Sorry folks but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I always thought the bulls eye Contarex was the most butt ugly camera ever. Then Canon pioneered the 'slightly melted plasto-blob' look with their introduction of the T-90. Many modern DSLR's now copy that look, ugh! My idea of the best looking camera is the original Nikon F with the non metered prism. It just looks right. All that is essential with no ungainly protuberances, clean and purposeful. Thirty eight years ago I chose Olympus OM as my 35mm SLR because of the small form factor and weight and the OM-1 is nice clean looking camera, but the Nikon F is my favorite looking camera even though I have never owned one.
The best film camera money can buy?
-
A
- Thread starter horacekenneth
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale New 55 instant film (replacement for polaroid type 55)
- Started by Early Riser
-
Free 16x20 and 20x24 expired Ilford multigrade paper, Portland Oregon pick up
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Helipan 112mm Circular Polarizer
- Started by Early Riser
-
Sold For Sale: 10 rolls of 120 film *SOLD*
- Started by Brad Bireley
-
Free Free; Bright Lab Jr. Safelight for Shpg Cost
- Started by waynecrider
Forum statistics
Looks like it would scare the crap out of a young child.
"Absolutely gorgeous pictures can be taken with this camera and is a photographers dream camera."
I wonder why it hasn't sold?
I wonder why it hasn't sold?
Because just about everyone knows that you can't buy film any more. Didn't you hear that film is dead? You deef or sumpin"?
What?
He should lower the price a bit, maybe $1999.99.
I dont think Contarex was the best camera at 1958 , M3 Leica released at 1958 with 35 mm Summaron , f:1.5,2,3.5 50mms,
90mm and 135 mm. Contarex cameras were ugly like Minoltas , Praktinas ,Kodak Retinas and Kalimar Aires 35 iii l , last camera was coming with f:1.9 lens and price was 99.50.
Zeiss introduced 4 cameras at 1958 , Contaflex , Contax , Contina and Ikoflex , all with Sonnar , Tessar , Anastigmat lenses.
I saw many Leica bodies were using Nikon lenses and Nikon had a primitive Leica copy.
Polaroid cameras were big at 1958 and Ansco was racing with Ektachrome and Kodachrome where Ansco claiming that their users will not get flat deep blue skies.
Umut
90mm and 135 mm. Contarex cameras were ugly like Minoltas , Praktinas ,Kodak Retinas and Kalimar Aires 35 iii l , last camera was coming with f:1.9 lens and price was 99.50.
Zeiss introduced 4 cameras at 1958 , Contaflex , Contax , Contina and Ikoflex , all with Sonnar , Tessar , Anastigmat lenses.
I saw many Leica bodies were using Nikon lenses and Nikon had a primitive Leica copy.
Polaroid cameras were big at 1958 and Ansco was racing with Ektachrome and Kodachrome where Ansco claiming that their users will not get flat deep blue skies.
Umut
All siriusness aside, in 1958 there were very few SLRs available and most of those including the Conterex went through a learning curve to "get it right". That said the Conterex is both butt ugly and fascinating.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 193
- Format
- 35mm
The big breakthroughs in SLR design came in 1959. In 1958 the Contarex could arguably lay claim to the "best SLR" title. Its competition at the time would have basically been the Exakta. The Exakta despite being an old design by this point was the more flexible system and better suited to laboratory and scientific uses.
I think the Contarex Special is actually a very attractive camera too: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contarex/special.htm
The Contarex Super and Electronic also have their own interesting aesthetic appeal.
I think the Contarex Special is actually a very attractive camera too: http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contarex/special.htm
The Contarex Super and Electronic also have their own interesting aesthetic appeal.
Nar! rolleiman's got it right! But isn't it the photographer who makes the picture not the camera?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 193
- Format
- 35mm
Here is a much cheaper alternative:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271090741812
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271090741812
Wouldn't the "best" camera be the one that sells the most copies? Could be the canon AE-1? Hehe
I wouldn't have even offered this guy $100 for that ugly thing, I don't care how great a picture is if I feel like I look like a weirdo holding it I don't want it. Some photography is about perception, if they perceive you to be good, you have more options with your subject.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wouldn't have even offered this guy $100 for that ugly thing, I don't care how great a picture is if I feel like I look like a weirdo holding it I don't want it. Some photography is about perception, if they perceive you to be good, you have more options with your subject.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hehe...
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, it actually worked...
Go me!
If I had the money I would get it, they sell 110 again, would be fun to shoot.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go me!
If I had the money I would get it, they sell 110 again, would be fun to shoot.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, it actually worked...
Go me!
If I had the money I would get it, they sell 110 again, would be fun to shoot.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Killjoy! Now we have to find something else to make fun of!
Very true, but the photographer has to be there - in the right place - at the right time, with a camera.
Best selling doesn't make it the best. Canon has sold boatloads of its various EOS and Rebel cameras. Good cameras? Yes. Best cameras? Maybe, but probably not, especially with their entry level cameras.
I think trying to nail down the best camera ever would be dIifficult, maybe impossible, to decide. Best made? Best features? Best lenses? Easiest to use? And nearly everyone has different opinions on what they think would be the best.
I could list maybe 10 cameras that I think might be the best, and they're all different from each other.
I think trying to nail down the best camera ever would be dIifficult, maybe impossible, to decide. Best made? Best features? Best lenses? Easiest to use? And nearly everyone has different opinions on what they think would be the best.
I could list maybe 10 cameras that I think might be the best, and they're all different from each other.
I believe that Kodak sold even more Instamatic 104s. Using the logic that the best selling cameras are the best one leads to the conclusion the Instamatic 104 was the best camera ever made.
MattKing
Moderator
I believe that Kodak sold even more Instamatic 104s. Using the logic that the best selling cameras are the best one leads to the conclusion the Instamatic 104 was the best camera ever made.
There is a reasonable likelihood though that more good photographs have been taken with Instamatic 104s than any other camera :munch:.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 193
- Format
- 35mm
| 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:  |