Why are you interested in classic cameras?

Why am I interested in classic cameras? Let me count the ways.

I love the high degree of precision and feel. I also like the independence from batteries. Nothing total approaches the build quality of most classics. Usually classics are affordable.

My classics: Pentax Spotmatic, Konica Auto S-2, Olympus RC, Rollei 35, and Ricoh 500. All my classics are used except for the Konica which I bought new.

I'm approximately as old as my Ricoh 500 (old enough that the people at Hardees bill me for a senior coffee).

Digital?? Great when I need to post a quick photo of one of my classics. ;)

Why? I like it because them because they are fully mechanical. I like to study the desing of cameras. Also, because the optics quality of classic cameras is nearly smae as the one in nowadays, I can spend less and I can own a camera easily.

ok, a bunch of reason, mainly because they are beautiful and cool and weird and challenging to use, but a big one is how much using them makes me appreciate picking up my new Canon EOS gear! :)

"I like the way they smell"... Well, Gene has summed it all up as far as I can tell. Although, the last camera I got on eBay arrived smelling suspiciously like Lemon Pledge.

 

David

Well, many reasons come together.

 

First of all I enjoy film and I like handling mechanical cameras. Not only I like the artisan feeling of it but I also like the very fact that I can have an image without using the computer! So I can enjoy my spare time more.

 

The feeling of doing in the pristine way, sometimes I just like doing things like the old masters, it gives inspiration: using a rangefinder for people, using a technical camera for nature and architecture...

 

Last but not least also the argument "they are cheap" holds. Since even if some cameras were never really expensive, they might have had some particular achievement or status and today you can get them for peanuts. An exception are maybe certain Zeiss, Leica, Nikons...

There are as many reasons as there are collectors.I think an interest in classic cameras takes you down so many avenues: <br>

<ul>

<li>You learn the principles of exposure and focus from the ground up</li>

<li> You can pursue any of the traditional developing and print making processes</li>

<li> As you gain access to a wide variety of equipment you get an appreciation for the variations in approach used by manufacturers and users over the years.</li>

<li> This for me has led to a fascination with the design and engineering of the equipment and its development and manufacturers</li>

<li>Since none of this happens in a vacuum you are inevitably drawn into the social and historic context of these developments</li>

<li> An appreciation of exponents of the art both famous and anonymous and their work is an inevitable by-product and is a study in itself.</li>

</ul>

My first serious camera was a second hand Fujica ST701 about 30 years ago. Little did I anticipate then that in 2007 I would be buying a Lancaster tailboard plate camera from 1895ish that I can't even take pictures with!! <br>

Just enjoy it all, Steve

Speaking of smell--there is a very distinctive smell to those old former Soviet Union cameras that is unlike any thing else. See the Kievoholics site for more on this.

Steve Salmons--points #3,#4,and #5 are most true for me. Very well put. As for the smell of classic cameras that so many keep referring to, I do like the smell of a lot of my 'old' cameras. As Robert Duvall said in 'Apocalypse Now', "I love the smell of old leatherette in the morning!";) Okay, maybe he didn't quite say that...

 

Mark Hahn--I used to have the same feeling; the more I used old gear the more I appreciated my EOS gear. Now however, I'm finding that I like using my classic gear just as much, wholly apart from using my EOS gear. The more I use classic gear, the more of an appreciation I have for it.

I've shot "classic gear" for almost 40 years... started as a kid with old folders and box cameras I found in the trash and fixed... never stopped liking them or appreciating them, but sometimes when they become frustrating for some reason or other it can be very nice to pick up an EOS... but I think that is the only time I can briefly appreciate my new gear... and that is always short lived.

Becouse better the devil you know than the devil you don't

Because I can usually fix most of the common problems with most pre-1965 cameras (not including SLRs).

 

Also, because for some strange reason, I am happier when I get a nice image with a completely manual 50 year-old camera that when I get one with a modern camera.

Well, there are crappy pre-1970 cameras that aren't, in my opinion, worth the trouble of making usable. Lovingly repaired third rate gear is still third rate. And then there are pretty good pre-1970 cameras, e.g., my little Perkeo II with 80/3.5 Color Skopar and my 2x3 Graphics, that are not too expensive and capable of producing very good results.

 

Same goes for older lenses. I have a couple of late 1911/early 1912 f/6.3 CZJ Tessars that are still very usable and that were very inexpensive.

 

So for me it comes down to value for money.

Hello everyone! First post from a newcomer at Photo.net.

 

I'm interested in classic cameras for many of the reasons already pointed out by other commenters before. I want to emphasise the look and feel aspect.

 

The look -- modern digital cameras of today are nowhere near many design wonders of the past. It's the same thing that's happening with cars, in my opinion: they (almost) all look the same. Design of today's cameras seems to be mostly focused on ergonomics and performance. The aesthetic and, yes, even the artistic elements seem completely discarded. Their appearance and design look cold, impersonal. There's no fantasy, no daring, no trying to distinguish a product by using certain materials, and so on. The innovation is purely technological, in a way that's almost hidden. I could go on.

 

The feel -- As others said, I like to hold, handle, use classic cameras for how they feel in my hands, for how they please the sight, the touch, the hearing: all the little noises of their operation, how a winding lever or a shutter sounds, the low humming (whirring?) of the film sliding inside; the first time looking out of a viewfinder of a new old camera I may have bought second-hand and never used before; the cold or warm feeling of the materials used in manufacturing a certain camera, and so on and so forth...

 

Regards,

Rick

Rick, I think yours is another vote for, um, process, or perhaps it the experience of taking a shot.

 

But really, should process or results matter more? I ask because fairly modern lenses for 35 mm cameras can give better results than ancient ones. This is also the case for wide angle lenses for larger formats.

 

And what do you mean by "low humming (whirring?) of the film sliding inside?" Are you using cameras with power thumbs of one kind or another? If so, they're probably pretty modern. And yes, one of my friends used to have, IIRC, a Praktina with a spring motor ...

Mass, design, materials.

 

And everything else above!

 

And...is this mostly a male thing? Maybe a cheaper alternative to classic cars?

Dan, I'm sorry, I didn't express myself very well. I just meant the sound the film makes when you wind it, shoot after shoot. I can hear it advancing in my Canon Demi (to name a camera I own).

 

I don't know if it's a process vs results matter. I think that for some people (count me in) it's something connected to the "feel" (regarding process and result). Like with vinyl records: they're not technically superior to CDs or anything recorded digitally, but for some people they sound "better", "warmer", "richer".

 

Regards, Rick