[TwoUptons]

Indeed, I cannot fathom the current prices for them based on their quality, but the point still stands that at those prices (used mind you) for a second tier camera, the closer we might be than we think to seeing a new film model from someone.

---------- Post added 05-13-22 at 07:55 AM ----------



I had not considered the possibility of a Ricoh 500 or even an Olympus Trip like camera, but now you mention it they may well seem to make more commercial sense:-

1. You get the retro vibes which will appeal to a certain type
2. No need to worry about a lens range, just one of about 40-45mm does for everything and a relatively cheap and slow Tessar design can be of great quality and can appeal to enthusiasts.
3. If one foregoes a rangefinder, a zone focused design would be even cheaper to manufacture.

Personally, using my head rather than my heart, my Olympus 35 RC is the most sensible choice for most of the film photography I currently do. Discreet, small and compact, a great little lens, reliable and looks dead cool. I still enjoy my stupidly large range of SLRs too much though!

I suppose if you wanted to, you could do the old Kodak Retina style interchangeable front lens elements...

It would give some level of interchangeable lenses with lower size/complexity requirements...

-Eric

[BigMackCam]

I suppose if you wanted to, you could do the old Kodak Retina style interchangeable front lens elements...

It would give some level of interchangeable lenses with lower size/complexity requirements...

-Eric

A lot of folks forget that the Argus C3 was an ILC. It would be a perfect candidate for re-manufacture, given the simplicity of design. Chould be relatively inexpensive to produce, too, depending on the materials used...

[TwoUptons]

A lot of folks forget that the Argus C3 was an ILC. It would be a perfect candidate for re-manufacture, given the simplicity of design. Chould be relatively inexpensive to produce, too, depending on the materials used...

I've had a couple C3s. Please, no.

Their charm is in their age "can you believe people used to shoot with these on a regular basis?" and their ability to make my Fed 2 look and feel modern.

At least when I use one of my Retinas, the trade for the weird loading/winding, backwards film counter, and coupled exposure is really good pictures

That said, I have an early, modified C4 with a wide angle lens that's actually pretty good... now if I could just get the shutter to keep working...

If I was going to update a compact, I think the best choice would be something with a bit more room and flexibility than a Stylus/mju.
One of the more grown-up rangefinders. Like a Minolta HiMatic.
If you wanted to be extra-hip, you could throw in a 1/2.3" sensor as the light meter, add a touch of processing and a micro-SD card slot and have yourself a hybrid camera... every time you take a film photo, it does a digital one, too... with a tiny lens with the same field of view, it would even let you have EXIF...
And you could still add the front lens converters to get a little wide or a little telephoto...

-Eric

[BigMackCam]

I've had a couple C3s. Please, no.

Their charm is in their age "can you believe people used to shoot with these on a regular basis?"

At least when I use one of my Retinas, the trade for the weird loading/winding, backwards film counter, and coupled exposure is really good pictures

That said, I have an early, modified C4 with a wide angle lens that's actually pretty good... now if I could just get the shutter to keep working...

-Eric

It just goes to show how personal and subjective these things are... I love my C3

[TwoUptons]

It just goes to show how personal and subjective these things are... I love my C3

Ha. Indeed

Have you ever tried a Kodak 35 RF?
There's another one I can't stand... though that's more because they took a decent zone focusing camera and bolted the world's most ridiculous rangefinder coupling system to it...

-Eric

[BigMackCam]

Ha. Indeed

I do get why some (many?) folks might not like the C3... it's a chunky, sharp-cornered, boxy old thing for what it does, and pretty clunky... but the Cintar 3.5/50 triplet is actually decent, IMHO, and I really like the bakelite + metal build quality (I could live without the chromed metal frame trim, but it has a certain 1950s American automobile-style charm to it ). I particularly like its mechanical simplicity, and the fact that in the event of problems, it can be adjusted and serviced with a small flat-blade screwdriver, perhaps some basic cleaning / lubricating materials and a little bit of ingenuity. It's a genuinely field-repairable camera... Not many of those around, especially where shutter mechanisms are concerned

https://arguscg.org/manuals/c3/army-repair/

Have you ever tried a Kodak 35 RF?
There's another one I can't stand... though that's more because they took a decent zone focusing camera and bolted the world's most ridiculous rangefinder coupling system to it...

Oh my... I'd never even heard of that 'til you mentioned it. Just looked it up on the web... It's ... er... interesting, isn't it? Similar coupling idea to the C3, I suppose, but not a good look I guess these crude coupling mechanisms only worked because of the relatively slow lenses. There was enough depth-of-field even at maximum aperture to allow for the inherent "slop" in the coupling...

[CaT_atomic]

Next year, for the first time since 2007, I will have more B&W film photo students than digital photography students in my high school classes.
As used 35mm SLRs become harder to acquire and more expensive, I wish one of the 2,668 billionaires in the world would have a pet project to revive one model of a film SLR.

I think important attributes include an entry level price and compatible with legacy lenses. Manual focus would keep the cost down but auto focus could be enticing for DSLR owners wanting to try (or return to) film.

Top of my wish list would be any of these models in this order:
a) Pentax KX
b) Nikon FM2n or F100 for AF
c) Canon AE-1 Program or EOS Rebel Ti for AF
d) Minolta SRT-202 or X700

Realistically it would be a more innovative camera company like Fujifilm with a stake in film. At one time, they had the license to use the F mount on their branded DSLRs.

What model would top your list and why? What model could actually succeed to be followed by some competitors?

I think i'd really like to see a successor to the *ist, mz-s or mz-m. Although my two favorites are the PZ-1P and SuperA.

[pepitajack]

Pentax mx with smoother shutter speed dial

[martin42mm]

To confirm that there are plenty of decent Pentax mechanical cameras out there, I have just bought a Spotmatic, fitted with optional flash shoe, Takumar 55mm Super Multicoated Takumar f2 ( open-aperture metering version 3), and original leather case, all for £25, fully working. At a camera fair! And a Pentax KX body only, again fully working, for £10. Why pay silly money for a modern 'revival' SLR when you can get well-built, reliable Pentax cameras for these prices, even today.

[BigMackCam]

To confirm that there are plenty of decent Pentax mechanical cameras out there, I have just bought a Spotmatic, fitted with optional flash shoe, Takumar 55mm Super Multicoated Takumar f2 ( open-aperture metering version 3), and original leather case, all for £25, fully working. At a camera fair! And a Pentax KX body only, again fully working, for £10. Why pay silly money for a modern 'revival' SLR when you can get well-built, reliable Pentax cameras for these prices, even today.

Fundamentally, I agree with you... but there are, I think, some points to consider:

- There are plenty of non- or partially-working cameras on the market that are claimed to be "fully working"
- External condition doesn't necessarily reflect internal condition (I've had two SLRs that looked great externally that had considerable component and PCB corrosion internally)
- Many older mechanical cameras - including those that are "fully working", and even collector-grade "mint / unused" examples - require some maintenance to make them "perfect", be it new light seals, mirror buffer foam, adjustment / re-lube / minor repairs
- Many folks don't have the skills and/or time to carry out maintenance
- Folks that don't have either the time or the skills don't have the time to learn those skills
- Yes, you can send a camera to a service technician, but reputable / reliable sources are becoming less prevalent, and more expensive
- Some folks just want the pleasure and convenience of a shiny, new, fully sorted camera that will give years of service without the need for intervention

I love vintage gear, I'm a big believer in using what's already available, and it's certainly possible to find bargains that require no work and will provide years of service - but this is by no means guaranteed (not to the same extent as buying a new, recently-manufactured camera off-the-shelf)... and it can be a minefield for the inexperienced and uninformed buyer.

Hands up anyone here that's bought a used camera, lens or accessory that turned out to be faulty in some way?

[martin42mm]

Fundamentally, I agree with you... but there are, I think, some points to consider:

- There are plenty of non- or partially-working cameras on the market that are claimed to be "fully working"
- External condition doesn't necessarily reflect internal condition (I've had two SLRs that looked great externally that had considerable component and PCB corrosion internally)
- Many older mechanical cameras - including those that are "fully working", and even collector-grade "mint / unused" examples - require some maintenance to make them "perfect", be it new light seals, mirror buffer foam, adjustment / re-lube / minor repairs
- Many folks don't have the skills and/or time to carry out maintenance
- Folks that don't have either the time or the skills don't have the time to learn those skills
- Yes, you can send a camera to a service technician, but reputable / reliable sources are becoming less prevalent, and more expensive
- Some folks just want the pleasure and convenience of a shiny, new, fully sorted camera that will give years of service without the need for intervention

I love vintage gear, I'm a big believer in using what's already available, and it's certainly possible to find bargains that require no work and will provide years of service - but this is by no means guaranteed (not to the same extent as buying a new, recently-manufactured camera off-the-shelf)... and it can be a minefield for the inexperienced and uninformed buyer.

Hands up anyone here that's bought a used camera, lens or accessory that turned out to be faulty in some way?

As one of the dying breed of repairers ( mainly for myself and camera-dealer friends,so no outrageous charges!) of mainly mechanical cameras and lenses, despite having bought, collected and used hundreds of Pentax mechanical cameras for almost 50 years, I can honestly say that the number of 'repairs' I have had to do to these very reliable cameras has been minimal. In general, providing the blinds are still light-tight, the only attention needed is the occasional tweak to blind tension to cure shutter capping at 1/1000 and occasionally 1/500 speeds, or where a slight increase in the second blind tension is needed to ensure the blind completes its travel allowing the mirror to drop on completion of the cycle. Where the camera is a metered one, all that is usually required is cleaning of battery contacts, or sometimes where corrosion has set in, replacement of the wire from the battery compartment.( If the battery has leaked, occasionally it is difficult to remove the battery cover and that does need care to do it correctly without damage to the baseplate.) Even the need for lubricant has been minimal, and I cannot honestly recall a single instance where the slow speeds on ANY Pentax mechanical camera have ever needed attention, apart from the second blind not completing its travel as previously mentioned. I have never had to replace a deteriorated prism, accidental damage being an exception, of course, and even the light-traps in the back of the camera tend to deteriorate less than many other makes, the only potential issue being the foam that acts as a buffer to the mirror, easily replaced.
As I said, providing the blinds have not deteriorated ( only had to do that once to a Pentax, a model S where the rubberised backing had cracked through long exposure to sunlight/excessive heat), and the silvering on the mirror has not been cleaned excessively, you will not find a more reliable mechanical camera than any Pentax model from the first 'AP' pentaprism camera, through the Spotmatics , KX , KM, K1000 etc, until the LX. The only model I have ever found slightly fragile has been the MX, mainly caused by the cords for the shutter blinds occasionally falling off the pulleys, which can be fixed, but is a long task, and involves considerable dismantling, desoldering/soldering, and reassembly. I'm still puzzled why they used cords instead of the tried and tested tapes as used in the previous horizontal shutter cameras, but it was not a wise move! A word of warning regarding the MX in relation to those displaced cords.This seems to be when someone has- for whatever reason-excessively reduced/removed the tension in one or more shutter-blinds, which immediately causes the cord(s) to drop from the pulley(s)! If you do it with any camera fitted with taped blinds you will get away with it, but NOT with the MX. This does not affect any tension adjustment that might be needed because of capping because tension should never be reduced sufficiently to allow the blind cords to go slack.


I definitely agree that some sellers do look at their cameras through rose-tinted specs, but these tend to be more the collector looking to thin their collection of often rarely-'exercised' cameras rather than the professional camera dealer who always endeavours to keep a good reputation and usually uses a more realistic assement of what they are selling. The Pentax S I mentioned earlier was a good case in point, the seller being a collector, and a member of the PCCGB ( as I am ), who was outraged to be told his precious baby had see-through shutter blinds. He still insisted, despite seeing the evidence to the contrary, that the camera was fully working as he had described it, despite the less than light tight blinds! Sometimes you cannot remove that rosy glow from people's vision, but they certainly do not get repeat custom from me.

I agree that there is a certain degree of skill involved in camera maintenance, but with a decent set of screw-drivers and additional minimal tools, care and patience, it is not an onerous undertaking that soon becomes second-nature. There are a number of camera repair/maintenance manuals out there that help, Thomas Tomosy's books being a sound recommendation.

One final thought. If a mechanical camera is going to fail through a manufacturing fault, that will show up very soon after purchase. Given the age of most mechanical Pentaxes, that is no longer an issue, and their bulid-quality is such that wear has never been an issue in my experience, even on the most battered and hard-used cameras. It would be wonderful if modern DLSRs were as reliable, but that is never going to happen given their complexity and the inevitable deterioration over time of electronic components.

[Alex645]

Sticker shock as to the price of a roll of 35mm color film. Thank goodness inflation, supply chain issues, whatever to blame, hasn't hit black & white like color.
All this to say, I'm hoping it's darkest before the dawn.....

[steephill]

Do the Chinese not still make K1000 clone variants?

From Pentax K 1975-1997 - www.pentax-slr.com
"When the production of the K1000 was moved to China, the Ming Camera factory was chosen. Pentax put up their machines there and they did the job from 1990 till 1997. As Pentax was discontinuing this model, they sold all the machines to Ming. And soon after, this model turned up, the Mingca MC K1000. A big seller in China but extremely rare over here. A reader has informed me that other names were used for this camera:Luxor Super 1000, Maginon K 1000, Optium MC K 1000 and Spender FMC-970. All produced with the former Pentax machinery."

[BigMackCam]

Do the Chinese not still make K1000 clone variants?

If they did, I'm sure we'd see new / unused examples turning up on eBay... and I don't see any recently-manufactured new - or even new / old stock - SLRs there. The last K-mount SLR I was able to buy as new / old-stock was a Cosina C1s a few years back... basic, yet capable enough as an all-manual camera, but almost entirely plastic - and they're not known for their longevity and/or reliability. Mine is fine thus far, but that's probably because it's only had a test roll through it. If and when I start to use it in anger, I don't expect a long service life from it

[house]

It seems to me that the masses of metal only, dirt cheap, chinese lenses suggest that the cost of metal build isn't such a huge issue anymore? Metal seems to be more of a branding choice rather than function or cost? A bit of an issue for Pentax as it places the Limiteds in the company of the cheapest lenses and shows that the metal casing isn't playing a part in the pricing. (dfa100 already showed that though)

I just don't think the casing would be driving the cost. Durability of the internals certainly would.