Recycling film cameras

robhooley167

robhooley167

Sir, my fingers are stuck together
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,158
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
This probably wont be easy watching for some of you in here!

Enjoy! ... or not!

 
I thought the Minolta lasted quite well.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
I thought the Minolta lasted quite well.
Matt
Click to expand...

Yes the Minolta put up quite a fight. Not worth watching though.

Two of the cameras even had film in them! What sort of idiot would smash a camera with film still in it?

A millennial attention-seeker I guess!
 
It seems to me that the world's so full of old cameras that a lot of them would be better off dead. For instance, I repeatedly see things like Brownie 127's for sale at silly prices (£5+?) when they might as well be just given away to be ambience objects, since so many thousands of them were produced, they're a pretty childish form of camera, and you can hardly get 127 film any more.

Dealers and ebay hype up the price of cameras that I certainly wouldn't give my eye teeth for. Many Japanese rangefinders and slr's from the 70's, if still alive, will be on their last legs. So they need to be cheap because even if still fully working they could fail at any moment.

I hate waste and I regret loss, but there may be more romance to do with old stuff than is practically justified. Yes, keep a vintage M Leica going if feasible, but a Minolta Hi-matic?
 
I can see your way of thinking, droj, and it's fair enough, each to their own as they say, but one of the things I like to do is set myself a challenge... to take a simple and fairly inexpensive camera and see how good a photo I can get from it. If I bought a Leica, after paying rather a lot of money for it, then I'd probably be expected to wring some sort of Cartier-Bresson standard photo out of it each time I used it... and even if I could, then some people would probably think I'd only got a good result because I'd used a Leica! So where's the fun or challenge in that?

On the other hand, give me a £5 junk-shop 1930s Kodak Box Brownie, a Bakelite pseudo TLR, a 1950s folding camera, or a 1990s point-and-shoot 35mm compact and I'll quietly step up to the challenge and see how good a photo I can get from it, hopefully matching the 'look' and 'feel' that particular camera gives to enhance the subject I've chosen to take with it. To do that I need the right light, concept idea and subject, and that doesn't come along every day (nor does the spare time for me to make that happen).

As for a Minolta Hi-matic, which model do you mean, as they did make quite a few versions over the two decades they produced cameras under that name? Besides, I wouldn't mind betting that someone has managed to take a better looking photo with their Minolta Hi-matic than someone else has ever done in all the years they've owned their Leica M! The camera doesn't necessarily make the photographer, but the photographer often makes the camera.

So, who defines which camera is worth keeping or crushing? Joking and banter about ugly-looking cameras, bricks, etc, aside... who actually has that right? That's one photographic challenge that I wouldn't want to step up to!
 
Last edited:
I asked a family member what old cameras they had in storage and there was a box brownie, a boots brand camera, 2 polaroid cameras and a couple of others.

Looked on ebay and none of them are worth anything really.

But recycle ?

Oh no, they said put it back into storage for another 10 years lol.
 
I have my Grandads Brownie no 2 box camera, 2 x Fed4l's one was my 1st 35mm camera that I got new on my 13th birthday sadly both have knackered shutter curtains. 2x Olympus Om10's and a Minolta. I just keep them as momento's now.
 
Mr Badger said:
I can see your way of thinking, droj, and it's fair enough, each to their own as they say, but one of the things I like to do is set myself a challenge... to take a simple and fairly inexpensive camera and see how good a photo I can get from it. If I bought a Leica, after paying rather a lot of money for it, then I'd probably be expected to wring some sort of Cartier-Bresson standard photo out of it each time I used it... and even if I could, then some people would probably think I'd only got a good result because I'd used a Leica! So where's the fun or challenge in that?
Click to expand...
By a strange coincidence, that is more or less the reverse of my process. I take a complex and expensive camera such as a Leica, and see how bad a photo I can get from it. Or at least, that's my story.
 
Peter Drought said:
More clickbait on youtube.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it’s clickbait Peter? It’s not the normal look at me, look at me, irrelevant claptrap normally associated with clickbait, it seems like a valid post and has opened up an interesting discussion.
 
RaglanSurf said:
What makes you think it’s clickbait Peter? It’s not the normal look at me, look at me, irrelevant claptrap normally associated with clickbait, it seems like a valid post and has opened up an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

I think he meant the video was clickbait, not this thread...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top