The best film camera money can buy?

OP
OP

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format
Brian it's a [h=2]1958 Contarex Bullseye w/ 55mm 1.4F lens[/h]I don't know much about it but I found the ad funny and the price a little ridiculous ($2000) but maybe I don't know anything about collector's items
 

akaa

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
244
Location
Sacramento,
Format
35mm
I like how the pictures were taken in the back of a car. Very Classy!
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,972
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
The lens is certainly one of the best standard lenses for a 35mm SLR ever made.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,540
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Very cool. I don't know what the prices are like for htose... but they are very cool.
 

MDR

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
$2K is a bit on the high side but not unusual for this camera and lens combo. The Bullseye is the most visually impressive 35mm Slr but not the most usable camera. The lenses for this camera are some of the best equaling Leica optics. I'd love to own one just not for this price.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
TheFlyingCamera said:
Certainly not $2k.
Click to expand...

I did see one go some years ago for $1800, but it had a gaggle of awesome lenses. For the record, Conterex has a fine pedigree, was uber expensive in its day, and is sharp as a tack. This should fetch $300-500 dollars. Unless I'm missing something $2k is a bit optimistic, but you never know. Maybe these things have gone up in the last few years. It is a super good camera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

horacekenneth

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
MD
Format
Multi Format
akaa said:
I like how the pictures were taken in the back of a car. Very Classy!
Click to expand...

Haha, I totally forgot about that, that's probably the best part - $2000 best film camera money can buy, here's me holding it in the back of a minivan!
 

batwister

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
913
Location
Midlands, UK
Format
Medium Format
It looks like a 1950s concept design for what film cameras might look like in the year 2000. Pretty ugly and elaborate looking thing.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
batwister said:
It looks like a 1950s concept design for what film cameras might look like in the year 2000. Pretty ugly and elaborate looking thing.
Click to expand...

Well, at least it doesn't look like a running shoe.
 

131802

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
87
Format
35mm
There are a few of these on ebay right now; $2,000 appears to be an especially optimistic price.
 

elekm

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,055
Location
New Jersey (
Format
35mm RF
As I recall, Popular Photography panned the 1.4 Planar when it was first released. Carl Zeiss was quite infuriated with Pop Photo at the time.

However, I will say that the 1.4 Planar for the Rolleiflex SL35 series is a stellar lens. It probably is the same lens (more or less) as the Carl Zeiss T* available for the Kyocera Contax SLRs.

The f/2.0 Planar for the Contarex is an excellent lens ... probably one of the nicest out there.

The Contarex cameras are an acquired taste. You really have to be willing to get used to their quirks, as well as their weight, which is significant.

Excellent cameras still, and certain models are highly sought after by collectors and photographers.
 

tjaded

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
1,020
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
I have a couple of them. Absolutely love them. Not for everyone, that is for sure. $2k is a high price, but it is craigslist where everyone owns the single best example of whatever it is they are selling...

I have to admit that the reason I bought one is because I am a huge fan/owner of Edsels and the Contarex is, well, reminiscent of the Edsel to my eye!
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,972
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
At the time the Contarex Bulseye came out in 1958 it probably was the best SLR money could buy, but far too expensive for my pocket at the time.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
benjiboy said:
At the time the Contarex Bulseye came out in 1958 it probably was the best SLR money could buy, but far too expensive for my pocket at the time.
Click to expand...

It was over 1200 pounds (how do I make that symbol?) That was a shiznik load of money in the 50's.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,972
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
JBrunner said:
It was over 1200 pounds (how do I make that symbol?) That was a shiznik load of money in the 50's.
Click to expand...
You make the sign like this £,( its shift and next to the dollar sign Jason), it was a fortune in 1958 when I was a young marine it was around five years pay.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,271
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
benjiboy said:
You make the sign like this £,( its shift and next to the dollar sign Jason), it was a fortune in 1958 when I was a young marine it was around five years pay.
Click to expand...

Only on a UK Keyboard, don't tell me you thought all keyboards are equal Ben some like ours are more equal than others, I struggle to use my wifes Turkish keyboard they have letters we don't have and an i with no dot as well as one with

There's never been a best film camera because they have so many different uses and some are better than others in some circumstances

Ian
 

David Lyga

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
3,445
Location
Philadelphia
Format
35mm
1200 pounds sterling was, I believe, quoted at USD 2.80 per pound at that time (1958). And that $2.80 was in SILVER!

In 1958 minimum wage was about 50 cents per hour but that 50 cents (in silver) is now worth about ten US dollars today. You can get $10 from any reputable coin dealer for a silver half dollar (which is more than the $7.50 minimum today). - David lyga
 

Dismayed

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
438
Location
Boston
Format
Med. Format RF
batwister said:
It looks like a 1950s concept design for what film cameras might look like in the year 2000. Pretty ugly and elaborate looking thing.
Click to expand...

Overly complex design. That's why Nikon won the fight.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
Reminds me of The Simpsons when Homer was in a shop looking at 'The World's Best Jacket'.


Steve.
 

David Allen

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF
The price is ridiculous of course. However, every collection (no I am not a collector) should have one as it was the first with a coupled meter.

For those that think it is overly complicated, you should take a look at my first 'serious' camera outfit which was a Periflex. Nevertheless, I did make a number of very good images with it.

Best,

David
www.dsallen.de
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…