What is the oldest functional camera you have?

[Rick A]

1901 Century 11x14 field camera.

 

[pschwart]

Original Rolleiflex, 1929 (originally 117 film, now using 120 on modified 120 spool)
Exakta B VP, 1935, 127 film

 

[Kyle M.]

My Franka Solida, the Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar serial # puts it between Oct. 1950 and May 1951 so I guessing the camera was made shortly thereafter. Of course for all I know that lens could have sat for several years before being installed in a camera. My Hasselblad was made in 1968, and all I know about my RZ is sometime after 1980.

 

[spoolman]

The oldest camera I have is an 1896 Kodak #2 Bull's Eye Model D. I just unstuck the shutter and once this heat wave here is over, I'll load it up with modified 122 spools,backing paper and film and give it a go.

Doug

 

[skorpiius]

Kodak No 2 Cartridge Hawk-Eye from 1924/1925
Uses 120 film and has two aperture settings via a slider

I think it actually takes better photos than my other vintage cameras

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Kodak No 2 Cartridge Hawk-Eye from 1924/1925
Uses 120 film and has two aperture settings via a slider

I think it actually takes better photos than my other vintage cameras

Somewhere... there is a long-deceased design engineer and a production staff that just read your post and looked at your pictures. They are at this very moment grinning from ear-to-ear. Not because you still own their camera. But because 90 years later you are still using it to produce beautiful photographs.

Too often in today's modern narcissistic world order people assume that every object that doesn't begin with a lowercase 'i' and require an IP address can't possibly be worth anything whatsoever, and that those who created the stuff are themselves worthy of little more than our collective condescension.

But the engineers of their day weren't a bunch of ignorant and unsophisticated rubes. They were just as smart and creative and proud of their creations, if not more so, as the iEngineers of today.

And the highest compliment that can be paid to them all these years later is to simply pick up one of those creations, continue using it for its designed and intended purpose, and then quietly tip one's hat in their direction. Which is exactly what you have done by posting your results here.

Very nice photographs, those...

Ken

 

[skorpiius]

Absolutely. That camera was meant to be a low cost 'point and shoot' for those without a lot of cash to burn on photography. It's easy to to think that items 'way back then' were primitive crap, but planes were in the air by the 20s. The main difference between that and a smart phone camera of today is the smart phone is more convenient and more portable, but when talking about the quality of the images, the whole point of a camera, the differences narrow.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Somewhere... there is a long-deceased design engineer and a production staff that just read your post and looked at your pictures. They are at this very moment grinning from ear-to-ear. Not because you still own their camera. But because 90 years later you are still using it to produce beautiful photographs.

Too often in today's modern narcissistic world order people assume that every object that doesn't begin with a lowercase 'i' and require an IP address can't possibly be worth anything whatsoever, and that those who created the stuff are themselves worthy of little more than our collective condescension.

But the engineers of their day weren't a bunch of ignorant and unsophisticated rubes. They were just as smart and creative and proud of their creations, if not more so, as the iEngineers of today.

And the highest compliment that can be paid to them all these years later is to simply pick up one of those creations, continue using it for its designed and intended purpose, and then quietly tip one's hat in their direction. Which is exactly what you have done by posting your results here.

Very nice photographs, those...

Ken

+1

Well said. This is why APUG is my home.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Somewhere... there is a long-deceased design engineer and a production staff that just read your post and looked at your pictures. They are at this very moment grinning from ear-to-ear. Not because you still own their camera. But because 90 years later you are still using it to produce beautiful photographs.

Too often in today's modern narcissistic world order people assume that every object that doesn't begin with a lowercase 'i' and require an IP address can't possibly be worth anything whatsoever, and that those who created the stuff are themselves worthy of little more than our collective condescension.

But the engineers of their day weren't a bunch of ignorant and unsophisticated rubes. They were just as smart and creative and proud of their creations, if not more so, as the iEngineers of today.

And the highest compliment that can be paid to them all these years later is to simply pick up one of those creations, continue using it for its designed and intended purpose, and then quietly tip one's hat in their direction. Which is exactly what you have done by posting your results here.

Very nice photographs, those...

Ken

+1

 

[gray1720]

This is my oldest in "regular" use(every year or two): Kodak No2 Folding Pocket Brownie by gray1720, on Flickr dating to mid-1911.

I also have a 1909-ish No3 Kodak, but lack of 118 film makes it less usable. Incidentally, the quality of the photos from the No2 is really very good.

Adrian

 

[Kyle M.]

The oldest functional camera and oldest camera altogether that I own would be my Argus C44 made in 1956. I just picked it up last week and it looks brand new, I wouldn't be surprised if had never been used. I was also quite impressed with the 50mm Cintagon considering all the negative things I've heard about Argus rangefinders in general.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Somewhere... there is a long-deceased design engineer and a production staff that just read your post and looked at your pictures. They are at this very moment grinning from ear-to-ear. Not because you still own their camera. But because 90 years later you are still using it to produce beautiful photographs.

Too often in today's modern narcissistic world order people assume that every object that doesn't begin with a lowercase 'i' and require an IP address can't possibly be worth anything whatsoever, and that those who created the stuff are themselves worthy of little more than our collective condescension.

But the engineers of their day weren't a bunch of ignorant and unsophisticated rubes. They were just as smart and creative and proud of their creations, if not more so, as the iEngineers of today.

And the highest compliment that can be paid to them all these years later is to simply pick up one of those creations, continue using it for its designed and intended purpose, and then quietly tip one's hat in their direction. Which is exactly what you have done by posting your results here.

Very nice photographs, those...

Ken

The Kodak Brownie designers get a compliment in every lens design class taught in the country and probably the world. The landscape lens that those cameras employed is one of the basic lens designs forms studied in every detail, which includes an explanation of why and how they were implemented in the Kodak box cameras. I still know that design inside and out.

 

[ManicPixie]

I think my oldest is Rolleiflex 3.5MX.

 

[DannL.]

I finally got around to making some images of the camera in decent light. This would be the oldest that I have, which is still functional.

Sands & Hunter Exhibition 5x4, circa 1882
3 Plate holders, matching serial/model numbers to camera
R.D. Gray Periscope No. 6 lens

 

[removed account4]

I finally got around to making some images of the camera in decent light. This would be the oldest that I have, which is still functional.

Sands & Hunter Exhibition 5x4, circa 1882
3 Plate holders, matching serial/model numbers to camera
R.D. Gray Periscope No. 6 lens

holy moly ...
its a NADAR !

 

[removed account4]

Absolutely. That camera was meant to be a low cost 'point and shoot' for those without a lot of cash to burn on photography. It's easy to to think that items 'way back then' were primitive crap, but planes were in the air by the 20s. The main difference between that and a smart phone camera of today is the smart phone is more convenient and more portable, but when talking about the quality of the images, the whole point of a camera, the differences narrow.

sorry to disagree ...



not sure why anyone would even suggest that people today think engineers in the early days ( before the teens -30s? )

were a bunch of ignorant and unsophisticated rubes.

or they were not

just as smart and creative and proud of their creations

the idea that people don't realize they wouldn't be doing their thing today if they weren't standing on the shoulders of the people who were before them is kind of strange.
can't really imagine how anyone would agree with that

 

[DannL.]

holy moly ...
its a NADAR !

I had noticed that they weren't using it anymore, so I thought I would. I'm not really sure if most folks are familiar with Nadar & Paul Nadar (fils) and the Paris portrait studios. I enjoy reading about the History of Photography.

This particular camera has been a nightmare to photograph properly.

 

[removed account4]

I had noticed that they weren't using it anymore, so I thought I would. I'm not really sure if most folks are familiar with Nadar & Paul Nadar (fils) and the Paris portrait studios. I enjoy reading about the History of Photography.

This particular camera has been a nightmare to photograph properly.

it looks perfect the way you have "pimped it out"

im a HUGE fan of Gaspard-Félix Tournachon and to think
he used your camera to make aerial photographs in his balloons!

 

[DREW WILEY]

My oldest working photography equipment at this point in time is me!

 

[CropDusterMan]

My Rolleiflex is dated 1953 and my Linhof Color 4x5 is around 1955. Both work
exceptionally well.

 

[Luis-F-S]

1942 V8 n 1951 V5

 

[480sparky]

Kodak 3A, last © date is Oct 19, 1909.

I've run both 122 and 120 through it.

 

[Drew Bedo]

With the Kodak 2-D

My Kodak Eastman View No. 2-D.

Dates from some time in the late 1920s.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Leica M3 single stroke.

 

[samhuwyler]

My kodak duo six-20 from somewhere between 1933-1940.