It is always a pleasure when you release a new video. The sound of your voice is so calming. Have you ever considered recording material for yoga or anything requiring a soothing voice?
I think I might have to take a walk to MR Cad in Victoria to get one of these. The good thing is film is expensive so you only take pictures you need. I love the rangefinder view. Takes practice....
Film is cheap. Parallax in Brixton have Kentmere 100 or 400 at £4 per roll. This is made by Harman, the same people that make the Ilford films and basically a cheaper version of the FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus films. Kodak Colormax 200 is even cheaper.
I purchased a Leica IIIB after a few years of the Fuji x and Canon 5d's. Wow... it was eyeopening, and humbling. Eventually I'll be better, but there's a learning curb.
I attended Elementary School way back in the 1960's. We experimented with very basic, homemade "Pin Hole" cameras! Later we added a simple lens and a homemade "Shutter"! This was in 5th and 6th grade. So I learned all about film, focus, exposure and development at a very early age! As a young adult I worked for both a Photo Studio and a Field Photographer. It was both fun and fascinating. Today? With nothing but "digital" toys to "capture" an image? Not interested at all.
There are so many appliance users in the world today. To know the basics, gives you a sturdy foundation on which to grow, expand, and appreciate some of the more advanced processes/features. With a manual camera, you control everything about your composition. I have a Zorki 4, and will eventually get a Leica ii, as I would like the camera that inspired so much.
I've just bought a zorki 1 1955 for £70.00 and can't wait to get out there and learn the sunny 16 rule. But my trusty Leningrad 4 light meter will come along just incase
Enjoyed this video very much. I bought a Zorki 1e from a dealer some years ago with an industar 50mm collapsible lens, all in almost mint condition. The only trouble was the take up spool was jammed firmly in the camera. It seems to suggest the old adage that a pristine camera may never have worked from the start. I kept the camera + after watching this vid feel inspired to send the camera for repair by a skilled technician! Incidentally, the shutter curtains are immaculate + are stitched just as were those in the early leicas. Have to agree they are simple but superbly engineered + just feel so right to handle. Regards Derek
I acquired a used FED 2 with an Industar lens in the late '90s. I had been using more current cameras (some with auto focus and all with some kind of metering) for the previous 20 years. The FED 2 taught me that "reading" the light to determine exposure was such a fundamental part of process and not something to leave to the "auto-everything" functions of the camera. Thinking through the picture taking process is much more important than relying on "auto-everything". The truth is that turning off the auto features can lead to making better photographs. In many cases you can learn to meter accurately using your eye. Often, the "auto-everything" cameras yield results similar to disposable film cameras Loading the Fed 2 with film was sometimes a bit frustrating. I will have to try the trim the film leader technique. I never knew that.
The Fed 2, as I remember, doesn't need the leader trimming, though it can be tricky even so. I think shooting these old cameras helps you get behind the process of what's actually going on when you take a shot. I'm not against technology in photography as such, but I think the older, simpler tech can be good for beginners and experienced photographers alike!
I've learned photography on the Beirette VSN, a cheap, cheap East German "P&S" kinda camera from the Eastern block. A true Spartanic camera. Plastic all over, no automatic whatsoever, no light meter, no rangefinder (OVF only), only 4 or so exposure times + B available, but I could still take pictures with it. I don't have it anymore, it fell apart from heavy usage. If you can find one, give it a run...
I really want to thank you for inspiring me to learn photography. I bought two film cameras (zorki 4 and zenit b) wich broke immideatly but I didn't give up! I got a got deal on a praktica mtl3 with 50mm 1/8 (I spend 25 pounds) and so far it's working perfectly. So far photography has been so entartaining. I love that u do everithing yourself in film photography (control the camera fully manually, develop the film and scan the film) and I think has way more character to it than digital. Keep making more videos and inspiring people!
Maybe because it was the camera I learned on I prefer the Pentax Spotmatic. Box simple to operate, no batteries required, no parallax error, and grillions of inexpensive to moderately priced lenses from Pentax and others.
I found one of these at an estate sale for $15, with a decent 50mm lens, and decided to grab it. With some additional bargain-hunting, I put together a functional, if slightly dinged in places, outfit with several M42 lenses for around $100, and I don't have to treat it with kid gloves. Not photographic perfection, but a camera I can take anywhere and not worry too much about damaging, etc. (I learned on a K1000 ages ago, so very similar.)
Thank you so much for your videos. I bought a Zenit B with the Helios 44-2 after watching one of your videos and it has become my favourite SLR. Have just placed an order for a Zorki 1 to kick off my voyage into rangefinders.
I wonder if perhaps it might work better for newcomers to the medium to first start off with a basic mechanical SLR before giving these older rangefinders a swing; the rangefinders are certainly very capable and can be acclimated to with enough use, I just remember in my own experience being somewhat overwhelmed even with the Pentax K1000, a camera which if anything started me off easy with the ability to see through the lens and more reliably focus. Either way, a fantastic video, these 1930s cameras need more love. Also, I almost spat my coffee out at the intermission. Is the ideal state of mind for a photographer to be on a cart in the woods, happy because the sun is shining?
Absolutely nothing about the content of your video, but a suggestion for a camera to test. A camera few know about, but I have one. The name is Cosina CX-2. Perhaps the only compact camera that has a dedicated motor drive, but it is also the mother of all Lomo cameras. What few people know is that it was actually Cosina that produced perhaps the best cameras of its time, such as Contax T2 and T3.
I've seen your video yesterday and immediately purchased a Zorki C with the 22mm collapsable lens on eBay. As I bought recently a Sony a6400 with which I really like to take pictures (S-, A- and M-mode), I also realised that it needs a lot more to learn. Also my 10 year old daughter likes a lot to photograph. So I decided that this tool might be ideal for us both to dig deeper into the "real" world of photography, to get to a certain understanding. I also like the idea - that most of us do remember - when taking a picture you need to wait until you see the result. Especially in working with my daughter this might be of pedagogical importance in our "fast times".
@@zenography7923 Thanks a lot. I'll let you know about our experience. Unfortunately the camera I bought (Zorki S with industar 50mm collapsable) had no film spool with it. So, now we are waiting till shipment from Poland. But meanwhile I stapped the lens on my Sony APSC and got good results taken into consideration that I'm a newbee amateur.
Again very nice review. I think the Russian cameras are good for starting. I agree. Simple, easy. Also well made and a good prise. I like them very much. Perhaps to try a Chaika of you collection. I have one with a locely Industar 61 lens. It's a half frame. And cheap.
Definitely have to agree with these becoming second nature. I know my iif has become super quick to use, after shooting ~5 rolls of slide through it, as well as probably close to triple that in negative film. If anyone reading this is on the fence about picking one of these cameras up, I say certainly go for it!
Nice video about these fine cameras - you really don't need anything more than that. I use a Leica iiic with collapsible lenses. I do like your interludium. It resembles the kind of poetry that one of my favorites - danish Jørn Leth - makes :-) Please more of this!
I love your channel, but hard to agree that a Leica body circa 1932 is the best way to learn. Sounds quite romantic in a retro sort of way; however it just ain't true - for most of us, at least. Obvious issue: Film is expensive to procure and develop - these costs are a bar basic experimentation and learning. Another issue: I own a FED 1 Leica 2 copy from 1937 and they are very finicky from a mechanical standpoint - no benefit there. (The old rangefinder lenses are another story - they are beautiful physically, create elegant images and are far lighter than equivalent modern primes.) Conclusion - A mirrorless body combined with legacy MF prime or two or three is a far better approach for most. Not quite as hipster though ...
Hello Sir ^^ IIIa is my favorite camera ever :3 I also have m4 and Rollei 35 but IIIa is the best of them ^^ Really and also You can buy new lens like Voightlander Colour Scopar :3 My was from 37 :3
At friend's wedding around 1960, I was taking photos with a Zorki, the professional photographer at the event told me how the Zorki had an advantage over the Leica at the time as, with the Leica, if you squeezed it, you could actually change the lens to film plane distance. That didn't happen with the Zorki.
About ten years ago I put all of my cameras into store, mainly due to failing eyesight, I just couldn’t see to use them. Recently, with some slight improvement in vision I have got them out again, mainly 35 mm SLRs, but also a Speed Graphic and a MPP 5x4 monorail. Have also recently bought a Zorki 4 and4k. I find that the rangefinder image on the Zorki is very dim, almost impossible to see. I can however see the rangefinder image if I block out the image from the main viewfinder window by holding a finger in front of it. By moving the finger rapidly in and out I can alternately see the main image and the rangefinder one. If I see a sharp edge of something in the image move when I do this then I know that it is not in focus. Of course, there is also the option of focussing by scale, a cheap laser measurer, about £20 from Aldi can also help with this.
There is a "quick and dirty" fix for this. Cut a small rectangle of electrical tape and place it on the center of the VF window(on the front side of the camera). This will help define the rf patch a bit better by blocking the light where the rf image appears. This is a decent way to deal with this issue if you don't want get the camera serviced.
Canon LTM rangefinders are also great to learn on because they're very reliable compared to Soviet cameras. Canon also made excellent LTM lenses that actually can compete with Leica lenses too. Best part of going Canon is the prices which are not insanely expensive as Leica or optimistically cheap like Soviet gear.
Interesting. Can you specify the areas of unreliability. Less refined finish has been criticised by some, but reliability issues don't seem to be a frequently mentioned issue, so, as I am interested in acquiring one of these Lieca Leica likes I would appreciate knowing the details of your reliability concerns before I commit.
The leicas are much more refined than the zorkis, but I find the images they produce are more or less indistinguishable! The zorki 4 has a much nicer finder too.
@@zenography7923 I agree that isn't much if any difference in the image being produced, but the Leica in spite of the smaller viewfinder makes up for that in the weight difference, and it certainly is more "pocketable"
Oh my. years ago i bought a replica Leica of the same model. There seemed to be a disagreement between the sprocket teeth and the take up spool as the the speed at which the film should travel. Only on Friday I thought I try the lens on my Sony (your channel reminded me of it) the lens needed cleaning ,while doing so I noticed 2 missing screws ,a wrong way around part and 2 missing parts. So I guess the camera has the same signature, it put my off attempting to use my precious bottom loader string driven mirror m39 mount zenit SLR.
Dear Zeno, only after the second beer in summer calmness (on the balcony with a view of the beach) does the untamed mastery unfold, which is necessary to be able to raise this everlasting pleasure of this contribution on the laptop to full this enjoyment. This Zorki 1 is a breathtaking adventure full of aesthetics and magic that is only pleasing to the "true eye", for whom photography is a beckoning to the stars. Which films do you think unfold the full potential of this camera, I would also like to shoot in colour, as the limitations of 36 shots allow for "considered" photography, which in turn is counterproductive to digital inflationary photography ? Should one buy a self-timer ? / What do you call the screw-on push-button that sometimes appears in red plastic (for the shutter release?)?
Well, the sky's the limit as far as film goes - two favourites of mine are Ilford FP5 (bw) and Fujicolour 200 for colour. I wouldn't bother with a self timer - phones are better at selfies than this camera! And the screw on red button's only function is to highlight the position of the shutter button, and make it a bit easier to press! Don't think too much about your approach - just load up with film and see what happens!
Having watched with interest your various videos on the barnack Leica; I have recently purchased a 1935 World War II Leica 3 via eBay this particular Leica has history and belonged to a high-ranking general however after viewing a review on RU-vid to spot fake Leica one of the points was the fire button which was stated only true Leica have a rounded button without the wired photo release hole is this correct? Do you think I have bought a dud?
Very nice, I largely agree. You really need to work on your pronunciation of Cartier-Bresson's name. Overall, however, I believe the best LTM screwmount user experience is with a lever-wound V (five) series Canon (L-1, L-2, L-3, V-L and V-L2), depending on your flash/selftimer/rewind/metal shutter curtain preferences. The swing open backs for easy loading, combined RF/VF for 35mm and 50mm lens with a magnified RF view for critical focusing are so much nicer than a squinty Leica II, III, or IIIa-IIIf). A bit larger than a Barnack (but much more versatile), You can use one with a collapsed Summitar (so long as the lens is screwed on prior to collapsing), but the common 50/1.8 Canon will give even the LTM Summicron v2 (quite a rare expensive lens) a run for its money. Fit and finish are superb, verging on "Wetzlarian", the zenith for Canon rangefinders, smoother with a more dependable shutter than the ensuing Canon VI and 7 series. Not to mention beautiful...
I have a 1915 vest pocket kodak which uses 127 film which you had to base load which Leica copied for 35mm film in 1924?. The first Leitz lenses were based on the great 3 element British designed Cook lens. BTW base loading is a pain and made the camera prone to wobble when used on a tripod. I had a purpose made cradle for my Leica 111a and my 1958 Zenith C, which was also a baseloader, but a very small reflex which I still have.
I'm sure Herr Barnack, like most designers, used approaches that were already in use at the time - no bad thing in my opinion. I've often thought the Zenit C looks like a nice little camera, would love to try one someday!
Can't say I cared for it one bit. A pointless, irritating and rather silly distraction. I thought at first that my tab had suddenly been infected with stupid. The main thrust of the vid was another excellently presented body of genuinely useful information though, and was as always, enjoyably well worth paying attention too.
Sure they look good but why would anyone choose that instead of a modern slr with in built metering, spot metering, AF capabilities, exposure bracketing etc etc etc? Both Canon and nikon makes them. Sure they don't look as retro nice, but isn't the result the most important in photography?
Some photographers are into the 'process' of shooting. It is a different mindset, and when operating in that mindset, one enjoys the extra work, 'the extra hassle,' so to speak. Sometimes I want to slow way down, spend a few minutes on each shot, thinking about metering in my head, etc... I have an M2 for this purpose. Of course, it is something I am always working on. 90% of the time, I grab a modern digital camera. :-) But I do enjoy the slow process on occasion and if I am in the right mood.
@@barrycohen311 I really enjoy the high quality, well exposed 35mm negatives I'm getting by shooting film with my sigma 35mm art and my L lenses though.
@@caldera878 It's just hilarious to recommend these cameras to people wanting to get into film photography. It's a nice repellant if anything else, and a nice looking jewel above all else but there are much more capable film cameras at a lower price. What nonsense.
Better option to learn photography: a beautiful FOCA RC with its coupled range finder and a 28mm, 50mm, 90mm or 135mm lens, all coupled and bayonette mounted... Far easier film loading, max shutter speed 1/1000s.
@@zenography7923 yes they are. I had the rare privilege to own a superb and like new FOCA URC (only 2000 or so built) that was somehow the sawn song of the company back in early sixties. It's such a rare and beautiful camera that I barely dared to take it out and shoot with it ! So I prefered to let it go and sold it to an australian. Today I shoot with a FOCA UR and three lenses, the results are very good, and the 135mm f4. 5 chromed lens mounted on the body is simply beautiful and a delight to use, the focus is so smooth and precise. The same focal lens for a leica M3 (elmar 135 f4) is twice the weight but the results are identical.
