Anyone into vintage cameras?

[Alex Zeller]

About 30 years ago my mother gave me a camera she had as a teen, a Zeiss Nettar 515. I thought it was interesting but figured it was too old to do more than just be a dust collector on a shelf. Now vintage cameras are back. I came across it in a drawer and found everything seems to work (other than the timer) and the lens looks to be in good shape. I knew my step father had a range finder and light meter so I went back to ask and found out that the camera was bought new by my grandfather before my mother was born. It was given to her so she could sign up for a class at the local college so she could attend dances. She has a picture taken with it of her as a small child, maybe 3 or 4 years old. So I'm having it professionally cleaned.

Although she didn't find either meter she did give me a Leica IIIG in great condition. My thought was to get the Ziess working and take a family photo with it so it could be put with the other picture as well as the history and hopefully down the road someone else in the family will show an interest and want the camera. While I like photography I wasn't planning on getting into learning all over again how to use film cameras. I can see myself also getting into developing film. Woodworking is an expensive hobby and I can see vintage cameras also not being cheap. I'm kind of on the edge so I was hoping to hear from others.

[Alan Rutherford]

Not really into them any more but I have a couple of boxes of cameras from the first half of the last century. I also recently gave my 35-year-old son a bunch of Mamiya C220 and C330 stuff. He found film in one of the bodies, got it processed and it turned out to be him at the age of about 2 months. That tells you 2 things: I once had some moderately serious gear and I dropped it for digital a long time ago.

He paid more than he expected to get that film processed. I recently looked all over town (not really a big town but still...) for someplace to print an old color negative and the best I could do was a place that first digitized it and then printed the resulting file. The point is that if you really want to get into it, you're likely to pay a lot to get a few pictures. Alternatively you can load your own film from bulk reels and process it yourself. You'd probably be sticking to black-and-white and still pay a lot.

You could shop around for a couple rolls of film and a place to process it, but make sure you have all those bases covered before you spend any money. IMO the best use for a camera like that if you don't already know the anwers to your questions is to put it on the shelf and admire it for the technological marvel it was. If someone with more recent experience has better advice - I'd be happy to be wrong and might open up those boxes of old cameras.

[Mike Henderson]

I ran into a guy shooting with a Hasselblad a while back. I had used those to shoot weddings many, many years ago. I thought maybe he had a digital back, but no, he was shooting film.

Years ago I owned and shot a Mamiya C330. Same format as the Hasselblad.

The problem with film cameras was the limited number of shots you could take before having to reload. When doing a wedding I'd have to always know how many shots were left on the roll and change to a fresh roll if I was getting close to the end and had a bunch of pictures to take quickly - such as the bride and groom exiting the church. People just wouldn't accept "I ran out of film" as a reason why you missed certain pictures.

Digital is soooo much better. I can put in a storage device that can hold almost an unlimited number of pictures. And I can do a lot with the pictures in post (PhotoShop). What photographers do with wedding photos today are things we only dreamed of back then.

I also owned a Nikon 35mm range finder camera some years ago but sold it when things went digital. I wonder what it would be worth today.

Mike

[Alex Zeller]

When I started using a digital camera it was kind of a game changer. For the first time I could experiment and see results almost instantly. With film you had to shoot the whole roll and take notes just in case it took longer than expected to shoot the roll. Then you had to wait until you got the film developed. I didn't see much need to ever go back. But I can see the desire, kind of like using a chisel to make a mortise vs just using a modern machine.

[ChrisA Edwards]

When I came to the USA, from England, in 1982, I was big into photography as a hobby, but didn't have a budget.

After a few months of lusting, I was able to afford a Pentax LX, which was Pentax's professional answer to the Nikon's at the time.

I still have it, had it serviced about 10 years ago, but that was the last time I touched it.

[Brice Rogers]

I have a hand full of 3D cameras, and two 3D projectors. They were probably popular in the 1940s and 50's. Most people shot slide film with them. One "snap" resulted in two negatives taken from a slightly different position. The projectors use "crossed" polaroid film for each image and the viewer needs to wear the special polaroid glasses. The projected images can be quite vivid in terms of 3D viewing.

But it seems like the interest in 3D pictures is way way down. The value of the 3D equipment is also way down. I'm contemplating getting rid of all of that stuff.

[andy bessette]

My main camera collection is Nikon professional 35mm SLR cameras and mostly manual focus lenses. The Nikon F3 is my favorite among these cameras. And the 85/1.4 lens is also a favorite. Though I have some large format equipment, my 35mm rangefinder Minolta CLE (based on Leica M system) actually still gets used. I'll include a photo from that one.

https://i.postimg.cc/43cgVZf8/wa2la-25.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Warren Lake]

pros I saw shooting weddings had two or three cameras on their bodies. Changing film was not much of an issue just grab another camera. I have a digital hanging off my belt my first Panasonic digital bridge camera. Up to my third one now. First one is finally packing it in.

Friend told me film is a thing and lots of people into it. Still have a Krown Graphix 4 x 5 that was a pain but damn clear. Had a polaroid back for it and for a while they did bring that film back. That was kind of cool, it never stuck around.

I took this in 2007 when I drove to LA. My video camera a JVC tape camera had a 1.3 Meg still shot camera. Took a gazzilion photos with it, some were okay lots were very low quality. Digital is excellent.

Third bridge camera I have now maybe FZ300 is great. Not super high quality but shoots great and versitile. Long zoom on it amazing what you can get. Dont have a cell like most people. Asked one past customer to make me a shoe phone and that didnt happen so waiting for them to make a camera that has a cell phone in it.


The flim digital thing makes me think of CD's. I had a high end CD player and in eh beginning too many CD's sounded harsh maybe sampling rates low. The first CD I put on that actually sounded great was Brothers in Arms.


same place 1.3 Meg digital when digital was still an infant, then it was really an add on on that video camera. What a great drive up the coast.


So are some people using film again? developing it themselves or taking it in then using a scanner with neg holders and putting it into their computers ?



460253

[Aaron Rosenthal]

Ah, old cameras.
My current stable has a Contax 2A wit a 1.4 Sonar lens, and it works.
Canon Montreal Olympic F1 and a couple of Canons in digital format.
According to what I’ve seen and I don’t check regularly, they’re worth almost nothing. Film cameras are dead and iPhones rule the world.
You can still get film processed here in Vancouver.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

That Leica IIIg is a rare one. That had the twist knob film advance before the M series with the lever advance. That is a great camera to use if getting into film. Leica glass is very sought after. I learned photography on my uncle’s M3’s and a IIIf.

The Zeiss may seem to work, but the bellows is usually where they fail. One pinhole can ruin it. You can still get the film- it’s worth a try.

[Jim Barkelew]

I have a Brownie camera, in the box, we got from an elderly friend decades ago. I still have an Olympic OM1 that was a wedding present. When my parents downsized us kids had to deal with a significant collection of prints, slides and negatives they took in their travels. I decided to buy a scanner and digitize the pictures (thousands) with people in them. That way we avoided having to decide who keeps the collection. It was interesting to see the difference in quality of the old film and prints. Some did not age well, some looked perfect after 70 years.

In the end the family all have digital copies of the family history (including the paper documents/records) and I learned a lot of details going back 100 years. The photos had names, places, and dates written on the back, not sure people typically do that with digital photos.

Jim

[John K Jordan]

For those interested in old cameras and can get to Staunton, Virginia there is an incredible camera museum worth seeing. The guy owning/running it when I visited a few years ago was a real enthusiast - we talked for a couple of hours! I think they are looking for a larger space but when I visited there were more cameras per square foot than imaginable:

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x89b4a0845901a3d1%3A0xd42717caf1728439!3 m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com %2Fp%2FAF1QipNs-xwtUwH9B7a1JKU--dU-RKuY3HjYqkf08Byy%3Dw213-h160-k-no!5sphotography%20museum%20staunton%20va%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipNs-xwtUwH9B7a1JKU--dU-RKuY3HjYqkf08Byy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTkNyP2LzxAhUWlmoFHdNQD9gQoiowJXoECGEQA w

https://www.cameraheritagemuseum.com/

That's the place I'd call if looking for info on cameras, film, and processing.

I shot film for 40 years starting in the '60 and maintained a series of B&W darkrooms. I used a 4x5 Crown Graphic, 2-1/4 Rolleiflex, a variety of Polaroid cameras, and a number of 35mm, Nikon and Minolta. Processing B&W film yourself is easy and takes almost no equipment. Making prints is much more involved and typically needs an expensive enlarger. However, for the Zeiss you can make a simple contact printer from a piece of glass and make small B&W prints that may be sufficient. There are still people with darkrooms who might make prints for you but digitizing the film is probably a better solution. Some page scanners do a passable job with larger film but for 35mm a dedicated film scanner will do a far better job. If you decide to pursue shooting with the Leica I might be talked into sending you a high-end Nikon film scanner I'll never use again.

