Looking back to 1959, what camera would you buy?

[darin_cozine]

<p>The sixties through the eighties, everyone jumped on the SLR bandwagon, with more refinements than innovations. <br>

But looking back to the 1950's, this was really a golden age of photography innovation. There were rangefinders and folding cameras. Blossoming camera companies in Japan rivaled the German standards. Kodak was producing their pinnacle Retina series. And the end of the decade, Canon and Nikon, and Olympus introduced cameras that would set the tone for years to come. </p>

<p>But if you had a chance to go back to 1959, what camera would you buy to use?<br>

(not to collect, we are talking usability and final output quality)<br>

<br />-And what would you consider 'best value'?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Looking back, I'd buy a Leica M3, although I bought a Ricoh 500 that year. At that time I was excited about two cameras, an Exa which had been purchased for my school laboratory, and a Tessina - heralded as the ultimate 35mm spy camera, which was overshadowed by the Minox. My mother had just purchased a Goertz Minicord, which was a cigarette pack sized TLR which I found fascinating, but not the right camera for me. I had to wait until 1969 to get my first Leica (an M4), and owned an Olympus Pen F along with that Ricoh 500 in the meantime.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>I guess the best choice for a commercial photographer, in the 35mm format, would have to have been the Nikon F, introduced in April of 1959. It brought together so many useful features, and offered a true photographic "system". I bought one second-hand in about 1962, and used it for several years before defaulting to the Canon camp. Mind you, 35mm was used only for colour slides for audio-visual presentations in my line of work, and I was probably more interested in weighing up the virtues of Linhofs and Sinars... But without a doubt, the Nikon F line became one of the most enduring and commercially-used 35mm systems.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Hasselblad 500 C.<br>Usability, and output quality are second to none. And best value for money (my 500 C of just about that vintage still performs today as good as ever.)<br><br>The Sinar Norma would also be a contender. Great camera. Though the later P is even nicer.

[Jochen_S]

<p>59 was eleven years before me. - I own & enjoyed: M3, Retina II, Super Isolette. "Best bet" would have been either a 6.5 x 9 press system. - Was there such a Technika? Or just a tiny Speed Graphic? - I am very tempted by Plaubel Makina too. Or Tele- & WA Rolleis as a pair. - MF worked nicely for me, but my Mamiya TLRs weren't around in 59?<br>

I failed to mobilize my 4x5" Technika so far. So that format is "out" for sure, due to bulk & film cost. - IDK when exactly 35mm grew an edge to cut everybody's cake. I'm sure I would have loved my M3 even dearlier while its RF patch was brighter. - Paired with an M2 to avoid a goggled 35mm lens it would be as good as 35mm gear ever became in my eyes.<br>

The Super Isolette was inherited and might not have made it through that many years in my hands. - But it is a great camera, as is the Retina, which was my last carry anytime & everywhere 35mm body. <br>

I don't know when the not air tight rigid contact lenses I am wearing got invented. - Before them it would have to be Rolleis for me. <br>

I also have no clue about cost. Can somebody provide camera prices in BigMacs back then? - Or are the Burgernomics a bad approach to understand history? - They work great for understanding the global market. <br>

My favorite author from the 50s praises a used tiny 9x12cm amateur folder as the best value purchase in that time. - Something like Voigtländer Bergheil, just Zeiss lensed and with a roll holder better than Rollex Patent should work well I'd guess.</p>

[starvy]

I think I would have chosen the most capable Voightlander 120 folder that my budget would allow. I may even be tempted by a Zeiss

SuperIkonta :)

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Looking back I would buy the Nikon rangefinder.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

The Retina IIa that I didn't buy until 1960.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>If I had the money and knowledge, what I have now?! A lots of "IF". 1955 started with a no-name 35mm camera, then a Zorkij C, Werra, . . . Paractica Supper TL, which was really a supper camera for me at that time. A couple of silent years, and the first Nikon F2. As I said, "IF'. I would bay a Nikon S, S2, witch I have finally 3 of them (S2), with 25mm lens to 135mm. I love them. And a lots of sleepless night in the darkroom. To bad, they don't making cameras in the way, they make them on those days. I hate plastic.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>It's kind of hard to know what I'd have wanted at that time, since I was only 11 that year. A year later, the question would have been simple. By that time I knew a little about cameras, and I saw a Nikon F, and that was that. Of course it would be a long time before I could afford one, though.<br>

