 for a mint Bolex D8La and $65 for a Leicina. You CAN get film and processing for 8mm, but it's a bit of a hassle.

Gary Post , March 12, 2003; 10:13 P.M.

"Beater"? I prefer "Experenced". As proud owner of 5 Minolta XE-7s (actually two were recently stolen)and an XKM I am in complete sympathy with you. Although I do own several "auto-focus" cameras I really tend to grab the manual focus cameras when I go shooting. I must admit to being a camera junkie. I currently own 31 lenses both zoom and fixed focal lenght, auto focus and manual. Auto focus is so easily fooled and for most of what I shoot I prefer to have control over both what I am focusing on and the depth of field where I want it. I do wish the auto-focus lenses had a good old fashion depth of field scale on them. So,I will continue to shoot "Beaters" until parts are no longer available or I go on tho the great processer in the sky. "Bottom Feeding" ??????

Gary Reese , March 13, 2003; 12:50 A.M.

Many new photography students simply choose to purchase the latest budget 35mm autofocus camera. Unfortunately, those camera and general purpose zoom lens kits commonly lack features that will help them in their assignments, such as a fast lens to free them from on camera flash, depth of field indicators on the lens, depth of field preview, user setting of film speed, easy manual exposure controls and optional manual focusing with a bright enough focusing screen to permit it. They get especially dismayed when they need to shoot an assigment which their new camera can't handle. Even something as simple as plugging a studio strobe PC cord into a socket which the manufacturer left off to reduce costs! Even a Pentax K1000 had one of those. Or trying to set a film speed of 8 for bulk loaded Kodalith when the camera can only read from a DX coded cassette between ASA 25 to 3200. The assignment which really infuriates them is infrared. They may find that their new wonderbrick camera fogs the film while counting frames, leaks infrared radiation through the film cassette identification window and that their lens lacks infrared focusing marks. At this point some students come full circle in a scramble to borrow a classic (much better than the term "beater") camera to shoot the assignment with. That is when it becomes apparent to them that no one camera is best for every subject.

One of the premises of this article is that classic equipment can be an inexpensive way to build a system. Hum, as a loyal (at least for 35mm) Olympus OM System user, I don't think that holds true once you get away from the few components which were mass marketed in large numbers. Sure, those 135mm f/3.5 and 28mm f/3.5 lenses are bargains. But the empty nesters and baby boomers with new found disposable income have been building up their old OM Systems (or rediscovering it) and paying premium prices for the more exotic glass and high end bodies they have always wanted and now can get. International buyers with a yen for mint examples snap up at premium prices the forgotten equipment which John Q. American bought and never used, often because it was too complex or heavy for them.

Gary Reese

Nick Wilson , March 13, 2003; 12:53 A.M.

Can't agree with the term 'beater'. That is what you use to make an omelette.

We in more enlightened locales (Down Under to most of you) might call these 'old battlers'. Such a nice term; usually applied to people who struggle along.

That said, go for it, but don't anyone dare call the OM system old beaters/battlers.

I have just got a Yashica rangefinder with a f1.4 lens to add to the motley crew. Reckon it might be interesting wide open. Will try it soon.

Nick

John Teoh , March 13, 2003; 07:21 P.M.

Food for thought.

If the US really has Electro Magnetic Pulse Technology, that fries all electronic components (something that they might test and use in Iraq). Then what works will be the full mechanical devices.

That said, my collection of mechanical cameras will still work if we get hit with an EM Pulse.

Patrick Sullivan , March 17, 2003; 11:17 P.M.

Oh goodness... here I go. I have a collection too, of elder cameras. A Yashica MG-1, Minolta SRT-102, Nikon EM... others too. But how many times has my Minolta Maxxum 7 saved me from a missed shot because IT advanced the film? Or how many times has the synch cord between flash and my X-700 has let me down? I love my older cameras. I use them all the time. But when I need reliability, quickness, and consistency, nothing beats a camera that will capture the moment when the moment happens... not 3 seconds AFTER the moment because I was focusing, or setting the f-stop, or whatever.

Students of photography will get better when they WANT to, not because they have a manual camera. Believe me. I was an idiot with a manual camera for 15 years. :)

Kieran Hamill , March 19, 2003; 07:36 A.M.

One system that should be avoided at all costs is the Olympus OM system. These cameras and lenses are not very good at all, and are not even worth selling on E-bay. The prices are about to collapse anyway, so if you have any of these old clumpers lying about under the bed now is the time to get rid of them. Don't just throw them away though. Send them all to me and I will throw them away for you, at no cost. I will even pay the postage. What a nice man.

melvin bramley , March 20, 2003; 01:11 A.M.

WOW!! Such a lot of Photographers with the same frame of mind. Not to start a flame war but I have commited to the Nikon system. I have cameras from a F100 to a collectable Nikon F. One of my great joys is to have an F8 or perhaps a F11 day? Using a old Nikon F2S & a 50mm F2 lens I often take this combo for a workout. I set the lens to F8 . The lens is then adjusted for maximum depth of field & the shutter is set accordingly.I take care that everything comes within the depth of field of the lens & fire away.It is when I develop & print the film that I realise just how good a photo can be.

Russ Rosener , March 22, 2003; 10:11 P.M.

This is a great thread, and as a photo teacher at community college level, I will be giving the link to my class so they can better appreciate the manual 35mm cameras handed down to them by family members. Most people have mentioned the more well known Japanese and West German 35mm systems. Don't forget the East German made Praktica series 35mm SLRs! I have had three Praktica TL and Super models. All were rugged, reliable and had great Zeiss prime lenses for a fraction of the Leica glass. The Russians made some really exotic glass for them too (check out the 85mm f2 Jupiter preset for a real interesing old style optical experience.) Having access to all those excellent Pentax M42 lenses is a boon as well.

Jeff Bishop , March 23, 2003; 08:26 P.M.


First photograph from the Ricoh TLR camera.

A really informative article. Readers who are interested might find my experience useful.

I love these old cameras. I don’t buy them to put on a shelf either. I get the old Twin Lens Reflex (TLR’s) because they are quality medium format cameras (with all the benefits of medium format) at foolishly low prices. I’m very pleased with all of the cameras, as well as the results I get from them.

I have bought a number of older TLR’s on ebay. Some I’ve bought as “non-working” and have repaired. Some work when bought. The most I’ve paid so far is $42.00 for an old Ciro-flex. The least was $25.50 for an old Ricoh Auto 66. In between those prices are a Rolleiflex and a Rolleicord.

Though I have a fairly good aptitude for mechanical things, I’ve no training and knew nothing about the mechanical properties of shutters, etc. Taking shutters apart is not for the faint-of-heart. The insides are like a watch, only more complex. I’ve only taken two apart so far, the Seikosha – L, and the Alphax shutter. (Contrary to web-sites I’ve visited, the Ciro-flex Alphax shutter CAN BE repaired). I have not had to buy a single part, usually something is out of line from a drop or something. Unless you are willing to take a complete loss on a camera, I would not suggest taking it’s shutter apart.

One advantage of these old TLR’s are the quality of the build and the lenses. I doubt that anyone would argue the legendary quality of the old Rollei’s or the lenses they used. Between f/5.6 and f/11 even the Triotar and Tessar lenses will yield superb results.

Another advantage is the medium format film (120) being used. The films are available in the same popular types as the 35mm (Reala 100, Agfa Optima II, etc). The real advantage here is with the huge negative. You will get comparable results with 120 film blown up to 20X20 as you will with 35mm blown up to 8X10. The only difference being the nice sharp HUGE print.

What I consider the best advantage though, is the low prices at which these gems can be bought.

From a functional view point, these cameras are a joy to use. There is no slap from the mirror (as in SLR’s), the leaf shutters are as smooth as silk. You DO have to THINK before exposing your film. Most likely you will need a light meter (most of the TLR’s do not have built in light meters). Generally the displays are backwards on the screen, you have to turn the camera opposite of how the image appears on the screen. That isn’t a big obstacle to overcome, a few rolls of film and you are used to it.

Disadvantages would be the price of film/developing. Twelve exposures of medium format film cost the same as 36 exposures of 35mm film. The developing costs are about the same (if you have your own darkroom, this isn’t a big issue). Nearly everyone sends the film out for developing too. Most of my film ends up getting developed by Kodak, and the developing is usually a lot better than what you get with 35mm (where minimum wage people are pushing it through a machine).

Also, unless it’s had a recent CLA, don’t expect the slow shutter speeds to be accurate (1 second could really be 3 seconds). 1/60 second and up are generally accurate, though that will vary.

Jeffrey Rodgers , March 24, 2003; 11:30 P.M.

I'd like to thank my dad for getting me into all manual cameras... specifically the Pentax K1000 with a 50mm f/2 lens (he had two, the other one he kept has a 50mm f/1.4 lens) This was about four years ago (I'm 42 right now, so this isn't one of those "when I was a kid" stories) and since then I have fallen in love with these simple cameras, without the fancy "wistles and bells". There are many lenses around for the "K" and I also use a screw mount adapter for other lenses. My interest in night photography and astro is ideal for manually controlled shutters that can be locked open for long exposures... no batteries needed! My wife got inetersted a couple years ago and got a modern manual focus SLR... it's not bad, but she still likes the K1000 better... both of us wish they still made these, needle meter display and all (although I agree about abandoning the in-camera meters, even if they work) Thanks for the wonderful article, and keep this in mind: a camera that has the features you need is just as good as a camera with extra features (that you don't need) Also, learning to use a modern "automated" camera can be just as hard (or harder, actually) than learning to do everything manually.

Allan Cobb , March 27, 2003; 11:43 A.M.

Excellent article -- a quick look at my equipment list will confirm our agreement of philosophies! My newest camera is a Pentax ME Super, my oldest a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta (6x9) and a few in between... a Canon rangefinder, a Yashica D TLR, an MX.... These cameras have been around the world, survived abuse and keep soldiering on. I still remember my Yashica falling out of its threadbare case and landing square on a rock while hiking in Korea. "Beat" that with today's plastics!

Ari Kermaier , March 27, 2003; 06:18 P.M.

Thanks Gene, I too am a lover of older, mechanical equipment that still works as well as its newer equivalents. The wonderful tactile experience of hefting solidly constructed optics is just plain missing with today's cameras. And when Canon has so completely cluttered the exterior of an EOS-3 with features that they have to put some more behind a door on the body, I just have to say no. Unfortunately, "bottom-feeding" can get as pricey as chasing after the latest tech. Building around an old Canon A-1 (with working meter, by the way), I'm now the proud owner of some US$3,000 worth of Canon FD lenses and accessories. Of course, as I explain to my wife, there's a very good reason that I "need" each piece. ;-)

Charles Dias , March 27, 2003; 09:09 P.M.


This is one of the photo I took with my beloved "old beater" Olympus Trip 35 (great Zuiko lens).

Great article, Gene. Very good indeed. Your article fit like a groove to a discussion about "old beaters" with some other members of a brazilian newsgroup (I live in Campinas - Brazil!). A guy wrote that "old beaters" are museum pieces and the shelf is its place ... of course a lot of other members wrote againt his position. I started with and "old beater" as a botton feader myself. I was in the college and have almost no cash for photography ... my first camera was a Zenit 122 and then a Minolta SRT 100X (great camera) ... passing time I upgraded to a Canon FTb, than Canon A1, F1 "old" and some mechanical Nikons (F, F2, F3, FM) and than Canon T90. Sometime ago I decided to go AF and sold a spare Nikon F2 and some lens and bought a Nikon N65 with 28-80mm and 70-300mm ... got crazy when discovered that N65 doesn´t have manual ISO adjustment, just DX code reading. Sold this set and bought a Canon EOS 50E and Sigma 28-105mm ... great set but I felt it just like a delicate plastic toy comparade to my "old beaters" and two months later I sold it too and bought an old stock T90 ... best deal in my life. I have nothing against AF and all electronic stuff, but if I can´t afford a pro model (Canon EOS 1N or 1V, Nikon F4s, F5, ...) I prefer to keep my beautifull, heavy and strong as a war tank "old beaters". I run an online photo maganize in portuguese (http://www.loucoporfotografia.kit.net) and this month there´s an article I wrote about the Olympus Trip 35, the best example of the simplicity, strongness and quality of the "old beaters" ... I shot some sundowns with this wonderful little camera and the results was better that the ones I got when shotting with the AF cameras ... non comparable results. Long life to the "old beaters" !!!

T.L. Walkley , March 28, 2003; 03:35 A.M.

Long live the Pentax SP 500 !!.

Mig Mig , April 01, 2003; 01:43 P.M.

Hello All,

As a pre-amateur user of old beaters, I offer this: bidding on E-bay can be thrilling, often painful, etc. Either way, there are some bargains to be had. I put together a Minolta outfit based on a hand-me-down XG-9 from my dad; with just $700, I added four fine lenses and a great XD-11. Last month, I began putting together a Pentax 6X7 outfit. So far I've got two great lenses and a good working P6X7 all for under $800. That's a lot less than some other camera bodies (alone) I have seen. Old beaters also tend to be great long-term investments, assuming the Darwinian theory that all the "weak" cameras not worth buying all died away years ago. The mantra could be "Caveat emptor" or "so far so good."

Andrew Yue , April 02, 2003; 10:03 P.M.

Be forewarned, shooting with legacy equipment can be a very slippery slope.

I stumbled into legacy equipment by buying a small pocketable rangefinder 35mm on a fluke, when my fully automated autofocus camera malfunctioned in Africa. Bad mistake, I now have three different Olympus 35's, the 35RC, 35RD and 35SP. See my web site, which is dedicated to these 1970's mechanical shooters.

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html

Alas, things went downhill from there, I started shooting more often and relearned the techniques I had used in the early 1970's with my first camera, a Yashica TLR. Then my expensive digital camera died while on a trip to Australia. I replaced the digital with a classic Rollei 35 SE. Next came the opportunity to acquire an old Ansco Super Speedex, a 6x6 folder with a coupled rangefinder and an automatic film counter. The Super Speedex, a.k.a. the Super Isolette, was a high tech shooter in its day.

In the last year, I've picked up a legacy Durst M601 enlarger with a color head. After a twenty year lull I have rediscovered the joys of the darkroom, as well. One thing leads to another.

Shooting with a vintage camera forces one to slow down and think like an old-school photographer. They are slow and deliberate to work with, but at least your film won't suddenly rewind on frame number two.

John Shaeffer , April 04, 2003; 05:28 A.M.

Thanks, Gene you've just driven up the price of all "classic" SLRs and rangefinders on ebay as everyone discovers their "roots."

Well at least you didn't disturb my balliwick, old aotufocus cameras. Nobody cares and that suits me fine to pick up an old Ricoh FF-90 or Canon MC for less than $10. Just don't start playing with any of these til I get my fill :).

Scott Warn , April 06, 2003; 06:05 P.M.

"Earlier lenses are frequently not as well coated as their modern counterparts. Old beaters favor B&W photographers who are unconcerned about how well a lens renders color."

This is so untrue that it is almost on the level of an urban legend. Any name brand lens made since about 1948 will be color corrected. I have and use a Nikon S and S2 with color film on occasions and have had no problem with color correction. As for sharpness, my experience with Nikkor lenses indicates that the they had the best sharpness during the 70's, the only recent AF lens I have that exceeds these older lenses for sharpness is the 105mm f2.8 AF D Micro Nikkor. As for flare and contrast control, Nikon started using multi coating in the early 70's, they just did not reveal it until the multicoated Takumars threatened their sales. I have also found the coating of the earlier rangefinder lenses to be quite good, only in extremes of lighting do these older coatings show more flare and even this flare level doesn't approach the extreme flare found in the new, many element zooms. Bottom line is, don't worry about a lens that has been single coated, being a prime it will totally dominate the results when matched up with the new zoom lenses that are so popular.

I love my old beaters, they slow me down and make me take my time. This usually results in a much better photo, than if I were to just point and click.

Mark Adamsbaum , April 07, 2003; 12:09 P.M.

Old beaters are best! I love my 1950ish Voigtlander Bessa folder. The trick is not to care what they look like. Mine had so many light leaks that I finally wrapped the whole thing in duct tape. The only things not wrapped are the lens, some of the back (which I re-tape up after loading the film) and a little slit for the shutter release. Great quality exposures and I have no worries at all about it getting knocked around.

