Didn't, but now think I should have.

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
11:47 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Stopped at many garage sales and antique shops while travelling to visit Mom this weekend. In a small town called Deseronto, there was a shop that had a like new Retina IIF rangefinder camera, case, and owners manual for $34. This camera had a built in Selenium light meter that still works, and all the controls were silky smooth. I would have liked it but I have too many cameras already, and even have a simpler model of this camera without RF and meter. For a while I felt good and proud of myself for walking away, but kept thinking about it, I now feel that I should have bought it. Yes, or no?

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Retina_IIF
 
Last edited:
I know how you feel. Every photo show I go to I see lovely older film cameras. But I always stop myself and think that I have not recently used either of my Barnacks, my Rollei 35, my Rollei TLR or my Canon EF.

I dropped into Henrys outlet store last week -- now in Mississauga -- and saw boxes and boxes of Pentaxes, Canon AE's and lower end film Nikons for around $35 a piece. Very sad.

On the other hand, you could have brought it to the next RFF meeting.:D
 
Congrats on fighting the urge, Frank. This is a big win in the war against GAS.

To celebrate, you should buy yourself a camera.;)
 
Alfred Eisenstadt wrote that he once wanted a new camera bag, but decided against it because it would not improve his photography.
 
Yes you should have. She needs to have some film run through her. Perhaps after you confirm her meter and speeds are spot on you can give her to a young budding RF user near you. She's a fine camera with tons of great pictures in her still.

B2 (;->
 
Next step is to stop going to garage sales and antique shops.

I seem to have slowed down on buying the little stuff, but my desire for top-end gear seems to be getting worse. :(
 
Think you made the right decision this time. It's just not realistic to take all the little orphan cameras home best to leave it for someone who needs it and will use it.
 
It's an addiction Frank. I say well done you despite now going through the recrimination stage you will come out the other side a stronger, better man.

My GAS attacks usually take the form of being dumb enough to persuade myself that the desired new kit WILL improve my photography....it never does.

Be strong and rejoice in your freedom from GAS :D
 
Yes, well done! I am dfar away from that stadium of curing myself, just got a new lens yesterday. But I will keep on telling myself that NOTHING needs to be bought in the next months - except maybe films, paper and darkroom chemistry! You should be proud. All the other reasons stated above are reasons for staying addicted!
 
I took my new Retina IIS to my friendly service shop today for some CLA. They had on sale a nice looking Retina IIF. Guess what's the price tag? 160€ which is something like $200...
 
I dont know, are you a photographer or a collector? This is a serious question, I have absolutely nothing against collectors. But as a photographer the closer yuo get to using one camera and one lens only the more your photography will benefit. This is a fact, ask anyone who has done it.
 
I own the Kodak Retina IIF. It is probably the best of the Retina series. It has a German made lens that is extremely sharp & with excellent color rendition. The one I have has a meter that is spot on. The battery is the current Z625. A camera like that is definitely worth purchasing if for nothing else to try it once and then to pass it on. Kodak during the 1930s thru the 1950s (with a break for the war) had many of their cameras made in Germany ( I am not an expert here).
 
" But as a photographer the closer yuo get to using one camera and one lens only the more your photography will benefit. This is a fact, ask anyone who has done it."

While this subjective statement may be true for individuals, as a generalization, it is nonsense. The only benefit one obtains from limiting oneself to one camera and one lens is a better familiarity with one imaging tool and the tendency to impose that tool's limitations on every subject one wishes to photograph. One's 35mm Leica will not do justice to the subject that should be rendered with a 4x5 view camera, and this subjective vision belongs to the photographer, not to any one-camera-one-lens policy.
 
Again, ask somebody who has tried it if they think their photography improved as a result of it or not. Obviously this is something that we can discuss theoreticaly forever and nobody can prove right or wrong, but here is another indication for you (since its the RFF forum I will only mention RF shooters, better chances of people knowing them): Winogrand and his 28, Bresson and his 50, Constantinos Manos and his 28, Abbas and his 35, Matt Stewart and 35, Blake Andrews and 40... I could go on for a bit with important photographers who did 90% of their work with one lens and countless others that I'm not sure what they're using but you can tell its always something usually between 28 and 40. If I need to give a theoretical explanation is that by using the same "eyes" you learn to see what the camera sees which is never the same as the naked eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom