OK, so on another thread, we were discussing the 35 mm cameras we grew up with.
Hey, I used to DROOL over those in the old Sears catalogs. They had spot and average metering, right? And the 500TL designation meant that the highest shutter speed was 1/500 of a second, I think.
Originally Posted by TromboneAl
The way I remember it, different manufacturers all had their different canisters. Kodak had those shiny metal (I think youíre right about them being aluminum) ones, then later black plastic with a gray top. I think Fujiís were clear plastic. And if you were exotic enough to use Agfa or some of the other film manufacturers, other stuff.
Originally Posted by Cougrrcj
That Praktica is SWEET! Mine was also made in East Germany on the other side of the Iron Curtain. It also used the Pentax screw mount, which was fab. That was the day when almost all SLRs used that mount, so a lot of lenses were interchangeable among brands.
Do you still have it? If you donít Ö Iíll bet you wish you did!
Probably the slickest 35mm camera I ever owned was the Olympus XA. I still have it, as a matter of fact. Yoshihisa Maitani was a genius. :thumb:
This was my Dad's Braun camera that I used to use as a teen:
This was my first camera that I bought--a Pentax K-1000.
Most advanced 35mm camera I ever owned--a professional level Pentax LX.
^ Good choice!
I used a Olympus OM-2 for years. Nice camera, but I really wish I bought into the Pentax system instead. Why?
1. The LX you had there is a great camera. Effing great.
2. Pentax lenses were the equal or anyone's, and generally less expensive. They were kinda noted for good lens coatings and less lens flare than most.
3. They made cameras just as compact as the OM series.
4. The K-1000 was an inexpensive second body. That meant you could carry BW film in one camera and K25 in the other.
Canon TX in Highschool. I graduated to a Canon AE-1, which is still collecting dust in my closet. Honestly, I prefer the oldskool camera metering of the TX, where you had a needle and you had a ring, and you matched the two up for your exposure.
I had one of these for many years - the "poor man's Nikon" that allowed you to use any Nikon-compatible lens. Unfortunately it was one of the victims of our one and only burglary.
I gave that Praktica, along with several other old cameras to a coworker who had a collection. I stopped using the Prak because the shutter developed problems holding a consistent shutter speed. Probably just dirty and needed a good cleaning - at shop rates it would have been too costly. The other cameras used the large format paper-backed film sizes that are not found today... 120, 620, and 3.5"(?)... I still have a decent 110 camera (now there's an oxymoron!) that I used to take on bike trips after beating the snot out of the Prak on two TOSRVs...
Before the Praktica I had also 'killed' the hand-me-down Minolta 7s that was dad's before he got the Pentax...
...and I killed the Argus C-3 that mom had in the early '50s...
Nice! I still have a 120 film camera ... a Mamiya 645. Boy, when you took a picture with that, you knew about it ... with that big mirror flapping around. Nice big negative, though.
And since you mention 110, I am reminded that I actually had one of these:
Interesting camera, but the lack of any control over the exposure and the tiny negative (I actually started using slide film ... yes, K64 was available in 110 for a while) was too much to overcome. That's when I went to the much better Olympus XA for a pocket camera. Shoulda kept it, though. My guess is that that Auto 110 is collectable.
I also had one of these, but it was stolen:
and I replaced it with one of these:
Now with the looming demise of film cameras, last year we bought our first DSLR:
Now I gotta find something to take on bike trips besides a cameraphone!
OT of 35mm, but I had and still do have, a YashicaMat 120/220 twin reflex and 2 Hasselblad 500ELX cameras.
That was stolen, so I replaced it with one of these - which also had the K-Mount, and could use all my lenses
(I won several national and international salon acceptances with that cheap Ricoh...)
Here I am with the Mamiya/Sekor (yes, it had a spot meter, and 1/500th was the fastest shutter):
I think the first camera I used was this one:
and this one:
The first camera I bought was this:
And I remember sending the film away, and waiting three weeks for the pictures to come back.
Let's see......some of the film cameras I have had:
Canonet GIII/17. Great $100 rangefinder.
Rollei 35TE. My first really small camera. T models had slower lenses than S. 3.5 versus 2.8, I think.
