1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - Do you still have your first-ever camera?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    No, I don’t have my first-ever camera, a Kodak Instamatic 126, a present from my parents (who had a tight budget and little interest in photograph). It wasted much of the film I used, due to a choice only between a sunny symbol and a half-sun symbol (selecting the sunny option on sunny evenings led to underexposure), and other shots were soft due to the fixed focus lens, with lots of unwanted stuff around the edges and a tiny subject due to the inaccurate viewfinder. I can’t remember what happened to it, and don’t much care.

    I still have my second camera, an Olympus 35RC rangefinder, which I chose after research and advice. A lovely camera which gave me excellent results yet still fitted in a good-sized trouser pocket. It was this camera that started my enthusiasm for photograph, leading to its being superseded by an SLR! But I’m unlikely to use it again because the auto metering is broken (I have a replacement RC35 brought 2nd hand, as repair wasn’t worthwhile), I’m unlikely to use film again, and if I do, I’d probably put it in my Pentax Super A SLR. But parting with my RC35’s would be a wrench.

    Chris
     
  2. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Yes, and no. It was a Boots 226X, a real plastic fantastic 126 camera, I suspect for my tenth birthday. I still have one... but the winder mechanism broke while still under warranty so many times that this must be about my 12th. I was still using it unto about 1994 when it was replaced by a Halina Paulette Electric, then an OM10... then it all got a bit crazy!

    [​IMG]Accumulated bits by gray1720, on Flickr

    Adrian
     
  3. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Wooooo Hooooo Adrian,

    I think I sold you your i-Zone Polaroid :eek:, I remember selling it to a GB type of person ;)

    Cheers,

    Jack
     
  4. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    That was an exceptionally good camera to have as a first... no wonder you still have it.
     
  5. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Not to me as I was given it, but you never know. I can't imagine a camera taking snaps not much bigger than a 35mm contact print can have been a huge success!

    Adrian
     
  6. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    That was my first camera too. Sadly long gone but I do still have prints taken with it. My greatest joy was a new box of magicubes!
     
  7. Big Nige

    Big Nige Member

    Not my 1st camera. This was a 110 teleflash jobbie that served me well but disappeared somewhere along the way.

    I do still have my 1st "proper" camera and my 2nd. These were a Praktica MTL50 and a Praktica BX20, both with a wide angle, standard and long lens each in a neat blue square kit bag. Excellent cameras that have produced many wonderful images but now sadly completely worn out.

    Just how worn was hammered home when I bought a Canon AE1 and the image quality jumped amazingly.
     
  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Not my first proper camera. Circa 1988 some kids took out a new window while the putty was soft, nicked the entire outfit together with computer ( bbc micro) and lots of stuff that was not valuable but precious to us. It was a Konica FS1 (2 bodies) and several lenses including a lovely 80-200 F2.8 zoom.

    I can't remember if we had an Olympus trip before or after, I haven't seen that for ages.
     
  9. Hamski

    Hamski Well-Known Member

    yes, Canon F1 first generation, bought in 1972 by my father and confiscated by a 9 year old me in 1974.


    [​IMG]
     
  10. alindsay

    alindsay Well-Known Member

    I do and I don't have my first real camera.

    The first camera I ever had was a plastic Diana, which I got at Woolworth's. I think it cost 7/6d. I don't know what happened to it, and I've no pictures from it. The next was a plastic twin-lens reflex that took 127 film. Essentially, it was a non-focussing box camera, with a single shutter speed, 60, and a single aperture, f/8. I used to go to my local library hoping that I'd find a photography book someone had written for cameras that only had 60th @ f/8. I have one photograph from that camera, but no negatives.

    My first 'real' camera was an Agfa Billy folder, which gave eight shots on 120 film, had an f/6.3 Agnar lens, and a shutter speeded B, 25, 50, & 200. I loved it, because it was a proper camera, it had adjustments, and big negatives that I could contact print on chlorobromide paper without a darkroom. Film was developed after midnight under the bed by see-sawing through dishes. I saved up for ages to buy it, walking past the chemist's shop window every day seeing it there, paying ten shillings a week until I'd reached the £4/-/-, and then it was mine. I loved it, and used it a lot. Sadly, it was stolen not very long afterwards.