<br />Trying to imagine usability and output quality in the real world without worrying about cost, I'm guessing that either a Leica or a Nikon rangefinder would have done the trick. </p>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>I found a copy of UK magazine Amateur Photographer Nov 1959 and the cameras illustrated in the ads were:<br>

Fixed lens non-rangefinder...............55 eg Ilford Sportsman GBP 12<br>

TLR....................................................10<br>

SLR....................................................10 eg Edixaflex+50 f2.8 GBP 44<br>

Interchangeable lens rangefinder.......8 eg Leica M2 + Summicron GBP 138<br>

Folder...................................................5<br>

Periflex.................................................2<br>

Hasselblad.............................................1 eg 500C + 80 Planar GBP 242<br>

I think we must have had import restrictions as there is nothing from Japan or FSU.<br>

So I would have bought a cheap West German made fixed lens non rangefinder like everyone else.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

A Leica RF I suppose with the complete Stereotar attachment, viewers and projector. And a set of the finest lenses for it.

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Nikon F since the F2 wasn't available. No doubt about it.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

[donald_miller5]

I do not believe we had import restrictions on Japan at that time. After WW II and into the 50's the U.S. was trying to convert Japan over to

a non military economy. One of their priorities was the camera industry which was controlled by the military during WW II. This favorable posture to Japan

continued into the 60's. However, I can not think of why there are no ads since the Japanese were in fierce competition with Germany .

[blumesan]

<p>In 1952 what I really wanted was a Leica, but none was available at the PX in Korea. So I settled for a Contax IIa/50mm f1.5. Used it happily and exclusively for the next 20 years, and occassionally even today. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rolleiflex TLR. And this time I'd keep it. I'm still regretting selling my 2.8C several years ago. I don't get attached to most cameras but that Rollei in that condition would be difficult to replace now for what I originally paid.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Cozine...</p>

<p>I was 40 years old that year. I had a family, had owned a home for 10 years and had a pretty decent job. In my situation, had I to do it over again, I would have bought the Kodak Retina Reflex S with the 50mm, F:1.9 six element lens. I loved Kodachrome. The lens would have out resolved Kodachrome and the later 1962’s Kodachrome II. Enlargements with a good enlarger lens would go 10x.</p>

<p>If asked about the early 1950s when I was less well situated, I would have bought something for under $100. I would take the Kodak Signet 35 which had usable shutter speeds and a very good coated four element lens.</p>

<p>Into the 1960s and since, I would be able to buy much better gear than the Kodak brand for less money.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>"So I would have bought a cheap West German made fixed lens non rangefinder like everyone else".<br>

<br>

Alan,<br>

I did exactly that. An early Paxette.<br>

Tony</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Mr. Burke:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mr. Cozine...<br>

I was 40 years old that year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really! 96 years young, and still going strong (I hope). Congratulations and stay healthy.</p>

 

[donald_miller5]

I still have the original signet 50 that my brother bought and still use it. It had a good lens and worth the price. No regrets

on the choice he made.

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>A nice Contax 11A, Leica M3 and of course a Nikon F....black with the non metered prism. I would be broke for all of the sixties, but hey...you can't take it with you!</p>

[straw_man]

I think 1959 was pre-Canon FD, Minolta SRT, or Pentax Spotmatic. It would boil down to rangefinder vs. SLR. And then

other options like size, weight, interchangable lenses. I don't know what Kodak retina versions were available then. For

me, it would've been the Nikon F.

[straw_man]

I don't have the chronology on the tip of my tongue, but Canon screw mounts of that era had much better ergonomics

than Leica, plus comparable lenses.

[straw_man]

In 1959, choices were somewhat limited, although excellent cameras were available.

[Brad Cloven]

I just picked up a Rollieflex 3.5e type 2. I wasn't alive yet in 1959, so my camera is older than I am. Harry Fleenor has it now, and I'm looking forward to its return.