Which would you buy?

Looking back from the perspective of today, what would have been the

best camera for you to own and use in the 1960s? Why? Yes, I know

some of you hate hypothetical questions, but you don't have to play,

do you?

 

I think a Voigtlander Vitomatic might have been best for me. I was

new to 35mm cameras, and needed something straightforward to learn

on. The Vitomatics had onboard meters, which would have helped a

lot, because I would not have been up to a separate meter. The

Vitomatics had super-bright finders, which would have been

important, and the lenses were so good that they would have kept me

from getting discouraged. Lack of interchangeable lenses would have

been a non-issue: I wasn't ready for decisions on that level. The

camera was smallish, so I wouldn't have left it at home, and it was

nicely designed, of which I would have been proud.

 

And you?

Pentax S1A and a 55mm f2 lens and a separate meter to let me take incident and reflected readings. If I had started with that, I would have made better photographs sooner.

I think, to be kind, you have to preface your question with "knowing what you know now".

<br>   

I was of legal drinking age in the '60s and could have had my pick of any number of nice cameras. In fact, I did pick up a Nikon S, and later traded it for a pair of pants. Go figure.

<br>   

I think the Vitomatic would have been a nice choice too. I never liked the look of those selenium meters much, but I suppose they were about as good as the hand-held meters of the day. Also thought the Vitomatic made an unsightly bulge in the pants pocket. No question about the superiority of the Color Skopar lenses, tho; they were top-notch.

<br>   

I currently own a Voigtlander Vito II; it is of '50s vintage, but would have done fine in the next decade too, I think. I had no experience with the line before and was blown away by the images such a small and compact camera could produce. Viva el Skopar! I have a little presentation on my Vito II at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=217499">http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=217499</a>.

In that time period I was like any young person, I paid more attention to my future than my past, so I eventually sold my Nikon FTN and Vivitar Ser 1 35mm-85mm(that first series 1 lens was a truly great lens) which I sorely miss now. I used this camera to get my first shots which everyone who looked at them suggested that I had found my calling, for several years I went everywhere with camera, I had loved watching movies, especially how the close-ups were framed, had watched a TV series about a reporter with a 4x5 camera call 'Man with a Camera' starring Charles Bronson, had watched the movie 'Blow-up' about a famous photographer who discovers a murder while he thinks he's photographing something else.

 

For the better part of a year I would take this camera to MacArthur park in Los Angeles to photography everybody there, there were wary of me but after the better part of three months, but after this they stopped paying attention to me, I became the park photographer, the camera became an extention of my arm, and then unfortunately my eye wandered to something else and being a youngster without a lot of money I traded the Nikon and Vivitar on something else.

 

I will of course never find this camera, it is now nothing more than a pleasant daydream for me, but if I could find a bottle on the beach, rub it three times to cause a puff of smoke which produces a Genie who offers me any three wishes of my choice, I would spend some serious time contemplating this 'old friend'.

Considering my age at the time, my parent's choise of a Kodak Instamatic was the right camera for me at the time. I graduated to my father's Welta Weltini in the early 70's before succumbing to the lure of SLR...

Nice presentation, and the colors are luscious. True Skopar renditions. The Vito 2 resembles both the Vito 3 and the Prominent, two beautiful machines.

 

The folding Vitos are a good bit lighter than the solid ones, which were heavy for their size. The entire Vito series offered a lot for what they cost. Voigtlanders generally were expensively made, even though their prices were modest. Maybe that is why Voigtlander went broke!

I don't have to hypothesize. I have the camera. I'm not of that age, it was passed down to me. It's a Nikkormat FTN with the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor-S. It is the first 'real' camera I ever used, and I still choose it to sling over my arm when carting a bag isn't my object.

 

I even have a picture of my grandfather on the QE II in 1972. Around his neck is the FTN.

Feel like it's carved out of sold steel doesn't it.............

