If you had to pick only one...

[vivek iyer]

Dan, I am still perplexed as to why you would think that I will be mounting lenses that aren't very useful with that camera?

 

It would be most useful as a camera for macro work and close-ups.

 

I plan to pick up a MF bellows (Mamiya, Bronica, etc- modify it to allow for a filmback)that would let me do half of what the Kennedy would and use it in a similar fashion.

 

This has its advantages over the larger format cameras.

[dan_fromm2]

Vivek, using a view camera for closeup work requires static subjects. With static subjects one usually has full control of the subject's position, orientation, etc.

 

Where view cameras shine over cameras with fixed fronts and rears -- practically speaking, that includes my Graphics -- is in their ability to make the plane of best focus not parallel to the film plane. This is very useful when shooting, e.g., landscapes and the, um, world can't easily be rearranged. But for most situations -- there are exceptions, IIRC, the 10th edition of Graphic Graflex Photography's view camera section shows a shot that could have been made only with a view camera and could not have been achieved by reorienting the subject -- reorienting the subject will get the desired result.

 

Yes, a Monobar is probably more useful for closeup work than for shooting scenics. And shooting closeup with even a fairly short lens will extend the bellows far enough that it won't limit the movements possible. At distance with a short lens, however, the bellows is pretty compressed and this is restrictive.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[patrick j dempsey]

OM1... hey they were DESIGNING it before 1970!

[cj_bas]

My 4x5 Crown Graphis w/135 f:4.7 Xenar. I know it's not rare, probably not even 'collectable'. But it sure is usable. Slow in getting ready to shoot, of course, but not much slower than any other camera of its period. Once the exposure is set, fhr film ready and in place, and the focus set, it shoots as fast as any modern fully automatic 35. But, good lord, what a negative.

 

I paid about $140 for it about 30 years ago and have never regreted the purchase. Any modern hand held 4x5 camera would run 10x that.

 

My second choice would be my century old 8x10 Agfa-Ansco (yep, chery and brass). I started to sell it a few years ago but my bro-in-law so vociferously objected that I changed my mind. He was right in that, had I sold it, I'd never have such a camera again.

[richard_oleson]

If I had to choose only one camera out of all the 'collectibles' and users, it would be an OM1.

 

but i'd probably try to hide the rest in my luggage somewhere

[summitar]

I went berserk in the last few years and I have too many cameras, mostly all 35mm plus digital. If my main emphases were imagery and convenience, especially on trips involving air travel, I would select my Canon A620 digital. 7.1 megs, long lived lithium AA batteries, about 700 photo capacity on a 2 gig SD card, zoom 35-140mm, about the size of a pack of cigarettes, and IQ sufficent to make excellent 12 by 18 inch prints. Excuse my heresy. If I wanted best film camera, I would go with my Nikon F100. If classic film, Leica M3. If classic film with meter, Retina IIIC (big C). If cheap film camera, Konica auto S2 or Vito B.

[glenn_mabbutt]

For practicality combined with image quality it would be a toss-up between the Konica Auto S2 and the Olympus 35RC for me right now - mostly because they both have great image quality plus integrated meters.

 

I'm also fond of the Agfa Isolette III folder I've got (refurbished), but due to lack of meter and uncoupled rangefinder it's more manual than the other 2 mentioned.

 

That may change, though - I've just bought a Flexaret VI and am looking forward to trying medium format with a waist-level finder (why can't Slovakia be closer to Canada so I can try this faster? :p )

[Brian]

I don't want to turn this into an Oly 35RC thread, but, yes, I have a feeling that would be the one. Specification wise it's not an outstanding camera but it does its thing very nicely and quietly and is a pleasure to hold (this counts for quite a lot). Surprisingly for such a small camera my fingers don't seem to get in the way of anything.

[steve salmons]

None of them!!!<br>

I would die in the house fire trying to make a final decision<br>

Steve

[riccardo_mottola]

Tough. But probably the Rollefilex SL66.

Or if I am allowed two cameras, the Leica + the Baby super technika.

[manh_le]

Rolleiflex :)

[dennis_w3]

I could only answer for my 1960s Topcon Super D; with its interchangable prisms, screens, and backs, superb lenses, meter in the body, and silky operation, it does everything a Nikon F or Canon F1 do, only better (IMHO, guys). Absolutely wonderful instruments.

 

For medium format, the delightful Voigtlander Perkeo II with Color Skopar in a Compur.

[mharris]

Easy, my M3

[shadowfox]

this one... having to choose from <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mastaka/sets/72157594446654439/">these</a>

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/915808826_075037c7b2.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="They don't make them like this anymore..." /></a>

[classcamera]

Oh, this is a very easy question! I would take my Contax IIa Black dial. The Contax is just about the best built camera ever made,so it will last for years. I have a bunch of lenses ranging from 21mm to 135, and best of all it looks great around my neck.

 

Mark

[summitar]

for dennis w,

When I was stationed in vietnam in the mid 60s, I was anxious to buy my first 35mm camera. A friend of mine, who intended to become a professional photographer after getting out of the service, showed me his two 35mm slr's, a topcon super D and a canon pellix. He went on and on how superior the build and performance of the topcon was. As it turns out, the price of either was too exhorbitant for me (in the $125 range with lens), so I settled on a konica auto s2 for $35. Almost a year later, I bought a canon ft-ql with f1.8 50 mm lens for $65 brand new and had no complaints about build of performance.

[a_e_daly]

You people have WAY too many cameras :) Some really nice ones here. Thanks to Susan M. and others who've posted links to their collections - enviable and beautiful. While there are a few I'd want to pick for nostalgic or sentimental reasons (Zorki 4k, my rookie camera; Canon AV-1, first "proper" SLR; Zenit 3M or Yashica 635 for aesthetics alone), if it's down to picture quality and usage I have to go with the Olympus 35RC as well. It consistently gives the best pictures (crisp, contrasty, textured) of all my cameras and has nearly as much flexibility as a good SLR with 1 favourite lens. That Zuiko lens outdoes all my other lenses combined, and is the main reason why, when I take one camera, that's the one. I'm at the stage where I think I ought to buy another RC, just for backup.

 

This is another of those unintended shopping-list threads...

[Andy Collins]

"I'm at the stage where I think I ought to buy another RC, just for backup."

 

I did just that and scored the one in the picture above, complete with the rare 43.5mm filter, lens hood, cap, Olympus hot-shoe cover, and mint condition. My 'user' RC is in near-mint condition and has a permanent place in my camera bag. You're right about the unintended shopping-list threads...

[dennis_w3]

For Kerry Kennedy--I used a Canon F1 for a couple of years when a friend who works in the police garage gave me one that had been released from the evidence room. He found it at the bottom of a dumpster when they threw a lot of electronics and photo equipment away. That camera had been beaten to death and was wet when I got it. I dried it in a 200 degree oven, bought a 50 1.8 FD on Ebay for $20, stuck a new battery in the thing and off we went. Took great photos, looked good, metered great, etc. and was built like a Mack truck. I don't know about the Pellix, but if it was anything like the F1, it would have been a fabulous machine. But I've had Topcons for 35 years, they're just extensions of my eyes and hands now.

[summitar]

For dennis w.,

 

After re-reading my post, on the topcon, I can see where it could be misunderstood. I handled my friends topcon and canon pellix, and I could feel what he meant. The topcon was a fantastic camera. The canon pellix did indeed feel less substantial. If I had the bucks, at the time, I would have gone with the topcon super-d. Shortly thereafter, there were articles in modern photography that did not think much of the pellix concept. I wish topcon had done a better job of marketing. Everyone I have ever known who has used a topcon super-d was enthusiastic about it. It is a great camera.

[mike_gillespie]

My Contarex bullseye with 3 lenses, had since l966, if medium format my Voigtlander Bessa II with Heliar, have never seen sharper images, all said i still do most shooting with various Leicas, Ms and sms

[don_e]

Pentax Spotmatic, 50mm 1.4 Super Takumar, a lot of TX, and a bag of PX400s because the needle meter is the key element of the Spotmatic Mystique 8-)

[tim_huggins]

I'll see your 35RC and raise you a svelte black Pen FT with a 38MM, f2.8 pancake lens (I assume we're limited to one lens). It is easy to understand those who named the OM-1, but this is the "Classic camera" forum (The OM-1 is just timeless!).

[tim_drake]

<p>Since the Pentax 67II probably does not classify as vintage quite yet, I would call my Rapid Omega 200 with the 58mm lens as my vintage camera of choice.</p>

[andylynn]

I'd have to go with the one that best combines classicness and usefulness - Minolta XD-11. You get a great looking, compact SLR with an excellent finder, quality shutter, takes alkaline batteries, great meter and huge line of glass.