Your favorite camera that you do not want to buy?

JeffS7444 said:
Leica M9-P Hermés:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAfSfnykXfo
Until I saw this video, I never realized that a cloth-covered cardboard box could be such an object of desire!

Minolta TC1: Think I'd enjoy it but at current prices maybe not so much.
Click to expand...

I would buy the Hermes but no hot shoe, deal breaker!

That camera is gorgeous, I come across that video from time to time and it impresses me every time.

I guess, for me, it would be any digital Leica. I love the idea and functionality, but the prices are entirely too high for what it is.
 
Have my favorite camera, Leica M2-R. But a favorite one that I would not buy would likely be a near-mint to mint 1960 Luftwaffe M2. Aside from being cost prohibitive, I would be too timid to use such a rare and expensive item, and I don’t want a camera that I would not use. Not interested in shelf-decorations, at least not full-time.
 
M10.. I played with one in the Leica store and it was pretty awesome, but I wouldn't be able to get myself to pay that much for a digital camera that'll be obsolete in a few years. (nor could I justify the cost on a hobby anyway)
 
'Blad SWC. Got a Bronica and the 40mm instead for far less $. Used it for a couple years then sold it on.


Leica Q. Just too expensive (though, not terrible value). Besides, my phone has the same angle of view.:p
 
mamiya 6...just loved that camera and was a fool to sell mine. would not buy another because it's film and i doubt that i will ever shoot film again.

rd1...loved that camera...truly unique and did great colour and b&w images...and i loved that it had a thumb advance. would buy another if i ever gathered enough 'extra' cash!
 
Mentioned in a previous thread: Rollei 3003 series. 135 format MF-Style system camera with Rollei and Zeus interchangeable lenses. Moderately high resale prices + battery and reliability issues = no thanks.

Always been intrigued by the Arax Kiev rebuilds but not enough to sped the money.

Equally: the Nikon FA, just to own a very technologically advanced but obsolete camera, but that's require buying new Nikkor lenses I don't need
 
bhop73 said:
M10.. I played with one in the Leica store and it was pretty awesome, but I wouldn't be able to get myself to pay that much for a digital camera that'll be obsolete in a few years. (nor could I justify the cost on a hobby anyway)
Click to expand...

Same here. That’s good cash towards a car or motorbike. Or long trip somewhere.
 
Leica CL (the digital one) with the 18mm lens. Gorgeous kit, fantastic viewfinder. But just too expensive to slip by the family treasurer.
Any Leica film body and lens. But, no way I'm going back to film... digital has just become too good and so much more convenient.

The Zeiss ZX1... because it'll be WAY too expensive!
 
Mute-on said:
For film, almost all of the now hysterically collectible compacts, despite many of them being unrepairable. Nikon 28ti and 35ti, Contax T2 and T3, Fuji Natura, Leica Minilux and others. Now frequently selling at four figure sums, far too expensive for the actual capabilities and long term reliability of the cameras. If not for this, I would have them all!
Click to expand...

Can't speak for Nikon or Fuji, but the Contax T2 and T3 are imho extremely reliable, shoot with them since decades, first T2 (sold to a friend, still working), then T3, never had any issue and I'm not really careful when handling them, the T3 is always with me whatever I do. Best photography related buy ever in my life.

And in regards to expensive, it's less a question of the price (provided you have enough money), it's more a question of personal value. But if you question the actual capabilities of these compacts for your needs, yes, sure, then don't buy them. Just makes me wonder why you want to have them in the first place then.

In general I think people underestimate the reliability of old (compact) film cameras, even the ones with electronic inside. There are only a few models which are really uncommonly frequently prone to failure like the GR or the Minilux for example.The rest is mostly again and again repeated internet gossip about broken film cameras.

Coming back to the thread topic, for film, Makina 67/670, always think about but hesitated so far to buy one, don't really know why :eek: For digital, Leica M10-P, but I'm afraid to to walk around with 10K (incl. lens) around my neck, would make me feel uncomfortable, for sure not the best condition to get good photos. This also the reason why I stay always under 1,5K when I buy cameras, If something happens (lost, stolen or broken) I know I could easily replace it and don't have to think about.

Juergen
 
Although there are zillion if cameras I could dream of having, when it comes to actually use it in a daily basis, it is the Nikon F6. Too expensive for me even as used.
 
bhop73 said:
...digital camera that'll be obsolete in a few years.
Click to expand...

I hear(d) this argument quit often and could follow this thought in the beginning of digital, but nowadays, what makes you think it will be obsolete? Does the same camera make bad photos in a few years?

Juergen
 
Ten years ago I wanted to try a Contax G1 or G2 but in truth they were superfluous to me then, as they are now. To boot, they are now much pricier and long in the tooth so I don't think it's going to happen, ever. For similar reasons I never tried a Mamiya 7. That was a mistake because I like 6x7 a lot. From the realm of digital, I'd like to try one day a Fuji X100 (one of the more recent iterations). But this, again, is more of a "want" than "need".
 
Leica M-A. It's what I would come up with designing my dream camera. Expensive enough not to justify the differences of my M4-P however.

Leica M10-P. Too expensive.
 
jsrockit said:
What is your favorite film camera and your favorite digital camera that you cannot bring yourself to buy for whatever reason (i.e. too expensive, too fragile, no use for it, etc.)? Also, what is the reason...
Click to expand...

Nikon F2 titanium 35mm SLR -- once owned two of them but sold them when collectors drove their price too high. I now use regular Nikon F2 bodies.

Leica M10 digital rangefinder -- once owned it but returned it because the body I had was too defective. I now use a Fuji X-Pro2 body which has more features than the M10 but does not have the two features I really need (full-frame sensor and rangefinder focusing).
 
Film: Hasselblad XPan. Always liked the panoramic format but I just can't be bothered with small-format film any more.

Digital: Fujifilm GFX 50S. Love the look of medium-format film, would love to be able to shoot medium-format digital, and this seems to offer all the benefits of mirrorless digital on top of the larger format; but the price is too high to justify for my modest needs.
 
Film: Hasselblad SWC. So love the 500CM. And the crop factor of the Phase One IQ250 digital back means the swc is a must to get wide angle....

So, the XD1 for digital. Or maybe that Fuji.
 
Digital: 1) Fujifilm GFX 50R ... too big, likely too slow, and too expensive, but somehow still like it. 2) Leica CL ... too expensive for APSC and the 35mm 1.4 is way too big, but wow is it beautiful.

Film: Mamiya 6 ... I just don`t think I want to deal with film again, but I`d love to try this camera.
 
1. Rollei TLR. Whenever I've had one, it turns into a shelf queen. I like the way they look, but I just don't seem to have a use for them. I'd rather use my Hasselblad.

2. XPAN. I used it to shoot "widescreen" slides. I really like a wide aspect ratio, but the XPAN is too wide for my purpose. And I don't like the focal lengths. 45mm is neither wide enough, nor enough image height. I wish they had made the standard lens 38mm (like the SWC), to be used the camera's built-in finder; and no need for a center filter. And a film width of 54mm, not 65mm, would give me the aspect ratio I want, and be right for the Hasselblad projector. If you guessed that I find my SWC more suitable, you are right!

3. I think I would love the R-D1, except that I couldn't live with the crop factor. So it's a no-go.

EDIT: Well, the R-D1 . . . maybe not such a bad idea. It might be fun. I could use it with a 21mm, and have a 32mm equivalent. But what would I use for a viewfinder? Or, I could use my 24mm with a 35mm accessory finder. Nah. For a 35mm eq. I should stay with my X100. Or my M9, with a 35 on it.
 
Last edited:
Film -- Nikon F2A and Nikon F3P -- can't justify getting them for actual use given the Nikon F6, FM3a, Olympus OM, olympus 35 SP rangefinders, Contax T2, and Mamiya 6 cameras I already own. But I still fantasize about getting them and look at listings.

Digital -- nothing really, given Nikon d850, d750, and Sony A7riii I already have. The Sony is the ultimate digital body for adapting mf lenses. With the image stabilization and high resolution EVF that enables perfect focus with magnification, my old lenses render incredibly sharp images that rival modern glass, albeit with somewhat lower contrast (not necessarily a bad thing).
 
Second M. Just for same reason as most of very advanced film cameras, service is few, not cheap and parts are not so many.
Second Digital M. Expensive in service.
I had second and even third film M and second digital. And realized it is too much money for CLA and repairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom