Out-of-date equipment, anyone?

[winger]

I have several cameras of different ages, but I'd never consider them out-of-date as long as they work. My Pentax H1A doesn't need batteries, does what I tell it, and has some kick-butt prime lenses. It's older than I am, but I wouldn't call it out-of-date (at least not when it could hear me).

 

[Whiteymorange]

Out of fashion.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as outdated equipment. Perhaps out of fashion would be a better term.

I'm not sure there is a term for what we're all doing here. Of course we're out of date, but then the only ones who care about that are the ones who have to fit into some industry or system that dictates materials and methods (and here I include professionals who are shooting on deadline where digital images simply make more sense) or those hopelessly addicted to the latest and greatest.

I admit, I'm a Yankee, and our motto is "Make do, do without, use it up and wear it out," but I think we are also about something else - making art with the tools that suit us.

I have one camera made in the last decade. I have at least a dozen made in the first half of the twentieth century and a bunch more from the 70's. I use all of them.

And when I need some new thing, even if it is the latest and the greatest, to make my art, I'll probably get it... used, of course.

Whitey

 

[eagleowl]

I actually DO have...

...a digital slr,but that particular model was discontinued last year!
I have a 35mm slr which has been updated recently(the updated version is actually INFERIOR to the model I have!),and I have a Mamiya tlr with 4 lens sets which I absolutely LOVE using.
So,technically,all my equipment is out of date too!

 

[Dean Williams]

I have only one camera that was new within the past 20 years. All the rest are 20+ to well over 70 years old. Nothing (by category) made today can produce better photos than the "over the hill" stuff. So how can what I have be out of date? When Nikon, Leica, Canon or whomever come out with their next "latest and greatest" camera, my Spotmatic won't stop working. It'll still keep making stuff that's indistinguishable from the new kids. Progress is just another way of emptying our pockets.

 

[removed account4]

i have cameras and lenses from the 1880s ( earlier for some of the lenses ) through 2 years ago ( Dslr ). i use the dslr for assignment work if they insist on it, and use the other stuff for everything else.

 

[BruceN]

My newest camera (other than a digital p&s which is only used for short term snapshots such as ebay stuff) is an OM-2n that was bought for me brand new in 1983. Still does exactly what it was designed to do and I use it all the time.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Zone VI 4x5 camera outfit purchased 22 years ago and a Pentax K1000 from I don't remember when.

Purchased an up-to-date "water-proof", "dunk-proof", "splash-proof", "water-proof to 6 feet" mindless (automatic) 35mm camera for a six month seakayaking trip on BC's coast. The 4x5 and the Pentax K1000 came as well. The first 2 months were in the winter...dark and RAINY! When the box of 35mm slides came back from being processed, about 1/2 were pretty much pure black...somehow the up-to-date camera got bumped and it was using only the f22 aperture for every single frame. Being automatic, there was no way of knowing what was happening. Hundreds and hundreds of images lost...my heart dropped as I opened yet another batch of slides to see nothing but black...it was a dark, dark day.......

Some days I had to wring out my focusing cloth between exposures with the 4x5. The flash hot shoe on the K1000 rusted. Both worked perfectly then and continue to work perfectly today. Say no more...

Murray

 

[David H. Bebbington]

For me, it's a question of how much trouble-free operation equipment can deliver. View cameras are intrinsically durable, particularly if used by enthusiasts and treated with reasonable respect, view camera lenses and shutters will last indefinitely with a shutter service maybe every 25 to 30 years, given moderate use, and immediate treatment as soon as any mold appears.
For equipment subject to wear, however, new beats old every time. I know that some people use old SLRs apparently successfully, I have always found vibration levels creep up with these, so my policy for some time has been to buy a new 35mm Pentax, use it for 10 years and throw it away. This is the camera I use for very occasional press work and equally occasional wedding photography (friends only), nothing like TTL flash, motor wind, AF and matrixing metering for these situations. Similarly, for studio work with models, where film is wound at a furious rate, I have an RB67 outfit bought new and would not be happy using a much older camera. Since I do studio work only occasionally, the camera (now 10 years old) will probably last another 15 to 20 years - some pros shooting 30 or 40 rolls a day will turn an RB67 to junk in 6 months.

Some one mentioned motor drive - my answer to this would be that a motor drive is an embarrassment most of the time (heavy and noisy) but vital for sports (which some enthusiasts like to do as a hobby) and handy for some other things (any situation where you are using a remote release, for example).

 

[jjstafford]

Responding to David Brown (and perhaps drifting OT) but my mate's old Pentax SLR broke and she hinted she would like a digital P&S before our next big trip. Silly me. This was before the last big drop in media prices. I bought her a $300 pocket camera. Then two 512mb storage media, extra battery, a little case and toylike table-pod. In the end I could have bought a decent used Hasselblad. But she woudn't use it, of course.

Nothing is obsolete if it keeps working. To that end I have a few old Printex cameras. Remember them? One even has a working batteryless flash unit.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Exactly, JJ. My most reliable camera, both in terms of working every time I take it out, and producing excellent images, is my Spotmatic SP. It'll be 40 years old in a couple years, and as far as I know has never been serviced (certainly not in the 20+ years I've owned it). I've tried to replace it with Ricoh Singlex II bodies, a slightly more sophisticated camera with early Copal metal shutter and hot shoe, but the Ricohs keep breaking, while the Spottie just soldiers on. Even better, the Ricohs want a mercury battery and need a zinc-air cell to work correctly now (silver oxide voltage is too high, leads to underexposure), while the Spottie is perfectly fine with either alkaline or silver oxide replacement cells. I do, however, still occasionally wish it had a hot shoe, or even just a permanently attached accessory shoe to which I could mount an adapter...

 

[jazzmechanic]

My the "NEW" cameras are last years model Fuji S7000z (digital) and a Canon Rebel Ti (film), all my others are >10 yrs but I find myself using the older mamiyas, pentaxes and canons more than the "NEW" ones.

 

[rogueish]

I have a Yashica C made in 1958, a Mamiya RB, don't know the year, and a Nikon F401-x. Don't know the year of that either, but I have been told it was the last model made before LCD's became standard for camera control menus. The newest equipment I have would be my Sekonic L-358(?) lightmeter, the Simga 28-135 zoom macro lens (for the nikon) and most of the film in the freezer.

 

[Claire Senft]

Give me a manual camera with good quality lenses having a depth of field scales and I have what I want. I have no desire for an autofocus beast or a digital camera. I have had me Contax RTSIII for 3 years now and I could not be more pleased. Of course It spends almost all of its time on top of a very heavy tripod and I believe that one of the more 'modern' cameras with be a step backward for how I prefer to work. I have nine prime lenses and I am happy with each one of them...8 Zeiss and a Schneider 28mm PC Super Angulon made for a Leica R which has had the Leica adapter switched with a C/Y adapter. This lens will fit, with the apropriate adapter, almost every major 35mm on the market. I did not go out to purchase a Leica lens specifically...it was the on;y type being offered on Ebay. I do get a kick out of having a Contax with its' association with Zeiss having a Leica lens.

I am comfortable with the idea of a helical focussing mount being longer lived than an auto focus lens.

 

[AllanD]

I found it refreshing that photography equipment was so long lived and that even old equipment still had value. This was against a background of working with computers from the 1980s onward; a market where anything over six months old (or less) is out of date and fit only for landfill. It seems a shame to me that mainstream photographic market has headed the way of the computer market, especially now that I feel so strongly about material resources being wasted. Most of my photographic equipment is (at least) secondhand and I feel quite proud to be a marketing professional's nightmare.

 

[blansky]

I use two 1976 Hasselblads, one 1968 Linhof 4x5, one 1988ish Nikon F4, one 1960ish converted Littman, and a 1990s Mamiya 7II.



Michael

 

[stark raving]

God, I love this place! I see I'm in such good company here. My newest camera is a Nikon FG that I don't use - a friend literally trash-picked it for me and all it needed was a battery. I need to find a deserving youngster and give it away.

The newest cameras that I use are a brace of Spotmatics, that have that fancy new-fangled through the lens light metering -- what will they think of next?

Seriously, I tend to use a hand-held meter for color work, which is actually my newest acquisition: a Cosina VC meter. (Recommended, BTW.) Aside from metering, the Spotties have everything that interests me: great lenses, very durable, precise and easy handling, nice viewfinders. Not too many of the "innovations" introduced by manufacturers after the 1970's grabbed my attention.

And when I want to work a little more slowly (i.e. the Spotties are too convenient) I have a 1954 Exakta VX, a 1946 Leica IIIc, and a 1951 Rolleiflex Automat, all recently CLA'd, to use. Any of these is a much better camera than I am a photographer, and I am privileged to be their current "steward."

 

[colrehogan]

I found it refreshing that photography equipment was so long lived and that even old equipment still had value. This was against a background of working with computers from the 1980s onward; a market where anything over six months old (or less) is out of date and fit only for landfill. It seems a shame to me that mainstream photographic market has headed the way of the computer market, especially now that I feel so strongly about material resources being wasted. Most of my photographic equipment is (at least) secondhand and I feel quite proud to be a marketing professional's nightmare.

The marketing professional's worst nightmare would be if their respective companies had to pay for their product's presence in the landfill in the first place.

 

[Paul Howell]

For the working professional this issue is very important. In the old days when you set up shop you bought a professional camera system, maybe rent a 4X5 or MF, if you did not use a pro lab a darkroom set up. Up grading your system meant a new lens, or a new body every 10 years or so. Once the initial investment was made you did not need to upgrade every 6 to 18 months. Today you might need a new digital body, or if you have the upscale Kodak at least a firmware upgrade, once or twice a year. New software and printer upgrades and well upgrading your PC. This all needs to come out out your profit margin.

 

[rjs003]

Let's see, I don't drink to any real extent, I don't smoke and I too old to chase after loose women; although I still notice them. So collecting and using old photographic equipment isn't any real problem, other then I'm running out of storage room... time for a bigger house or maybe have to rent a storage space.
The closest thing we own to a modern camera is a Cannon range finder that I bought for my wife and she can't it. Five years ago I bought a Sonny Digital camera that was obsolete when I bought it; and I can't remember while I left it.

 

[ChrisC]

I'm pretty much split down the middle. My Shen Hao I bought new as part of Badger Graphics introduction kit. Mostly because it had everything I needed to get started in LF in one easy, reasonably affordable package, but also because it's pretty hard to find used 4x5 cameras here. I also have a digital I bought new about 2 years ago, which still does all it'll ever need to do.

Other than that, I have an assortment of Kodak No. 2 Brownies (including a green one), and a Yashica 635, which is my walking around camera.

 

[TheMissingLink]

Uh, I'm only using used parts, sometimes elder than I am, I don't see a need to spend the difference in price for questionably advatnages.
Experiments with modern .. things? Yes, I did, for a short period. Bought a new Voigtlander Bessa L with a Color Heliar 70mm., exciting sharpness. Bought it to accompany me every day, but: couldn't handle the 35mm dry and wet and with handling of exposure. Finally sold it after one year and 5 films... the next experiment was a lightweight Toyo45CF, also bought used. Nice device, but ... could get the right trust in Carbon fiber. Sold. Now I own a Pentacon six with some Zeisses as my "always-with-me-toy" and I'm satisfied with it ..
4x5 I'm shooting with a 70s Cambo, Symmar and older Caltar, 5x7 with a Magnola and 8x10 with a rebuilt Repro Bermpohl out of the 40s, solid enough to break walls with a weight of 12KG ..

Digital? Yes ... integrated with my mobile phone;-)

Ho.

 

[glennfromwy]

My oldest camera dates back to 1896 and things don't get much newer than 1960, for the most part. I like old stuff. It's what I grew up with and it's what I understand. It just has a comfortable feel to it and the photos are just as good as anything new.

 

[benjiboy]

It occurred to me recently that I have only out-of-date photo equipment.

Not only do I not own any of the currently fashionable camera phones or DSLR's, the only cameras I own that are still being made are a Holga and a Zero Image pinhole camera.

Oh, I have perfectly fine equipment that I use regularly--a couple of Leicas, 3 Canon EOS's(es?), a Mamiya C330 and a couple of Pentax 645's. But none of them are current models. Looking over the newer camera models, I really don't see any features I find worth the expense. The last four cameras I bought were used, discontinued models.

Other than autofocus, multi-pattern metering and various autoexposure programs, there's little to distinguish the new stuff from the cameras of 30 years ago. Since none of these features are very important to me, improvements in their performance are not attractive to
Okay, which of you out there must have the newest camera models and which of you are as anachronistic as I am?

You're quite right I feel the same way, the manufacturers have to re -invent photography every so often too keep up sales to continue their existence, as do car manufacturers. Don't worry about it you have some good gear just enjoy using it, nobody I bet ever asked Rembrandt what sort of brushes he used.

 

[John Bartley]

The marketing professional's worst nightmare would be if their respective companies had to pay for their product's presence in the landfill in the first place.

Dianne,

This is soooo correct!! A couple of times now in threads related to environmental concerns re: photography, I've brought up the subject of "cradle to grave" costs and the level of responsibility we should bear as photography consumers - no-one seems to care much though.

cheers

 

[John Bartley]

On the subject of actually "using" old equipment, yesterday I picked up the rolls of Plus-X Aerographic film that Ed at MrPhoto1 had shipped to a friend in NY for me. This morning I cut off two pieces 8" wide and loaded an 8x10 holder. My sweetheart and I headed out to a local church that I've been planning to photograph for some time and set up my mid-thirties Agfa-Ansco Commercial View camera. I hope the negatives turn out !!