Octavio Bustard , April 07, 2003; 04:46 P.M.

Gene-

Loved the article. I've been photographing since 1970 when I was twelve. While I owned an SRT-101, My dream camera then was a Nikon F and any Leica. What do I use today, in spite of all the automated cameras to chose from? A Nikon F, an M2, M3 and a Rolleiflex. I dont understand it when kids (20-30 somethings) ask me what those "old" cameras I use are; whats even more annoying is when they ask me "how" to use em. Are we really that old?

Brainbubba Motornapkins , April 08, 2003; 03:08 P.M.

I have an old beater that I bought new in 1975, a Rollei SL35. I have taken untold thousands of frames of all kinds, kodachromes, E6, color and B+W negs with it. In 1978 I dropped it in the ocean (or rather, I slid on seaweed into the ocean with it around my neck).

Having read of what to do in such situations, I put it in a plastic bag filled with seawater, brought it straight home, drained out as much water as possible and dried it overnight in a warm oven. The next day I mailed it to Rollei for repairs. They mailed it back saying I could buy a replacement body for the cost of repair (the 135mm TeleTessar was toast).

The shutter wouldn't fire. I began to dismantle it, removing the top plate, lens mount, and the pentaprism (the latter two proved unecessary, and undoubtedly caused some minor focus/alignment problems). I squirted some WD40 into the rewind mechanism and forced the gears, then the rewind lever. It worked! And has never stopped working since, except the light meter. And the slower shutter speeds (<1/30). And more recently, not in cold. Some of the screws I took out and reassembled came loose and had to be tightened periodically (by now they seem to have oxidized in place).

I dropped it on the sidewalk, pentaprism down, a couple of years later. Apart from cosmetic damage, no apparent effect.

I had a wonderful 25mm distagon for years, it fell out of my camera bag about ten years ago. I have a Tameron 75-210 close-focussing, 't-mount'(42mm screw w/adaptor) zoom, with excellent coating and contrast, a massive, rock solid hunk of glass with all-metal fittings that I purchased on sale from a K-Mart in 1979. And I still use the Rollei schneider prime that came with the body. I've been thinking of replacing my gear for the past five years. But like the energizer bunny, it just keeps going, and going, and going...

Steven Worthy , April 13, 2003; 07:25 A.M.

Great article! I do press work and have a growing EOS system but keep finding myself picking up my old Canon A1 and AE-1P for use. When using my old Canons, I do not have to think as much in getting the shot made. While autofocus is great with its bells and whistles, whenever there's a shot i need, I can count on my FD system to deliver.

Also, in my old beater collection is a 1952 Super Ikonta B. Its absolutely amazing the pictures it churns out and I almost exclusively use it for Black & White.

There are plenty more old beaters in my collection but I'd be here all day talking about them. Only pain about them is I have to exercise the shutters now and then to make sure they do not stick.

Lee Osborne , April 18, 2003; 02:52 A.M.

Yaay! We love old cameras!

Being a photographer on a budget (wife and two kids to support!) means I can't go out and spend thousands on expensive new cameras, but I've discovered the wonders and delights of the really cheap and really decent old beasts out there. I've recently acquired a Seagull TLR from a work colleague who has gone digital - he sold it to me for £1! - and also I was given a Kiev 4 rangefinder by my mother-in-law - my wife learned to take pictures with this when she was a teenager. Old Communist bloc cameras are a bit hit-and-miss, but if you get lucky like I have, they're awesomely cheap and very capable. They're such a joy to use and make you think about your photography - making all the decisions yourself makes you take fewer and better pictures.

A well looked after old camera is just so much nicer than a bells-and-whistles modern consumer product deliberately designed with built-in obsolescence. 35mm and 120 films will remain available for decades - you can even still get 110, 126 and 127 if you look hard enough - but computer technology moves on so fast that I can't help but wonder whether all our digital cameras of today will be unuseable in 10 years time.

Lee

Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , April 21, 2003; 01:24 P.M.

A lot of these old beaters have the leatherette in tatters or vulcanite chipping off the body. I just finished redoing my circa 1958 Leica M2 in brand new leatherette, pre-cut for a perfect fit and self stick; the glue sets up with moderate heat from a hair dryer. Check out www.cameraleather.com

L. ______ , April 24, 2003; 04:21 P.M.

Hi,

I came to photography recently after I bought a digital camera. I work in New MEdia so digital sounded like a wonderful medium. Overal despite the fact it is by no mean a high-end camera (HP photosmart worth $399), I was very impressed by the quality of the pictures taken. Yet, I found myself limited by the lack of manual controls, the in-built lens and the slowness of the camera (2 seconds delay or more). Rather than investing in a higher end digital which was out of my budget, I have been buying old beaters on ebay together with a new film scanner (also on ebay). For less than the price of the digital camera, I am now the happy owner of two complete systems (fujica, minolta) both about twenty years of age. With the package I have a large choice of lenses for each(wide angle, 50mm, 2x telephoto adapter, 80x200) for each, two flashes (one of which is very good), a bellow and one close up adapter, various filters, an auto-winder and the scanner. Works for me. I like the combination of a pocket sized digital (which I carry with me at all time) and old beater for other uses. I am by no mean a pro but it works for me.

Also it seems like a good choice for travelling. I have been worried about bringing a good camera on a boat recently. A $70 old beater might be good for that as well.

Christopher Perez , April 24, 2003; 07:42 P.M.

Gene seems to understand a great many of us.

