how "historic" are you with your gear?

The original question sounds like "cameras as jewelry" and recalls questions you see on other sites about whether you would combine an old Omega watch with a newer-style bracelet.

So no.

Dante
 
No, I don't strive for a period kit. Instead, I mix and match camera bodies and lenses as the mood and subject dictate. One of my absolute faborite shooting combos is a modern CV Skopar 50/2.5 on a Leica IIIc from 1949. I also use vintage lenses on more modern bodies.
 
When I owned a real nice F2 Eyelevel finder dated to 75 (sold it to a forum member) I bought my kit lenses around K series Nikkors from that year give or take a few years. Always K though. Got lucky with the 105/2.5 and got a very early serial number one...or at least I think that was lucky...haha Now I use F mounts from all eras on my dslr and looking to get an adapter so I can use my old Pentax lenses too. I still prefer those K series F mounts for some reason though. :D

If I owned a M2 I would operate the same way. Era matching kit.

If I owned a M3 or M4 I would operate the same way. Era matching kit.

And if I owned a M9 or 240 or MM. Same deal. M mount era wouldn't matter...no odd ball adapters in this case however. lol ;)
 
traveler_101 said:
Do you enjoy the idea of matching gear or is it something you never think about or are you somewhere in-between?
Click to expand...

Not really something I think about too much... I've got a '65 M2, '69 'fat' Tele-Elmarit, and 2014 VM 35mm Color Skopar and 50mm Nokton...

I don't mind the idea of getting a period 50mm Summicron for the M2, but I'm not precious about it.
 
My oldest Leica is a '56 M3, my newest is from last year, and I treat them all the same, use them depending on how I feel.

I'm more picky about lens kits, they are assembled by what I feel is similar rendering, matching speed, size and handling. This can mean same manufacturer (like my classic LTM Nikkors - 28/3.5, 35/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/2), or not. For example, I love to pair the Summilux 75/1.4 with 35/1.4 Nokton or 28/2 Ultron, fitting the Lux with all its faults/charms perfectly, much better than the Leica counterparts would, IMHO.

Roland.
 
At first, I'll make up a kit with whatever works, and I can get my hands on to make it a user. It's later on that I usually start back-filling with original matching accessories and lenses to go with whatever body I have.

To me it's interesting to put together a matching kit. But take for instance my Canon SLR gear. I have bodies and lenses from three different series (FT/FL; FTb/FD; A/FDn), but not a complete set of any one model in the series. But they all work together, so I don't bother knocking myself out trying to fill in one set more than the other. Just as long as I have enough gear to be able to do what I want with the set.

I like to stick to OEM gear, but if there is a lens out there that performs better, I'll get it.

PF
 
I aim to be pretty historic with my gear:

308273_233252276723137_2109743101_n.jpg


11022414_10204962058144440_5483583607532784774_o.jpg


Though I do like mixing it up sometimes, mainly with my Leica gear and Voigtländer lenses....when I'm not re-enacting anything.
 
Mixing and matching modern lenses on old bodies or t'other way round is fine with me, but I must also say there is something quite pleasing about using a complete historic set. I went to Belgium a few years back and use a Leica M3 with an equally old Summarit and it's an interesting feeling to walk around an ancient city like Brussels using a 50 year old camera, loaded with black and white film. As exciting as progress can be, history can be also.
 
Sure, like an 1860s American radial drive petzval to shoot Civil War re-enactors on wetplate.

I mostly match the lens with what look I want in terms of contrast, color rendition, edge aberrations, depth of field, and more. The camera is just a body to hold the lens. I mix and match brands and eras a lot.
 
I'm generally not to particular about what lens gets mounted on what body, but I will confess that I find a particular pleasure in using my matched (as in original, from the dealer) 1949 IIIc and Summitar.
 
Sometimes it's interesting to go for a match, sometimes it's more fun or more useful to mix. It depends.

There is no dishonor in collecting camera gear and enjoying how the bits and pieces go together, any more than there is in practicing the strictly utilitarian requirements of making photographs with whatever comes to hand. Indeed, sometimes combining or even conflating the two can make for a more pleasureable hobby.
 
I have enough of a purist streak that I have a contemporary "normal" lens for each of my Minolta SLR bodies.

Beyond that I have a range of Minolta primes, 28mm - 200mm, in all three generations of MC Rokkor through MD Rokkor and MD Minolta. However, other than the normal lenses, I only have one of each focal length, so I just choose lenses according to the focal length I need.

Sometimes, I think I would like duplicates of some focal lengths from other times with different optical formulas, but I can't justify the expenditure and I'm moving more into medium format, anyway.

- Murray
 
Well, let's see . . . last week I was out at the railroad museum with my M2, 35mm Summaron (match) and 24mm Elmarit ASPH (no match). Tomorrow we leave on a one week trip, and I will take my M6 classic with .72 finder, and the 40mm Rokkor, modified to bring up the 35mm framelines. Maybe I should add a 50mm collapsible Summicron--trying to keep it minimal though. Nahh.

So--I'd say that to some extent, I do match. I like my 35mm Summicron v. 1 or 2.8 Summaron, and the collapsible Summicron, and 90mm chrome Elmarit, on my chrome M2. But I'm not going to leave something behind if I think I'll need it. I think I do often use a black lens on a black body, and chrome on chrome. But I'll mix if I need to.
 
I don't mind anachronisms; right now I am shooting my Canon P with a Juipter-12 from the 80'ies and my Canon 10D with a Helios 35/2.8 (late 70'ies/early 80'ies?)

Example of the latter:

med_U29503I1432989280.SEQ.2.jpg
 
Well, I dunno, as I see it there's two sorts of photography and one of them being purely for fun (my fun, btw) means I can use an outfit that's as it would have been if I was there (and rich enough) to buy it all new. And it's fun putting together an old outfit if you have to do it on a shoestring like I do...

OTOH, if it's serious then the best is what I use, or the most suitable.

But, often the older cameras will do the job anyway. The IIIc and Summitar is a pretty good to excellent lens, especially as I won't go over 8" x 12" these days but I don't think so much of the wide angle lenses from that period (mid-40's).

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom