Am I alone?

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by royall_berndt, Dec 19, 2020.

  1. I seem to interest people the most when I shoot with an Argus C4. People my age (born in the '40s) cant believe they are seeing one of those again. It makes them happy!
     
    doug grosjean likes this.
  2. .
    In my experience, twin-lens reflex cameras trigger that emotion in people for me. Any brand / model; they all look similar in form.
     
    Fiddlefye likes this.
  3. Just as a truly interested and curious (digit)al) photographer, I wonder wtf this thread is really about.
     
    ericphelps likes this.
  4. I shoot film, not quite exclusively, my *other* camera currently is my phone! I still have my mirrorless Olympus OMD EM1 but honestly I shoot it so rarely, it hardly counts.
    I'd like to have a less co implicated digicam, but seems the less functions a digital camera has, the more it costs! I could MAYBE justify 2K tops for a new digital camera purchase. MAYBE but man it'd have be something pretty special.
     
  5. Mike, it's a film thing. You wouldn't understand.
     
    danny_o' and mikemorrell like this.
  6. I love my digital camera. I use it like a polaroid before shooting on MF/LF film.
     
    doug grosjean likes this.
  7. I have my damnable phone which can document suspected prowlers.

    Otherwise, I don't own a pixel pimping "photographic" device that depreciates at $1,000 per year.

    I do, however, have a curio cabinet lined with 35 functioning jewel-like film photography art creating devices.

    Troglodytes Unite!
     
    ], danny_o' and James Bryant like this.
  8. I had a Nikon D50 and a D200. Both fizzled out. Both, admittedly, were secondhand and had high shutter counts. I also owned two film cameras that plotzed, and one was the Minolta SRT 101. I bought it heavily used; it gave good service before the shutter jammed. The other was a Nikon FM2 I bought new. The shutter quit. I could afford a new shutter installation, so I had it done. Oh, once the film advance lever came off! Marty Forscher put it back gratis. The camera is reliable now, albeit 39 years old. Some people claim the FM2 is tough, but I know better. Lessee, I had shutter failures on a a Minox 35GT and a Contaflex II. No surprises, really. All the rest of my many film cameras hang in there.
     
  9. LOL. Perhaps PN could put this on its home page, assuring it will forever remain a bastion of crusty old men who can’t conceive of times changing or doing things differently, a site that likely deserves the slow death it’s in the throes of.

    Beware the Neoterics! :eek:
     
  10. Ages ago some advertising company put out a TV commercial titled "Different Strokes for Different Folks". Suzuki bombed in the motorcycle surge of the 70's, but my mix of vintage mechanical film cameras and of the last few years, semi top end digital offerings keeps my sanity going in these Covid times and even gets some of the "younger crowd" asking me about "what is that " when the Fed's & Zorki's are up. At 78 I have not regrets ! Aloha, Bill
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
    ], James Bryant and bradleycloven like this.
  11. In about early October, I was up on Mt. Rainier with my current 4x5 outfit. I saw two twenty-something Asian Americans toting cameras that didn't have a preview screen on the back, so I asked what they were shooting.

    "M2s! Both of us! I've got a 35mm Summilux and she has a 28mm Voightlander f/2.0." They were shooting some sort of newfangled color print film I didn't recognize, and now can't recall.

    I've passed along about a dozen cameras to students and friends. Lots of young folks like to give it a try, especially when equipment is essentially free. Gotta keep demand going somehow so I can live out my life with this silver coated celluloid....
     
    Bill Bowes and James Bryant like this.
  12. I have all of my old film cameras, and have "collected" ones that were important in my life at some time or other, but got rid of previously. I never shoot film though, even though I still have a whole lot in the freezer. In my opinion if you are after images rather than fiddling with lenses and caressing metal and leatherette then digital is really where it is at, but if others want to indulge themselves then I am happy for them. If I still had a darkroom I might even shoot some 120 film again, but I don't so I am not even tempted.
     
  13.  
  14. Robin, get a Rollei and a roll of 120
    You will forget about digital. Nowadays you can edit the shots without keeping up a darkroom.
     
  15. I know. I have a few scanners, and digitize my analog stock occasionally using my macro/slide copier set up. But taking new analog shots is just not for me. The results are better, quicker and cheaper with digital. To me the only pleasure I would get out of film would be if I was to go back into the darkroom to print black and white prints, and realistically I cannot see this happening.
     
  16. I used to be a darkroom addict, but it took so much time to get good prints that I had to go cold turkey.
     
  17. I still get chill's down my spine when my black & white negs come out of the developing spot on ! The switch to pyro staining developers was the hall mark event that (for me) assures repeated results. The ease of my Epson's in the scanning process now allows the wet lab to be replaced with digital prints. Costco does OK with "proofs", custom labs for high end carbon prints. Same for digital work with the X-e1's. Try it Robin ! Aloha, Bill
     
    Fiddlefye and doug grosjean like this.
  18. Forget about digital...?
    Until, of course, it comes time to share those images with someone, or even view them as positives.

    Then out comes the digital scanner, or the high-res digital camera that's needed to turn those 'pure analogue' pictures into a digital file for editing, printing or posting on the web.

    If the end result is going to be a digital file, then why go through two totally unnecessary conversion generations to get there?

    Unless it's more about stroking old cameras and getting attention doing so, than taking actual pictures?
     
  19. A scanned square medium-format negative, scanned at high resolution, is over 30 megapixels. A person who already owns film gear can get to that point t with just a scanner.
    .
    Is there much difference?
    Probably not.
    .
    True story:
    Around 2012, I answered a call for entries for a Photo contest at Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art. I entered 3 photos, all 3 of which the museum printed, matted, and displayed.
    .
    One was created using a digital SLR, another using a Rolleiflex, and another using a Widelux. Neither the museum nor the opening reception cared about the tools or the process; only the result.
    .
    I enjoy using film cameras, But not to the total exclusion of modern gear.
     
  20. Who could ask for anything more? You would, if time=money.

    -- Don -who owns 2 film Leicas, a 6x6, 6x9, and a Speed Graphic- Essedi
     

Share This Page