I want everything, but I'm not going to get it. This is a good sampling of the cameras that are rattling around in my head as I think of them. They range from cameras I'm actually likely to purchase to those I think are pipe dreams, even after I have factored out cameras by Leica and Hasselblad and Alpa and Deardorf and other unobtainables. Presented here roughly in alphabetical order.
4x5 field camera (Wisner, Wista, Tachihara)
Likely to acquire: low
I've always wanted a practical 4x5 camera that I could take out with me on a hike and play like Ansel Adams for awhile. My Ansco View has issues, and both the Ansco and my Speed Graphic are too heavy and bulky for a hike unless I rent a mule. Ideas about making a small cart and harnessing it to the dog never got past the dreaming stage.
I remember seeing a fair number of ads for these wooden 4x5 cameras in the backs of camera magazines, but it wasn't until I saw one at a camera show when I realized how elegant and practical they were. You didn't need a sled dog or a pack mule or an off-road vehicle to lug it around. One of my big excuses for never really shooting 4x5 sheets would disappear. And they're attractive, to boot.
Even though 4x5 is the format I would most want to use if I were to start shooting film again, the cost of these cameras was and remains beyond my budget.
Photo from Pinterest
Canon 7(S)
Likely to acquire: low
Canon started out (as far as the west is concerned) making Leica-copy cameras and they did a fine job. By the mid-50s they began going their own way and their cameras looked less like Leicas and more like Canons.
This was the last of their top-tier rangefinders. The 7 came out in 1961, the 7S in 1965. The S replaced the 7's selenium-cell meter with a CdS cell, and added an accessory shoe on top for on-board flash. They were offered with four different lens speeds: ƒ/1.8, ƒ/1.4, ƒ/1.2, ƒ/0.95 (pictured).
After this, Canon puts its rangefinder energy into its mass-market Canonet line.
I'd love to have one of these, even a ƒ/1.8, but prices have always been very high and remain so. Still, I can dream.
Photo from The Canon Camera Museum
Canon Canonex / Mamiya Auto-Lux
Likely to acquire: medium
I didn't know this camera existed until recently. It's another one of Canon's odd experiments, and they seemed to like have an entry in almost every niche available; if the stereo-realist format had come out ten years later, I'm sure Canon would have made a stereo camera.
This is Canon's fixed-lens, leaf-shutter SLR. I assume its chief competitor was Kowa in this market.
There's an interesting write-up on this camera at a Mamiya-enthusiast's website. It appears there was a joint-development agreement between Canon and Mamiya in the early 1960s, and the result was this camera which was branded as a Canon Canonex and as a Mamiya Auto-Lux 35. There some very minor differences but they are very much the same camera. Exactly which company did what, both in engineering and in manufacturing, is fodder for speculation.
Canons are running around $150 to $250 from what I've seen recently (2022). Mamiyas are about 1/4th the price but I haven't found one that works. This would be a prime example of where I'd willingly buy a broken copy that was far less, simply because the chances that I'd actually use it are very low, but I would definitely want it sitting on my shelf with my other Canon SLRs. My next Canon might actually be a Mamiya.
Photo from The Canon Camera Museum
Canon EOS 5D Mk 4 or 5DS R
Likely to acquire: high
The EOS 5D and the 5DS R both use full 35mm-frame sensors, as opposed to most of the other EOS cameras which use APS-C size sensors, which are a bit smaller. For me, this means all my lenses act like they're a little longer than I'm used to. A 50mm lens that is "normal" on a full-frame camera acts like an 80mm (short tele) on an APS-C camera. A 135mm is around 210mm. A 35mm lens is the "normal" lens on an APS-C sensor.
That's great for telephoto work, but it comes at the expense of wide-angle. My 28mm would normally be comfortably wide on full-frame, but it's more a 44mm on APS-C. You have to down to 17mm get the equivalent of 28mm on APS-C. I miss having wide angle.
I would likely be happy with either of these, but the current pricing of the 5DS R makes it roughly the same as the 6D Mk 2, but you get a lot more camera with the former. I believe the 5D is still a better camera than the 5DS R, but as has been pointed out a couple places online, for the price difference you could get a 5DS R and a nice L-series lens for the price of the 5D's body alone. I could very easily justify the expense of getting a wide-angle zoom becauase I have nothing shorter than 28mm, or replace either of my other zooms which I think are a bit soft, so that argument carries a lot of weight. We'll see.