Unfortunately learning is a dying breed, people want instant gratification and instant publishing on social media using digital filters, processing on their mobile phones. I am very happy my father learned me the skills at the age of 8 with a pre war Leica III. The hardest thing was loading the film, the rest was fun. I took photographs with the sunny 16 rule available in every box of film. Developing was even more fun, did I get it or not. I spend a lot of time reading in the older serious and more vulgarizing photography books to refine my skills. This was in the 70ies no digital cameras were around. Most schools are steering away from chemical photography because it is considered bad for your health and environment... Some schools completely removed chemical photography from their curriculum. I completely agree that this mode of photography can learn you a lot as it definitely slows you down as you are limited to 36 exposures and developing, printing is getting more and more expensive, think before you press the shutter! Although these cameras are great, you have to take into account that these cameras are more than 80 years old and they need some sort of servicing and calibration. Although they are still some competent people who lovingly repair those cameras this can be a costly experience. With a diminished eyesight a Barnak Leica or copy will be difficult to focus even if the viewfinder and rangefinder are clean. Although you can gravitate onto more recent mechanical SLR cameras they will still need some service as some are reaching 20 or more years of service. Some are extremely sturdy and still work like e.g. the Nikon FM2. Just remove the battery you have no light meter but a complete mechanical camera. Shooting negative film is a completely different process regarding light metering compared to digital photography with is more or less in line with slide film.
As someone who just turned 20 years old and is quite in-the-know when it comes to what younger people like, I can say that there is a significant interest in film photography when compared to the recent past. It's become "cool" in the same manner as listening to vinyl records. With how ubiquitous smartphone cameras have become, there is less interest in getting a digital camera for young people on tight budgets--but a film camera provides a new experience you can't get anywhere else. I know tons of people my age and younger who have started shooting film in the last couple years.
Just make sure you know the source of where the camera came from when you buy this type of antique cameras. I bought one years ago and kept it in storage. Believe it or not, I have been having strange feeling of something supernatural came with the camera. I finally decided to throw away the camera last week. I felt much better since then. This type of cameras are very cheap on eBay. Just be careful when you get one.
Hmm.. I'd have preferred more emphasis on the difficulty in using such cameras. There are HUGE shortcomings in 1930's cameras - tiny viewfinders, poor range finder spots, awkward film loading, outdated and restricted shutter speeds, uncoated lenses... the list goes on. Don't get me wrong, these will teach the use of FILM CAMERAS to beginners ( not photography though) but at the great risk of frustrating the hell out of people.
@@tomislavmiletic_ Not about generations or impatience. I'm 64, love legacy glass but have no use to film bodies. Mirrorless bodies realize all the objectives that rangefinders were intended for -- small, light bodies and-as a bonus-adapt well to most rangefinder lenses. Playing with RF bodies, cool as they indeed are, is not primarily about photography.
@@meta4101 In general you are correct. There are a lot of types of photographers, we are not the single bunch; I do too use vintage glass on mirrorless bodies. But the point of this story is that younger generations are all in the newest and greatest, faster autofocus, more resolution of the new sensor etc., etc., while completely missing the fundamental point of photography, i.g. taking meaningful pictures. It doesn't have to be an RF body, ANY film body without (too much) electronics could give them a guide in what's important and / or give them insight in how our ancestors did photography. That doesn't have to last a long time, but in my mind that's kinda important step...
@@tomislavmiletic_ Likewise, I get your point. That that, I think that modern, mirrorless bodies can offer an even purer photography experience when one shoots MF primes using focus peaking, managing the exposure settings manually as well via the histogram shooting raw. But to mirror your point, today there is a fixation on huge, modern, ultra-sharp lenses, AF and auto exposure, super high frame rates, etc. that all tend to separate the photographer (and would be artist?) from their work.
I have a 1950 Zorki 1, a 1953 Fed and a 1950 Leica IIc. All have been cla'd. The Leica is a bit smoother in operation than the others. The Zorki is very close. Both FSU cameras are a pleasure to use. Get yourself a good one and you'll see that, while not Leicas, a Zorki or FED can be a fine camera.
