Don't try polishing satin chrome.
Am I the only one who love chrome bodies?
-
A
- Thread starter MFstooges
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
Don't try polishing satin chrome.
Very timely thread, as I was just wondering why Hasselblad no longer seems to make black 503cw, only chrome.
How about brass?
What is this? I'm rapped by it. My imagination tells me the brass camera above would come up absolutely spectacularly with a D&P (detail and polish), to the point where it would require handling with cotton gloves and become more of a talking piece than perhaps a working antique.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a Luftwaffe Leica Russian clone. It is a conversation piece and I really ought to shine it up . . .
How about the subtle champagne of the OM-4T?
It's a Luftwaffe Leica Russian clone. It is a conversation piece and I really ought to shine it up . . .
How about the subtle champagne of the OM-4T?
Yes, I've owned an OM4 (black) with motor drive 1983-1985. Loved it, and still a highly respected and refined camera in any finish.
But I would not put anything on the finish of any of the OM4 champagne or satin silver; the polish, when dry, can 'burn off' the finish. Not pretty=owner NOT happy!
Good morning;
Yes, there are a few of us out here who do still use and appreciate chrome bodies. I have had fewer cosmetic difficulties with chrome bodies than black ones. Often it seems that the corners and edges wear through the black and begin to show the brass beneath. The good chrome ones seem to retain their original appearance longer. The old Minolta SR and SR-T cameras here are mainly chrome, but there are a couple of black bodies. The Nikon F and F2 are both chrome and black. The F2AS is black. There are even some chrome bodies of cameras where people say they were never made that way.
Go ahead and use them. Enjoy them, in what ever color scheme they have. Use some more film. You may be surprised to find that there is very little difference on the print regardless of the outer surface of the camera that took the photograph.
Yes, there are a few of us out here who do still use and appreciate chrome bodies. I have had fewer cosmetic difficulties with chrome bodies than black ones. Often it seems that the corners and edges wear through the black and begin to show the brass beneath. The good chrome ones seem to retain their original appearance longer. The old Minolta SR and SR-T cameras here are mainly chrome, but there are a couple of black bodies. The Nikon F and F2 are both chrome and black. The F2AS is black. There are even some chrome bodies of cameras where people say they were never made that way.
Go ahead and use them. Enjoy them, in what ever color scheme they have. Use some more film. You may be surprised to find that there is very little difference on the print regardless of the outer surface of the camera that took the photograph.
Couldn't agree more. My silver chrome M4 has severe wear marks in the upper plate's chrome finish, du to the previous owner always keeping the Leicameter mounted. However, I got it really cheap last year, and mechanically it's in top condition - a real joy to use.
Normally, I acquire one of these classic cameras primarily based on functionality and cosmetics as secondary. However, if I like it, then I try to acquire one in better condition. But in the case of the Pentax MX, I had to acquire a black one too because it is simply sharp looking camera.
Humm, I dunno. I have an LX which of course was only made (so far as I know) in black. My next 35mm body will probably be an MX. I like chrome ones too - now. Back in the day I wanted black like everyone else. I like both fine.
But you know, when it comes down to it, I will buy whichever is the better deal for condition. I like them both and it's more important I get a good camera and good deal for the money than one finish or the other.
If I can; I buy one of each color
That "all black" Canon FTb doesn't reflect sunlight into the eyes of an unhappy alligator when working in the The Everglades. Ask me how I know!
Well....chrome wears better, but my purchases of used classic cameras is more happenstance than choice. It has been based on what ever was available at a good price, chrome or black, matters not to me. It the case of a Leica M, a camera I've always wanted, my research indicated an M4-2 (with late serial number) was within my budget for a retirement present to myself. That limited the finish to black chrome, ugly as it gets worn but there you are, choice narrowed to one. I think there were a few regular chrome M4-2's, but they are rare collector item's way out of budget.
I'm not hooked on one or the other. My OM3 is black, Nikkormat and Nikon F are chrome. I sold the all black Nikon FTN, because it was worth more. I loathe bling, so anything with shiny chrome is suspect.
Maybe I'll paint my Deardorff black.....just to see how it looks.
Maybe I'll paint my Deardorff black.....just to see how it looks.
I learned photography in an era when black bodies were a hot trend. F3HP, FM2, X-700, F1N, A1 they're all produced in all black which was always more expensive than chrome version. I never understand the reason why they cost more. To me black body gets hot faster in a bright sunny day and I always see how ugly they are when they start brassing. Unfortunately when I finally had enough money to buy my own camera there were no choices other than black AF bodies!
