Getting (your) quality from your old beaters.

charjohncarter

charjohncarter

Veteran
Local time
5:54 AM
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
10,179
I have never sold a camera. Well, I sold a Leica IIIc with a Summar f2.0 in 1964 for $50.00, and that was a mistake, so I learned my lesson. After many years in photography I have ended up with all kinds of cameras. Some given to me, some I bought from relatives, and plenty I just bought (new). But the point to this thread is: does anyone else just enjoy getting the most out of an old beater that wasn't the best when it was new? For some reason, I just like seeing my meager collection of cameras produce photos that I like.
 
I've been pleasantly surprised by decent results from my Dad's old Petri 7S. But his 1930's Kodak Junior 620 is a pain. A learning experience... I admit to preferring to use better gear, then I have only myself to blame when the results aren't good. :)
 
I'm with you Charjohncarter. I am recently considering selling my most recent camera ( a Vivitar 35es ), I just don't use it. I prefer the other cameras I own that are closer to my age. I like the photos from my Vitomatic and Argus C4. It is surprising and satisfying to get pleasing pictures from "less than the best".

Steve
 
I'll disagree a little bit here -- I definitely think you can shoot great pictures with (originally/currently) undesirable cameras, but one thing they need to have for me: great optics. Case in point, I have taken a fair number of 'great' (as judged by myself :D ) shots with such humble cameras as a Contaflex Super, a Contessamat (1960s version, not the earlier folders) and the Kodak Signet 35, and my Crown Graphic 23 (with Ektar glass), but I do think the optics matter here. I don't think those same shots would have been as good with, say, a triplet-glassed P&S from the 1960s or 1970s or a Holga -- or a modern SLR with a bad off-brand zoom, for that matter...
 
If one looks not at price but at quality of results, there is seldom much difference between "best" and "less than best". Economists would call the difference marginal.
 
I think it's more important that the camera works right with you, that the controls are in the right places and that the ergonomics are OK than that it is from a good brand or that it has a lot of features. When taking pictures you don't notice the brand name on your camera, but you do notice if the camera is easy or fumbly to work with.
 
Hi!

After I got some appropriate batteries for my [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Zeiss Ikon Voigtländer Vitessa 500AE (what a name!), I was pretty much surprised by the quality of the lens ([/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Voigtländer Color-Lanthar 2.8/42) - very good results.

And my little Minolta Hi-Matic F always is a source of joy!

Excellent pictures I get from my p&s Leica C2 and my FED-3b and my AGFAs also are still doing well.


[/FONT]
 
I have two new DSLRs and a new Bessa R (which I like), an old Leica with many lenses, and for some reason I still like to pick up my Konica C35 (the one someone threw across a room) and shoot what I feel like, in comfort, just me and my small camera. Here is one from a recent morning walk: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/683581973/

or the Agfa Optima IIS: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4645402

I do agree with mbsic, I do like some level of optical quality. In other words, no Holgas. But it still amazes me how well some of these second level cameras perform.
 
charjohncarter said:
But it still amazes me how well some of these second level cameras perform.
Click to expand...
Not even to mention some cheap-as-chips stuff like a 50-year-old Zorki & I-50 combo, which can produce amazing results for not much more than the cost of the film + developing. I once calculated that total cost of my Zorki 6 + collapsible I-50 along with buying, developing & printing the 6x4s from one roll of Kodak Gold 200/24 was only $5 more than the same deal with the plastic-lens disposable from the supermarket.

It makes you think. Not only does the FSU outfit take a better photo - the disposable camera is of no use as a personal weapon!

...Mike
 
I just want to mention one thing in the same theme with this thread's,
I learned not to sneeze on Russian cameras and lenses.

They are amazing picture taking equipments.

And I have a group of Olympus RF's, SLR's and Half-frames. Which are also killers.
 
No true "beaters" here, but there is the "anti-Holga/anti-disposable" number that I almost forgot about:

attachment.php


This was supposed to to go to my niece as a gift, but it somehow got misplaced, so I gave her my Yashica T4 instead, which she really liked. Then, when I moved, the POP somehow, er, popped up again. So it gets used when I'm a sort of weird/super-footloose mood. Load it up with some strange emulsion and have at it. A fun machine, and much better built than something in this range has a right to be. :)


- Barrett
 

Attachments

  • KPOP.jpg
    KPOP.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 0
amateriat, I guess my title was a little misleading. I really didn't mean that a camera had to be trashed (like the Konica that was thrown across the room, never mind), I just meant a camera that would have been worth zero five years ago, so you didn't sell it. Now, they may be worth close to zero, but somehow they perform nicely, and they are easier and safer to carry around.
 
Well, I think the POP would qualify in that category: fixed-focus, frighteningly-basic exposure control, but just well-built enough not to throw away on impulse. (If this was the absolute worst of Konica's output, I have to salute them.)


- Barrett
 
amateriat, I have the (I think) first AF point and shoot; a Canon AF35M. I eats batteries like popcorn, has a relatively poor lens, is cheap plastic, and probably less exposure (built-in) controls than your POP. I'd keep the POP, but maybe you want to trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom