jim_mcdermott1

<p>Difficult one, Christian. Many of the olde timey retailers that JDM suggests you seek out have died/moved on since the 80s. There is still - I believe - a good 2nd hand dealer halfway down Tottenham Court Road (on the west side, a block north of Goodge Street tube station) - I can't recall the name. Otherwise, there's a cluster of shops near the British Museum, but they tend to be expensive. In that area, you might want to see if York Cameras are still in business on Southampton Row.</p>

<p>Lovely stuff, Kris. That repair price makes my eyes water a little, though. I see a few comments on this site dissing the Rolleiflex T for its inferior internal parts, but I wonder how much of this is justified. I bought one, vintage 1957, in 1990 for £95 (c. $145). It's been used ever since and hasn't gone wrong yet. The secret, to me, seems to be to fire off the shutter 10-20 times every week whether I use it or not. Small price to pay for results that are indistinguishable from the more expensive models. </p>

<p>Nicolas, I struggle to see how any of your preferences - which they are - are 'better'. None of them take superior photos to what you could expect from a K1000 (the photographer and glass being equal)</p>

<p>Like Andy, my first SLR (1983) was a Pentax ME Super, but swiftly becoming aware of my callow seduction by new-fangledness, I ditched it for the MX, which I think qualifies as an old-timer. I still have one, but as it's a more recent acquisition, I won't offend by posting a photo.</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

Unless you need macro, you'd be better off with the (pin-sharp, compact, and, gasp, bargain) 85mm f2.8. I've read somewhere - though I don't know how true this is - that the 100mm f3.5 was a little disappointing. .<br>

The 50/1.7 was, of course, one of the finest standard lenses ever made</p>

<p>From Ye Age of Plastique, I think some of Canon's later offerings were hard to beat for slap-its-face ugliness (the EOS 5 looked like it suffered from macrocephaly).</p>

<p>It's amazing how so many people think a. that 'Google is your friend' isn't an irritating cliche, and b. that people asking a question haven't already used it as a first resort and that's why they've come here - for a little friendly help.</p>

<p>I have very fond memories of my time during the early nineties with the 9000. I recently dipped my toes in the Minolta film pond once more with the Dynax 9. The difference in size is astonishing; perhaps Minolta felt they had to jump on the F4/EOS 1 steroid bandwagon to attract REAL photographers (hem). Apart from an integral motorwind, that 1/12000 shutter speed (and how often I'm going to use that!) and some fancy flash technology (again, no use to me), I can't say it offers more than its tiny predecessor. </p>

<p>That definition makes my eyeballs sting.</p>

<p>For once, someone in the UK gets the goods: a Yashica FX2 with 50mm F2 dsb lens. Both lovely condition cosmetically, but the camera probably needs a cla, and there's a strip of black masking (doesn't seem to be part of the 'display') that's detached itself and likes to wander around the viewfinder - obviously, this has no effect on the timeless art you'll create with the beast. First one to e-mail me gets it for the price of postage</p>

<p>If you're a bokeh or oof addict, then spill the cash. But for 95 percent of 'normal' photography, there's no contest. And this is from someone who prefers to use metal, manual focus lenses. </p>

<p>Sorry, Mike, but you've opened a can of worms with that single example. A LOT more shots from the period required, please</p>

<p>Jon, another thought ...<br>

I've used manual focus lenses on the Pentax K7 very happily. The K30 can be bought quite cheaply, has a proper pentaprism like the K7 AND focus peaking, and if you can live without the Voigtlander, 28mm f2.8 Pentax Ms or As can be found for far less than the V is selling for.</p>

<p>Lovely work, John. I had a Vb in the early 90s with which I took a whole series of shots in Canterbury and Winchester cathedrals (nothing like MF for bringing out the subtleties of that difficult lighting - except for something larger, obviously!). You inspire me to dig them out and try to scan them adequately.</p>

<p>Dave, obviously the K7 is a little smaller, with a metal outer shell as opposed to the K20D's polycarbonate. Performance and IQ wise they're pretty similar. I was going to say the K7's tougher, but then recalled my old K20D skipping down a Paris street, bouncing over and over (guess who always uses a strap these days?) without getting a single scratch.<br>

You'll probably find quite a few more used K7s on the market: the model sold heaps more than the K20D, and then got massively traded in for the K5.</p>

<p>I bought my first SLR in 1983, and, by the time this model was released, had progressed to a Contax RTS II (curiously, it didn't improve my abilities). The craze for autofocus hit sometime in 1985, I recall; I wondered at the time why foregoing a twist of the wrist was worth giving up craftsmanship, metal, aesthetics, etc. It seemed like every manufacturer was in a race to produce the crappiest build; perhaps they realised that the new technology was advancing so quickly that it wasn't worth building the delivery systems with pride in ownership attached.<br>

Having had my old fart's gripe, nice shots!</p>

<p>Nigel, the Tamron 28mm f2.5 was a very good lens, and probably still more commonly found than the older 2.8 iteration. What about a Yashica (ML or MC) 28mm? I've seem excellent reports on it, and probably you can find one for about $100</p>

<p>I agree about the EVF and action shooting, Dieter (though I don't do any of the latter - for me it's mainly architecture and landscape, so the raw-crawl doesn't bother me). It's a great shame that a lens of that quality was welded to something that couldn't be upgraded, but within its limits the camera still shines </p>

<p>Sorry about the double posting. The second post was actually my first: I decided to be a little less uncharitable about the motives for the building's 'improvements'. By the by, the Great Fire of London burned itself out about three hundred yards from the building. God must love lawyers after all.</p>

<p>Is anyone out there still using this old beauty? I recently compared the results from mine (it's sat on a shelf for the past four years) to those from a far more recent camera (I'll spare its blushes, but it ranks quite highly in the DXOmark ratings), and I can hardly believe how good they are. If I don't go higher than 400 ISO (and I never did in my film days), I see no reason to give up the benefit of that gorgeous 24mm - 120mm lens.</p>

<p>Oh God: digital nostalgia. It was only a matter of time.</p>

<p>Remarkably, that Tudor building on High Holborn (Staple Inn) has survived both city planners and the Luftwaffe, though some idiot decided to give it greater 'authenticity' by cladding it in black and white timber boarding.</p>

<p>Remarkably, that Tudor building on High Holborn (Staple Inn) has survived both city planners and the Luftwaffe. Even the shop to the policeman's immediate right - adjacent to the central entry - looks pretty much the same today. Have a look (with credit to Mr Skegga):<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thorskegga/3565622929/</p>

 

<p>You're all wrong! We need to get those brushes and easels back into commission and buy up canvas before Kodacanvas goes into liquidation (need a damn big fridge, though). Everything else will be fried.</p>

<p>Jerry - agreed. Looking at some darker areas of the test shot, the K30's chroma noise seems marginally, er, quieter.<br /> If Pop Photo's camera test <em>methodology</em> is as reliable as that of their lens tests (which fairly consistently differ from a majority of their competitors), I'd take this one with a pinch of salt.</p>

<p>Slightly off-topic, Rick, but who does one have to kill to get a 'my patch' as beautiful as that?</p>