Pro vs Prosumer

[Jonathan Ribee]

Fishies,

Do I need a Contax TVS II as a carry-around camera?

I've wanted one for years and reckon they ought be be affordable, now that film is out of fashion.

Joe

also available in pink

 

[matthewr]

Just to clarify, I wasn't for one moment suggesting that Concrete "needs" to get an SLR or anything like that and I can certainly understand why someone would not want anythign to do with one, as they tend ot be big, over complicated and stupid (technical term).

Indeed I do very much agree that these things should be "picture led" and if photographers in general were less gear obsessive and more interested in pictures they would be a generally less boring and uselss bunch.

 

[Joe P]

Yes, yes, Matthew, but do I need a TVS II in pink?

Joe

 

[matthewr]

Would Vuk's withering stare be worth it?

 

[Joe P]

Matthew,

They seem to come only in titanium, and I've yet to see one secondhand, so it's rather moot, but I would like to have a cheap but good pocketable camera that's carried everywhere. Any suggestions?

Joe

 

[sideshowbob]

Olympus 35 RC - great fixed 42mm lens, rangefinder, meter, dirt cheap.

-- Ian

 

[Joe P]

Ian,

Cheers. I'll have a look the next time I'm in a camera shop, as I really don't want to spend a lot.

I was hoping that something along the lines of the Contax TVS or Nikon 35Ti, the latter for the funky analogue meter alone, would be cheap now, but the collectors have kept the prices high. The Nikon seem to fetch around $400 in good shape, which is $300 more than I care to spend.

Joe

 

[sideshowbob]

The Olympus is cuter, although I do like that meter.

In the UK about £35. No idea what that is in Canuck dollars. About a meelion, probably.

-- Ian

 

[andc]

Joe,
I was going to suggest a Ricoh GR1/S/V but they've probably held their value fairly well too.

andy

edit: for cheap could do a lot worse than an Olympus mju or Yashica T4.

Cheers. I'll have a look the next time I'm in a camera shop, as I really don't want to spend a lot.

I was hoping that something along the lines of the Contax TVS or Nikon 35Ti, the latter for the funky analogue meter alone, would be cheap now, but the collectors have kept the prices high. They seem to fetch around $400 in good shape, which is $300 more than I care to spend.

Joe

 

[Joe P]

Ian -- Two Canuck dollars are about 1£ at the moment, but prices in the UK are about twice as high as here, so I reckon it would be about $35, if my fancy math is correct.

I did a quick google on the 35 RC. Where do you get the discontinued batteries?

Andy -- Cheers, I'll have a look at the Olympus mju and Yashica T4, too.

By the way, is the Leica CL cheap yet?

Joe

 

[SeanyP]

Olympus XA - 35mm 2.8 lens, rangefinder, backlight comp, proper focusing, silent shutter, meter, really small, fairly cheap (less than £40).

The XA2 is similar - same design but with a 3.5 lens, no backlight comp or metering. Focusing is simple (person, group, landscape). Mine cost £1.

The lenses on these cameras are great. The XA2 tends to vignette in low light, which is great if you like that 'lomo thing'. I do.

The XA2 is the more usable camera IMO, probably due to the focusing (the XA focus lever can get moved by accident).

 

[sideshowbob]

I did a quick google on the 35 RC. Where do you get the discontinued batteries?

I use a voltage reducing adaptor in mine:

http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_mr44_adapter.htm

Alternatively, it's not expensive to have the meter recalibrated to use higher voltage modern batteries.

By the way, is the Leica CL cheap yet?

Very much not.

Edit: seconded on the XA2, another good one.

-- Ian

 

[Joe P]

Thanks, Mousey. A few more to add to the list.

Joe

 

[Joe P]

Thanks, Ian.

I'll see what turns up at the shop.

Film cameras are very much undervalued here, so incredible deals can be had on all sorts of models. I saw a mint Bronica with standard lens for $300. I almost snapped it up, but I'm looking for something pocketable.

Joe

 

[andc]

anyone know how much Rollei 35s are these days?

thinking about all this compact film goodness is depressing. The only remotely equivalent gear we have in digital is the DP1 and at a push the GR Digital.

On that note though, how much are you intending to shoot Joe? I've decided that for even a moderate volume shooter (say 1 roll/week) film really is for people richer than I, although the cost of entry is often lower.

andy

 

[Joe P]

Andy,

It would be used mostly for snaps of my daughter when she's oot and aboot, but I may try B&W streeters with it. At most it would be a roll a week. Time's not something I have much of these days.

Joe

 

[sideshowbob]

Rollei 35 prices depend on the exact model. Some of them are quite collectable, ergo expensive (£100 or more), but others are a lot cheaper.

-- Ian

 

[andc]

Andy,

It would be used mostly for snaps of my daughter when she's oot and aboot, but I may try B&W streeters with it. At most it would be a roll a week. Time's not something I have much of these days.

Joe

Even at that level of shooting the cost of film/processing is going to add up pretty quick IMHO. However, if you specifically want to shoot film for whatever reason then fair enough.

I quite like the look of the old Canonet too although I'll admit to not having used one. A quick scan of ebay shows them to be readily available and inexpensive.

andy

 

[ricardo999]

I'm currently using a nikon d2hs with a 17-35 2.8 afs and it does it's job fine. tough and fast and has great flash metering etc. 4.1mp .... there's much more to camera than how many pixels it's got.... when my friend asked me and i said...oh yeahh it's got 4.1mp they laughed and pulled out their 5mp cmaera phone and said there phone had better quality pictures! ehehehee .....

 

[cliffpatte]

ricardo, its the same if you take a picture with a D300 and a 35mm lens and then take the same picture with a D3 and a 50mm lens. Its better pixels you need, and not more of them.

I'm looking forward to seeing what results the D700 (alleged) will produce.