Hi Eric,
Yes, there's merit in some mundane stuff after all. I sometimes think of the Leica 111 G-type of camera body, because it was partly adverts for it and other fancy products that I discovered (as a kid in India), on the pages of Life and other manistream US publications, that caused me a lot of interest in cameras, partly for their artistic possibilities, but more for their design, which, in common with Rolex, strike me as the most impressive design manifestations of them all. Of course, the tail of the '59 Coupe de Ville is never forgotten... (I also liked the mean look of the snout of the Sabre Jet. The entire aircraft, in fact.) Actually, when I first saw the Leica bodies I was far more into Vincent Van Gogh, and that's exactly what I thought/hoped my future would be: paint. I soon realised I lacked the talent for paint, and the switch to photography was easy, mentally, but exceptionally difficult physically, because nobody I knew even believed photography was a 'proper' career, and the only pro known to any one of us lived down in London and shot stills for movies. I never met him, unfortunately. But all that's neither here nor there.
What's here, is that those old cameras do have a lot of design value, even the ugly old Exaktas had a certain clumsy, visual charm and they did help make damned good pictures, too. I think such things make for great subjects, if you have any of them to hand. I don't mean as cleverly-lit product shots, but just bits 'n' pieces, and like that. I think an old Contaflex lives somewhere in a cupboard - it wasn't mine - just dumped on me by somebody else who inherited it and didn't want to waste space. Must look for it some day... But shoot your computer first!
Rob