[jtkratzer]

I don't know the answer for the Fuji lenses.

If the they (presumed Pentax revamped FA Limited) aren't mechanical aperture rings I have to question the real value of having them at all. Maybe I'm missing something?

I'm of two minds here. The 43 is, what, a 1997 design? At what point is that just too old to keep making as the world has changed? OTOH messing with the limiteds AT ALL has a very high probability to remove whatever makes them exceptional.

The only reason I want aperture rings on my lenses, and I don't mean the electronic type, is to make them usable on film bodies, as in the old manual film bodies. I don't care about some high tech attempt at retro with electronic aperture rings. To me, that's pointless. The aperture is adjustable on with the dial at my thumb without having to change my grip.

[Jamey777]

I love the fact that I can simply take my old K24 2.8, line up the infinity symbol to the 16 (or whatever I am shooting) and know that everything between 2 feet and infinity will be in focus.

Distance scales and long throw focus for the win!!!!

[Beaugrand]

I have a Program Plus and an ME Super (actually, I've got 2 of each, but the other 2 have issues). Altogether, I have over a dozen working K-mount bodies by Pentax, Ricoh, Sears, and I believe I have a K-mount Chinon somewhere. I've actually just acquired a Spotmatic that's in excellent shape.

I love shooting with film. I always have, especially manual 35mm SLRs. I learned to take pictures with a Kodak Duaflex, and the 35mm SLR gave me such a wider range of shooting options.

Here's the thing: I was recently in a minor traffic accident. I stopped, she stopped, we exchanged insurance information, and I pulled out my cell phone and began taking pictures of the damage to both vehicles, and subtly, the other driver. In less than 3 or 4 minutes I had sent the pictures to my insurance agent.

You can't do that with film. Period. Digital is here to stay, and it's only going to get better.

I love shooting with film. I will miss it when it's gone.

[gofour3]

Digital is here to stay, and it's only going to get better.

So is film. The new film emulsions released in the last few years are a lot better than what was available 20 years ago.

Film is also changing for the better and is here to stay.

Phil

[grhazelton]

I use both film and digital. Now I ask: What digital camera will be a collector's item in 50 years, assuming it still works? I have several film cameras, all working, which are collector's items, both in functionality and sheer mechanical beauty. Zeiss Ikon Contessa 35. Wonderful fit and finish, sharp f2.8 Tessar. Kodak Retina IIIc. f2 Heligon. Fit and finish not the equal of the Contessa, but a better "user" And a Voigtlander Vitessa L with sharp f2 Ultron. Its fit and finish are unrivaled by contemporary cameras, except perhaps Leica. It is a wonderful user camera, the best of these three, although care must be taken. While all three have built in selenium cell meters, only the Vitessa is useable, and it,s inconvenient. But the vital parts can be repaired as need be on all three.

More contemporary stuff, my LX has a feel which my K 5 doesn't. The heft of its metal body, smooth controls, and that viewfinder. Plus an unequaled exposure system, and interchangeable view finders and screens. My wife's old Bernina sewing machine has these attributes, all metal and with a periodic CLA her machine is good to go. All mechanical, no electronics.

[drei3]

Now I ask: What digital camera will be a collector's item in 50 years, assuming it still works?

Probably the Epson R-D1 Hard to find now.

[Nuff]

Probably the Epson R-D1 Hard to find now.

Maybe, or ricoh GR, the first ones. But really, I don't think that even the digital leicas will become collectible. They are going to become obsolete electronics.

[Beaugrand]

In 50 years, I'll be long dead, barring some miraculous medical breakthrough that triples lifespan. I won't care what's going to be collectible after I'm dead.

1964 was 50 years ago. What artifacts from 1964 are collectible?

Is a Kodak Instamatic "collectible?" I'd have to say no. They weren't remarkable then (NONE of them), and they made tons of them, and still today tons of them survive. What cameras from 1964 are collectible? The good ones. The ones that were made in smaller numbers because they were too expensive for the mass market. The ones that worked really well. The ones that were so good, so expensive that only professionals could afford them; and because professionals used them, most of them are used up- making them rare.

I just got my third Canon A-1. This is a camera that I lusted for 30 some years ago, but couldn't afford, so I got a Ricoh-made Sears KSX instead. The A-1 isn't difficult to find now at a decent price. It's more common and usually cheaper than an AE-1, which preceded it by a couple years. The AE-1 is a camera that was used a lot. Many A-1 owners never actually used theirs much. That's my theory, anyway.

What I would like, and still can't really afford, is a Canon F1. That's because it was a professional camera. a sturdy tool that many photographers used and used and used. Most on the market now are pretty beat up- and still command high prices. I suspect a never-used F-1 in pristine condition could probably fetch $1,000; but you'll never find one.

Which of today's cameras will be collectible in 50 years? The good ones. The ones that are made in smaller numbers because they're too expensive for the mass market. The ones that work really well. The ones that are so good, so expensive that only professionals can afford them; and because professionals use them, most of them will be used up- making them rare.

An electronic camera that's approaching 40, that probably will be collectible in 10 or 15 years' time, is the Sony Mavica, the one that recorded an analog file on a 2" video floppy.
The first digital Mavica, the one that stored images on a 3½" floppy may also be collectible shortly.

[Simian Summit]

Oh I like the ME too

What can't they make a dSLR that's as fun to use ?

Not to be the contraian, but this is what has me so excited abput Fuji's new cameras. Sure they are computers that still encourage chimping, bit at least they're small and has a shutter speed dial on one side and you adjust the aperature on the lens...just like a REAL camera.

[stevebrot]

Is a Kodak Instamatic "collectible?" I'd have to say no.

Surely you jest! You underestimate the desire to collect!

As for only the best and most exclusive 1964 cameras being worth collecting, my FED-2 (ca. 1964) is blushing. Yes, people collect FEDs, but I never considered that might be an indication they are exceptional cameras.

I am just making fun, of course.

It is one of my opinions (and have many opinions) that the only digital cameras of today that will be collectible in the future will be those that have escaped the landfill.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-02-14 at 08:40 AM ----------

The A-1 isn't difficult to find now at a decent price. It's more common and usually cheaper than an AE-1, which preceded it by a couple years. The AE-1 is a camera that was used a lot. Many A-1 owners never actually used theirs much. That's my theory, anyway.

It is my understanding that despite a much higher production volume relative to the A-1, relatively few AE-1 survive today due to quality issues and fatal failure. (See landfill hypothesis above.) I had the pleasure of shooting an A-1 several months ago. It is a nice camera.


Steve

[dubiousone]

In late December I started using my 33-year-old K1000 again after a few years of shooting almost entirely digitally. When I finally picked up my DSLR after a six week break, I found it unbearable to use. The DSLR puts far too many technological barriers between me and the photo that I can see in my mind’s eye. Every shot, even with fully manual focus and exposure, feels like a battle against the camera’s electronics. The K1000 hasn’t got any electronics, and so it imposes no barriers at all between me and the photo I want to take. It does exactly what a camera needs to do, and not one damn thing more.

So now the DSLR is relegated to wet weather point-and-shoot, and the K1000 is my main camera again. It feels like having a lost limb reattached.

Well said!
My first camera was a Mamiya DTL 1000 because I made a buck ten an hour and couldn't afford a Pentax! That Mamiya is long gone but I have the second I ever bought a Canon A-1 from the Army PX in Germany (Federal Republic of) in 1979. Over the years I put a lot of film through that Canon and towards the mid-2000's I switched to digital with a Canon Powershot. It wasn't until I realized how crummy those P&S cameras were that I started looking for a DSLR. Having gotten away from photography except for snapshots it took me a while to decide on which camera and I finally went with a Nikon D50 (I felt more confortable learning on a camera that had a minimum of whiz-bang-new-hottest features) followed shortly thereafter by a Pentax K100D. The same day I bought that D50 a Mamiya 500TL and Pentax K1000SE followed me home ! Next thing you know I have drawers of lenses and film cameras, Pentax, Canon and of course Nikon. Each is special in their own way and I've managed to find my way back to photography as a hobby rather than just snapshots.

I have some film auto-focus cameras and like their big sister DSLR's that can be quite handy when a 'snap shot' avails itself. But nothing compares to using one of my film cameras, manual everything where every part of the shot must be evaluated before the shutter goes and nothing is as satisfying as taking that shot and seeing it come out as intended. I'm not a bracket type of fellow, take three of something hoping one comes out right nor am I a post-process guy. I try to get it right in the camera first time and I've discovered the journey is as much (more) fun and satisfying than the destination!

---------- Post added 08-02-14 at 09:19 AM ----------

Surely you jest! You underestimate the desire to collect!

As for only the best and most exclusive 1964 cameras being worth collecting, my FED-2 (ca. 1964) is blushing. Yes, people collect FEDs, but I never considered that might be an indication they are exceptional cameras.

I am just making fun, of course.

It is one of my opinions (and have many opinions) that the only digital cameras of today that will be collectible in the future will be those that have escaped the landfill.


Steve

---------- Post added 08-02-14 at 08:40 AM ----------



It is my understanding that despite a much higher production volume relative to the A-1, relatively few AE-1 survive today due to quality issues and fatal failure. (See landfill hypothesis above.) I had the pleasure of shooting an A-1 several months ago. It is a nice camera.


Steve

On some auction sites AE-1's and AE-1 Programs are really common. I've seen camera/ lens combos go for anywhere from $20 to near $100. (Some of the people bidding are, put nicely, a bit cracked for the prices they are willing to pay) A-1's seem less common but still easily obtainable. Perhaps people really did find the LED viewfinder obnoxious. I happen to like it though the FE/FE2 match needle is still my second favorite next to the K1000 style needle. The AE-1/P takes some getting used to; it's not a meter really, it just shows what aperture the camera suggests/wants to use. The negative for me is there is no shutter speed in the viewfinder and with the Program, set on P you have no idea what shutter speed the camera is using. Me no likee. However, I still have six (I know I got a few more around here, lol) and I enjoy using them.

Like any mechanical device the AE series (including the A-1) has some quirks and weak spots. Shutter flywheel squeak to name one and some of mine were good to go even (apparently) sitting in a closet for 20+ years after some light TLC. Others needed a little more and my favorites go to my camera guys for a CLA like all my others. (Someday I'll send that Super Program I have sitting here to Eric...been meaning to do that) and why would I spend $100+ on a 20 dollar camera? Same reason I spent probably three times what I paid for my 1985 Ford repairing it over the almost 30 years I owned it!

[stevebrot]

On some auction sites AE-1's and AE-1 Programs are really common.

Definitely! That is why I waffled and said "relatively".* Canon made and sold millions of those cameras.


Steve

* ...always careful to use waffle words...

[Eyewanders]

Not to be the contraian, but this is what has me so excited abput Fuji's new cameras. Sure they are computers that still encourage chimping, bit at least they're small and has a shutter speed dial on one side and you adjust the aperature on the lens...just like a REAL camera.

I nearly succumbed to that darn Fuji, but I held my breath and I'm glad. Truth and fact is that I already have enough cameras that are fun to use which are not computers with tiny viewfinders.

My poor K3 just sits around waiting for downpours and otherwise crappy weather, while my analogue friends enjoy my devotion. No signs of change.
Even the GR has been a bit sad watching me pick up the GR1s quite regularly.

[Craftsman]

I just yesterday bought two Pentax ES 11's on eBay. They are said to be "unused" since purchased new. One Chrome and one Black. Here's a picture of the two. Two weeks before I picked up a Black mint Pentax Spotmatic SP. These will compliment my two MX 's, Black and Chrome and both in Mint condition. I'll use all of them but I also use
a K 7 too. There truly is just something about shooting film that's different than shooting digital.

[gofour3]

I just yesterday bought two Pentax ES 11's on eBay. They are said to be "unused" since purchased new. One Chrome and one Black. Here's a picture of the two. Two weeks before I picked up a Black mint Pentax Spotmatic SP. These will compliment my two MX 's, Black and Chrome and both in Mint condition. I'll use all of them but I also use
a K 7 too. There truly is just something about shooting film that's different than shooting digital.

Nice you don't see the chrome ESII very often.

Phil.