I don’t own an SLR right now, or even a ‘proper’ rangefinder.
I was given my first camera, a Kodak Brownie Box, in the early 50s, when I was about ten. I think it was so I would keep my fingers off my father’s Leica, probably a IIIf. He later traded it for a Bolex 8mm cine camera. A few years later, my grandfather gave me his 1936 Rolleiflex which had not had a film through it for maybe twenty years. This was an excellent camera. When I was at college in the early 60s, I bought myself a very used, but still functioning Leica that was even older than the Rollei. It must have been one of the first Leicas with interchangeable lenses. It had an uncoated 50mm, f/3.5. It was not quite as sharp as the Rollei (more magnification, less contrast), but it was a lot easier to carry.
I bought my first new camera, a Canon Pellix, in 1966. This was also an excellent camera. It made no more noise than a rangefinder, with its fixed mirror. About 1971, I traded the Rollei, the Leica and the Canon in part payment for a Rollei 6x6 SLR, with three lenses. This was an outstanding camera, but I took fewer pictures than before, because of its bulk and weight and film cost, so for general use I got myself an Olympus half-frame viewfinder camera. Given its limitations, this was very good. Later I sold the Rollei and bought an Olympus OM1. Over a number of years I added to this system and ended up with three bodies culminating in an OM2N and several lenses. This was a good system, but not, for me, as good as the Canon SLR I owned earlier. The whole system, except for one camera and lens that I had on me, was stolen in Buzios (near Rio) in the 80s from a friend’s car. Buzios is a beach resort that became notorious in the 60s on account of Brigitte Bardot, who spent time there, we are told, some of which without her bathing suit.
I collected the insurance (what there was), sold the surviving camera, and replaced it with a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses. This was a nice little system that was eventually stolen from a (non-camera) bag while in custody of the bellhop at a New York hotel. I only found out after we arrived at our destination. It was not insured. Over the years I also owned a Nikonos and a Nikonos II at different times. I used them while sailing, not for diving. My son used the earlier one for diving, and eventually inherited it. A while later, I bought a Canon Sureshot Z115 point-and-shoot. Taking this to the UK, my father liked it, so I gave it to him. Back in the US, I bought myself a Canon Sureshot Z135.
My first digital camera was a Sony Mavica which I bought about 1997. It had 0.3MP resolution and recorded the images directly to a floppy disk. In retrospect, it was pretty clunky. Later, I got a Canon Powershot S20 with 3.3MP and a 2x optical zoom. This was a very good camera within its limitations. It got me into photography again, and digital photography in particular. Last year, I bought a Canon Powershot G5, which is what I have now. I am very pleased with this camera. Print quality is close to the best I could get with 35mm. At times I use it like a rangefinder, fully manual, sometimes more like an SLR, mostly in aperture priority, and sometimes fully auto.
So now I’m truly hooked again, where do I go from here? I am considering three options, all of which would be as well as, not instead of, the G5:
1 Canon Pro1 – this is the new compact digital from Canon: 8MP and zooms 28 to 200mm EFL. Won’t replace the G5, though, because it doesn’t have an optical viewfinder. Would use the same flash as the G5. According to situation, I’d carry either or both.
2 SLR – would have to be film, since I can’t justify getting anything digital with a full-frame sensor – cost is too high. Could add some versatility over the Pro1, if I ever get so much gear. And would I carry it?
3 RF – maybe the Bessa R2. There is no such thing yet as a digital RF with a full-frame sensor, and it would cost too much if there was. The R2 is not too big and would add versatility at the very wide-angle end, but how much would I use that? Ergonomics are better too.
Both the film-based options have a (slightly) lower initial cost than the Pro1, but would cost more long-term, with extra filters, lenses etc., not to mention the cost of film and processing, and time required for scanning.
I'd be happy to hear your expert (but not too partisan) considerations!
John
