History Of Photography
View Single Post
03-08-11, 09:03 AM
Join Date: Feb 2011
I don't think you really want your list to grow as long as mine.
In the bad old days if you wanted something for your photo album or to send to auntie Mable, then 35mm was fine. If you wanted to be able to read the headlines of a newspaper on an 8"x10" print you needed a 2¼" square. If you wanted proper quality it was 4"x5" sheet film, and if you were absolutely annal then the only option was 8"x10" film.
Happily, today we don't need all that and a half-way decent digital camera will knocks the socks off my old stuff. I would cautiously suggest that with the exception of the Linhof and the Wild, which are specialist cameras for specific tasks, I could have replaced the lot with my current Nikon.
Sadly, cameras ain't what they used to be. You could hammer nails in with my old Nikon F, it's been drowned in a river, drenched in monsoons, clattered against mountainsides and fallen from a first floor balcony onto tarmac (with a tripod attached!). After the fall Nikon charged me £4.50 (1971) to fix it, and £1.50 for a new lens hood. That's the only time it's seen a repair facility, and after 45 years it's still going strong. Today's cameras will not do any of that and seem to have lifespans built into them, so your collection will undoubtedly grow but not for the same reasons.
Still, you've got 50 years to catch-up anyway.
The day you think you've found perfection is the day you stop looking, then someone else will find it and move in front of you.
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to jet_kit
Find all posts by jet_kit