Fast forward to 2011, now I have couple of Nikon chrome bodies and man I couldn't be happier! Nothing can beat the feeling when I'm out shooting with these gems. Almost like riding a harley with lots of bling-bling and clunking noise. And when you see the face from all the digiheads with their all black cameras....it's priceless.
Among the cameras you mentioned only the FM2 could be chrome. The F3HP could be an F3T champagne version but there wasn't really chrome F3HP. The X-700, F1N and A1 only available in black. So the most of the cameras that you have were in the period where camera makers were thinking since customers like them in black just make black the standard. It's the beginning period of all black cameras.
Now I bought my first camera the F2AS in 1977 and I paid $25 extra for it to be in black. I liked the black because it looked cool. But I was 22 at the time, I don't think the same today. Some cameras look better in chrome and some better in black and some make me want to have one of each. The chrome finish is more durable than the black version and I am not sure why.
Today, one reason I would use a chrome camera because unlike many have said but because I found when I went out and do street shooting people don't care about a guy running around with a chrome camera. They don't think you can get any clear pictures of them with that antique camera in chrome.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 231
- Format
- 35mm
This. People start to ignore you sooner if you carry a chrome camera.
Having said that, I love my F3 but also loved my chrome FM2n (didn't like it in black at all).
It's because it's actual chromium metal, plated on. Chromium is very hard and resistant to wear, which is why it's used for chrome trim on vehicles. Black is usually paint, therefore much less wear resistant. My Pentax LX's body is all aluminum, and is black anodized, a process which produces a very hard surface more durable than paint, but its beautiful luster is from the clear coat over it, which does wear off as easily as any other paint. Aluminum can be anodized many colors; the color itself is a dye.
Actual black chrome is chromium metal chemically blackened (actually very deep brown).
I've always preferred the look of silver/black cameras. My first one was a FM2 bought new in the early/mid 80's. I find them more attractive, and never bought the argument that a black body is more "stealth". I think a person standing, facing you, with both hands held up in front of his face is much more of a give-away that your photo is being taken than the little bit of silver visible while the camera is being gripped for action. Then again, I'm not big into street photography, most landscapes don't mind having their photo taken one bit. At least none has ever complained.
I use chrome and black bodies.
The chrome body withstands everyday wear and tear much better than the black body.
The black body has an advantage over the chrome body in two situations:
1. When attempting to shoot reluctant subjects inconspicuously, the black body draws less attention than the shiny chrome body.
2. When shooting small subjects on or under glass, the reflection of the black body in the glass is less than that of the chrome body.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6307637714/
The chrome body withstands everyday wear and tear much better than the black body.
The black body has an advantage over the chrome body in two situations:
1. When attempting to shoot reluctant subjects inconspicuously, the black body draws less attention than the shiny chrome body.
2. When shooting small subjects on or under glass, the reflection of the black body in the glass is less than that of the chrome body.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6307637714/
Attachments
When I'm looking through the view finder I can't tell what finish the camera has. The only time it matters is when the camera is on display, I agree that most people will notice the stalker with his/her hands to the face and not if the camera was silver or black. I was visiting a friend of mine at 2am while he was at work as a convienience store clerk when a young man came in with his gun drawn. The only reason I was able to give a description and the following positive I.D. was because I am trained to do so, I was even able to correctly identify the caliber and make of the weapon. Point being is that most folks will only identify the odd behavior rather than the weapon make/color.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2011
- Messages
- 4
- Format
- 35mm
Practically speaking I believe black cameras help the photog in their desire to be discrete. Often they wear clothes that are darker, if not black, as they try to blend into the background. A black camera helps them do that; while a chromed camera will reflect and be more noticeable, whether in their hands or hanging from their neckstrap. As mentioned in another post, the action of bringing a camera to eye-level is an attention-getter all by itself, but even in that case a chrome reflective object at eye level would be more noticeable.
As for aesthetics, that is an entirely different story. Some cameras look better in black, while others look better in chrome. It is an entirely personal aesthetic that allows one to enjoy both simultaneously. It is NOT true that once you go black, you don't go back (to chrome). E.g., I perceive that the chrome OM1s and OM2s as more beautiful than their black. Likewise that chrome Nikon FTN is nicer looking than its black version, but the black Nikon F2AS is nicer than its chrome version. To each their own.
As for aesthetics, that is an entirely different story. Some cameras look better in black, while others look better in chrome. It is an entirely personal aesthetic that allows one to enjoy both simultaneously. It is NOT true that once you go black, you don't go back (to chrome). E.g., I perceive that the chrome OM1s and OM2s as more beautiful than their black. Likewise that chrome Nikon FTN is nicer looking than its black version, but the black Nikon F2AS is nicer than its chrome version. To each their own.
Attachments
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |