Camera/Gear Collectors Forum?

[Rafael Garcia]

I am recent to LF, but have a small collection of MF cameras and equipment. Old habits are hard to break, so my LF cameras have grown into a collection of two! I have a 5x7 Gundlach Korona View wood field camera and just found a Carl Zeiss Jena Universal Palmos from 1903 in fantastic condition for almost nothing ($75.00 US). I see that a lot of you are "new" equipment people, and extremely serious about very precisely evaluating the differences in modern equipment and rightly so, as it reads as if a substantial portion of the members are professionals or lifelong amateur photographers. Should there be a forum for the collector photographer like myself? It would be interesting to post questions on the old equipment and benefit from the knowledge of others who may share the collecting disease. I am currently trying to find out what a Newton viewfinder, an accessory apparently used with the Universal Palmos, for which the camera has a built-in rail (which sits empty on my camera), is, if it can be found, etc.

One thing I will make clear for those reading this: I use my collection to take photographs. The cameras do not sit in a glass case; they go out and get used. I would not get a camera and relegate it to decorative use. They are tools meant to be used, not relegated to decorative accessory status.

[Capocheny]

Rafael,

I'll throw my hat into the ring and agree that it may be an interesting addition to the forum. There's many cameras and lenses out there that show up from time to time and locating information on them is akin to pulling hens teeth. :)

Cheers

[MJSfoto1956]

One thing I will make clear for those reading this: I use my collection to take photographs. The cameras do not sit in a glass case; they go out and get used. I would not get a camera and relegate it to decorative use. They are tools meant to be used, not relegated to decorative accessory status.

Would you be willing to write up a review of an "older" camera (much like the Linhof reviewed in the premiere issue of MAGNAchrom)?

We'd love to publish your point of view!

[Rafael Garcia]

Still waiting for the confirmation e-mail for MAGNAchrom. Want to read the review to understand better what you expect before doing anything. The publication looks impressive, by the way. congratulations!

[Jim Noel]

Rafael,

I'm with you. I use several pieces of old equipment including removing lenses from some of the large old roll film cameras for use on the 8x10. Many of them are amazing in their quality and covering power.

My "New" camera is an 8x10 Deardorff maade prior to 1939 (it has no serial number). I also have a 5x7 'Dorff which matches. Then of course there is the Improved Seneca 8x10. I could go on, but you get my point. I too would like to see a forum for users of this equipment.

Jim

[Ole Tjugen]

One of the things I like about this forum is that no matter the age and "rareness" of the equipment, there's always someone who knows a lot about it, or has used it for several decades, or both.

One of the things I like about LF in general is the almost total compatibility; there are lots of people using 100 years old lenses on brand new cameras and vice versa. I've done both myself and will do it again.

So as long as the gear is not sitting in a glass cabinet, do we really need a separate forum for "collectibles"?

[Ron Marshall]

One of the things I like about this forum is that no matter the age and "rareness" of the equipment, there's always someone who knows a lot about it, or has used it for several decades, or both.

One of the things I like about LF in general is the almost total compatibility; there are lots of people using 100 years old lenses on brand new cameras and vice versa. I've done both myself and will do it again.

So as long as the gear is not sitting in a glass cabinet, do we really need a separate forum for "collectibles"?

I agree completely.

[Terence McDonagh]

I dream of building several of my own cameras, and have built a couple of simple ones, and modified others. In the quest for ideas I've studied every old camera I can find a photo of, and have bought more than I care to admit. I love the fiberq site (www.fiberq.com/cam/), but it's only of American cameras. So I'm always up for seeing what other people have squirreled away in their photography closets, etc.

[Michael Graves]

Would you be willing to write up a review of an "older" camera (much like the Linhof reviewed in the premiere issue of MAGNAchrom)?

We'd love to publish your point of view!

Years ago, I wrote an article that Shutterbug bought, but then never published, entitled "The Yard Sale Photographer". In that article, I described a rather large range of camera equipment I found at yard sales, including a 4x5 Omega enlarger for $35.00. Before you start screaming that you can't do that in this day and age...last year, I bought a Norman 500P power pack, 2 LH2 heads and 2 LH4 heads from a guy in Springfield, Missouri while I was on vacation. I asked him how much he wanted for them. He said he didn't even know what they were...that he'd gotten them at an auction at the local university. I offered him twenty bucks to see if he'd hit me with something, and he said, "Twenty-five and you got a deal."

They work great.

[Dan Fromm]

Rafael, I'm puzzled and sorry that you think you're the only person here who uses old gear. There are others, including Ole, who's spoken for himself already, Jim Galli who's surprisingly mute now, and, yes, me. My youngest camera was made in 1953. I have pre-WWI (that's I, not II) lenses that are treasures. So I don't see the need for a separate collectors' forum, especially since we're all users here.

You're right that information -- specifications, user's manuals -- for older cameras can be hard to find. And you're right that information on really obscure old lenses can be hard to find too. You're wrong that much of the information people want on old lenses -- basically, is it any good? -- is worth anything, though, because each old blunderbuss (literal translation of a crack made by a participant on the french LF forum about an old lens that I fancy) has its own history and can't be counted on to be like any other, including itself as it was when it left the factory. With old lenses, its buy or borrow and try. Find out for yourself.

If you really are at a loss to figure out what an aged LF lens is or might be able to do for you, buy a copy of A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. The VM is incoherent in places, incomplete, inconsistent, at times infuriating, and on the whole invaluable. It is, alas, quite weak on US-made lenses, but Seth Broder has posted some interesting catalogs on his site www.cameraeccentric.com that somewhat fill its gaps.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[Rafael Garcia]

Dan: On the contrary...I am very happy to read from the responses that many others like/use old equipment. The preponderance of posts elsewhere in the forum are, however, on high-end, newer equipment. This is as it should be, however I would love to read more on the old stuff that is still in use. My two old girls have not shown me the end of their capabilities yet! That is why I am suggesting a separate area where posts on old stuff can be easily found by those seeking information to help repair, restore or operate equipment that may not be supported anymore, or to share ideas or experiences on ways to improve the equipment.

BTW...thanks for the camera eccentric website...it is great!

[Alison Dygnas]

I have to admit that my field cameras, made by Billcliff, are sitting in a glass cabinet as I hadn't realised that they were usable! I bought them, (together with a studio camera) as my mother was a Billcliff and had made the bellows for them. As far as I know (which is not a lot) the cameras are in working order. Does anyone have any information they can provide on Billcliff cameras, or explain in layman's terms what I need to get them out of the glass cabinet and into work?

Thanks,

Alison

[Rafael Garcia]

We would need a lot more information on the cameras themselves:
Wet plate or sheet film? - what size?
Is the lens there, is it good (not cloudy, with a working iris that opens/shuts)?
Is the shutter firing? If sluggish it can be cleaned.
Is the bellows light-tight? Inspect it by looking inside with a lamp close by in a deak room.
Is the hardware there/ working?

It's simple: If all the above are fine, then all you need is film. I believe there are some focus differences between wet plate and sheet film cameras, but I don't know much other than a wat plate camera can be adjusted to take sheet film easily.

Good luck!

[Ralph Barker]

I don't see a real need for a collector's forum. To do so would merely complicate the forum structure with no real benefit to most members who use what works, whatever its age.

Besides, the term carries too much "baggage" of its own. And, if one were to ask almost any member of one of the digitally-dominated forums, we're all antiques, anyway. ;)

[Rafael Garcia]

Well, for one it would help LFers with truly vintage equipment by having an accessible location to post info on their cameras for others with "project" cameras to see/read what is necessary to restore/repair the old equipment, without going through the tons of information on Tachiharas, Shen-Haos, Toyos, etc.

[BrianShaw]

I think I know what you are looking for, Rafael. But I tend to agree with Dan and Ralph on this issue. If you have something interesting to post about antique photo gear... just post it. Those of us with interest in antique camera restoration/usage will find your posting.

If not terribly impolite to mention in LF Forum, I might mention that APUG has a forum called "Plate Cameras".

[Jay DeFehr]

I thought this was a camera/gear collectors forum, with a few developer pissing matches thrown in for spice.

Jay

[Rafael Garcia]

I deleted my previous, rushed, response because I may have been less than gracious in my message.

I frankly do not understand the opposition to the idea. It seems like those of us that have gotten started in LF with less than expensive state-of-the-art cameras and simple lenses have a lot in common with others with the same budget limitations. When I log onto the forum I have to search for information relevant to my equipment among a majority of posts inquiring about particular features of cameras and lenses that I am not ready to purchase at this time due to their incredibly high costs. I understand that many of you are professionals in the field, therefore need the expensive equipment to be at the top of your form. I don't, for a second, deny the applicability and adequateness of those posts to their intended audience. I would prefer to have a place where those with older equipment could post to share similar concerns or provide relevant information. Yes, we all learn from reading all posts no matter what the equipment is, and I for one still do read about all the fancy stuff, but having quick access to the sub-group of old camera stuff, I think, might be helpful.

Anyway, it is not all that important. I am more surprised by the opposition than anything else. I thought it was a pretty harmless proposal that would be easily agreeable.

[Randy H]

Rafael, I agree totally. My "newest" camera is mid 1940's. And is it just me, or do most questions and/or comments have to contain the word "Tachiwhatever, Arca-wherever, or Linhof, etc etc" just to elicit a response? Like you, I read and wade through the endless schneidly comments and use what I can find that may closely relate. I do read apehuggers forum, photo-net, flickr, etc. but I still agree that one section heading for the "antique" "users" would be very helpful. If I had the big bucks to support a tachi, I would very seriously consider one. But my wife and kids tend to think they need food and shelter more. Dang narrow-minded bunch!!

[BrianShaw]

I deleted my previous, rushed, response because I may have been less than gracious in my message.

...

Anyway, it is not all that important. I am more surprised by the opposition than anything else. I thought it was a pretty harmless proposal that would be easily agreeable.

I don't quite know why you are upset. You asked for opinion and people gave their opinion - some agreed with you and some didn't.

Others have told you this, but you are not alone in your enthusiasm for old, user cameras. My most modern LF is from the 1980's, but I often use my 1970's-vintage SuperGraphic... and now my "new" 1940's vintage Anniversary Graphic. In other formats (MF and 35mm) I have "modern" cameras from the 1980's, but still use my 1950's-vintage TLR and 35mm rangefinder frequently. I have a couple of turn-of-the-20th-century cameras that one day will be restored and used.

Like others have said... finding information on these old cameras is difficult, but it is easier if one asks rather than waiting for someone else to ask. Initiating a thread might make it easier for you to engage in the conversations you would like without having to read through all of the modern camera talk.

[Rafael Garcia]

Brian, I am not upset at all. The deleted response was very similar to RandyH's above, making fun of all the expensive name-dropping, and I decided that was definitely impolite for a newbie like me to do. I'll tell you why just starting a thread does not work: I can start one and, because the screen only covers a certain number of posts, it will be quickly buried by other threads and not seen again. Most people posting are not intersted in old cameras, not owning one themselves, and the threads on their issues will quickly send my thread off-screen. A separate area allows us old camera owners to keep the current threads on-screen for a much longer time, so we can find them easily. The issue is not one of not wanting to be part of the bigger whole; as I said before, I do read through the other stuff. The issue is that smaller population of old camera owner's threads get buried off-screen, even though they may be recent, by the volume of conversations about everything else. If there are areas on philosophy and on commercial issues, why not an area for vintage equipment? Does that make sense now?

[Bill_1856]

I could certainly appreciate replacing the Lounge forum with vintage LF equipment forum (say pre-WW2). As much as I dislike the policies of the present US administration, I don't think this is any place for it -- pro or con.

[Dan Fromm]

Rafael, I now have the impression that, like many people who ask questions on bulletin boards, the question you initially asked isn't really the one to which you wanted an answer. So what are you really asking for? It sounds more and more as if what you want is a complete, easily-searched, and inexpensive book on old gear that reports on everything's good and bad qualities, has instructions for users, ... I guess something like that would be nice to have, but most of us have found ways to decide what to buy, and what not to buy, and can work out how to use our kit from hints and general principles. One of the challenges of using old gear, also one of the great satisfactions, is in figuring it out. The adage to the effect that the deity, if there is one, helps those who help themselves applies very strongly to the old junk po' folks like me use. Go help yourself.

Cheers,

Dan

[RichSBV]

I can understand Rafael's point. Dan, you should be able to also as we have graflex.org. A whole site dedicated to "vintage" equipment. If I didn't have graflex.org, I would feel orphaned too. Luckily, all my LF gear was made by graflex so I have a great resource for information. Others aren't that lucky.

I can also see problems with a separate forum. How do you differentiate between "vintage" and not? I don't consider my cameras "vintage" and my 8x10's were made in the 1930's. They work as good as any newer camera and I don't need an instruction book to use them ;-)

I think the major problem is the prevalent attitudes that permeate the big forums where if it's not made after the 1980's, worth over $x,xxx and has multiple letters following it's name, then it's not worth owning or using. how many times do we hear "it would make a good starter camera"? or "it would be okay for now until you can afford a..."? or "why not just buy xxx like I did, you won't regret it"? It makes people who use the older equipment feel like second class citizens! Except maybe for the glorified Dagors and Deardorfs I suppose. I have no idea why they became so glorified since neither was a top brand or performer when new in the 1930's through WWII.

So no big deal. Buy and use vintage equipment. Just don't talk about it unless it's on the all hallowed premier list of equipment just everyone dreams of owning...

Not being overly sorry about all that. Just a pet peeve of mine after reading all these forums for many years... I'll stick with my "vintage" equipment, be very happy about it, and really wouldn't mind seeing another forum open up for people to be able to speak freely about using and enjoying the great old stuff.

[Rafael Garcia]

Rafael, I now have the impression that, like many people who ask questions on bulletin boards, the question you initially asked isn't really the one to which you wanted an answer. So what are you really asking for? It sounds more and more as if what you want is a complete, easily-searched, and inexpensive book on old gear that reports on everything's good and bad qualities, has instructions for users, ... I guess something like that would be nice to have, but most of us have found ways to decide what to buy, and what not to buy, and can work out how to use our kit from hints and general principles. One of the challenges of using old gear, also one of the great satisfactions, is in figuring it out. The adage to the effect that the deity, if there is one, helps those who help themselves applies very strongly to the old junk po' folks like me use. Go help yourself.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan:
If you were curious enough you would find out that I have posted here on how to build a simple lensboard that adds swing and tilt to old cameras, which I have done, and how to build a vertical 4x5 enlarger using shelf brackets for support, which I also have done. Both are low-cost solutions meant to help other beginners, and both have encountered strong opposition (and stronger support thanks to many smart people here) from the guys with the expensive toys. I don't need the advice to help myself... I have been doing it for over 50 years!

I do like to share simple things with others who are interested, or to find out details like what a Newton Viewfinder is, what does it look like and if anyone has one available that I could copy (and that is just an example - I actually have found out answers to all of those in another forum, and have purchased a Newton Viewfinder for my 1903 Zeiss from a friendly photographer there). Now, I don't think you care what a Newton Viewfinder is, or are curious about what the original lens on a Universal Palmos was, or what the letters N and W on the front standard of the same camera mean, or many other questions that old camera owners have. You have no use for information like that, which causes you to dismiss the suggestion as a trick on my part, a device by someone with a 'hidden agenda'. You are watching too much TV news and analysis, my friend. All I want is what I have said: a place to go to post and find information on old cameras. As to what constituted 'old' or 'vintage', I would suggest that dates have nothing to do with it. The definition should be if it is made still or not. If not, it's needing a forum so we can discuss finding parts and getting around limitations, because no one else is supporting it.

I am happy, upon review of the posts on this thread, that a lot of people get what I am saying. I thank those because the words they have posted are almost as if right out of my mouth. It is a very simple thing, not taking away anything from the rest of the forum, and not really as important as the extent of the arguing here has been with the few who oppose it with enough fervor to keep the discussion going. I will argue with anyone 'till the end of the world, it's my nature. If you want this to go away, instead of opposing it, just ignore it.

[BrianShaw]

Most people posting are not intersted in old cameras, not owning one themselves

This is the poll I would rather see: how many on this forum use, or have interest, in vintage camera usage.

I don't totally disagree with your logic for a new folder... it's just that you and I have such similar interests yet I still can't see the advantage. I've found data/information/advise on some of my vintage equipment in the current structure even if I have to trudge through many topics I couldn't care less about. Sometimes I need to ask several times before a knowledable response is received. Sometimes I need to ask elsewhere (this isn't, as you likely know, the only camera forum on the WWW). Sometimes knowledgable information never happens. That's the challenge and frustrating fun of working in vintage equipment. I'm more of a supporter, bu the way, of Darr's idea in your poll thread -- I'd LOVE top see a vintage camera forum that deals with vintage USER camera issues of ALL formats.

Glad to hear that you are more persistant than upset!

Brian

[Dan Fromm]

Rich, I sort of take your point but I don't agree fully.

Like you I use Graphics (no Graflexes yet, and I doubt one will do for me, but a GV II might eventually) and lenses that are old, unheard-of, or both. Unlike you, I'm a compulsive lens trier-outer. Not a formal lens tester like, say Chris Perez on a good day, I just do enough to find out which of my similar lenses not to use.

What I've learned as a user and by reading others' tales of triumph and, sometimes, woe is that older cameras, pocketable folders possibly excepted, are very much alike. And LF cameras, up to and including the latest most wonderful, are all very similar. All of the users' manuals I've looked at are remarkably similar. As for older lenses, well, leaf shutters are much of a muchness. The hardest thing to learn is not to try to cock old Compounds and Compurs set to time or bulb.

As a lens trier-outer, I've learned that some old lenses are good enough to use on the emulsions I shoot from f/11 or f/16 down and others aren't. Also that the only way to tell whether the lens at hand is good enough to use is to ask it. Condition now trumps reputation when new.

That said, I recognize that if I want, say, a lens shorter than 47 mm that covers 6x9 I"ll have to save my pennies and buy a 38/5.6 SAXL or a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. My 38 Biogon and 1.75" Elcan won't cover, and neither will anything more ancient that I can afford to get near. Modern lenses do a few things that ancient ones flat out can't. Same goes for telephoto lenses. Modern ones are better.

But from 47 mm on to the longest I can focus there are plenty of relatively inexpensive old lenses that are better than good enough. So I don't feel shame when I use, say, my 1912 CZJ 150/6.3 Tessar. If anything, I feel a little pride in knowing good from bad and in having kit that produces good results when I perform well and that fits my budget. I suspect you have the same sensation.

Cheers,

Dan

[Rafael Garcia]

This is the poll I would rather see: how many on this forum use, or have interest, in vintage camera usage.

I don't totally disagree with your logic for a new folder... it's just that you and I have such similar interests yet I still can't see the advantage. I've found data/information/advise on some of my vintage equipment in the current structure even if I have to trudge through many topics I couldn't care less about. Sometimes I need to ask several times before a knowledable response is received. Sometimes I need to ask elsewhere (this isn't, as you likely know, the only camera forum on the WWW). Sometimes knowledgable information never happens. That's the challenge and frustrating fun of working in vintage equipment. I'm more of a supporter, bu the way, of Darr's idea in your poll thread -- I'd LOVE top see a vintage camera forum that deals with vintage USER camera issues of ALL formats.

Glad to hear that you are more persistant than upset!


Brian

At this point I'm trying harder not to make enemies than to make my point! I agree with everything you say. I have done the same. As I have said several times now, it was just a suggestion. What really became interesting to me was the aggressiveness with which some opposed the suggestion, as if I were schemeing to take something away from the Forum. I am not. I am just a newbie LF amateur, curious about the entire field, owning two old cameras which I was fortunate enough to buy cheap and in excellent condition and which I love to use. As someone past my half-century I appreciate old stuff, want to keep it working, and like sharing what I learn using it. The suggestion was innocent enough. My Baby-Boomer curiosity and ability to ponder viewpoints makes me curious as to why some are so offended by a mere suggestion, I guess. Maybe I should have dropped the entire thing a while ago, but it seems like the poll may allow us all to know where we stand better, and will certainly decide the issue in friendly terms.

PS: If you go to http://aquariumboard.com/forums/index.php , a tropical fish hobbyist forum I have visited for a while, you will see an example of the sub-forum inter-connectivity I am referring to. There the image galleries are sub-forums to the main thread topics. They share the same search parameters and the sub-forum content also shows up on the main thread content. It is not a separation of subjects, but it is a great way to organize the images so those only wanting to look at them can do so without having to go through the entire thread. I believe the engine of that forum may be the same as on this one.