What was your first slr?

[AgX]

with the proliferation of low cost, low drop out voltage regulators, I'm surprised that nobody has come out with a simple electronics based replacement. One would only need a 3.0v lithium cell, a 1.35V LDO regulator and a few discrete components. I've plans to retrofit the low voltage side of my Pentax Spotmeter with such a circuit but powered from the 9V battery that's already there...just haven't "got around to it" yet.

Such has been proposed and done. For instance with the microchip TC1015 for devices running on two mercury cells.
However this chip necessitates a on/off-switch, otherwise it would drain the battery itself.

That is one reason to use instead of a seperate control circuit a Schottky diode in-line.

 

[cooltouch]

Such has been proposed and done. For instance with the microchip TC1015 for devices running on two mercury cells.
However this chip necessitates a on/off-switch, otherwise it would drain the battery itself.

Sounds like you're describing the Canon EF. Two mercury cells and that big on-off switch on the top cover. It has a reputation for draining the batteries if the switch isn't turned off.

 

[tessar]

A Nikkormat FT3 with the Nikkor 50/1.4, bought new in 1977. Still in use and working well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Canon EOS 300, it still works as new... Even better. I recently purchased recharging batteries for it.

 

[ciniframe]

A Miranda D, with a 50mm f1.9 Soligor. Purchased used from Altman’s Camera in Chicago in the summer of 1970.
Long gone now, my oldest purchase that I still have is a OM-1 (not MD) also bought used from Altman’s in February of 74.

 

[brainmonster]

Minolta 70, needed the autofocus. Don’t understand how others go about with manual focus and exposure.

 

[Martin Rickards]

A second hand Topcon Unirex when I didn't know the difference between a focal plane and a leaf shutter.

 

[What About Bob]

Pentax K1000. After high school and going to community college in 1992.

I still have it and it still functions but the mirror has some kind of funky black stuff in it that won't wipe off. Resembles sort of like webbing or a cobweb type of effect? Doesn't appear to be a scratch and I am not sure why there would be anything in the mirror system because I had it put away safely in storage, or so I thought. I am tempted to put some lens cleaner on the mirror but I am thinking that might not be as good of an idea.

 

[Gato Diablo]

Pentax K1000 in the early 80s. Sometime in the late 80s I traded it in for a Pentax SuperProgram, and always regretted it.

 

[CMoore]

Minolta 70, needed the autofocus. Don’t understand how others go about with manual focus and exposure.

.....But that is the entire history of photography.
I am not sure of the point you are making, unless your comment was Tongue In Cheek.?

 

[CMoore]

My first SLR...circa 1979, was a Canon AE-1.
It was only a few months old. A friend of mine received it as a Christmas Gift.
Spring time of 1979, his Father gave him his A-1. My friend sold me his AE-1 for 50% of the retail price.
It was a lot of money for me at the time, but our photo teacher was big on the Canon A-Series cameras, so i thought i was sporting a world class camera. Obviously, it was a perfectly fine camera. Looking back, i simply preferred other features and other 35mm SLR a lot more. I did not realize it that time, however

We must have had about the only, high school photo teacher, in the usa, that did not think the Pentax K1000 was the best student camera every made.

Looking back, 40 years later, i am still (kind of) pissed-off at him.
I wish he had been a Fan of the Canon FTb..... or the Minolta SRT 101-201

 

[vsyrek1945]

Hello, anyone,

My first SLR was a Canon FTb-QL. I stepped up from a scale-focusing Kodak Retina S2 (WAY up), just after Canon brought out the FD camera line in 1971, after reviewing disappointing results shooting slide film at a 1970 Ron Delsener Oldies concert - even with a slide projected on my living room wall, Little Richard was unrecognizeable.

The FTb came from Hong Kong with a coworker of my sister returning on a business trip with chrome-nose 50mm f/1.4 lens, narrow neck strap and case, but no boxes. That saved me a few bucks in import duty, as the outfit probably came over on the shoulder of an international traveler.

That early FTb wore a 127xxx serial number, and suffered some mistreatment while I learned about SLR care and feeding; I picked it up wrong once and the hot shoe twisted on its pentaprism mount, and it went through a battery drain issue that a Class C overhaul by Canon USA in nearby Lake Success didn't correct (but was resolved by repais at now long-defunct Nassau Camera Exchange).

While I sold that FTb to KEH in 1995, a GAS attack a few years ago found me bidding on a good-looking early FTb (serial number 151xxx) that has a Bell & Howell plate riveted in its film chamber. After winning the auction (no other bidders, if memory serves) I sent it to Garry's for service, and am happy to once again have an excellent example of this landmark camera.

Thanks and regards,
Vince

 

[film_man]

The first one I bought with my own money was a brand new Canon EOS 300/Rebel 2000, bought for £200 with a 28-90 plastic fantastic kit lens. I still have it, still works (though the flash is broken) and still shoot it with a 40/2.8 on it.

 

[cooltouch]

Pentax K1000. After high school and going to community college in 1992.

I still have it and it still functions but the mirror has some kind of funky black stuff in it that won't wipe off. Resembles sort of like webbing or a cobweb type of effect? Doesn't appear to be a scratch and I am not sure why there would be anything in the mirror system because I had it put away safely in storage, or so I thought. I am tempted to put some lens cleaner on the mirror but I am thinking that might not be as good of an idea.

The mirror in an SLR is a front-silvered mirror, meaning the top surface has the mirror coating, which is why camera makers caution the user so strongly about not touching the mirror surface. But what you're describing almost sounds like fungus, which is typically found within lenses or sometimes camera pentaprisms.

I have had to clean mirrors on occasion and I think that if you're careful about it you can do it too. Get a soft Q-tip and the lens cleaner you mention, saturate the Q-tip with the cleaner and then very lightly wipe down the mirror surface with the Q-tip. Don't go back over the mirror repeatedly. Just single passes, however many it takes to wipe the entire mirror. And let it dry. Then examine the results. I don't think you're gonna see any difference, but at least you will have cleaned any accumulated dust and whatever from the surface. Even though your mirror has these strange traces, they won't affect your images and I doubt they will even affect the way the images appear in the viewfinder. That's the good news, at least. If this stuff is fungus, you might want to leave the lens off and expose the camera to a strong UV light source -- like the sun -- for a few hours. This will kill the fungus, if that's what it is.

 

[cooltouch]

While I sold that FTb to KEH in 1995, a GAS attack a few years ago found me bidding on a good-looking early FTb (serial number 151xxx) that has a Bell & Howell plate riveted in its film chamber. After winning the auction (no other bidders, if memory serves) I sent it to Garry's for service, and am happy to once again have an excellent example of this landmark camera.

Congrats on your new/old FTb, Vince. It is indeed a landmark camera. I often state that the FTb was the camera that taught me photography. I bought my first copy in 1984 and used it thoroughly for several years. I now own three of them -- two chrome and one black. Brilliant in its simplicity and function, to this day it remains one of my all-time favorite cameras (although I prefer the FTbn, the later one with the plastic tip on the film wind crank, slightly redesigned shutter speed dial, and later style self-timer/stop down lever).

 

[What About Bob]

The mirror in an SLR is a front-silvered mirror, meaning the top surface has the mirror coating, which is why camera makers caution the user so strongly about not touching the mirror surface. But what you're describing almost sounds like fungus, which is typically found within lenses or sometimes camera pentaprisms.

I have had to clean mirrors on occasion and I think that if you're careful about it you can do it too. Get a soft Q-tip and the lens cleaner you mention, saturate the Q-tip with the cleaner and then very lightly wipe down the mirror surface with the Q-tip. Don't go back over the mirror repeatedly. Just single passes, however many it takes to wipe the entire mirror. And let it dry. Then examine the results. I don't think you're gonna see any difference, but at least you will have cleaned any accumulated dust and whatever from the surface. Even though your mirror has these strange traces, they won't affect your images and I doubt they will even affect the way the images appear in the viewfinder. That's the good news, at least. If this stuff is fungus, you might want to leave the lens off and expose the camera to a strong UV light source -- like the sun -- for a few hours. This will kill the fungus, if that's what it is.

