Camera Collecting, The Incurable Passion, How to know if you’re a camera collector and what you can do about it.

Camera Collecting, The Incurable Passion, Part 1

How to know if you’re a camera collector and what you can do about it.

By Jason Schneider

I took my first tentative steps down the primrose path of camera collecting way back in 1960 when I acquired my first Leica, a display model IIIg with 50mm f/2.8 collapsible Elmar lens in a red Leica snap top display case. The poor thing had been languishing at Village Photo Shop in Rockville Center, Long Island ever since the store first acquired it in 1957 and the kindly old German guy who owned the place took pity on me and let me buy if for 10% below the list price of $273.00. Since he was an authorized Leica dealer at the time, this was strictly verboten, but much appreciated. While I didn’t buy that camera as a collectible, unbeknownst to me, I had been mortally bitten by the Leica bug, and shortly thereafter I acquired two more Leicas in short order. The first one was a gorgeous black Leica II (Model D) with a collapsible nickel-finished 50mm f/2.5 Hektor snagged for the grand sum of $39.50 at Willoughby’s camera store on W. 32nd St. in Manhattan. It had been consigned to the “junk pile” as an “old camera with an uncoated lens” and I didn’t have the heart to haggle over the price. Next came a near-mint 5-digit Leica I (Model A) with a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar I bought from Minifilm (also on 32nd St.) for 60 bucks plus tax after some spirited bargaining.

My first de facto collectible camera, the gorgeous Leica IIIg with collapsible 50mm f:2.8 Elma...png
My first de facto collectible was this gorgeous Leica IIIg with collapsible 50mm f/2.8 Elmar I bought back in 1960 at a whopping 10% discount.

Leica II (Model D) Front View  showing added strap lugs,  nickel hardware and 50mm f:2.5 Hekt...jpeg
Leica II (Model D) of 1932 with collapsible 50mm f/2.5 Hektor. I snagged mine for a paltry $39.50. Ah, the joys of camera collecting in the '60s!

Leica i (Model A) with 50mm f:3.5 Elmar, I snagged mine fir 60 bucks and it's still one of my ...jpg
The iconic Leica 1 (Model A) with 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. I acquired mine for a mere 60 bocks plus sales tax in the '60s, but it took a bit of haggling

For some unfathomable reason, acquiring 3 vintage Leicas in the course of around 6 months seems to have opened the floodgates, and shortly thereafter I began buying old cameras at a furious pace—a 3A Folding Kodak Autographic Special (you could still buy 122 roll film for it until 1970), a 9x12cm Voigtlander Avus film pack and plate camera with a 135mm f/4.5 Skopar and a Rada 120 roll film adapter, a great hulking 4x5 RB Series B Graflex with a B&L Tessar, a flawless pre-war Zeiss Super Ikonta A with an uncoated 70mm f/3.5 Tessar---I could easily go on for 5 more paragraphs, but you get the idea. By 1969, when I presented my idea for a column on camera collecting to the late great Herbert (Burt) Keppler, then Editorial Director at Modern Photography, I had amassed a motley and variegated collection of nearly 100 cameras. Keppler, who became my mentor and lifelong friend, approved the project, and dubbed the monthly column The Camera Collector, a name that stuck when we both moved over to Popular Photography in 1987 and I was named Editor in Chief. The reason Burt Keppler was sympathetic and supportive to what was then a wacky editorial idea is simple—we were kindred spirits. He had been a de facto camera collector for decades, and his collection was at least twice as big as mine! We had both experienced what was, in effect, the golden age of camera collecting, the days before camera collecting was “a thing” and individual camera collectors (with the possible exceptions of Leica, Contax, and Nikon collectors) largely pursued their passion in solitude.

Kodak 3A Autographic Special of 1916 is generally considered the first camera with a built-in...jpeg
Kodak 3A Special of 1916 was first with a built-in coupled rangefinder. I ran plenty of 122 film through mine before they discontinued it in 1970.

RB Series B 4x5 Graflex of the '20s is still a frmidable picture taker and an American classic.jpg
RB Series B 4x5 Graflex of the '20s is a great hulking large format SLR. It's not the last word in convenience but it's a great picture taker!

Prewar Zeiss Super Ikonta A provides 45 x 6cm format on 120 roll film. Mine has an uncoated 7c...jpg
My prewar Zeiss Super Ikonta A is a pocketable medium format classic and its uncoated 7cm f/3.5 Zeiss Tessar lens has gorgeous rendition.

Are you a camera collector? Here’s how you can tell.

If your office, storage room, or shelving units are cluttered with scores of different cameras, many of which you seldom if ever use for taking pictures, you are surely a camera collector by default. However, there are many less virulent cases of collector-itis that qualify.

Warning signs of the dreaded Camera Collecting syndrome:
  • Buying cameras simply because they’re beautiful objects and not intending to use them for making pictures.
  • Buying cameras for which film is not readily available (such as 620, 127, 616, 116, 828, 122 roll film sizes which are only sold at extravagant prices by custom film rolling outfits).
  • Buying film (analog) cameras at all, especially those where the line is no longer in production, like Bronicas, Rolleiflex TLRs, Mamiyas (all format) rangefinder Canons, Nikons, and Contaxes, et al.
  • Buying cameras with the thought of someday using them, but only fondling and firing them from time to time.
  • Making up ingeniously plausible excuses to your spouse regarding the excessive camera purchases that show up on your credit card.
  • Discovering that you have bought more than 10 used cameras on eBay within the last 12 months, all of which are discontinued and no longer available brand new.
  • Buying more than one roll of film per month. The mere act of buying film doesn’t prove you’re a camera collector, but there’s a high correlation between the quantity of film you purchase and whether you’re exhibiting camera collector syndrome.
What kind of camera collector are you, and what can you do about it?

I pride myself on being a user-collector rather than a showcase collector because I have fun making pictures with my vintage classics and confine my purchases to cameras that are fully functional or can be made so at minimal expense. However, cameras can be and often are technological works of art, so I harbor no ill will toward those who display most (or all) of their collectible cameras, nor do I believe user-collectors like me are somehow superior to showcase collectors. I’ve viewed scores of camera collections over the years, and many are breathtaking, equal to what you’d find in any national museum of technology like the Smithsonian. And many if the folks that assembled them have done meticulous research that has enriched the histories of their chosen brands. Finally, I’ve discovered that there are limits to being a user-collector, and I’m a perfect example. I currently own 212 cameras and I currently shoot with about 20 of them, which is less than 10%. Bottom line: most camera collectors display (or hoard) most of their collections and occasionally shoot with the rest. But whichever way you do it, it’s intensely human, an act of love tinged with beady-eyed acquisitiveness.

Camera collecting strategies: It pays to have one!

I will confess to being a haphazard collector—my personal collection ruins the gamut from common box cameras and low-end, scale-focusing 35s, to elite rangefinder 35s, to a staggering variety if 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 twin lens reflexes, to a splendiferous assortment if folding 35mm and roll film cameras, to a passel of vintage 4x5 and 8 x 10 view cameras—and much, much more. In short, my collection is sprawling and undisciplined, much like its owner. Therefore, all the following great advice gleaned from my 65+ years of camera collecting falls under that ever-popular category of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Scarce Koniflex II, one of the many semi-exotic TLRs in my collerction, is a great shooter.jpg

The Koniflex II of the '50s is one of far too many 2-1/4 TLRs in my collection. It's beautifully made and has a superb 85mm f/3.5 Hexagon lens.

Specialize. It’s generally much more rewarding to concentrate on a single type or brand of camera than to just collect cameras willy-nilly as I have done. For example, I recently viewed a stunning display of rangefinder Canons beginning with the Canon S-II of the late ‘40s and ending with the last model in series production, the coveted Canon 7sZ that finished in late 1968. The happy owner, who also shoots with some of his 100 or so Canons, confesses that he hasn’t been able to find earlier bayonet mount Canons with Nikkor lenses such as the iconic Hansa Canon (Kwanon) of 1935-1940 and the Canon S of 1938-1945 at affordable prices. However, he has supplemented his Canon collection with some captivating examples of Canon’s erstwhile competitors, the Leotax, Tanack, Honor, and Nicca.

Canon S-!! of 1946-1949 %22Made in Occupied Japan%22 with 50mm f:3.5 collapsible Serenar lens.jpg
Canon S-II of 1946-1949 was stamped "Made in Occupied Japan." A collector's prize, it's fitted with an outstanding 50mm f/3.5 Serenar lens,

Specialization is a gradient, and many experienced camera collectors specialize in 2 or 3 camera categories and brands and will occasionally snap up an interesting “out of category” camera that turns up at a great price, possibly with the intention of eventually swapping it for a hard to find “in category” camera.

Set standards. There are a few collectors out there who claim that that won’t buy a camera unless it’s in mint condition. Good luck to them, because I have found that 99% of used cameras described as “mint” have minor cosmetic defects of one kind or another—typically minor scratches, paint loss, issues with the leatherette covering, or cleaning marks on the lens. If you really want a “mint” camera, try to find one listed as “new in box,” and even then, perfectionists are likely to be disappointed—unless the camera in question has literally never been unpacked, in which case the seller can only post a photo of the “sealed” box.

New Old Stock Canon A-1 and case. Really %22%22mint%22? Maybe..png
If you really want a "mint" camera, and are willing to pay extra, find a new old stock or unused example like this Canon A-1 in original packing.

My personal criteria are as follows: I will not pay a substantial premium for a camera listed as “mint” or “new in box,” but I do confine my purchases to cameras that are very clean and fully functional with as few blemishes as possible. I will accept a few minor surface scratches, especially in inconspicuous places, and a neatly and discreetly engraved owner’s name or I.D. number is OK. I will not, except in the rarest of cases, purchase a camera that is dented or shows brass through the chrome or black finish (I know there are many collectors that adore “brassed” cameras). An exception: My beautiful Nikon S, which is fully functional and fitted with a near mint 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S.C lens, but has a teensy bit of brass showing near the front viewfinder window and a couple of shallow dents, and circular tripod-mounting scratches on the bottom plate. Note: There are no official standards for purchasing vintage cameras—you must set your own—and bear in mind that all those descriptive adjectives used by sellers reflect their personal opinions (maybe with a bit if hype added) and may not reflect your own.

Nikon S  with 50mm f:21,4 Nikkor-S.C lens.Nte slight brassing near front viewfinder window,.jpg
My beautiful Nikon S is one if the few cameras I've ever bought with slight "brassing" and minor dents in] the bottom plate. I still love it!

Beware the repair trap. You may well find that the collectible camera if your dreams that checks all the boxes in your “must have” list requires some repairs, especially if you intend to shoot with it. But not all repairs are created equal. Rangefinders that work but are out of adjustment, shutters that fire at all speeds but are too slow, dusty viewfinders, mirrors and viewing screens, and meters that read too high or too low can usually be repaired at reasonable cost. Shutters and rangefinders that don’t work at all may not be repairable, replacing perforated shutter curtains is time consuming, very expensive, and not every repair shop will do it, and meters that are dead may be irreparable without replacing the meter cell or mechanism, which are often unobtainable. Even old cameras that appear to work perfectly should really be checked out and C.L.A.-ed by a competent repair person before you rely on them for taking pictures on film, which is, after all, a labor intensive and expensive undertaking in 2024.

Vpoigtlander Avus 9x12cm with excellene 13.5cm f:4.5 Skopar lens in old dial-set Compur shutter.jpg
Voigtlander Avus 9 x12 cm film pack and plate camera of the '20s. I can still use it because it came with a Rada 6x9 cm 120 roll film adapter

Never buy cameras sold “As Is, No Returns Accepted.” The only time you should even think about buying a collectible camera sold “as Is” is if you’re willing to risk losing the entire purchase price on the outside chance that it may be repairable at reasonable cost, or you’re buying it for parts, and the price is irresistible. I’ve done this riverboat gambler thing about a dozen times in the last 10-15 years and have been burned nearly 70% of the time, so, in the immortal words if the ancient Romans, caveat emptor.

Best advice: Buy cameras only from reputable sellers (eBay sellers with over 100 sales and a 99+% seller rating are usually a good bet) and make sure that the return time frame (typically 2-4 weeks) is sufficient for you to get it back to the seller for a full refund, which, incidentally, includes the original taxes paid and your original shipping cost. Normally the return shipping cost is on you, but some dealers offer “free returns,” which means they will add your return shipping cost when they post your refund, a plus.

Make friends with an experienced repair person familiar with repairing vintage cameras: Sadly, most people who fall into this category are getting on a bit, and many have retired, so vintage camera repair specialists are getting harder to find. One we can recommend is Ryan Jones of Pro Camera of Charlottesville, VA, Happily, this 40+ years old company has hired two new young technicians who are learning the age-old craft, so there’s hope for all of us.

Have fun shooting with your vintage classics! Even if you’re primarily a showcase collector there’s nothing quite so satisfying as walking around with an ancient camera and taking pictures with it. Aside from sheet film, the only film sizes generally available are 120 roll film and 35mm, but both are widely sold in a variety of black and white and color emulsions, including ISO 100 to ISO 800 color print and color transparency films, and black-and-white films with speeds ranging from IS0 40 to ISO 3200. Many of the vintage lenses on your goldy-oldie classics also capture that breathless quality known as “the vintage look.” So, if anyone taps you on the shoulder and questions your sanity when they notice the antique you’re shooting with, you can just say you’re doing it for art’s sake—just like the Ars Gratia Artis banner below the roaring MGM lion, which is now, in this shamelessly illiterate era, preceded by the English translation, “Art for Art’s Sake.”
 
When I was about 17 one of my brothers-in-law asked me: "Do you want to be a photographer or a collector?" Well I guess I know how that turned out :)


Vinny and His Cameras1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

But the above was long ago -- things are sooo much different now!

View attachment 4832233
Nice collection! Except for too many damn Hasselblads-:) However, I do like the pristine Rolleiflex New Standard in the lower right-hand corner and hope you run some film through your treasures from time to time. Cheers.
 
1. Following your posts Vince Lupo hints at what you now reveal but I wonder about the missing dimension of the collector that has not yet been considered. Because long before any of this on RFF most here would know you for some very fine photographs. Where does being any good at photography itself put a would-be collector? is that part of the syndrome?

2. Behind every great man there is a great woman. Or as my wife informed me, a surprised woman. The indulgence of our spouses seems to be a default requirement.

My cameras and lenses have never been seen massed on the border for an all-out assault like Vince’s. One quiet corner of storage is camouflaged by multiple rolls of unfiled negatives thrown (lightly tossed actually) over less often used lenses. Another row of lenses is in front of some books in a lockable bookcase with just two lenses similarly shelved behind glass above that. Bringing out a recent M acquisition hardly lets slip an extravagance when my M9-P looks much like the M2, or an MA or a number of others, which I don’t have. Even I have mistaken an X100 in the field for a Leica, for a moment. And same goes for another silver or black Leica lens.

But none of this might matter. I had formal permission, like instantly, for the M9, and the Monochrom eighteen months later. And this from the spouse whose two refrains are “And don’t bring a camera” (which is why I needed a couple of Barnacks) and “I’m not waiting“, As she strides on the pressure forces out of me a better shot.
 
I was disheartened to realize that I have way more cameras than in either of Vince's "environmental self-portraits." On the other hand, I have taken lots of pictures with pretty much all of them at one time or another, as witnessed by the many scores of developed rolls I pitched out last week <sigh>.

