skip to main |
skip to sidebar
You've probably noticed that I've gone slightly "off the tracks". I know some of you are quietly saying that you've known this for years! I haven't yet decided that it's due to age induced nostalgia, or that I am in fact on to something. But here's the thing: I'm beginning to think that shooting pictures with film is different than shooting them in digital..... and "NO", I don't mean the technical difference in the medium which is an argument that will go on forever. No, I mean the psychology of shooting something that's permanent vs. what we know full well, we can and will simply delete because it isn't quite what we want it to be, then shoot again.
If you're "old" like me, you remember constantly keeping an eye on the frame counter to make sure you don't run out of it at a critical time. I even remember back when I was doing some "professional" work, I'd even sacrifice a few frames toward the end of a roll, and replace it with a fresh one just to make certain that you weren't caught reloading at an inopportune time. I even clearly remember luxuriating in the feel of having the relatively expansive 36 exposure rolls vs. the 24! There's nothing quite like that "film awareness" to keep you focus on getting the most from each frame.
I feel like I do a pretty good job of it when I'm using the D300, which is a weighty and serious camera. This is particularly true when I've got the old 50mm/f1.4 Nikkor attached, since it's manual focus only. However, it's still not quite the same. I find myself, spending more time making sure that either the automation is off, or I am in fact overriding it correctly, than simply setting and shooting.
So, I find that the vast majority of the time when I want that simple connection of working with the light, I turn to the D40 with one of my collection of manual lenses. Since they have no connection to the body other than the mechanics of the mount, they really only pass and focus light. Yes, I'm aware that I can simply turn the settings on the D300 to manual and essentially do the same thing. But it's not the same mindset as having no other recourse.
In recent months, I've been involved in a bit of collecting with old photographic equipment. It started when my brother sent me some of his old gear with included a Topcon Uni. It's quite old and not really a practical "user", but it got me thinking and looking at old equipment. That, in combination of my posts regarding a "compact" DSLR system and the role of the Konica TC had in my consciousness really stirred the cobwebs in the old memory. So, I bought one. It was all of about $15 after shipping and had no lens, but did include peeling leatherette cover at no extra charge. I don't have the slightest idea if it works or not since the batteries it uses are no longer produced. I do have a couple of lenses for it though, so......
Yeah, this could be me. OK, no Jimmy Stewart spying on his murderous neighbor with the stunning Grace Kelly, but heh!?! OK, no weird Exacta VX camera or giant 400mm lens either. However, I do have some film in the cabinet here and I could see myself taking an old camera out every now and then to shoot a roll. What if that Konica isn't in "shooting" condition?
Here's what I'd love to use. A Minolta XE-7 (XE in Japan, XE-1 in Europe). It's the very first camera that I ever fell completely in love with.... back in something like 1973/4. It's in my humble opinion; the most beautiful single lens reflex camera ever made (especially when mounted with an MC Rokkor-X 50mm/f1.4 lens). They seem to go pretty routinely in the $35 range. It's a "dead system" (kind of like Latin as a language), so there is relatively little competition for the lenses. Of course there's the EVIL (electronic view interchangeable lens) crowd who adapt lenses to their cameras, but those guys are still relatively rare. They tend to concentrate on old Nikkors and Zuikos, driving those prices up! Will this become a successful experiment? Who knows. I just think it's important, and fun, to shake things up every now and then. Oh yeah; that pictures up at the top? The Contax RTS, arguably the most beautiful SLR ever made (designed by Porche); it's just eye candy. You can pick up one of the bodies for like $50, but those lenses go for ridiculous money these days!
It's pretty evident that I love oddities. These things have largely been eliminated from the modern market place. It wasn't always this way though. For a long time, in the field of photography, idiosycracies were very common. Many, if not all camera companies came into existence on the backs of engineers, and there's perhaps no more idiosyncratic group than they. Before the current day of intense global competition and accountant run corporations, most of the worlds great industrial entities were created and run by inventor/engineers. Everyone from Thomas Edison to Yoshihisa Maitani have led iconic companies into developing the products that make our world what it is today. However, the highly talented are often stubbornly individualistic. And this creates the oddities that I find so interesting.