<b>The serious answer:</b>

<br><br>

I was shooting an Argus C3 in 1959. In 1970 it was a Spotmatic. In between there was quite a variety including some very nice cameras. I think any of them along the way would have been fine. As we all know, the specific camera is a small part of the equation.

<br>   

The real issue is where your head is at. The '60s certainly had some special challenges, but probably not really that much different than today. At that time, I was an impressionable young guy. I had a friend about ten years older who had caught the tail-end of WWII. After that, he travelled the world and became one of the most knowledgable people I have ever known regarding music and art. He told me he didn't think that much of the pictures I was making. I took it too much to heart. Within a year I wasn't shooting anymore, and I didn't get back to photography in a serious way for three decades.

<br>   

Looking back on the street pictures I was making in NY's Chinatown in those days, I don't think they were that bad. If I'd had a better sense of myself, or a wider circle of friends, I might have used the opportunity to develop into a much better photographer. Or, maybe not.

<br>   

In any case, I'm having a great time right now shooting my old cameras, along with some pretty nice digitals, and getting to know some nice people here. Every once in a while I make a picture I think isn't half bad.

depends on when in the '60s, and how big the budget.

 

if i'd had the money and interest then, there's only one 35mm answer. new nikon f. instant classic.

 

if i'd had the interest and not the money, there's only one 35 mm answer. used screw mount leica. classic then and now, even though the leica nuts get pretty ridiculous about them. the only cameras of the time that could safely be used for driving nails too.

 

i mean, why not go for the really good stuff? why screw around with compromises like cameras with fixed lenses or leaf shutters? and i ask these questions even though i shoot lenses in shutter on my 2x3 graphics.

 

cheers,

 

dan

In 68-9 i bought my first real camera a Spotmatic F. This was in response to

my physics teacher getting me interested in photography when he bought a

big Nikkormat. Those were the days.... In retrospect, and with the ability to do

it all again, I think a leica M would have taught me more about light than to

rely on my Pentax's meter, but being a poor student with a part time job the

Pentax at $170 did very well. Sorry I sold it.

The first 35mm SLR I cut my teeth on was a Spotmatic so that one's always got a place in my heart.

 

First "serious" MF camera I tried (not counting the Brownie) was a Yashica Mat 124. The Yashica 635 I have now is pretty close. And the Rollei 2.8C is even better - a beautiful machine.

 

The one I'm craving now, tho', is a 6x6 folder. Checking all the ads for Isolettes, etc.

Looks like two streams of thought developing simultaneously here. Some people looking back to the great old mechanical cameras, and others captivated by the revolution led by the Japanese.<br>    

I kind of waffle back and forth. I don't remember if I paid $100 or $200 for my used Spotmatic in 1970, but it seemed like a bargain at the time. I sold quite a few shots to the SF papers and the wire services at the time which I shot with the Pentax. One ended up on the back page of the soon-to-be-defunct Life Magazine -- still one of my high points. That was kind of a comic shot, of course. The more common opportunity was violent confrontation between police and protestors, for which I had little stomach.

<br>   

I still have the Pentax. Took it in for a CLA about a year ago and was very pleased with the the results regarding the shutter and the still unsurpassed Takumar. Somehow, however, it still had a light leak and I shelved it for about a year. A couple weeks ago, I decided I was being stupid about a camera that was as good as I ever handled. Took a close look at it and discovered two tiny pieces of worn light seal on the corners at the latch end. Replaced them with some stuff I got from ebay, and back in business!

i agree, they're really beautiful Lex...... pc

 

<img src="http://www.cleanimages.com/articles/MediumFormatInYourPocket/images/OpenClosedIsoletteIII.jpg">

Lex......be advised that the Agfa Super Isolette(coupled rangefinder, senses first frame) is more plentiful in the UK than around here, I got one of my Agfas from there after a deal with somebody here in the states didn't work out. You need to search the classic dealers out the UK because IMHO there are many more mint and/or as new and for a lower price.

 

I've been advised that you should watch out for the transport system if you go for a Super Isolette as they are reportedly impossible to fix, so that you be your first question about this camera, the Agfa that I got from the UK was mint-, but I still had to take both of them(one from the Uk, one from Germany) to Ross Yerkes who said that the rangefinders on both cameras were mis-aligned, so I in fact had to have both cameras CLA'd adding $140 to what I paid for the cameras, I'm not really unhappy to the extent that everything else on the cameras were as represented.

 

One was from the UK and the other Agfa was Germany(as new unit), so search German dealers there may be a few that have been doing nothing but collecting dust for years.

 

These things looked good when I got 'em after Ross Yerkes cleaned and polished them, they have an 'Art Deco' sculpted and lithe beauty, you will not be sorry if you find an example in good shape, also ask whether or not the rangefinder has clouded up.

Thanks for the tips, Jonathan. Much appreciated.

 

Paul...quit showing off! Unfair to someone who wants but ain't gots. Those are beautiful cameras.

I don't have them Lex, they're my friends cameras....just wanted to remind you how beautiful these are. he he ,,,,pc

Age 11: When I wanted a real camera, I got a hand-me-down 127 bakelite Spartus with one shutter speed and maybe two apertures (big and small). Still have it.

 

Age 13: When I (still) wanted a real camera, I got a hand-me-down 126 Instamatic. Long gone.

 

Age 15: When I wanted an SLR, I had my paper route tips, and I bought a new Cosmorex SE for $102. If I were to do it again, I would have bought a used Retina. Hell, what did I know -- I was a dumb-ass kid.

 

Age 17: Bought a Konica 35

 

Age 18: Traded the Konica 35 (I think for a Pink Floyd album and a couple other vinyl records I didn't want) and bought a Pentax MX. Around this time, I inexpertly disassembled the Cosmorex, had no hope of getting it back together and threw it in the trash (how shameful)!

 

Age 19: Sold the Pentax MX to my brother, got shipped to Germany and bought a Rollei 35T (which my wife lost in 1993). Then bought a Nikon F2A and FE, a 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor, a 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor, 105m f/2.5 Nikkor and the Vivitar Series 1 35-85. Man, that Vivitar lens was heavy, and I dragged both cameras and all of the lenses across Europe on all my trips. Loved every minute of it.

 

Age 21: Back in the U.S., I bought an old Rolleiflex Automat from a one-eyed gun-shop owner in Michigan. Also bought a Rollei 35S from Les.

 

Then a lot of time went by, I took an overseas assignment in 2000, had A LOT of extra money and bought many, many older cameras. First classic camera was a Voigtlander Vito B. Second was the Agfa Isolette III. Then a Retina IIIc, another IIIc, a IIc, a IIIC, IIC and the Zeiss-Ikon Contina II. That got me started with Zeiss-Ikon.

 

2003: Returning to the U.S., the Leica M6 I bought from a shop owner in Hong Kong was lost. Got the money from the insurance company, which was used to pay the mortgage that month. Would rather have the camera.

Early 1960s: started getting "serious" about photography with a Kodak Brownie Fiesta. Shots of the 1964 World's Fair in NY weren't prize winners, then or now, but hold up today.I wish I had that camera today, for sentimental reasons.

 

Late 1960s: After learning really serious shooting on a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic and then a Topcon Unirex (strange camera, but the choice of "average" or "spot" metering helped me to think clearly about light), I got a black Nikkormat. It got me through college, and served me well in my first job as a newspaper reporter. It would likely still be with me today if I hadn't been foolish and kept it over my shoulder instead of in a camera bag while covering the second evacuation of islands from Bikini atoll in 1978. The fellow driving the boat full of reporters from the press boat to Bikini cut the engine too soon, the launch turned sideways in the lagoon, and a wave washed over us as we slammed onto the beach. That Nikkormat lasted two more days, despite being doused in salt water, before it froze up. I sent it to Nikon in Japan for servicing, but it was never the same, and eventually bit the dust a couple of years later. I really wish I still had THAT camera.

<b>the why</b><br><br>

dan:

<br>

"i mean, why not go for the really good stuff? why screw around with compromises like cameras with fixed lenses or leaf shutters? and i ask these questions even though i shoot lenses in shutter on my 2x3 graphics."

<br><br>---<br>

"A" takes a good picture with a $2000 Leica.  "B" takes a good picture with a $5 box camera.  Which has gotten more bang for the buck?

not $5 but not a helluva lot of cash....<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1730890&size=lg">Rolleicord V portrait</a>

If I'd known then what I know now, I have to suggest the Rolleicord, Yashica TLR (don't recall what was current in the 60's, possibly the D or 635), or even the Kodak Reflex II (much more modestly priced, but of similar quality and capability -- and who knew, in 1965, that 620 was doomed?). Basic similarities: 6x6 TLR, high quality moderately fast lens (f/3.5), not too heavy, film available everywhere, and the more primitive the emulsion, the better a large negative looks -- but with the reflex focus, they were still capable of things like using a closeup lens or even shooting through a telescope afocally.

The Zen master Mike Connealy posed the question " "A" takes a good picture with a $2000 Leica. "B" takes a good picture with a $5 box camera. Which has gotten more bang for the buck?"

 

Oh, master, the issue on the table wasn't bang for buck but rather "what would have been the best camera for you to own and use in the 1960s?" I don't think bang for buck is involved, although of course we're all fond of saying that its the photographer, not the machinery, that takes the picture.

 

So, master, the one who gets the most bang for the buck is the person with pen (or pencil) and paper who can draw what's truly there, not the photographer who won't ever get it exactly right. And in some ways the person with pen and paper does worse than the person with a good visual memory.

 

Back then, screw mount Leicas were dirt cheap thanks to the mass conversion to SLRs and offered tremendous values. For what I would have wanted to do back then, though, the Nikon was a much better tool than a Leica plus a Visoflex. Surely, master, we should always strive to use a tool appropriate to the task at hand.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

In 1967 I bought my first serious camera, a secondhand Pentacon FM (AKA Contax S) with a Meritar f2.9/50mm lens. Dark reflex focussing, funny sounding shutter but a perfect introduction to serious photography. It cost me £19/19/6d and it lasted me for two years until it gave way to a Pentax Spotmatic, closely followed by a Nikon F.

 

To be honest, I can't think of a better camera to have learned on.<div></div>

I was cuddling my sippy cup and soiling my diaper back in the late 60's, but I'll tell you what I enjoy using today.

 

Agfa Isolettes - I have 3 of them, one in each lens flavor (Agnar, Apotar, and Solinar). All of mine are zone focus Isolette IIs. Unfortunately, I never got ahold of a III. I really don't use these cameras for any "critical focus" work, and the guesstimation method works fine and saves a few pennies. I throw the Agnar in my drybag when I sea kayak. I treat it like a disposable, and it keeps on ticking out 6x6 negs to beat the band.

 

Agfa Super Solinette - A great 35mm folding rangefinder with a beautiful solinar lens. The pictures from it are outstanding.

 

Konica Auto S2 - Again, great lens, and a great user - even by today's standards. Meter and aperture priority.

 

Konica Autoreflex SLRs - I have a bunch of these, and almost every Hexanon lens I want (I'm a user not a collector). Hexanon lenses are *fantastic* deals for the money.

 

Moskva 5 - This one's actually my friend's, but I use it. 6x9 and great quality output.

 

And I use Leica M stuff, but there's a different forum for that...

 

I honestly enjoy using almost any old camera. Some are more "friendly" than others, but the joy comes from resurrecting these old beauties and breathing another day of life into them.

 

For a look at some of my images, ck www.edhebert.com Everything on that site was produced with a camera made before 1975 (some of the lenses are more modern M lenses, though).