Some low-res examples from various scanners I've had, shots from the '70s to '90s, 35mm and 2-1/4":

460259 460260

460262 460258 460261

JKJ

[Phil Mueller]

Decades ago when my great aunt died, I inherited her camera. Some how I became the one my extended family decided should have any camera left in an estate. I think the mechanics of them are cool to play with, but I’ve never used them, just continue to set them in this old display case. Thought about getting film for some at one point, but never got around to it. Sorry for the glare...

460263 460264

[Erik Loza]

My dad was an avid photographer when he was young. Cool story: He had dinner with Ansel Adams in the early 1960's, without having any idea who he was. As Dad told it, he got invited to a dinner at the home of one of his Liberal Arts professors at Yuba City College in Northern California. Apparently, Ansel Adams was there to speak at the college. Dad said Mr. Adams explained his zone system of exposure to him over dinner and that they had a nice conversation, but he did not learn who he was until years later.

Dad did a lot of work with a medium-format Rollei TLR but his favorite camera was a Leica III rangefinder. I still have it but it's not really practical these days. Like Phil's setup, I should just get a display case for it. One cool thing: I bought an adapter for Leica screw-mount lenses, so am able to use Dad's old rangefinder lenses on my current mirrorless bodies. I have this dream someday of visiting sites he photographed when he was younger and shooting my own, with his original lenses.

Erik

[George Yetka]

My father before he passed was huge into photography mostly current stuff(usually replaced all his equipment as soon as the new stuff rolled out) He worked on 3 systems canon slr, Canon mirrorless, and Leica M series. The only thing he worked with that was older than the milk in the fridge was his leica lenses. He had 3-4 that were over 50 years old

[andy bessette]

...same place.. What a great drive up the coast...


460253

That's great--you got a shot from almost precisely the same vantage point that I used.

[Jim Koepke]

My film cameras are all packed away and would likely take me a day or two to find them all. A Rollicord from the '30s or '40s, a Kodak bellows camera from about the same time. Neither of these were used much by me. My main cameras were a couple of 35mm cameras and a gaggle of lenses purchased in the '70s. A lot of time was spent burning through rolls of film. My favorite color film was Kodachrome-25 ASA. For black and white Illford film seemed better to me than the Kodak Tri-X.

One thing missed about film was how it could be manipulated with the exposure. Kodachrome had a phenomenon (or a feature) known as reciprocity failure. The film would fail to expose various colors in low light situations. It also could produce a wide range of color in some lighting situations. Another favorite was to take images that were monochromatic or only having one color. This was usually achieved in the early morning or late afternoon.

Digital cameras don't seem to have the same responses as film did. Taking pictures is still enjoyable, just not as much of a passion as in my younger days.

At the time my employment was in the printing trades. In a closet of my small apartment a darkroom was set up. Made a lot of black and white prints and a few color prints from slides.

This is one of my favorites:

460265

This was shot with a polarizing filter. It was the last frame on a roll of Kodachrome-25 taken before switching to B&W film. Later a print was made. When digital cameras came in a shot was taken of the print. Finally a little bit of 'photoshopping' was done to remove dust specks and other artifacts.

A few of my slides are taken out and viewed with a hand viewer at times just for the nostalgia. Mostly landscapes of undeveloped areas around the county of my home.

Many of the places have been developed and many of the old buildings or windmills are no longer there.

jtk

[Alex Zeller]

I have a co-worker who was into woodworking and thinks about getting back into it that has really taken to digital and now film. He can develop film but I would only have him do one or two rolls. Since the Leica does have film in it (I think) I took a few pictures with it. I don't have a light meter so I used an app but that doesn't work great. The sensor on my phone is above the screen so you have to face away from what you are trying to sample to actually get a correct reading. So that would be the first thing I would need to buy. The camera has no way of seeing if there's film in the camera. There's a dial on the back that you can set for the speed and to tell what type of film is in the camera. Since I don't know if the dial was set correctly I took the same picture 3 times assuming that it was 100, 200, and 400. I probably didn't need to but I have no clue how old it is or if it's even good. I've heard the Kodak Kodachrome can't be developed correctly and it's possible that's what's in the camera.

I'm leaning towards selling the Leica and just using the Zeiss a few times. It just looks like to really enjoy using film I'm going to have to invest money into a second hobby when I don't have enough time for woodworking now.

[Roger Feeley]

From an archival point of view, I'm not a fan of digital. It needs tending. Formats become obsolete. media breaks down. A 4x5 B&W negative is about the best thing us mortals can have. The only thing better might be glass.

When my mother turned 100, I wanted to do a family portrait. I wanted 4x5 B&W and I wanted the negatives. I ran into all sorts of resistance. First, everyone had gone digital. Second, they wouldn't sell the negatives because of 'artistic integrity'. I talked to one guy as he was packing up his studio to retire. He was very proud of the 20 file cabinets of negs he carefully stored over the years. I asked him how many times customers had returned for reprints more than a year after the shoot. The answer was just 4. Then I asked him how much money he would have if he had offered to sell the negs after a year. He had no answer.

My solution was to buy a 4x5 view camera off Ebay. Turns out that they are really cheap. I got a nice Rodenstock lense for a song. Got a nice light meter. I borrowed some lights. At the time, there was a guy in KC that would process the film for me. The negatives are safe in my safety deposit box. Drop mic.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't have a light meter so I used an app but that doesn't work great. The sensor on my phone is above the screen so you have to face away from what you are trying to sample to actually get a correct reading. So that would be the first thing I would need to buy. The camera has no way of seeing if there's film in the camera.

In the days without a light meter the 'rule of thumb' on exposure was based on the shutter speed being set to the film speed (ASA now may be ISO) and the ƒ stop being set to ƒ16 in bright sun light. My memory is foggy on the rest of the settings for various exposures.

Of course with Google you can search > film camera exposure chart < to find the information on exposures for different lighting situations.

Depending on the camera you can tell if there is film inside by the rewind knob on a 35mm. It will turn when the film is advanced. It will also have tension on it. A roll film camera could be checked in a totally darkroom by opening the back.

If you know how many exposures have been made the film can be carefully removed by rewinding it into the canister, being careful to not wind it all the way. This can be done in a totally dark room with the back of the camera open. Check the film canister then reload the film and advance the film to where it was before.

Many photographers used to use this as a trick to get a roll full of something like a full moon and then use it for a second exposure of various things at a later time.

jtk

[Bill Dufour]

For decades Cannon used the same EF lens mount well into the digital age. So lots of stuff interchanges. That is why I choose Cannon over others for digital SLR.
1987-2017 and maybe still made today? half of my lenses came from thrift stores
Bill D.

[andy bessette]

For decades Cannon used the same EF lens mount well into the digital age. So lots of stuff interchanges. That is why I choose Cannon over others for digital SLR.
1987-2017 and maybe still made today? half of my lenses came from thrift stores
Bill D.

Actually Nikon has the better cross compatibility with their "F" system, which they have been using since their first SLR, The Nikon F, in 1959. All my Nikon digital cameras accept all my Nikon lenses, both manual and auto focus.

[Mike Henderson]

Actually Nikon has the better cross compatibility with their "F" system, which they have been using since their first SLR, The Nikon F, in 1959. All my Nikon digital cameras accept all my Nikon lenses, both manual and auto focus.

Didn't Nikon come out with a new mount for their current digital cameras? Was it the Z-mount?

But maybe they have an adapter for their old lenses.

Mentioning the Nikon F, I bought an F from Japan while I was in Vietnam. Sold it with the lenses about 15 years ago.

Mike

[Kev Williams]

Maybe not "vintage", but back in the 70's "Vivitar" was normally though of as a point 'n' shoot camera, but they also made pretty good SLR's and REAL good lenses. When my daughter was born I was tired of taking Polaroids and found a Vivitar SLR setup, camera was all manual, came with a nice case, an extra 150mm (I think) lens, a 2x adapter, and was fitted with a 50mm f1.4 lens that took some great pics. Another thing it had which seemed to be 'different' from most SLR's back then, was a vertical plane shutter, which allowed a full-open 1/125 second shutter speed rather than the typical 1/60 speed of horizontal plane shutters. I still have it, just buried somewhere ;)

[Mel Fulks]

I still like film and have kept my old Pentax K-1000 for copying family photos with 25 speed black and white film. It has made some
elderly relatives happy to see themselves looking so young, I assure them that they have not been retouched !

[andy bessette]

Didn't Nikon come out with a new mount for their current digital cameras? Was it the Z-mount?...

I believe that is for an entirely different family of mirrorless cameras, not SLR.

