The best film camera money can buy?

[horacekenneth]

Are you serious? The best film camera money can buy? I'm going to start including that phrase in all and any of my sales.

http://annapolis.craigslist.org/pho/3426468967.html

edit - It's a 1958 Contarex Bullseye w/ 55mm 1.4F lens

 

[BrianShaw]

What is it?

 

[horacekenneth]

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]

I like how the pictures were taken in the back of a car. Very Classy!

 

[benjiboy]

The lens is certainly one of the best standard lenses for a 35mm SLR ever made.

 

[BrianShaw]

Very cool. I don't know what the prices are like for htose... but they are very cool.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Certainly not $2k.

 

[MDR]

$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]

Certainly not $2k.

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.

 

[horacekenneth]

I like how the pictures were taken in the back of a car. Very Classy!

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!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Sure is neat looking camera.

Jeff

 

[batwister]

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]

It looks like a 1950s concept design for what film cameras might look like in the year 2000. Pretty ugly and elaborate looking thing.

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

 

[131802]

There are a few of these on ebay right now; $2,000 appears to be an especially optimistic price.

 

[elekm]

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]

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!

 

[blockend]

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

Or a T90. That camera has a lot to answer for.

 

[benjiboy]

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]

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.

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

 

[benjiboy]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

It looks like a 1950s concept design for what film cameras might look like in the year 2000. Pretty ugly and elaborate looking thing.

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

 

[Steve Smith]

Reminds me of The Simpsons when Homer was in a shop looking at 'The World's Best Jacket'.


Steve.

 

[David Allen]

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