What is your 'camera for life'?

[splitimageview]

Today’s cameras will never be heirlooms, not like the film cameras going back 100 years anyway.

That’s why my forever cameras are film cameras.

I enjoy shooting my modern Z6. But in the digital world of constant model churn it’s actually quite ancient, 7+ years since it was announced.

Eventually it will fail. If it is lucky it may reside on someone’s shelf or in a museum as an example of ancient and quaint electromechanical design. More likely, its final resting place will be in a landfill. At some point before it fails, there likely will be no one capable of repairing it, even if there were replacement parts from donor cameras.

Looking back at the Nikon D1, the first “pro” DSLR, now 27 years on. I acquired one of these back in the day, I think it was about a $4500 expenditure. A couple of years ago I found another at an estate sale that was as close to unused condition as could be. However it was a challenge to locate a working battery. And even if that could be found, how about finding a compatible compact flash? All of today’s memory cards have far too much storage to work in it.

Even locating an ancient compact flash and a working battery, would I ever really carry around a heavy camera like that just for 2.7 megapixels?

I ended up selling it to a collector for about $200 (it had the original box and associated papers.) It became a shelf curio.

 

[mtnbkr]

Sticking strictly to film cameras...
While I like rangefinders, I can never seem to get the results I get with SLRs, so I'd remove them from consideration.
Then it would be a toss-up between my Canon FT and New F-1. The latter is objectively the better camera, but I "like" shooting with the FT. I'd probably go with the F-1 out of practicality. I really like FL lenses, but I can use them on the F-1. The F-1 also gives me a greater range of shutter speeds (8s up to 1/2000) and some automation if I desire. "Camera for life" implies possibly discovering new pursuits requiring features I might not currently use and the F-1 gives me a bit "more" than the FT even though there's nothing I do today that the FT can't handle.

Chris

 

[Merlijn53]

I bought my Olympus OM-1 in 1974 and my Rolleiflex 3.5F in 1975.
Although many camera’s came and went (some stayed) in those years, I still have and use those two.
Suppose you could call that camera’s for life.

 

[davidswiss]

My collection is growing accidentally. I didn't mean to have 6 cameras, they just seemed to be there and it seemed the right thing to do at the time.
I haven't used the latest Topcon DM enough to include it in the competition but of what I have, one of the Nikon F2's and the Contax IIa. I'm still learning how to get the best out of them but they are both very well made and have an array of excellent lenses and I enjoy using them.

 

[santino]

6 cameras is sweet, way to go! 😉😁

 

[38Deardorff]

For me, yes.

Maybe things are different outside of Australia, but here, a 36exp roll of Portra is $30 AUD. That's not a cappucino, that's an indulgent lunch for one, a McDonald's meal for two, a trade paperback book, a third a tank of petrol, barely enough groceries to last one person a week. Add dev/scan and that's another $20 per roll at a lab. Fuji 400 is $21. Ektar 100 is $30. I look back at the 2000s when you could pick up a roll of XTRA400 for less than $10, and get dev/scan/print for $20.

I'm a compulsive button pusher, so I shoot around anywhere between 50-300 images when I'm out for a day. On a big photo walk last year, I shot about 850 images. With slower cameras like the Sigma DP1 and Leica M9, I still average 500 images on a dedicated photo day.

Film would make such output ludicrously expensive, and decrease my learning curve which is largely powered by constant experimentation. Film would cause me to drastically lower the documentation effect I aim for, and while it may result in more keepers, I get less of the memory archiving process.

At today's prices, $9000 buys 180 rolls of Portra plus dev and scan. That's 6660 images if you allow for 37 exposures, because you'll often get an extra frame or two. That gives 15 rolls a film a month, BUT that's $9000 spent over the course of a year.

My M9 was $9300 in 2010 and has shot over 75,000 images, averaging 4600 per year. Of course, there's hard drive storage, so add another $1800 over the course of sixteen years. I'd never get this freedom with film.

And I don't necessarily need a $9000 digital Leica body to do this; relatively inexpensive micro four thirds and even full frame bodies can be had for a fraction of the cost, $800-1200 AUD for anything up to a Nikon D750. Then it's a couple of memory cards and a new hard drive every few years, and you've got nearly infinite photos for the next 15-20 years at least.

We could do the sums another way. A Nikon FM2 with decent 24/2.8 35/2 and 50/1.4 will cost around $1800-2000 AUD from a reputable secondhand store. That leaves $7000 for film/dev/scan from the hypothetical $9000 digital Leica budget, which may produce less over time if film prices continue to rise. Say you shoot a roll a month, that's only $50 per month, which sounds decent. But you get far less images, and that's not where it's at for me. I need volume and coverage. I realize that my use case is on the right hand side of the bell curve, but that's how I see it.

The hypocrisy of all this is that I'm back to considering another film M body, perhaps a M6 or even a well kept M4-P, which would theoretically outlast any digital camera I own. If was going for broke in a 'camera for life', I'd prefer a new or low mileage camera, perhaps a MP or M-A to minimize electronic issues. And then I'm up to the price of a secondhand digital M body again. Plus $50 per roll. Hahaha! 😂



That M4 is a work of art. It bears the signs of use so well, you can tell this is a well loved camera.

Archiver, I bought my first Leica as a university student. A used M2 for $175. I no longer have it, but in theory it's still working somewhere. Over the decades i've owned many.... never more than 2 or occasionally 3 bodies at a time. And they came and went. My current M4 was made in '68 (just a few years after my M2 was produced) and I sold off an MP (with IMO too many frame lines for my liking) The M4 still work like a charm and will continue so long after I am gone.
Although I shot Kodachrome for years, the the last 30 I've only used BW. I don't roll my own and I process my film and print in my big home darkroom. I've sold a fair number of big prints over the years.
Your point about costs is your choice.... Complaining about colour film costs & pricing (or digital printers/camera batteries/hard drives & computers) is in my mind like driving a car and complaining about the cost of maintenance.
I'll go to the extreme of my view. I think my use of film cameras is reasonable, but buying a digital Leica (with its limited llifespan) for $9 or $10 k,...is ludicrous if you're not a constantly working professional. But to turn the tables...... the $175 i paid for my M2 was about a months wages for a student at that time.....much as $9k is now for a middle class earner.... so i guess it's a wash. As they say to each his own.

 

[news shooter]

Today’s cameras will never be heirlooms, not like the film cameras going back 100 years anyway.

That’s why my forever cameras are film cameras.

I enjoy shooting my modern Z6. But in the digital world of constant model churn it’s actually quite ancient, 7+ years since it was announced.

Eventually it will fail. If it is lucky it may reside on someone’s shelf or in a museum as an example of ancient and quaint electromechanical design. More likely, its final resting place will be in a landfill. At some point before it fails, there likely will be no one capable of repairing it, even if there were replacement parts from donor cameras.

Looking back at the Nikon D1, the first “pro” DSLR, now 27 years on. I acquired one of these back in the day, I think it was about a $4500 expenditure. A couple of years ago I found another at an estate sale that was as close to unused condition as could be. However it was a challenge to locate a working battery. And even if that could be found, how about finding a compatible compact flash? All of today’s memory cards have far too much storage to work in it.

Even locating an ancient compact flash and a working battery, would I ever really carry around a heavy camera like that just for 2.7 megapixels?

I ended up selling it to a collector for about $200 (it had the original box and associated papers.) It became a shelf curio.

Had a Nikon D1 as well when first came out. Bought by the newspaper worked for. Had 10-Nikon batteries that were junk in a short period of time. Solution Was using a Quantum Turbo battery with dedicated cable. 1 port for camera and another port for Nikon dedicated flash.
At the time, D1 was a modern marvel. Learned to shoot on continuous mode and wait for the buffer to clear in able to shoot more. Still have that news camera.

 

[splitimageview]

Had a Nikon D1 as well when first came out. Bought by the newspaper worked for. Had 10-Nikon batteries that were junk in a short period of time. Solution Was using a Quantum Turbo battery with dedicated cable. 1 port for camera and another port for Nikon dedicated flash.
At the time, D1 was a modern marvel. Learned to shoot on continuous mode and wait for the buffer to clear in able to shoot more. Still have that news camera.

I thoroughly enjoyed my D1, took some shots I never would otherwise have been able to make with that buffer, such as shooting the F1 US Grand Prix in 2000 at Indy as a guest of a race team.

At one time I had a small company that specialized in selling memory cards for early digitals, such as the IBM/Hitachi 1GB Microdrive. This was an actual rotational hard drive in miniature, it fit into a Compact Flash form factor. It was compatible with the D1 (although not officially according to Nikon) and offered far more storage than solid state Compact Flash. They sold for about $400 or so, when 64mb cards were about $200. 16x the storage!

 

[JeffS7444]

Digital: You may as well inquire about my "computer for life", because I have no idea what tomorrow will bring! Possibly E-mount, if Sony and third parties continue to actively develop it. I did briefly check out Sigma's BF and found it charmingly odd, possibly one of those one-off products that a person might want to hang onto for awhile. But how much do I want to fetishize a picture-taking tool?

Film: In some ways, better to fetishize film gear, because like the non-evolving Latin language, it's become "eternal". One possibility is an older Hassy 500c, and less-common complement of lenses, say 60/5.6 + 120, rather than the more common 50-80-150 combination, (though I am fond of 50 mm with the 6x6 format). Advantage: I already own this stuff, save for lenses other than the 120 S-Planar, and I know how to service it. I do like the looks of the older chrome lenses.

 

[besk]

My Bush Pressman 4x5 and Nikon F2 with plain prism are the only cameras I really "need." I have plenty of others to play with.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

The most durable well made camera I ever owned was the Canon F1n.

The Contax G2 and a Voigtländer anniversary edition RM3 were the most beautiful cameras I ever owned.

I have a pair of Fujiifilm X-T2 cameras that fit in my hand like a glove. It’s a joy to hold and use them.

I have a Sony A7III camera that never lets me down. It’s the best tool in my tool box. But it’s only a tool, there’s no emotional connection with it. I have no serious emotional connection with any of my cameras. They’re all nice and I like to use them but none are “for life”.

The only thing “for life” with me is my wife.

All the best,
Mike

 

[ellisson]

A Leica M3 double stroke. The lens I will likely keep with it as others come and go will be a 50mm rigid summicron, polished and re-coated with modern, harder coatings to avoid the front element markings present when I bought it.

 

[das]

Tough question. I would have to say that I was forced to get rid of every other system, I would keep my Contax RTS II. The beautiful bright viewfinder, the incredible lineup of Contax lenses, the ability to use all M42 lenses, and its at least anecdotal long term reliability over subsequent Kyocera products make it something it would be hard to part with.

 

[Leon C]

I still have 2 Nikon D1H's with 6 x batteries, 3 x working ones, Charger and Mains and both fully working, had no problem finding Batteries or CF Cards and they are fun to use, one needs a FW update which they still do in Nikon Germany when I checked last year, they are on the list of Cameras to move on though, my camera for life:

Olympus OM1 with 50mm 1.8.

Simple, fixable and elegant.

 

[splitimageview]

I would keep my Contax RTS II.

I've not owned one of these, or a III, or an AX, but have had all the others.

Have you owned an ST or RX? If so, how would you compare the RTS II to these?

 

[das]

I've not owned one of these, or a III, or an AX, but have had all the others.

Have you owned an ST or RX? If so, how would you compare the RTS II to these?

I have had the Aria, the RX, the 137, and the 167. The RX failed on me by developing an unrepairable shutter issue. I would still take the RTS II over the RX as it is smaller and still imho has a nicer viewfinder. The RX is a very nice machine, though. But I prefer the Aria over it because of its smaller size - both are similarly featured. As I get older, I still want AE and an electronic shutter, but reliability has become an issue with certain Contaxes.

 

[splitimageview]

The Aria is quite nice, light and small, although doesn't have the solid build of the ST, RX. These cameras I think represent the peak of Kyocera manufacturing, along with the G1/G2. They are just exquisitely finished, solid.

The RX I have was $25 shipped, advertised on Fred Miranda. Seller said it had focus issues...it did...an oddball focusing screen. Put in a Contax screen, problem solved.

I like the ST better as it's smaller and uses common cheap batteries.

 

[Mike Piv]

Canon F-1. I bought it in 1984. I scraped and saved for it. Its traveled all over the world. Hundreds and hundreds of rolls of Tri-x. Its heavy and solid. I love it like a friend.

 

[maddoc]

I used to bring a Leica with me every time and when traveling anywhere, this is now a thing of the past with the increasing number of CT scanners at airports and their effect on film. Digital cameras are too short-lived, too much depends on the manufacturer, and circuit boards can usually not be easily repaired or swapped out by an independent technician. Therefore, no camera for life in my case.

 

[TenEleven]

I used to bring a Leica with me every time and when traveling anywhere, this is now a thing of the past with the increasing number of CT scanners at airports and their effect on film. Digital cameras are too short-lived, too much depends on the manufacturer, and circuit boards can usually not be easily repaired or swapped out by an independent technician. Therefore, no camera for life in my case.

Is the effect of the airport scanners really that bad?

It's been a while since I've flown anywhere, but I used to fly semi-regularly for work. I often requested hand-checking of film. Sometimes, especially when busy this request was refused.
I also carried the cameras through though, I always figured their metal shell protects the film sufficiently.

In the end, neither the film in the cameras nor the carry-on film ever had any significant defects. At least defects that would be outside of my control (Bad pictures, sloppy loading, sloppy development, etc. etc. ;-)