Iconic cameras? Hmmm … I loved Nikon F and screw-thread Leicas. I had two bodies of each, and eventually bought some more in case they broke, but they never did.
But if you find any that need fixing, you could do worse.
2 Likes
I loved my Nikon FA (early 80s). It was a vast improvement over my previous Canon AE-1. But the AE-1 got me started.
3 Likes
Just noticed there’s another refurbed Konica IIIA available from the American guy I bought from in Tokyo, in case of interest… he also does YouTube videos on the history of the classic Japanese cameras that pass through his hands
I like film cameras as cool electro-mechanical devices, but I have to admit I’m not that into film photography. At least, not without scanning and digitally processing the shots (and I have no suitable scanner nor scanning skills…). In which case, why bother with film at all? I’m loathe to give up the flexibility and – hopefully, some degree of – mistake-correction digital offers.
2 Likes
I miss the quietness of shooting film, skipping under the dark cloth, an hour in the bathroom at midnight slowly twisting the film reel in the chemistry, the stillness of the darkroom.
I feel like I had good control of my black and white process by the time I stopped for digital. I miss seeing all my shots on paper. I miss the look of fiber black and white paper (though I’ve found a lab that’ll print on traditional paper!).
3 Likes
I started with my dad’s Argus C3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_C3
but I could never get a clear picture with it. Read the wikipedia page, a pretty iconic camera…
Futzed a bit with a Minolta SRT-102, but I became enamored with NIkkor lenses and saved my money to buy a Nikon F2 Photomic in my senior year of high school. Totally mechanical, no battery required except for the light meter. Also, what they called a “system” camera, a plethora of interchangeable components and accessories were available for different use cases, and the Nikkor lenses were without equal in terms of contrast and sharpness.
2 Likes
I don’t shoot much film but, weirdly, the expense seems to be part of the process now. A shot has to be really worthwhile for me to take it. I might just carry that Konica around town and never take a shot. It takes me an age to get through a roll. When I carry my biggish digital camera and lenses, I’m going out to take pictures and will come back with hundreds of crap shots to be discarded or rescued. When I first returned to photography, I had the feeling that it helped me see the world anew again, but then you start going out to take pics and the goal of looking for shots can overwhelm being in a place for its own sake. Maybe film helps to reset that balance a bit. I don’t know.
3 Likes
I do take hundreds of bad pictures too, but for me it is inspiration and motivation that make most of the difference. If I have the mental energy to invest in composition, I may end up with some interesting shots of relatively uninteresting subjects. OTOH if I am just clicking the shutter, I just get uninspired shots, no matter how spectacular and interesting the subject is.
If I am honest with myself, I like the flexibility of digital too much to ever go back to film. Yes, I am aware of the argument that the cost of developing each shot makes it count… but it is also a learning process, and a slow learner like me would have to waste a lot of film to get better. For me the fascination of that era survives in vintage lenses I put on a MILC camera body.
That said, my favorite film camera is the Olympus Pen F. It is a compact beauty, the conceptual predecessor of micro 4/3 cameras today.
2 Likes
I agree with all of this. I wouldn’t rely on it if I wanted to be sure of coming back from somewhere with some half decent shots. It’s just something that forces a different approach when I’m wandering around aimlessly. Maybe it’s a sad attempt at hipster cool… I went on a photo walk for the first time the other week with three guys from a local Discord who’re in their 20s and was shocked when all of them got out film cameras (as well as digital). I’d just brought the Lumix. The members of the other local film group here, which seems to be mostly retirees, would never turn up with film
3 Likes
Frankly, I don’t understand the need to carry multiple cameras in an amateur setting either. Yes, a wedding or sports photographer may not have enough time to change lenses and/or needs a backup, which is totally understandable. But for a hobbyist I think this makes little sense and just adds to the weight.
A couple of years ago film still made practical sense because of its amazing dynamic range. But now there are a lot of camera bodies that can give something equivalent, to the extent that images processed in a certain way are not possible to distinguish in a blind test when comparing film vs digital. Most of these bodies are of course more expensive than your average MILC, but the difference is just a few rolls of film + development.
Its not an accident that professionals were among the first to switch to DSLRs, then MILCs. We live in a golden age of photography, the costs of equipment have fallen significantly and digital processing is effectively costless, so more and more people can do photography. This is a great thing.
The film cameras mentioned in this topic are nevertheless a great source of inspiration for camera design. Some are gems of ergonomics and practicality, and their legacy should survive.
I finish with a prediction: in a few decades hipsters who want to be cool will be carrying full frame digital cameras, which will have dwindled to insignificance otherwise because crop format sensors of 2040 will be enough for 99% of practical purposes 
4 Likes
My first SLR was, almost, an EOS 1V as one of the photographers on the paper I was working on was switching to the 3 megapixel 1D. Stupidly I turned down his offer as I thought it would be too advanced for me and I got an EOS 5…
There’s already the trend for CCD point and shoots (why?!) and DSLRs.
2 Likes
One for the visible spectrum, one for infrared
3 Likes
When I shoot railroading subjects, I don’t like to change lenses in the field, too dusty. Depending on what shots I want, I’ll put my 70-300 on the D7000 and carry it in addition to the Z 6 with the 24-70. I’d like to just use the Z 6 with the 24-200, but I’m an amateur with an amateur budget… 
5 Likes
I do a similar thing when I go on holiday to avoid making people wait while I stop and change lenses. I often take a small travel camera for snapshots and my main camera with a telephoto lens for birds/wildlife so that I can just take quick shots without stopping for too long.
Anyway I digress, please keep posting film camera porn.
2 Likes
Nice slacks, nice ‘tache
For me, it’s Canon FD all the way. They’re workhorses for what I do. My current lineup is an F-1 (older) and an A-1. I have previously owned AE-1’s, but as the price went up on those, I couldn’t justify keeping them around and unloaded them for a nice profit. I keep my cameras and lenses in good working order and often shoot film alongside digital.
3 Likes
I can understand why Gösta Floberg (presumably) was seated. After walking around all day with that big view camera around his neck, he was pooped!! 
2 Likes
Correct. It was his studio camera.