Making Sense of a Classic Camera Collection

<p>I meant to say that Darin is adverse to Primes. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>i am not adverse to collecting olympus primes.. 21 f3.5, 24 f2, 28 f2, 35 f2, 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 50 f2, 85 f2, 90 f2.5, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 180 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4.5. <br>

=]</p>

<p>of course if a OM3 to be for the right price..</p>

 

<p>What, Darin- you don't have the 40mm f2? I always felt it was overpriced.</p>

My response echoes so many of you (us). No rhyme or reason, I also hesitate calling it a collection, but in

the eyes of others "old film cameras" is a general enough description to fit their petty observations...

Sigh... We need help "Lord save us all"

Ohh to the OP, I hope the multitude of responses did not wander too far from your theme?!?

<p>I am not a collector. The only cameras I have I have owned previously or have meant something to me over the years. This adds up to quite a few, though, but I am resisting the collecting bug, as it just feeds an obsession, and obsessions are bad for the soul.</p>

Les: I agree. Some of the Olympus

lenses are way overpriced. I

think it has more to do with

dealers than collectors. "Hey

this lens did not sell well

because people did not like it..

So I will buy it for pennies and

sell it for $600 because I can

call it'rare'"..

 

I was looking for the 24mm f2 for

years before I found one at a

decent price. The 50mm f2 macro I

snagged from an eBay auction

listed as an om10 with lens. Even

with a bad pic it did not get

past me.

 

I do not call myself a collector,

but then I just bought 12 cameras

at an estate sale last week. :)

<p>Sampling, not collecting - that is the term I use. I am just sampling the field to discover which cameras are interesting. Some stay for a while, some pass on to another owner, and some even come back as I have gained a different perspective or taste for things. Recently, two cameras have returned in a slightly different form - the Nikon FM3a in black w/ a diopter that works for my eyes, and a nice black Pentax MX with a hand grip motor drive. Viewfinder magnification is my theme of interest at the moment. Besides durability and cost, I wonder if a relatively high VF magnification was a significant reason why the Nikon FM2 became a legend. Like collecting vintage fountain pens years ago, I struggle with the balance between favorites bodies and desired lenses - the two preferences may not be the same brand. At least with fountain pens, I could swap the nib to the desired pen if the size was right. My dreamworld is to affix slippery smooth focusing C/Y lenses, without altercation, on Nikon and non-Minolta Leica R cameras. </p>

<p>The FM2 is 86x and the FM3a is 83x. The MX and OM-1 hit the roof over 90x, but I don't see magnifications over 85x often. I used my own hunch when I labeled the Nikon FM2 as legendary. Take it away from a whole lot of users in the day, and you'll have a riot on your hands. Maybe the FM2 comes to mind as legendary from my memories of Galen Rowell or the Afghan Girl. </p>

<p>Yes, these guys actually took pictures.<br>

I bumped into Galen in a Yosemite shop but did not get into a deep conversation with him. Too bad the opportunity is gone since I no longer visit the park from my home in the vicinity. He was associated with Patagonia clothing, and I have followed that outfit since their first rugby shirt. I like his monastery image. Never heard of McCurry until the Afghan photo. <br>

To be honest, I Googled the Internet three times for each and the number was the same - naturally, two sources may have erroneously derived from the first source. Every so often, you will see folks mix coverage vs magnification. </p>