cleaning up a few old boxes of mine i found this: these are the remains of my first camera: a kodak disk. this was probably the eqivalent of a box browny, just a few years later. i got it when i was about eleven, so about 1983. it broke down a year or so later, so i disassembled it. i somehow liked the viewfinder and kept it. unfortunately i have no picture from this time. what was your first camera?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002

Answers

Hasn't this topic been beaten to death already? Please read prior threads before posting these silly questions.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), February 13, 2002.

Grumpy Grumpy..... Most subjects have been beaten to death on this forum ANYWAY. Stefan my first camera was a Kodak 110. I left it on a train when I went for a trip to the south. I think I was about 7 or 9yrs.old. Maybe thats why I keep my Leica so close at hand. ;0) Scott

-- Scott (scottevans@attbi.com), February 13, 2002.

I know I'm not the one to tell anybody how to do things but still maybe there is no need to call it silly though actually the question has already been addressed moooore than once . . .

First first first camera I don´t really remember, Stefan, but I'm sure it was one of those inexpensive black plastic point and shoot things Kodak manufactured around the 60s and took paper baked B&W rolls of 5x5 cm aprox. I still keep a few pictures I took with it and one of them still surprises me because it looks as good (IMHO) as many of my Leica shots, not optically wise but the composition and the timing were just right for my taste. Maybe it also might mean that I haven't improved much in all these years . . . uhm

BTW: your photo didn't show up.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 13, 2002.

Kodak Brownie

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), February 13, 2002.

Kodak Vigilant 620 folder w. 120mm f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmat lens. Had folding eye-level viewfinder and tiny waistlevel finder that swung 90 degrees for verticals. No rangefinder, no meter, no flash sync. Just a sharp lens and a huge negative, the images blew away anything my friends could do with their Hawkeye Brownie's ;>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 13, 2002.

Nikon EM.I was convinced that it was the mutts nuts.I still have it now,hidden away in a drawer somewhere.

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), February 13, 2002.

I'm still waiting for the "boxers or briefs" question. There seems to be no "TOPIC" here anymore.

-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), February 13, 2002.

Pentax K1000 with a Pentax 50mm/f2.0 lens, bought on a college student's budget. That was such a nice camera for a beginner! Of course, now I am weighted down with a bunch of Leicas and seriously thinking about getting back to the beauty and simplicity of a 'one camera one lens' outfit! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), February 13, 2002.

First camera (c. 1952)--an Ansco box camera that took 8 6X9 shots on 620 film First "good" camera (1957)--Olympus 35S First LTM camera (1959)--Yashica YF First Leica ((1960)--IIIa body, bought for $25--I'm still using this one.

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), February 13, 2002.

Pentax Spotmatic w/ 50mm lens...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), February 13, 2002.

yes, we should stick to the really important questions, such as whether a 24mm is better than a 28mm--you know, the vital guts of good photography!

-- bill fishtail (bass@thestream.com), February 13, 2002.

Nikkormat FTn, briefs.

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 13, 2002.

Well, calling it a camera is a bit of a stretch. It was a f3.7 Petzval portrait lens suspended in a leather wrapped box in front of a polished copper plate. The silver iodide vapors were tough on the old lungs, but smelled kinda cool. But the mercury, bromine and chlorine fumes were killers in the darkroom for sure. Anyway, if the subject held still for 20 minutes, the Daguerreotype had remarkable detail. Still outperforms digital to this day, go figure?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 13, 2002.

It's kind of funny to read the responses to questions. You can always bet on this:

1. please don't discuss equipment 2. go through ALL of the previous threads, there was a similar question about a year ago (despite the fact there MUST be new forum members who can offer varying advice) 3. go out and take some photos! (these are usually the ones doing it the least)

etc.etc.etc.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

Nikonos III with 15 mm and underwater flash with bulbs. Who cares?

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 13, 2002.

Rollei 35 LED.

Got it from my uncle who makes me look only mildly eccentric. It doesn't work anymore but I learned the concept of zone focusing with it.

Ahhhh, the nostalgia...

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

Halina 12/16. Purchased in about 1958. Used 120 roll film, that made either 16 4x4cm or 12 6x6cm negs. It had two shutter speeds, bulb and 1/60sec, and three stops, F-8, F-11 and F-16. Loved that camera until I traded it for a Rolleicord 1V.

Regards,

-- Alan Purves (lpurves@mnsi.net), February 13, 2002.

a kodak 110 from 1971, that now belongs to my son, it still works well!, but Daniel still prefers his Yashica GST.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

An Instamatic. I still remember the feel of the shutter release which was on the front edge of the camera, and the excitement of flash photography with those little blue cubes.

That camera was like a camera to me...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 13, 2002.

Kodak Instamatic (I think it took 126? film cartridges).

Don't touch those Magicubes right after they fire!

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 13, 2002.

A rolex (I beleive that is what it was) mini-slr that used Minox film... i am pretty sure it had two lenses a normal and a wide angle. i can't find any info on it anywhere, but that is what i was told over the holidays by the friend that let me use it for 3 years.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

I bought my 8 year old son a Polaroid a few weeks ago,you know the ones which make the tiny photo's with the sticky back,I-zone? Anyway,poor little sod hasn't had a chance to use it,I've put about 10 films through it(120 photo's)and cover the door of my water heater in the kitchen with 'art'!

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), February 13, 2002.

Me too, Rob - and I'd agree with your assessment. The click of the M is closer to my old Instamatic 33 than any other (fancy) camera I've had. It's simple and I like it.

-- pd (pd100@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

although this question seems to have been beaten up a lot and noone should be interested in this, it made about 20 people respond to it.... thanks to you all. maybe i should mount that viewfinder thingy onto my m6, just for a bit of nostalgia.

the kodak disk system (or disc?) was crap from the beginning, but it made many people take photographs again.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002.

Yes, this subject has been covered before, in various ways. So what?

My first camera was a Kodak Brownie 127. Looked rather like an R8!

Speaking of the dreaded disc camera, I'm surprized Kodak hasn't invented a format that uses the chads from 35mm film perforations - they haven't, have they? ;-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

Why are they called "chads"?

Kodak 126 Instamatic. Second Mike Dixon's advice on the flashcube.

If anyone cares, I don't mind that someone asks an "old" question. I always find it interesting to see reactions to "old" questions and these questions usually spur some interesting comments.

Shall we continue to flog the dead horse?

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.