ken_jeanette1

<p>Ross, Gus' recommendation of a 35 for street photography is a very good choice. You want slightly more coverage on the street, and you can always crop the final prints. My suggestion for a less expensive alternative to Leica glass is Tamron Adaptall. I use several Adaptall zooms with my R4 units, and their performance is great. The down side of that is the Leica mount for Adaptall are very scarce. If you are patient, they can be found. My suggestion would be to look for and purchase the mount first. Then once you know you have the mount in hand, you can pick your choice of lenses to match.</p>

<p>I'd like a K-1000 (remember those) with a full frame sensor in the film plane and a place to stick a 32GB memory card and a USB interface. Manual focus, match needle, interchangeable lenses and built like a tank.</p>

<p>Didn't Ansel Adams have a polaroid period in his many years in the business/art/craft?</p>

<p>Bruce C, I can't speak for Robin, but to me, Cameras are like women. Once you fondle one, you want to fondle them all!!</p>

<p>Do we have enough room on this site to take my list. I doubt it. NIKONF-LEICAFLEXSL-LEICAR4-LEICAM3-FUJIFILMX10-X20-X100-CONTAXD-ROLLEIFLEXSL35E-Etc, Etc, Etc AD INFINITUM.</p>

<p>Amazing how in depth they got with that SLR article. I guess everyone was abozz about the newest thing to hit like a whirlwind.</p>

<p>I agree with JDM. Film cameras of all types are now the classics. By the way, pawn shops won't even make an offer on a film camera. Not even a Leica R series.</p>

<p>I haven't heard of this type of failure, but a 9 year old camera is probably considered beyond the planned obsolescence engineered into most products nowadays. </p>

<p>Serious photography was always a relatively small hobby IMO. Most families wanted to take snapshots. Even if they invested in a higher level camera, they were basically trying to improve the holiday/birthday/celebration snapshots. A minor percentage of that group became fascinated, and tried to make more artful pictures. Tablets and phones give very reasonable quality snapshots. They are available to share with friends and family seconds after the image is captured. It's no wonder to me that the specialized instrument for producing snapshots has become unnecessary. </p>

<p>I always considered the Beacon to be a creepie cheepie. You brought out the best in that beast. Great work. I too like that deco look. I will always remember fondly the Bantam Special I picked up for a song at a flea market. If only it took 35mm. That bantam stuff became harder and harder to get, and eventually, I didn't want to keep a shelf sitter that I could turn to profit.</p>

<p>Beautiful!</p>

<p>I second the vote for CL with 40 and 90</p>

<p>Is this an illustration of how wars start?</p>

<p>Actually, its so smooth and nice because it's a Zorki counterfeit, made by Leica in the lean years.</p>

<p>It's a Shutterbug, leave it alone.</p>

<p>M.C., I find the front blur distracting. My mind wants to see the entire cut surface sharp, and the other areas in blur. </p>

<p>High quality film camera + film + processing = $$$<br> M9 = $$$$$$$$$$<br> I'd expect it to be "at least as good"</p>

<p>I think his point might be that he can get Pnet folks to discuss anything, no matter how ridiculous.</p>

<p>Great pictures. Very moody lone tree. I especially like that one. Happy New Year everyone.</p>

<p>I agree with Ed, the EF was my favorite. Contemporary of the AE1 in all respects, but of the era when cameras were made of real honest to goodness metal. You can hammer nails with the F-1, but you can sure take great pics with an EF. (they use the same lenses ;-)</p>

<p>Excellent job. Camera and results are stunning.</p>

<p>The amazing thing to me is our recurrent fascination with stereo photography. Civil war era, 1890's 1950s, even as recent as a few years ago, Fuji came out with digital stereo camera and viewer. (I bought the full set) Then there was stereo flat screen TVs. Stereo in movie theaters. They keep on coming to life, like the phoenix out of the ashes, only to crash and burn within a year or two. You'd think we'd learn, its a gimmick that will never be mainstream. We see in three dimensions, but we don't necessarily want to have our photos in three dimensions. This monster needs a stake through its heart to keep it down.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that they were toying with digital photography that long ago (look ahead column) </p>

<p>From a site called The People History: Average Cost of new house $7,450.00 Average wages per year $2,950.00 Cost of a gallon of Gas 17 cents Average Cost of a new car $1,420.00 Minimum Hourly Wage Rate 70 cents per hour Bacon per pound 50 cents Dobbs Hat $8.50 Kitchen Table and Chairs $100.00---Compare to the prices for some of these cameras. A third of the cost of a new car if the camera was about $475.00----YIKES.</p>

<p>Great fun looking at the ads. In the FOTON ad, what in heavens name is a T-stop? Also that price!!!! What would that be in today's dollars, and what did the average family Ford auto cost in 1949. Interesting how we go from rediculous to more rediculous. The TYNAR at 7.95. And it's not Plastic---LOL.</p>