Being the son of an engineer, I wasn't even aware of the weirdness I was raised into, until I was a little older. The summer before my Junior year of high school, my life-long friend Eric moved to town. He liked most things of the same things I did and we became friends pretty quickly. One of our common interest was/is photography. Other than the very cool Nikon F that his mother, the professional artist used, he had a drawer full of old cameras. We took them apart, painted them, played around with them in general. The oddest was a Petri-flex 7, that as you can see was "not like the others". Little did we know that one day it would become a much sought after collector's classic! So a word to the wise; don't let your teenagers break all your old stuff!
Back in the world of the late 60's and early 70's, the camera market here in the U.S. was the hot thing, and everybody wanted into it. This made for a wide variety of companies and models. Many of them were very interesting and often extremely well made. A great example was the Miranda as depicted above. Although highly advanced for the time with it's interchangeable prism, there was all manner of funny little things about it like the use of external lens and shutter linkages much like the iconic Exacta.
Speaking of the Exacta; since the market-place of that time wasn't "commoditized" yet, many products had unusual features like the VX shown above that was "left-handed" in it's control layout! Here it's being used by laid up photojournalist as played by Jimmy Stewart in Alfred Hitchcock's movie, "Rear Window" to spy on his neighbors. I thought this camera was so cool I actually traded for one years ago from a artist friend. It now resides in my friend, Pat's collection.
Don't think this camera looks unusual? It might not be.....if it came out in 1974, but for 1969, it was ahead of it's time, as was most products that Mamiya/Sekor produced until the end about a decade later. If it peaks your interests, by all means, Google it. There's a great website out there on the company. However, it's (and it's successor's, as well as the company's) idiosyncracies ended up doing it in.....but it certainly wasn't the performance. I have a bit of odd history with this camera. In 1975 when I took over as the yearbook photographer for my high school, this was what they had, along with a 135mm lens and a Yashica 124G twin lens reflex. Two years later I finally convince the school to replace it with a Canon AE-1. Just could never get over the slow to change lenses screw-mount, or the "stop-down" metering.
So; is there a point of these misc. ramblings down memory's lane? Why yes....now that you ask! "Unusual" doesn't always mean "bad", it's often simply a quirk or a matter of timing. This can be a very good thing for the bargain hunter. In the past, I've specifically talked about the Olympus E330 as well as the Konica/Minolta 7D, but haven't really address the concept overall. In the case of the Olympus, it has been orphaned due to the company's move to the Micro 4/3rd lens mount which eliminated the mirror box, thus making every one of the original 4/3rds models obsolete. Wow, that puts LOT of good cameras out there! Everything ranging from the professional level E-1, E-3, and E-5 to the super compact E-4xx series. There's even a compatible 4/3rds to m4/3rds adapter so you can keep using this glass on the newer bodies.
Then of course, there's the Konica/Minolta 7D and 5D cameras that I've previously blogged about. And in fact, they aren't even really obsolete! The designs and optics along with the mount is that which Sony uses for it's Alpha series. So yes; by all means take advantage of consumer ignorance that causes the prices of these great cameras to be depressed to pick up an eminently useable product.
Last, but not least is this little not-so-secret, secret. For some years, Samsung was cloning Pentax DSLRs. This began with the *istD and went on till the K-10 model. It's a practice that's been common in the industry for years, with participation from all manner of companies ranging from Sears to Leica. In this case though, we are talking a current mount, and relatively up-to-date camera features. It's not an association that is "in the news" because Samsung has since abandoned the concept for their own mount combined with a "mirrorless" APS-C sensor'd design. Never-the-less, the Samsung GX-10 which is the their version of the Pentax K10D, at 10Mp is an excellent candidate to be a family camera.
No! Nobody is asking you to do the equivelent of driving an AMC Pacer. Nobody wants to be that weird, but if you're willing to think "outside the box"...in this case, the "big box", there are lots of bargains to be had.
