[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article 2014021500570875641-adunc79617@mypacksnet, Michael
wrote:

I disagree with you about Kodak never making cameras that were any
good. In the days before the SLRs captured the attention and money of
every amateur photographer as well as the pros, Kodak made some decent
cameras under their Retina Brand. Most of the good ones were made in
Germany with decent lenses and shutters. They were rangefinder cameras
with (usually) non-interchangeable 50mm lenses, but they were optically
and mechanically good and took good pictures for their day. Their day
ended when every wannabee bought a Nikon F or a Nikkormat. On the
otherhand, all those "wannabees" learned what f stops were and how to
properly expose pictures and focus lenses, something today's DSLR
"wannabees" don't bother to learn because the automation makes it
unnecessary if all they want is an expensive and pompous point and
shoot. Sorry for rambling a little bit OT.
--
Michael

Indeed. While many of the Retina series were overly complex (they were
German, after all) and mechanically troublesome, you cant say they
didn't take a hell of a picture. Some of the best pictures I've ever
taken were with the utterly manual Retina IIa I used to carry
everywhere.

Granted, that was 40 years ago, and the camera wasn't new even then -
but Kodak had their glory says. At one time, I could open the Kodak
catalog at my camera store, and order every single thing a serious
photographer could need, from film, through cameras, to darkroom and on
to mounting supplies.