We added a new camera to the family.

It wasn't an expensive lens, only about $600.

came wirh the camera--they can go up to 300mm now, and Canon lenses can be vey good, even the kits.

But, this looks even better than that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a single focus, which can sometimes be pretty cheap.

What's the box camera? I have an Agfa Synchro Box my father bought in Germany while stationed there during the Korean War.

Inquiring minds want to know the lenses. In a non-disparaging way, "a camera is just a camera" (I know, they're small supercomputers these days)

Resolution is great. Now that I upped my internet connection, the slightly large size is fine. Appreciated, in fact.

How good? Well, I can answer that earlier question:


I loved my Yashica Mat, or as the spell-checker wanted me to say: Yeshiva Mat!!!. Took amazing fall foliage photos in New Hampshire back in the day.

Do tell more.

The large-ish image size told me that I could drag some info out of the Brownie image.

(I needed a good laugh)!

That is an amazing enlargement, isn't it?

Yep, it's a Kodak Brownie, although this is not the same camera that my family had back in the 50s. I'm not really sure how we came by this one. I think someone sent it to me.

I loved my Yashica Mats too. They were really an all around camera. You could shoot landscapes and portraits all day long. I shot a few weddings with them too. That 6x6 negative was awesome, and gave crystal clear 8x10 prints. I paid $100 for the newer one, and $25 for the older one in about 1970 or 71. I had an a rechargeable Graflex flash to go with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar
The amazing Paul Rudolph calculated the design by hand.

Found 'em on the Yashicas, Mamiya TLR's, Rolleiflexes and Koni-Omegas, and the Elmars on Leica cameras.
If that doesn't bring a tear to your eye, you're not an optical engineer!

You still haven't said what lens. If around $600, probably a kit lens --- got to get a bit long unless you are in a bird blind. Very nice resolution and contrast even if you did send pix to the Google supercomputer for A.I. processing.

I loved my YashicaMats back in the 70s, but honestly, they were all I could afford. I really would have killed for a Mamiya C220 or C330, or a Koni-Omega, but they were out of my budget. All the wedding photographers I knew used the Mamiyas, and one of my friends still has his.

The lens wasn't a kit lens. Actually, these pics were shot with four different lenses. Last month I purchased a new RF 100-400mm for the new R7, three weeks before I even had the camera. The lens works out to about a 160-640mm with the crop sensor. It's a lightweight, inexpensive lens in the Canon IS STM line. My wife has shoulder and back injuries, and the heavier lenses just weren't good for her. It was only about $600, which isn't much for quality Canon glass. The two interior shots were with the RF 18-150mm kit lens. The closeups of the house finch were shot with the RF 100-400.

The other two lenses were a Sigma 150-600mm and a Canon L series RF100-500mm which usually lives on my R5. Yes, I own too much gear.

I didn't use Google for the processing. I used Adobe Camera Raw, and added some Topaz wizardry to some of them.

Quite the collection. But I am sure you make good use of them.

For 7+ years, I used only a Coolpix P510. The effective 24-1000 mm. range did everything, and still chugs along. Got my hummingbird photos with it this year.

I bypassed DSLR's entirely, and jumped to mirrorless when the bug to finally get a 20mm lens got to me. This worked out best for me.

Unlike you others, I did get that Hasselblad from a service buddy who worked in a camera shop. I was very young and very foolish and spent about a year's worth of service pay on the outfit. Fifty+ years later, I had a Governor go out and had it repaired, so I am back in business, along with the mirrorless.

Since I have the coolpix, despite the small sensor, it has the "reach" so I don't have to fret about long, expensive lenses. I am more of a wide angle person and sometimes flower person. Birds and wildfires and planes just show up. Not my "focus"

There is a world of difference between 20 and 24 equivalents. I get two mountain peaks in the same sunrise and cloud photos, and they frame them perfectly.


©usonian.

You are correct about the difference between a 20mm and a 24mm lens. Every millimeter on the short end produces a big difference. On the long end, not so much.

I used another bridge camera, a Canon SX40HS, for many years. I was continually amazed by the lens, which was a 24mm-860mm equivalent. It was like carrying an entire camera system in one small body. I still take it on neighborhood walks and bike rides. I gradually migrated to a crop sensor camera and then some full frame cameras. I resisted going mirrorless because I really didn't care for the Sonys, and I felt the original R was not what I wanted. I'm a mirrorless convert now, and I'm thinking of dumping some of my DSLRs. I just hate to part with 'old friends."

My current favored setup for travel, landscape and wildlife photography is a Canon 6d mark2 with an EF 17-40mm and the Canon R5 with an RF 100-500mm. I can even pop the R5 into crop sensor mode for an 800mm equivalent.

Those Hasselblads still go for a ton of money on the used market.

Not if you're a seller. Right?

I'm glad I had the body repaired. It maintains the value of the whole outfit, if for no other reason, using it!

The Z5 takes all the vintage Nikon glass in manual focus, step down mode.

Took some great flower pix with the old macro lens.

Get rid of stuff?

I give my daughter old digital gear in perfect shape but everything's iPhone or GoPro. I send her spectacular photos. My propaganda campaign will eventually work.

Gentle Persuasion.

By comparison, I gave my Mom the Olympus PenFT, and she did great, match-needle and manual focus.

Half frame 35mm! Believe it or not, in 1973 I had a job using one to shoot baby portraits in L.A. Can you imagine shooting portraits with a half frame negative? It was all about profits. The company I worked for saved a ton on the cost of film.

The Mat had a triplet lens, which was OK, but the 124 had, I think, a Tessar type, qhich was better

I wanted Hasselblad, but that was out of the question, so I settled on a Mamiyaflex 330, which was much better than I thought it woul be.

It was a solid workhorse and produced very sharp photos. I used it for everything in the mid to late 70s. One great feature was that it took 220 film, for 24 images. The older ones only took 120. There was a plate inside that had to be moved depending on which film you were using.

We all wanted Hasselblads, didn't we? I would have killed for a Koni or a Mamiya. The 330 was a great camera.

pressure on the film back when the 220 rolls didn't have paper over the film part. I was never sure it really worked

I just remember that it was a big deal that they would use 220 film.

Nice pictures!