# A Gentleman's Camera.



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

I only use German cameras from before World War II or slightly after. That is, Rolleiflex and Leica.

Digital is for the Ebay.



















*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LabelKing_
> 
> I only use German cameras from before World War II or slightly after. That is, Rolleiflex and Leica.
> 
> ...


Class act,Labelking!
I use a Yashica Electro CC rangefinder.
I have several Zeiss pre-war 120's waiting in the wings.
Nice photo of Leni.

mk


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

My favorite cameras are medium-format Voigtlaenders from the 1940s and '50s -- beautiful machines that take beautiful photographs -- but I realize that, sooner or later, I'll have to buy a digital camera: the number of varieties of film available will in time reach zero.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I'm currently shooting a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. I just love everything about this camera! Bellows focusing, revolving back (no need to crop a 6x7 negative to fit 8x10 or 16x20 paper) exceptional optics and the beast is built like a tank. Quality through and through. Leica's and the Rolliflex have long, well deserved reputation as well of course.
I can actually shoot digital with my Mamiya but that would run me about 15 grand for a digital back! Nah...I'm fine with film. I'm not too worried about film disappearing. Ilford has pulled itself up and is committed to keep making b&w (which is all I shoot). Kodak I'm sure will bail out before too long. Agfa recently went belly up so I had to stock pile bottles of Rodinal, my favorite developer. Other smaller companies state they will continue to make b&w film. These are companies like Forte, Foma, and Efke. Unfortunately, all three have had occasional quality issues that hopefully will get worked out in time. Efke in particular was a beautiful film but the only store that carried it in LA moved to Colorado. So I shoot mostly Ilford PanF+ and FP4. I'm more concerned about wet darkroom items being available. With Agfa and Kodak no longer making paper, the choices are getting slim. Nevertheless I'll still be shooting film and printing in a darkroom until the last pack of paper rolls out of the plant. After that, well, I guess I'll go back into painting.


----------



## rtaylor61 (Jul 25, 2005)

No doubt that these cameras are quality cameras and wonderful to use. My cameras are Pentax, both from 1979 and 1980. And add to that a Sony digital. I would say that digital is for convenience.

Randy

"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." J. D. Books


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Pentax also puts out quality cameras. My 35mm is a Pentax PZ-20, the camera I cut my teeth on. The Pentax 67 is also a great fun camera to use.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

"The Pentax 67 is also a great fun camera to use."

I have two 67 lenses adapted to fit my Pentax 645,
beautiful glass.

Dad used all kinds of old Nikon and Leica gear, 
I have a picture of him in my kitchen shooting the 1957 Stanley Cup with a Nikon SP.
I never could embrace the older ones.
An M6 or M4p is as old as I can do.
His old Rollie, I wish he never got rid of! :-(
That is a beauty LabelKing.

RWS, Voigtlander made some of the best glass in the world in its time,
their apo 4x5 lenses are still sought after items. If they have the three colored rings around the barrel, jewels they are!


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

Loved the Pentax 67. Built like a tank and wonderful lenses. Sold it to buy a Mamiya 645 1000S with metering (couldn't stretch to a Pentax meter prism at the time). 35mm are Nikon F2S, F2AS, F3HP/motordrive and a Yashica Electro 35. Funny incident - once while using the F2AS I had this old Japanese couple tail me. The husband wanted to buy the camera off me. Very insistent he was.
Having used film cameras for nigh on 20 years I am considering switching to digital. Weight of equipment and eyesight are the problems. No DSLR monstrosities for me. I am thinking of buying the Panasonic Digilux LC1. With its Leica lens it should be outstanding and I love the rangefinder look. Waiting for the price to come down but it is holding its own :-(


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by burnedandfrozen_
> 
> I'm currently shooting a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. I just love everything about this camera! Bellows focusing, revolving back (no need to crop a 6x7 negative to fit 8x10 or 16x20 paper) exceptional optics and the beast is built like a tank. Quality through and through. Leica's and the Rolliflex have long, well deserved reputation as well of course.
> I can actually shoot digital with my Mamiya but that would run me about 15 grand for a digital back! Nah...I'm fine with film. I'm not too worried about film disappearing. Ilford has pulled itself up and is committed to keep making b&w (which is all I shoot). Kodak I'm sure will bail out before too long. Agfa recently went belly up so I had to stock pile bottles of Rodinal, my favorite developer. Other smaller companies state they will continue to make b&w film. These are companies like Forte, Foma, and Efke. Unfortunately, all three have had occasional quality issues that hopefully will get worked out in time. Efke in particular was a beautiful film but the only store that carried it in LA moved to Colorado. So I shoot mostly Ilford PanF+ and FP4. I'm more concerned about wet darkroom items being available. With Agfa and Kodak no longer making paper, the choices are getting slim. Nevertheless I'll still be shooting film and printing in a darkroom until the last pack of paper rolls out of the plant. After that, well, I guess I'll go back into painting.


mk


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by zegnamtl_
> . . . . RWS, Voigtlander made some of the best glass in the world in its time,
> their apo 4x5 lenses are still sought after items. If they have the three colored rings around the barrel, jewels they are!


Completely agreed, MTL: beautiful, smooth-as-silk machines, joys to hold and to use. Plus, using a old medium-format puts me a little closer to my great-great-grandfather, an expatriate who worked as a photographer in mid-nineteenth-century Rome and from whom I have my first given name.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Thanks for the link Mark. Dr5 is where I used to purchase Efke film until the high rents forced them to re-locate. J&C Photo also carries this obscure film. However, I choose not to order any for two reasons. One is that to offset the shipping costs (which adds quite a bit per roll) I'd have to order about 50 rolls. I don't have enough room in my freezer for this many. Second is that I'm pretty anal about my film and the thought of all these rolls spending several days in the back of a delivery truck that may not have air conditioning just makes me queasy. Who knows what effect several days of heat exposure may have, especially in the summer months.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

I use the Efke Film, which is apparently a facsimile of the old Adox formula, very high silver content.

I develop it with the German made Neofin Blue, which makes for a nice tone and low grain.

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I've got a Mamiya RB67 I've had for about 25 years, sort of the "poor man's Hasselblad. I now have three lenses for it--55mm, 90mm, 180mm. (Divide these by 2 to get their approximate 35mm counterparts.) I have been told that to get digital images of comparable quality, I would have to spend about $8,000 on a camera at this time. I'd rather spend it on clothes. I don't know how "gentlemanly" my big brute of a camera is, but it sure gives me some nice images. For anything much better, I'd have to go to a 4x5 view camera.


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

I never got beyond the Nikon F2, though I admire Leicas and Hasselblads.

If digital, I prefer the Lumix -- at least in theory.

-------------------------------------------------
God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
- French proverb


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

I believe there is a fetis**tic community in Japan for Leica collectors.

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

I have a Pentax ME Super SE (my first SLR--24 years old and I still love it) and a Pentax Super A/Super Program (only slightly younger). 

Lately, I've been eyeing used Nikon FE2s (that 1/4000 shutter and 1/250 flash synch speed are just too alluring, and I lust for the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 PC lens), but I'm not sure I want to invest in a second lens system. I suppose adapters are an option....

And I'd LOVE a medium-format of any decent stripe or a Leica rangefinder....



__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

For large format, a Busch 4x5 Pressman, with 8.5" f6.3 Commercial Ektar, a Schneider 150/260 f5.6/12 convertible, and a 90mm Ektar.

Medium format, Mamiya RB67, 55mm, and 180mm lenses.
Medium format, Mamiya M645 Super and 1000s, 5 lenses
Medium format, Mamiya C330f, 80mm and 180mm lenses

35mm - Nikon (F3, FE, FE2, F5, FA) and a bazillion Nikkor lenses.
35mm - Canon QL17 - great point-and-shoot camera.
35mm - Yashica Electro 35 GT (early Japanese made).

Nothing beats a big, sharp negative - PERIOD! That's why I still shoot 4x5 and medium format.


Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## archduke (Nov 21, 2003)

I used a 1950's Leica and got beautiful, soft B&W iamges. later I changed to M6 and tried M7 but the images did not have that warmth. Still, the I found the old Leicas very hard to meter but I am sure that is a failing on my part( a separate meter had to be used). Now I continue with the M6 hoping that I will 'learn' to use it better. I am certain that will take time


----------



## clockwood (Feb 27, 2006)

im not sure if this is a gentlemans camera, but im not sure if im really a gentleman.... i use a cannon at-1. takes beautiful pictures.


----------



## jklu (May 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by archduke_
> 
> I used a 1950's Leica and got beautiful, soft B&W iamges. later I changed to M6 and tried M7 but the images did not have that warmth. Still, the I found the old Leicas very hard to meter but I am sure that is a failing on my part( a separate meter had to be used). Now I continue with the M6 hoping that I will 'learn' to use it better. I am certain that will take time


After a while, you get used to metering by eye. What really affects the image is the lens, not the body. My M3 is more enojyable than the M6; my lenses probably perform better on the M6 because of its more magnified viewfinder (better focus). Noctilux, baby, the dreamiest images available!


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Usually I am satisfied with my FUJI disposable.

For especially nice pictures, however, I employ a mid 1960s vintage Nikon that takes some great shots.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jklu_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what lens you are using, but the viewfinder on the M3 has greater magnification (.92x) than any version of the M6 (.58x, .72x, .85x).

It is a mystery to me why one would use a Leica, whose forte is razor-sharp imaging, to produce "beautiful soft" images, which can more easily be done with a wide variety of lesser (and much less costly) instruments. That said, I believe there is no finer photographic instrument in the world than the later (post-1,000,000) M3 coupled with Summicron lenses. Compared with modern digital technology, however, it certainly comes up short on flexibility and convenience. Whereas I used to travel with 2 Leica bodies (one for color, one for B&W), at least 3 lenses (35,50 and 90mm) and, if traveling off the beaten path, maybe 100 rolls of film (exceedingly hard to find a Kodak shop in the bush). Taking the same trip today, I travel with a Panasonic Lumix f30, which has a Leica Vario-Elmarit 35-420mm 2.8 zoom lens (closes down to 3.3 at 420mm), 4 1GB memory cards, a portable 100GB hard-drive, smaller than a cigarette pack, which allows me to download the images from the memory cards, and a half-dozen batteries (the single biggest drawback to digital is the rapid consumption of batteries. So much so that if traveling waaay off the beaten path, I have to take some form of generator. Fortunately, a couple of companies have come out with highly portable solar generators that can recharge the batteries rather quickly). With an 8 megapixel CCD, the Lumix can produce 13x19 prints that, at normal viewing distances, are virtually indistinguishable from film, the operative word there, of course, is "virtually". They're not the same as film; they don't have exactly the same look as film. I don't see it as a qualitative issue, more as a difference in medium. I still love the look of film, and it was a difficult personal and practical choice that led me to digital, but once I got there, I discovered an entire new world of imaging that has led me away from more traditional photography. Should one be interested in taking a look:

BTW, just in the interest of accuracy, the first two cameras illustrated in this thread are not from the WWII era; neither the Leica M3 or the Rollei 2.8 made their appearance until the mid-1950s

Esse Quam Videre


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I made the distinction of saying after the WWII era for some of the cameras. The M3 was introduced in 1954, I believe while the Rolleiflex as a concept was introduced before WWII.

As for Leica and soft images, people seem to think that Leica lenses possess that special furtive quality known as "bokeh."

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Labelking, any chance of you doing an official Ask Andy Northern California photo?


----------



## jklu (May 22, 2005)

Yes, I meant the M3 in my post. The famed Leica glow/bokeh is more evident in the older, non-ASPH lenses. The people I know who care enough to use only the much older lenses, not out of financial necessity, are similar to the people who insist on using vintage cloth for utter 30's repro suits. It's sweet, in a sense, but not very relevant.


----------