Photo from The Canon Camera Museum
.jpg)
Canon VI or P
Likely to acquire: low
Another Canon rangefinder, this preceeded the 7. I've heard people proununce it as "Vee Eye" but I still believe it's the roman numeral six. As usual, Canon came up with several variants, such as the VT, the VT Deluxe, VL, VL2, VI L and VI-T. Canon also made a P (for Populaire) was downscaled for users who mainly wanted the 35 to 100mm focal range and did not want to pay the full VI price.
I'm not picky about which one I get as long as it has an accessory shoe. I want this camera for the ridiculous reason that I have the accessory clip-on exposure meter for it, and I would like the matched set.
Unfortunately these are very pricey and often broken—usually both at the same time. I have this strange notion that broken cameras should be priced far lower, but I seem to be alone on that.
Photo from The Canon Camera Museum
Fujica 35-EE
Likely to acquire: medium
Photograph when I can find a good one that's free to use.
I'm really not much on 35mm rangefinders, but I find this one particularly interesting. The big gimmick here is that they mounted a horizontal thumbwheel on the back of the upper housing, and that thumbwheel would focus the image. The shutter button was on top, the advance lever was on the bottom, so you could put one finger on the shutter, rake the advance with your pinky or fing finger, if your fingers were long enough, and ride the focus with your thumb, and never have to move your hands off the controls. If you used automatic mode, you didn't even have to set the exposure. Or you could use semi-auto, where you chose either the shutter or the aperture and the camera set the other. You could still go full manual with it as well.
I have no idea how well it worked, except that thumbwheel focus never caught on, film advance levers eventually moved to the top next to she shutter, and it wasn't until the heavily electronic era that dials and buttons were mounted on the back for thumb operation. Still, I think it's an interesting idea and unique.
Fuji also made a 35 D and possibly a couple of others with the same focusing feature. eBay prices seems to run in the $50 range.
Photo from TBA
Kodak Medalist
Likely to acquire: low
I have so many junk Kodaks that the idea of having a nice one is always a sweet idea. Actually, I do have a few quality Kodaks, and not just the German ones. I'd set my Kodak Stereo against any Realist-format camera of the time. But most of my Kodak camera experience has been with Brownies, and those are what Kodak pumped out in massive numbers.
So every so often I embrace the idea of getting some quality Kodaks, and the Medalist or Medalist II would scratch the itch nicely. But so would a Super Six-20 or even an Ektra. The problem is that everyone else wants a Medalist too, and prices have been inflated for as long as I can remember, and have never come down.
Photo from Shopgoodwill.com
Mikut 3-color Camera and Projector
Likely to acquire: virtually nil
The Mikut takes three images simultaneously, each passing through a colored filter (red, green, blue) on B&W transparancy film. To view it, you project it through the Mikut projector which also has the three filters, and theoretically you should see a full-color image.
I've wanted one of these since I read an article about it in the June 1936 issue of The Camera magazine. I have no idea what price this fetches, but I safely assume it's astronimical. So while I figure I'll never own one, probably won't even see one in the wild, I do find it fascinating and an interesting idea. There really isn't that much difference between this and Realist-format stereo slides.
Photo from liveauctioneers.com
Minolta XK and Pentax LX
Likely to acquire: low
The XK was Minolta's entry into the professional tier 35mm SLR market of the 1970s, going up against Nikon's F2, the Canon F-1, and Pentax LX. It's a super-system camera, with interchangable prisms (I'm a sucker for that), focusing screens, motor drive and a bulk-film back. Minolta already had a good line of quality glass for it.
Growing up, I couldn't afford to invest in more than one quality camera, and I had gone the Canon route. But friends had Minoltas and loved them, and over time I've collected a few myself and would not mind more. But if you're going to collect cameras, the brightest fruit always seems to be at the top of the tree. I've got a Nikon F and various Canon professional cameras; I like seeing what the other guys can do, too.
Pretty much all of that could be said about the Pentax LX as well. The sweetest, biggest fruit always seems to be at the top of the tree.
Photo from Mir.com.my
vs.jpg)
Miranda dx-3
Likely to acquire: high
I am eyeing this one because it's the last of the Miranda cameras, as far as I can figure. Sometimes I find the Alpha and Omega of things interesting, even if I don't have an example of the Alpha.
I wrote about this in my section about advertising, particularly about Miranda's advertising campaigns from 1962 vs. 1976. The dx-3 looks like a decent camera, despite the advertisement. They aren't very collectible so they're still fairly affordable, if you look for them. At any rate, I like having copies of cameras that are featured on my advertising pages. For the most part I do, but not entirely.
Photo from original Miranda advertisement
National Graflex
Likely to acquire: medium
In the mid-1950s when the XXX came out, they were called eye-level SLRs to distinguish them from the rest of the SLRs which had waist-level finders.
It's an odd-looking camera. To me it looks like an old-fashioned slide-projector with a waist-level finder. But I have a thing for Graflex cameras; my father had one when I was growing up, and their sheet film cameras are marvels. This was, as far as I know, their only home-grown camera for 120 roll-film (they acquired the Ciro camera company, so I don't count the Ciroflex as home-grown). I have no idea how well it performs or what it's like to use in the field, but I'd love to try.
These are collectible and prices reflect it. Some day I'll either have the money or be lucky enough to blunder on a bargain. Or maybe I'll see one at a shop, handle it, decide it's a turkey and save my money. You never know.
Photo from Silvain Halgand's Collection Appareils.fr
Nikonos
Likely to acquire: medium
In the movie Thunderball, Q shows up in Nassau to check James Bond out on some special equipment. One is a Nikonos.
Q: "this is an underwater camera. It takes 8 pictures in rapid succession by pushing that button there."
Bond: "is that clever?"
Q: "if you can take pictures in the dark with an infrared film, yes!"
Even without the IR film, this always looked like fun. You can buy watertight housings for a number of different cameras, but the ones that are designed for it are few and far-between. From what I've seen, prices aren't bad at all for the early versions; the more recent ones fetch higher prices. Even if all I did was use it in a backyard pool, I think that would be a hoot. And you never know, you may find yourself underwater inspecting the hull of a bad guy's super-yacht, and what else are you going to use?
Photo by Morio
Rolleiflex SL35
Likely to acquire: medium
This would fall into the category of plugging-a-hole in the collection. In the 70s Rollei acquired Voigtländer, which gave them a 35mm SLR prototype. The first Rollei-branded model was this SL35, which I do not have. They followed it up with the SL35M, SL35ME, and SL35E. After that went bankrupt and the traditional 35mm SLRs were casulties of the reorganization.
The SL35 was still made in Germany, and I would be curious to see how it directly compares against the Singapore-factory models that succeeded it. But mostly, I want it because it would complete the line.
Photo by Thomas Vogt
Rolleiflex SL 2000 / 3003
Likely to acquire: low
I remember looking at this thing when it came out and thinking this is the future. It was a 35mm version of what had happened to medium-format cameras. Even though TLRs and Pentax 67s still sold, it seemed like the cutting edge was the brick-shaped Bronicas, Hasselblads and Kowa Sixes. I thought this was the camera to have, this medium-format professional beauty that was scaled down to 35mm.
Of course it was hideously expensive, but of course it would be. Look at it.
This was preceeded by the SL 2000; I don't know enough to discuss the differences. If had the opportunity to get that one, I'd get it. Either would make me happy.
This is another incredible system camera. Interchangable waist- and eye-level finders; film backs that you could change mid-roll; a 4-fps motor-drive (that used to be fast). I believe that the lens mount is the same as the traditional SL35 camera used, which means I already have glass to put on it. Writing about this just makes me feverish for it all over again.
Photo from Mike Butkus (www.butkus.org)
Widelux
Likely to acquire: very low
This and the Mikut are the only cameras on this list that are really unique, and they aren't just a variation of something I already have. Even the Nikonos isn't that much different.
I'm drawn to panoramic photos. I don't know why. Sometimes it's the warping that takes place due to the way the image is recorded. Sometimes it's just looking a wide sea of faces of people long gone, be it a World War I military battalion that's about to sent to France, the lifeguards at a beach in 1930, the employees of a long defunct beer brewery downtown. For a short while there was a shop at Laguna Beach that sold B&W prints of old panoramas, but the they closed before I had saved enough pennies to purchase one. I'm still kicking myself because of it.
Some panoramic cameras cheat—they just have a very wide lens and mask off the top and bottom of the image to show a slim but wide aspect ratio. The Widelux does it right: the lens swivels and paints the image across a wide swath of film.
There are a number of sub models of Widelux, and some take 120 film and others 35mm. I'd take what I can get, but they've always been very expensive and as far as I can tell, always will be, which is why I say my chances of getting this are "very low." It's one of the very few cameras where if I did buy one, I'd want it to work no matter what because I would want to try it out. I could see this one finding a home in my primary camera bag.
Photo by Kenneth C. Zirkel