Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Introduce yourself and meet fellow Photoclubalpha members
User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:51 pm

Omega892 wrote:I have fond memories of my early days with 35mm, starting with an Halina Paulette in early 1967, didn't have much cash to spend being in the lower rungs of the RN as an Aircraft Artificer 3rd class at that point (had a hook, killick, badge on one arm), which I managed to wear out in about 18 months.


I suppose we all have fond memories of our first camera. My first camera was a toy 120 film camera that is now known as a Diana, but when I got it in 1967 it was just a cheap plastic toy with no cred at all from the black garbed arteest community. :lol: It was identical to this except it didn't say Diana on the lens and it most certainly wasn't made in China back then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_camera

Another camera I used a bit back at that time was my mother's old Kodak Six-20 Brownie Model C (I think that was the model) that used 620 film. The one she had is the one on the right in the photo below:

http://www.brownie-camera.com/71.shtml

She probably still has it somewhere packed away.

It is interesting to hear your stories from back in the day and see some of your old shots.

User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby Dusty » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:56 pm

bakubo wrote:I suppose we all have fond memories of our first camera. ...


How true! My first was a Kodak Instamatic that used 126 film. I got it for Christmas in 1967 from my sister Sue, who got in trouble for going over the spending limit to buy it! It paid off when I shot her wedding for free!

Dusty
A couple of a350's, an a700 and now an a580, plus even more lenses.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:32 am

Dusty wrote:How true! My first was a Kodak Instamatic that used 126 film. I got it for Christmas in 1967 from my sister Sue, who got in trouble for going over the spending limit to buy it! It paid off when I shot her wedding for free!


I never had a Kodak Instamatic, but my grandmother, an aunt, and an uncle had one back in the 1960s. This year is the 50th anniversary of its introduction:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/03/29/instamatic-camera-50-years/2034585/

User avatar
Omega892
Oligarch
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants. UK.
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby Omega892 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:10 pm

Kodak Instamatic - never owned one of those but did buy one for a kid sister as part of a kit which included flash-cubes.

My first camera was a Kodak Brownie, one of those curvy ones in black plastic. Still have some pic's that I took around Interlaken on a school trip one summer.

I did read that the Instamatics were a devil to avoid shake, because of the small format. I once had somebody send be an image he wanted scanned. I enquired what film format the negative was. I did not receive an answer to that but an envelope arrived with the negative in it attached to a small scrap of paper with A PAPERCLIP - heck! It turned out to be a 126. Movement in the post ensured a part of the emulsion was scrapped off by the cut ends of the clip, just over a face of all things. Some people are clueless.

Not to be beaten I made a mask for this neg' to fit in a 35mm slide mount so as to scan in my Dimage scanner. After which a little re-constructive surgery was required to achieve a reasonable image, luckily there was enough nearby tonal and colour match area to make this feasible.

Talking of small formats, I once had a Minolta 16 II (on the Minolta poster fourth row down third from left, there should still be a picture of it around here in the forum somewhere) and was surprised by the sharpness of the images when projected. The processed slides returned mounted in special 35mm external dimension card mounts. Now where did I put them? I also had the small bulb flash gun and wrap around mount for this camera and used it. Handy when visiting foreign parts where a 35mm might of brought on unwelcome attention.
'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Thu May 02, 2013 8:30 am

Today at a shop I saw a Pentax MX + 50mm (I think it was an f1.4, but might have been f1.7) that appeared to be in very good condition for $42. They also had a Yashica Electro 35 GSN (with its 45mm f1.7 lens) for $10 -- I bought one of these in 1977 and gave it to a cousin for Christmas. They were in a glass case and I think they both still worked, but I didn't ask anyone. If I was glued to one place like most people I would have bought both just for nostalgia's sake and put them on a shelf. Probably the Pentax 50mm lens that was on the MX is worth more than the selling price of both together.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Thu May 02, 2013 9:12 am

I forgot to mention that they also had a Minolta SR-7 with 50mm lens. It was about $40.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Fri May 03, 2013 1:45 am

Omega892 wrote:My first camera was a Kodak Brownie, one of those curvy ones in black plastic.


Yeah, I have one of those too. I assume you are talking about the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye that uses 620 film. My aunt had it when she was a teenager in the 1950s and I happened to see it in the hall closet of my grandmother's house in the 1980s. My aunt was visiting at the same time and told me it was her old camera and she gave it to me. A few days later I discovered there was a roll of film in it so I took it out and gave it to her the next time I saw her. I don't know what the photos were, but she said they must be very old because she couldn't remember when she had last used the camera.

Is this the one you have?

http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml

User avatar
Omega892
Oligarch
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants. UK.
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby Omega892 » Fri May 03, 2013 10:48 am

bakubo wrote: I assume you are talking about the Kodak Brownie Hawkeye that uses 620 film.
http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml


No it isn't that one it was a Brownie 127 as described here, seeing as I was given it about 1958 it would be the
1956-1959 model http://www.brownie-camera.com/6.shtml. Indeed I remember the cross patter on the lens fascia.
'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:38 am

bakubo wrote:Today at a shop I saw a Pentax MX + 50mm (I think it was an f1.4, but might have been f1.7) that appeared to be in very good condition for $42. They also had a Yashica Electro 35 GSN (with its 45mm f1.7 lens) for $10 -- I bought one of these in 1977 and gave it to a cousin for Christmas. They were in a glass case and I think they both still worked, but I didn't ask anyone. If I was glued to one place like most people I would have bought both just for nostalgia's sake and put them on a shelf. Probably the Pentax 50mm lens that was on the MX is worth more than the selling price of both together.


I was back at the same shop today and they still had the Pentax MX + 55mm f1.8 for $42. They also had a Pentax Spotmatic + 50mm for $42, a Minolta SR-7 + 50mm (55mm?) for $42, a Canon AE-1 body (no lens) for $21, etc.

They also had a Yashica ML 55mm f2.8 macro (manual focus) with original front/rear caps and a Kenko 52mm skylight filter for $5. I looked it over and it looked to be in really good shape so I bought it. I'll buy a cheap ($12 or so) Yashica-to-m4/3 adapter for it. This is a well made metal lens of the old style (probably late 70s or early 80s). For $5 it was a no-brainer. When I got home I did a quick search and it appears to be well regarded:

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=16516
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36311245
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Contax/Yashica_lenses

I also bought an old (probably mid-1990s based on the styling) A-mount Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 with original front/rear caps/hood and a Kenko 58mm skylight filter for $3. It also looks to be in good shape. Probably the lens is not so great, but again for $3 why not? I don't have my A700 or A100 here with me in Japan so I can't check to make sure it operates. Maybe I will sell it on ebay/craigslist later after I check it out.

This shop isn't a camera store, but they have lots of used musical instruments (many, many electric and acoustic guitars), amps, drums, keyboards, old computer stuff, etc. They have a case with just a small amount of camera gear since it isn't really their focus. I think that is why the prices are so low. They don't realize that an old, but good, manual focus macro lens has new life with mirrorless and adapters. :lol:

User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6679
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby Birma » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:21 am

Sounds like you made some good finds there Henry, especially the macro lens.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:24 pm

bakubo wrote:They also had a Yashica ML 55mm f2.8 macro (manual focus) with original front/rear caps and a Kenko 52mm skylight filter for $5. I looked it over and it looked to be in really good shape so I bought it. I'll buy a cheap ($12 or so) Yashica-to-m4/3 adapter for it. This is a well made metal lens of the old style (probably late 70s or early 80s). For $5 it was a no-brainer. When I got home I did a quick search and it appears to be well regarded:

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=16516
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36311245
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Contax/Yashica_lenses


I received the Yashica-to-m4/3 adapter that I ordered on ebay from a seller in China. Cost $9. Separately I ordered an m4/3 rear lens cap for $1.56 from a different Chinese seller that I could put on it. It turns out that when the adapter arrived it included a rear lens cap already. Oh well, I have an extra now. Both of them look identical to the Olympus m4/3 lens caps I have and they even say Olympus on them. It appears that these are real. The Minolta MC-to-m4/3 adapter I bought last year didn't include a rear cap so I had to buy it separately. I haven't had the chance to try out the Yashica lens yet, but the adapter is well made and the lens mounts on it smoothly.

bakubo wrote:I also bought an old (probably mid-1990s based on the styling) A-mount Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 with original front/rear caps/hood and a Kenko 58mm skylight filter for $3. It also looks to be in good shape. Probably the lens is not so great, but again for $3 why not? I don't have my A700 or A100 here with me in Japan so I can't check to make sure it operates. Maybe I will sell it on ebay/craigslist later after I check it out.


I pulled out my A700 this afternoon and mounted this old Tamron lens. AF works fine, zoom is smooth, no problems. I took 5 shots of various things at different distances outside with it and then took the same 5 shots with my old Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6i. I took 4 of them wide open at 300mm since that is probably the weakest setting for both lenses and 1 at the shortest focal length. From looking at the shots side by side I would say that the Tamron is a bit sharper and has no purple fringing. The Minolta has quite a lot of purple fringing. The Minolta is certainly not a great lens (the Tamron isn't either), but it is small and light and it is the lens my wife likes to use with her A100 on the rare occasions when we are someplace like Yellowstone National Park where there are animals to photograph -- she loves animals. I was planning to give away or sell the Tamron since it only cost me $3, but now I may just keep it for her to use instead of the Minolta. I forgot to take off the protective filter from the Tamron for the test shots, but for the Minolta I didn't forget. I didn't feel like reshooting the Tamron photos. I suppose without the filter it might be slightly better.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:59 pm

bakubo wrote:I suppose we all have fond memories of our first camera. My first camera was a toy 120 film camera that is now known as a Diana, but when I got it in 1967 it was just a cheap plastic toy with no cred at all from the black garbed arteest community. :lol: It was identical to this except it didn't say Diana on the lens and it most certainly wasn't made in China back then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_camera


I just started a thread that includes a photo made in 1968 with my old camera:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8152

bakubo wrote:Another camera I used a bit back at that time was my mother's old Kodak Six-20 Brownie Model C (I think that was the model) that used 620 film. The one she had is the one on the right in the photo below:

http://www.brownie-camera.com/71.shtml

She probably still has it somewhere packed away.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:04 am

bakubo wrote:They also had a Yashica ML 55mm f2.8 macro (manual focus) with original front/rear caps and a Kenko 52mm skylight filter for $5. I looked it over and it looked to be in really good shape so I bought it.

I also bought an old (probably mid-1990s based on the styling) A-mount Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 with original front/rear caps/hood and a Kenko 58mm skylight filter for $3. It also looks to be in good shape.

This shop isn't a camera store, but they have lots of used musical instruments (many, many electric and acoustic guitars), amps, drums, keyboards, old computer stuff, etc. They have a case with just a small amount of camera gear since it isn't really their focus. I think that is why the prices are so low. They don't realize that an old, but good, manual focus macro lens has new life with mirrorless and adapters. :lol:


I stopped in the same shop this morning and checked out what sort of used camera gear they had now. The things that caught my eye in particular were:

- $8 Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO (always thought I would buy one of these, but now no real need for one -- great price!)
- $16 Minolta 75-300mm f4-5.6 big beercan
- $24 Nikon 50mm f1.4 (manual focus version probably from the 1980s because it had the knobby focus ring and no silver aperture tab)
- $16 Minolta SRT-101 + Minolta MC 135mm f2.8 (I think it was the MC version because the styling and the knobby focus ring looked like my Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f1.4)

I don't have my A700 or A100 here with me in Japan and I don't need any lenses, but the $8 Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO was hard to pass up. Didn't buy it though. Probably if asked they would sell the Minolta MC 135mm f2.8 separately for less from the Minolta SRT-101 body.

User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6679
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby Birma » Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:21 am

Certainly seems like a great place for a bargain seond-hand lens. :)
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Signed up awhile ago, but didn't introduce myself

Unread postby bakubo » Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:26 am

I was back in there this morning while my wife was at the supermarket that is nearby.

I see that they now have a Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f1.4 for about $68 along with the Nikon 50mm f1.4 for about $24. Both looked to be in the same condition. Rather surprising that they priced the Minolta so much higher. I have that same Minolta lens that I bought in 1976. This is a rather large shop with all kinds of used stuff so my guess is that they don't know much about camera gear and the pricing is pretty random. Probably whoever takes it in eyeballs it and puts a price tag on it without any research. :lol:

Used gear at real camera shops tend to be priced more consistently and higher.


Return to “Welcome and well met!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron