Yes I would again buy the camera I bought in 1967.
Your first SLR...would you buy it again?
-
A
- Thread starter RichardJack
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Very nice 300mm f/6.3 Komura Commercial in Copal 3S
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Very clean 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon in Copal 0
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Folding Pocket Kodak Plate Holders, Cut Film Sheaths, and Ground Glass
- Started by trichrome
Forum statistics
The three in the picture work. One SL2000F bit the dust not included in the picture. I have about six or seven backs. They seem to all work. I had two of the backs "updated" in the 1980s. I think it changed the tension on the takeup spool.
Just did start using Eneloop batteries in these cameras last month with good results. Also just got my 2000/3003 Polaroid back working.
I've often wondered about those Rolleis, and Ive never seen one! But I've always thought they were the height of "cool." The only Rollei SLR I'd want more is a clean SL66.
I use my Zenit SLR as my default "bad weather camera" - when I don't want to expose my more loved cameras to rough weather conditions (snow, rain, freezing temperatures, etc.), out comes the Zenit E to the rescue.
My first SLR was a digital one, and my film story starts with a Yashica rangefinder, so I didnt get a film SLR until later. A black Zenit TTL in a flea market. Would I buy it again? Yeah, costed me 15 euros, its in working condition minus the light leaks, and it came with the mighty Helios 44M lens, which I adapted and use in my EOS system now. For what is worth, I do enjoy shooting the Zenit: it's clunky and noisy but also very charismatic, I have many other refined cameras but the Zenit adds a bit of fun to the whole thing of shooting film, a slight bit of unpredictability and a piece of history that works somehow...
I've always shot with my old Canon F-1 whenever I was having to deal with inclement weather. Frankly it never even occurred to me that my old F-1s couldn't handle such tasks. They've never let me down. And they're my most loved cameras to boot!
Hi!
My first SLR was a Olympus OM-101. I purchased it with my first pay ;-) I chose it because it was very cheap compared to the rest of the cameras in the shop. It was a bargain actually. I was not an entusiast photographer, not at all.
30 years has passed !!! My second SLR was a Contax 167MT that I purchased three years and a half ago ;-)
No, I wouldn't buy the Olympus again !!
Cheers
My first SLR was a Olympus OM-101. I purchased it with my first pay ;-) I chose it because it was very cheap compared to the rest of the cameras in the shop. It was a bargain actually. I was not an entusiast photographer, not at all.
30 years has passed !!! My second SLR was a Contax 167MT that I purchased three years and a half ago ;-)
No, I wouldn't buy the Olympus again !!
Cheers
Yep. What made professional-grade cameras "professional" was that they had the weather sealing, dust seals, and ruggedness to withstand bad weather and other harsh conditions.
My first SLR was a black Nikkormat FTN bought for Art School c. 1970 at Adolph Gasser's in San Francisco. It was stolen in San Francisco around 1971 and I replaced it with another, also purchased at Gasser's! I still have that one, pictured here with my favorite lens, a first series Non-Ai Nikkor 28/2.
PS My first 35mm was a Petri 7S purchased on Okinawa c. 1966...
Last edited:
After learning on a Pentax K1000 in highschool, I debated between a Canon Rebel, and a Pentax PZ-1. I initially bought the Rebel, and it was definitely more 'refined', but I returned it a short time later and got the PZ-1 which had more 'prosumer/professional' features. I still have it and it's a fine camera. I eventually went the Nikon route, so in theory if I went back to 1991 maybe I should get a F(N)90x(s) instead, but that said just googling some basic things the PZ-1 had out of the box, eg automatic bracketing, I guess you need a special back for the Nikon. So I'm going to go with yes, I would get it again.
It's clunky with slowish focus, but it had a LOT of features.
It's clunky with slowish focus, but it had a LOT of features.
A Zenit E - 1972 ~ No
But I would buy my second SLR again, an OM1 ('74)? Yes. Except that I don't need to, as I've still got it
now joined by its brothers OM1n, OM2 'n OM2n.
I think the Zenit would feel somewhat basic after using my Nikon F6!
But I would buy my second SLR again, an OM1 ('74)? Yes. Except that I don't need to, as I've still got it
now joined by its brothers OM1n, OM2 'n OM2n.I think the Zenit would feel somewhat basic after using my Nikon F6!
Permission to revise and extend my remarks? Thank you.
I mentioned in my initial post my first two cameras -- a Canon A-1 and AE-1, and went on to state that I would not prefer to have either again, but instead mentioned my first "real" camera, that being the Canon FTb, followed not long after by the Canon F-1 (original model). I didn't indicate my preference to own again any of them. So I will set the record straight now.
As a primary photographic tool now I would have to say "no" to both the Canon AE-1 and A-1. Reason? Too much automation. Yes, even for the AE-1. Even with shutter priority auto, it was hiding valuable exposure information -- or at least putting it aside so that I didn't have to deal with it. And the trend was even worsened with the A-1. And I felt it. I felt a lack of growth as a photographer and I was getting upset with the way many of my exposures were turning out. So, after reading a small article on the FTb in Modern Photography magazine way back in 1983, I bought a clean used FTb. It was a revelation. A few months later I bought my first F-1, and I haven't really looked back since.
But! As to the question of would I buy another of my first cameras? The answer has already been answered (at least partially) in my case. As a nod toward completing my collection of FD gear, I bought a clean A-1 a couple years ago. And instead of an AE-1, I bought a minty black AE-1 Program instead. Do I use either? Rarely. Of course, I also have a couple of old F-1s and, I think three FTbs at last count. Do I use these? You bet.
