When did body cases fall out of favor?

<p>Back in the golden years of 35MM SLR's ,the 60-70's. Everyone used leather body cases on their cameras. In fact these often came with the body and lens "kit". Or were available for a few bucks as an accessory.</p>

<p>When did these stop being used? Are they even still available for DSLR's? I always thought they were great. If the weather turned bad , or you hit the pub after shooting, your camera and lens were protected.</p>

<p>Some of these were soft, supple leather and some were hard leather, and seemed "bulletproof". I recall Nikon made both types for their early film SLR's.</p>

<p>Are you talking about the never-ready cases?</p>

<p>I think most people found it easier to use a small camera bag. They could also be used to hold film and filters.</p>

<p>I had those in the 1970's. By the mid 1980's, foam-padded camera bag started to become popular and they quickly took over.</p>

<p>Those leather cases had to be removed to reload film and added a source of movement if left on when the camera was mounted on a tripod, so their continued use was vulnerable on practical grounds. It's possible that the sight of professional photographers using 35mm cameras without camera cases (because they interfered with fast shooting and re-loading) had an influence.</p>

<p>Many who started photography in the sixties or seventies saw the film <em>Blow-up</em>. While in most cases it was impossible to afford Rolls-Royce convertibles (or was that a Bentley?) or any automobile with a mobile phone (very expensive before the development of cellular technology) we could attempt to imitate the fellow in the film by removing the leather cases from our cameras. He didn't look like any pro photographer I've met, but we didn't care.</p>

<p>There is a modern equivalent to the leather cases -- plastic camera armor. It's a bit more reasonable to use with digital cameras that don't require re-loading every 36-38 shots, but I don't see many photographers using such armor. Might be a good idea for a rented or borrowed camera body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to keep just the bottom part on my Pentax MX, it offered a bit of protection, and made it easier to hold on to. It was easy enough to remove for film loading. I don't think I ever used the top section though.</p>

<p>I think it was like men wearing hats -- all it took was for a few highly visible and stylish leaders to appear without them, and the rest thought it was "cool".</p>

<p>I have never seen a picture that I can remember of Viet Nam war photographers carrying their Nikon Fs in "ever-ready" cases. I suspect that it became unfashionable to use the cases since these "tough" photographers and others like them did not. It was clear you were an imposter if your camera was not properly "brassed".</p>

<p>Also, the cases became increasingly unhandy if you really did make use of the interchangeable lens function of a SLR. As people began to use longer lenses and zooms, the cases really wouldn't work well with them.</p>

<p>My first SLR I got with a complete 'hard' case. The second major purchase by 1971 had no hard case, just a hard leather body shell and a soft leather top/front. By the late 70s, I don't even recall any kind of case being offered, though I'm sure you could have special ordered one.</p>

<p>You can still get them. If you have a Canon digital rebel, look for the Canon Semi Hard Case EH18-L</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371464-REG/Canon_0212B001_EH_18L_Semi_Hard_Case.html</p>

<h1></h1>

<p>What’re you talking about? They’re still in favour:<br>

<a href="

Most "never ready" cases only cover SLR and a normal or WA prime. Except for "long snout" cases, most wouldn't fit the

28 or 35 to something wide to tele zooms that consumers were choosing over the standard 50 or 55 mm. Also, this type of

case isn't much help if you carry more than one lens.

<p>Last year I picked up two cameras from my film days just as neat collectible items. Both the Canon AE-1 and A-1 came with never ready cases, and were they ever beat up! All wrinkled, with white cracks and pieces chipped out of the material. But the cameras were in great shape! Not a mark on the AE-1, the A-1 had some brassing at the top of the pentaprism housing, no doubt from the case being opened and rubbing against it. I'm glad they orginally came with the cases in this instance.</p>

<p>I still have my original Canon Pellix and its hard shelled case. It's it great condition because I didn't use it much.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I remember them at weddings and social gatherings during the late seventies and early eighties. They looked ghastly!</p>

<p>I think these cases work much better on some cameras than on others.</p>

<p>For example: my 50+ year-old Voigtlander lives in its original leather case (although the leather strap bit the dust a while back). It is perfect for this fixed-lens, small bodied camera. The whole package tucks under my arm, with the strap over my head to the opposite shoulder, and I carry it comfortably all day. It doesn't take much effort or time to get the camera "unwrapped" and up to my eye. Changing film rolls is not exactly automatic on these cameras anyway, so, the extra 3 or 4 seconds required to remove the case does not impact film change times that much.</p>

<p>All of my SLRs are too big and too heavy for this kind of case. They would be uncomfortable to carry that way. It might also be a challenge to find a single "everyready" case that would accommodate the variety of lenses used on an SLR, so, a bag (of some sort) is better.</p>

<p>Of course, like most photographers, I have a closet stuffed with examples of "The Perfect Bag".</p>

<p>;~))</p>

<p>"Horses for Courses" as the saying goes.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>I used one of the leather covers you speak of on my AE1 Program until I could afford a lens longer than 50 mm. Then it became superfluous since it was no longer compatible.</p>

<p>I recall a Jr. college professor mocking us students about using those cases. His argument was that it was better to bang your gear, than to miss a shot. (We all thought we were Cartier-Bresson.)</p>

<p>In reality I shot more in the woods than on city streets, so the case was a necessity.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another factor is the cost. The camera manufacturers knew it was an added expense that would be better used on the actual camera itself.</p>

<p>I never used one, but as an occasional buyer/seller and full time fan of old cameras, I bless them every time I see an old camera in great condition, because there is <em>nothing</em> that protects the cosmetics of a classic camera like an ever-ready case.</p>

<p>It is no big mystery. What was a Canon or Nikon without the edge brassing, mark of the real serious shooter. Those leather things were for sissies,admit it. Still are. So you trip , you learned to hold the camera away from the body and take the fall on your ribcage protecting the gear first... You get a little wet, no big deal, you are shooting with an o ring sealed camera are you not.</p>

<p>I think the two big issues were needing to remove them to change film and also not being large enough to fit more then a standard or wide angle prime lens on there. My Olympus OM-1 leather case can fit a 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 40/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 on the camera. Any faster/wider/longer prime lens will not fit and no zoom lens will.<br>

I still use mine occasionally when I am going to 'lug' a pair of cameras and don't want to have a 2nd camera bag.</p>

<p>Inspired by this thread, I dug my old Canon AE-1 out of the closet, and... here it is. The years have not been kind. This must be what Bob mentioned. The leather appears to have been made from the hide of some creature that died a natural death - clearly not top-grain cowhide! But the camera within is in very good condition. On the other hand, I have leather ever-ready camera cases from the 1940's, '50s and '60s that are in great shape</p><div></div>

<p>Hard leather cases were great for protecting rangefinder cameras with non-removable lenses. Here is a Kodak 35 and its case, from the late 1940s.</p><div></div>

The (n)eveready cases were the only way to go for people who used their cameras while skiing or hiking. And a lot more convenient for hopping on or off busses, subways, etc. And you could always stop for a coffe if you neded to change film. I don't know who made Canon's cases, my Canonet cases looked like Ben's after a few years.

<p>i saw once a few years ago... otherwise, having been born after the 80's, its not really something i ever saw... I have an old A1 that sat on a shelf for much of its life, but aside from the paint being rubbed off (probably from my use of the camera in the last few years as much as anything else) it looks great - especially after being given a CLA last year.</p>

<p>And a like-new Pentax Spotmatic II and its soft leather case, from the early '70s.</p><div></div>

<p>They started to go out of favor when Victor Keppler coined the phrase "Never ready case". I didn't see any photographers in Viet Nam using the cases either (nor any pictures of any other journalists in the 70's using them). However, I have a biography of Robert Capa and on the back of the dust cover is a photo of Capa and, if I remember correctly, David Seymour, in Indo China shortly before Capa's death, Both of them have their cameras in the leather cases, with the front flap hanging down (the ready position).</p>

<p>Canon may have started the trend in the 1970s...they made some wicked ugly cases. Gene M.'s pages at westfordcomp.com show some really ugly cases.</p>