Cameras I have owned

japottinger
22nd June 2005, 19:17
Firts was a 2.5 square format, cannot remember name but could be a Practica, bought in Eastham first trip for 10. Still have the negs but not many enlargers can take this size of neg.
Next was a Russian Zenith EM 35mm. Excellent lens, very heavy and fiddely with screw in lens mount. The Pentax 100 was a great lens to fit.
Next was series of Olympus OM-N series, nice and compact and excellent bayonet fit lens, their owne lenses were very expensive, used various other makes of telephotos.
Sticking with Olympus I finnaly succumber to the digital age with an Olympus C-770 Ultra Zoom, I wanted to stay with Olympus and a good telephoto lens, this has 4,000,000 pixels and a 380mm lens and 0.07metre minimum in macro mode shooting range.
Have used enlargers for printing B&W pics, and do not think that any scanner or printer can match the quality.
Re cleaning negs and slides, can wash negs OK but still find it difficult spotting and brushing off all the dust etc on slides, even with a magnifying glass.

Puffin's skipper
25th January 2015, 15:09
Firts was a 2.5 square format, cannot remember name but could be a Practica, bought in Eastham first trip for 10. Still have the negs but not many enlargers can take this size of neg.
Next was a Russian Zenith EM 35mm. Excellent lens, very heavy and fiddely with screw in lens mount. The Pentax 100 was a great lens to fit.
Next was series of Olympus OM-N series, nice and compact and excellent bayonet fit lens, their owne lenses were very expensive, used various other makes of telephotos.
Sticking with Olympus I finnaly succumber to the digital age with an Olympus C-770 Ultra Zoom, I wanted to stay with Olympus and a good telephoto lens, this has 4,000,000 pixels and a 380mm lens and 0.07metre minimum in macro mode shooting range.
Have used enlargers for printing B&W pics, and do not think that any scanner or printer can match the quality.
Re cleaning negs and slides, can wash negs OK but still find it difficult spotting and brushing off all the dust etc on slides, even with a magnifying glass.

I have LOADS of this kind of stuff, Practica with 3 Carl Ziess lenses, an Olympus with a zoom etc, loads of telphoto lenses & stuff..
If ANYONE here knows this stuff and wants it, make me an offer.. Didnt know "film" cameras still had a value...nearly threw em all away.. Have loads of 'bits' with em too, cases, tripod etc..

stein
19th November 2017, 17:46
I had a Yashica double lens reflex at the time when I also had photography education at art school. It was a Rolleiflex imitation of course, the camera every professional used in the fifties. And I truly miss looking down into the dark "box top" of the camera hanging on my chest, where the future picture presented itself. Having the camera smack into your eye makes composition much more difficult.

BobClay
19th November 2017, 18:00
I bought a Yashica twin lens reflex in 1964 when I started work on a local newspaper. Still have it as you can see (although it's definitely looking its half century or so age these days.) Haven't used it in decades, if I remember right it takes a 127 film .. now I'm afraid it's a shelf ornament.

Mad Landsman
19th November 2017, 18:39
Medium format reflex cameras:

My first excursion into that was the Lomo Lubitel 2 and then the Lubitel 166- Russian built 120 roll film cameras.
I seem to recall that one or both had a mask so that you could shoot either square format or landscape. Or that might be another camera...

I later bought a 2nd hand collection of Zenz Bronica S2 S2A bodies - with all the bits.
A Japanese copy of the famous Hasselblad with square format.
Same sort of quality with the Nikkor lenses but not up there with reliability.

I still have the kit because it really is not worth selling, but no longer use it because of the price of film and processing.

Farmer John
19th November 2017, 21:32
The daftest camera I ever had was a Thornton Pickard Ruby Reflex, negative size about A5. It came with it's own enlarger, a huge thing which could wind up to about 9 feet high. All brass and mahogany. I used a cobbled 120 roll film holder into the dark room slides but really it wasn't a practical thing. I still have a couple of plate cameras, one of which has a film back for 120 roll film, neg size 2.25 x 3.5.

Love my digital though.

