Jump to content

Chrome vs. Black


danac

Recommended Posts

Back in the day everyone wanted their Canon and other SLRs to have the the then stylish black finish. Chrome bodies were cheaper and regarded as less desirable. For some time I regretted that my AE-1 and Spotmatic were the poorer option. Now however, all of the modern digital cameras are boring black. I think chrome bodies are far more desirable. When you see one of these hanging from someones neck you readily recognize something special. Besides that, the old black finishes were less rugged and tended to show wear more than the alternative. My only black Canon is the A-1 and I'm proud to be seen with it but the chrome bodies have more class. Edited by danac
A book's a great place to hide out in - Trevanian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In days of old, a black body camera with brass showing under the black enamel (due to extensive usage) was considered a badge of honor. Nowadays my latest mirrorless camera is made of composite materials and less metal (to save on weight), and are more like appliances than machinery. Unfortunately, the weight savings is very important to my deteriorating spine. I do have a black body A-1 and a reasonably rare black body Canonet. Unfortunately both cameras only use chemical based sensors that need to be replaced every 24 or 36 exposures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a black body A-1 and a reasonably rare black body Canonet. Unfortunately both cameras only use chemical based sensors that need to be replaced every 24 or 36 exposures.

 

I don't understand this.

A book's a great place to hide out in - Trevanian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In days of old, a black body camera with brass showing under the black enamel (due to extensive usage) was considered a badge of honor. Nowadays my latest mirrorless camera is made of composite materials and less metal (to save on weight), and are more like appliances than machinery. Unfortunately, the weight savings is very important to my deteriorating spine. I do have a black body A-1 and a reasonably rare black body Canonet. Unfortunately both cameras only use chemical based sensors that need to be replaced every 24 or 36 exposures.

I do not mind a bit off brassing. Proves hard usage. Also brings the price of otherwise GREAT cameras down. Otherwise I would not have the superb F1 New. . Adore that camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn’t that black bodies were considered intrinsically more attractive or more expensive (cost difference was only a few dollars), but the idea that black bodies were used by the pros (although most pros I new back then used chrome bodies...some news photogs used black to be more discreet).

The same fashion affected the use of fitted camera cases...pros didn’t use them, and every photographer wanted to look like a pro. While some cases truly deserved the name “Never-ready”,:over the years I have saved a good sum of money from dropping and banging cameras because they were secured in a case.

As for myself, I despise everything “technical black” because once mislaid, hard to find...whether a camera or the tv remote.

One difference between metal and plastic bodies. Metal dents and dings; plastic breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for myself, I despise everything “technical black” because once mislaid, hard to find...whether a camera or the tv remote.

 

Speaking of losing things, how about a camo chain saw. (as the tree falls, "now where did I put that thing?")

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting I bought my first Canon camera in 1976 one of the early AE-1's this was while in collage after having been into photography in high school for three years (teacher there was a NIKON snob) In college I hung out with the local Pro who was often hired by the college to do things like shoot photos on big Ornithology field trips. And while his Canon bodies were Black I don't remember ever being jealous of his F-1 I was jealous of his 500mm f4.5L lens. I now have owned every Canon body in the FD line but the T-80 and AL-1 and have Black AE-1p, A1, F1N, T-90 that I shoot with. And I have some AE-1 and AE-1p in Chrome. And its still the lenses that get me going.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, did you get one. (I have the FLF 500 f5.6 - a great lens)

 

Yes I have owned a 500mm f4.5L I ended up selling it when I started using my FD lenses on an Olympus 4/3 digital body. My best photo taken with the 500mm and a 2X-A was of 5) of Saturns Moons.

 

For now the 400mm f4.5 nFD I have with a 2X-A is more then enough magnification on the 4/3 body for any bird photography I do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My first camera was the T-50 (all black), then Canon A-1s (also all black)...then I discovered another great camera--the Canon FTb. The first FTb that I owned was a chrome/black or bi-color finish; later, I bought another FTb (all black). I do have to admit that the all-black finish tarnishes/shows brassing faster than the bi-color from the same amount of usage while the bi-color does not show the same effects over the years.

 

"Chrome bodies were cheaper and regarded as less desirable." Interesting thought...I never considered a difference in value or perception due to its finish--always assumed every Canon FTb (despite it finish) performed as any other. Personally, I like the all-black finish.

 

One day...I would love to 500mm f4.5L lns for birding....one day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One day...I would love to 500mm f4.5L lns for birding....one day!

 

All my Canons are black, but that's because they were never made in chrome. If I ever come across a cherry FTb in chrome, I won't hesitate.

 

What, the 500mm too expensive? Heck, just charge it. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My AE-1P, New F-1 and T90 are all black, and I’m happy with that. My Canonet QL17 is Chrome, and id really have preferred black, but id not pay a premium.

 

Mind you, if I could justify buying a Contax T2/3 that would definitely be champagne finish…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first camera I knew, that my dad bought when I was one, is (I still have it) a Canon VI in black.

 

I don't know about the price difference 63 years ago, but black is now much more valuable.

 

When I bought my (then new) Nikon FM, I bought it in black, I think for $10 more.

 

A few years later I met my wife-to-be, and she had a chrome FM. We never had any

confusion over which was which.

 

My brother was reminding me that 40 years ago, stereo equipment was usually silver

colored. (Maybe brushed aluminum.) Now they are usually black, but he wanted the

old silver colored ones. It seems that they now sell them only in Europe.

 

I think I still like black, but maybe not always.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning ....

 

black lacquer was cheap and "chrome" cost more.

 

Then as chrome became dominant, "professionals" went to black. Then, a few people actually purposely "brassed" their black Nikon Fs, so as to seem not to be newbies..

 

'Plastic' silver cameras looked like toys, so non-shiny black....

 

Then, perhaps a little desperately, a few "jumped the shark"

Pentax.jpg.78b4e62caea202208799ebba0ddfc45e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...