Time to update the official scope of this forum?

<p>My definition of a classic camera is one that is that is fully operational without batteries, and if it uses batteries, they only activate the light meter. So Nikon F2, classic, F3 no. Canon FTb, yes, AE-1, no. Minolta SRTs, yes, XDs and XEs, no.<br>

I own and treasure Nikon F3s, and beyond, Canon AE-1s and T90s, Minolta XD-11s and XE-7s, but they are not classics cameras.<br>

Good guides include the two wonderful books by Ivor Matanle.</p>

<p>Kerry, I'm very sad that you found a way to disqualify the Minolta XD-11 (a.k.a. XD-7) which is one of my all time favourite cameras. Can you sneak it back in on the grounds that it still works when you take out the batteries (tho' only at one shutter speed)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hadn't realized that we had one thing one place and still said "1970" another place. So I changed that to represent the general concept that forum runs under.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Josh. </p>

<p>Classic anything is hard to define because of people's individual preconceptions. To me, a classic camera would be a pre-1980, non-junky, largely mechanically operated camera intended for use by a pro or reasonably advanced amateur photographer.</p>

<p>In addition to manual focus, mechanical shutter SLR's I would include those autoexposure models (still manual focus) that have manual override and at least one mechanical back-up shutter speed. This way we can include the excellent Minolta XD series as well as many of the automatic Nikons (such as the FE-2). I would waive the mechanical speed requirement for a camera if the manual mode had a classic look such as the manual mode on the Olympus OM-2 or even a Canon AT-1 (with its classic match needle, but battery dependent shutter). I'd also include some late 80's mechanical shutter (match diode) models such as the Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, Ricoh KRII and other similar cameras.</p>

<p>No electronics. I don't think we want to see modern cameras, that are simply "used" in the manual mode, to be included here.</p>

<p>Funny, but I was using my Bessa R today, all plastic, built in the early naughties, still feels like a classic to me.<br>

I think the rules are made to be stretched a little, after all you don't have to read the post.</p>

Maybe David Carroll has the best answer. If it's out of production but makes you want to pick it up and take pictures it's a classic.

<p>"Kerry, I'm very sad that you found a way to disqualify the Minolta XD-11 (a.k.a. XD-7) which is one of my all time favourite cameras. Can you sneak it back in on the grounds that it still works when you take out the batteries (tho' only at one shutter speed)?"<br>

I love the Minotal XD11 and I have both chrome and black versions. About the only thing I would change on its design, would be to to have the exposure locked by half depression of the shutter release. I would also like to know why Minolta dropped the "CLC" system from the XD series, despite the fact that they were in the earlier XD series with their CdS sensors.<br>

I am comfortable with my criterion that a classic camera is fully functional without batteries, with the exception of powering the meter. Many cameras of the classic era did not have light meters, such as the Leica M2 and M3, the Kodak Retina's until the IIIc and IIIC.<br>

But that is just my quirk. I will never part with my Minolta XDs and XEs, nor my Nikon F3, or Canon T90s and AE-1. I especially treasure those products with a long production life, such as my Browning auto-5 shotgun, in production from 1903-1998. John Browning of Morgan Utah was a genius.</p>

<p>To keep it simple I suggest that the forum include any film camera for discussion. At this point in time film, itself, is "classic" and any camera capable of exposing film should be fair game.</p>

<p>To keep it simple I suggest that the forum include any film camera for discussion. At this point in time film, itself, is "classic" and any camera capable of exposing film should be fair game.</p>

<p><em>"To keep it simple I suggest that the forum include any film camera for discussion. At this point in time film, itself, is "classic" and any camera capable of exposing film should be fair game."</em></p>

<p>I respectfully disagree. My Nikon F100 is NOT a classic camera. Maybe in 50 years.</p>

<p><em>"Classic camera" is somewhat like porn (actually, maybe a lot like porn...) - hard to define, but you know it when you see it."</em></p>

<p>LOL! Good pornography and classic cameras in LN condition are both hard to come by.</p>

<p>I'm with David Carroll here - age is not a major factor just the WOW!! factor (except that IMHO a hand built camera will find it easier to have the wow!! effect, and most older cameras were hand built to a greater or lesser extent)<br>

I find it easier to identify those cameras that are not classics. Lets give an example of my kind of thinking. A Leica M5 for example is quite rare, but the concept was not continued with, and production reverted to the previous design, so, despite the quality of the camera, and the fact I would dearly love to own one, I don't consider it a true classic. Similar arguments could be made against many other old, and rare cameras, even though they are eminently collectable for other reasons than for being a classic. I might include the B&H Foton (too expensive to be sucessful) and a Kodak Ektra (unreliable shutter apparently, and expensive to produce) Quality and sales sucess are not all of being a classic, but surely they must be a part. I suppose it is the difference between a classic camera and a favorite camera, or a great camera, or a great leap forward. Looking at the other side of the coin, a Speed Graphic is a classic design of press camera, even though it was made for nearly fifty years, and quite easy to find.<br>

Rarity should not be a factor - what about the Nikkormat FS? (no meter) Its rarer than The FT or its sucessors, but you have accept that this rarest, and arguably most collectable version is not the definitive, or classic Nikkormat. <br>

Please don't think I'm picking on these individual cameras - I would love to own and enjoy any of them - I just don't seen them as classics.<br>

Finally I don't feel that manual/automatic/autofocus is an issue as the title of the forum says manual cameras, and I'd expect to stay within those bounds - even though I use an F3 as an everyday shooter - but as we probably all differ as to what is a classic, lets just all try to keep to what we feel is the general area of the forum, and agree to differ graciously if it is not what other posters expect. Perhaps only one thing is certain - a flame war is not about classic manual cameras! </p>