    Over the next half a century, there followed an assortment of cameras, most of which were, in retrospect, mediocre at best. Eventually, I came to Contax, and stayed there, though along the way I acquired a couple of Isolettes with fast Solinar lenses, and they produce outstanding pictures.I now have far too many cameras.

    Not very long ago, I saw a camera on Ebay I liked the look of, so I put a bid on it. It was an Agfa Billy folder, in top condition, with an f/6.3 Agnar lens, and a shutter speeded B, 25, 50, & 200. As the only bidder, I got it. It cost me £4.

    Having it back was wonderful. All the things I remembered about it were still there, and all the things I'd forgotten, which came flooding back. I took it with me on a trip to Zagreb, using it to take photographs of the wide streets and the often beautiful municipal buildings. There's just something about using one of these cameras that no other seems to have. And everyone who saw me in the streets and squares holding this ancient bellows camera, simply smiled.
     
  11. surf_digby

    surf_digby Well-Known Member

    My first camera was a Halina (or was it Hanimex?) Auto Flip 110, that probably got handed down to my sister.

    If 110 film was still readily available I'm not sure whether I'd still use it or not. It was as basic as they come, but it's small size and simplicity has a certain charm.
     
  12. Steve Bell

    Steve Bell Well-Known Member

    As a young boy my very first camera was a used Kodak Baby Brownie, a very basic bakelite 127 film camera. I no longer have it, but do have all of the B&W negatives taken with it. After a few years I was bought a Kodak Twin Twenty new for a birthday. That was more advanced, and took 620 film. I was then given my fathers Ensign 12-20 folding camera after he bought a Zenith SLR to shoot slides. It has an excellent Ross Xpress 75mm F3.5 lens, and I still have it. Other than the rangefinder it is in good working condition, I last put film though it around 8 years ago, must do again sometime.
     
  13. Hamski

    Hamski Well-Known Member

    you guys just reminded me. does anyone still have kodak discfilm 3500;)

    [​IMG]
    if yes, can you still get the film for them? I remember I bought me one of these cos they were a revolution in their own right, not sure what became of it. I wich I had kept it even though the pictures were a travesty
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Film is long discontinued. I had a really cheap and nasty Disk camera, a Halina that cost me 50p in the bargain box at Leeds Co-Op Camera Centre. I loved the pictures it produced - with a simple meniscus lens and the tiny neg, every shot was Impressionist. Absolutely lovely.
     
  15. surf_digby

    surf_digby Well-Known Member

    I wanted a Disc camera because I was 11 and convinced these were the future. My dad insisted on me having a 35mm compact though, as the Disc negatives were too small.
     
  16. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    The film was discontinued in 1999. A lot of processors did not buy the additional lens for the enlarger the negatives needed to get the most from them as surprise surprise they already had enlargers that functioned and made do, resulting in inferior images even by Disc standards...

    I can still remember those circular Negative wheels that came back with the photos :)

    Happy memories.
     
  17. Hamski

    Hamski Well-Known Member

    That was the revolution that I was refering to, instead of the 135 films which were the smaller problem and the huge bulky 110 films that were bigger than most snapshot digital cameras of today, the disk offered a solution for those who wanted to carry spare films around with them. that was my thoughts as I bought the camera, but then I was disillusiond when I saw the picture quality.
     
  18. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Eh? They were a lot more bulky than a little 110 cartridge. Can't think of many cameras smaller than a 110 film. 126, perhaps, but not 110.

    Disk film was literally a revolution - it rotated in-camera.
     
  19. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Minox perhaps? http://www.submin.com/8x11/index.htm

    Had one once. I found it a nightmare to D&P the film but some folk, using special film, chemicals and technique, could get outstanding results.
     
  20. Hamski

    Hamski Well-Known Member

    Not quite sure what you are sayin???

    [​IMG]

    Vs

    [​IMG]
    4 disks in yer top shirt pockets took the same space as one of these, ok there were only 15 shots in there but still.
    and 126s? forget it, they were a disaster, admittedly though now that Ive googled the 110 images I must say in my mind I remembered them to be a little bigger in hight than they really are.
    I had the exact same feelig too as I ran into my old maths teacher in Blackfriars a few years ago:cool:
    110 or 126 I hever had, but everyone else were usin them, I was thrown into the 135s from get go. Tried also ektachromes back then but wasted a lotta money with no pictures to show for it, you had to know what you were doing with ektachromes and I obviously didnt...
     

Share This Page