Yaschica D. Yashica 44 LM. Yashicamat 124G. All TLR's. The D (6x6cm format) was a forerunner of the 124 G with film winder not connected to shutter cocking - double exposures were possible. No light meter. The 44 LM, on the other, had a light meter but was smaller - used 4x4cm film. Cannot remember what that size was commonly called. The 124G was very nice and much cheaper than the high-priced medium format spread.
Perhaps my favorite film camera was the tiny Canon Elph Jr. Single focal length with slightly faster lens than the more common Elph models with zoom lenses. Used APS film. Great camera for cycling.
My Canonet crossing the Hudson River with me in 1981:
Perhaps my favorite film camera was the tiny Canon Elph Jr. Single focal length with slightly faster lens than the more common Elph models with zoom lenses. Used APS film. Great camera for cycling.[/QUOTE]
Had one of those too. As a matter of fact, I still have it, although I'm not sure why. That pup had a feeling of quality to it.
Had one of those too. As a matter of fact, I still have it, although I'm not sure why. That pup had a feeling of quality to it.[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Biker395
Mine died. Lens stopped extending/retracting. Figured it would cost way too much to fix it. Bought a slightly-larger Kodak APS camera to replace it but that was about the time I traded in the Yashicamat on a small Nikon digital camera. The Kodak has hardly been used. Kind of like the Novara hybrid hanging in my garage since I started riding recumbents.
I had the 104!
Originally Posted by TromboneAl
With APS film, for several years I bought the film, shot the film, then paid for both prints and a Picture CD. Nice that I now have all those images digitized on CDs (plus backed up) but the resolution is mediocre; this image from the Hilly Hundred (shortly after 9/11) is 1536x834. Might someday try opening a film canister and scanning negatives to see how much better I could do. The film is smaller than 35mm but bigger than 110.
I digitized a bunch of 35 mm slides by essentially holding them in front of the camera (Canon Powershot A560) and shooting. I tried a bunch of other strategies (e.g. putting them on a scanner), but that was the best. Resolution was not great, but fit the purpose:
Originally Posted by JanMM
I bought a Nikon scanner made for scanning just negatives and slides, and digitized over 4,000 pictures that I had not seen for years.
Originally Posted by JanMM
Some of the film was in great condition, and some was horribly degraded, and even after a lot of photoshopping, those pics are so-so at best. But the memories are now digital - and backed up all over the place.
Caveat : it's a VERY slow process - bit worth the time and expense, IMO.
I have a Canon scanner that works with both 35mm and medium format film and slides. Several years ago I scanned the slides from our only long-distance bike tour (in 1981). Agree that it is a tedious process but worth it. I still have a blue million slides and negatives yet to be scanned. Thinking this will be a retirement project. Have played around with some 35mm and 6x6 slides and negatives. Amazing the resolution available with a 6x6 negative.
Originally Posted by DGlenday
Apologies for going off topic here, however, I thought that the Star Wars people amongst us might enjoy this. (not the commercial)
Hey ... this is Pub51 ... there IS no off topic here. :D
Originally Posted by rck
You guys are making me want to get on the stick and start scanning in some old pix and slides. Loooong overdue.
Does anyone besides me think it strange that posting photographs of cameras doesn't induce some sort of visual feedback loop?
If your want to occasionally share photos on the web, and your prints are already organized in albums, then my advice is to leave them there, and scan individual shots as needed.
Originally Posted by Biker395
The thing to avoid is meticulously scanning in every photo you've ever taken.
Also, being the victim of a house fire in 1991, I recommend an offsite backup of all photos. If you have negatives, scoop them up and mail them to a relative. I periodically copy all my digital photos to a backup DVD and mail it to my daughter.
Three fun projects with scanned-in and other photos that I've done:
1. Create a slideshow to be viewed on the TV when family visits.
2. Put together photobooks (e.g. MyPublisher.com) with old and new photos as presents
3. Ask siblings to email you photos they've taken over the year, and then put together a photobook as a Christmas present.
Here's me with my Hanamex-Praktica when I was the High School Newspaper Photographer back in 72-73
Check out the HUGE flash unit in this photo:https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Q...camera1972.jpg