Ah, the glories of using old (but still somewhat expensive) Rollei 35 compact cameras, $25 Kodak 620 Specials that come with Anastigmat and Anastar lenses mounted in Supermatic shutters (that took the above image), very mint 6x6 and 6x9 Zeiss Ikontas with fully coated Opton-Tessar lenses mounted in Compur shutters purchased less than $90, usable $30 Speed Graphic 4x5 cameras with fully functioning focal plane shutters, and last, but certainly not least, mint unused $300 Burke and James 8x10 view cameras complete with case, holders, and fully coated 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar f/6.3 lenses mounted in Ilex shutters...

... every single one still capable of producing as fine an image as this aging hobby photo-nut can find ... whew! This is great fun, isn't it...?

Daniel Vinklar , April 25, 2003; 08:40 A.M.

You bastards! You made me finally do what I wanted to do already for a long time. After using several modern Canon and Nikon systems, and after being robbed lately in Florence/Firenze Italy of my Canon EOS 33 and two lens, (see my hp http://web.quick.cz/artultra for the story) and after buying a new Canon EOS 30 replacement, having read this article, I went and tried a few Canons A1 and AE1 and Minoltas X700 (which unfortunately were not "like new" any longer), and ended up with a 1981 Minolta XG-M silver beauty, like new! It is lovely! I brought it a moment ago from the shop. And wil devote my weekend to testing it. My partner is going to shoot you! :-) Cheers! DV

gabriele lopez , April 27, 2003; 09:22 A.M.


small change, Milano, Italy, FM2 and manual 35mm lens..

In a world where digital photography is becoming the mass standard is really nice to read such a good article like this one....

Old beaters maybe it's not the right name for these wonderful cameras...the choice if you don't want to stay in front of a monitor to edit your photos, the choice if you want simple interface and simple approach...thinking and dreaming about the results...without getting lost in menu and settings.

They provide, in my opinion, a really different feeling when you use them compared to any af or digital camera expecially..... I love to use the m with black and white films for a meditate, quiet,simple and a little magic kind of photography....

Guess what? old beaters are still available new in some cases....yes, what's about Fm3a, Voigtlanders, ecc...

Even tough i'm absolutely not anti-digital, and i use a coolpix995 as well, i still love and practice this kind of photography with my FM2 and soon FM3...

Photography, pure and simple..

John Wehlitz , April 29, 2003; 02:41 A.M.

Hi,

The article and the comments really strike a chord with me. I'm glad to know that there are other people who love older cameras. While I enjoy using my digital camera, there is something special about using my older 35mm Minoltas, my medium format SLR, and more recently an oldie but goodie 4x5 view camera. My most recent photographic purchase is a used Omega 4x5 enlarger with color head etc.

I seem to be all over the map photographically, shooting away happily with the digital camera or one of my 35s, composing with great care with my favorite camera (a Hasselblad that's probably around 50 years old, like me), composing with even greater care with the view camera. There is just something about cameras of all sorts that really punches my button.

Now if only cameras were my only interest!!

John Wehlitz

P.S. By the way, I do also have an autofocus SLR - you know, it's now old enough to be an old beater as well.

Craig M , April 29, 2003; 05:45 P.M.

Being a child of the digital age wanting to get into SLR photography, yet not wanting to spend thousands of dollars for a digital SLR, I ended up choosing to purchase an old beater. After looking at the options for a new no frills 35mm SLR camera, (namely Pentax ZX-M's or Canon Rebel 2000's) I ran across a comment here on photo.net stating that an AE-1 with lens could be had for half the price of a new Rebel 2000 body. I did some looking around and found an AE-1 with a 50mm f/1.8 on Ebay. I also purchased some used filters on Ebay and a few additional used Canon FDn lenses from Adorama. I now have a nice old beater SLR system for about what I would have paid for a new body and one or maybe two lenses.

AE-1 body + 50mm f/1.8 - $85

81B, ND 0.6, Skylight 1B, Red 25A filters - $21

135mm f/2.8 ($64 Excellent) + 24mm f/2.8 ($164 Excellent +) - $240

Total: $346

Nahum Reduta , April 30, 2003; 01:11 A.M.

As a student, I probably learned more about photography through finding durable FD lenses on eBay than through my first rolls on a Canon T-70, and likely much more than I would have ever learned on a current AF SLR or digital. Granted, I still pine for a 1D (which currently costs as much as my loan debt), or the Casio Exilim, an enticing work of portability. Having to choose the best lens out of my bag of four--instead of relying on a built-in zoom--has made my photos much more interesting, and much more satisfying to take. All in all, the best $300 I shouldn't have spent.

Image Attachment: EquipmentOfficeFridge.jpg

Jorge Diaz , May 16, 2003; 10:49 P.M.

my preferred "beater" is a Leica M3.One thing separates Leica from the rest.Quality precision.I won't linger singing praises.Just a little observation.Look through your lens into the diaphragm.Open and close it.Is the poligon shape regular in your lens's diaphragm?In the Leica lenses I own they are.I own lenses built in 1932.The precision is better on those than on one built in 2002 that cost me $600.00.Or worse(more expensive)... You need precision in your life.You need at least a Leica.By the way it does matter that the poligonal shape of your diaphragm is not symmetrical.Just try a good enlargement but it is noticeable in smaller prints too.

Jorge Oliveira , May 18, 2003; 11:23 P.M.

Gene

Thanks for the nice article.

I've just recently unwrapped the old Spotmatic, bought at Ebay an ESII (my eyes are not good any more; the auto shutter is a bonus with dipter correction lens) and re-started my lab (even a new old beater enlarger and lens, since the Durst I had for so many years was stolen).

For over a decade I've used an automatic Olympus 330 and even a digital Coolpix 2000 - mostly for birthday parties and family photos.

But now, the fun and pleasure is back! Today was the first day I've bottom feed the ESII and went for real street photography.

Tomorrow I will do the first prints.

Jorge

S. C. , May 19, 2003; 02:13 P.M.

Great article. Photography has been something my father started in our family since the 60s with an Exacta & a Zeiss Icarex 35cs. When I got older, I was passed down a Minolta X700 kit. The Maxxum 7xi my brother owns frustrated me...too many buttons and dials to make it do what I wanted plus no pc socket. Then I brought manual gear: Yashica LM TLR, Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar, Moscow 5 folding 6x9, Hassy 500CM, 500ELM, Zeiss Ikonta B, Agfa Isolette II and Toyo 45. I may even look for a super clean Koni Omega! Enjoy these cameras.

Byron Boyd , May 20, 2003; 01:32 P.M.

Great article,I own a fed2,OM10,Voightlander's,Yachica124G,2X3 crown&speed Graflex,4X5 speed graflex,4X5 tacharia,Calumet8X10 with 5X7 & 4X5 backs and am proud the most modern piece of equipment I own is the OM10. I mainly shoot B&W and if I shoot color it is in the OM10 or the 2X3 Graflex's. What I have noticed that most people with the wiz bang multi program cameras is the select one mode "Automatic" and that is where the camera stays, Were did we get so lazy that we could not focus a lens or load a spool of film or set an asa dial, Traditional will allways work when you know how,How many will be lost when techonalgy fails.

Mike Willegal , May 23, 2003; 05:55 P.M.

Gene and all,

A couple of years ago, I pulled my dusty old 70's era SRT101 out of the closet. I did this when I decided that the new digital cameras were evolving quickly and depreciating even faster and it would cost me at least $1000 bucks to find a digital camera that MIGHT come close in capabilities to my trusty old SRT.

Little did I know what I was getting into...for instance, now I'm thinking about locating an inexpensive large format camera.

By the way, I do recommend users of old cameras learn basic camera repair and tuning, as it will potentially lower your investment and increase you enjoyment considerably. Working on old cameras has been quite enjoyable to me, and I understand any limitations of a given camera when I use it.

Regards, Mike W.

See my web site for information on tuning up the Minolta SRT series of cameras: www.willegal.net.

Oleg Volk , June 23, 2003; 12:47 P.M.

As a former user-collector of old cameras, I find all the reasons for favoring older gear accurate. But I also found that a recent digital camera with high resolution, extended tonal rendition and the joys of instant feedback beats all of my film cameras combined for actually getting results. Sometimes the "latest and greatest" lives up to the hype by taking all standard 35mm lenses, producing great results in B&W or color and streamlining the workflow. I would have been hard-pressed to produce a tenth of my current output using a film camera and a scanner or an enlarger. Fortunately, some relatively old lenses and flashes work with the newer gear...but even then, only recent flashes provide manual flash TTL spot metering and similarly useful features.

Ryan Joseph , June 24, 2003; 03:22 A.M.

I know I am gonna get dunked in oil and feathered for saying this but I agree with this article on many levels except one. I do indeed LOVE older lenses such as the ones that came with my dads Fm2. However these old bodies have one glaring weakness over the more modern wonder bodies, ergonomics. Plain and simple the Fm2 doesn't mesh well with my hand. When I hold an F100 it just melts into my hand. However I must agree with all the other statements made. As for the Fm2, a grip I ordered on BH fixed it right up.

Charles Wood , June 26, 2003; 02:36 P.M.

Great article! My 35mm and medium format gear from Canon and Pentax is great hardware but when I want a larger image size, I pull out my "baby" 6x9 Graphic (50+ years old) with Schneider lenses (one is 30+ years old) No contest!

Talbert McMullin , June 26, 2003; 11:35 P.M.

You are exactly on the button, Gene. I have several "old beaters" that I consider "crown jewels". Ok, for all you digital lovers, digital has it's place, but my trusty old Hassy 500C, Nikon FE2, Rolleiflex TLR, and various others are my treasures. Each one has its purpose. And I use them all, including an old Agfa Clack converted to pinhole. (Clack is the appropriate name for it.) It is the old machines that keep me going.

Bob Closius , June 27, 2003; 09:53 P.M.

Gene,

I agree completely. I recently sold my Nikon N90s system in favor of a variety of old 'beaters'. I got 'into' photography in 1995 by buying the best (that I could afford) modern Nikon camera system available at that time. Being a raw newbee, I used it as a point and shoot camera. Some three years later, I bought a used Nikon F, several lenses (for about 1/16 the price of the AF system), and used it to teach myself about fundamentals.

Since then I've acquired several cameras in both 35 and 120 - 3 Nikon F's, an F2, a Nikomat FTn, a Contax IIIa CD, a Mamiya 330s, 2 Rolleiflex 2.8D's (Planar & Xenotar), and 2 Rolleicords, plus about 20 lenses for the Nikons.

I won't give up using them until I'm forced to go digital through lack of media for these oldies but goodies!

Carter M , August 27, 2003; 06:20 A.M.

Lately I have been puzzling over interesting differences between digital and analog 'worlds'. There are many folks who seem to assume a kind of stewardship for older, some may say out dated devices. Not just cameras but cars, old radios, films, sewing machines and even tractors to name a few.