BobClay
19th November 2017, 21:42
Yeah, impressive as those old cameras were, and beautifully engineered ... the old digital has changed the entire game. (Wave)

stein
20th November 2017, 00:29
Of course it has, like the container has changed shipping. With my Yashica I had a box into which I thread my 120 black and white film in total darkness, and poured self mixed developer into, and then, with the film dried and scissored into suitable lengths, copied on paper with my Czech copier. And then I develped the paper in three baths, as far as I can remember, and then dried this paper. The thing is, I was young, and I photographed ships in frost smoke and the female students in the evening sun (developed in grainy Tri-X), and felt incrediby professional. These days I am fighting the programmers of my Nikon D-40 to stop the bloody side focusing and lay off the flash, and a lot of other things that once seemed quite simple.

Yes, I have had Leicas and Canons and a number of Nikons, but my Yashica was the "professional" camera.

YM-Mundrabilla
20th November 2017, 02:13
I was late into the digital era being dragged kicking and screaming into it in 2007.

Like many of my era, my first camera was a Box Brownie, followed by a brand that I have forgotten but it was an English camera with a large glass viewfinder on the top (perhaps the best part of 50 mm square). I am still sometimes (rarely, I admit !) surprised at what one can do with Photoshop to some of those dodgy b and w photos from 60 odd years ago.

After the 120 and 620 black and white era my first 35 mm was a Japanese Petri which was pretty basic although at least one could fiddle with speed and aperture; often without a great deal of success.

My first 'real camera' bought in about 1965, was the then pretty new Pentax Spotmatic, The Spotmatic served me faithfully and well for over 40 years until 2007 when, as I have said, I was dragged into the digital era.

I have a view that cameras are a bit like tyres and religion where everyone has their own brand which they are unlikely to change. Accordingly, in 2007, I bought a Pentax K100 which I still use from time to time today although in 2012 I upgraded to a Pentax K5 which is my main camera for the foreseeable future.

Pentax still has a good reputation although they are nowhere as popular today as their Spotmatics were back in the 1960s. I suspect that Pentax may well become extinct in the not too distant future as Nikon and Canon seem to have, pretty much, the lion's share of the market these days.

Both my Pentax digitals have thousands of pics 'on the clock'.

I have spent months on many occasions over the lat 10 years traipsing around Europe and rarely, if ever, seen another Pentax digital.

(Hippy)

Dickyboy
20th November 2017, 04:01
Canon QL25
The camera I owned for a large part of my sea going life.
Not a reflex, but the results were pretty good.
I consider it to be my first serious camera, as opposed to the instamatic type.

Farmer John
20th November 2017, 16:11
One of the best Film cameras I ever had was a Kodak Retina II with an f2.0 Rodenstock lens and a shutter with speeds from .5 second to 1/500th second. It folded and so was very compact and a similar camera was used by Ed Hilary to photo Norgay Tensing at the Everest summit. With HP5 black and white film (400 ASA, you could push it to more with some quality loss), it could give you candid non flash shots in fairly low light. I got some good shots with that, and loved the whole feel of it, everything was where it should be.

BobClay
20th November 2017, 16:29
The move from film to digital was very hard on camera manufacturers and it was inevitable that great names would disappear. But all kinds of manufacturing has gone to the wall because of failing to adapt to the digital age. It's a bit like evolution, adapt or fade away.

For the amateur photographer the digital camera and subsequent computer software aids to processing opened many doors but at the expense of that old adage: 'the camera doesn't lie.'

Farmer John
20th November 2017, 16:50
I belong to a group on Facebook that specialises in British Spiders, the standard of Macro photography on there is amazing, and a lot of it done on mobile phones. Even fools like me can easily produce pictures that, ten years ago, would be most likely only seen in books (if you remember what they are).

shippix
16th March 2018, 07:56
I took up photography when I was in my teens, teaching myself.

On the advice of a friend who repaired cameras I bought a Canon fp, followed by a Ftb followed by a Canon A1 . During this time I built my dark room. I used Ilford or Kodak films. HP 5 was a good one as one writer says for pushing the asa. I have a Yashica mat 124 twin lens which was great for candid pix as the camera was hang around my neck on a strap. All I had to do was to frame the shot and take it.
No one knew the pic had been taken. None of putting the camera to the eye. I used and still have my Weston Master light meter.
I have still got my A1 and a 16 ml. wide angle lens plus 500mm mirror lens and others in between.

I have a "museum " of around 20 cameras. I bought a Leica 35 mm camera a few years ago in excellent
condition. It is 2 years younger than me - I am 72.
I was in the MN for a few years when I was young, had a basic camera with me. It is great that some members of ships' crews take good cameras to sea with them. See the results on You Tube.

I joined the digital photography movement some years ago. So much better sitting in front of a computer than up in the dark room. Some purists will say that film is better compared to digi. cameras. It is so much easier for people to take pics today, press the shutter and see the results straight away. Mobile phones have now played a huge part in picture taking as well. This is probably why more pictures were taken in 2016 than in all the years from the start of photography to 2016. The world is awash with pictures. I always use my Fuji bridge cameras for pix, never mobile phones.

One day I took my digital camera out and switched to manual settings, then used the Weston to take the meter readings. It is still very accurate.
Ah well, waiting for a dry day when I can put the drone up !
Peter

frangio
16th March 2018, 10:49
Spent almost my entire first months wages with P&O on an Asahi Pentax KM in Kobe.

I seem to remember it was Y49,000 which was the equivalent of 90. (I've still got the receipt in the house somewhere!)

Unfortunately that excellent camera was stolen many years later when my home was broken into. Replaced it with an ME but never liked it as much.

One great advantage of the KM was that the only thing the battery powered was the light meter. The mechanical shutter would still work in really cold conditions and you could estimate the light and bracket to be safe. After getting the ME I was doing winter climbing in the Skye Cuillins and because of the cold the batteries stopped working and I couldn't take any photos.

Still got the ME but haven't used it for ages. Digital is so convenient and getting films developed and printed now costs a fortune!

YM-Mundrabilla
16th March 2018, 11:08
I was late into the digital era being dragged kicking and screaming into it in 2007.

Like many of my era, my first camera was a Box Brownie, followed by a brand that I have forgotten but it was an English camera with a large glass viewfinder on the top (perhaps the best part of 50 mm square). I am still sometimes (rarely, I admit !) surprised at what one can do with Photoshop to some of those dodgy b and w photos from 60 odd years ago.

After the 120 and 620 black and white era my first 35 mm was a Japanese Petri which was pretty basic although at least one could fiddle with speed and aperture; often without a great deal of success.

My first 'real camera' bought in about 1965, was the then pretty new Pentax Spotmatic, The Spotmatic served me faithfully and well for over 40 years until 2007 when, as I have said, I was dragged into the digital era.

I have a view that cameras are a bit like tyres and religion where everyone has their own brand which they are unlikely to change. Accordingly, in 2007, I bought a Pentax K100 which I still use from time to time today although in 2012 I upgraded to a Pentax K5 which is my main camera for the foreseeable future.

Pentax still has a good reputation although they are nowhere as popular today as their Spotmatics were back in the 1960s. I suspect that Pentax may well become extinct in the not too distant future as Nikon and Canon seem to have, pretty much, the lion's share of the market these days.

Both my Pentax digitals have thousands of pics 'on the clock'.

I have spent months on many occasions over the lat 10 years traipsing around Europe and rarely, if ever, seen another Pentax digital.

(Hippy)

Just looking through some of the more recent camera posts reminded me of the English camera to which I referred in para 2 (above). I have since found that it was an English 'Ensign Ful Vue' in the unlikely event that anyone is interested. (Wave)

holland25
16th March 2018, 13:55
Just looking through some of the more recent camera posts reminded me of the English camera to which I referred in para 2 (above). I have since found that it was an English 'Ensign Ful Vue' in the unlikely event that anyone is interested. (Wave)

My first camera was an Ensign Ful Vue which I got for a birthday,but could never really afford the film and developing, until I started work.I progressed through an Ilford Sportsman which I believe had 3 shutter speeds.My photographs were always criticised,by she who mattered, for not having people in them, so I became a bit discouraged.I eventually bought a Pentax Spotmatic 500, which incidentally had a 1000th shutter speed on it, it just wasn't marked.I thought this was the bees knees until my daughter took it to her school for photography lessons and the teacher told her it was a load of crap. Since then I have had a number of basic cameras by Kodak and Pentax, ending up with a Sanyo digital which cost $40 from a Dicks Smiths remainder bin. must admit the mobile phones seem just as good.As you will have gathered taking photographs has not been a big thing,in fact I once did a world trip and only used about a third of a film.