vintage cameras

[craveprints]

<p>so i found this old sx 70 polaroid land camera, that seems to be way broken, at a flea market and bought it for 5 bucks thinking i could use it as a book end since it won't work anyway. after that my loving boyfriend stumbled across 2 other cameras as he was helping clean out his grandmother's basement and asked if i could have them... one is a kodak motormatic 35mm camera with a ekantar lens and a kodalite midget flash holder and it has a few extra flash bulbs directions on use and a carrying case (which i am fairly certain is not real leather) the camera appears to be operational and i will be trying it out after i go out and buy some film... he also brought me a vintage canon at-1 with a 50mm lens which also appears to be in good working condition albeit being in desperate need of a good cleaning.... that said i know absolutely nothing about vintage cameras and before investing money to get them cleaned and to make sure they are up and running i was wondering if anyone on here knew roughly how much they would be worth; im not interested in selling them but i am debating on using them or just keeping them on my bookshelf... any insight on the matter would be greatly appreciated... <br>

cheers- ac</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>None of them is worth very much. Run a roll of film through them and see if they're working ok. If so, maybe you can clean them up yourself and have at it.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Amanda<br>

Take care! Get rid of them now! You are displaying the early symptoms of a condition which affects many of us. It is called being a cameraholic. It is invariably fatal, but fortunately not at all serious.</p>

[gabor_szabo3]

<p>I just cleaned up a Motormatic for display ( there's something wrong with shutter linckage; won't fire as of yet...). It isn't worth much, even in working condition.</p>

<p>If your Kodak appears to be functioning, you can view the manual on-line :<br>

<a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_motormatic_35/kodak_motormatic_35.htm">http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_motormatic_35/kodak_motormatic_35.htm</a><br>

(please donate a few bucks to Mr. Butkus if you download the manual; his site is an invaluable resource for all of us )<br>

If you have the SLR version of the Polaroid SX-70, it's probably worth a few good dollars even for parts. Clean working examples have been selling for over $100 . </p>

<p> </p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Amanda - the Canon AT-1 is an excellent and fun shooter, a lower-end model from the 70s but solidly built and capable of excellent results. See the recent thread <a href="../canon-fd-camera-forum/00YP7U">here</a> from the Canon FD forum ("FD" refers to the Canon manual focus lens mounts which immediately preceded the current auto-focus EF mounts). Not sure which 50mm lens you have there, I'm guessing its the 50mm f1.8 which is the most commonly found Canon FD mount lens. However whether its the 50 1.8, 1.4 or (unlikely) the 1.2, you have a very sharp lens on your hands.</p>

<p>As Frank said, you're not going to get much money selling the AT-1. You're more likely to get pleasure out of shooting it. The advantage of the using the Canon FD system is that prices for lenses are generally quite low since they are not compatible with Canon's auto-focus bodies (that said prices have been going up IMHO since Micro 4/3 cameras have started to become more popular). You'll be astounded at what these old manual focus lenses can do.</p>

<p>If you do decide to use the AT-1, please visit us again here or in the Canon FD forum and post up some pics.</p>

<p>P.S. If you want someone to service your AT-1 (not an economic decision given how cheap those cameras are) look no further than Mr. Ken Oikawa in California. He used to be a Canon factory tech.</p>

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>My best advice for classic cameras: get on Epay. If your camera's value is = or more than $100 US in it's current condition, sell it and buy more cheap cameras. If it's current value is less than $100, shoot it, tinker with it, take it apart and try to put it back together, etc. Looks like you have some cool cameras, none of them are very valuable. Have fun, don't worry, buy yourself some Q-tips and tiny little screwdrivers.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The Motormatic is not worth very much, and its dependency on an aging meter makes it a bit iffy, but if the meter and winder still work, it's a capable curiosity that can make good pictures. There's a good chance that if you go out shooting with one it will be the only one anyone you meet has ever seen. If this sort of stuff appeals to you, you might also find that when you aim a thing like that at people, you get good photogenic smiles! </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>A bit more about the Canon AT-1:It is the only A-series Canon without any exposure automation. It is a purely manual exposure camera, and in that respect it is also the only A-series Canon with a fully coupled meter, meaning that the meter responds when both the shutter speed dial and aperture ring are adjusted. Because of these features, the AT-1 has always been an ideal camera for the photography student. Still is.</p>

<p>Regarding FD lenses -- they used to be cheap. Not so much anymore. The good FD lenses are selling for a premium now -- up there with the Nikkors in most cases. This is because of the increasing popularity of the u4/3 mount and the new Sony NEX, both systems which can use FD glass with the appropriate adapters. So if you're looking to expand your FD lens collection, my advice is don't wait too long.</p>

 

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Because of these features, the AT-1 has always been an ideal camera for the photography student. Still is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually I despair whenever the words 'beginner/student' and 'camera' used together. However, the AT-1 is indeed a great camera! And it can, I think, accept a winder. If a beginner can afford a decent camera then they should have one. No need to artificially limit one's technology just for the sake of it. Besides, DSLRs are much better learning tools.</p>

[craveprints]

<p>nice!! thank you everone so much for the info, im happy they aren't worth much i feel like if they were i would be more inclined to get rid of them but i will have way more fun playing with them instead... i will post some pictures as soon as i have them available</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<i>Usually I despair whenever the words 'beginner/student' and 'camera' used together. However, the AT-1 is indeed a great camera! And it can, I think, accept a winder. If a beginner can afford a decent camera then they should have one. No need to artificially limit one's technology just for the sake of it. Besides, DSLRs are much better learning tools.</i>

<p>

I'm pretty sure the AT-1 can take the Winder A and Winder A-2, the way most A-series Canons can, just not the Motor Drive MA -- only the A-1 and AE-1P can take that one.

<p>

I don't believe that learning on a manual camera is artificially limiting the technology available to the student, or have I misunderstood you? You can do most anything, sans bells and whistles like second-shutter flash sync or something, with a manual camera that you can do with a more automated one. And often times you can do more. You're suggesting a DSLR is better for learning. I disagree. I'm anachronistic enough to believe that part of the process of truly learning photography is to learn about developing film, at least black and white. Maybe even do some genuine printing with an enlarger even. Dodging and burning, and all that. And you know, there's something that just occurred to me the other day -- even with many of the most basic SLRs you can take multiple exposures on a single frame. Can't do that with a DSLR, can you. Nope, you gotta go into your PP software and futz around with layers and a bunch of other rigamarole and maybe you'll achieve the same effect.

<p>

But that's not photography to me as much as it is art work in a different medium. I have nothing against it, nothing at all. Art is art, regardless of the medium. But a lot of what folks regard as photography nowadays seems to have well overstepped its traditional boundaries. So the question is begged -- is it still photography when it does this, when it has become a sort of fusion between the real (i.e., images placed on a photosensitive surface via photons, which represent something that exists in the physical world) and the imaginary? Or has it transcended to a new art form, for which the term "photograph" is no longer adequate?

<p>

But I digress . . . .