steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

If you were on a battle field getting shot at, it seems pretty sane to me, even if a little sticky. The tape was the old friction variety, sort of sticky but not like some of the others. The soot part may have been added in for flavor, but I don't doubt the friction tape part, at all.

The cost of a black car, or one with chrome, doesn't have anything to do with black cameras. As it has already been stated, black cameras in the beginning were 20-30 dollars higher. A reflection in cost of better than a hundred dollars, in today's devalued money.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

No they weren't. 1933 Leica catalogue: LYSUM (black enamel III + Summar) GBP 33:13s.0d. LYSUMCHROM (chrome version) GBP 34:17s:0d. That's 34/- more, or at the exchange rate of the time, about $8 more, God knows how much in 2011 dollars.

As for stickiness on a battlefield, if your fingers are too sticky to operate the camera, change film, etc., there's not much point in being there.

Taping the occasional bright bit, such as the front of an F prism, sure, I can believe that. Taping the whole camera, no way. Basically, black cameras became a fashion statement in the 60s.

I hesitate to ask where you got the story from, because I'm sure that like me, you can't exactly remember and are not prepared to waste the time needed to find out, but I really suggest that this is the photographic equivalent of an urban myth.

Cheers,

R.

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

I read it from a photography book, long before I ever knew anything, about the internet.
A lica & Europe, maybe chrome was more expensive. But in the USA black like I said, was 20-30 dollars more than chrome & leather.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

In the 1960s, quite probably, but I sincerely doubt that was true in the 1930s.Check some old catalogues or advertisements.

If the fashion for black cameras really had been anything to do with war photography, or with trying to look 'pro', there'd have been a lot more black cameras after WW2. After all, it was easier and cheaper to use black paint. And do you really believe that (for example) fashion or advertising photographers in London in the 60s and 70s bought black Nikons because they wanted to look 'pro'? No. It was just a fashion, and it affected professionals alongside amateurs (I was there).

As for reading things in photography books, don't necessarily assume that the author knew what he was talking about on every single point. I speak from experience: I've written quite a few, including A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press, 1984) and hundreds or probably thousands of articles in photo magazines.

I know I've made mistakes, recited inaccurate received wisdom, and told in good faith stories I believed to be true. I also know I'm not alone in this: surprisingly many of my friends have also written books on photography, and they're not always right either. This is why I'm ever more skeptical and ever more cautious as I get older, and why I look harder and harder at things I believe to be myths.

Cheers,

R.

randymoe

My Pentax H3 from the 50's, no light meter, had a beautiful leather case I used all the time. While in that case it was dropped off a bridge onto rocks which put a huge dent in the aluminum cover over the prism. It looked fatal, but had no working effect. Unfortunately I gave to my nephew who has never used it and cannot find it. I bought a Spotmatic last summer for me, but it does not have the dent or the nice case!

Fuji is currently selling as an accessory a very nice leather case for their real nice X100. See, http://www.adorama.com/IFJCSX100.html

BBNC

I wonder...are the pro cameras of today as stout and tough as the pro cameras of yesteryear. Those old Nikons and Leicas could "take a licking, and keep on ticking." My Minolta 7D has a metal body (except for the back) and is built like a tank (about the same weight, too.)

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Leather, as attractive and durable as it may be, does have a bad disadvantage.
It attracts moisture. Anything rustable that remains in contact with it for a length of time will rust.
Ask any professional gunsmith.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Jerry,
I sure do remember those cases, they were a pain in the ass especially if you did a lot of can changes. Nice protection for sure but not practical for a pro.


George

fuzzypic

Yawn

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

I remember those and it was the first thing I got rid of; changing film with one on was a nightmare.

Perhaps if one is using one roll of film on occassion, no problem, try 10 or 15 rolls a day and see just how much fun that ends of being.

Blake Loc: Alfred NY

Unclewiggley Loc: Winter Haven, FL

I still have the case that came with my Canon T-90 and a Soligor tele-converter and Kalimar zoom lens. Never used the case for the T-90. Now I don't use the camera or the lenses anymore either. I guess you call that progress.

jerry.spielman Loc: West Windsor, N.J.

Best leather case I ever had with one of my cameras was back in 1952 when I bought a Rolleiflex. It was also functional.
When I went to 35mm cameras I never really used the cases that came with them.

phoenix Loc: England, but currently living in AZ

I know... even Nostalgia isn't what it used to be......... ;~)

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

My nikon lens came with nice cloth type "cases" and the 70-200 2.8 it's own carrying case. Which of course I never use ;)