What is your 'camera for life'?

[Pioneer]

I am not real clear on what part of this is so bizarre. I guess I look at this subject a little bit differently. I was 22 years old when my wife and I were married. In just a few months we will have been married for 50 years. A large percentage of our entire married life has been recorded on film that was exposed in a 35mm SLR that I bought about two years or so after we were married. I still own that camera and the 50mm lens that came with it and I still use it regularly. It has never failed to take pictures when I needed them. Sometimes I didn't do so well but that camera has recorded a LOT of our lives together. Children, houses, vacations, graduations, sporting events, cross-country moves, injuries, cars and on and on. If there is one camera in my life that qualifies as my "Camera for Life" it is that humble Pentax K1000 that I picked up at a pawn shop in Minneapolis in the late 70s. (EDIT - My wife says I bought it at a Pawn Shop in Reno in 1978 just before Xmas 😀) I have bought, owned and sold a lot of cameras between now and then, and still own several, but I still carry that poor little K1000 around with me regularly and I have no intention of ever getting rid of it. I have sent it in for cleaning and lubrication to Eric one time in that entire time period so I think I can absolutely testify that it is the most reliable camera I have ever owned.

 

[Godfrey]

This is exactly what I was thinking when looking at the posts of @Erik van Straten , which prompted this latest train of thought. He uses a handful of film cameras and lenses which are decades old, and he produces a very classic look in everything. When I look back through my flickr, I can see when I changed cameras, when I experimented with Lightroom presets and processing styles, when major upgrades resulted in large differences in output. Erik's work is pretty much timeless.

The basic thema in my work hasn't changed in decades, and I'm happy with it. So I rarely look at new gear to open new horizons in image making ... I think that's more a thing I did when I was a lot younger, and my seeing not as, um, mature as it is now. 😉

G

 

[RichC]

The basic thema in my work hasn't changed in decades, and I'm happy with it. So I rarely look at new gear to open new horizons in image making ... I think that's more a thing I did when I was a lot younger, and my seeing not as, um, mature as it is now. 😉

G

This is exactly what I was thinking when looking at the posts of @Erik van Straten , which prompted this latest train of thought. He uses a handful of film cameras and lenses which are decades old, and he produces a very classic look in everything. When I look back through my flickr, I can see when I changed cameras, when I experimented with Lightroom presets and processing styles, when major upgrades resulted in large differences in output. Erik's work is pretty much timeless.

Changing cameras as I do and not sticking with a favourite does this too. I've a certain style, and when I decide to buy a new camera it's because it makes it easier to get my kind of photos, so they are more consistent, not less. New cameras make my photos more similar...

Early photos taken 2004-2009 when I was settling into my style of photography (taken with a Canon 10D, Epson RD-1 and Leica M8):



I now work in projects, and below is my latest from last autumn (taken with my Sony A7R IVa), over 20 years later from the earliest shown above. As you can see, despite changing cameras and not believing in "cameras for life" (or even a camera for 5 years!), my basic photographic style hasn't changed - though I like to think it's more sophisticated and subtle as I've learnt my craft over time!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I'd say my camera for life would be the camera that I have owned the longest, a chrome Nikon FE that I bought used in, I think, 2008. I had it serviced once soon after I bought it and again a few years ago. I liked it so much I bought a second one—black this time—several years ago, so between the two of them I should be good to go for the rest of my life.

If the electronics in my FEs ever die, I also have a Pentax SL and a nice set of Super Takumar lenses. No electronics, no batteries, no problems. And I actually like the Pentax lenses better than the Nikkors.

 

[JeffS7444]

My "camera for life" may not exist yet. Comfort and familiarity are optional if I sense potential in something: I wonder how I'd like driving a Xiaomi SU7 Ultra automobile?

 

[Godfrey]

I'd say my camera for life would be the camera that I have owned the longest, a chrome Nikon FE that I bought used in, I think, 2008. I had it serviced once soon after I bought it and again a few years ago. I liked it so much I bought a second one—black this time—several years ago, so between the two of them I should be good to go for the rest of my life.

