[andrewd]

But do I really need an FM2T just for the T. . .

With your collection I don’t think you ‘need’ any new cameras

However the natural titanium FM2T does look stunning. I have read some reviews that say that the FM2T operates more smoothly than a standard FM2. It has the same internal parts, but there is a theory that Nikon paid more attention to matching the tolerances of the mechanical parts. I have not tried one so can’t confirm. The film transport on my FM2n is a bit rough even after service.

[thatcameraguy]

Here's a nice Spotmatic SP II black over bronze. The bronze goes well with the thoriated 1:1.4 /50. This is a SP II with real "battle scars"
This has become quite fashionable lately to such extend that Leica has made a "special" black M version with the worn look straight out of the factory for wich has to be paid a lot extra.
Now Leica isn't the only one pulling this stunt as there's allso a new Fender Stratocaster guitar that looks like it has been on tour for 50 years, for those guitar players seeking for some more credebility.
Anyway this SP despite the looks still works fine and teams up nicely with some vintage takumar glass.

[WPRESTO]

These four are to me the most important classic cameras. I know there are lots of other important classics in all periods of photography but these are the ones wich were launched in my young age and i throughout the years still admire.

My interest in photography was developing when each of those cameras was introduced and reined for years as "best of the kind." Not one of them was vaguely within my budget at that time, nor when more advanced models replaced each of them or the model was retired. I agree totally, those are serious iconic and important cameras, among the most important cameras since the end of WWII. Going earlier, you would be obliged to include the absurdly simple Kodak Brownie which together with its successors brought the pleasure of photography to uncounted tens of millions of people.

[TwoUptons]

Good point that the Asahiflex Ia has two means of viewing but I suppose they are different to the Ricoh where both are through the lens while the eyelevel finder in the Asahiflex is a rangefinder - labeled Galilean eye-level? Can't say I've seen that designation before. Is that the little finder used on telescopes?

On a lot of compacts, I've read the viewfinder described as "reverse Galilean". I wonder if that just means it is a wide angle version of a telescope (whatever that would be called) since presumably the Galilean would be the way Galileo made his moon-spotting tool.

My Rolleiflex has a waist-level finder with an extra mirror and lens that can be deployed as an eye-level finder.
It's a neat trick, but there's a purpose for real prisms

-Eric

[WPRESTO]

Here's a nice Spotmatic SP II black over bronze. The bronze goes well with the thoriated 1:1.4 /50. This is a SP II with real "battle scars"
This has become quite fashionable lately to such extend that Leica has made a "special" black M version with the worn look straight out of the factory for wich has to be paid a lot extra.
Now Leica isn't the only one pulling this stunt as there's allso a new Fender Stratocaster guitar that looks like it has been on tour for 50 years, for those guitar players seeking for some more credebility.
Anyway this SP despite the looks still works fine and teams up nicely with some vintage takumar glass.

That reminds me on the incomprehensible craze that raged in Japan for naturally worn, scuffed and torn Levi blue jeans. As I remember, prices easily surpassed brand-new jeans.

[TwoUptons]

A while back: Gear P0rn - post it if you got it. - Page 539 - PentaxForums.com

I mentioned the Auto-Up Super Nooky I got for my Kodak Retina.
It's basically a close-up lens matched to the camera attached to a similar close-up lens matched to the rangefinder...
The idea is that focusing the rangefinder through the close-up lens corrects the parallax used by the rangefinder at the same rate as the focus on the taking lens.

I tried it on a pre-war Retina I have with the f2.0 lens, but I didn't have great luck (there were some wildly expired film issues there, too).

I recently got my Retina IIc back from service and gave it a try, with much better results. Fresh Ektar and the coated f2.8 lens probably helped.

Here's an example that sums it up pretty well...



The big two things two notice is that the focus is off... and the framing is not quite right... so it isn't perfect.
I'll note this was handheld at f4 or 5.6, so not ideal conditions for macro with a vintage rangefinder.
The focus may have been me... leaning over like that handheld I probably wavered the half-centimeter or so of the missed focus...
The framing also needs to be corrected a bit... the Super-Nooky does not completely fix that.

But it's sharp enough, and everything else works... so I'll give it another try on the next roll.

-Eric

[richard0170]

But do I really need an FM2T just for the T. . .

You don't get it just for the T. First off you get the blingy champagne colour. Then, and more importantly, Nikon spent some effort refining the mechanics. The T is noticeably smoother in operation than the FM2n. Butkus mentions this and he is correct. My T is definitely more refined than either of the 2n's I have owned. Also, T's are rare and usually in better cosmetic condition than FM2's, as they were bought largely by discerning enthusiasts rather than pro's and generally have had a cossetted life.
Compared to the price of a FM3a I reckon they represent good value.

[LesDMess]

With your collection I don’t think you ‘need’ any new cameras

However the natural titanium FM2T does look stunning. I have read some reviews that say that the FM2T operates more smoothly than a standard FM2. It has the same internal parts, but there is a theory that Nikon paid more attention to matching the tolerances of the mechanical parts. I have not tried one so can’t confirm. The film transport on my FM2n is a bit rough even after service.

You don't get it just for the T. First off you get the blingy champagne colour. Then, and more importantly, Nikon spent some effort refining the mechanics. The T is noticeably smoother in operation than the FM2n. Butkus mentions this and he is correct. My T is definitely more refined than either of the 2n's I have owned. Also, T's are rare and usually in better cosmetic condition than FM2's, as they were bought largely by discerning enthusiasts rather than pro's and generally have had a cossetted life.
Compared to the price of a FM3a I reckon they represent good value.

I was being facetious of course but I do understand the value of using titanium. Most all my acquisitions are driven by the deal - and notable features, so if I come across one for a good offer I can't resist . . .

For me, the value of the FM3A goes above the intrinsic because it's the only camera ever made that has aperture priority - and other battery dependent features, but yet has all it's shutter speeds available when batteries die.

[richard0170]

For me, the value of the FM3A goes above the intrinsic because it's the only camera ever made that has aperture priority - and other battery dependent features, but yet has all it's shutter speeds available when batteries die.

I am certainly not going to disagree with you about this, I am saying more that there is a case for paying more for a T over an FM2, and less than you would pay for a FM3A. If of course you don't mind the simpler viewfinder and the lack of AE priority.

[LesDMess]

I am certainly not going to disagree with you about this, I am saying more that there is a case for paying more for a T over an FM2, and less than you would pay for a FM3A. If of course you don't mind the simpler viewfinder and the lack of AE priority.

I was always under the impression the FM2Ts are more expensive? Checking on sold listings on auction seems to confirm that. If one didn't already have both - or already have an FM2 looking for the next acquisition, the deciding factors may be different.

If by smoothness you mean the film advance, then you have to experience the Minolta XE-7 - if you haven't yet, as it encourages you to shoot more film! Smoothest in my collection!

[tuco]

Rainy day camera p0rn. I still take a lot of pictures with these two cameras.


Pentax 67 by tuco, on Flickr



Hasselblad 500C/M by tuco, on Flickr

[Smolk]

Rainy day camera p0rn. I still take a lot of pictures with these two cameras.


Pentax 67 by tuco, on Flickr



Hasselblad 500C/M by tuco, on Flickr

I can imagine, lovely sets, the pleasure of using them must be great.

[rjm007]

Here's a nice Spotmatic SP II black over bronze. The bronze goes well with the thoriated 1:1.4 /50. This is a SP II with real "battle scars"
This has become quite fashionable lately to such extend that Leica has made a "special" black M version with the worn look straight out of the factory for wich has to be paid a lot extra.
Now Leica isn't the only one pulling this stunt as there's allso a new Fender Stratocaster guitar that looks like it has been on tour for 50 years, for those guitar players seeking for some more credebility.
Anyway this SP despite the looks still works fine and teams up nicely with some vintage takumar glass.

I'd love one with that patina. I have a black SP which someone seems to have looked after over the years which is a shame :-)

[thatcameraguy]

I think I have a problem, this looks normal to me, lovely collection you have

To my shame even though there's 50+ pentaxes in the collection i never used one. I do use some of the digital K series occasionally but that's a different story

[tuco]

I can imagine, lovely sets, the pleasure of using them must be great.

Yes they are still fun and challenging to use.