Best picture from the worst camera

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by l._david_tomei|1, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. We always see excellent images from fine cameras, but we are also often
    surprised at how well simple inexpensive cameras perform. After cleaning up
    the shutter and lens on a 57 year old Argus FA, I loaded it and went out to
    shoot a roll at Fort Point beneath the Golden Gate Bridge. I was amazed at the
    quality of the images (my scanner doesn't do justice, though). On the opposite
    side, a recent roll run through my old, and rather expensive, Leica IID with a
    cosmetically excellent Elmar of similar vintage, produced images rivalled only
    by a top performing Diana. Of course, I refer to the imaging performance of
    the cameras and not the photographers here. So, perhaps the "Worst pictures
    from the best cameras" isn't as interesting.

    Now I'm off to shoot a roll with my Perfex Speed Candid.

    David
     
  2. Almost any post by Gene M. with the exception of his posts featuring images from Speed Graphics or Rolleis are really a testament to what can be coaxed out of some of the crappiest cameras ever produced. I personally dont have any relavant images, but a friend of mine spent a great deal of time fixing light leaks and calibrating the focus on his Holga to get some really amazingly sharp and beautiful images. The only giveaway to the origin of the images was the dark corners!

    Nice cannon... Ive heard that the Argus cameras often sported excellently sharp lenses to make up for their terrible body designs. ;)
     
  3. Gene's site is remarkable. Sorry I hadn't seen it before. Gives me added impetus to load up more of my really crappy cameras. It's also a site that should be required for anyone searching for the "best camera" that will permit them to make the great photograph. It ain't the camera usually.
     
  4. Some say a Flexaret is a very bad camera with crappy mechanics and always shoot pictures with a lot of flare because of the lack of a good coating on the lens. Well, next shot show us an example of a photo taken with a Flexaret VI. Not bad I guess. I scanned it with a Epson 4990 and did no adjustments of any kind.
    00LTw8-36945984.jpg
     
  5. I submit the first shot on the page below. The camera certainly is a piece of junk.<p>

    <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/time/index.htm"> TIME <a>
     
  6. Gene,
    I wasn't able to run through the many cameras on your site, but the Time was one of them. Placing vintage cameras of all types (junk and high end classics) together with photos taken by them is a great idea. I still think new people to film photography should be directed to your site. Complimenti, Signore.

    Uncle Goose, Nice shot.

    David
     
  7. Gene,
    In my numerous visits to thrift stores and flea markets I always avoided buying any camera with a lens called "optical"; no need to explain why. I'm amazed to see the results you produced. Kudos!
     
  8. Well, non optical lenses really suck. For example, a brick could be considered a lens but it would be non optical and not very good. Optical lenses are much better.
     

Share This Page