If the electronics in my FEs ever die, I also have a Pentax SL and a nice set of Super Takumar lenses. No electronics, no batteries, no problems. And I actually like the Pentax lenses better than the Nikkors.

Um, not to disappoint you, but "all mechanical" cameras require service and maintenance too. Parts for such an old model can be an issue. I've spent more on servicing and repairing old mechanical cameras in the past five years than I've spent on buying digital cameras. 🤷‍♂️

G

 

[38Deardorff]

I am not real clear on what part of this is so bizarre. I guess I look at this subject a little bit differently. I was 22 years old when my wife and I were married. In just a few months we will have been married for 50 years. A large percentage of our entire married life has been recorded on film that was exposed in a 35mm SLR that I bought about two years or so after we were married. I still own that camera and the 50mm lens that came with it and I still use it regularly. It has never failed to take pictures when I needed them. Sometimes I didn't do so well but that camera has recorded a LOT of our lives together. Children, houses, vacations, graduations, sporting events, cross-country moves, injuries, cars and on and on. If there is one camera in my life that qualifies as my "Camera for Life" it is that humble Pentax K1000 that I picked up at a pawn shop in Minneapolis in the late 70s. (EDIT - My wife says I bought it at a Pawn Shop in Reno in 1978 just before Xmas 😀) I have bought, owned and sold a lot of cameras between now and then, and still own several, but I still carry that poor little K1000 around with me regularly and I have no intention of ever getting rid of it. I have sent it in for cleaning and lubrication to Eric one time in that entire time period so I think I can absolutely testify that it is the most reliable camera I have ever owned.

Great story Pioneer! I don't think the concept is so bizarre. Cartier Bresson w his Leica....Avedon Rolleiflex/Deardorff 8x10 .....Jay Dusard Kodak Masterview 8x10.....Jim Marshall Leica..... Find the tool that works for you & keep using it!

 

[Zuiko-logist]

My "camera for life" may not exist yet. Comfort and familiarity are optional if I sense potential in something: I wonder how I'd like driving a Xiaomi SU7 Ultra automobile?

British ingenuity at work!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Um, not to disappoint you, but "all mechanical" cameras require service and maintenance too. Parts for such an old model can be an issue. I've spent more on servicing and repairing old mechanical cameras in the past five years than I've spent on buying digital cameras. 🤷‍♂️

G

Oh, I'm well aware of that. My SL has been serviced too. Further, the SL shares most of its parts with the Spotmatic series, which were probably the most popular SLR back in the day and were made by the millions. I'm not too worried about not being able to source parts for that camera. (And I have a Spotmatic already, although mine is too nice to cannibalize for parts.)

 

[Godfrey]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. My SL has been serviced too. Further, the SL shares most of its parts with the Spotmatic series, which were probably the most popular SLR back in the day and were made by the millions. I'm not too worried about not being able to source parts for that camera. (And I have a Spotmatic already, although mine is too nice to cannibalize for parts.)

Good.
I never worry about it because I'm willing to pay to get what I want. Many people are not, however.

G

 

[Shac]

Similar to Pioneer- the camera I’d keep last even though I hardly if ever use film these days, is the first Nikon F I bought way back in 1967 and it’s recorded an awful lot of family moments! I still have it and it works fine. I also have a few Nikkors I can’t get round to selling either.

Besides the nostalgia – Nikon F’s (& F2s) are the only cameras (other than a couple of Leica M’s I still have) I’ve never had a problem with.

Why keep the F rather than one of the M’s (to answer this threads question only) – flexibility plain and simple - plus at my advanced age, rangefinder focusing is getting a little more difficult for me.

But I’ll still be keeping the M’s and the F’s of course 😁

 

[38Deardorff]

Similar to Pioneer- the camera I’d keep last even though I hardly if ever use film these days, is the first Nikon F I bought way back in 1967 and it’s recorded an awful lot of family moments! I still have it and it works fine. I also have a few Nikkors I can’t get round to selling either.

Besides the nostalgia – Nikon F’s (& F2s) are the only cameras (other than a couple of Leica M’s I still have) I’ve never had a problem with.

