A classic for "anti-digital"

[steve_levine]

<p>The picture got lost in cyber space.</p><div></div>

[LMar]

<p>Gotta love those Nikons! (F2A with AI'd 85mm f1.8 and F2 Photomic with 50mm f2.0 AI).</p>

<p><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-aAodXZrwkLU/UVuqqaCbKiI/AAAAAAAABXo/E0HeSeuJTOg/s912/F2A%2520and%2520F2%2520Photomic.jpg" alt="" width="912" height="499" /></p>

 

[LMar]

<p>With the F2 Photomic on a recent 10 degree (F) walk.</p>

<p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_BseRICqJ6U/UVuqsixhSGI/AAAAAAAABX4/G0ovZKOuwXk/s720/Tricolor.JPG" alt="" width="720" height="477" /></p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I know exactly what Mike means by 'anti-digital'. It's okay, folks, he's not provoking a war. This camera is so anti-digital, it doesn't even work. But damn, it has character.</p><div></div>

[MTC Photography]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16652353-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="554" /></p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>The farthest away from a digital camera could be my Argus C (second version ca. 1940 without slow speed switch), also has no flash synch. and rangefinder is uncoupled.</p><div></div>

[paul_goutiere]

<p><img src="http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa19/literiter/KodakRetina118.jpg" alt="" width="1023" height="747" />Accurate speeds from 1 second to 1/300. Un-coated lens has surprisingly good contrast and resistance to flare. Difficult ergonomics in that is really easy to double expose and skip frames. <br>

A sister to this camera, wearing a Tessar lens, took that famous picture of Tenzing Norgay on Everest. </p>

<p> </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Most interesting shots, friends.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>This was probably taken with a Leica M6. </p><div></div>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Heh, I consider <em>all </em>my cameras to be anti-digital. With those that have interchangeable lenses, the quality of the photos is mostly determined by the combination of the film emulsion I've selected and the lenses I use, anyway, isn't it.</p>

<p>With my 35mm cameras, when I'm shooting with my best lenses and Fuji Velvia, I can't really see much difference at all between the exposures made with Velvia and images I capture with my DSLR. Velvia's grain is so tiny that my DLSR's noise shows itself before Velvia's grain does.</p>

<p>And all of my medium format gear holds its own against digital very well. In fact, just yesterday, I picked up a real gem at a local thrift store. I paid -- get this -- $3.93 for this camera:</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/zeiss_ikonta_1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="667" /><br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/zeiss_ikonta_3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

In case you're wondering, that's a Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 with a coated 75mm f/3.5 Opton-Tessar in a Syncrho Compur shutter. It's in solid, Exc+ condition with its only fault being a somewhat sluggish shutter on its slow settings -- a condition easily enough rectified. I'm also a member of the mflenses forum. A fellow I know who is a regular over there, named Vilhelm, recently used one just like mine in a photo shoot. He shared a few photos from the shoot with the forum. The quality of the images was simply stunning. Take a look for yourself -- scroll down for more images:</p>

<p>http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=35388</p>

<p>Sure, the images have been reduced for viewing on the web, but, based on my own experiences, I'm quite confident that they will stack up very nicely against a high MP-count digital. So, it has become my most sincere hope that the makers of film emulsions will please stop reducing their selections and terminating some film lines altogether (like Kodak did with Kodachrome and E6 -- shame on them!), and continue working to improve film technology. It may seem old school to many nowadays, but I wonder. In 20 years, 50 years from now -- will historians regret the passage of film into the dustbins of history because of the lack of the durable archival nature of digital? Once an image has been exposed and developed, it doesn't require any sort of high-tech infrastructure to maintain its archival integrity the way digital does. I really do believe that, in the distant future -- many hundred of years from now -- historians will speculate endlessly over the irretrievable contents of all the fragile, shiny plastic disks that they unearth in their archeological sites -- or even those that have been preserved in library archives. Will the contents still be retrievable without copying them to new media on a regular basis? While it could very well be that properly stored negatives will have survived intact. And all it will take is a Mark 1 eyeball to determine the negatives' contents.</p>

<p>Heh. I am an iconoclastic anachronism. And proud of it.</p>

<p> </p>

[justthings]

<p>This is my recent acquisition to for going sans-digital.. not so much a rebellion against digital but out of a desire to do something different. Sadly, no results yet as I'm still waiting for my first films to return from the processor.<br>

<a title="RB67 by clt.pics, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/outwithmycamera13/8562933614/"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8562933614_8807b0b172.jpg" alt="RB67" width="500" height="299" /></a></p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>This is a Super Ikonta B, 532/16. When folded it is small enough to fit a coat pocket.<br>

Quite an impressive camera when you consider its age. All speeds are accurate as well as focus spot on.</p>

<p><img src="http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa19/literiter/ZeissSI.jpg" alt="" width="711" height="652" /><br>

F2.8 coated Opton Tessar. </p>

 

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Paul, I used to own a Super Ikonta B identical to yours -- even had the Synchro Compur shutter. I owned a BX for a while too, same shutter. I called them my "pocket Hasselblads." Amazing picture takers. I wish I never would have sold them. The Ikonta that I now own, shown above, is a great replacement for the B and probably takes pics that rival the B's in quality, but I still like the Super Ikontas better.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>OK here's one picture from the Medalist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that Medalist shot of the church gates is superb. Even viewed on a monitor it almost feels like you are actually there. You have caught the quality of the light perfectly.</p>

[paul_goutiere]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5236034">Michael McBroom</a><br>

The Ikonta that I now own, shown above, is a great replacement for the B and probably takes pics that rival the B's in quality,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens in your camera is the same lens as in the Super Ikonta IV and apparently is superior to the lens in the B.</p>