The Vintage Camera Club Thread

Leica III screw-mount.

Three of my working cameras: Leica III Screw-mount (1938), Filmo 75 (16mm) 1930 and Improved Seneca View (5"x7")






We do pretty much most vintage photographic process from Daguerreotypes and wet-plate collodion to gelatin dry plate and roll film.

A new member of family - Leica Standard, 1934. Lovely camera and a joy to use.

Some recent shots from around Beacon, NY taken with my vintage-1963 Olympus Pen F half-frame 35mm SLR. (On Tri-X 400, souped in D-76 1:1, scanned at 2400dpi.) Using this camera is such a pleasure: it's an outstanding example of midcentury design and engineering... and it takes 50+ shots on a 24-exp roll!

Zeiss Ikon super Ikonta B (532/16 if you are interested on the crazy Zeiss codes). Lovely camera. 1937.

An interesting one, the Ducati Sogno, early 50s. Saddly they drop the project after less than 10.000 cameras made. Half frame on 35mm film, special cassettes.

Funny detail: all controls are on left-side.

Nagel 9x12cm plate camera, probably late 1920.




A test shot with it. Maybe the first one after 60 years or so?

Leica III with Summar, 1935.


These small camera & lens an give some really impressive results.

Trawling at our local flea market last Sunday, I found an early sixties Japanese fixed-lens rangefinder camera that appeared to be in excellent condition, a Petri 7s. I tried the shutter speeds, aperture, rangefinder, self timer: everything seemed to work, even the around-the-lens Selenium meter. (The original lens cap was still on... and had probably been on for 60 years while this camera sat in a dark closet or drawer, hence the Selenium hadn't decayed!) So I asked the dealer what he wanted for it. Just $20, so I pounced.

I ran a half-roll of Tri-X through, trying different lighting and focus conditions, that I developed/scanned yesterday. The camera functions perfectly - the match-needle meter yielded correct exposures, proving the speeds and f-stops are accurate, and the rangefinder yielded correct focus in every case. The lens - 45mm f/2.8 - is a good performer, though not in the same league as the Nikkors and Zuikos I mainly shoot. But hey, this is just a modest camera designed for advanced amateurs that cost $60 when it was new in 1963.



You know, I've heard for years about great flea market finds, but this is my first! I've got more film cameras than I can shoot, so I won't be adding this one to the active rotation. But I'm giving it a primo spot on my camera collection shelf!

Hmm, nobody's posted on this thread in a while. Guess I'll go again...



I recently bought myself a black Nikkormat FTn body (a 1967 design, but this one's from the final year of production, 1975) for a surprisingly low price that's in near-mint condition: even the light meter works. Back when I worked in my parents' photo biz in the 60s/70s, I always preferred shooting Nikkormats to Nikon Fs and F2s: it's a lighter, more streamlined body, but still extremely rugged and mounts the same awesome Nikkor lenses. Anyway, I shot a test roll of Tri-X with several lenses - 28/3.5, 35/2, 105/2.5 - and developed in good old D-76 1:1, yielding beautiful results. Check em' out!

I hate to be the only one posting on this thread, but I have a recommendation for folks who are still shooting b/w film:

Check out Kodak Double-X!

Tri-X 400 has always been my favorite b/w film, producing fantastic images in every possible camera and situation. But while it dates back to the fifties, it has been incrementally reformulated several times, and it's arguably better than ever... but it's not exactly its old classic self.

In contrast, Kodak Double-X is Eastman 5222, a 35mm b/w negative motion picture stock that has not been changed since its introduction in 1959. Countless gorgeous b/w films - Paper Moon, Raging Bull, Schindler's List, The Lighthouse, etc. - have been shot on it. Kodak still manufactures it by the mile. At least two companies (Film Photography Project and Cinestill) are currently spooling this stock into standard 35mm cassettes for still camera use.

I got a couple of rolls of the FPP version, which is rated at ISO 200, and ran one through my Olympus Pen F half-fame camera (see my earlier posts about this great camera). I developed in good old D-76, diluted 1:1, 9 minutes at 71 degrees.

The results are beautiful! Much deeper, richer blacks than Tri-X, a touch more grain, and dare I say a more "cinematic" look. Check out these 2400dpi scans, and keep in mind that these negatives are half the size of standard 35mm negs, so really, the grain isn't bad.



What a great, vintage look these have. I definitely plan to shoot a lot more Double-X!

I really need to get my cameras back out and about. I just don't have time anymore for my medium format stuff (4x5 graflex) so I may donate them and go back to 35 mm. But I do like playing with the graflex.

Mike

I've also got 4x5 (Graphic View II, Crown Graphic) and medium format (YashicaMat LM) cameras, but I don't see myself ever shooting them again. My half-dozen classic Olympus and Nikon 35mm cameras are more than sufficient to keep me occupied!

Back in the 70's when I was active in the SCUBA diving community, I did some underwater photography. At the time all I could afford was an Instamatic with a lucite housing (first pic). Mid-1980's I was able to buy a used Nikonos V camera. This was everyone's go-to camera from 1984 when it was introduced to 2001 when discontinued. No digital Nikonos was ever produced. Color choices were orange or green. With a light bar, this was (still is) a great film camera. As noted, mine has seen considerable use. (pics 2-4).

I'm glad you folks recently started using your old cameras (and posted about it here), which prompted me do do likewise.
I recently bought a 1938 Kodak Retina at our local flea market for $20, cleaned it up, and started taking test shots.
Works perfectly...
The second new addition was a Busch Pressman Model C (made 1953) medium-format press camera, bought "as is" from a local antique shop for $45. It had a loose rangefinder mirror, some rangefinder linkage problems, and a broken groundglass.
After fixing those items, which turned out to be remarkably easy, it works perfectly. One totally unexpected positive aspect was that a Graflex RH10 roll holder fit so closely that it stays on just by the friction at the edges. I thought I would need to make some small metal adapter fittings, but they were not needed for careful casual use. (I just looped a big rubber band across the back to make sure it stayed put.)
I have developed the film for both but have not yet done any printing. Just looking at the negatives with a good magnifier tells me that both cameras are working fine.

Re "recently started", I've never stopped shooting film cameras. For that matter, I've never owned a "good" digital camera. I've always been film-first.

But I haven't done wet printing in over a decade, not since we tore down my parents' basement darkroom when preparing to sell their house. I still have most of it out in the garage, including their old workhorse Omega D-3v 4x5 enlarger. But you know, I only shoot about six or eight rolls of b/w film a year now: I develop in the kitchen and scan the negs.

The truth is, the paper print - once the ultimate end point! - no longer matters, I'd just end up scanning it too. I really only show my pics on the web and my (large) cell phone these days, so why make prints? Other than the pleasure in the process itself, that is. (It's taken a long time, but yeah, I finally have started to miss it.)

BTW, I have one of those late 30s Kodak Retinas. But mine turned out to be a poor shooter the one time that I ran film through. That's okay, I have more perfectly functioning 35mm cameras than I can really juggle anyway.

Re your rollfilm adapter fitting perfectly, sometimes these lucky things happen. For example, back in the 80s we discovered that a standard 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 cut film holder (*) fit precisely on the back of our Mamiya RB-67 using its standard locking pins, so we could just shoot single sheets vs. entire rolls when needed.

(* For decades we shot ID pictures for passports and chauffeur's licenses on these, which we correctly sized on the negatives with a ruler on the ground glass in order that they could just be contact-printed. The little holders fit into a reduction back we put on a huge, wheeled, circa 1910 Ansco 8x10 camera!)

What's really ironic is that 11 years ago when we were divesting ourselves of fifty years' worth of pro equipment, there was so little interest in film photography that I was literally giving stuff away free via classifieds on photo.net. I'm horrified at the things I ended up recycling and/or trashing because there was zero interest then (e.g., dozens of 4x5 film holders!) But now, with young folks investing huge amounts of money and effort in "analog photography" (UGH!), most film equipment has become valuable again.

I'm thrilled at this development, which I somehow didn't expect despite the earlier "revivals" of pre-digital stuff like LPs and cassettes. Besides the vibrant communities at cool sites like Casual Photophile and Shoot It With Film, the best part is that film and chemicals will continue to be made, and great camera repair guys will keep working. There are actually lots more 35mm film emulsions available now than a decade ago... Film lives!

Greetings,

This is my first post on TFL.

I’m no collector of vintage cameras, more an accumulator. Most of mine are SLRs from the 60s to the 90s. But I have a few fairly old ones. This is the oldest. Made sometime between 1924 and 1933.

Kodak Brownie No. 2A model C.

Paid $5 at goodwill, took it home, completely disassembled and cleaned it, and it seems functional now.

Okay, here's my fantastic $10 score from a local private sale (found via Nextdoor's For Sale ads).

A 1970 Zeiss Ikon Contaflex S in nearly perfect condition. This is a German-made 35mm SLR, unusual in that it has a leaf shutter in its lens (a fixed 50mm/2.8 Tessar) rather than the usual SLR focal plane shutter. It's fully automatic: you set the shutter speed, and its CdS meter (the window to the right of the nameplate) sets the aperture. It's solid metal and built like a tank, with obviously serious engineering... But it also has some odd quirks vs. most other SLRs.

I ran a test roll of Tri-X through, shot around the house and at the local Sunday flea market. I let the light meter set the f-stops in all kinds of different lighting. The resulting negs were a little dense (probably because I used a 1.5v alkaline battery vs. the obsolete 1.3v Mercury battery it was meant for, but I still set the film speed at 400 vs. a stop or two less), not that two stops overexposure is a problem with latitude-king Tri-X. The famous Tessar lens is a good, if not quite stellar, performer:

So... these results are pretty good, but I think this camera is destined for my display shelf vs. being a regular shooter. It's got some negative aspects, like having to advance/cock it to get the mirror to return after taking a shot, and a battery compartment that won't stay closed without using a rubber band or gaffer's tape. And honestly, I'm not really fan of the 50mm "normal" lens. I mean, I NEVER put my 50mm lenses on my Nikon and Olympus SLRs...

But hey, what a find for ten bucks!