Why keep the F rather than one of the M’s (to answer this threads question only) – flexibility plain and simple - plus at my advanced age, rangefinder focusing is getting a little more difficult for me.

But I’ll still be keeping the M’s and the F’s of course 😁

Either or.....

 

[boojum]

A note, Rolls Royces break. Alpas break. Anything will probably break. So thinking that you have a camera which will not break is an illusion unless it sits on a shelf. And if it sits on a shelf it still may well fail. Some cameras seem to fail more than others. And my constant screed is that there is one company that is notably slow and expensive for re[pairs.

But by and large cameras are stable and sturdy. I think the most telling measure is what camera do you enjoy using for whatever reason. That's your honey, that's the one you like to be with. That's the one you will carry, repair and tout as the best ever camera made. And it does not have to be rational.

 

[eeeksNYC]

The one my father carried and taught me how to shoot with... A Zeiss Ikon Icarex S...

 

[splitimageview]

I answered this previously, listing some cameras for nostalgic reasons.

For 'user' reasons, I would probably choose either my Nikon F2a or FM. Disregarding other factors -- film availability, digital camera battery issues, etc. just looking at what I'd like to use and carry.

 

[Photar]

So thinking that you have a camera which will not break is an illusion

 

[Photar]

And one more little anecdote: once my Linhof fell from a plane’s overhead locker to the ground. It survived without a scratch.

 

[yossi]

Camera for life? Easy to answer: Leica M6 Classic that I purchased new in mid-1980 and continues to work flawlessly till today.

Over the last 40 years, this M6 had followed me to many countries, cold or hot. I must have shot hundreds of rolls through it. It has never been CLA so far as it doesn't need one. The few mod's over this period are: MP finder upgrade by DAG, changed to black Leica logo and Cameraleather's Griptac body covering, both DIY. The type-4 35mm Summicron also purchased new around the same period but has not seen heavy use as the M6 (I shoot more B&W and prefer the 35mm Summaron's rendering.)

I probably won't last another 40+ years, but this M6 would certainly does. Truly a camera for life.

​

 

[Archiver]

I thought about this camera-for-life-question during a walk (cold!) this morning. Quite to my surprise, when I thought about the camera that gave me the most satisfaction while shooting and when looking at the output it is the Polaroid Image/Spectra. I bought it in 1987, used it as my main camera for the next five years and I wish I could get new film for it.

And there I was, thinking you would say the Rollei!

My Zeiss Ikon ZM was doing beautifully until it just bricked itself one day. No lights, no shutter actuation, nothing. Still haven't had it repaired, and I won't know if it's viable until I take it in. A mechanical camera that doesn't rely on batteries/electronics to function wouldn't have had this kind of problem.

 

[Godfrey]

And there I was, thinking you would say the Rollei!

My Zeiss Ikon ZM was doing beautifully until it just bricked itself one day. No lights, no shutter actuation, nothing. Still haven't had it repaired, and I won't know if it's viable until I take it in. A mechanical camera that doesn't rely on batteries/electronics to function wouldn't have had this kind of problem.

Hmm. On my shelf right here, I have a 1973 Polaroid SX-70 that belonged to my uncle. He bought it new, and used it until his hands could no longer hold it (degradation of musculo-skeletal structures given by gout and neglect ... 🙁 ). He gave it to me ten years ago. I've put 100 more packs of film through it. It works flawlessly. It's one of the earliest 100% dependent upon electronic logic cameras in the world. And yet it continues to work flawlessy.

The three other SX-70s in my closet do the same, although one of them has been upgraded to use the 600 film, another uses the 150 film but has manual controls added, and the other does the manual controls as well as 600 film as well as external flash synchronization. Outstanding cameras, in every way.

I'm not against mechanical cameras (I have plenty of those), nor am I against electronic cameras (same). I'm all for good ones: That's what's difficult to determine without time to work with a camera and learn it, discover its strengths and weaknesses.

(The youngest of my SX-70s was manufactured in 1978, refurbished and upgraded to the maximum spec in 2005ish, and works flawlessly.)

But I'll still take the Hasselblad SWC/M with the four backs as my "camera for life" ... 😀

G