Deardorff38
Mentor
Sorry to be so slow responding here - out taking pictures
Yes the M2 an M3 load the same, but Leitz later offered an optional Rapid Load kit for them that had of a bottom slotted spool that did not need to be removed. As you point out, it is not all that much of an advantage on the M3, but I sure like it on the M2. The M4 introduced to standard models (I'm sure there is some earlier example Jason knows of) the load system that was used through most of the later models. The M5 took its own path, as on other things. I like that one the best, and it happens to be somewhat like an improved Rapid Load Kit spool. I've seen reviews of the M5 that complained about the change, so people have different preferences.
The M2-R, originally made for the US army (?) introduced the tulip style loading system that became standard in the M4.
Scrambler
Well-known
I have an Agfa version in my cupboard. It's the only camera I've bought to be left on a shelf (I have non-functioning cameras but they came with dreams of repair).
It's a version of my childhood camera. As you say, they got photos taken. Nothing sophisticated just functional.
They were completely replaced by phone cameras, and before that largely replaced by auto-everything 35mm cameras.
Historical: it depends on the story being told. Since you can't fit every camera in a top-20 (or even top 200) you need to chose what story you tell. The Instamatic fits in a story of popular photography. The Vest Pocket Kodak, Brownies for 620 film, disposable 35mm cameras, low-rez digitals. There are a lot of interesting choices before you reach phone cameras as the modern snapper.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
You've gotta love the Kodak Instamatic. The classic model is the original Kodak Instamatic 100 of 1963-1966. Kodak's 126 Instamatic cartridge is ingenious but it didn't keep the film particularly flat, nor did it position the film very precisely in the image plane. The 110 cartridge used in Pocket Instamatic cameras was technically much better in both respects. I included it as #20 in my Top 100 Cameras I compiled many years ago.
A link to this Jason?
Mark C
Well-known
I knew there was something, and I was even thinking military, but just couldn't come up with it. Someone gave a friend one of the military versions. I've been tempted to borrow it, but mostly keep slumming with my M4-2.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I'm wondering how many have used the cameras they recommend or condemn?
Going through the threads I sometimes think that someone hasn't got - or else hasn't bothered to read - the manual.
It's as bad as those opinions of cameras based on what they got on ebay, as if that was how they left the factory...
Regards, David
Going through the threads I sometimes think that someone hasn't got - or else hasn't bothered to read - the manual.
It's as bad as those opinions of cameras based on what they got on ebay, as if that was how they left the factory...
Regards, David
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Pal, Lots of family photos were successfully made with the Brownie Hawkeye flash, before the instamatic came into being in around 1963.
download-6 by on Flickr
That's true, but the attraction of the Instamatic was its highly convenient drop-in cartridge. I think that aspect encouraged many more people to buy film more often. I don't have sales statistics on film usage, but I suspect it increased greatly per capita in the 1960's.
As the decades progressed, Kodak consistently sought more ways to encourage more people to make more photos, buy cameras, and especially buy more film.
Kodak's approach seemed to be one of offering more convenience (but not necessarily better quality) - the 126 cassette, then 110 film in slim cameras, then the awful disk film, then the coordinated APS scheme.
In contrast, when the industry went from regular ("double") 8mm ciné film to Super 8, they made the process more convenient (with drop in cassettes instead of threading spools) and also improved the format by changing the sprocket holes and increasing the image area. Yet in still photography there never was a "Super 135 format" with smaller sprocket holes and a larger image area (e.g. 28mm X 42mm).
Deardorff38
Mentor
Pal, I think we're solidly in the realm of speculation here. While I agree, the instamatic is an important camera, i think there are other elements at play. The population of the U.S. was 180 million in 1960, and over 200 million in 1970. There were lots of advancements and technological innovations during the period, for example the introduction of seat belts in cars.
I'd suspect that the increase in population was as big a driver as anything.
I know it's a tiny sample, but I grew up in that era and started university in 1967. During that decade our family used the same camera, and took the same photos; holidays, birthdays, family events..... Yet the first camera i bought with my own money when i was 16 was a Nikkormat, which within a couple of years I had traded into a Leica M2....
I guess i'm suggesting that Kodak was responding to the times and was on the doorstep of opportunity. But then again, that may be my view because i never owned an instamatic.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, that gives the Kodak Brownie 127 a fighting chance...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
User's opinions preferred
User's opinions preferred
I agree that many folks that praise or condemn various cameras have not had any hands-on experience with them. This doesn't necessarily mean that their opinions are wrong or worthless, but I do think the opinions of hands-on users do tend to carry more weight. As an inveterate user-collector I'm pleased to say that I've had personal hands-on experience with over 99% of the cameras that I've opined on. You may not always agree with my judgments on a particular camera but you may rest assured it's based on actually shooting with it, not merely its reputation or what others have said.
User's opinions preferred
I agree that many folks that praise or condemn various cameras have not had any hands-on experience with them. This doesn't necessarily mean that their opinions are wrong or worthless, but I do think the opinions of hands-on users do tend to carry more weight. As an inveterate user-collector I'm pleased to say that I've had personal hands-on experience with over 99% of the cameras that I've opined on. You may not always agree with my judgments on a particular camera but you may rest assured it's based on actually shooting with it, not merely its reputation or what others have said.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, two mentions of actual "hands on" experience coming into it and the recommendations stop. Fascinating...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Scrambler
Well-known
???
I presume you've realised that Jason has posted his top 100 with a link from another, active, thread.
There are discussions where some practical experiences are required. There are others where it is not. Discussing whether the jockey-stick-mounted first Leica, the Leica I or the Leica II had the most influence on the camera industry at large is interprative, and weighs basic design, lens interchangablity and integrated focussing. None of these things requires having laid hands on an example. But some arcane discussions might benefit. There are a multitude of reasons why the Exakta did not rule the emerging SLR world despite its head start. One I can quote from experience is that a person used to focussing with their left hand will find it awkward to use. That might or might not be the key problem but a photo wont reveal it.
I indicated that my view of the list was that, despite some great choices, the Pentax K1000 was not a historic camera. I haven't personally laid hands on one. Ever. That lack of exposure undoubtedly affects my view. But far more is the fact it is a re-working of an old line, a one-step-forward-2-steps-back situation where Pentax chose to strip function out of a superseded design and keep selling it. In an historic list, I'd put a Pentax Spotmatic. I'd footnote the K1000 because it's 90% Spotmatic and had a long life. But I get why it's there. Would having used one change my view? No. I've used the Spotmatics. I've used Pentax cameras of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s. I still own a Pentax camera from each of these decades bar the 80s. I own a camera which mechanically is 90% the same. I own a different camera which is functionally the same despite being 2% mechanically matched and thats the lens mount. But I can overlay those experiences plus my Spotmatic memories to appreciate a K1000 in operation. But it doesn't matter if the discussion is about historical significance.
huffy49
Member
Wonderful, wonderful.
Reading this list (thanks SO much, Jason!) is like reconnecting with an old friend at my 50th high school reunion.
Reading this list (thanks SO much, Jason!) is like reconnecting with an old friend at my 50th high school reunion.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, you ask "Would having used one change my view?" and the answer is that looks aren't everything and experience is worth far more.
Looking at a brochure and then at a car, for example, in a showroom count for little compared to driving one for a few days, getting over the novelty and seeing how it behaves.
The clue to me is the word "behaves" which applies to a lot of things or all, perhaps, and then there's "greatest" in the criteria and how that can be voted on without experience of the things is beyond me; it's as simple as that.
I also thought it funny that the posts stopped at that point but perhaps you didn't?
Regards, David
Looking at a brochure and then at a car, for example, in a showroom count for little compared to driving one for a few days, getting over the novelty and seeing how it behaves.
The clue to me is the word "behaves" which applies to a lot of things or all, perhaps, and then there's "greatest" in the criteria and how that can be voted on without experience of the things is beyond me; it's as simple as that.
I also thought it funny that the posts stopped at that point but perhaps you didn't?
Regards, David
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Compiling Greatest Camera lists
Compiling Greatest Camera lists
Deciding whether to include a particular camera on a Greatest Camera list inevitably includes both objective criteria and subjective judgments; historical significance is only one of the many aspects that goes into it. Even if I made a list of the criteria I use in order of magnitude, it would only be a rough approximation of my decision making process, and it probably wouldn't provide an accurate picture of how those criteria interact. That's why no such list can ever be definitive. The most you or I can hope for is to spark a lively discussion that's engaging, informative, and reveals how various individuals assess the cameras in question.
For example, choosing the TTL-metering Pentax Spotmatic or for that matter the Asahiflex IIb (the first widely distributed 35mm SLR with an instant-return mirror, made by the same company) over the long lived, very successful, but less technically audacious Pentax K1000 are valid options. As for your Leica I vs. Leica II conundrum, I'd go with the Leica I (model A) because it established the basic design, form factor and control array for all succeeding Leicas up to the IIIf. The screw mount was standardized on the late Leica C and the Leica Standard (Model E) both of which lacked rangefinders. As the first Leica that added the brilliantly compact, coupled rangefinder to the mix I think the Leica II (Model D) certainly ranks a close second to the original Leica I (Model A) of 1925 in terms of historical significance, but if you disagree, that's perfectly OK.
Compiling Greatest Camera lists
Deciding whether to include a particular camera on a Greatest Camera list inevitably includes both objective criteria and subjective judgments; historical significance is only one of the many aspects that goes into it. Even if I made a list of the criteria I use in order of magnitude, it would only be a rough approximation of my decision making process, and it probably wouldn't provide an accurate picture of how those criteria interact. That's why no such list can ever be definitive. The most you or I can hope for is to spark a lively discussion that's engaging, informative, and reveals how various individuals assess the cameras in question.
For example, choosing the TTL-metering Pentax Spotmatic or for that matter the Asahiflex IIb (the first widely distributed 35mm SLR with an instant-return mirror, made by the same company) over the long lived, very successful, but less technically audacious Pentax K1000 are valid options. As for your Leica I vs. Leica II conundrum, I'd go with the Leica I (model A) because it established the basic design, form factor and control array for all succeeding Leicas up to the IIIf. The screw mount was standardized on the late Leica C and the Leica Standard (Model E) both of which lacked rangefinders. As the first Leica that added the brilliantly compact, coupled rangefinder to the mix I think the Leica II (Model D) certainly ranks a close second to the original Leica I (Model A) of 1925 in terms of historical significance, but if you disagree, that's perfectly OK.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Hmmm, two mentions of actual "hands on" experience coming into it and the recommendations stop. Fascinating...[/quote
Posts stopped when the question of people not having hands-on experience arose?
I'm not seeing that - I have no idea which cameras are even being referred to. I've not seen people writing about cameras they have no experience with. Maybe I'm just unobservant or naive.
As a lightweight collector, I have only just over 100 cameras, from Minox 8x11mm to large format 4x5, collected over 50 years. I absolutely use all of them to make photos.
Maybe posts by some people stopped because they had nothing further to say.
For example, I made the point that the Instamatic was a resounding success. Kodak sold 50,000,000 (50 million) Instamatics between 1963 and 1970. That is unprecedented (the K1000 has 3 million sales between 1976 and 1997, roughly). Nothing further for me to say.
Maybe I'm just unobservant or not taking things too seriously, but I've not seen the reported "angst" and "condemnation" mentioned by others.
As for the K1000, I did not object to it being on the list:
For many people, the K1000 was the first camera that introduced them to serious photography.
Haha - here's my only condemnation, coming from direct exerience:
OK, I still don't like the look of the M2's exposure counter dial compared to my M3. Although essentially the same dial exists on my Leica III and IIIf, but looks appropriate for that era.
David Hughes
David Hughes
They stopped for two days, check them before my post and you'll see every day had several posts.
As for "hands on" experience; I don't know about anyone else but I have looked long and hard at cameras in charity shops before handing over my coins; mostly to see the state they were/are in and the battery contacts etc. Then I've gone home with them, fitted batteries, found a manual, put film in them and gone out and taken photos. Sometime during the taking phase I've decided I like them or dislike them or feel nothing one way or the other.
Then I've seen the prints at 5 x 7" and finally decided. Surely that is what counts?
Otherwise you just get people passing on internet rumours, most of which can't be true if people stop and think...
Regards, David
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Well, I couldn't say why there was a two day pause; it'd be mere speculation on my part as to the reason.
Likely some people do post about cameras they've never used to make photos. I didn't sense that happening here, either. Anyway, that'd not be me - I love using what I have.
Of my many cameras, actually there is one I've not used; it's been in the family for decades - an Agfa Ansco D-6 Cadet that uses 116 film. I'd have to respool 120 onto a shimmed 120 supply spool to get it to work.
Note that it's best with Agfa ALL-WEATHER film.
Likely some people do post about cameras they've never used to make photos. I didn't sense that happening here, either. Anyway, that'd not be me - I love using what I have.
Of my many cameras, actually there is one I've not used; it's been in the family for decades - an Agfa Ansco D-6 Cadet that uses 116 film. I'd have to respool 120 onto a shimmed 120 supply spool to get it to work.
Note that it's best with Agfa ALL-WEATHER film.
Attachments
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
JS has done it again - posts a thought-provoking article, gets us all agreeing and disagreeing and comparing and listing and explaining, and in general, having a great time.
Ten best cameras? Only ten? To me this is like trying to list the world's ten best beaches, or the ten best places to eat the world's best burrito. I live inland and the nearest beach is about 50 kms away, near Geelong in Victoria (Australia). My next door neighbor swears it's the best beach in Australia. Is it? Maybe it would be, if the locals took the time and made the effort to remove about ten million stones and truck in fifty loads of clean sand. Otherwise, well, it's one man's opinion. Far be it from me to question (read: challenge) it or anything else he says, as he is about two times my size and drives a semi and I'm not about to disagree with him on anything, even the weather (which is fairly horrible right now as we all out here in the Ozzy bush are in the depths of winter, thanks for asking).
Cameras now. In the '60s everybody with money had either a Miranda or an Exacta. Neither rocked my boat. Nikon Fs were practically unheard of in my part of Canada. Then came the Pentaxes and ultimately, in 1967 or thereabouts, the first Nikkormat FTn turned up at Reid's photo center Moncton where I was buying my film and darkroom supplies. I didn't see an F in their display cabinet til about 1970. Man, how I wanted one of either or, when I had more money to burn, or both....
Finally I bought a Nikkormat EL, after a few years with Pentax Ks I quite liked but to me nothing special and a Minolta SRT 101 I didn't really get on with. Both did what they were designed to and produced quality slides for my stock sales, but to me they were no cigar.
The Nikkormats were. I bonded with my first FTn almost immediately and set to shooting my way around Southeast Asia. Even with a 50/2 and two el cheapo wide angle Hanimex lenses they produced images buyers were happy with and I made a bit of pocket money to fund my global wandering. So to me those two FTn cameras - by then I had settled into my lifetime practice of two of everything, like Noah's ark - were the world's best camera. Subjective, but it worked, which was all that mattered.
Time passed. I added Rolleiflexes (still have them and use them), a Hasselblad kit I really didn't bond with, other odd brands that did the job but never quite rocked my boat, and ultimately Contax G1s which many photographers I know dislike but me, I loved the brand from day one.
These days I shoot with Nikon digitals (first D90, then D700, now D800) but I still use the Nikkormats, Contax Gs and Rollei TLRs and now and then when the mood moves me, a Voigtlander Perkeo I or a Zeiss Nettar. Somewhere in a storage box I had a Pentax MX with the legendary 50/1.4, picked up at a local op shop for all of A$25. It looks as new and it holds and handles excellently well to my tastes, but I've yet to put a roll of film into it and shoot it. I will - soon.
Which is really what it's all about, innit?
All this said, carry on, good people. I (and most others, I'm sure) am greatly enjoying all these comments. Good one, Jason!
Ten best cameras? Only ten? To me this is like trying to list the world's ten best beaches, or the ten best places to eat the world's best burrito. I live inland and the nearest beach is about 50 kms away, near Geelong in Victoria (Australia). My next door neighbor swears it's the best beach in Australia. Is it? Maybe it would be, if the locals took the time and made the effort to remove about ten million stones and truck in fifty loads of clean sand. Otherwise, well, it's one man's opinion. Far be it from me to question (read: challenge) it or anything else he says, as he is about two times my size and drives a semi and I'm not about to disagree with him on anything, even the weather (which is fairly horrible right now as we all out here in the Ozzy bush are in the depths of winter, thanks for asking).
Cameras now. In the '60s everybody with money had either a Miranda or an Exacta. Neither rocked my boat. Nikon Fs were practically unheard of in my part of Canada. Then came the Pentaxes and ultimately, in 1967 or thereabouts, the first Nikkormat FTn turned up at Reid's photo center Moncton where I was buying my film and darkroom supplies. I didn't see an F in their display cabinet til about 1970. Man, how I wanted one of either or, when I had more money to burn, or both....
Finally I bought a Nikkormat EL, after a few years with Pentax Ks I quite liked but to me nothing special and a Minolta SRT 101 I didn't really get on with. Both did what they were designed to and produced quality slides for my stock sales, but to me they were no cigar.
The Nikkormats were. I bonded with my first FTn almost immediately and set to shooting my way around Southeast Asia. Even with a 50/2 and two el cheapo wide angle Hanimex lenses they produced images buyers were happy with and I made a bit of pocket money to fund my global wandering. So to me those two FTn cameras - by then I had settled into my lifetime practice of two of everything, like Noah's ark - were the world's best camera. Subjective, but it worked, which was all that mattered.
Time passed. I added Rolleiflexes (still have them and use them), a Hasselblad kit I really didn't bond with, other odd brands that did the job but never quite rocked my boat, and ultimately Contax G1s which many photographers I know dislike but me, I loved the brand from day one.
These days I shoot with Nikon digitals (first D90, then D700, now D800) but I still use the Nikkormats, Contax Gs and Rollei TLRs and now and then when the mood moves me, a Voigtlander Perkeo I or a Zeiss Nettar. Somewhere in a storage box I had a Pentax MX with the legendary 50/1.4, picked up at a local op shop for all of A$25. It looks as new and it holds and handles excellently well to my tastes, but I've yet to put a roll of film into it and shoot it. I will - soon.
Which is really what it's all about, innit?
All this said, carry on, good people. I (and most others, I'm sure) am greatly enjoying all these comments. Good one, Jason!
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Wanted to add to my usual long post, but forgot - Jason, you have yet to give us an updated rewrite of what I consider to be one of your very best articles, written in the '80s on the world's very best ever camera, the Rolleiflex TLR.
We all await your latest words on the Rolleis...
We all await your latest words on the Rolleis...