In 20, 30 or 50 years will people be extolling the virtues of a Sony 717, Canon 1Ds or for that matter 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 processors, the latest Mac or a Palm Zire 71?

I have a stack of old computers dating back to an original IBM PC XT (a friend has an Osborne portable if his wife has not thrown it out). But feel no desire or need to care for, refurbish or do anything other than store these, the pack rat part of my personality I guess. I did spend a good bit of time recently opening up my old Rolleiflex SL35E (at this point a definite 'beater' but hardly a classic) to adjust a screw that was causing problems.

So what is it that separates these technologies and cultures?

Jon Goodman , September 05, 2003; 10:31 A.M.

Great article, Gene! Also nice to see all the comments that followed. The one thing that brings most of the older cameras to their knees is light leak, and even after all these years it is still surprises me how much even a small leak will diminish the quality of photos. I've spent years and thousands of dollars making quality light seal products available at the cheapest possible cost in order to help preserve older cameras, and it is both amazing and refreshing to see how many people in the comments section have bought those products from me. Thanks to everyone! If you enjoy these cameras, and if you're not familiar with how easy and fun re-sealing them can be, please look for my kits on E-Bay...my seller's ID is Interslice and yes...shipping is still free within the USA. Jon

Randy Jay , September 18, 2003; 12:30 A.M.

Excellent article Gene. We have grown all-too-soon acustomed to the techno craze. I prefer one of my mechanical shutter cameras to any automatic. I have a Minolta XG1a that gives me fits, but any one of my SRTs satisfy my mechanical whimsy. The mechanics of levers and springs is what I want. Remember when we would have to pull the choke to start our car, and the windshield wipers were powered by vacum? We are all spoiled to be sure. Bravo!

Jim Stuart , October 17, 2003; 12:09 P.M.

OK,OK, enough already! I know about old cameras. I started with a Mercury CC in 1950, used Rolli's, Graflex, Lecia, and etc. in the 1960's. My first SLR was a Canon FTB, and the one I used for about 25 years was a Canon F-1. However, my plastic N80 will do two things, that none of the old cameras could ever do: Take correctly exposed flash snapshots, and do the focusing that my old eyes just can't do anymore....Furthermore, have you heard how quiet they made the shutter?

Art Doyle , November 09, 2003; 03:00 A.M.

I own 6ea Olympus XA-4 28mm macro cameras (well now five after "loaning" one to my son). They are scattered within all of our vehicles, and they take great candid shots with their instant shutter response and great DOF.

These jewels are too heavy for use as a pocket camera and have become too expensive for me to continue to accumulate. I therefore will soon experiment with the much unloved Fujica 1000ix APS. To my mind, this is merely an updated XA-4 which *would* be suitable as a pocket camera.

More later after I wring out this beast :)

Darryl Baird , November 15, 2003; 10:10 P.M.


Kitchen Panorama from 1909 Brownie camera

Looking for information on an "antique" lens lead me to this article thread. I laughed out loud reading the first paragraph. I too have "discovered" old cameras (and ebay)... but I mean really old, between 1909 - 1930. Browsing the bins (and boxes under the new equipment tables) at local Photorama used cameras shows, I purchased a Certo 6X9 folder with a very sharp lens and a Raja 120 film back. I also bought some 6.5 X 9 metal film holders which I easily cut 4X5 down and use. The camera also has a ground glass back for good focusing before I replace and shoot with roll film. I'm out $75 for the camera and back, plus another $12 for ten film holders. The camera folds down to pocket size, has shift and rise movements, and a very good lens. For less than $100 I have a very portable medium format view/field camera. Beats the heck out of a Fuji 6X8. My other find (on ebay) was a 1909 Brownie 3a in mint (really!) condition for $19 which I easily retrofitted to shoot 120 film. That's a 2 1/4 X 5 1/2 panoramic camera for under $25.00! I did a test, a crummy quickie kitchen interior, but for a 95 year-old camera it sings.

-Darryl

Benjamin Marks , November 21, 2003; 06:53 P.M.

My weaknesses are Nikon F's, Nikkormats, the Pentax M42 Super-Takumars. . . you get the idea. The build qualities of the screw-mount Pentax lenses are amazing: focussing is silky smooth, well machined. These 40 year old lenses have no wobble and no stickiness in their helical coils and the screwmounts are rock-solid. A world-class lens can be had with a warranty for $49. I have had less luck with the Spotmatics they screw into and went through a half-dozen at the used camera desk at Adorama before finding one with nothing that wiggled or wobbled or rattled. I am currently using the Pentax M42 lenses on a used Pentax LX (with an adapter and stop-down metering).

I recently tested the shutter of a Nikon F Photomic that I bought for a song from KEH with busted meter. The all-mechanical shutter is more accurate than any of my cameras (except the Nikon F4 and Leica M7). A 35 year-old machine which is still performing at that level is an amazing engineering feat. I wonder which of the battery-dependent LCD-bearing wunderplastic cameras will be able to make the same claim in 2045. Finally, the current love of my MF life is a Rolleiflex F with a 3.5 Xenotar. Zowie. What a lens.

It's a good time for those who like the feel of these cameras and the look these lenses can produce. Now if I could just be certain of film to put in all these beauties . . .

KEN JEANETTE , December 12, 2003; 02:43 P.M.

Great article!! I've been doing the old beater shuffle since the 70's, and these are some of the most enjoyable cameras to use. They feel like precision instruments, unlike modern plastic fantastics. My only sadness is remembering some of the ones I let go, to move on to greener pastures. Or as the wife put it, either that CR** goes or I do. I've changed tactics lately though, as she's my EX wife, and I'm rebuilding my colloction of beaters. Thank you for the memories.

Raymond Roewert , December 13, 2003; 05:37 A.M.

I began my photography experiences using Minolta manual focus cameras, and eventually acquired a nice set of X700 bodies with a full compliment of lenses. I felt good about using those cameras and was usally able to accomplish what I desired with them. But for some reason I got a bug up my patoot and traded them all in and switched to a Canon EOS system. It didn't take long before I had three bodies and a bag full of lenses. At first I thought these were the cats meow. I had flash gear that calculated everything including the subjects bio rhythm, winders and grips and battery packs.... everything but an attachment that made coffee. But after a while I noticed that I was shooting less and less as time went by, and eventually stopped shooting all together. Photography had lost it's joy for me. Two years ago someone gave me an old Pentax K-1000 with a 35mm lens. Just for giggles I loaded it up with a roll of Tri-X and went wandering about town down a little street shooting. It was so nice to be shooting again and doing so in a way in which I was a part of the process. That was trick for me.... being a part of the process of shooting, and using my brain rather than letting the camera do all the thinking for me. Earlier this year I was offered a Canon AE-1 Program and lense for nice amount, and have since acquired two A-1 bodies, another AE-1 Program, and a nice selection of Canon FD lenses. And I'm shooting again. Life is great. The EOS stuff? Well, I've sold all but one outfit, and I may put it on the block soon too.... it's just sitting there collecting dust after all. The Pentax now resides with someone who is learning the joys of photography. Long live the old beaters.

Alton Earle , December 19, 2003; 01:39 A.M.

Wow, that Honeywell-Pentax brings back memories. That was my first camera. I bought it used around 1977 for US$100 and used it up until it finally stopped working entirely (corrosion from very humid climates) in 1993. What I found was that with its 50mm lense, I forget the aperture, it was probably one of the best cameras I've used for shooting black and white. It didn't do as well as color, but with that camera, who needs it anyway.

If you have a chance to pick one of these up, I can attest to it being a fantastic camera, I used one for 16 years and went as far as having a new shutter curtain hand made to replace the one that had rotted away from the humidity.

I may still have this sitting in a box, and seeing this article just got me thinking that I may spend the money to have it restored. I'm staying the heck away from eBay, THAT hadn't occurred to me :-D.

Learning to take pictures using that camera has really made me appreciate the features and convenience of my recently bought Nikon F80S (my second SLR). Having really only used the two cameras, I can only hope that the F80 becomes as intuitive and familiar as that old Honeywell-Pentax. If the Nikon holds up as long as that Pentax, I will be very surprised :-).

Daniel Vinklar , January 09, 2004; 02:36 A.M.

Hello there again! You may recall my message here of 25 April 2003. Well then, here we are some time later (read: hundreds of shots later) and guess qhat my collection of "beaters" consists of: Minolta XG-M (with 4 beautiful Rokkor lenses now!, Nikon F3 HP and Contax Aria. And they are all so lovely to use and shoot with! Isn't it thrilling... :-) Cheers!

Image Attachment: beaters.jpg

Gene Wilburn , January 13, 2004; 08:06 P.M.

It's heartening to see the response this article has received. I never expected it! I've gone a bit more digital over the past year but am still using my old beaters as well. The Honeywell Pentax H1a mirror is sticking sometimes -- I think it needs some new foam and seals. The Olympus OM-1's are working perfectly, as are the Rollei TLR and the little Leica CL. When I use one of these cameras I still feel the thrill!

May your old beaters never end up here:

Leica CL, 40mm Summicron-C, HP5+ (400), HC-110 1:63, taken 4-Jan-2004

Cheers,
Gene

Tom Hawkins , March 26, 2004; 10:43 P.M.

what some consider to be "old beaters" were at one time the state of the art in photographic technology. I have five of the old beaters that I use frequently. Two Kodak retina folding cameras and three minolta slr cameras of that are considered obselete by the crowd that uses the hand held motorized auto-everthing optical computers that also take pictures. A friend and business associate uses the latest "N" brand digital slr and often has to stop taking pictures to try and figure out what his modern digitized marvel is doing or why it is not doing anything at all. Meanwhile I am getting great images with my non-battery dependent "old beaters". This proves nothing more than the user still has to be a photographer before depending on the auto-everthing camera to deliver a great image weather it be on silver crystals or on electronic pixils.

Neil D. , May 31, 2004; 12:06 A.M.

Gene, I think that your excellent article struck a chord with a lot of people out there, and I'm sure that there are even more readers out there 'lurking' than there are those who commented publicly. Hence, the great response is not so surprising! The old equipment was often built very well, built to last as it were, and there are many people around who will continue to use their 'old beaters' for as long as they can!

Larry livingston , June 09, 2004; 12:46 A.M.

I must say that optically, the Leica CL and Rollei are FAR from beaters! I recently bought a Pentax M42 lens on Ebay, and the seller "threw in" a free camera. I think the lens cost $50- the camera was a black Spotmatic I would rate about 90%, and everything works except the meter! Good seals, shutter speeds, and transport. A great camera to just carry around, beat up just enough not to worry about. Not a CL, but a fine camera (with the sunny 16 rule) just the same! And again, No one asked Rembrant what brand of brushes he used. The image is what counts. Larry

JON GUSS , August 03, 2004; 02:45 P.M.

Thanks for the great article. I recently started to buy these used rangefinder auto cameras from the sixties and seventies. While the shuttler speeds are a bit slow, The lenses are very goo