Another good choice would be a TLR.
Another good choice would be a TLR.
I agree with others who feel that virtually all folks who shoot film today are collectors. Most (I'm sure there are a FEW exceptions) who buy and shoot film cameras today have way more than they would if they were solely interested in shooting. Most probably have more old film cameras in their "collection" than a really dedicated professional ever had. Just read the majority of posts here and it's quite obvious.
I admit, I collect cameras, but I do shoot them all to one degree or another, and most I have invested in having serviced to bring them back to dependability. I will start selling them off eventually, keeping only the ones I really like, but in the mean time, it's fun to play with all of these variants. Never would have had the opportunity at full price. I enjoy the process of taking the photos and using the cameras as much as looking at the potots.
I have tired collecting, just last month I set out to collect all so ran 35mms, even bought a few, but I am by nature a shooter not a collector. I have always as divied up photogaphers into 2 groups, those who take pictures in order to own cameras and those who own cameras in order to take pictures. I have no ill will aginst collectors, well other than they drive up the price of some cameras, but no matter how hard I try I am just not a collector. If films just fades away I will have no use for my cameras. The reason I have so many cameras is that I have kept what I had rather than sell, most often becuase they are close to being worn out.
I use everyone of them regularly - I do my part in keeping film alive, but I also would like to have a historical perspective on it. When I see such varying designs juxtaposed, it always has me wondering what were the thought process involved at that time . . .
Also, it is much better to have them in my possession then sitting unused or worst!
Sit back and take a long breath. Decide what you want to collect, i.e. format, brand, country, etc. Years ago I had a thing for 1/2 frame cameras as I bought one and loved it. I ended up with a near complete collection of every Olympus model and variant including the F series with all its lenses and accessories. I also got the hots for Exacta and had an amazing number of bodies and lenses from many makers and accessories. During this period there were many oppotunities to collect others but I kept the cash close and kept focused. I was lucky as at the time both 1/2 frame cameras, mostly Olympus but also some Konicas including the Autoreflex that I loved to shoot, and Exacta were not on anyones' list as keepers including owners and they'd trade them in to a local dealer who'd give next to nothing and I paid as low as $5 to him as he wanted to turn this junk over for the good stuff like Konica, Minolta, etc.
There is nothing wrong being a collector. There are those who collect audio equipment, those who collect fountain pens, those who collect ex-spouses, and automobile collectors. Some also use them or a portion of the collection. I've moved my collection motivation of hobbies to a user staus but, understand the collector in each of us. Today I have a few cameras mostly found at flea markets, etc. Down to maybe 6 from hundreds and have 2 systems. I also went from over a hundred fountain pens to 6 and sold off much of my audio equipment collection.
A good collector will acquire pristine examples of emblematic cameras. So the first SLR, an important Leica, maybe a Plaubel Makina, etc. They will almost certainly go up in value from a high starting point. Leave less than perfect examples to people who use them. Mainstream cameras made by the million will never be worth very much.
Should have this thread been Called 'Ground breaking cameras that should in the ultimate collection'
While I don't necessarily get collecting cameras for collecting sake, people still do it.
I'll add one to the list, though - The Minolta 7000 (one without LCD bleed, of course)
I think some of the criticism of people who buy cameras as collectors' pieces is a little misplaced. For the kinds of cameras that are likely to be potential users, there are plenty to go around. As for driving up prices, again for the cameras likely to be used regularly, I'm not convinced that's the case. It may be true for a pristine, boxed Leica M3, but then who would buy that to take it out and get it dusty and wet anyway? Taking the longer view, come the day when all the users have been used, the collectors' cabinets can then be plundered for examples that have been kept in suspended animation! For most cameras that we'd likely want to take out and shoot with, we're hardly talking mortgage money.
To return to the OP's question (which was only seeking advice on cameras he should have, not whether he should be collecting in the first place!) I'll throw in another - the Zenit E. Though no great shakes specification-wise, it provided a first step into the world of SLR photography for many teenagers like myself in the 1970s who couldn't afford a Pentax and wanted to move upmarket from something like a Halina Paulette.