which classic camera to pose with a nude model?

[tim_drake]

<p>Konica T2</p>

[canfred]

<p>A Minox I would have thought this choice is clear.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I would use the Canon EF, it must be one of the sexiest manual cameras ever made.</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Thanks to Tom S. for his appreciative 'wow' regarding my Flickr Pages. I actually have a lot of stuff still not yet photographed and written up, including a recently acquired early Futura-S with that amazing F1.5 Frilon. So many cameras, so little time, so much pain from my gouty left foot, etc, etc ...</p>

<p>Getting back to Mirandas and that 1957-ish Hal Reiff advert for the Miranda A with the reclining lady, I ran the price of $259.95 through my 'Inflation Calculator'. In 2007 CPI-adjusted values, there's not much change out of $2,000, BION! Comparison with the yardstick of the Exakta VX/Varex with F2 Biotar is interesting, with it being the Bee's Knees of 35mm system SLRs around 1957 - it cost all of $392. Another interesting cost comparison is with the original Miranda Sensorex, which cost in 1968 around that same $260 as the unmetered Miranda A had over 10 years before. So Miranda prices had in effect gone down.</p>

<p>Sorry, no more Hal Reiff Miranda ads to post but lastly, before anybody asks the customary inevitable question - no, I'm not (knowlingly) related to the late Thurman Naylor. (Pete In Perth) </p>

[marc_rochkind]

To everyone who didn't say "Miranda": What planet are you from? ;-)

 

--Marc

[sg_adams]

<p>Planet Gong of course. <br>

But when on Earth, we call it something else, we used to use Graflex Graphic cameras. That was a long time ago. <br>

But, using one of those old press cameras with the big flash might be sexy for a sort of vintage set, look, and appeal. <br>

Gong approves. </p>

[jeffpolaski]

<p>No model will take his or her clothes off for anything less than a studio Linhoff.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I vote for the Konica Autoreflex T2 (or T3).</p>

[john_layton]

<p>Of the cameras listed: the Canon VL. Not listed: Rolleiflex 2.8F (prefer to shoot with a 3.5, but love the look of those big twin lenses!)</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Hi, Brian No, although I've been given a few slaps before for posting some maybe non-PC comments about the Hiroshima bombing. Although at the time I was a bit p'd off, perhaps in hindsight the Admin guys were quite correct too, since the post thread was getting into some dangerous political territory, way out of the span of this Forum. I've also been cautioned about using a few typically Australian vernacular adjectives which are acceptable here, but maybe not in some parts of the world. I don't object to that either, because we're posting stuff on a world stage here and what's OK for Oz may not be for Oklahoma, etc, etc ....</p>

<p>Regarding those Hal Reiff Miranda ads, I reckon they have to be considered as totally on-topic as they were published in many photographic magazines round the world in the 50s and 60s. OK, so at the time they might have been considered slightly risque, but they did far more than I realised to boost Miranda sales in retrospect. 50 years down the line, there's surely much more naughty stuff on the TV every night - well here in Oz anyway. </p>

<p>BTW - thanks for starting such an interesting thread, mate. I've greatly enjoyed the banter! (Pete In Perth) </p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>OK, so just for the hell of it, here's a 1960-ish ad from Hal Reiff for the Miranda C. Note now that the 'Avengers' influence has been introduced, with the John Steed lookalike cum bowler-and-brolly.<br>

Note also that the price of the Miranda C is $280, a $20 hike from the $260 that the Miranda A cost three years before. However, you now got both an instant return mirror and a self-timer for that extra twenty bucks. Still no inbuilt metering, though the Automex 1 was now available with selenium metering - but for a hell of lot more dosh. (Pete In Perth) </p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Oops! Here's the scan of the ad .............</p><div></div>

[chris_burgess3]

<p>Models today are generally too starved and skinny, so make it a smaller, lighter camera, the poor thing at least will be able to hold it.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Mr. Naylor, that is some collection. And I didn't know until I visited your flickr page that you have an extensive collection of other camera makes as well.</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Thanks, Dan, for the kudos regarding my collection. There's still a lot of photographing cameras to do yet, such as a shot of my entire Miranda collection along with relevant stuff like IBs for a backdrop. Unfortunately I'm not too mobile at the moment thanks to a gouty foot, but I will get around to it one day. (Pete In Perth) </p>

[starvy]

<p>if we are talking small slr bodies, the olympus om series. generally, any leica!</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>OK, Mr. Grossman, isn't it about time you shut down this thread by posting the results of your decision? ;)</p>