I mentioned in my initial post my first two cameras -- a Canon A-1 and AE-1, and went on to state that I would not prefer to have either again, but instead mentioned my first "real" camera, that being the Canon FTb, followed not long after by the Canon F-1 (original model). I didn't indicate my preference to own again any of them. So I will set the record straight now.
As a primary photographic tool now I would have to say "no" to both the Canon AE-1 and A-1. Reason? Too much automation. Yes, even for the AE-1. Even with shutter priority auto, it was hiding valuable exposure information -- or at least putting it aside so that I didn't have to deal with it. And the trend was even worsened with the A-1. And I felt it. I felt a lack of growth as a photographer and I was getting upset with the way many of my exposures were turning out. So, after reading a small article on the FTb in Modern Photography magazine way back in 1983, I bought a clean used FTb. It was a revelation. A few months later I bought my first F-1, and I haven't really looked back since.
But! As to the question of would I buy another of my first cameras? The answer has already been answered (at least partially) in my case. As a nod toward completing my collection of FD gear, I bought a clean A-1 a couple years ago. And instead of an AE-1, I bought a minty black AE-1 Program instead. Do I use either? Rarely. Of course, I also have a couple of old F-1s and, I think three FTbs at last count. Do I use these? You bet.
Oh dear me no, never again!
My 1st SLR was a Russian camera called a 'Start'. It was a bit of hybrid between an Exacta and a Zenith but with a different bayonet mount to the Exacta, but had the same design of stop down and combined shutter release, plus a film cutting knife. There was a full range of shutter speeds 1 second to 1/1000 and a 58mm F2 lens, almost certainly a Zeiss Biotar copy. The lens as I remember it wasn't too bad. The Zenith connection came about because there was an adapter to take the pre set type of lens which could take a 'T' interchangeable mount with a 39mm screw thread type of lens. It was very heavy, cumbersome and a bit of a beast, I was glad to sell it on and then buy a Pentax SV.
My 1st SLR was a Russian camera called a 'Start'. It was a bit of hybrid between an Exacta and a Zenith but with a different bayonet mount to the Exacta, but had the same design of stop down and combined shutter release, plus a film cutting knife. There was a full range of shutter speeds 1 second to 1/1000 and a 58mm F2 lens, almost certainly a Zeiss Biotar copy. The lens as I remember it wasn't too bad. The Zenith connection came about because there was an adapter to take the pre set type of lens which could take a 'T' interchangeable mount with a 39mm screw thread type of lens. It was very heavy, cumbersome and a bit of a beast, I was glad to sell it on and then buy a Pentax SV.
Minolta SRT-101 for me but switched to Nikon after Minolta went away. Still have Minolta and Nikon film cameras and Nikon digital..
Canon T90. Would I buy it again? Oh hell yes. I did. I have six (working) bodies. Still my all-time favorite camera, though there are a few that come very very close. F4, 1V, RTS III...
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 639
- Format
- Multi Format
1. Minolta Maxxum 7000, purchased used from Adray Camera in Dearborn. Put a bunch of film through it when my kids were born. It's deteriorated now and will likely be binned in the next couple of weeks.
2. Yes. At the time it was a nicely featured camera at an affordable price.
2. Yes. At the time it was a nicely featured camera at an affordable price.
I'm late to the party.
In 1977 my father bought me a Minolta SRT201. I still have it, still use it (with hearing aide batteries) and I wouldn't change a thing. That camera was a great camera to learn photography with and even a better camera to develop and improve my craft. Last winter I purchased by son (college Jr at the time) his own 201 and he has commented how that camera has made him a better photographer.
In 1977 my father bought me a Minolta SRT201. I still have it, still use it (with hearing aide batteries) and I wouldn't change a thing. That camera was a great camera to learn photography with and even a better camera to develop and improve my craft. Last winter I purchased by son (college Jr at the time) his own 201 and he has commented how that camera has made him a better photographer.
Well, as a genuine old Geezer (non-USA readers, a geezer is "US, humorous or mildly disparaging. : a queer, odd, or eccentric person —used especially of elderly men."), I am convinced that film photographers, or people who formerly practiced the craft of film imaging, ARE better photographers. The reason is they had to learn about light, shutter speeds, and the limitations of their recording media. I realize this contradicts the film-haters on sites like Dpreview, but after you read their piles of nonsense about how they are so superior, you realize that most of them have no idea how to load a roll of film or how to do challenging technical details like set f-stop. What is a light meter?
Last edited:
Mine was a Nikon FE2, purchased in the early 1980s while in college. Of all the cameras I have owned it is still probably my favorite. I would buy it again, and indeed have recently done so - after returning to film photography last year after a 15-year break I bought several vintage Nikons, including an FE2. It has once again become my preferred SLR.
For the last two decades, I have been teaching photographic courses.
When I first started teaching the classes were film only.
Later, I changed the classes to film and digital.
Within the last few years, I changed the classes to digital only.
I do not know if it is my fault or a difference in my students or both but I find the digital only classes more difficult to teach. For some reason, students with digital only experience seem to have difficulty grasping fundamentals related to exposure, lighting, and focal length/lens selection.
For example, last week, one of my former students called me for help because she had been shooting and accidentally changed some setting that caused her camera to underexposing all her images. When I asked what exposure mode she had been using, she replied, "automatic." When I questioned her and informed her that her Nikon did not have an "automatic" setting, I discovered that she was referring to the aperture mode as "automatic." Since we had covered the various exposure modes in the classes, I felt I had somehow failed her.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 521
- Format
- Multi Format
My first camera was a Nikon FM, purchased because my then girlfriend used Nikon. I occasionally think of the FM.
This mirrors my experiences when working with some digital photographers. Are there exceptions? Probably, but I have not worked with one.
| 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:  |