[lesmore49]

What camera(s) did you try, really like, but not buy + why ?

I tried a few. The ones that stick out in my mind are two. One was a Pentax 6X7, with a rosewood handle and the 90mm Leaf Shutter lens. It was the late 1980s and was thinking about getting into medium format. I had bought a Yashicamat TLR, which was fine, but I wanted to check out the big Pentax.

BTW, talk about tactile feel and ergonomic design plus...that Pentax Rosewood handle was and has been the top grip in my experience.

I rented it for a weekend and went through a lot of rolls of film. I photographed relatives and friends..portraits a specialty...as it were. It was a wonderful camera. The negs were big, the developed pics were exceptional. The cost, at that time was too much for my budget ...our family was very young at the time. I eventually got a Mamiya 220 Pro F 6 X 6 and that has been a very good medium format.

Another in the '80's, this time mid '80's and before we had our family was a Leica M4 Rangefinder (if my memory is correct) and a Leica 28, 50 and 90. It was part of a Leica promotion at the time and I was able to borrow this equipment for a weekend.

Again as I did with the 6X7 I went through a lot of rolls of film and photographed everybody and everything. What wonderful equipment was this Leica system. Like the Pentax 6X7 I was smitten and thought of ways and means to buy this Leica and lenses. I didn't . Budget considerations.

At the time I had my Pentax bodies...S1a, ES ll, wife's K1000 and a few assorted lenses.

Along with all the pics I snapped...I also did a casual comparison between the Leica and 50/90 and my ES ll and Takumar 50 F 1.8/ 135 F 3.5 lenses. I found that I couldn't tell ...at least at the 5 X 7 and 8 X 10 size prints ...really any difference in quality, etc. That confirmed to me, what I probably had suspected for many a year previously..Pentax and Takumar stuff is no slouch in the quality department.

But I did have the Leica 'want', even if I didn't have the Leica 'need'. Funny how that works, isn't it...so much stuff we get, we don't need. But I digress. BTW, even before I tested all that Leica stuff out, I had an old, somewhat beat up Leica RF (1951 model) that I still have, that still works well. Not a high status Leica, but a good, all around worker Leica.

So back to the original question at hand.....What camera(s) did you try, really like, but not buy + why ?

[Wasp]

I haven't had the pleasure of test driving cameras like you described, but I can relate a couple of cameras that I owned for a short time.

The first was a Pentax MX. I bought it used. It was just wonderful but then I got a good deal on an LX, so I sold it. In retrospect I should have kept it as a second camera. I ended up buying a Super A (a.k.a. Super Program) for that purpose. The all mechanical shutter on the MX still makes it sought after, even today.

The second was a Hasselblad 500C with 120mm f/5.6 S-Planar macro lens. I didn't have it for long, but did some marvelous monochrome work with it. Those big negatives were a step up from 35mm. It was sold to finance a Pentax A 400mm f/5.6, which I needed/wanted for sports photography. It served me well and I still have it.

I do have a Hasselblad 500C/M with an 80mm f/2.8 Planar now but it is not in use. I would love to do monochrome again. I believe that an old school print has something intangible that is missing from a digital image printed on a machine. Setting up a darkroom all over again is not a priority, even though I still have almost all the gear needed for that. Some chemicals and bottles to put them into is about all I need. Perhaps a darkroom timer, but I managed without one so far, hehehe. Finding the time and space is another matter.

A digital back for the Hasselblad would be nice, but the prices makes my eyes water. About the only ones remotely affordable are first generation that need to be tethered to a computer to work. Who needs junk like that?. Anything later and we are talking K-1 prices.