How classic is classic?

[razondetre]

Now that digital is in and film is, let's say, a curiosity to new photographers how do we define a classic camera?

Where do we draw the line? Is it a camera built 50 years ago? 30 years? Is an Eos 650 or Maxxum 7000

considered classic? Or is it anything that uses film? The compass is spinning. Which way is up?

 

I hear people talk nostalgically of their Pentax K1000 or Nikon F3 and, for me, I don't get it. These are "new"

cameras in my mind. So, answering my own question, I guess it is the camera(s) of our youth or when we were

introduced to photography. But, let's say, from a photo magazine editor's point of view or museum curator's where

would they draw the line?

 

Don't know how many of you read about the classic camera show in Japan. Mostly young people are coming in

buying "grandfather's camera". Many of the older buyers are "disappearing" more and more each year leaving the

collectible market to the youths who do not value classic cameras in the same way as their elders. Some classics

us "old guys" would love are not interesting to the younger collector.

 

An interesting sentiment from all those younger collectors was that digital cameras are tools to use like a pen or

laptop but film cameras were something of substance, lasting precision and are "real". Amazingly I feel the same

way and was surprised to see others are believing equally.

 

But, ok, who has the first Sony Mavica from 1978 with 150 x 320 resolution? Is that a classic collectable? Let's

see. Weren't they $10,000. or something like that? I remember seeing that in a Popular Electronics magazine and

wondering who would want to use something like that.

[gene m]

I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

[tibz]

One that people will stare at you when you hold it and scratch their heads and ask "is that a hasselblad?"

 

I'd say no. The mavica is a relic. I'd say classic cameras have to have some functionality as cameras, like old kodak retinas. They should be fairly manual, though I've seen autoexposure in a $5 from 1975 so it's not a firm line.

[joshroot]

No digital.

 

No AF.

 

Aside from a few exceptions, no electronics.

 

We've been through this before. No reason to revisit the issue. The forum is working just fine as is.

[sg_adams]

Use your best judgement.

I have two Japanese built K1000's and to me it is a much different experience using one of those as compared my later full auto Nikon equipment set to manual. Just not the same at all, which upholds what Gene suggests. One will know. The Nikon is still all electronic buttons, switches and has to have a good battery to run. Not so K1000.

But I am still hesitant to post images made with the old Pentax cameras and lenses. Last year I had one of the Pentax cameras down at a party in the marina and got a number of comments that I am more used to getting with my refurbished Graphic press cameras.

[walter_degroot]

Gene M has it right.

But in every generation both 35mm MF and even digital

there were rreally usable cameras and some that were.. shall we say inferior or just plain junk?

if you are usin one of the better cameras that is capable of respetible results

it can be a classic.

this may include some pretty basic models. Like the olders arguses

and some of the pony's

but maybe not the box-type ( plastic or wood models)

the 16 exp 127 " candid" cameras were close to being toys.

the hit style cameras were toys as well as junk.

 

as time passes and we seem some of the early digital cameras, Like the agfa 1280

( 1.2 mp and an 8 meg card maximum. decent photos but fairly low resolution.

we used it for ebay photos and it worked well. It is possibly a classic.

 

Kodak made a lot of toys that surprisingly made many acceptible photos.

I don't think they ever will be classics. collectibe? maybe.

 

My mirandas? very capable and dependable cameras. But i don't think they are really classics..

 

" when you see one you know it?

see josh, I did include a digicam.

[joshroot]

<blockquote>" when you see one you know it? see josh, I did include a digicam.</blockquote>

<p>

I didn't say anything about knowing one when you see it. Perhaps you are thinking of Gene M.

<p>

Digital isn't "classic" in terms of this forum at the moment. Try again in a few years.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Just use a log scale and let the Polaroid swinger be zero dB.

[kymtman]

Classic? Its a Bronica S2A, Hassy 500, Mamiya RB67, Leica M3, Ikonta, Contax III, Kodak Retina and a few others that delivers extremely sharp images on a variety of substrates. I shoot digital, but I prefer film anytime. You get quality products from a $350 camera that will cost $20,000 in digital to achieve. I don't have the later.

As long as us O'folks are around so will be film, although we are loosing some choices now an then.

[mark_medin]

I always put it like this: A classic camera is one that can give you a good, enlargeable image on media that will

last at least 50 years (film is the only media that does this now), and will let you set focus and exposure

manually. Get back to me when those pieces of consumer electronics called digital cameras can do the same.

Switching from one type of storage media to another to keep images readable isn't something one has to think

about with film, either. For one thing that we get (convenience) we have lost near-permanence. Gene's found film

won't ever happen with a found xD photo card fifty/sixty years from now. Even the thumb drive may be considered

quaint in 20 years, and hard to find a reader for. I have postcard images of my father taken with a Kodak 3A that

are still as nice as when they were taken in 1921. Similarly, I have a few 40+ year old color prints of my

elementary school class. Digital is useful for many things, but I don't see any great advantages and many

disadvantages. Enough to never consider them classic.

[don_e]

"...how do we define a classic camera?"

 

The name of the forum is Classic Manual Cameras. It should be fairly clear what our definition is. There may be

other kinds of classic cameras, but we're on about classic manual cameras.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The classic forum was set to a date before the year ABCD; and not all cameras were classics; many were average; many were considered royal turds; basically crap when they were new. Thus a Firestone 500 would be considered a classic car tire? or a Nikkorex-F that had a poor shutter; or the scads of early auto expoure cameras that were never fixed and went into junk piles.

[richard_oleson]

Obviously the definition will continue to evolve over time. I think there has to be something about it that represents a different time, so when our current crop of DSLRs are relics they may become classics in the bargain. Some things never become classics (I think the Polaroid Swinger was mentioned, I'd put that in this group), though they may represent a past time and technology, while a few others (screwmount Leicas, Olympus Pen F and Nikon F SLRs) seem to be classics while still in production... in this respect I think there is a sense of perceived quality and gravitas that enters the definition. But in the end it is a very subjective thing, your classic may be my junker and vice versa. Personally, one reason why I have a hard time including any digitals is because the early ones that I've used were pretty poor cameras and not very satisfying either as functional sculpture/jewelry or as photographic tools. Something that is both old and good fits the bill best.

[rick_drawbridge]

Maybe it's just an inappropriate word to apply to cameras. The Cambridge dictionary defines "classic", (in a relevant context) as "having a high quality or standard against which other things are judged", and "having all the characteristics or qualities that you expect". As Gene said, you "know" these qualities when you come across them, but it's never a case of apples against apples, and I don't think it pays to get too picky, or attempt to apply precise definitions. Once a type of camera has gone out of production and recedes into a past era, I guess it may, in retrospect, have certain qualities which lift it above it's contemporaries and elevate it to the rank of a "classic" of it's kind. I attach a pic of perhaps such a camera, but it certainly doesn't belong in this forum. Perhaps we should start a forum for Classic Cameras (full stop).<div></div>

[walter_degroot]

no josh I knew the copmment " you know when you see one

"

was gene M's classic comment. he is a classic ( sorry gene)

but don';t think the discuusion is another digital / film thread.

despite a few references to the "dark side"

it is a camera discuusion

mainly aluminum covered with leather and chrome trim and some visible screws.

 

when you get older as I am, the classic cars are often remembered as crappy cars

that somehow did not get used up or allowed to rust away. they were bad cars when new.

 

 

on a pesonal note: I was embarrased when I saw a grown up person with a dinky plastic thing

trying to take serious pictures.

at least the new "dinky little plastic things" have some smarts built in.

[alan_rockwood]

So, would a Konica Autoreflex or Autoreflex T qualify?

[cliffmanley]

A Classic Camera:

 

*It has a manual shutter and lens on the front of a bellows, or has a focal plane shutter at the rear of a bellows.

 

*It may or may not fold.

 

*It will be a delight to look at it's beautiful wood construction or fine brass, nickle silver, or chrome fittings with the finest leather coverings.

 

*It will be of such an age that you will marvel at the fine hand craftmanship that went into building it.

 

*It will use roll or sheet film or glass plates to forever record creative or historic moments in time.

 

* It will be easy to understand and maintain by the user/photographer, to keep it in a working condition.

 

(this is a typical classic camera, there may be other variations.)

 

A Manual Camera:

 

Anything that records an image, that needs human intervention (ie: pushing the button with your finger)

[cliffmanley]

On the other end:

Machine or computer made, CNC made, Die Cast parts, Plastic parts, any surface mount electronics, high tech batteries, etc. all point to modern cameras and to me are not classics even if they use film and require human intervention to manually push the button.

[charles_stobbs3]

My definition would be any camera (or other product) that gave good value for for the money, whether cheap or expensive. Thus some of the Brownies would be classics but not the Ektra, the model T Ford but not a Cadiillac or Packard of the same era. IMHO

[sg_adams]

Cliff,

you mean something like this?<div></div>

[charles_stobbs3]

I wouldn't arbitrarily rule out plastic. My oldest camera is a (plastic) Kodak Bullet from the 1940's. The lens mount threads are perect and it screws in and out nicely, Some of its metal parts are tarnished. Recently I handled a Kodak 35RF and a Kodak 35. Their bodies were still as new (no lifting leatherette or flaking vulcanite). And isn't an Olympus Stylus Epic a modern classic (auto focus, auto exposure, plastic)?

[cliffmanley]

Exactly S.G. That's what I'm talking about. What wonderful craftsmanship. Just the sight of such a camera brings a smile and desire to treasure it forever as a piece of artistic extention of the makers hands. The hand labor in that camera is a fine example of what the big money grabing corporations cannot produce today. A camera like that and others, were not affordable to many, but there are lots of lesser examples that had the same hand made qualities all the way through the rangefinder era.

 

When I mentioned it had a bellows, I'm not alone in this thinking. Just look at the new Fuji that is expected to hit the market. They wanted to make a modern camera that " Looked Classic" so we will see the new Voigtlander Bessa III. but even this, it seems, few will be able to afford.

[chuck_foreman1]

Yeah..Gene!

[nickc1]

I know it is not quite addressing the question, but many cameras are called classics - but only because not many were made. Why were not many made?, because not many people wanted to buy them in the first place, or they were just not up to the job they set out to do. I'm not talking about serious limited production cameras here, but, to give an example, the Rheinmetall EXAs are rare, and prized by collectors for that rarity, but the only reason that they are rare is because the quality was not up to what Ihagee wanted, so they stopped production. Are they rare - yes, are they classics, - no, probably not as much as an 'ordinary' EXA (and you need to make up your own mind there I'm afraid)

 

My definition of a classic must be entirely personal - and it is a camera that I feel 'drew a line in the sand' in some way, and my own list includes, amongst many others, both the Argus c3 as the camera that sold Kodachrome to millions and the Hasselblad V series. Different build quality and image quality, certainly, but both classics in their own way.

[nickc1]

As an addendum to the above, I am only trying to suggest what I personally consider to be a classic camera (which may indeed include digicams), and not suggest any alteration to the content of this forum.

 

IMHO, after the recent slight change the forum aim seems about right to encourge useful discussion without too wide a spread of subject matter.