Highway 61
Revisited
Well as for the practical use of your 19/3.5 purpose I think that the Cosina-Voigtländer brightlines 21mm finder would do it with no framing problem at all.
Such things happen. Just tell yourself that this is way less important than, let's say, a sudden health issue for any member of your family, and you will be fine.
Even the most rare vintage photo items can be found again on the worldwide second hand market thanks to the Internet.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's a big difference, too, between using something rare but functionally identical to a less rare camera (e.g. Luftwaffe-issue Leica vs. non-Luftwaffe) and something unique, such as the 19mm Canon. Yes, there are other 18-20-21mm lenses, but if you like the look of the Canon, that's the risk you take.
Personally, although I find it interesting to try out super-rare cameras (Hensoldt, Ilford Witness) I don't see any advantage in using them instead of a more common and more functional model, e.g. I got rid of my mint IIIg (case, box, instruction book, etc.) in the hope that it would go to a collector so people would be able to admire this camera in the condition in which it left the factory, rather than being used up: there are plenty of 'user' IIIg cameras on the market, and I'd rather have an M anyway.
Likewise, I'm not that convinced about insurance. This should guarantee that I lose something valuable tomorrow, but over the last quarter-century I've found that useful, world-wide insurance for more than a small amount of valuable kit is so damnably expensive that it's probably cheaper to take the risk.
Cheers,
R.
Personally, although I find it interesting to try out super-rare cameras (Hensoldt, Ilford Witness) I don't see any advantage in using them instead of a more common and more functional model, e.g. I got rid of my mint IIIg (case, box, instruction book, etc.) in the hope that it would go to a collector so people would be able to admire this camera in the condition in which it left the factory, rather than being used up: there are plenty of 'user' IIIg cameras on the market, and I'd rather have an M anyway.
Likewise, I'm not that convinced about insurance. This should guarantee that I lose something valuable tomorrow, but over the last quarter-century I've found that useful, world-wide insurance for more than a small amount of valuable kit is so damnably expensive that it's probably cheaper to take the risk.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I am also going that route; I would need to get each item appraised for replacement value,and then pay the insurance premium on it. By the time, I may have traded that item for another item,and the cycle starts again.
I am going to the beach today, and I will take with me a "beach camera" and nothing valuable. If the lens is good, the rest is just icing on the cake. I am satisfied with the cake today.
I am going to the beach today, and I will take with me a "beach camera" and nothing valuable. If the lens is good, the rest is just icing on the cake. I am satisfied with the cake today.
Paul C. Perkins MD
Perk11350
Then there's always the risk of having some well-heeled jackass insist how muc better that shot would have been had you used an F:2.8 Aspheric Summanula instead of your ancient 25mm F:3.5 Canon.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Fred,
At $1500 a year, you have to reckon on having more than $45,000 worth of gear lost or stolen in 30 years in order to come out ahead.
As I said before, I know it's tempting fate, but in 30+ years I'd be surprised if my total losses (stolen, lost or in one case, damaged in a motorcycle accident) exceeded even $10,000.
Better, surely, to put the money in a savings account.
Incidentally, is that $1500 a year for world-wide use, all risks? I seem to recall paying proportionately more in the days when I did insure my gear.
Cheers,
R.
At $1500 a year, you have to reckon on having more than $45,000 worth of gear lost or stolen in 30 years in order to come out ahead.
As I said before, I know it's tempting fate, but in 30+ years I'd be surprised if my total losses (stolen, lost or in one case, damaged in a motorcycle accident) exceeded even $10,000.
Better, surely, to put the money in a savings account.
Incidentally, is that $1500 a year for world-wide use, all risks? I seem to recall paying proportionately more in the days when I did insure my gear.
Cheers,
R.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I still have a few items my father got from a post office during a long walking tour of Europe (aka WWII). I used them years ago before I knew what they really were. I would not use them today as I have new stuff that I like better. I think it's because I hope to give my fathers Leica stuff to one of my sons and my wife's fathers Nikon stuff to the other, but that's a long way off I hope.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
Bill58
Native Texan
I've got a vintage Canon 28mm finder w/o the front glass. 'Never could find anybody who can replace it. What a shame.
JohnTF
Veteran
Likewise, I'm not that convinced about insurance. This should guarantee that I lose something valuable tomorrow, but over the last quarter-century I've found that useful, world-wide insurance for more than a small amount of valuable kit is so damnably expensive that it's probably cheaper to take the risk.
Cheers,
R.[/quote]
Roger, after I dropped a camera too many, I checked with my Home Owner's folks, and purchased an "Inland Marine" policy, no deductible, all risk. It was 1% of the stated value per year, and I have had three policies since, as my insurance companies change. Last year it went up to 1.5% of listed value per year. I believe I have had such a policy with four companies, though some do not allow them, so I choose my home owner's policy with a company that offers the additional rider.
I have some vintage equipment insured, but I would be rather nervous traveling with modern gear not insured, as if I were carrying a few thousand cash in my pocket, the peace of mind is worth it to me.
I can easily understand that insurance companies function differently in other places, but for the few hundred a year, I travel and sleep a bit better. Insurance seems to be quite a bit more if you do not have a house to attach the policy to.
I still try to be careful and avoid claims, and the uninsured bits and pieces, such as finders, adapters, etc. will be painful enough if I am careless.
However, use of equipment always involves risk, and I agree fully about using kit that can be replaced, but you can pick and choose to insure what you carry most. Much of my gear that is only used occasionally is just under normal homeowner's insurance to the limits of that policy.
Regards, John
Cheers,
R.[/quote]
Roger, after I dropped a camera too many, I checked with my Home Owner's folks, and purchased an "Inland Marine" policy, no deductible, all risk. It was 1% of the stated value per year, and I have had three policies since, as my insurance companies change. Last year it went up to 1.5% of listed value per year. I believe I have had such a policy with four companies, though some do not allow them, so I choose my home owner's policy with a company that offers the additional rider.
I have some vintage equipment insured, but I would be rather nervous traveling with modern gear not insured, as if I were carrying a few thousand cash in my pocket, the peace of mind is worth it to me.
I can easily understand that insurance companies function differently in other places, but for the few hundred a year, I travel and sleep a bit better. Insurance seems to be quite a bit more if you do not have a house to attach the policy to.
I still try to be careful and avoid claims, and the uninsured bits and pieces, such as finders, adapters, etc. will be painful enough if I am careless.
However, use of equipment always involves risk, and I agree fully about using kit that can be replaced, but you can pick and choose to insure what you carry most. Much of my gear that is only used occasionally is just under normal homeowner's insurance to the limits of that policy.
Regards, John
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
I am looking either to find a local telescope maker, or perhaps even asking whether I could get a local optician to reproduce the lens for me, taking needed measurements from the pieces. The lens element looks a lot like a lens from a pair of prescription glasses that I used to wear. Might be worth a try
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
While examples of rare, vintage, antique, etc. items should be kept in museums or collections, I believe some should be used. We cannot understand how things performed by just looking - we have to use them, for ourselves and others.
I am involved in aviation, and every time an antique airplane crashes, the cry goes up! They shouldn't be allowed to fly them - must put them in museums. I disagree! We don't understand how they moved, and sounded, and looked in flight, unless we fly them. My airplane is not so old and valuable, and there are still quite a few examples around. That said, I use it carefully, but would not want to just look at it.
The same with my vintage photo gear. I like the feel of it in my hands, and like printing the photos. They have a different look. Can't tell that by looking at a camera on the shelf.
I say, use the stuff - just be careful. And accidents will happen from time to time. Unfortunate, but true - that's the price of experiencing vintage equipment, no matter what field.
I am involved in aviation, and every time an antique airplane crashes, the cry goes up! They shouldn't be allowed to fly them - must put them in museums. I disagree! We don't understand how they moved, and sounded, and looked in flight, unless we fly them. My airplane is not so old and valuable, and there are still quite a few examples around. That said, I use it carefully, but would not want to just look at it.
The same with my vintage photo gear. I like the feel of it in my hands, and like printing the photos. They have a different look. Can't tell that by looking at a camera on the shelf.
I say, use the stuff - just be careful. And accidents will happen from time to time. Unfortunate, but true - that's the price of experiencing vintage equipment, no matter what field.
JohnTF
Veteran
I used to get glass lenses made in single prescription in one day in Prague for $6, a pair, in my frames, maybe you can talk them down to $3 for one? ;-)
Actually, if you can find some place where there are people who do hand and custom work, I would not think it unlikely, if you have the " prescription" it should be doable.
I used to get my glasses made in Prague, it was better and cheaper than the deductible on my insurance. Often one day service.
Glasses in the US are so marked up in price they might not want to bother, if you travel, you might have a shot. Lenscrafters wanted $300 to replace my sunglass lenses which were one month out of warranty, I have been told the mark up is something like 10X.
My friend Jorge in Mexico has an optician for example who will do small camera related jobs for him.
I would not give up.
Regards, John
dexdog
Veteran
Would you be willing to make a contact for me with your friend's optician? I have been to two places locally, and neither expressed any intetest. I would of course be willing to pay him well if he could craft a lens for me.
raid
Dad Photographer
I wish you good luck here, Mark. Maybe the guy in Mexico is the solution to your problem.
JohnTF
Veteran
Would you be willing to make a contact for me with your friend's optician? I have been to two places locally, and neither expressed any interest. I would of course be willing to pay him well if he could craft a lens for me.
We are getting into degrees of separation, ;-) email me and I will forward it to Jorge, he is a member here, but has not posted in a long time.
If you know an optician here, they should do it for a favor, I would think, especially if you are a regular client, but it did not help me last time at Lens Crafters, but they are a chain. Sounds as if your response so far has been disappointing.
A qualified guy, depending on the condition of your lens, should be able to read the "prescription" and with the diameter, you should be able to order a replacement??
John
Last edited:
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I don't really get too paranoid about using 'rare' equipment -- heck, I'm using a $ 3000.00 Nikon D700 for my commercial stuff, so why should I worry about using any of my other stuff? I do remember being in Toronto at an antique show a few years ago and I was using my Leica IIIa with a Mooly motor. There were these guys at a table selling vintage cameras, and they were all chastising me about using the Mooly. I figure that it's been working fine for the last 70 years, and it'll probably outlive me.
Right now my new favorite camera is a Contaflex TLR with a 50/2 Sonnar and a 135/4 Sonnar. The kit probably runs over $4K, but it would be crime to NOT use it, and probably the mechanical condition of it would deteriorate if I didn't use it.
Just be careful!
Right now my new favorite camera is a Contaflex TLR with a 50/2 Sonnar and a 135/4 Sonnar. The kit probably runs over $4K, but it would be crime to NOT use it, and probably the mechanical condition of it would deteriorate if I didn't use it.
Just be careful!
Last edited:
CanonRFinder
Well-known
HI Dexdog,
I am an Optician by profession and I am afraid I would knock it back as well. Most labs now only do CR39 or plastic lenses and glass labs are few and far between (in OZ they are). The one thing that lab cannot do is the small grinding of the lens as the front curve is pretty extreme, besides the cost would end up more than a second hand finder. Also the lens will have to be multi-coated and lens labs are not set up for things that small as all multi-coating is done BEFORE a lens is cut to fit a frame. Put it down to bad luck or send it to Canon Inc in Japan but again costs may kill the exercise. Peter
I am an Optician by profession and I am afraid I would knock it back as well. Most labs now only do CR39 or plastic lenses and glass labs are few and far between (in OZ they are). The one thing that lab cannot do is the small grinding of the lens as the front curve is pretty extreme, besides the cost would end up more than a second hand finder. Also the lens will have to be multi-coated and lens labs are not set up for things that small as all multi-coating is done BEFORE a lens is cut to fit a frame. Put it down to bad luck or send it to Canon Inc in Japan but again costs may kill the exercise. Peter
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi there,
It's a philosophical issue: Are you a collector or a photographer, who just like rare or unusual tools?
If you are a collector you believe in value and rareness.
If you go with the "tool" theory, as I do, you believe that it is "the best" for a tool to be used. Adequate use, of course... You simply can't judge a tool without having used it. To esteem a tool just for collector's value and rareness isn't enough for you, because initially, it was made for pure usage, wasn't it? Especially we are here in a CANON forum. Canon made cameras and lenses for users beginning with the day they started. Until now. A little different from Leica. So what? Poor guys having money as their only benchmark. They cannot feel the "real" value. It's far more. Therefore you have to take the risk of using it. And as some others have said already, life is full of risk. Even if you store your equipment at home or even in a bank's safe there is some risk left. But if you do, you miss the pure joy of using it, taking only the burden of caring about expensive gear, insurance and stuff like that. Very sad, because at the end, you will leave the world and leave all this stuff behind. I would say, there are lots of risks in life, and financial loss (of something luxuary you don't need to survive, pass to your offspring, or even to work for living) is the least in the world to worry about. The more risk you minimze, the similar your condition is to death. Zero risk and death are perfectly equal. That's my view of it.
enjoy, and have fun with your stuff
Frank
It's a philosophical issue: Are you a collector or a photographer, who just like rare or unusual tools?
If you are a collector you believe in value and rareness.
If you go with the "tool" theory, as I do, you believe that it is "the best" for a tool to be used. Adequate use, of course... You simply can't judge a tool without having used it. To esteem a tool just for collector's value and rareness isn't enough for you, because initially, it was made for pure usage, wasn't it? Especially we are here in a CANON forum. Canon made cameras and lenses for users beginning with the day they started. Until now. A little different from Leica. So what? Poor guys having money as their only benchmark. They cannot feel the "real" value. It's far more. Therefore you have to take the risk of using it. And as some others have said already, life is full of risk. Even if you store your equipment at home or even in a bank's safe there is some risk left. But if you do, you miss the pure joy of using it, taking only the burden of caring about expensive gear, insurance and stuff like that. Very sad, because at the end, you will leave the world and leave all this stuff behind. I would say, there are lots of risks in life, and financial loss (of something luxuary you don't need to survive, pass to your offspring, or even to work for living) is the least in the world to worry about. The more risk you minimze, the similar your condition is to death. Zero risk and death are perfectly equal. That's my view of it.
enjoy, and have fun with your stuff
Frank
Last edited:
jody36
Well-known
for me its hard to collect and not use. so i use my stuff and take the chance.