Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Seminal cameras  (Read 18368 times)

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2010, 11:42:20 pm »

Perhaps:

Widelux FI – swinging lens panorama camera.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2010, 04:04:43 am »

Isn't it sad that for decades Minolta was the first in innovation but now no longer exist. I'm sure there are many other manufacturers names that could be added to that particular list, true innovators who just couldn't adapt (an interesting contradiction) and fell by the roadside.
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2010, 08:58:57 am »

Why on earth has nobody mentioned the Rolleiflex TLR yet? The mainstay of so many pro fashion, portrait and press photographers right through the 1940s, 1950s and early 60s.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2010, 12:12:46 pm »

Hi John

Indeed! I even owned one for some years - an old T model (Rolleiflex-Ford?) - but it wasn't really seminal, in that sense, more a substitute Hasselblad that had its own distinction in my mind, that of having 'arrived' as a photographer the day you could walk into the shop and write the cheque. (That is a basic definition of the word naïve.) That the Rollei was a better camera for exterior hand-held work didn't come into it at the time - only after purchase did the funny trick of mirror bounce introduce itself into our lives!

Buy yes, I do wish I had eventually bought one of those last models, with or without the Helmut Newton logo, much as I regret never having bought myself an M Leica - I never was attracted to their slr cameras. I do think that I would have hung on to the Leica regardless of what might have followed career-wise.

Rob C

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2010, 07:08:31 pm »

What about the huddled masses. The Kodak instamatic comes to mind here.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

seanconnery

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
    • Architectural Photography
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2010, 08:22:28 pm »

Olympus Pen FT - half frame - silky smooth and cost effective - 1969 vintage
Logged

Seth Honeyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 01:25:37 am »

Canon D30, the first affordable high quality dslr.
Logged

stewarthemley

  • Guest
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 04:09:07 am »

Contax RTS and 645. Just beautiful.
And Bronica Etrsi, Sq1, 6x7. Stunning lenses, criminally underrated IMHO.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 04:16:56 am »

Contax RTS and 645. Just beautiful.
And Bronica Etrsi, Sq1, 6x7. Stunning lenses, criminally underrated IMHO.


Then you had better arrest me: had one Bronica, the 6x7 GS-1, with a 50mm, 100mm and 250mm when I made the huge mistake of listening to my stock library telling me about the massive advantages of 6x7 compared with 6x6. I betrayed two venerable 'blads that had served me over two decades to get that pile of crap. Boy, did I pay the penalty.

Rob C

Joe Behar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 10:16:47 am »

And Bronica Etrsi, Sq1, 6x7. Stunning lenses, criminally underrated IMHO.

I'm with Rob on this one....Toss up for the worst camera I ever owned..Bronica or Kowa 6

I think the Kowa has the edge here...I'm not sure I can recall a single really sharp frame from that camera..
Logged

stewarthemley

  • Guest
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2010, 05:58:58 am »

Have to defend poor old (deceased) Bronica here. I had 645's (plural), 6x6's and a 6x7. Variety of lenses and not a bad one amongst them. The 645 lenses were especially impressive. I replaced the 645 with a Rollei system and regretted it after about a week, when the body fell apart for the first (of several) time/s. Followed that with an RZ and my 110 lens promptly fell apart! But I'm not going to diss Rollei or Mamiya. I was unlucky - they're still great cameras. I knew a builder who bought a new Rolls Royce. Nothing but trouble. Used to carry bags of cement in the boot, he was so pissed off with it. Doesn't make Rollers bad cars.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2010, 01:48:20 pm »


 
Rollers.

Doesn't make them good ones either; they serve a very different purpose, and transport is way down the list.

But regarding the cameras - they are currently all flawed in one way or another. Was a time one could buy (and get!) pretty much anything off the shelf and it would do what it said on the box; then, final inspection became a step too expensive and the client took on the rôle, not that he knew that, of course.

The Bronica 100mm was reasonable; the worst of the three focal lengths I mentioned was the 50mm, which shouldn't really have surprised me. But even the body was flawed, and that was brand new, as were the optics: the MU did not function one single time.

Rob C
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 03:17:35 pm by Rob C »
Logged

stewarthemley

  • Guest
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2010, 04:37:07 am »


 
 - they are currently all flawed in one way or another. Was a time one could buy (and get!) pretty much anything off the shelf and it would do what it said on the box; then, final inspection became a step too expensive and the client took on the rôle, not that he new that, of course.
Rob C

Agree with you there, Rob. These days it's essential to compare copies of any lens you buy, no matter who the maker is. And the range of quality from copy to copy can be breathtaking. Sort of ironic now we have robots doing precision assembly in car plants...
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2074
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2010, 04:42:47 am »

I wonder if in time if the new Leica S2 will be considered a seminal camera. A MF DSLR that has broken with traditional aspect ratios.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

Joe Behar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2010, 07:13:33 am »

I wonder if in time if the new Leica S2 will be considered a seminal camera. A MF DSLR that has broken with traditional aspect ratios.

Probably by some, but not deserving, IMO
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2010, 04:11:05 am »

Perhaps I should have looked even further back: the very first slr that I bought was an Exakta Varex 11a; it came with a wlf and I had to buy a pentaprism separately. At the time, it was about the only player I can remember seeing listed by any of the photographers whose work I would look for in magazines etc. The company also made a cut-down version called the Exa or something similar. The great thing about the Exakta was that it had a blade built in that allowed one to cut the film, which was a boon in the early days when one had to be open to accepting passports as part of the workload... a 35mm cassette cost more than the blasted job could bring in.

How easily one forgets those grim days... or does one? I think they lurk forever in the background, silent warnings of how things can become if care isn't taken to prevent going back there. Alternatively, perhaps the lesson about photography as career choice was never really learned.

Rob C

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2010, 10:26:00 pm »

Perhaps the Vivitar Clipshot digicam may fit the bill. Stills, video and only $6, yes $6. Has the same resolution as the posts on my web site and blogs. Who needs a 5D mkII?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Dwam6YUU4

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

tokengirl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2010, 04:28:10 pm »

Perhaps:

Widelux FI – swinging lens panorama camera.

Cheers,

Most definitely. 


Another little gem:  the Olympus XA.  Helluva little itty bitty camera.
Logged

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2010, 10:17:38 pm »

c2023 - RED.................................? ;D

Rusty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
    • http://www.woodsgift.ca/
Re: Seminal cameras
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2010, 10:39:17 pm »

another vote for the Brownie, plastic 6x6, just because it was my first, age 10 ish. Still have pics of my friends
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up