Any sense in buying an antique camera?

<p>I saw this question over at Yahoo! Answers and wondered how you would answer?</p>

<p>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsaYwSsA2tyMp_N9M2ufUwKt5HNG;_ylv=3?qid=20090712190114AAVQ9L1</p>

<p>If you find that you are drawn to them, then yes. I just purchased and cleaned up a 1947 Argus C-3 and I'm the middle of my first roll of film. Holding it takes me back to a different time when cameras were all metal and built like tanks. And in this case, a time before me and I wonder what it must have been like. Buying it also allowed me to ask others at PN about how to use a rangefinder and I enjoyed corresponding with them. And, it is a great conversation starter.</p>

<p>So, there is good sense in buying, using, cleaning, sharing and playing with an antique camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mr. Ely,</p>

<p>Thanks. Well said.</p>

<p>I would say the preferred term is "classic" rather than antique. I thought she was referring to something from the civil war. Second, I would say the question is too general to properly answer. The are large variances in the intrinsic ability of a given camera, in its reliability, and how well it has been cared for. It would be much easier to answer knowing the model and its general condition and the asking price. As an analogy to using classic cameras, I would cite examples such as fly fishing. Fly fishing is not the most effective way to fish, nor the cheapest, but it is the most elegant and the most fun and satisfaction. It takes skill and knowledge, the attainment of which is also a pleasure. I think one of the best classics for a beginner is a member of the Kodak Retina series, a IIa or if you find a good one, a IIIc. And start with a forgiving film, say ISO 200 negative film. If the person was really enthusiastic, I would point them to the two great books written by Ivor Matanle, often available at the library or via Amazon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have avoided cameras that take not obsolete but "unubtainablke film"<br>

now they there will be more 127 film. I will thing more of these cameras.<br>

but tend to ignore 126& 110 cameras.<br>

620 was a mistake bu kodak they never should have done it.<br>

but at least you can use 120.<br>

here in the "sticks" you can only get 200/400/800 35mm color negative film.<br>

not really suitable for old cameras.</p>

<p>I've had a lot of fun with "classic" (never tried an antique camera) cameras over the years....most 50 or more years old. My daily users are both over 35 years old...they bring the "sparkle" of photography back to me.</p>

<p>They are fun to use. I have not avoided the obsolete films. Have several in the 116. Also, a 124 and 130 box.The bigger ones are fun to use. Would love to get one that uses the original 126 roll film. Never seen one for sale, though.</p>

<p>I just picked up an Agfa Billy I and I think it's great, had to patch a few holes in the bellows but, at least it didn't have the dreaded dried green grease problem. I went to town with it the other day and had several people start conversations about the "old camera". Much lighter than my Mamiya M645 and has a negative twice the size.</p>

<p>Well, considering the fact that my "antique" Bessa II w/ Heliar lens blows away any camera I've ever used, my 1937 Zeiss Super Ikonta 531 is as good as my newer Fuji GS645s, and my $35 Agfa Isolette w/ Apotar lens will give sharp prints up to 4' x 4', I'd say the old cameras are hard to beat! And we won't even need to bring up my 60 year old Rolleiflex.</p><div></div>

<p>We all stand on the shoulders of those that went before us. Using classic cameras, one cannot escape the historical significance of photographic machines, materials and processes from the era those cameras were popular. You can, today, experience photography from another time. You get a sense of the way-it-was for those early photographers, which adds to the fun and broadens one's fundamental understanding of photography. </p>

<p>On a personal note, I can say my own experience with classic rangefinders, TLR and SLR cameras has been very enjoyable mostly due to the basic controls and raw simplicity of these machines. You become involved in the photography process in a more direct way. Using simple controls, you become more intimate with the machine and the materials. The cameras are so well made, they need no batteries. They are so well made, they feel like jewels in your hands. The tactile pleasure these classic cameras offer can not be underestimated. Oh, and they look way cool, too.</p>

<p>Well, seeing as how I have about 15 antique still cameras, and probaby about 10 or 15 antique 8mm movie cameras...I'd say definitely <strong>YES!</strong> It makes perfect sense!</p>

<p>And you know how I feel about Yahoo Answers ;)</p>

<p>I guess I should be asking a question like:<br /> "Can my Argus C3 take a black and white picture with one thing in color?" <br>

<br>

Or:<br />"can u take kewl pics with a Voigtlander Virtus and photoshop them for MySpace like the emo\scene kids?"<br>

<br />:)</p>

 

No, there is no sense in buying an antique (classic) camera.

 

I regularly exercise my lack of sense, however. In fact, I lost my sense three times this weekend alone. These I believe work, but I've bought cameras that don't work, too. No sense in that!

 

If I had any sense, I would buy a digital point-and-shoot for $150 instead.

 

But sense is way overrated. I'm paid for my good sense at work during the best part of each weekday, and try to be a sensible parent, and try to make sense of politics, economics, history, sports, and lots more. It's exhausting and frustrating.

 

I prefer the nonsense of classic cameras.

 

--Marc

<p>I do all of my photography with vintage cameras, so my answer should be obvious. My primary camera is a hand-made wooden 4x5 camera from the 1920's or '30's and I also regularly use a 1950's Stereo Realist stereo camera. If you are looking for an investment, look elsewhere. Otherwise, give it a shot! There are some really nice older cameras out there that have many decades of life, if not more, left in them. Fire away and have fun!</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

<p>it sucks that there's soo much bad information out there to discourage people not only from shooting on film but also on classic or antique cameras. i posted what i thought was a very comprehensive answer to the poster's question so that hopefully her inspiration will not die off with the short useless negative answers of other folks on yahoo.</p>

A lot of truth being written here. Thanks!

<p>The newest canera I own is circa the 1970s, or 80s. I suppose my venerable rb67 could be classified as a classic, or antique, but I still love to use it. As far as 35mm goes, I've become an absolute junk for the FSU cameras , and lenses, from the 50s, and 60s. The results I got from my Fed2, and Zorki 4k on my last trip to boston were (at least to me, and a few critics I work with, were wonderful. I just really love the feel of an all metal camera in my hands. I'm also very happy that I have a good working dark room in my basement. </p>

<p>To echo Kozma's frequent plea in regards to old Soviet lenses, I'd say, don't touch the darn things with a 3-meter pole! They're toxic. They probably will infect your house with mildew, and none of them will work without expensive repairs!</p>

<p>That way there will be more of them that those of us who love and actually use them will be able to afford.</p>

<p>Seriously, in the real world we need to encourage people to preserve these old cameras that will otherwise end up in the landfills. I hasten to add that I have never bought any cameras (being old DDR shooters for the most part, who would?) with the idea that they'd ever be worth more than I paid for them at best. Leave the Leica collectors and the early Nikon F serial number set alone, we'll always have our Pentacons, Prakticas, and Praktinas, not to mention the occasional Ercona.</p>

<p>I might suggest she look into this forum and perhaps hook up with someone that can show her the way. It might be the start of something beautiful. How old is she?</p>

<p>There, I invited her.</p>

<p>I would discourage everyone to use classic camera. Why actually bother it is getting very crowded around there. Another day someone recognized my FED-2 in a small American town. That is totally uncool.</p>

<p>I just bought a Certix Model B from around 1937 I think (all the in depth info on these models seems to be in German), the one with the dual format 6X9 or 6X4.5 and two windows in the back with a slide switch, looks beautiful in the pictures, hope it works as well as it looks. Probably a senseless purchase except that I wanted it and plan to use it. That makes sense to me. Maybe after it arrives I can find out more about it.</p>

<p>Hi. My name is Rob and I have a problem... I recently won a Moskva 2 on the bay. Not because I needed one because I have enough cameras to keep myself busy, but I managed it for $25.00. It was either that or a Canon SX10 IS digital camera (10mp and 20x optical zoom...). I couldn't spring the extra couple of bucks for the Canon. The Moskva is a '54, so maybe it qualifies as an antique. I had mainly gotten away from collecting and just concentrating on using the ones I have. I don't know what it was, but I couldn't resist this one. :-)</p>

<p>That's funny but true. Maybe we should start every post that way, Hello, I'm Tom and I have a problem.</p>

<p>Many people who deal in old things will tell you that an "antique" is something over 100 years old. Less than that items are described as "vintage" or "collectible". I tend to follow this description of antique myself. As of today an antique would have been made prior to 1909.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4525289">"Kozma Prutkoff</a> , Jul 13, 2009; 11:01 p.m.</p>

<p>I would discourage everyone to use classic camera. Why actually bother it is getting very crowded around there. Another day someone recognized my FED-2 in a small American town. That is totally uncool."</p>

<p>My Super Ikonta C was recognized, to my total shock, on a hiking trail by a fellow hiker in his mid 30's. He wanted to see if it had the Opton Tessar or just the uncoated Tessar.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only real danger here is buying expensive junk... which tends to be what Antique stores peddle in... badly rusted, damaged or missing lens elements is usually what I find in Antique store cameras. As I have never seen cameras outside of Antique shoppes in this condition I have a suspicion that there are some rather well-meaning Antique dealers purposefully "weathering" or "aging" their cameras so they look "old". Old cameras left in basements and attics typically will have heavy mildew or corrosion spots caused by contact with greasy hands, but not the deep brown rust I usually see on Antique store cameras. I do know this is a common practice as I have known people who "aged" goods to make them more appealing to Antique shoppers before, and any hobby store will sell you rust promoting "aging" finishes. IMO, you are more likely to find a usable classic camera in the back of your grandparent's closets than at an Antique store.</p>