burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

8x10 -> 4x5 -> various 120/220 6cm formats -> 35 perforated (135) rangefinder -> 35 SLRs -> digital formats...

The beat goes on. I, too, had a Yashica Mat 124G. They're all cameras... some suited to certain things better than others.

Griff Loc: Warwick U.K.

John K -
" Later had a Bronica, which was very noisy,"

Amen to that.
The mirror slap was atrocious.
With mine, when it went off, you could actually feel the recoil . . .

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

One of the finest photographs I can remember is a photo of my older brother and I standing in front of his new red VW convertible in upstate NY back in the 60's just before I went to Vietnam. The photo was taken by my uncle who used a baby Rollei using 127 slide film.

Dennis

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I spent a bundle on Mamiyaflex including three lenses. It actually was an excellent camera, but I bought in on the down side. It was my small camera in comparison to my Linhof 4x5 with the cutfilm carriers.

But I think I'm ahead of the curve with my Sony MILCs. I'm looking forward to the a7000 (or whatever name) The a6500 didn't give me enough extra to buy it. Sony needs to improve two things. 1. They need to improve the sdcard insertion--it is backward and hard to use. 2. I'd like to have a second sdcard slot to keep a backup card going. Oh. And 3. More Tamron, Tokina and Sigma lenses would be nice.

It would be great if CaNik were to join the club. They have both brought out crappy MILCs that are way behind Fuji and Sony. Even the Canon M5 is too little too late. Not worth the money.

oldgeezer3 Loc: SoCal

In 1958 my dad bought a Roliechord, little brother to Rolieflex. He didn't think a 35mm would do what he wanted. In 1959 i bought a Richoflex, which I still have, both of those cameras were very good for a lot of newspaper work. At least what we were doing. After I got out of the Army, I bought an Exacta VX iib. Took a lot of good photos. In the mid 70's I bought a Pentax Spotmatic, took a lot of photos with it, too. After I got married, We, (now), got several point-n-shoot toys before we got a Canon T2i. Our (my) experience is that the TLR & the SLR are handled differently and for different purposes. The DSLR is more stable in MY hand and with my age and hand stability difficulty, I get lots better photos with the DSLR. Best of luck to you all!

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I got my first SLR, a Yashica TL Super, in 1967. I took a lot of great pictures with it. At the time, the TLR was king, and the DLR fans were quite vocal about how 35mm was a passing thing. Their argument was that 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 was the best format, and that 35mm was just too small to produce good images. I understood that thinking, but felt that 35mm was the way of the future. Seems that was correct. I never did have a TLR, although I had a friend that had one, and I lusted after his Rollieflex. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford one. At the same time, my dad's only camera was an older Kodak folding bellows camera that he carried in the field with him (he was a wildlife management biologist) and he took some great pictures and never used a light meter! I'm guessing his standard was the sunny 16 rule.

johnala

My first 35mm camera was a Ricoh (who ever heard of them in 1954) non-SLR, purchased at the PX of the 3rd Infantry Division in Korea where I was stationed. At the PX you could buy a package that included a roll of film and the cost of processing same. The PX shipped them somewhere; the result was small boxes with Kodachrome slides wrapped in what looked like onion skin, and that's how I have kept them all these years. Just can't kill them. My first SLR was a Praktica MTL50 with two Chinon lenses, a 28MM and a macro zoom 40-105, from a lady friend of mine who had purchased it all in order to take pictures of a new grandchild, and after ruining two rolls of film she sold me the whole package for $125. This was in around 1980 and I used them until about a year ago when I just couldn't handle the weight of the 40-105 with flash mounted, and I just don't use a tripod, so what I use now is a Vivitar 220SL, with a classic Pentax SMC Takumar 50MM 1.4 lens and a number 2 close-up lens mounted. I bought the Vivitar at a monthly swap meet at one of the local High schools in the original box with original foam for $20. Whoopee! In case you don't recognize any of the names here, it is all Praktica (usually thought of as Pentax) screw. Me? I'm 85 years old and I say film forever.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

I never knew a glass plate or Daguerrotype camera was that inexpensive.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

1 5/8" square.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Photography started with a Kodak Starflash 127 film. Mom a Kodak bellows using 616 film. Dad had an Argus 35mm that had a pop out lens, and zone focus, forerunner to the C3. It went to WWll with him. My second camera was a used Zeiss Contaflex 35mm. I was hooked on Zeiss lenses from then on. Next was an Exakta VX1000, all Zeiss lenses, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 150mm. And A Gossen Luna Pro meter. In College I used the schools 8x10 view cameras. There I perfected my 35mm B&W. Next came a Mamyia 645, with almost every lens they made. Then I got a Rollie 35s to carry in my flight suit leg pocket in case my Alert B-52 ever answered the klaxon and went to war. Next came a Rollie 35 SLR, 28mm, 50mm, and my first zoom 70-200mm. A 4x5 with 3 lenses, then a used 8x10 and several lenses. Now I'm out of the AirForce and teaching photography at the University of Alaska. Technology moves on, autofocus comes along. The university did cold weather testing for Minolta and Canon. Minolta performed better than Canon in the cold of Alaska. I acquired a Maxxum 7000i. While working on my MFA, I got to use the 1st generation, experimental Sony Mavica. I got several point and shoot early digital cameras. Then less than 10 yrs after I first used the Mavica, I got a Minolta D7, then a Sony a65. The stable is now rounded out with a Canon SX-50 my travel and wildlife camera. Canon power shot a3300, when my cell phone just won't do. A Sony a99ll takes 1st place now over my a65. My Sony a6000 lets me use all of my old Rollie and Zeiss lenses. The a6000 is slowly replacing my Canon SX-50 for traveling. I really love the long zoom of the SX-50. Maybe I have too many cameras. The only one i have sold over the years is the 8x10. Each does something really well. After 50+ years in photography, Why compromise if I don't have to. Happy Shooting

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

The camera was cheap but the chemicals were very expensive. That is what Matthew Brady told me anyway.

Dennis

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Oh you knew him too, huh?

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes. He used to come around all the time when Abe and I were discussing the faults of General Burnside. Matt was always hitting us up to take photos. Abe finally consented but I never liked his style. What did I know? If only I had bought a number of his original prints back then for maybe a nickel apiece. But, of course I didn't. Matt's mom did make one hell of a bison sandwich.

Dennis

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Bison?
Great!
Now I'm hungry again!!!!
Pass the ketchup.

JohnK

I love the humor in this thread. Might have something to do with the age of most of the responders!