But I came across this quote by Winston Churchill last night. Replace "books" with "cameras" and I think it's apt:

“If you cannot read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them – peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on the shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that if you do not know what is in them, you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends; let them at any rate be your acquaintances. If they cannot enter the circle of your life, do not deny them at least a nod of recognition.”​

 
Ah you can’t have too many Hasselblads, especially where 1000f’s are concerned. And that’s an Old Standard Rollei - my $65 ‘as-is’ special from KEH (which turned out to be a beautiful camera).
 
Ha! Should have read page 2 before replying! I've just bought my Old Standard with Christmas money, and so far it's looking like it might prove a bargain... of course I have to finish the roll and develop it yet, many a slip twixt cup and lip...
 
I was disheartened to realize that I have way more cameras than in either of Vince's "environmental self-portraits." On the other hand, I have taken lots of pictures with pretty much all of them at one time or another, as witnessed by the many scores of developed rolls I pitched out last week <sigh>.

But I came across this quote by Winston Churchill last night. Replace "books" with "cameras" and I think it's apt:

“If you cannot read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them – peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on the shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that if you do not know what is in them, you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends; let them at any rate be your acquaintances. If they cannot enter the circle of your life, do not deny them at least a nod of recognition.”​

Wonderful to see this again. I live like this. Many books I haven’t yet read but have looked at, and will read when I retire; others I know when and where I read them and there is great pleasure in just seeing them and being reminded. I have photography sections scattered through the house. My wife had the genius idea of a wall of books opposite the foot of the bed. The photography section of that has the only very larger books top shelf and the most visible section all have similar colored spines and heights. It’s a bit like fondling Leicas, verging on the obsession of not having silver lenses on black cameras.
 
Good to know you are using your cameras as well as writing about them...

When I came to Australia in the '70s, Pentacons, Prakticas, Paktinas et al were thick on the shelves in many pawn shops, going at almost giveaway prices. For a month's tour of Far North Queensland in 1974 I bought an Exakta (I've forgotten the model but it was old) with the stellar f/1.9 standard lens, which did me well for (mostly B&W) shooting of almost every pineapple plantation, bamboo grove and billabong I came across. Ditto the beautiful beaches, then all but deserved, now sadly awash in residential complexes and retirement villages. I think I paid AUD $60 for the camera which in those days was half a week's take-home wages for most workers. How times have changed.

I used a Pentacon 6 a few times, courtesy of a friend in Perth who was addicted to the superb optics (I believe East German Zeiss), he did mostly nature studies and landscapes and his results were to me good enough to be reproduced as color spreads in books, which as I recall he did, a few times. All now long gone. I wonder what happened to his film archives and also his cameras.

I found the Pentagon not to my liking in ergonomics altho' the results were fine. I had a Rolleiflex TLR which I still use, and found it much more to my liking as it was easier to carry and simpler to operate. Fast track 30 years and I had, courtesy of my architectural practice which gave me good credit if not great amounts of ready cash, a Hasselblad ensemble consisting of a 500, a 501 and no less than FOUR ELs (I plead temporary insanity here, but back then they were dirt cheap) with five Zeiss lenses and a good-sized box of accessories. All now sold as again I found the 'blad ergonomics didn't suit me. Let me hasten to add this is an entirely personal, well, "prejudice" I guess, and very much one user's opinion. Many friends have Hasselblads and will never ever part with them, so I am very much on my own in my "unliking" for them. My excuse is that I'm basically a TLR shooter, which could mean I tend to look down at the world rather than up or at eye level...

I still have film cameras and I enjoy using them. Sadly, the cost of film in Australia is now so high, and my pensioner's budget is now so low, that for me buying a five-pack of anything analog is more an investment than a splurge. I have a few dozen 120 rolls left in my darkroom fridge and when I've used those up, well, a hard decision will then have to be made, as to whether I dispose of the cameras (either sell them or give them to family members, none of who are showing any particular interest in film or photography) or just put them on the shelf to collect dust and be disposed of in time by my partner.

We all get to the point of having to make those "hard" decisions, but for now, the pleasure of taking a camera down from the shelf, loading it with Ilford or Adox or Rollei 120 film and going walkabout with it, continues. So a collector-user I am. Truly in the middle...

PS On a related post, I remember Vince's photos from an earlier post of his. Question for you, did you take them all to New Mexico with you? That must have required a small truck! Me, I would have left behind the pre-1920 gear, not that it would have reduced the load by much. As disposing of equipment goes you seem to be getting there, (for me) parting with any one of them would be like having a tooth pulled without any anesthetic...
 
I was disheartened to realize that I have way more cameras than in either of Vince's "environmental self-portraits." On the other hand, I have taken lots of pictures with pretty much all of them at one time or another, as witnessed by the many scores of developed rolls I pitched out last week <sigh>.

But I came across this quote by Winston Churchill last night. Replace "books" with "cameras" and I think it's apt:

“If you cannot read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them – peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on the shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that if you do not know what is in them, you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends; let them at any rate be your acquaintances. If they cannot enter the circle of your life, do not deny them at least a nod of recognition.”​

You “pitched out scores of rolls of developed film?” While I subscribe to Ecclesiastes’ pungent observation that “all is vanity” and even our precious negatives will not last forever, I thought that one of the main advantages of analog photography is that it creates a physical record that can be scanned or photographically printed well into the future irrespective of any changes in future information retrieval technology. I sure hope that my negatives outlast my aging carcass and I would never consign them to a “bonfire of the vanities” or the tender mercies of the town dump. As for Winston Churchill’s thoughtful observation on interacting with books I agree that it certainly applies to cameras as well. Winnie was a great man, a brilliant wartime statesman, and an incisive wit, but that didn’t prevent him from also being a world class SOB.
 
This is a wonderful thread, Jason. I guess I am a collector since I don't know how many cameras I have. I have not counted them in years, but it has to be well over 200. I've shot most of them except for a sub-category of plastic promotional (advertising) camera. I've got about 50 of those colorful beauties. My favorite to collect and shoot are Barnacks. I shot 170 rolls of assorted formats last year so I am a user-collector, too. (Of course you have to test each new camera, even it requires slitting film or using adapters.)
 
You “pitched out scores of rolls of developed film?” While I subscribe to Ecclesiastes’ pungent observation that “all is vanity” and even our precious negatives will not last forever, I thought that one of the main advantages of analog photography is that it creates a physical record that can be scanned or photographically printed well into the future irrespective of any changes in future information retrieval technology. I sure hope that my negatives outlast my aging carcass and I would never consign them to a “bonfire of the vanities” or the tender mercies of the town dump. As for Winston Churchill’s thoughtful observation on interacting with books I agree that it certainly applies to cameras as well. Winnie was a great man, a brilliant wartime statesman, and an incisive wit, but that didn’t prevent him from also being a world class SOB.
To be clear, developed and printed so I knew whether they were worth keeping or not. The vast majority, not. And the ones that predated electronic files (photo CDs mainly) got more summary treatment. Bottom line was (and is), are these worth seeing ever again?
 
Last edited:
I used to collect Leicas. It got too expensive. So I concentrated on factory converted black ltm Leicas. That got too expensive. So now I collect clockwork 8mm movie cameras. They are cheap, consequently I have too many.

I am now trying to sell off my collection, haven't the time for actually taking photographs
 
DownUnder's post raises the difficult question, for those of us getting along in years, of where our beloved analog cameras will go when we're gone. I'm thinking of making mine a donation to any higher education institution that has a good photography program as part of their Fine Arts Department; for me, the University of New Mexico is in my back yard and would be a great choice.
Now, the thought of some 18 year old photo student manhandling my precious Hasselblads and Rolleis makes my stomach churn, particularly as I manned the Photo Dept. tool crib in college; many a student-mangled Leica passed through my hands. But if someone could develop a passion for analog photography by using (and even abusing!) those cameras, I suppose it would be for the best. Better than the dumpster, for sure, but the time to make those arrangements is now.
 
I've been taking photographs since the early 70's and have been a full time pro since the 1990's along with teaching photo classes at my local community college. The first serious camera I bought at the age of 15 was a Contax III with uncoated f/1.5 Sonnar from Olden Camera by mail order. The shutter died within a few days and they refunded the full price. I then moved on to SLRs which were a lot more practical for the work I was doing. Contax Post War.jpgContax II,III w:lenses 2.jpgA little over 10 years ago I got back into Contax cameras, this time with a Contax IIIa and f/2 Opton Sonnar. Shooting film again was fun and a break from all the time in front of a computer that digital work entailed, so I have gone into user/collector mode as the following two photos will show. Like Jason Schneider, I look for cameras and lenses in decent condition that are fully operable and I do use them regularly. Since I tend toward the obsessive and lack a rich uncle to leave me millions I have limited myself to Contax and accessories, although I do own a couple of Rolleiflexes that I used professionally in film days.
 
I think a distinction may be made between a camera collector and a camera enthusiast. I have over 80 cameras, but really wouldn't consider myself a collector. I would say that collectors generally have an aim, they're after a specific brand, looking for particular models, value rarity, condition, etc. Whereas enthusiasts tend to just grab whatever catches their fancy. I don't like to have non-functional cameras, regardless of how rare they are. If I can't take pictures with it, I don't "collect" it. A collector on the other hand will be perfectly happy to have a rare camera locked away in a display case.

I did once receive the most rude and idiotic treatment from a camera seller, who got irrationally angry at me for looking at various cameras he was selling "Nobody collects ALL those different brands!" he shouted, and told me I was "tire kicking" and wasting his time. Meanwhile at home, I have Altissas, Brauns, Certos, Dacoras, Exaktas, and so on... I guess he was right, I'm not a collector. I'm an enthusiast. He didn't make a sale after that outburst, by the way.
 
I think a distinction may be made between a camera collector and a camera enthusiast. I have over 80 cameras, but really wouldn't consider myself a collector. I would say that collectors generally have an aim, they're after a specific brand, looking for particular models, value rarity, condition, etc. Whereas enthusiasts tend to just grab whatever catches their fancy. I don't like to have non-functional cameras, regardless of how rare they are. If I can't take pictures with it, I don't "collect" it. A collector on the other hand will be perfectly happy to have a rare camera locked away in a display case.

I did once receive the most rude and idiotic treatment from a camera seller, who got irrationally angry at me for looking at various cameras he was selling "Nobody collects ALL those different brands!" he shouted, and told me I was "tire kicking" and wasting his time. Meanwhile at home, I have Altissas, Brauns, Certos, Dacoras, Exaktas, and so on... I guess he was right, I'm not a collector. I'm an enthusiast. He didn't make a sale after that outburst, by the way.
I’m kinda like you in this regard - maybe we should call ourselves ‘accumulators’?
 
Age has a lot to do with it, your age that is, not the equipment's. As Retro Grouch says, it becomes important to get rid of stuff because the next generation will not attach the same value to it as you did. Sell, donate or whatever, just don't imagine your children will cherish boxes full of equipment that is no longer relevant unless it has a very close family provenance.
 
I intend to have a spreadsheet that my son and gf can access that will have a listing of items, good places to sell, and minimum acceptable prices to accept. That won't be much for some (ok, most) of my things, but the Leica stuff and some of some of the earlier Nikkor stuff has at least enough value to warn them not to be ripped off.

But realistically, my collection will not net them much - if they get lucky on the M 240 & the LTM & M mount lenses, perhaps the whole pile might get a them a few grand. I'm no Jason or Brian so nothing exciting here. The only thing of any real value is hopefully what I've done with them and I've still got a couple of years to prove that.
 
I don't think I fulfil all the criteria for the diagnosis of collectivitis - I'm more like "photographer with symptoms of collecting".

I have an interest in AF SLR cameras from the 80s and 90s - that's when I was corrupted by the photographic press.

Here's everything I have, there is just a Minolta X300 and a Nikon F801s added since that video (and a couple of lenses too).

 
Back
Top Bottom