Mechanical Marvels: 35mm SLRs from the '60s and '70s

<p>I feel like waxing poetic for a bit as I think about the wonderful mechanical cameras I've had the good fortune to own and to use and how they've been a tremendous benefit to my growth as a photographer. My first "real" camera was a Canon FTb. It was followed in fairly short order by a Canon F-1, and then another F-1. But over the years, I've had the opportunity to try out and own quite a few different cameras, and it is the old manual mechanical 35mm SLRs from the '60s and '70s I remember most fondly. The cameras that I found most memorable, in no particular order, were the Minolta SRT-101, the Pentax Spotmatics, KX and MX, the Olympus OM-1, the Nikon F, F2, FM, FM2n, and Nikkormats, and the aforementioned Canon FTb and original F-1. Each of these cameras has its strong and weak points, but with all of them the strong points vastly outweigh the weak ones. I know I'm leaving out all the European-made cameras, but that is only because I have very little experience with all but a very few of them.</p>

<p>I often say that the Canon FTb taught me photography. Its design is elegant and easy to fathom and its metering system is, to this day, one of the best I've ever used. Having to compose my images using the FTb's match-needle meter taught me the reciprocal nature of exposure and how the three most important elements of exposure -- shutter speed, aperture, and film ISO -- are all tied together. The meter's match-needle readout taught me how, when one value changes, another changes in a reciprocal fashion. This sort of relationship remains largely opaque with a DX-loading auto exposure camera.</p>

<p>I sometimes wonder where I'd be as a photographer if I'd never purchased that old FTb -- or its equivalent. I'm sure I still could have acquired the requisite knowledge, but its "shape" would have been different, perhaps colored with needless, extraneous <em>stuff.</em> One of the great things about learning photography with a manual camera is a person necessarily receives a good grounding in the basics, which is essential. Exposure and composition. True, composition can be practiced using any old photographic tool, but one is forced to slow down when using manual exposure, and this slowed down process can extend over to composition, which is a good thing, I feel. At least in ones early days. Surely as one becomes more experienced, both exposure and composition can be achieved more rapidly, but during the early phases of the acquisition of ones photographic skills, slower is better.</p>

<p>Here it is, some 57 years since the introduction of the Nikon F and there are still numerous Fs seeing daily use, still going strong. And this is true with many other SLRs from this era. They were built to such a high level of refinement that they've lived beyond all expectations, I suspect. Yes, many of the old classics have worn out, but there are still many more that are in their prime, thanks in large part, most likely, to original owners who used them only occasionally. I have made it something of a mission, in recent years, to acquire examples of these old mechanical masterpieces. But it's because of their age that I also look for examples that exhibit as little wear as possible. I still want to be able to get a lot of mileage out of these old cameras because I buy them to use, not to have them just sit prettily on a display shelf. Although I'll admit they also perform that function as well, and do a good job of it.</p>

<p>Currently, I own a couple of Canon FTbs and two Canon F-1s of the original variety, albeit the second version of the original. I also own a Nikon F, two F2s, and a Nikkormat FT3 And then there are the Pentaxes -- two Spotmatics, a II and an F, and three K mount manuals: a KX and KM, and an MX. Of all these cameras, I still like the old Canon F-1 the best. A close second would be the Nikon F2, which barely gets the nod over the Pentax KX and does only because it has a motor drive option, whereas the KX does not.</p>

<p>Now, if I were to expand my list to manual-capable, manual-focus cameras that are not necessarily mechanical, several more very worthy cameras that I own would get added to this list. Canon's New F-1 and AT-1, Nikon's FE, FE2 and EL2, and probably the F3, Pentax's LX and K2, Minolta's XD-11 and X-570. In manual mode, these cameras work every bit as well as the mechanical cameras I've mentioned previously, and I almost always use them in manual mode. But with the exception of just a couple, all of these cameras date from the 80s, so they're beyond the time frame I've originally laid out.</p>

<p>I've been at this game for over 33 years and I wonder how many other old hands at photography feel as I do. Most, I'll wager. But even more importantly, I wonder how many people relatively new to film photography feel this way. Because these are the people who will insure film's survival, and what better way to do it than through the use of the classic SLRs of the '60s and '70s? If well maintained, I don't see why these old cameras can't last 100 years or more.</p>

 

<p>Have a stable full of Nikons from days of yore, at least one of each Pro model up to and including F3, and a Leica M 3 kit. I have been at it a bit longer than you -- suggest you look for a DF. To me, close to the same feeling as my old friends. Nice post!</p>

<p>I hear ya, bro. The Canon FTB was the first SLR system that I bought with my own money. I still have it. Along with the F-1, A-1 and T-90 (and a bunch more) and Nikon F, F2, 3 and FE2(and a bunch more). Pentax F, ES and ESII were wonderful cameras. Don't leave out the small and mighty Olympus OM-1n and Pen system! <br>

These are all great classics. I'm keeping mine. It's not only the history of photography, it's my history as a photographer. </p>

<p>I guess I am not that big on buying camera's but I have a FM2n that is my regular shooter using HP5. I have a couple 35mm electronic camera's (F100 and FG). I enjoy them all. That's all the camera's that I own except my cell phone. </p>

<p>I have great feelings for the 35mm camera of my childhood, a Yashica YK rangefinder, and even more for the Olympus OM-1D which taught me photography. A mechanical SLR from the eighties, the FM2, is evocative for me for a different reason: it belonged my wife's uncle, born in the twenties, with a bronze medal and a battlefield commission from World War II, whose photography was part of his later life, as an artist and professor of painting and sculpture. I loved him.</p>

<p>Then there is the very different Polaroid Dental Camera, important in my early training in the study of human speech and in the first professional paper I ever presented (<a href="http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/53/1/10.1121/1.1982693;jsessionid=ecL8s1YQsoUdFZeYvq4oiM6F.x-aip-live-03">link</a>). This type of dental camera, and the FM2, are the only ones I have that are still working.</p>

<p>Although these emotional connections tug at my heart, they rarely inspire me to use the 35mm cartridges in the freezer or the Polaroid packs in the refrigerator. The carefully sealed bundles sit towards the back, usually hidden by edible things, and seeing them is more likely to remind me that we need to shop for food than to suggest going out to make photographs.</p>

<p>To me, that is all right. What first brought me to 35mm rangefinders and SLRs was the possibility of shooting in dim light, after disastrous childhood attempts with my parents' box camera. I am still honoring that early legacy when I use a D750 and fast primes and shoot a party at times lit only by birthday candles.</p>

<p>Late joining the crowd, but I'm with you all the way. Been getting rid of some of the oldsters which haven't seen use for a couple of years, but IMHO these gems just feel better and seem incredibly reliable. Too bad I can't interest my grandkids in wonderful old technology. I did watch my 10 y.o. granddaughter snap a ton of shots last weekend at Chicago's Art Institute with her smartphone....almost envied her photographic naivety while consistently getting excellent results :)</p>

<p>I'm using two Nikon F3 bodies for 35mm shooting. I used to use the F2 and I actually prefer them to the F3 but I had to give up on the F2 for the frustrating experience I had getting them repaired and maintained. The F3's being slightly newer cameras are serving me very well.</p>

<p>I'm not using the old ones much any more, but still have and love the Nikon F, especially. Even if I get rid of everything else I intend to keep the F's forever.</p>

<p>I took apart a water damaged F some time ago, and remain amazed at the level of fit and finish applied even to the least critical parts, in addition to the beautiful mechanical design and execution. </p>

<p>The F was not my first real camera, but that's more a matter of economics than of camera lust. It came out when I was about 11 and I practically fainted the first time I saw one. I did not actually get my hands on one until 1970, but have not been without one since. It stopped being my primary camera less than 15 years ago, but the affair is only dormant, not done. </p>

<p>I used to have a few Barnack Leicas. I sold them. And I was stupid for doing so. Lesson learned. They were not very practical but I loved using them. And the shutters had a lovely sound. Cameras pretty much have only three controls worth worrying about: aperture, shutter, focus (even if it's just pushing a button). That's it.</p>

<p>But I do have an OM-1 somewhere, and I have a Pentax Spotmatic II with three Takumar primes, all in great nick (the person who gave them to me was too generous!).</p>

<p>I have a Zeiss Ikon 6x6 folder, as well, and nothing is coupled. Winding the film and cocking the shutter are separate actions. But it's a stupid design: the viewfinder is centred, not offset. Centred VFs are in some ways one of the several handicaps of SLRs. Why transfer that to non-reflex cameras? Anyway, it's a great shooting experience. Love it.</p>

<p>I had an F3 once. Much louder than the F though. But rugged, and nice to operate. Nikon bodies are great. Lenses were never going to be as good as Leica's. But now one can have the best of both worlds: Nikon bodies (film or digital) with Zeiss lenses (Otus, Milvus or Batis).</p>

<p>I think the F with the plain prism is a masterpiece of design: its simplicity is so minimal, it makes you ache. Circle, square, triangle. The F4 is also beautiful but for different reasons.</p>

<p>Sorry to say it but the Df is a loser. It's nothing like the Fujis in terms of operation. I wouldn't waste my time with it. </p>

<p>As a relative latecomer to SLRs, I held out til 1974, happy til then with my Rolleiflex TLR. That year I did a long and slow trek in Asia, 12 countries in six months, during which time I shot 100+ rolls of 120 film, a massive extra load to drag along as I traveled. Back then the well-heeled tourists all had TLRs and occasionallysomeone (usually American) sported a Nikon F or its counterparts of the time, Pentax, Minolta and Miranda. At various shoots I did, I noted how easily they were using their SLRs to easily and quickly record everything in sight, while I fiddled with an exposure meter, composed in squares, resisted the urge to shoot static scenes, and to me the most annoying of all, changing films after a dozen exposures. </p>

<p>Something went click! (bad pun intended) in my head, and not long after I parted with the then immense sum of CDN$500 for a Mamiya SLR (a 500TL, DTL or TDL or some such model) and two Hanimex lenses, 28mm and 90mm. </p>

<p>The following year I redid my 1974 Asian journey and rephotographed almost everything I had previously done, this time in 35mm. The feeling of liberation was tremendous. A brick of Tri-X or Kodachrome took up no more room in my bags than 40 rolls of Ektachrome or Plus-X. Processing was quick and easily and could be done almost anywhere in Asia, tho a near disaster did occur when a Chinese photo store in, I think, Penang, developed 10 rolls of my Tri-X in Dektol (the resulting negs scan well and print OK up to 5x7" but beyond that, the grain goes to mush). No more was I enslaved to the tyrrany of the 6x6 square format...!</p>

<p>Of course it didn't stop there. The Mamiya was stolen in an Australian B&B, and in rapid succession, I acquired a Pentax K1000, a Minolta SRT101, a Fujica with horrible ergonomics but the sharpest standard lens I had used til then - and finally, in 1977, two Nikkormat EL cameras, amazing machines which I still own and occasionally use. My love for Nikons, or specifically Nikkormats, has continued strong til now, for almost four decades. </p>

<p>My Nikon arsenal now consists of three ELs (I inherited the third in 2010, from a late friend who bought it the same day in 1977 I got my two), two FT2s, and a Nikon F. My seven or eight lenses are non AI, AI and AIS, and all move easily to any camera I want to use at any particular time. Lens hoods, filters, and other accessories are all standard. The Nikkormats are the Sherman Tanks of the camera industry. No digital cameras now are being built to match them. Cast iron bodies held together with ocean liner rivets. </p>

<p>My partner uses a Nikon FG20 with four lenses, a kit I was given in 2004 by an elderly neighbor whose late husband had aquired it new in the '80s. By comparison it is but a callow youth and as such doesn't quite fit into this thread, but it is as good as new, the E lenses are brilliant performers, and while it's generally seen as flimsy the FG20 is certainly sturdier than anything being produced on the market today. </p>

<p>Recently as a fun experiment I put my Nikon 20mm f/2.8 D AF lens on an FT2. Fiddly to use, metering was by guess and all had to be shot in M mode on the lens, but spot-on exposures, truly lovely colors and amazing mid tones on two rolls of outdated Fuji Sensia. </p>

<p>The Nikkormats take me back to a golden era in film photography where equipment was manufactured to last, with quality materials and easily repairable mechanics. </p>

<p>I had my ELs serviced two times, in 1985 and again in 2004. One EL failed on me during a wedding shoot in 1985, fortunately I had the other, so I switched the lenses and went on shooting. Had it serviced and still use it. Nothing has gone wrong with any of my ELs since. This isn't a record of any sort. In fact, it's common with Nikon SLRs. </p>

<p>By comparison, since 2008 I've had two Sony DSLRs bite the dust, with repairs quoted as costing more than their original prices (no thanks), and a Nikon D700 did the dreaded SDE (Sudden Death Experience from shutter failure during a shoot (I had it repaired and I still use it). This said, two Nikon D90s I bought used have lasted well and consistently turn out good (= saleable) results. So it's the luck of the draw, really. </p>

<p>An odd aside. The Mamiya SLR stolen in the '70s turned up at a garage sale in Sydney in 2004. The elderly gentleman who was selling it told me he had bought it from a well-known pawn shop of the time in Pott's Point, Sydney, coincidentally quite close to the B&B where I had stayed. I didn't buy it, but I left feeling that a small wheel in my life had come its full circle.</p>

<p>JD in Kuala Lumpur. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But even more importantly, I wonder how many people relatively new to film photography feel this way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might be me, more or less. I came to photography late, in the digital era. As over time, my photos more and more tended to B&W, the lure of B&W film came, and with that the lure of some film cameras. Not wanting to be a hipster, I resisted but in vain..... <br />For the type of photography I usually do (which isn't high-paced, high speed etc.) I do prefer the older film cameras. They've got this lovely simpleness in terms of controls and (lack of) options - there is nothing to do but control exposure, focus. Only the stuff that really matters. Sure I can use my DSLR the exact same way, but it's more that those older cameras just are made to do only this. I like this simplicity.<br>

The other huge advantage is that you can have top-notch gear at friendly prices. I wrote up on one of my latest acquisition lately, a Nikkormat FT, on the classical camera forum the other week. Point is that you buy a solid brick, 100% working 50 years after production, with a great lens for less than you'd have to spend for a entry-level P&S digital. Which makes it do-able to collect some different ones :-)</p>

<p>They don't replace my DSLR - that still gets plenty use and is a better tool in quite some ways for a number of situations. But they add to the fun I've got in photography. Seeing negatives one developed oneself, from a camera with strict manual and mechanical operation, gives a sense of satisfaction to me that seeing a DSLR file doesn't. People may claim the gear doesn't matter, and it's fine if for them it does not, but the tactile feel and operation of the tool is part of the whole thing. And at the moment, I get more fun and enjoyment out of the FM2, and R6 (both post-70s for sure, but both all mechanic) and for correctness of the era you mention, a Nikkormat FT and Canonet QL17.</p>

<p>Using and admiring for many years: 1959 Nikon F totally original including tick mark optic, 1976 Nikon F-2 was used in hospital lab, overhauled but then replaced by digital before it arrived in my collection, 1976 Canon F-1 from now digital user, 1968 Leicaflex SL with 50 Summi, and 90 from original retiree but bought in antique shop near Cape Cod. These are my favorite SLR' s</p>

<p>It was an ad for a black Nikon F with the standard prism that got me started. We used to have accommodating camera stores that were willing to wheel and deal that allowed me to try most of the great mechanical cameras over the years. The list of what I wanted to but never got a chance to try is short and includes: Olympus OM4 Titanium, Canon T90, Contax RTS, Pentax LX, Canon EF, and somehow I missed out on the Nikon F2.</p>

<p>My old F2s from 1975 is in still in mechanically excellent condition.<br />I really love the sound of that camera in action. <br />The only thing that's not working correctly is the viewfinder's red LED electronic meter display.</p>

<p>Well, it's been fun reading through all your experiences. Glad to see that there's lots of other folks out there like me.</p>

<p>Sandy, the DF sounds like an interesting DSLR, but I've been moving in the mirrorless direction recently. I like mirrorless because I can use any of my relatively large collection of manual focus lenses with it. I can't really afford a full-frame mirrorless right now, but that's probably what I'll get when I can -- probably a Sony A7II. 24.3mp is plenty resolution for my needs.</p>

<p>Louis, I've owned Oly OM-1s (and 2s, and 10s) and I think they are fine cameras, but I dunno, I've never been a big fan of having a shutter speed ring concentric with the lens mount. I can agree with your other choices, though.</p>

<p>Hector, it's hard to go wrong with the FM2, especially if you don't need to use the older pre-AI lenses (the FM2 can't use unmodified pre-AI lenses). Besides its higher top shutter speed and flash sync, I like the fact that it uses LEDs instead of a needle for the meter. It works so much better in dimly lit situations, which it sounds like you're partial to.</p>

<p>Stephen, I'd hang onto at least some of the "oldsters," cuz you just never know when the urge might strike. I've learned my lesson and I resist the urge to sell now. I'm tired of having to re-buy cameras and lenses that I thought in the past I didn't need anymore --only to find that I still needed, or at least wanted, them.</p>

<p>Marc, I've never had a problem with my F2s -- yet -- and I've owned several over the years. The oldest one I currently own is a "71", which is about as early as they get, and it's never given me a bit of problems in the 26 years I've owned it. The F3 is a great camera though. Hard to beat. I especially like the F3's 80-20 metering patttern, which works great even with slides and using the F3's Aperture priority metering mode. </p>

<p>Matthew, I've never had a passion for the F, at least the way I have for the F2, but I certainly respect it. I have one that I bought originally with the plain non-metered finder, which I think is a very pretty camera. But I've always been a big fan of the F's history and the evolutionary process it's gone through. So i started at the beginning, and bought the very first metered finder Nikon developed for for the F -- the non-TTL Photomic with the semaphore that's used tu turn the meter on and off. That old thing actually meters your average scene very accurately. Here's an example. Tri-X developed in full-strength D-76.</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/nikf_alexchick1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1630" /></p>

<p>Jaydann, it's hard to go wrong with a Nikkormat, isn't it? I've owned a number of them over the years, ranging from FTs to ELs I like the FT2 for its hot shoe and better metering pattern and I like the FT3, which is basically just an AI'd FT2, for its AI meter coupling. Even though it's electronic, the EL is a great machine. I own a Nikon EL2, which I like especially because of its AI meter coupling, but also -- and this is true of the EL as well -- because it is the direct antecedent of the FE, one of my favorite compact Nikons. If I had to choose between my EL2 and my FE, it would be a tough call. The EL2 is bigger and heavier and no-doubt more rugged than the FE, but the FE has interchangeable focusing screens and will accept a true motor drive option. And it is because of these latter two differences that I'd probably opt for the FE over the EL2, but it's a close call. For what it is, the EL2 is a work of art.</p>

<p>Ross, the F100 and FG might not be truly mechanical, but at least they do an excellent job when used as manual cameras. I just sold a very clean FG on eBay. One of the things I've always liked about the FG was its manual mode.</p>

