Why are you interested in classic cameras?

[Andy Collins]

I ask this because I wonder if others are hooked on classics for the same

reasons as I am, or if I have a disorder that should be discussed while laying

on a couch with a licensed professional, or better yet around a table in a pub

with a bunch of you folks! I recently had a roll of film developed that I had

taken with the Baldamatic I that I found at the fleamarket last week, and I was

quite impressed with the results. All of this led me to consider the cameras of

days gone by and all of the engineering that went into them to make such capable

tools, capable in many instances of producing pictures that rival those made by

some of today's best. I find myself holding the Balda and turning it over in my

hands and just studying it from every angle, admiring the shape, the

construction, and the details, and then admiring the pictures it produced. I

also find operating older cameras to be amazingly enjoyable--I happen to have a

particular weakness for the feel of Retinas, folding and Reflex models, but I

enjoy using most of what I've acquired. It has always amazed me that we've gone

to such lengths to record pictures of our lives for so long now, pouring so much

of our engineering knowledge into creating machines that capture images for us

to share with each other. Using classic or vintage cameras allows me to

experience photography from a slightly different perspective, even though the

experience of capturing an image is very much the same as it is using today's

tools, but maybe a little bit more pure and without the frills and features of

today's cameras. To sum it up, I'm fascinated by the unique expression of what

each manufacturer thought was the ideal manifestation of the perfect picture

making tool, and all of the various forms these expressions took. What's your

excuse?<div></div>

[kevinteo]

"I also find operating older cameras to be amazingly enjoyable"

 

There's something about the level of involvement necessary to do more than just point and

shoot. Could be one of the reasons why large format photography still has a place today. I

prefer the mobility of the smaller formats though, and use a Kodak Retinette IA as my

everyday camera although I'll be buying a new Bessa R2M soon.

 

I also have a Brownie Flash II (sitting idle since I can't get 620 film where I live) and a

couple of Bessa folders. Each of those gets a trip out depending on my mood. Even with

my Mamiya 7II, I would sometimes leave the B+Ws at home and go out out with a set of

Wratten gels. That said, I suppose it's more important that to be ready to capture the

moment, rather than fumbling for the sake of nostalgia. I don't go to extent of taking

along filter and exposure charts and wheels, or using those light tables that gave

exposure recommendations based on time and latitude; I just keep the sunny 16 rule.

 

I bought my first digital camera last year and got a Canon IXUS partly because it had a

viewfinder - I invariably end up composing with the LCD screen. Now I realize that this is

simply another feature I have come to appreciate in it's own right, just like the waist-level

viewfinder on the lens of the Bessa.

 

So in short, I suppose that my excuse is that I like a bit of variety.<div></div>

[patrick j dempsey]

My dad was both a modern day machinist and engineer as well as a black smith. Today he has combined his ability in computer programming and his passion for black smithing into an internet business. My entire childhood I was surrounded by beautiful machines and I watched as plans were drawn up for complex machines which my father and grandfather built in their machining business. When I look at a Classic... I see a machine that is beautiful not just for its outer design or its amazing mechanical and optical precision... but for the fact that it was designed on paper with pencils by guys using slide rules. And those plans were built by hand into working prototypes and then a manufacturing process was begun where human beings operated machine tools by hand to mold and carve steel and brass and glass. When I pick up one of these cameras I feel that chain in my hands, the pride of designers, mechanical engineers, optical engineers, and all the vareity of glass and metal workers and the people in final assembly and the people inspecting each unit. Maybe Im too romantic about some mechanical object, but I think there is a valid point to it. Some people are of the opinion that by "holding onto the past" we are somehow hurting the future.... but I say those people are fools. As long as there are still people around who remember what CRAFTSMANSHIP and QUALITY means, then there is hope that perhaps the future wont be as shoddily built and as disposable as the present... I guess one good thing is there wont be any of the cell phones and ipods and digi cameras from now around in 50 years to pollute the expectations of the future... but maybe some of my cameras will. Maybe some of my records too.

[david_m]

"When I pick up one of these cameras I feel that chain in my hands, the pride of designers, mechanical engineers, optical engineers, and all the vareity of glass and metal workers and the people in final assembly and the people inspecting each unit. Maybe I'm too romantic"

 

I'd say a lot too romantic...

 

When I pick up a classic camera, I feel a camera, that's all. Yes, it's nice if it's chrome, brass and leather; even smooth bakelite feels good. But most of all I appreciate the mechanical ker-chink of the shutter.

[mark_medin]

Shoddily built and disposable is why I have contempt for most photographic equipment built today, along with 90% of all other items. I just don't see anything resembling build quality in new items. In the past, even a simple fixed-lens rangefinder was built solidly and would last decades. I had a digicam that lasted two whole years before dying - and that was with VERY light use. It's not worth repairing as the problem is a catastrophic design flaw - one that never would have been tolerated in the past, as the cameras then didn't depend totally on electronics and plastic. I don't mind simple bits of electronics in my cameras - it does have certain benefits. But now with electronics and servo motors doing ALL the work, and plastics being practically the only medium used for the bodies, the cameras now not only looks awful and feel cheap, but all I'm needed for is to aim the thing. To exercise any control requires me to override the camera's choices and is often too difficult to be worth doing in all but the most expensive cameras. I think we traded build quality for low cost, ease of use and sophistication and lost.

 

The loss of permanence of images is going to be another problem in the long run. I came across dozens of pictures of my father that were taken in the 1920s. Still in good condition, they're a fascinating record of the past. The jpeg files of today I fear are not going to be around in even 25 years. I've already lost images put on CD-ROM that are no longer readable.

[john falkenstine]

They're cheap.

[l._david_tomei1]

Confessions of a Camera Collector... It would seem to me that this is the "couch" and I confess to being afflicted by the same compulsion. It is clearly not born from any contempt for the new digital technology, nor does it arise from any conviction that film, darkrooms, and developer-stains fingernails are the only ways to the best photographic images. I have spent too many years working on new digital imaging technology to look down my nose at a DSLR while I defensively clutch my Leica IIIf ST BD with a 50mm f/2 Summicron. In fact, I must confess, when I wish to produce a photographic image of one of my classic cameras for my web site to share it with others, I do it with my DSLR and Photoshop.

 

They are often cheap, frequently dirty and neglected, missing parts, and even broken, but they are all the product of human aspirations and the efforts of a small group of people many years ago and the treasured instrument that captured the images of a world now passed in time. I listen to the arrogant disregard the gleaming Clarus 35M with a shutter that probably hasn't worked since it was still fresh from the box, the off-handed comment calling it a piece of junk and a sad copy of their vaunted Leica and I wonder just how many lenses, shutters or body castings this armchair critic has ever designed. When I hold a Purma Special, I recall the many families who used this simple camera to capture pictures at family gatherings in the dark days of WWII, pictures that are likely to have been lost and forgotten decades ago. The fact that the lens may be plagued by vignetting, or the gravity shutter is hopelessly primitive, never enters my mind because these things may be true but they are irrelevant.

 

Romantic, yes. Too romantic, certainly. Inexplicable, no... I'm sure that any psychologist could put a name to this affliction. Well...back to my DSLR on the tripod with the VR macro zoom. Got to finish the shots of my Purma Special for the web site.

Ciao.

[colin carron]

While I like the solidity and craftsmanship of the better quality cameras of old I also like the really cheap and really rubbish ones too - the cardboard and plastic cheapies of the past. To me these lower end cameras give an insightinto past lives perhaps more than the higher end cameras as these were the cameras most people used at countless weddings, birthdays, holidays etc all now fading slowly into obscurity.

[matt_needham]

I initially began using them because they were cheap alternatives to modern gear. Today the enjoyment I get from using classic cameras is pretty much the only reason I continue to shoot film. I enjoy the sturdy, all metal, leather, and glass designs. I like never having to worry about batteries. I love the simple nature of some of them. One of my favorites is my Ansco Titan 20 (6x6 folder). It's got aperture, shutter, and a focus scale (with nifty color coded DOF scale), and hardly any other features. It folds up, and fits in my pocket like an over stuffed wallet. It's cool, and cheap, and takes great photos. It's fun to use.

 

my collection

http://flickr.com/photos/manuelfocus/384597666/

[gene m]

I love the way they smell.

[tony_lockerbie]

Individualistic, chrome, glass, brass, solid and built to last.... and yes Gene, some of 'em smell good too!

 

Tony

[patric_dahl_n]

I played with my grandfathers Yashica A as a kid. In my teenage years I liked to make my own prints in my fathers darkroom. Got the Yashica back to working condition, but had to make a new viewing screen and a new focussing knob. Didn't work too well, so I bought a Rolleiflex "MX-EVS" from my local photo shop. I was amazed by the quality! So I started to buy more Rolleis, and then other classic cameras. Felt good to get back to basics and use my brain instead of the computer chips in modern cameras.

[DWScott]

I love the look of the pictures. The lenses impart a different feel, what with the lack of coating, much less elements, etc.

 

Also, I find people are quite warmly receptive of having their photo taken with a classic camera...<div></div>

[lauren_macintosh]

Many a person will stop and look at what your use-ing to take a Picture, When I am out and about with my Zeiss Ikon contessa with its pantar lens'es ,some just look a few asked when the 75mm is on the contessa: Besides its fun to use and it makes you think and work to get that foto right:

[john_robison3]

Well Andy, you sure opened the floodgates of nostalgia! For me I guess its that their pretty, make nice noises when they operate and you know when they are in your hand(weight). Now about "pretty", I know that form follows function, but, not all classic cameras are pretty. The bulls-eye Contaflex is butt ugly IMO. However many are just lovely examples of clean efficient design. For nice noises, well, the sound of a slow speed escapement timing out a 1/2 second speed.....need I say more. And weight, even my little Mamiya 16 super feels like a solid chunk of steel in my hand. Oh, and the interface with the operator. Most of my old cameras have a shutter dial(or ring), an aperture ring and focus, and thats it as far as setting to adjust before pressing the release. If I want to shoot fast SS-aperture-focus are preset as soon as I step onto the street. The lack of an easy, logical interface is what has prevented me from purchasing any DSLR to date. Pushing buttons and going through menus to find basic exposure controls....well to this old man its just not done that way. Life is very busy and I still work full time. This has prevented me from getting into the darkroom as much as I'd like. Still about once a month I set up and knock off a print or two. It's usually after midnight when I hit the sack, but it feels so good when I try to put what my mind sees onto a wet process print. Now know this, I fail more often than not to get just what I want but, I keep a goodly supply of film and paper and chems so, there will be another time.

[walter_degroot]

the philosophy of manufacturing and the lack of skilled workmen

( women) and the cost of labor and manufacturing has changed everything.

my son just rebuilt his 1987 truck to add newer parts, the truck is computer controlled. the level of knowlege and detail involved is beyond me.

my 1952 car was based on a totally different philosophy ( if you can call it that)( just a few springs)

 

everything has changed, the world has changed, it may be us ( mainly older folks) who have not changed as rapidly.

Many of us and many still in their 20's love older things including clasic cameras.

personally, I think the newer cameras often look like silly toys.

I and others might be embarrassed to be seen talking pictures with such a thing.

[minhnguyen9113]

When I use a digital camera I want more pixels, but when I use a classic or vintage camera I want something new from an old-time machine. If I can bring it back to the future and offer it a new life to serve.

[JDMvW]

From the responses, it's VERY clear that nostalgia plays a huge role in camera collecting. The chance is there to get all the stuff you couldn't afford back when. The chance to go back in time to a 'simpler' day. usw

 

In my case (back to the couch), I was always 'anal-retentive' in couch-speak--it's a career necessity for archaeologists, after all. I had sold off some of my old camera gear as I moved from one system (Pentax-Praktica) to another (Nikon), and always missed the clunkers that I had had. When I went digital, I switched from Nikon equipment to Canon. Adapters let me use my older Nikkor lenses on the Canon, so I ended up looking on eBay. To cut to the chase, I found that there were Prakticas for sale there, and I had missed my old Praktica FX...

Much later, I now have a representative collection of DDR SLRs! Of course, as a cheap bastid, one additional attraction of these cameras is that most of them actually cost very little, but most still work after 50 years! I stand in awe of VEB Pentacon and its workers, trying to produce quality cameras under social conditions where production goals almost exclusively emphasized quantity.

 

There's also an aesthetic side to these mechanical cameras. Like a fine Swiss watch, they are intricate machines and beautiful in that way. I think the most handsome SLRs ever made are the Contax S, the Asahi Pentax S2, and the Nikon F. Now I have them all :) !

[summitar]

I have really enjoyed the comments so far. I studied mechanical engineering in the 50s. In those days, before the solid state electronics, many things were still made with gears and cams and 4-bar linkages, and doing so effectively and reliably was an art. I use to thrill at the sight of a steam locomotive in those days, with linkages going every which way, all with its designed purpose. Well made mechanical devices seem to last forever. Barnack was an artist. So was John M. Browning, who designed most firearms you can think of, including the 45 cal government pistol. His auto-5 shotgun used only springs, and was in production for 95 years (I own one). These guy knew how to do things right. As a youth, when I wanted to learn about things, I went to the public library. Who could afford books? I used to pour over the Leica manuals of the 40s. The Leica on the dust jacket, a IIIc, was just about the neatest thing I had ever seen. It took another 50 years before I could get one, and it is still beautiful. I now own 7 Leicas. Obviously, there is genius in the digital revolution, but it is more hidden than the readily apparent design and workmanship of the old mechanical masterpieces.

[sw12dz]

Not much I can add, so I'll just have to say, "all of the above"!

[don_mckeith]

well, you asked---

 

"The Evolution of Progress"

 

 

"I will not venture a generalization one way or the other about our

being a materialistic people, but I do think Lukacs' remark reflects a

misunderstanding of materialism. To value possessions and the permanence

of things is not to be materialistic. Rather, it is to recognize

something more than mere materiality in the things. It is to receive

the material object as a bearer of meaning and value, which suggests

that the object is not really material in its essence. The true sign

of materialism, I would argue, is the disregard of material things;

they become mere interchangeable gadgets precisely because, on the

materialistic view, they can hold no value, no inner significance".

 

---SLT

 

read the whole thing

 

http://netfuture.org/2002/Sep2602_136.html

[Andy Collins]

Re: "The Evolution of Progress"

 

That does seem to get at a lot of what many of us have been trying to say, in so many words. I am enjoying reading everyone's responses immensely, as they are very personal, expressive, and meaningful. I hope to read more...

[sitemistic]

Cause I used most of 'em when they were new :)

[lee_shively]

I like history. I like photography.

[dimitri_kalakanis3]

Because I can honestly say that I am younger than my camera!