What is your 'camera for life'?

[maddoc]

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. ;-)

There is an elevated risk of film damage when passing it through a CT scanner at an airport as demonstrated in this report. Given this possibility I don't want to gamble and having film ruined. During one of my recent trips, my Leica M-A went through - luckily - a conventional X-ray scanner two times because security didn't know what kind of camera it was.

 

[TenEleven]

Yeah the ones I passed through might also have been the old-fashioned x-ray units, since again the last time I flew regularly was pre-pandemic. Also since I almost never had connecting flights I had 1 or 2 scans (if they refused it both ways) tops for 100/400 speed film. Thus I never saw any damage worth mentioning.

As for the thread relevant answer:
I guess for me it would be a Rolleiflex and one of my RF Contaxes (II or IIa - hard to say which is more reliable - I have high hundreds of rolls through either - zero problems) . Both have proven to be exceptionally reliable, once serviced.

I guess the "once serviced" is an important caveat.

If I were after absolute reliability, I would chose my Nikon F with the Contarex 50/2 Planar on it.

 

[Archiver]

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.

The difference is not unlike that between a Toyota Camry and a Lamborghini. One will pound the roads for hundreds of thousands of miles before giving up the ghost, and the other will cost a lot up front and still only be decent for a Sunday drive, not unless you want to pay exobitant maintenance rates.

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.

 

[m34u]

When it comes to rangefinders I find myself coming back go the Olympus 35RC quite a lot. Even more than the 35SP. Mostly because of the size of the 35RC.

 

[Godfrey]

Why do you all consider the lifespan of a digital M "short"? Models of the digital Ms are replaced every few years, but that doesn't mean the older ones stop working.

My Olympus E-1 is now 23 years old, still working fine 78,000 exposures later. And I didn't even buy that one new. I expect my M10-R and M10 Monochrom bodies will last at least as long, and for similar numbers of exposures each. My digital CL I had for six years and made 47,000 exposures...

G

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Another thought. A little to the side, or maybe more on the edge, of our current discussion. I'll throw it in anyway, for what it's worth.

We talk about lifetime cameras. How long is the average life span? I believe it's 70 years - there score and then, the Bible said. Ifso, I'm over the limit by eight years and three months. Still kicking, still fit, still taking cameras out when I travel or go for an exercise walk in my home town or a weekend bush walk. And still enjoy a glass or two of good Victorian (Australia) red wine.

Moving on now. Shat is a lifetime for a camera? Until it breaks down? If can be repaired, it's back in the works after a break. Or until film ceases to be manufactured for it? Think 116, 616, 122, 620, 127, Bantam, Instamatic.

More to the basic point, a better question, may be - if you had to part company with all your cameras excepting only one, then which would that 'one' be?

Opening up an entirely new Pandora's box here...

In my case, I would want to make it two. One for film, one digital.

Film-wise, I would go with my Leica iif. The most basic kit I own, also one of the best. Used with a Weston EuroMaster which still gives exact exposure data, it would keep me happy for the rest of my life, if I overlook time spent processing films, and of course the scanning, but I would be photographing less quantity and more quality. So for me, a win-win new balance.

I also have two Nikkormat FT2s kit. And two F65s, with AA battery packs, which take the D lenses I use with my digital Nikons. Would I want to part with those? Well, if I had to. Reluctantly.

For digital it gets more complicated. I'm a Nikon photographer, have been since the 1980s, in D since 2009 when I decided the then new Nikon D90 gave me enough digital quality to make me want to move into this new medium. In quick succession I moved up to D700s (2012), D800s (2017 and 2019) and now,mirrorless Zs (2025).

To sum all this up, I'm as happy as, well, a clam in chowder with all my gear. Unlikely to want to ever change or part with them, especially my Z5 which I adore.

So one camera digital, which one? I would have to resist a regularly recurring urge to dump Nikon and buy a Leica Q3. A new can of worms here, obviously. An expensive one, but economising in other lenses and/or accessories, so a balance, sort of.

In photography as in everything else in life, nothing is really simple. Nor does it have to be too complicated. To resolve my problems, I would just make a spot decision and go with that, damn the consequences.

 

[Archiver]

Why do you all consider the lifespan of a digital M "short"? Models of the digital Ms are replaced every few years, but that doesn't mean the older ones stop working.

My Olympus E-1 is now 23 years old, still working fine 78,000 exposures later. And I didn't even buy that one new. I expect my M10-R and M10 Monochrom bodies will last at least as long, and for similar numbers of exposures each. My digital CL I had for six years and made 47,000 exposures...

G

This is what I'm hoping for. My M9 is now 16 years old with about 75,000 on the clock. It still works, and with any luck, will continue to work for the forseeable future. If anything, this is my forever camera. If I can get another 10-15 years from it, I'll be very happy. I'm hoping for the same from my SL2-S.

I will say one thing: there may be various cameras for life, but there are definitely lenses for life. Robust, serviceable lenses which will take the decades with aplomb, and deliver excellent results. How many of us are still shooting with Summicrons, Summiluxes and Elmarits from decades ago?

 

[Photar]

a better question, I reckon, is - if you had to part company with all your cameras except one, then which would that 'one' be?

That’s exactly how I interpreted the original question.

 

[Archiver]

That’s exactly how I interpreted the original question.

Yes! Based on factors like enjoyment, robustness (future proof), quality and perhaps sentimentality, which camera would you choose if you had to forgo all others?

 

[valdas]

Yes! Based on factors like enjoyment, robustness (future proof), quality and perhaps sentimentality, which camera would you choose if you had to forgo all others?

I think it will either be Rolleiflex or M4/M6. I probably like M6 better, but M4 was made the same year I was born... I also hope that I'll be paid really well for those cameras that I'll have to forego 🙂

 

[Archiver]

This question came about from pondering the lifespan of film cameras and whether a digital camera could be in the same class, and if not, whether a digital camera's lifespan could be as good as a camera for life. Not necessarily something that would continue to work in the hands of my descendants/heirs like a Leica IIIf or a M6, but something I could shoot with for the next 10, 20, perhaps even 30 years. By the third decade, no doubt there would be some other whizzbang thing, but I like the romance of a camera or set of cameras being with me all that time.

My M9 is still my favourite camera, but it shows limitations at ISO's higher than 1600. It's why I was also thinking about the M10-R, which has a much improved sensor, and could still produce satisfying results in a range of circumstances for 20+ years to come. My M9 is still my camera for life at this point, and I hope the SL2-S will be the same camp years from now.

As much as film is expensive, I'd give a lot of thought to a mid 2010 MP as a camera for life. It has a meter and electronics, but isn't reliant on it like a M7. I'd choose mid-2010 because there are reports of spotty quality control in more recent MPs.

 

[mtnbkr]

I will say one thing: there may be various cameras for life, but there are definitely lenses for life. Robust, serviceable lenses which will take the decades with aplomb, and deliver excellent results. How many of us are still shooting with Summicrons, Summiluxes and Elmarits from decades ago?

I have 4 Canon lenses (1 RF, 3 SLR) that are older than me (I'm 52). They deliver great images on film and digital. I'm sure others have even older lenses that continue to do good work.

Chris

 

[girdwoodINC]

For me it would be my Olympus Trip 35 which was my granddads which coincidentally is also the camera I took my first picture on. I’m keeping not just for the sentimental value but also for how good it still works..

That along with my MP for obvious reasons

 

[Bill McMannis]

There is an elevated risk of film damage when passing it through a CT scanner at an airport as demonstrated in this report. Given this possibility I don't want to gamble and having film ruined. During one of my recent trips, my Leica M-A went through - luckily - a conventional X-ray scanner two times because security didn't know what kind of camera it was.

It is tedious, but in my road warrior days, I would ship film to my hotel and then ship film home or to the lab after exposing. This alleviated the problem of CT scanners and enthusiastic gate checkers from opening my boxes of 4x5 film.

I prefer driving now and avoiding the whole air travel hassle though that does limit me to North America.

 

[Godfrey]

This is what I'm hoping for. My M9 is now 16 years old with about 75,000 on the clock. It still works, and with any luck, will continue to work for the forseeable future. If anything, this is my forever camera. If I can get another 10-15 years from it, I'll be very happy. I'm hoping for the same from my SL2-S.

I will say one thing: there may be various cameras for life, but there are definitely lenses for life. Robust, serviceable lenses which will take the decades with aplomb, and deliver excellent results. How many of us are still shooting with Summicrons, Summiluxes and Elmarits from decades ago?

I certainly am. Even a 1960 Leitz Hektor... and 1970s Leitz/Minolta M-Rokkor ... 😉

Never mind all of my Hasselblad V system Zeiss lenses... I think the newest Hassy V lens I have is from 1989, others go back to 1966.

If I had to cut everything back to JUST ONE AND ONLY ONE camera, I'd grab my Hasselblad SWC/M, A12, A16, NONS InstaxSQ, and CFVII 50c backs. And make do ... 😱

G

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

As for cameras I'll never sell, my Leica's, M3 & IIIa, Canon VI-T mainly because they were owned by relatives no longer with us. My black SR-T because it took me so dang long to find once I could afford to buy one.
As to digital, I really enjoy the Sony A7Riii, not only for what it does but for how it allows me so much freedom to get it wrong and still have it turnout OK.

 

[Axel]

I really enjoy the Sony A7Riii, not only for what it does but for how it allows me so much freedom

Yes, I would second this.
And I have a camera that possibly stays for the rest of my llfe, its my Leica R3. All I would "need" to get my photos.
If I had nothing easier and smaller 😉

 

[boojum]

It is tedious, but in my road warrior days, I would ship film to my hotel and then ship film home or to the lab after exposing. This alleviated the problem of CT scanners and enthusiastic gate checkers from opening my boxes of 4x5 film.

I prefer driving now and avoiding the whole air travel hassle though that does limit me to North America.

I'm with you buddy. Air travel now is a notch lower than Greyhound and less convenient.

 

[splitimageview]

Try the train. We recently had a fantastic trip to Alpine, Texas, a very photogenic town. And the stress level was near zero compared to flying. Met a wonderful couple from Australia at dinner.

Next on the schedule is a Rocky Mountain train ride...

 

[boojum]

There are so many good cameras out there. Analog has the film supply problem. How sure is it? Digital has the fear of electronic failure. However, I have a table radio that is 35 - 40 years old and going strong. I have a 2001 Honda Insight and all the electronics work. I have a 2000 Sony DSC S70 that works just fine and has great images.

So it seems that in reality your camera for life is your favorite camera as they are all pretty stable. And when they do break they are quick fixes. I had a Sony A7M II with a two week turnaround and phone contact the whole time. Leica is a laggard, to put it politely. I think the folks at Leica have concluded that Leica owners are masochists and like to suffer crappy service as part of the "Red Dot" mystique.