<p>Damon, your meter can probably be repaired back to full functionality. I'm kinda partial to my F2S also. After a lot of use, the meter's resistor can develop wear spots that lead to a jumpiness in the analog meters' needle readouts, and flickering in the digital readouts. Eventually, the resisteor can fail altogether. But I've heard of places that can restore them. There's Sovor Wong in the UK, who has an outstanding rep, and Stephen Gandy in the USA, who has recently begun repairing the old F and F2 meters.</p>

<p>Sanford, your list of "want to buy" cameras includes a few I own and a couple I'd like to get as well: the OM4, either regular or T version and the Contax RTS -- can be a II or III also. You can find T90s these days for not a lot -- just make sure they're working and don't have the dreaded blinking LCD. I bought one a couple years ago, and I love it. I've owned an EF for several years now, and I really like the full information viewfinder. I also appreciate the F-1-style features it has (most notably mirror lock up) and the fact that it can meter down to 30 seconds. IMO, everyone who's into the old classic mechanical cameras should own at least one F2. In many ways, it is Nikon's finest camera. I also picked up a Pentax LX recently. I've wanted one for years and finally did something about that. It's an amazing camera in many ways. I especially like its OTF metering and how it can do extremely long metering at low-light levels. Many LX's that you see for sale now, unless they've had a CLA, will most likely be afflicted by the sticky mirror syndrome, so despite the fact that they still fetch a lot on the used market, you can pretty much add the cost of a CLA to the price. That's what I had to do with the one I bought.</p>

<p>Wouter, glad to read you're having fun with your mechanical wonders. Yep, they work great for B&W, but don't neglect trying some good slide film with them too. And Kodak Portra is also great stuff. My favorite is Portra 160. Grain is vanishinly small. I like it better than Ektar.</p>

<p>While not "mechanical" in the true sense, I probably shoot my Canon A-1 more than my<br>

F2<br>

F3<br>

FM<br>

OM1n<br>

Canon AT-1<br>

all of which are simpler and more "mechanical" (accept maybe the F3)<br>

Probably because I got to know the meter in the A-1, and only shoot in manual...not what the A-1 was really designed for, but we all seem to find a niche for these old cameras.<br>

I am happy to Own/Use all of them.</p>

<p>The A-1 was the second camera I ever owned. I bought it back when I thought more automation meant a better camera. Its automation actually led to something of disillusionment on my part. My next camera was an all-mechanical FTb, which pretty much cured the disillusionment.</p>

<p>I find it unusual and interesting that you prefer to use your A-1 in manual mode. I used my A-1 in manual mode also, but I never found it to be particularly enjoyable to use it that way, mostly because the aperture ring isn't coupled to the meter. So I was always having to look away from the viewfinder to double check that I'd set the correct aperture value. Well, that's not entirely true. The A-1 has a "Stopped Down AE" exposure mode in which the meter is coupled to the lens aperture, albeit in stopped down mode, but one has no control of shutter speeds when using Stopped Down AE. I never cared for the A-1's meter much either, but this was the metering pattern the camera used. I much preferred (still do) the FTb's metering pattern over that of the A-1. But hey, it's all what you get used to, and learning how to use the tool most effectively for what you're after. And if the A-1 does that for you, then great. It's certainly a camera that has proved its robustness over the decades.</p>

<p>I just realized I wrote the above paragraph in past tense. It's worth mentioning, I suppose, that I still own an A-1 -- and an AE-1 Program -- and I own them more for their historical importance, both for Canon and for myself and my early forays into photography.</p>

 

<p>You are correct on all counts.<br>

If somebody asked me about shooting manual, I would not recommend the A-1.<br>

However, what I have found is, I am rarely Shooting/Metering a scene that follows the suggested settings (shutter, aperture) of the A-1.<br>

Due to the fact that I am usually looking at an overabundance of light, or shooting into dark(er) shadows.....I am constantly Over or Under Exposing based on the A-1 Meter. So I rarely follow the meter anyway.<br>

Based on THAT...would it be easier For Me to shoot with a Needle Meter.?.....absolutely. BUT...I have two A-1, and both have been set straight by a good tech. So they work well, are well made, fit my hands nicely, and will be around (in good working order) for a long time. So I use the A-1 a lot, albeit in a bastardized style that Canon never foresaw. :)<br>

If I had my head screwed on straight, I would definitely be using one of my other cameras much more often. Then again, we tend to go through phases. A few years from now, I might be sleeping with my F3. :)</p>

<p>Denny, your comments remind me of at least two occasions when I was out shooting with my A-1 back in my early days, where I didn't understand much about exposure, and instead depended on my A-1 to make the decisions for me. In both situations, the lighting requirements exceeded the A-1's capabilities, but in both situations that ended up working out just fine. The first time, I was using my first 80-200 zoom, a cheap Albinar that nonetheless did a decent job, taking sunset photos of the ocean at the beach at Santa Barbara, California. I vaguely recall the display blinking when I took the photo. Which means that, when set to P, which is most likely where I had set it, the camera was maxed out at 1/1000 second and f/22 or f/16, whatever the minimum aperture was on that lens. The second situation, I was also shooting offshore, but the subject was an offshore drilling platform and I was using my Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. So in this case, the camera had probably maxed out to 1/1000 at f/8. Might have been f/16. Cuz, I dunno but I might have used a teleconverter for that shot. Both shots achieved dramatically different results, but I really like the results I got with each. Happy accidents.</p>

<p>Canon A-1, Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9, Kodachrome 64<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/sbsunsethdr1a.jpg" alt="" width="667" height="1000" /></p>

<p>Canon A-1, Sigma 600mm f//8 mirror, Kodachrome 64<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/offshore_rig_1a.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="790" /></p>

<p>The funny thing is, it took me years of shooting sunsets before I was able to consistently duplicate the look of that first photo, and I finally "got it" because of my understanding of exposure. With respect to the offshore platform, what is so unusual about it is it is, in effect a monochrome photo that I took shooting with Kodachrome. I'd have to be able to exactly duplicate the conditions present for that photo in order to produce anything similar. Mostly I think it was the sun reflecting off the water that is what set things up so that all color was leached from the photo.</p>

<p>So, anyway, the above two images are my way of agreeing with what you're saying with respect to working outside your A-1's exposure range. I did it unwittingly during my early days of photography, and the happy accidents ended up being some of my most enduring favorites.</p>

<p>You know, this reminds me of another situation where a shot came out better than I had any right to expect. I was using my A-1 and a Canon nFD 50mm f/1.8 lens, and a Canon 188A flash. My wife and I were in Hawaii at a luau and there was a fire-eater who appeared on stage. Well, I took a shot of the fire-eater, using the camera's flash of course because I felt I had to. Well when I got the Kodachrome slide back, I was disappointed to see that the flash had ended up exposing the photo based on a guy's shiny bald head that was right in front of me. The fire-eater hadn't been illuminated by the flash at all -- which ended up being a good thing. A couple years after taking that shot, I bought a Canon auto-bellows, and managed to crop out the best part of the slide. Yes, the grain is more obvious, but given the subject, I don't think the grain detracts from the image.</p>

<p>Here's the original, with bright blonde hair an a shiny bald head in the foreground.<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/fireeater_orig1.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p>

<p>And here is the crop:<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/fire_eater_1a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Not so much a happy accident as it was a good save.</p>

<p>Although I really grew up on P&S cameras and 80/90’s Electronic SLRs (my EOS620 is still a weekly shooter), I didn’t really understand the basics of exposure until I found an old Zenit-E in my Mother-in-laws attic - What a lump that was, no focus aid, manual aperture stop-down, no P mode, and no working light meter!<br>

But I was determined to get it to work – so armed with the sunny-16 rule and a copy of the ‘Ultimate Exposure Computer’ (Google it) I used that camera solidly for months until it ate its own shutter. I think that camera probably taught me more about the basics than any other I’ve owned.<br>

I don’t have that Zenit anymore – but no matter, its loss was more than made up for when I found a rather nice Canon F-1 in that same attic a few years later..!</p>