About cameras (and a little of films, too)

I started my photographic hobby at the age of 15 with a Yashica A - a most simple twin lens reflex. From there I moved on to Olympus Pen S and then to Fujica Half 1.9 - a very good camera - so I actually bought one again not so long ago.

My first SLR was a Canon FT QL bought new in 1969 - a very good camera indeed - for which I obtained 35 mm, 50 mm and 135 mm lenses and bellows. I was very much satisfied with this camera until the shutter begin to give uneven exposure across the frame and the camera was damaged by the official repair facility.

Then in 1978 I bought a Pentax MX, because I thought that Nikon lenses were too expensive and the new Canon A1 too complicated. Sometimes I wonder whether I made the right decision but I have only good things to say about Pentax. I bought my MX with 2.8/28 mm SMC M, f1.7/50 mm SMC M and f.4/100 mm SMC M macro lenses.

Then the Pentax LX was introduced and a couple of my friends wanted to have one. So in January 1982 I was seduced into changing my MX for one at very attractive terms as we bought three LXs. The LX has given me excellent service so I have no real reason to regret the transaction - but I wish I`d kept the MX, too. Well, I know who bought my MX from the store and I know it has a good home - the buyer still has it.

I did notice that the exposure system of the LX needs CLA in about every 5 years - but that was not too bad - or expensive, either. As a backup I have had also a Pentax ME from 1978 which has been completely reliable for 25 years - but now it failed - and the Winder ME II. I have also used two ME Supers - one chrome and the other handsomely in black - and they were completely reliable, too. However the LX has had to give way to the new Pentax MZ-S - I cannot afford both - even as I did get the MZ-S at very a good price. The situation was a similar to what happened 20 years ago - I was not that keen on LX then but it gave me sterling service. Let´s see what my opinion of the MZ-S will be after another 20 years.

My last set of non-autofocus lenses for Pentax were: 35-105 mm SMC A Pentax (with constant aperture 3.5 - very heavy but excellent quality) with the 1.7/50 mm (not the original one) and 4/100 mm macro Pentaxes. Only the 1.7/50 remains.

Then once upon the time the youngsters in our local Uusikaupunki camera club started to have fancy new Nikon equipment and for some reason or other they also started to look down on my Pentax gear. So after a while I started to think of how to get even. A not-very-rational thought but that´s what I thought at that time. So in the fall of 1981 I bought a Leica CL with Summicron C 2/40 mm normal lens, used and in not-so-good condition. Later I bought also the Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90 mm lens. This was a very good light outfit for travel etc.

Then in Photokina 1984 the Leica M6 was introduced. After the shortest hesitation I decided that I wanted to have one. I placed my order in October 1984 and received the M6 in August 1985.

I have toyed a bit about the lenses but now I have the 4.5/15 mm Voigtländer Super Wide-Heliar, the 1.7/35 mm Voigtländer Ultron, the 2/50 mm Leitz Summicron from 1982, the 2/90 mm Leitz Summicron from 1984 (although this was bought new in 1987) and - a recent acquisition - a made in Germany 4/135 Leitz Tele-Elmar from 1978. Even more recent purchase is the 2.5/75 Color-Heliar.

I have owned also the 2.8/135 mm Elmarit and a very good lens it was - but too heavy and cumbersome so I sold it - and 1.4/35 mm Summilux that was not very good wide open. I also have had the Visoflex II mirror housing and the excellent Elmar 3.5/65 mm (the older chrome version, from 1964) lens. A combination quite laborious to use but the quality is great.

Voigtländer lenses are actually made by Cosina - and the Heliar 15 mm is indeed an interesting piece of kit. Mechanically and cosmetically it is top notch and fully fitting to be used with a Leica. Optically it is very good indeed but for everyday picture taking, well - 15 mm is very, very wide. Maybe I´ll learn how to use it. The Ultron seems to be as good as the Heliar and a bit better than my old 1.4/35 Summilux.

About twelve years ago I bought a Nikon FE2 with 28-85 mm Nikkor zoom lens, a 20 mm Nikkor lens and a MD-12 motor drive. A very good kit - but not demonstrably better than Pentax equipment. But then in one winter disaster struck - I slipped on ice and the camera, zoom lens and motor combo hit the ground. The camera and motor survived with no damage but the 28-85 mm was bent out of shape. The insurance stood for the repairs but the zoom spent 3.5 months in Japan. I grew restless and sold my Nikon gear.

As for autofocus - I am not against it. I did own a Pentax Z-20 for four years - without any problems - but I think that this camera was much too complicated for me. It could do everything you could ask from it - but to ask you needed to know the manual by heart. So I sold it - with 35-105 Pentax AF lens (a very good lens) that came along with it - and got myself a Pentax MZ-5n with the 28-70 mm 4.0 Pentax AL lens. The MZ-5n is a very agreeable camera indeed and the new 28-70 lens (made in Vietnam by the way) is a very good performer. The exposure system of the MZ-5n works quite well, even with the built-in flash as fill-in light - but of course you must compensate for light coloured subjects.

If you like to read more about it, I have written a more detailed description of my first year with the MZ-5n HERE.

I have also written about my first impressions of the MZ-S HERE.

I also used to have the 100-300 mm Pentax F (a mediocre lens at the long end) which I changed for the Sigma APO macro 70-300 mm (a much better lens). I did also have the 2.8-4.0/28-105 mm Sigma Aspherical - because I felt 70 mm a bit too short - but I got rid of it as soon as possible because it was not sharp enough at the long end. And I actually noticed that I shoot most of my pictures between 28 and 70 mm anyway. To get really wide I have recently acquired the 2.8/20 mm FA Pentax and an easy-to-carry combination consists of it together with the 28-70. The one lens not on the camera fits easily in a pocket. I did very much long for a really good quality 28-105, though - or 24-85, or 24-105 - and now I have bought the 3.5-4.5/24-90 Pentax-FA IF&AL and an excellent piece of kit it is: excellent optical quality and a very useful focal length range.

Sometimes I did use three other cameras, too. For travelling light I used my Canonet GIII rangefinder - easy to use and it has a good quality 1.7/40 mm lens - if stopped down a bit. I also had the correct Canolite D flash (for the Flashmatic system) and the almost impossible to find odd-shaped and vented hood for it. I had the rare chance to compare shots of the same subject at the same time, taken with the 20 year old Canonet and a modern Ricoh compact with 28-70 mm lens, both indoors and with flash: the Canonet won in sharpness and contrast. Decisively. The automatic exposure system is simple and easily fooled, though.

The Canonet has now given way to a new camera, the Voigtländer Bessa-R described HERE.

For travelling even lighter I use my very compact Rollei 35 S with 2.8/40 mm Sonnar lens - not so easy to use and the light meter is even trickier. But if you get it right the quality is excellent, up to Leica standards.

But as I started photography with a twin lens reflex I have felt that I must have one of those, too. So I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5E with the legendary Carl Zeiss Planar lens and had it renovated at great cost. Then I was offered a newer Rolleiflex 3.5F in very good shape so I bought it and sold the 3.5E. The 3.5F has the not-so-legendary Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar lens - but in my experience it is better than the Planar. Unfortunately the Rolleiflex sees too little service.

Well - only one question remains open - what do I have all the cameras for? Mainly for hobby - for my own pleasure, that is. I have had several exhibitions with good critique. I have also co-authored two photo books of my home town Uusikaupunki, Finland and used to shoot lots of PR pictures for brochures etc. I also write of old cameras in our "national" Kameralehti magazine. I used to require that my photography must be self-supporting and for a long time it was - but then I started to buy Leica equipment - and one does not have so much free time as one used to have.

So far I have not said much about film here but as you can see from the texts accompanying my images I have used Fujichrome 100 almost exclusively. But now as I have shot some rolls of the new Sensia II I´m a bit puzzled. Yes, the Sensia II is a very sharp film with very small grain and the colours are more accurate than its predecessor had - but they are not Fuji colours anymore - looks a bit like old Ektachrome. It is somewhat bluish so you must always use a skylight filter but you don´t get so blue skies anymore. Agfa is grainier but the colours are better - I think. So I´m wondering ... And yes, the new Select series Elite Chrome from Kodak is excellent, too.

OK- that´s not your problem - its mine. But whatever - it is good that there is choice. (And I have actually stayed faithful to Fuji after all.)

Thank you very much of your attention. This is the END:

home