Letting go of old camera friends?

[eko]

Hi - I think keeping a couple to be given to your children is a good idea - they may not be interested now, but in 5 or 10 years' time it may be different. In the meantime you still have them available for your own use, should you want to.

If you're more than happy with the F6 then keeping one of the OMs for sentimental/personal reasons is a good idea too, but like others have said - is there a focussing screen that might make it easier to focus? (I'm not an OM expert so I can't say, tho I too have too many - 4 OM2ns plus 2 nikons and a couple of russian rangefinders - it's always easy to justify hanging on to them, ain't it 🙂).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just a thought; does the focusing problem happen with all the bodies or just one?

I had this trouble a while ago and started unloading cameras and then noticed that some were easy to focus and that others (just one or two) had had problems.

Perhaps a change of screen might be the answer...

BTW, I've read what the others say but have to add that cameras need to be used. Storage is bad for them and that is why I'm getting rid of most of my collection. Better to have a few, imo, and use them all the time than a collection that will/may need repairs when it's too late to do anything.

Regards, David

 

[emraphoto]

I don't know why, but I have never, ever gotten emotionally attached to my cameras. I sell them all the time, buy new ones, and so on. Sometimes I regret selling a certain camera but that is mostly because I realized what a good camera it was and I should have never sold it to begin with.

I say, sell it all and invest the money in your new gear. It's like starting a grand, new adventure.....

i agree. sell what you aren't using and fill the cabinet with film.

 

[dtcls100]

While you mentioned the bodies and lenses, you failed to mention what focusing screen(s) you are using. Have you tried a split prism on the OM-4T with the diopter adjustment set to bring the meter scale into sharp focus? With that set-up, it is fairly easy to see when the focus is correct.

My different OM bodies have different screens. For my OM-4, OM-4T and OM-4Ti bodies, I use the newer and brighter 2-13 (microprism/split image) and 2-4 screens (one of the 2-4 screens has a custom etched grid done professionally). My OM-2n, OM-1 and OM-1n bodies use either the 1-13, 1-1, 1-2, or 1-4n screens.

My occasional focusing problems have occurred with all the bodies, mainly indoors or in moderate to low light. For some reason, sometimes I have no problem focusing (as was the case until this past year), while at other times I have trouble seeing the focusing aids clearly, so that turning the focusing ring a bit doesn't seem to change the focus at all. This is clearly a problem with my eyesight, as 10-11 OM bodies can't all have the same problem and any given roll will contain mostly sharp photos, with a few definitely off, even where the subjects were stationary. My eyesight for all other purposes -- except focusing through a camera -- hasn't really changed, although I am having some increasing problems reading very fine print -- a typical sign of advancing age.

 

[dtcls100]

Decision

Decision

Thanks for all of your comments and thoughts. After considering all of your comments, I have decided to thin the herd by selling some of the bodies (some with rare 2 series focusing screens) and some of the duplicate and more common lenses. I have also decided to sell one of my Mamiya 6 bodies, as I have four of them and really don't need that many.

I plan on selling an OM-4 (with updated, low drain circuit board and newer 2-4 matte focusing screen installed), a champagne OM-4T (refurbished a few years ago by Olympus with a newer 2-4 professionally etched grid matte focusing screen installed), a chrome OM-2n body (overhauled a few years ago by John Hermanson of Camtech), a 50mm f1.8 MIJ, a 35mm f2.8 shift (rare multicoated version), a rare Beattie 45 degree split image/microprism focusing screen (very bright focusing screen), a Mamiya 6 body, and perhaps some other items.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know why, but I have never, ever gotten emotionally attached to my cameras. I sell them all the time, buy new ones, and so on. Sometimes I regret selling a certain camera but that is mostly because I realized what a good camera it was and I should have never sold it to begin with.

I say, sell it all and invest the money in your new gear. It's like starting a grand, new adventure.....

