And I Hope Neil Young will remember....

It is an SX 120 - I think I bought it in 2009 or 2010. Saved up $200 out of my p/t earnings as 'garbage ninja' where I lived.

 

Yeah, that's it. I'm pleased with it.

 

I've been looking on line for Argus Model 21 cameras for sale. They're out there but no one is willing to test the cameras before offering them for sale. All I need is more junk. Still, it's just nostalgia for me. I don't need this thing in my crowded life.

 

I had to utilize a search engine to know anything about the Argus 21. You could always leap into the future and see if you can find a 'modern' Soviet rangefinder. My Fed 5-C is my go-to when I want to shoot film but, am concerned about damage or loss of the camera. However, purchase of any commie product is a risk. spotty quality control and all that.

 

True - I've seen lots of 'em - Zorkis, Zoprems, Zaryas, stuff like that. The mechanics of the things leave a lot to be desired. Looks are great - many Leica clones. Back in the day, when they could be had in any second-hand shop for $40, I thought of getting one or two, just to adorn a shelf. ...But the shelf was already full.

One outstanding feature, though: The lenses! Those 39mm Leica-thread Helios and Jupiter lenses? Can't be beat. Very nearly as good as the "Big Name" they resemble so closely.

 

Still lots of Feds, Zorkis etc for sale on the ol' Interweb. Saw a dealer who has lots from the 60s - some still in the boxes, never unpacked. $130 to $200. Tempting, but ...no. No longer useful to me. No more film for me. Gave away all my really old cameras (30s-40s folders, 50s twin-lens reflexes etc.) to charity. Kept a J.E. Mergott (120-size) box camera and one of six Kodak twin-lens reflexes as souvenirs.

The dozen I gave away were bought at flea markets etc 30-40 years before. I think the LOT cost me about $55 back then. The charity made a REAL BUNDLE - several hundred dollars. I was glad to see it.

 

[QUOTE="Johann, post: 565236, member: 4621
One outstanding feature, though: The lenses! Those 39mm Leica-thread Helios and Jupiter lenses? Can't be beat. Very nearly as good as the "Big Name" they resemble so closely.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I'm very happy with the Industar 55mm that came attached to my Fed 5-C. It's sharp and contrasty. I have no other experience with Soviet lenses. I have a set of very good Canon lenses, 28 mm to 135 mm. So, I never experimented with Soviet lenses. I have read a great deal of complementary reviews.

 

Good choice - and the LAST LTM (Leica thread-mount) camera that was manufactured in Russia & environs. Fedka site still sells some.

 

R.I.P. Argus Model 21 - 1946-1952. Very good story (I thought) of these cameras here: https://www.arguscg.org/documents/model21.pdf

 

Funny. You all know what "equipage" is in Navy terms? It's items of high value, sometimes pilferable but not always, that must be accounted for at regular intervals. Wardroom silver, for instance. Well, in the Old Days, binoculars were equipage (and probably still are). Ours were all German made by Zeiss. The story was that even during WWII, most Navy binoculars were Zeiss made. We went to war with our enemy's finest optics!

 

Well, those optics were certainly good. Now, the enemy's OTHER optics, i.e. politics and policies ...not so great, IIRC.

 

Here's a pic (below- link) of a J.E. Mergott - Jem Jr. exactly like the one I have. Apparently J.E. Mergott was an inventor of some note - something like 180 patents. There WAS a site some years ago, kept by J.E.'s grandson -details of these cameras and J.E. Mergott's life.

Unfortunately, I can no longer find that site. My Jem Jr. still works fine - as it's supposed to, after 80-odd years. Hopefully, I get to say the same, next year!

Here's the pic http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2038

 

That is a very cool camera.

 

That, friends, is a Kodak Brownie. Or equivalent, anyway. I took many, many pics with a genuine, but later model, Brownie in my teens. It used 127 film, nearly unobtainable now. I shot Verichrome Pan in it. No flash. It got 8 frames to the roll and in bright sunlight the results weren't too awful. Snapshots. "Here's Mom and Dad at the beach! Gosh they were young!" Well, Kodak is still making and selling millions of snapshot film cameras so I guess the business model is a good one after a century.

 

Meniscus lens, long focal length and fixed 1/60th shutter. Nothing to go wrong! Wind the film until the next number appears in the little red window.

 

They are? For this part of the world? Haven't seen 'em. I'm guessing they're 35mm - most of the other sizes are, as you say, almost gone. My J.E. Mergott is 120-size; that's why I kept it. Pros use it and I don't think it will die any time soon.

I regret the passing of 127 film, too. Years ago I bought a nice used Yashica 127 twin-lens reflex - great quality, looked just like a slightly down-sized Rollei. I paid $25 and (in the early 90s) my son ordered me film via the (then) newfangled Web. From Slovakia, IIRC. Great results. When I gave it away, the charity managed to make a lot more than $25. Good for them!

I had some Kodaks - Brownies, folders and seven twin-lens reflexes. (Yes - I had a thing.) I gave five of them to the charity. One I kept and another I gave to my son, because it was his maternal grandfather's - and they had a very special relationship when my son was little. At 51, he still remembers his live-in Grandpa fondly; he died when my son was three. The TLRs were all 620 size - you can use re-spooled 120.

When he was about 11-12, my son bought a 127 Brownie at a flea market for 75 cents. His intent was to develop and contact-print the 127 film, which provided negatives just large enough for contacts. He did so in a dark closet and it worked out spectacularly. The day he got the camera, there was a car show in a mall parking lot - some 30s mostly 40s and 50s. The pictures my son got looked great. There was a slight brownish tinge to the B&W prints which made them look the same age as the cars.

 

Oh, sure. Look for single use cameras at your local chain drugstore. 35mm and they have a flash but the concept is the same. It's a box camera.

I've responded 120 onto 620 for a Kodak folding camera my mother had. Once again, BIG negatives for roll film. Just big enough for usable contact printing. I inherited my father's Foth Derby and repaired the shutter. It took half frame 127, near as sin to 35mm. We used the lens in a home brew enlarger.

May I say here that I have never been a fan of the SLR? All my friends had them in those days. Beautiful pieces of machinery but heavy, noisy, expensive, and unnecessary for 90% of picture taking. There’s a reason Leica still makes rangefinder cameras.

 

Yes - they're all that. A couple of things I liked enough to buy three (all $50 per) over the years:

(1) They were pretty much the answer for macro / extreme closeup shots and I did a lot of those. Possible but iffy when you use adaptors and can't see if the shot is properly focused, as you can instantly with SLR. By the time you set up a non-reflex, your bee, butterfly or spider is long gone!

This was a great thing on my first reflex. It cost me $50. A second-hand 1963 Mamiya, bought in 1978. Fixed lens - period. I had closeup adaptors and bought a set of two used screw-on tele and wide-angle adaptors for $10. Much more versatile. That camera did some travelling -without me. It went to Egypt, borrowed by a friend for her vacation. She brought back pictures of very nice people and miserable-looking camels!

(2) I'd never had a non-reflex camera with interchangeable lenses. With my second reflex (also $50), I had a mild telephoto that was a dream, for portraits. Also a 135 with a 2x converter. Good reach, but s-l-o-w. Always a tripod.

My final reflex purchase was yes...another $50. A used Nikon body-only in 1983. I got a 50mm, an 80-200 zoom, a 28mm wide-angle, closeup adaptors and THAT camera did EVERYTHING. For years. I got tired of lugging it around chasing my then-small grandkids - and the sandbox was hazardous to the Nikon's health. That's when I went digital - never looked back. Nowadays, 36-360 plus closeups - and WYSIWYG in the viewer. All in one (Canon) lens. Beautiful!

 

Yes. I've seen those years ago and had the immediate, overwhelming urge to UNSEE them, but couldn't. I had no idea they'd survived. As you say, the concept is the same but the execution is ...alarming to me. A disposable camera? That bothers me as much as the notion of a disposable guitar - then again, having seen some of those overseas nightmare instruments(?) in chain stores... maybe that's not just a noxious notion. Perhaps a grim - and intentional - reality. We have too many of those these days - for my liking.

Half-frame 127? Wow, that's a new one to me. I saw lots of second-hand half-frame 35s in the seventies / early 80s. Olympus, generally. Well-made! 72 pics on a roll of 36. I think their main half-frame model was the Pen F. Always wanted to try one. I should have.

 

And yes again. Standard 127 is 40 x 40 mm square, so I'm guessing half-frame is 40 mm wide, 20 mm high. That's "near as sin" to 36 x 24 mm of standard 35 mm, as you say. Thanks - I'd never pondered the size of sin... I thought it varied according to its exact nature.

A new lesson every day!