[Terry Wawro]

I made a career out of photography and had my own business for around 25 years before retiring. Shot with a Bronica SQA camera system on 120 film that gave 2.25 square negs. Had that system for many years. That is until I was dragged into the digital world kicking and screaming. I finally settled on the Canon EOS system and still use it today. I used to keep a 4x5 Toyo view camera for architectural and product shots but eventually sold it to a student. Around the house I have an odd collection of old cameras. Everything from a very large portrait view camera with dark cloth to go over your head to Kodak folding cameras, box cameras, and the ever popular Argus C3. I never use them, I just enjoy them as decor. Somewhere packed away I still own a Beseler enlarger and a box full of darkroom gear gathering dust.

[andy bessette]

...I was less than impressed when I tried to scan some of the 2 1/4 stuff with an Epson flatbed scanner with light lid 20 years ago or so. Hopefully technology has gotten a lot better by now.

Quality film scanners that will handle larger format at high resolution are rather more expensive these days. And there are fewer choices.

[Dick Strauss]

I figured as much. Even digitizing some of my 35mm would be a large first step. Nikon used to be the best IMHO, but maybe times change. Do you have any recommendations for a good quality 35mm scanner?

[andy bessette]

I have a very good 35mm film scanner by Konica-Minolta, but it is long since out of production. Nikon makes an excellent one that I believe is in the $1,000 range; not for kids. The flatbed scanners I've tried were very disappointing.

[Dick Strauss]

Well, it looks like I accidentally deleted my post trrying to correct a typo on my phone...

'I have an old RolleiFlex 2.8E and some 1970's East German Zeiss lenses that fit a Kiev-60 (a Russian camera that takes Pentacon (not Pentagon ;)) mount lenses). I also used to shoot using the 35mm Canon EOS system. I have a ton of slides and negatives for both 35mm and 2 1/4 that I'd like to digitize one of these days. I was less than impressed trying to scan 2 1/4 stuff using an Epson flatbed scanner with light lid 20 or more years ago (1200 dpi resolution IIRC).'

[Dick Strauss]

Some page scanners do a passable job with larger film but for 35mm a dedicated film scanner will do a far better job. If you decide to pursue shooting with the Leica I might be talked into sending you a high-end Nikon film scanner I'll never use again. JKJ

John,

The Nikon scanners used to be the one of the best. Which model Nikon film scanner do you have and what do you think of it?

[Erik Loza]

Not to hijack Dick's comment but I'm in a similar situation: I had a huge library of slides. Maybe 2,000, many of which were just multiples of the same image. Then, whittled that down to maybe 300 slides. The real keepers. I have 2000-ish vintage Minolta Dimage Scan Elite, which is an excellent scanner for 35mm film, but time consuming to operate. I've been hanging onto it with the idea to spend a month just scanning everything, but the time never seems to be there. I'm thinking about just paying a photo lab to scan all these slides for me. They will probably use a drum scanner (which I don't have) and can do it faster and better. How did we get by in the analog era?

Erik

[John K Jordan]

John,

The Nikon scanners used to be the one of the best. Which model Nikon film scanner do you have and what do you think of it?

I'd have to check, haven't used it for a long time. (I have it packed away in the original box.) I think I remember the words Coolscan, and ED.

Resolution and color were excellent quality. I scanned some Kodak color targets and the the results were good on a calibrated color monitor. (I still have color calibration hardware around here somewhere too!)

I too have thousands of color slides and negatives and more thousands of B&W film from 35mm up to 4.5, also albums of family photos from past generations. I didn't think of having a photo service scan all of these as Erik mentioned. There are some I would love to access (and add to the 74,000 digital photos in 1200 folders on my computers. :) ) What I REALLY need is to sit down for 100 hours and better catalog everything...

Just for fun, this is the house in PA I grew up in. The Monongahela River was down over the bank behind the house. Every year the snowmelt would cause the river to rise, sometimes flooding. As a kid it was fun to watch the things floating down the river. This year we had to use a boat to get out of the house! Photo of a printed photo.

460782

JKJ

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

I had saved my change when I was in high school for a camera and got a Kalimar SLR. (a very poor man's Hasselblad) Had the standard and telephoto lenses as well as the bellows extension, even had the rifle stock camera holder that used a trigger to activate the shutter. But got to the point that I could not find the 120 film for it. I got paid for a few photos while in college, like $15.00 ea. by a local publishing outfit for calendars. Lost it all in a house fire a few years back. Frankly, for the pictures I take, my smart phone does a good job. Everything is photoshopped now anyway. I do have a box of old cameras in the shop that were in a truck load of stuff a friend was moving into a house and I helped him clear out the shed of stuff the former owner left behind. I never really looked through it except to see it was chinese knock offs and instamatics.