Dear Rick,

Not necessarily. It can also be like starting the same old pointless consumerist adventure all over again, with the same old witless belief that a new camera will get you better pictures. Perhaps not in this specific case, but all too often.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bille]

Thanks for all of your comments and thoughts. After considering all of your comments, I have decided to thin the herd by selling some of the bodies (some with rare 2 series focusing screens) and some of the duplicate and more common lenses.

No one mentioned the SONY a7 so far. It´s not for everyone, but well worth a try. Might spark new life into your OM lens collection.

 

[daveleo]

You will eventually be sorry if you sell anything that was your first ever ______, or THE camera that _______.
I speak from experience.
Some things (actually many things) are worth much more than money.

 

[dtcls100]

No one mentioned the SONY a7 so far. It´s not for everyone, but well worth a try. Might spark new life into your OM lens collection.

Actually, if I was going to get some serious digital cameras, I probably would get a Sony A7ii or Fuji XT-1 (to use the OM lenses) and a Nikon D750 (for the Nikon stuff). However, despite the great advantages/convenience of digital cameras (like not having to stop shooting after 36-38 frames to rewind and reload), I just don't really feel the need to buy an expensive digital camera now, knowing that meaningful improvements continue to be made. I accept that on a quantifiable basis, the image resolution and contrast achieved by many digital cameras now exceed that of 35mm film cameras. However, image quality also includes the non-quantifiable look and rendering of images and I regard the color, better handling of highlights, and overall more natural, pleasing look of film images to still be superior, except in low light situations.

Accordingly, I plan on sticking with film for at least a few more years and will see how the digital sensors and cameras continue to improve. My wife has a Canon Rebel T3i, which I occasionally use for pics to be shared with multiple friends. However, IMHO the feel of using it (and multiple other consumer grade digital cameras I have handled) is no where near the pleasure of using any of the film cameras I presently use (Nikon F6, Nikon FM3a, Olympus OM, Olympus 35SP rangefinder, Mamiya 6 rangefinder), being more akin to the pleasure derived from using a calculator. Also the pics look overly clinical to me and the skin tones look a bit like clay. Of course, if I was interested in or good at computer adjustments/image processing, I am sure the digital pics could look very good. But I don't want to sit in front of a computer for hours doing this. Rather be out there shooting. 🙂

 

[CliveC]

I've more or less chosen the OM system to be the one I buy into for both film and to be later adapted for FF digital. Nice compact lenses and sharp. Just need a 21mm or 24mm to round out the wide end. A 50mm 1.4 as well at some point, but I find the 1.8 to be pretty good as is.

On the body side, got a OM1, OM2n, OM4, and OM4T. Lovely cameras, though I still do not have a OM1 in nice condition.

 

[jarski]

guess OP already did the decision, but I'd like to mention that focusing assist technologies improve all the time. letting the film bodies go but keep the lenses might be one option.

 

[Rodchenko]

The only way I could love an SLR is the focussing screen with the diagonal split. Made a world of difference to me.

Sorry, don't know the number offhand.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Aging eyes caused me to sell off all of my Oly OM system when I was in my mid-50s and switch to Canon autofocus. Now I have an OM-2n and an OM-2sp and a few lenses for sentimental reasons, but don't shoot much film. Digital is better by most objective standards, but I have to say that for me, shooting film was somehow more satisfying. However, I am primarily a color slide shooter, and processing is prohibitively expensive. I have processed thousands of rolls of E-6 in rotary drums, with chemicals in a water bath controlled by a fish-tank heater, but don't really want to go back to that.

 

[HHPhoto]

However, I am primarily a color slide shooter, and processing is prohibitively expensive.

It is not, Dave.
There are lots of professional labs who are doing an excellent job at reasonable and even cheap prices.
Have a look here for recommended E6 labs:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137289

Here in Germany for example E6 processing is really cheap: The drug store chains offer it for only 1,95€ to 2,55€. And professional local labs for 4,00 - 5,50€.

And for a correct calculation you have to include the prints with colour negative film.
E6 is not expensive if you consider all costs. It is even cheaper than shooting colour negative film.
Because:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.

Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with 1 - 1,5 MP.

The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).

2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.

I have processed thousands of rolls of E-6 in rotary drums, with chemicals in a water bath controlled by a fish-tank heater, but don't really want to go back to that.

E6 home processing is very easy and cheap using a Jobo CPE or CPP machine. Then it is even more easy than developing BW at home.
Using the Fuji, Tetenal or Bellini E6 kits the costs for E6 processing at home are extremely low.

Cheers, Jan

 

[tunalegs]

In the U.S. it's not the processing which makes slides expensive, it's the absurd price of slide film. A roll of Velvia is $14+ if you buy it at a shop.

I've been buying grey market Agfa Precisa ever since Kodak discontinued Ektachrome since there is nothing else even remotely reasonably priced around. I hope Ferrania can get their new film to market for a decent price.

 

[HHPhoto]

In the U.S. it's not the processing which makes slides expensive, it's the absurd price of slide film. A roll of Velvia is $14+ if you buy it at a shop.

Well, please consider the following aspects:

1. At B&H for example the prices are significantly lower:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc.../Transparency&ci=2545&N=4093113317+4130468182

2. For a real and valid economic assessment price is only one factor: The other, more important factor ist the value you get for that price.
And the value you get with reversal film is significantly higher compared to negative film.
Because:

a) Reversal film is much more versatile than negative film. It is more flexible and has higher versatility. You have more using options:
- you can just hold a slide to the light and have a picture you can look at
- you cant put it in a slide viewer to enjoy
- you can put it on a lighttable for a view with an excellent slide loupe for highest quality at lower magnification
- you can project it with a projector on a screen for big enlargements: best quality at extremely tiny costs
- you can make direct optical prints on Ilfochrome (some professional labs are still offering it) and on Harman and Imago direct positive BW paper
- you can scan it and make prints on RA-4 silver-halide paper (some of my best RA-4 and BW prints are from reversal film), BW silver-halide paper or on inkjet
- you can scan it and expose it on display film for making lovely big slides as big as you want.

With negative film you have much less options:
You can make prints from it, either optical or via scan.

b) With reversal film and projection you have by far the best quality (sharpness, resolution, colour brillance) for big enlargements at negligible costs. No other medium, neither negative film nor digital, can offer that.

c) Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100 offer the finest grain, best sharpness and highest resolution in this speed class.
No negative film with comparable speed can compete (I've did intensive direct comparisons of all current films; other experts did, too, getting the same result):
http://www.aphog.de/?p=364

Therefore the bit higher price for reversal film is justified.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Paul Jenkin]

It took me until my 30s but, when I lost my dad and mum, it dawned on me that everything is temporary and that people are way more important than things. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't become attached to or cherish their posessions but there's a point when something has lost its utility when you do have to question (as has the OP) whether to let it go. If the items have some residual value, why not cash them in and build a "relationship" with something that offers greater utility.

 

[Pherdinand]

A dilemma is a forced decision between two equally unfavorable choices.

You nicely explain that you are NOT forced to make this decision 😀
so you don't have a dilemma 😀

OK if you really feel the need to do something about it, i agree with the above: do the "thinning' as you calll it, keep the one(s) with most sentimental attachment.

 

[jsrockit]

It all really comes down to if you are the type to get attached to stuff, or are the type that realizes it is just stuff. I'd say that you have kept it this long because you are attached to it. In that case, keep some of it since it isn't worth a ton of cash anyway.

 

[marcr1230]

Amen - I agree

It took me until my 30s but, when I lost my dad and mum, it dawned on me that everything is temporary and that people are way more important than things. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't become attached to or cherish their posessions but there's a point when something has lost its utility when you do have to question (as has the OP) whether to let it go. If the items have some residual value, why not cash them in and build a "relationship" with something that offers greater utility.