You MUST try this camera...

[john_robison3]

Olympus Pen F, not the FT or FV, they have a microprism patch at the center of the screen, the Pen F uses a plain matte focusing screen, my favorite. Next I'd agree with Mr. Demsey. A common OM-1n, with a #10 screen, matte with grid lines.

 

Can anyone tell I'm hung up on screens? They make or break SLR viewing.

[silverscape]

I love my Argus cameras...but I have to say, I think my Yashica A is definitely becoming my favorite. It took me a while to get used to the viewing screen and how everything is reversed, but I love it now. It really helps with framing pictures and I'm really starting to like the square composition. Even though you only get 12 exposures, that doesn't bother me that much. I just have to try to really make them count :)

 

Also, I like TLR's (this is the first one I've used) because they just look so...different. It looks more like a movie camera. It just looks like a "serious" camera for taking photographs.

 

But for someone who had never used a manual camera before, I would still loan them my Argus C3 to practice with. That was the first completely manual camera I used and what I learned with. It has plenty of aperture and shutter speed options and I like that's so simple and rugged. I respect it as an antique, but I feel like I couldn't break that thing even if I tried. I bet I could drop it and as long as it didn't hit the lens nothing would happen. If I dropped my digital camera, it would probably break into a hundred plastic pieces.

[dan_fromm2]

Hmm. The original question was "If you were to say this to someone, referring to the camera you feel most completely allows you to most passionately express your photographic creativity, which camera would it be?"

 

None. Some get in the way more, others get in the way less. But none of them has much to do with how I see, and that's where photographic creativity lies.

 

Fixed lens cameras, that have just ) the normal (usually) lens for their format seem very limiting to me. I can't understand the enthusiasm they arouse. Its real, but the cameras leave me cold.

 

Automatic cameras with few or no manual controls frustrate me. A Canon AF35ML has been a lifesaver, but I've never liked using it because all that communicates to the user is the zone of focus and, sometimes, that its dark out there. This last usually means "take the lens cap off, dummy." I once bought a Yashica GSN to see what all the fuss about and was horrified to learn, after I had it in hand, that it didn't offer manual control of exposure. My 310XLs (yes, plural) have produced outstanding footage for me, but they can't be focused through the lens and all they say about exposure is "in the red/not in the red." Arrgh!!! at all of them.

 

Lenses are another matter. For me, the 6-66/1.8 and 6-70/1.4 Schneider zooms on my Beaulieus were wonderfully liberating because they went to 6 mm. My alternatives (on a variety of Canons and a Fujica 7-75 zoom that fit the Beaulieus) weren't short enough. Shooting a 38/4.5 Biogon on 2x3, which it absolutely positively doesn't cover, has also been liberating.

 

Chris, I find it amazing that anyone likes the C3. My father had one when I was young, tried to teach me how to use it. Its controls were a little stiff and the knurled (is that the right word) wheels hurt my little fingers, so I found my father's prize detestable. Still do.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[zhengs photos]

I would certainly recommend anyone to try the Voigtlander Vitessa 35mm folding rangefinder camera: the overall quality of engineering and design, the pop-out of barn doors, the coffee plunger advance/shutter cocking, and the wonderfully 3-Dimensional color photos from the Ultron 50/2 lens. If only the viewfinder is as big and bright as a Bessa R!

[david_m]

Any camera can take great shots in the hands of a competent photographer. It comes down to ergonomics and being comfortable in its use - which is unlikely to happen when 'trying out' someone elses favorite camera. I'd go for a lens more than a camera. My favorite lens is the 85mm Takumar. I've taken more great shots with it - but maybe that's because I use it the most often.

[anthony_brookes5]

Contarex - for the sheer quality of the engineering and sharpness of the lenses. Nothing since has matched it for sheer excellence. It was so good it broke the Company.

[dan_fromm2]

Anthony, one of my neighbors collects Zeiss cameras and lenses, has quite an extensive Contarex kit. When he shoots 35 mm he uses an Aria. What do you know that he doesn't?

[anthony_brookes5]

Dan - The Contarex is incredibly heavy and the lenses likewise. Personal choice is for shooting. I have a Contarex with 50mm Planar and its magnificent and the results are superb. With its bomb proof hard leather case it's enormous. I can understand your friend using an Aria for convenience. Great pictures are taken by great photographers not great cameras. I wish I had the full Contarex outfit but the prices are staggering.

[alex macphee]

Perhaps it's caution and prudence. A Contarex is expensive, and hard to replace. An Aria with a Planar will be an

awe-inspiring performer, but can more easily and affordably be replaced than would be the case were some mischief

or mischance to befall the Contarex.

 

I remember a trip to Budapest some years ago, when I had all my Contax kit in a bag over my shoulder, which had

cost me more than I like to admit to (just in case my wife happens to read this forum, as I've never actually

confessed). I was approached by a smartly dressed gentleman who asked if I needed directions. To cut the story

short, I realised I and my wife were being lined up for a robbery by him and an accomplice he'd signalled, having

marshalled us to the edge of the entrance to the underground. Once I realised what was happening, I grabbed my

wife and made off. But we'd have been robbed of everything, including thousands of pounds worth of Contax kit.

These days, I'm far more cautious about what I take out, and what I reckon I can risk losing and replacing.

[dan_fromm2]

Anthony, thanks for the explanation. Alex, thanks for the other explanation.

 

I did once ask Mr. Barringer why he didn't use his Contarexes. The substance of his explanation was weight and ergonomics. As well all know but tend to forget when advising strangers which camera to buy/use, ergonomics is intensely personal.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[cblkdog]

After reading all the other answers, I give up. I was going to say a Minolta HiMatic 7s, my first real camera. Then either a Nikon F or F2 or a Canon T90 or my Rolleiflex T but I can't make up my mind. They are all great choices. I still want to get a Hasselblad and a Fujica folder and a....

[ned1]

Whenever I pick up my Nikon F3 with the sports finder an can feel a thrill run through me. I don't get that with my 501cm or any DSLR. There's just something magical about that finder.

[james_ollinger]

A Stereo Kodak. I love stereo cameras, and when I hand someone a pack of stereo slides and a lightweight viewer, I nearly always get smiles and amazement.