Thanks cooltouch

I very carefully went ahead with the cleaning and yes there was no difference with the black stuff but the cleaning did take off dust from the inside. The black stuff starts from the bottom of the viewing area and goes toward the middle. There is some obstruction of viewing area, it is kind of annoying..

When bringing the camera out in the sun, with the lens off, does the sun have to be hitting the mirror itself? If so would this create a certain amount of heat? Thanks.

 

[cooltouch]

Yes, if possible, I'd try to position the mirror so the sun is striking it. But you know, if it's overcast, it will still work, since clouds don't stop UV rays. As for heat generated, it will be very minimal because the mirror will be reflecting back almost all of it.

 

[railwayman3]

First SLR, as a schoolboy, was an ancient Exa with waist-level finder and 50mm "E Ludwig Meritar" manual lens. A weird shutter which seemed to use the reflex mirror as one of the blades, the maximum shutter speed was only about 1/150 sec, IIRC. I suppose it got me started on taking slides, but I moved on fairly quickly to Pentax systems when I became more seriously interested in picture-taking.

 

[vsyrek1945]

.....The FTb was the camera that taught me photography. I bought my first copy in 1984 and used it thoroughly for several years. I now own three of them -- two chrome and one black. Brilliant in its simplicity and function, to this day it remains one of my all-time favorite cameras (although I prefer the FTbn, the later one with the plastic tip on the film wind crank, slightly redesigned shutter speed dial, and later style self-timer/stop down lever).

I liked the original combination lever and the later advance lever better, but wouldn't turn down either version over the issue. The FTb's semi-spot meter was the camera's best feature, and rewarded my neophyte trust with box after box of beautifully exposed slides right from the start. I've preferred heavily center-weighted or partial area metering ever since.

 

[cooltouch]

I'm in complete agreement. When I discovered that the original F-1 had the same metering pattern, I decided I had to have one. Still my favorite SLR of all time. Ever since, when I was able to configure a camera for the same sort of partial metering pattern, I've always selected it. "Semi-spot" is an excellent way to describe the metering pattern. I got so comfortable with it, I'd actually move the metering rectangle about a scene and note how exposure changed, then I'd come up with a good average based on these readings. Like you, I was rewarded with perfectly exposed slides, time after time.

Heh, I agree with your take on the two levers. I've often wondered why Canon ditched the sculpted combination lever for the much less ergonomic v2 lever. I suspect it might have been a cost-cutting move. Or maybe because it didn't look all that great with a black FTb body or an F-1 or EF body?

 

[nosmok]

First SLR was a Contaflex Prima that was thirty years old when I got it-- I had inherited my grandfather's Contina III scale focus camera outfit, and the Prima took the same lenses. Haven't used it in years-- the long shutter speeds were always loooong, but that viewfinder was great-- bright and easy focus. And the pictures were great. My 2nd SLR was a Graflex RB Series B 2-1/4" x 3-1/4"...

 

[Finny]

my first SLR camera was a Minolta XE-5 in 1975
and I still use it

 

[Finny]

...
The competative price for the SPF combo was, as honestly explained to me by the sales guy, due the the coming introduction of the bayonetted Pentax K cameras.

/Per

 

[alanrockwood]

Exakta VX iia, possibly the pinnacle of the Exakta product line. It was a very quirky but also very capable camera. Mine had a Zeiss 58mm Auto Biotar, which is/was a legendary lens.

 

[MontanaJay]

I also had the Exakta VX iia as my first SLR in 1968 and made up twin cassette film packs so I could change ASA or to color in mid-roll.
I only kept it about a year before I swapped its quirkiness for a more robust Nikon F, which had more lens options.