Not a collector, but...

[sanmich]

I don't see myself as a collector. I don't actively look for special editions or for gear I don't intend to use.
Nevertheless, over the years, I have accumulated a small number of special items that I find myself difficult to part with, as if the fact that they are rare or that I most probably won't ever own them again keeps me from selling them.

So here is my list, and those among you that suffer from the same disorder are invited to share theirs 🙂:

Leica Xenon 50mm 1.5 1936
Mountain elmar 105mm 6.3
Leica III from 1933
a Nickel summar in poor shape
canon 85mm 1.9 black

 

[LeicaTom]

I suffer from the same sickness 😛

My "three" Leica IIIC K Grey's (a 1943 and "two" 1945's) are something I will not part with for a very long time, (one of them I have even owned twice) and the camera came back to me, so it was a
"Love Affair" meant to be I guess? 😉
~ I don't use them, they are all Museum Static display's and too valuable to be users anymore, though the one that I owned twice was a user camera for me 4 years ago......

I have a few lenses that I most likely will NEVER sell as well ~

............like my "two" 43' CZJ f1.5/50 Sonnar T's and my 42' CZJ f2.8/35 Biogon T ~ a mint 1956 Canon f1.5/50 ~ my pair of 1967's a Canon f1.5/35 and a f1.2/50 both getting very heavily used, but which STILL have minty glass 🙂 ~ they are my favorite shooting lenses currently on my M8.
(I suggest that EVERYONE try to find one of those Canon's they are all time great shooting lenses!).

I hope to add a 1942 Leitz Xenon f1.5/50 soon to this list, though I WILL use the lens, on one of my "user" 1945 IIIC K chrome cameras, I also want to see what kind of HD movies it can shoot using a "hacked" GH1 after I have once bought one.

I'm not a full blown out collector.....but I do consider myself a historian and I still have the desire to acquire anything that's US Army and Leica related, but these kind of cameras just aren't out there anymore 🙁

I have been very very lucky to have found the three IIIC K Grey's, I own now, all of which have rich and interesting histories from their original owners ~ I don't think I would ever find any vintage Leica's such as these ever again and that's why I'm keeping them. 🙂

Tom

PS: And if I find a Chrome or BP MP3 or a 1994 M6J ~ I'd work some serious owner/user patina onto it 🙂

 

[rover]

I am a collector, but my M6 Millennium is on the table next to me waiting for something worth shooting at to happen. I will be hanging onto this camera as it is exactly the M I want.

 

[Contarama]

I'm a user not a collector but I have paid some collector prices for some of my pieces!

 

[LeicaTom]

I'm a user not a collector but I have paid some collector prices for some of my pieces!

True how true.......... 😉

Tom

 

[sparrow6224]

As a relatively recent camera buff -- 3 or so years ago -- I'm not clear on why the word "collector" has so many negative connotations. I realize people running around who have no intention of making photographs but buying up certain arbitrarily determined "special" pieces, are annoying; yet I find myself seeking out certain cameras and lenses because of their standing or because of my own aesthetic standards -- I just bought a Nikon F, but in waiting and looking for one, I wanted only a black one, which certainly has no bearing on image making, and which cost me roughly double what a chrome version would cost; and i would only have a plain prism version, because to my eye the Photomic versions look encephalitic. I'm annoyed to discover that the Pentax 50mm f1.4 M42 I bought recently is a Super Takumar, not a SMC Takumar. Do I know that the latter takes better photos? Hell no. But I read somewhere some compelling appreciation of the SMC version so now I'm prejudiced. This is natural human behavior. It is, in fact, when writ larger, what we call human culture: the distinguishing and ranking of things, of experiences, of aesthetic principles, of convictions. So, in short, I'm NOT NOT NOT a collector, but ...... I love my stuff.

 

[sanmich]

As a relatively recent camera buff -- 3 or so years ago -- I'm not clear on why the word "collector" has so many negative connotations. I realize people running around who have no intention of making photographs but buying up certain arbitrarily determined "special" pieces, are annoying; yet I find myself seeking out certain cameras and lenses because of their standing or because of my own aesthetic standards -- I just bought a Nikon F, but in waiting and looking for one, I wanted only a black one, which certainly has no bearing on image making, and which cost me roughly double what a chrome version would cost; and i would only have a plain prism version, because to my eye the Photomic versions look encephalitic. I'm annoyed to discover that the Pentax 50mm f1.4 M42 I bought recently is a Super Takumar, not a SMC Takumar. Do I know that the latter takes better photos? Hell no. But I read somewhere some compelling appreciation of the SMC version so now I'm prejudiced. This is natural human behavior. It is, in fact, when writ larger, what we call human culture: the distinguishing and ranking of things, of experiences, of aesthetic principles, of convictions. So, in short, I'm NOT NOT NOT a collector, but ...... I love my stuff.

Vince, what you describe is merely healthy GAS 🙂.
I am sensitive like anyone else to aestetics of the cameras I use.
But do you have rare items that you almost don't use, and still like to keep?
BTW, I really don't imply anything negative about collecting cameras.
I'm just not actively trying to find gear on a base that is not intended use...

 

[Brian Legge]

I purchased a clean, Summar and III, both from 1937 and CLA'd about 8 years ago. Love the lens but I find myself using a beat up IIIc more frequently (and the III has uneven exposure issues at the fastest speed).

At this point I think I'm holding on to the body as separating it and the lens feels wrong. I have no idea if they were an original pair but they are close enough to it... Maybe if I get the shutter speed issue fixed I'll use it more.

 

[kermaier]

To me, a "collection" implies a conscious organizing principle that guide the acquisition of items. For example, I might decide to collect Fuji LTM lenses, or pre-1980 SLR lenses with aspherical elements, or 50mm lenses for Leica faster than f/2. Merely buying any lens that strikes one's fancy to own and/or use results in an "accumulation" -- that's what I have. 🙂

The lenses in my accumulation that aren't really needed or are redundant, but which I'm reluctant to part with due to rarity or general niftiness, include:

Nikkor 50/3.5 rigid LTM
Canon 50/2 collapsible LTM
UC-Hexanon 35/2

In addition to the Canon 50/2, I have 6 other 50/2 lenses, ranging from an uncoated Summar to an M-Hexanon. Obviously, I don't need them all, but they're each cool in their own way. Does that make me a collector of f/2 standard lenses? Not really, butbi definitely have more than I need. 🙂

I suppose if I were to start actually collecting, it would be Nikkor LTM lenses, though I'd be doomed to incompletion unless I found a 21/4 lying on a park bench....

Ari

 

[Keith]

I don't think that someone with a modest assortment of gear that they love and treasure is a collector ... it's a completely different mentality.

The real collectors are absolute villains IMO 😀 ... they're the ones who force most of us to use cameras with scratches, dents, missing vulcanite etc, or be prepared to pay a premium for something that looks original and undamaged.

I can sort of understand having a large collection of cameras because they are fondleable mechanical marvels after all but lenses mystify me. It seems a little like having a collection of rare and collectible cars in one shed along with a large collection of windscreens in another. Actually ... I don't doubt that somewhere in the world there is someone that has a large collection of rare and collectible windscreens! 😛

 

[Brian Legge]

Hah my favorite users - an IIIc and an Olympus 35sp - are dented, scratched, had messed up coverings, etc. I'm totally fine with these cameras as users and would gladly take an M in similar condition that worked well. Give me a substantial discount on an ugly M2 or M4 and I'd be happy to take it shooting.

Lenses on the there hand... I'm pretty picky about glass condition but the barrel? Do whatever you want to it. 😉

 

[FrankS]

I've got lots of gear, but no rare or mint in the box stuff.

edit: Oh wait, I've got a Zeiss Sonnar 50f2 in a Jupiter 8 LTM barrel courtesy of Brian Sweeney. That's pretty special.

 

[cambolt]

I am another person who does not want to associate themselves with the term "collector", my excuse being that most of the cameras I have actually belong to my father. I think the only notable cameras I actually own are my Spotmatic (and all but one lens), a Yashica GSN, and a Nikon D40. But I suppose none of these are valuable enough to give me collector status, so I am safe for now

 

[shadowfox]

I am not a camera collector,
rather, a collector of camera info.

Some principles that I follow:
1. The more you know about more types of cameras, the better position you'll be in recognizing good deals when they present themselves.

2. The more good deals you get to do, the more flexible you'll be when it's time to upgrade to the ones you really want.

3. When you get the camera that you really want, stick with it.

4. If you found a camera that you like to use, use it and take loads of photos. If you don't like it, find someone who do and pass it on.

Doing this for a number of years now, I have recouped all of my initial costs, namely: "stoopid newbie" cost, "bad GAS decisions" cost, "unlucky repair story" cost, and "my camera kissed the pavement" cost.

And now I pretty much use the cameras I really want to use, keep the unique/interesting ones, make lots of photograph and prints (sold a couple) and having a lot of fun in general, including talking about all those with y'all.

Just my two cents.