Camera Collecting, The Incurable Passion, How to know if you’re a camera collector and what you can do about it.





You collect things just because you've never seen one like it before. A Nikon Logo is also in the view through the auto-collimator.

Just to add- This one was rescued from the Scrap Heap.
 
Last edited:
Wow .
This thread has really put things into perspective for me
I have two film cameras .
The first Leica that I ever bought ,a double stroke M3 from `55 and a black paint M4 from `69.
Digitally I have a CL / SL2s and a 246.
I frequently worry that I have too many cameras and go round and round trying to decide which to sell.
If I ever buy another camera one has to go.
I shall now stop doing that .
 
I accumulated a nice kit of Nikon RF gear, in addition to many other cameras, over the course of several years. I didn't consider myself a collector because I always intended to use all of the bodies and lenses I acquired. They were beautiful to look at, pleasant to hold, satisfying to clean and repair, but using them wasn't as enjoyable or practical as I'd imagined. As well, I have a natural aversion to clutter, so I try not own things that hardly ever get used. In the end, I got rid of almost all of the bodies and lenses during the pandemic when I had extra time on my hands ( and less income ). I enjoyed possessing all of those machines immensely, but I don't miss any of it now. I find looking at pictures of other's cameras just as rewarding. However, to those of you that enjoy collecting, more power to you!!!

( BTW, Jason. Great post! I do still also have an Ikonta A and a Koniflex )
 
Are we teetering on the edge of a damascene moment here?

Two statements for dissection:

1) The motivation behind collecting has nothing to do with the motivation behind taking pictures

2) It is human to want to be a bit of an expert (or knowledgeable) in a chosen field, however small and insignificant that field may be.

Discuss....
 
I don't entirely agree with the first point, in that I like to have things that I can use well when photographing. If I can't use them, I usually lose interest in them.
 
Dralowid said:
1) The motivation behind collecting has nothing to do with the motivation behind taking pictures

2) It is human to want to be a bit of an expert (or knowledgeable) in a chosen field, however small and insignificant that field may be.
Click to expand...
1) Indeed, but it may be more to do with curiosity than acquistion. There are many motive for collecting especially if relevant information about older items has become lost over the years.
2) This can come by default. As an underwater photographer I ended up co-authoring a book on fish because expertise built up over the years of increasing my stock library of images. Not that I collected fish, but in a way I suppose that I collect photos of them. I have a collection of Grubb lenses because they fascinate me as does the history of photographic technology, and the only way to figure out how well they worked is to actually try them because the contemporary descriptions and reviews are difficult to interpret for many reasons.
 
Dralowid said:
Are we teetering on the edge of a damascene moment here?

Two statements for dissection:

1) The motivation behind collecting has nothing to do with the motivation behind taking pictures

2) It is human to want to be a bit of an expert (or knowledgeable) in a chosen field, however small and insignificant that field may be.

Discuss....
Click to expand...
Some qualifications:
1) The motivation behind collecting can have nothing to do with the motivation behind taking pictures. But at other times, the two may be intimately connected; for example, I own and use several 6x6 systems. They are not redundant, and each has been accumulated to address specific shooting needs. Example: Mamiya C-series TLRs (waist level bombproof Flintstone technology, hand-holdable at slow speeds) vs. Rolleiflex 6000 series SLRs (eye-level, motorized, TTL auto exposure. Temperamental to an extreme.).
2) Expertise in artistic accomplishments is very much subjective and arguable. Expertise in technical matters is quantifiable, and a much safer bet when guys want to get into pissing contests about photography. Collecting is safer than discussing aesthetics. Again, not mutually exclusive by any means, but how much of the latter do we see here on RFF? Personally, I feel that Art, Aesthetic Theory, and Critical Theory are in no way small and insignificant, but they are a potential mine field. Safer to argue over authentic black paint.
 
JeffS7444 said:
Collecting The Camera Collector? How cool and meta is that! Maybe also a dead giveaway that the owner is afflicted by "collectoritis"
Click to expand...
But good luck finding copies that have intact bindings and not ones with pages falling out. My copies were all purchased new "back in the day" and all have now become "loose-leaf folios." I realize a bookbinder could solve that problem for me, but that loops us back into the previous sub-thread about restoration/repair...
 
I've branched off into camera-related "ephemera" such as advertisements, manuals and promotional items. But I'm not alone: Pacific Rim Camera seems to have amassed a good deal of choice paper.

Then there are the charming posters created by Swiss illustrator Donald Brun for Gevaert Film, reproductions of which are readily available from a number of eBay sellers.

On a smaller scale are camera-themed pocket calendars (FED), postage- (Minox, Exakta, Pentacon) and "cinderella" stamps (Zenit, Kiev, Lomo), including matchbox labels (Meopta).

But it's not just about paper! The other year, I caught wind of pint-sized plastic cameras given away by Sony Japan, butI abandoned that particular quest as bidding passed the 70 USD mark. Other wee camera replicas have been sold as gashapon "capsule toys",and can still be had at relatively modest prices. But my favorite to date is the (plastic) Hansa Canon replica released as part of Canon's 75th anniversary celebration.

So far, I've avoided the Sharan miniature film and digital camera because they're kind of pricey, but I was mighty impressed by the detailing of their tiny digital Rolleiflex twin lens reflex! But it's price put it within the range of many a real 4x4 or 6x6 TLR.

For the deep-pocketed collector, there are large dummy cameras originally intended as store displays. The last time I checked, there was still someone in Austria producing oversized Leica replicas (at Leica-esque prices). But to date I've only once encountered a vintage Barnack camera replica in person, and recall it being pricey even in the 1980s. But what an eye-catching addition it would have made to one's collection!
 
pgk said:
The original patent by Dallmeyer was not for a symmetrical design. I have two Grubb Doublets from 1865 which are similar though and which I am trying to figure out (Grubb Patent and portrait lens combination apparently). Kingland comments on the similarity of the RR and two Grubb Patent lenses symmetrically arranged about the aperture stop. But Dallmeyer was the person who patented his design in 1866. Its a complicated, messy story and one which unleashed controversy in the photographic press of the time. It seems that we have been arguing over the merits of lenses since photography began!
Click to expand...
Yes, photographers have been arguing over the merits of lenses for about 175 years--not all that surprising given the crucial role they play. And determining who invented what is a disputatious process in the best of times. When I was in elementary school back in the cretaceous era, we were taught that the Duryea Brothers invented the automobile in 1893, Their true claim to fame was producing the first American-made gasoline powered automobile at that time, but they were inspired by a Benz car they saw at a fair in Ohio. The Benz had in "production" since 1885, having built 6 cars around that time. But the company, which eventually became Mercedes-Benz, was German so I guess it didn't count in post-WWII America. I've seen at least half a dozen articles crediting the coupled rangefinder camera to various European manufacturers, but the first camera so equipped was the Kodak 3A Autograohic Special, first marketed in 1916, that had a split-image rangefinder built into the base of the front standard. Since the U.S. Patent Office has been notorious for granting patents to pre-existing inventions over the years, maybe I'll apply for a patent on my ingenious new pinhole zoom lens-:)
 
You trade Home Offices with your Daughter and require 3 days to move your lenses and cameras, and leave everything in the Closets in place.
 
I just spent two hours going through lens cases looking for my Nikkor-QC 5cm F3.5 in LTM. Recently traded home offices with my Daughter- moved
almost all my stuff out.
The Nikkor 5cm F3.5 got mixed up with my Nikkor S-Mount lenses, I put it on the wrong shelf. I need to buy more CP-2 cases.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top