• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What was your first slr?

Latest Gallery

Grill

H
Grill

  • 4
  • 0
  • 56
Cemetery Chapel

H
Cemetery Chapel

  • 3
  • 0
  • 81

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,784
Messages
2,845,502
Members
101,522
Latest member
marlinspike
Recent bookmarks
0
1968 bought at PX in sunny Vietnam Yashica TLR Super

David
 
GRHazelton said:
How about making mercury cells available but with a BIG deposit, to be returned when the spent cell is turned into an authorized disposal center? Or the deposit could carry forward on the purchase of a new cell. Unless there is a hazard presented in the manufacturing process this might solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Was there something special about mercury batteries versus modern zinc-air, like super long useful life? I ask because I've always wondered why mercury batteries got located in odd places like film compartment (Rollei 35), under the reflex mirror (Nikomat EL) and so on.
 
4season said:
Was there something special about mercury batteries versus modern zinc-air, like super long useful life? I ask because I've always wondered why mercury batteries got located in odd places like film compartment (Rollei 35), under the reflex mirror (Nikomat EL) and so on.
Click to expand...
They definitely lasted much longer than a zinc-air battery. In some cameras, they could last years.
 
Today, the sensible way to replace a mercury battery would be with a lithium primary cell with built-in regulator for 1.35V. Regulated lithium cells are fairly common, but at 1.5V to replace alkaline cells. No reason the regulator chips in them couldn't be adjusted (either in manufacture, or via component changes if they have an external calibration) to mercury cell level. They'd outlast zinc-air by years, likely be good for the same five years as a watch battery in most of the cameras that used mercury cells (they only ran the meter with the battery, current draw of a milliamp or two and some shut off when the camera wasn't in use).
 
An Argus Corsina I bought in the ships store while in the Navy When I came I sold it to buy a Nikon FM2. Wish I still had it.
 
Donald Qualls said:
Today, the sensible way to replace a mercury battery would be with a lithium primary cell with built-in regulator for 1.35V. Regulated lithium cells are fairly common, but at 1.5V to replace alkaline cells. No reason the regulator chips in them couldn't be adjusted (either in manufacture, or via component changes if they have an external calibration) to mercury cell level. They'd outlast zinc-air by years, likely be good for the same five years as a watch battery in most of the cameras that used mercury cells (they only ran the meter with the battery, current draw of a milliamp or two and some shut off when the camera wasn't in use).
Click to expand...
You know, it's funny, I once encountered a mercury cell with some life left in it out in the wild... might not seem like much but remember I was probably born after the ban. It was in a pristine Sr-T 101b that I couldn't afford, or I would probably be treasuring both the camera and the cell to this day.

Of course, I later found a Sr-T 200 that does just fine, though I still want a better Sr-T.
 
Minolta XD-11. Gone. Traded for X-700. Another dumb photography mistake I regret
 
I started with war-times Kine Exakta, followed by Exakta Varex IIa. Great system with biotar 58/2.0
 
Jean Serge said:
I started with war-times Kine Exakta, followed by Exakta Varex IIa. Great system with biotar 58/2.0
Click to expand...
Excellent lens from everything I've heard. I have experience with the Soviet clone, the Helios 44.
 
  • RLangham
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Accidental self reply
RLangham said:
Do you find it gives swirly bokeh at mid-wide apertures?
Click to expand...
Kind of. Honestly, I'm totally not a bokeh fan. So I prefer f/4.
I'd say, that for those old systems large aperture is more for focusing in dusk, as viewfinders were quite dark.
 
Jean Serge said:
Kind of. Honestly, I'm totally not a bokeh fan. So I prefer f/4.
I'd say, that for those old systems large aperture is more for focusing in dusk, as viewfinders were quite dark.
Click to expand...
It's funny, because I have a Zenit C from 56 or so and the viewfinder is bright enough to focus at f/8 in dim light and at f/16 in a well lit interior. I will say that with my Praktica F.X3 and my Rectaflex I agree with you though. Those have more or less been my early SLR's (also Prakica FX with no prism attachment) so I guess I don't have enough experience to say.

However, I do think that the designers also considered shooting in low light... maybe not as a top priority however.
 
Good old thread resurrections:smile:. Mine was a Pentax MX in 1982-a really nice little camera! I'm keeping my eyes open for another one (not sure what happened to it...I think it went MIA when my parents moved house).
 

Attachments

  • Kitchen table at 102 2000 001.jpg
    Kitchen table at 102 2000 001.jpg
    198.6 KB · Views: 126
Canon AE1-P, bought new in 1982. Some regrets, as I was offered the lens I "needed" which was a 70/210 F:4 zoom (I wanted to do nature photography, so I clearly needed a telephoto lens). Took me years to realize the best lens was a 50mm.

I still own it, with the 50/1.8 I bought as my second lens. Does not see much use, but it works like a new one.
 
RLangham said:
It is one of the best.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. When I bought mine I could have bought a Nikon F for not much more. The 'mat has much better ergonomics, and that's why I got it.

But and however, after my 'mat was stolen I replaced it with the more modern equivalent, an FM2n. The FM2n has most of the 'mat virtues plus higher shutter speeds and less weight. It lacks the shutter speed control concentric with the lens mount, which made the 'mat the fastest working manual SLR I've ever used.
 
Jon Shumpert said:
I wanted to start this thread because tomorrow I will be using a camera that is the same model as my first slr. In 1989 I was a much younger man stationed in Okinawa, Japan in the U.S Navy. I didn't know anything about cameras or photography, but a friend talked me into buying his Olympus OM88. It is an unusual camera in that it is a manual focus camera that uses a motor to manually focus. Olympus called it power focus. It actually works very well, but takes some getting used to. I ended up shooting many rolls of film with it. In its standard form, it is a Program mode only, but you could buy a manual adapter to give aperture priority and manual exposure. I sold the camera a few years later when I bought another slr, but I kind of had an attachment to the Oly. A year or two ago, I found one at a thrift store for $10. I wrote about it in another post a couple days ago while talking about cameras I had owned before, and bought a second time. I loaded some black and white film in it tonight and will take it out tomorrow. My son, who is 12, will be going along and I will let him take some photos with it. He actually has an appreciation for the older equipment. By using the camera, I will create new memories while bringing back old ones. Not a bad way to spend a day.
Click to expand...
my firstÍLR was a 1978 Praktika,which I no longer have and which died within a week of new purchase. I still have the pictures I took with it of my now deceased parents!
 
Praktika Super TL with the Zeiss 50 mm f1.8 Pancolour lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom