The Most Beautiful Cameras Of All Time, Part 2: Manual focus 35mm SLRs

+1 on the Pentax LX--I used 4 of them for pro work for long time and they were extremely reliable, with only one repair despite lots of use. The fact that they looked great was icing on the cake!
 
IMG_5209.jpg

Another beauty from the early days of the 35mm SLR. Miranda C (the very similar but "budget" Miranda D is also beautiful). In 1959 the Miranda C cost $279, or about the same as a Leica M2. Shown here with the M42 adapter and that rare and spectacular lens the Petri Orikkor 2/50. Still, cheaper than an Exakta from the same era.
 
The XD-11was the last camera I ever bought new, I was highly influenced by the review in Modern Photography Magazine and there high praise for the black chrome body. It served me well well for many years but unfortunately I gave it to my daughter to use and she lost it at the Madrid Airport during one of her travels. I always found this camera to be very attractive and I never suffered the leatherette shrinkage seen on many of these cameras, I purchased mine in Canada so I don’t know if that made any difference. A couple of years ago when feeling nostalgic for my old camera I purchased a used XD which is what it was marketed as in Japan. I had read that these were also less likely to have the shrinkage problem and so far it has been good.
I would also like to add my vote as one that thinks the F2 is much more attractive than the Nikon F, having owned both. I think a F2 with a non Ai lens with the scalloped focus ring is the best looking camera that Nikon ever made
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3571.jpeg
    IMG_3571.jpeg
    317.5 KB · Views: 11
I believe the thinnest 35mm full-frame SLR body was the Alpa, not Canon's FD cameras.
The Alpa's short distance from the mounted lens' optical center to the film plane allowed many adapted lenses to reach infinity focus.
 
I never warmed up to Canon FD cameras because the viewfinder information was in a different plane than that of the image on the focus screen.
It was a pain in the ass for me to refocus my eye each time, from readout info to image.
Never had that problem with Nikon or Minolta SLRs.
 
Just picked up this late model sr7. It looks very nice in my opinion! Quite similar to the srts but a bit more elegant?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230622_081209.jpg
    IMG_20230622_081209.jpg
    222.4 KB · Views: 10
I have always found this beautiful in a form follows function way. Like a Merc W123.

There is truth in 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', but it explains nothing. What is it that we find beautiful in a camera? For me the starting point is experiencing tactile satisfaction and that experience making me look at the tool (and that is really all a camera is) with enjoyment. Then comes that little bit of magic, the connection with the tool because of respect for how it helps me do what I like to do. Does that make sense? Every time I use Wiss Aviation shears on sheet metal I also look at them and think 'thanks for being in my tool bag!'

I have four cameras:
F2AS Photomic kit- NOT beautiful at all but great experience. But surely beautiful with that small prism.
Fed2 with Jupiter 8 - lovely tactical experience and beautiful in the way a 1970s Batavus Flying Dutchman bicycle is.
Leica M (4 and M-D) - amazing to hold and use, and looking down/up that curve each end and parallel body with flat top/bot is just so beautiful.

 
All though I had a T90 for a while and really enjoyed it. The Contax RTS is a better looker IMHO.
Yes, Porsche Design.

07_1080x1080_image_copy_03.jpg
 
I have an SL leicaflex. After acquiring a Leica R-E, I still pick up the SL.
I started Leica R with an R3, then R-E, found Leicaflex's and got all three versions! Eventually sold them all and now use a R6.2 and R7 which is a nice pair, but not that classic feel of Leicaflex's!
 
Back
Top