Misconceptions of Vintage

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Messages
125
Name
Ian Grant
Edit My Images
No
When it comes to photographic equipment there is some overall consensus.

1. Film cameras per see are not Vintage, although of course some are.

Think Beer, all are Ales, but not all Ales are Beers. Beers contain Hops, Ales used a variety of bittering agents, including Hops.

So where is a line drawn, typicall pre 1964 is roughly vintage with 35mm SLR cameras, and around 1972 with lenses and Multi-Coating. But then a 1954 Leica M3 is barely vintage, we can still buy new lenses for them and they still have service support.

Most early Medium Format SLR cameras are unreliable, the Hasselblad 500C was the first reliable camera followed by the Bronica S2a, while old they are not vintage cameras.

A vintage MF SLP camera would be something like a Reflex Korelle, or the post WWII Agiflex copy.

Large format, well vintage is930s and older. But even then a Century 5x4 camera (and similar US camera) can take modern 5x4 DDS. The US standarised their plate (&film) holders in the very early 1900s, here in the UK we had no standar until after WWII, it was the same in Europe. Then we adopted the US standard.

So pre-WW2 British LF cameras are definitely vintage.

Film cameras of various formats are still being made, and there are plenty on the second hand market. Because they are not digital does not make them vintage.


2. Lenses

With 35mm lenses Vintage is generally pre-Multi Coating, prior to that many Wide Angle lenses and almost all Zooms were quite low contrast.

It’s also about early disigns, think 58mm f2 Biotar, 58mm f1.9 Primoplan,55mm 50mm Pancolar, etc, longer FL Triplets Triotar, Triplan etc.

Sticking a film camera lens on a Digital camera does not make it Vintage, particularly if it’s a modern Multi-Coated lens. It’s just a cheap lens solution :D Nothing wrong with that.


3. When is a lens really Vintage

Perhaps when it really is old and gives a Vintage look, uncoated, but even then that’s a personal perspective. Even that varies with design.

Perhaps I’m lucky I have a Dallmeyer Stigmatic II No 5 lens, and have photographs of Alec Strachan, who made it, he worked for Dallmeyer from 1860 to 1910.

Bottom line, no Multi Coated lens is vintage, just because it doesn’t fit a different manufacturers Digital camera.

Ian
 
Last edited:
It’s simple. Anything before I was born is vintage. Anything before I got into photography is retro. Anything more recent than my gear is new.
 
Many auctioneers go with;
>100 years = Antique,
<100 years but older than 30-40 years = Vintage
and retro is at least 20 years old

I think its pretty subjective though depending on what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
I think Ian is just presenting his own definitions. Other people may have different opnions and I don't set any store by it. And I have no idea what ale or beer has to do with it.

But, it reminds me of a former colleague who was miffed that his 1970's Datsun did not qualify as a classic car in a local show. He was told that it was undeniably vintage, but would never be regarded as classic. :D
 
Ian Grant said:
2. Lenses

With 35mm lenses Vintage is generally pre-Multi Coating, prior to that many Wide Angle lenses and almost all Zooms were quite low contrast.

It’s also about early disigns, think 58mm f2 Biotar, 58mm f1.9 Primoplan,55mm 50mm Pancolar, etc, longer FL Triplets Triotar, Triplan etc.
Click to expand...
These are your assertions. But I can't see that the term vintage has such a precise meaning. It's just one of those casual 'flavour' adjectives.

Ryan's post #4 above is about as clear as it gets ...
 
lindsay said:
It's all semantics. A definition is fine but it's in the eye of the beholder unless you are an auctioneer.
Click to expand...

I understand that the term "vintage" can be defined simply by age, certainly by the trade and organisations including collectors, etc. Whereas Ian is introducing other random criteria including whether the item still can still be serviced by the manufacturer and general reliability.

"Classic" however is as lindsay describes; a personal value sometimes influenced by social and printed media, clubs and associations, etc.
 
droj said:
These are your assertions. But I can't see that the term vintage has such a precise meaning. It's just one of those casual 'flavour' adjectives.

Ryan's post #4 above is about as clear as it gets ...
Click to expand...

No, that's actually not my assertions at all, that's my observations after viewing many YouTube videos, yes it is one of those casual "flavour" adjectives

Ryan's post #4 is very close to my own perspective, maybe because I might be older I see that vintage criteria to be 50-60 years.

That's based on experience, and the response from others seeing images made with various lenses, assuming they were new, despite being between 50-160 years old.

Ian
 
LeeRatters said:
Does 'classic' fit somewhere in between vintage & retro then? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I think it depends on which bats, in which belfries are ring-ding-a-dinging which bells... :tumbleweed:
 
For cars the strict definition of vintage is made before 1931, except as below, but even auctioneers will call newer cars vintage in their descriptions
(Veterans are pre-1904 followed by Edwardians)
Post vintage thoroughbreds, classics, and retro follow depending on the years of your youth !

Cameras were in use before cars but the earliest examples of both can still be used. I hope we can keep it that way
 
vintageman said:
For cars the strict definition of vintage is made before 1931, except as below, but even auctioneers will call newer cars vintage in their descriptions
(Veterans are pre-1904 followed by Edwardians)
Post vintage thoroughbreds, classics, and retro follow depending on the years of your youth !
Click to expand...

For motorcycles, the Vintage Motor Cycle Club says generously that “it encompasses any motorcycle over 25 years old on an annual rolling basis”

The Vintage Motor Cycle Club - History

www.vmcc.net www.vmcc.net

The Sunbeam Club goes with the narrower 1915 to 1931 definition, but my dad was always more active in the VMCC so I am happy with theirs :D
 
Last edited:
Ian Grant said:
No, that's actually not my assertions at all, that's my observations after viewing many YouTube videos, yes it is one of those casual "flavour" adjectives

Ryan's post #4 is very close to my own perspective, maybe because I might be older I see that vintage criteria to be 50-60 years.

That's based on experience, and the response from others seeing images made with various lenses, assuming they were new, despite being between 50-160 years old.

Ian
Click to expand...

Ah. So your opinion is based on that irrefutable font of knowledge: youtube

That explains it. :rolleyes:
 
Vintage is anything over 25 years technically but then this can apply very loosely.

Like my Gibson Les Paul is 25 years old now, it's "vintage" but when referred to guitars, people associate vintage to 50's and early 60's guitars.

Cameras....I think of it as manual ones, that's about it.
 
Clive K said:
Ah. So your opinion is based on that irrefutable font of knowledge: youtube

That explains it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My opinion is not based on any YouTubers, it's very much deeper, based on decades in photography. My actual thoughts are that most of the YouTube videos are obsessive.

Definitions of vintage are quite fluid when it comes to photographic equipment, Since the invention of Dry plates in 1871 by Richard Maddox there have been various step changes in camera and lens development. The first SLR cameras were introduced in the early1900s, a TLR not long after,

Of course the major change is the first 35mm camera the Leica, that forced film companies to greatly improve their emulsions. Ilford's 1935 Fine Grain Panchromatic )FP), & Hypersensitive Panchromatic (HP) were the first of a new generation of high quality films, Ilford still make their successors FP4 & HP5.

A firther step change is the 1936 Kine Exacta, the first 35mm SLR, then the Cintax/Pentaco SLR, and in 1952 the KW Praktina the first full professional SLR system. Unlike the Exacta the Praktina system included motor drives, bulk film backs, and a vast array of lenses from multiple manufacturers.

The next step change was modern Japanese SLRs, the Nikon F system introduced in 1959, the Pentax Spotmatic in 1964, and similar cameras for other Japanese manufacturers.

Focal Press published 3 editions of a book "CAMERAS THE FACTS HOW they work WHAT they do HOW they Compare", 1957, 1960, & 1963/4.

Not every camera then available new is in these books, which are essentially 2-4 page précis of different cameras, taken from the small Focal Press camera guides. Comparing these 3 books is interesting because you see the demise of the 120 folding cameras, the collapse of German camera manufacture, and by 1963/4 the beginning of Japanese dominance with rangefinder and SLP camera.

From my perspective from 1963/4 is the modern era of camera manufacture, yes there were improvements and refinements, various auto modes added, I see Vintage as prior to this. Yes sure a 1960s film camera is retro to compare to much later film cameras and DSLRs but still capable of extremely high quality results.

Of course someone younger who has only used digital camera could have a different perspective, but when you see how many young people are buying film cameras and lenses at camera fairs they have different perspectives.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Ian Grant said:
Since the invention of Dry plates in 1971 by Richard Maddox
Click to expand...
Cor blimey! That bloke was a genius; dead for 69 years and still inventing stuff!
 
"Cameras: the Facts" is a useful reference for what might be called "The SLR Revolution" but I don't find the line drawings as much fun as a book with photographs of the cameras. My copy is the 1981 reprint...

Cameras the Facts front cover FZ82 P1010842.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Ian Grant said:
From my perspective from 1963/4 is the modern era of camera manufacture, yes there were improvements and refinements, various auto modes added, I see Vintage as prior to this. Yes sure a 1960s film camera is retro to compare to much later film cameras and DSLRs but still capable of extremely high quality results.
Click to expand...
You're talking 60+ years in your definition of 'modern' cameras. I personally think that is stretching it a bit.
Maybe the mid 60's was the peak of the film camera technology adoption lifecycle but I would say its a completely separate technological era from digital and worlds away from actual modern digital cameras.
Are 60's cameras modern in terms of photographic film capture technology? Sure, in the same way current mirrorless cameras are modern compared to the first CCD sensors developed in the late 70's. Those early CCD sensors could still be considered vintage in the digital era so I think technological eras that came before the advent of digital could validly be considered vintage.
 
Can we introduce those dancing angels and their amazing performing pin head at this point?

:tumbleweed:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
"Cameras: the Facts" is a useful reference for what might be called "The SLR Revolution" but I don't find the line drawings as much fun as a book with photographs of the cameras. My copy is the 1981 reprint...
Click to expand...

I never came across the reprint. I picked up 2 Blue Books for £1 each at a camera fair, one from the US 1985, the other Hove International 1994-1995. The US book has far more photographs, and higher quality. The original Blue Book was actually the Wallace & Heaton catalogue. 1971-2 expensive 20p.

The other great resource is the British Journal Phorographic Almanac, I have every copy from 1920063, after that it became the BJP Annual. I have a few pre 1920 copies as well.

Ian
 
RyanB said:
You're talking 60+ years in your definition of 'modern' cameras. I personally think that is stretching it a bit.
Maybe the mid 60's was the peak of the film camera technology adoption lifecycle but I would say its a completely separate technological era from digital and worlds away from actual modern digital cameras.
Are 60's cameras modern in terms of photographic film capture technology? Sure, in the same way current mirrorless cameras are modern compared to the first CCD sensors developed in the late 70's. Those early CCD sensors could still be considered vintage in the digital era so I think technological eras that came before the advent of digital could validly be considered vintage.
Click to expand...

You need to have a knowledge of pre 1963/4 cameras, there really was a massive improvement in terms of quality and handling, reliability, also lens quality.

Film cameras and Digital cameras are different media, I use both. My preference is 5x4 sheet film, sometimes 10x8, and my Rolleiflex TLRs.

Ian
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Ah. You mean these...

View attachment 472772
Click to expand...

Yes, I went into their shop in New Bond Street a couple of times, maybe 1970/1, and it was an amazing store. I went in again after Dixon's bought the company and it had gone downhill.

I didn't realise Wallace & Heaton had taken over or merged with City Sales & Exchange, They were a large retailer 19 pages of adverts in the 1915 BJP Almanac. It seems they had merged by 1954 with 7 stores in London, 3 under the W&H name, 4 City Sales & Exchange.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
My opinion is not based on any YouTubers, it's very much deeper, based on decades in photography. My actual thoughts are that most of the YouTube videos are obsessive.

Definitions of vintage are quite fluid when it comes to photographic equipment, Since the invention of Dry plates in 1871 by Richard Maddox there have been various step changes in camera and lens development. The first SLR cameras were introduced in the early1900s, a TLR not long after,

Of course the major change is the first 35mm camera the Leica, that forced film companies to greatly improve their emulsions. Ilford's 1935 Fine Grain Panchromatic )FP), & Hypersensitive Panchromatic (HP) were the first of a new generation of high quality films, Ilford still make their successors FP4 & HP5.

A firther step change is the 1936 Kine Exacta, the first 35mm SLR, then the Cintax/Pentaco SLR, and in 1952 the KW Praktina the first full professional SLR system. Unlike the Exacta the Praktina system included motor drives, bulk film backs, and a vast array of lenses from multiple manufacturers.

The next step change was modern Japanese SLRs, the Nikon F system introduced in 1959, the Pentax Spotmatic in 1964, and similar cameras for other Japanese manufacturers.

Focal Press published 3 editions of a book "CAMERAS THE FACTS HOW they work WHAT they do HOW they Compare", 1957, 1960, & 1963/4.

Not every camera then available new is in these books, which are essentially 2-4 page précis of different cameras, taken from the small Focal Press camera guides. Comparing these 3 books is interesting because you see the demise of the 120 folding cameras, the collapse of German camera manufacture, and by 1963/4 the beginning of Japanese dominance with rangefinder and SLP camera.

From my perspective from 1963/4 is the modern era of camera manufacture, yes there were improvements and refinements, various auto modes added, I see Vintage as prior to this. Yes sure a 1960s film camera is retro to compare to much later film cameras and DSLRs but still capable of extremely high quality results.

Of course someone younger who has only used digital camera could have a different perspective, but when you see how many young people are buying film cameras and lenses at camera fairs they have different perspectives.

Ian
Click to expand...

Sorry, but all that is waffle. You said in your post that you had come to the conclusions about what you think is vintage after viewing many Youtube videos. Now you are saying that you have not based your opinion on any Youtube videos. You are contradicting yourself.

Basically you have an opinion on what is vintage and what is not vintage. That is fine. It is your personal opinion. As you are now aware, many disagree with your opinion. However, in creating this thread in the way that you have and then your trying to justify your posting of a photo taken with a vintage lens on a vintage or antique camera on a thread created for modern cameras demonstrates your total lack of understanding other people's valid opinions.
 
RyanB said:
You're talking 60+ years in your definition of 'modern' cameras. I personally think that is stretching it a bit.
Maybe the mid 60's was the peak of the film camera technology adoption lifecycle but I would say its a completely separate technological era from digital and worlds away from actual modern digital cameras.
Are 60's cameras modern in terms of photographic film capture technology? Sure, in the same way current mirrorless cameras are modern compared to the first CCD sensors developed in the late 70's. Those early CCD sensors could still be considered vintage in the digital era so I think technological eras that came before the advent of digital could validly be considered vintage.
Click to expand...

Ian Grant said:
You need to have a knowledge of pre 1963/4 cameras, there really was a massive improvement in terms of quality and handling, reliability, also lens quality.

Film cameras and Digital cameras are different media, I use both. My preference is 5x4 sheet film, sometimes 10x8, and my Rolleiflex TLRs.
Click to expand...
Well you've convinced me, thanks for the education. /s>
 
Anything over 20 years old
It comes from the French
Vingt age anglicised to Vintage
 
Clive K said:
Sorry, but all that is waffle. You said in your post that you had come to the conclusions about what you think is vintage after viewing many Youtube videos. Now you are saying that you have not based your opinion on any Youtube videos. You are contradicting yourself.

Basically you have an opinion on what is vintage and what is not vintage. That is fine. It is your personal opinion. As you are now aware, many disagree with your opinion. However, in creating this thread in the way that you have and then your trying to justify your posting of a photo taken with a vintage lens on a vintage or antique camera on a thread created for modern cameras demonstrates your total lack of understanding other people's valid opinions.
Click to expand...

I said observations from watching Videos, these were of other people's opinions on vintage lenses. I'm not particularly interested in those lenses I mentioned but they are mostly from pre-1963/4..

From my point of view "Vintage" is early wood and brass cameras, Quarter plate to 12"x10" early SLRs, 120, Quarter plate, and larger, up to Half plate. That also includes lenses going back to the 1860s.

redfern000sm.jpg


So that greatly colours my opinions of what's vintage or modern.

exa1a06sm.jpg

exa1a04sm.jpg

So yes I consider this Exa 1a camera as Vintage.

spotF-sm.jpg

But to me this is "Modern" OK some might sat Retrp.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I said observations from watching Videos, these were of other people's opinions on vintage lenses. I'm not particularly interested in those lenses I mentioned but they are mostly from pre-1963/4..

From my point of view "Vintage" is early wood and brass cameras, Quarter plate to 12"x10" early SLRs, 120, Quarter plate, and larger, up to Half plate. That also includes lenses going back to the 1860s.

View attachment 472784


So that greatly colours my opinions of what's vintage or modern.

View attachment 472781

View attachment 472782

So yes I consider this Exa 1a camera as Vintage.

View attachment 472783

But to me this is "Modern" OK some might sat Retrp.

Ian
Click to expand...

Ian, you can twist and turn and waffle all that you want. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. But the crux is that you, I nor anybody else has the definitive opinion on what is vintage and what isn't. The difference is that only you thinks that you have and only you tries to impose your views on everybody else.

I'm about to make use of the ignore function. Your opinions have nothing of interest to me. I won't be reading any more of them.
 
Last edited:
All film cameras are vintage. The last being vintage'ish. It was only digital that defined a new age.
 
I've only just spotted this thread.

It's a shame you felt the need to go off and try and gain support for your definition of vintage.

Every definition I've ever seen of 'vintage' wrt photography puts the cut-off point somewhere in the 90s - pre digital. Stricter definitions put the cut-off in the 80s, pre AF. I don't think any of them claim an 85 year-old camera is modern.

I'd love to see some links to verify where this 'consensus' comes from. It seems like the only misconception is from you.

Here's some links which back up what most other people believe.

Here's what Adobe says:

What is vintage photography?​

Vintage photography is a broad category. It’s not typified by any one technology or technique. It includes every kind of analogue photography, from century-old cameras that could live in a museum to cameras that once used Kodachrome and even film cameras from the early 2000s. “Vintage photography is basically utilising colour, black-and-white or colour slide film in an analogue camera,” says photographer Jennifer Froula-Weber.
Click to expand...


When it comes to antiques, vintage is generally accepted as anything more than 22 years old, but less than 100.

Here's what House Beautiful says about vintage furniture for example.

What is the true definition of vintage?​

So how old is vintage? Technically, vintage refers to pieces that are between 20 and 100 years old.

This means that anything made between the 1920s and the 2000s currently counts as vintage. Yes, the 90s are officially vintage.
Click to expand...


When it comes to clothing Vogue have this to say

In the most widely accepted sense, vintage refers to clothing and accessories that are at least twenty years old but less than one hundred years old. That places the current vintage sweet spot anywhere between the 1920s and early 2000s. Yes, the low-slung jeans, barely-there tanks, and slinky slip dresses of the Y2K era officially qualify. The category, elastic by nature, stretches as each generation adds its own sartorial past to the roster.​

Click to expand...


Lastly here's what ChatGPT came back with:

Here’s a clear, practical timeline that reflects how photographers, collectors, and publications (like British Journal of Photography and The International Center of Photography) actually use the terms vintage, modern, and collectible when talking about cameras and lenses.

Photography Equipment Timeline (with real models)​

1) Pre-1920s →​

These are historically important but sit outside what most people mean by “vintage.”

  • Early plate cameras, folding cameras
  • Example: Kodak Brownie No. 2 (1901)
How people label it:

  • “Antique camera”
  • Museum/historical category

2) 1920s–1950s →​

This is where “vintage camera” really begins in a meaningful sense.

  • Rise of 35mm, rangefinders, precision optics
  • Mechanical craftsmanship dominates
Key models:

  • Leica II (1932)
  • Contax II (1936)
  • Rolleiflex Automat (1937)
How it’s viewed:

  • Definitively vintage
  • Strong collector demand
  • Often overlaps with “historical”

3) 1950s–1970s →​

If someone says “vintage camera,” this is usually what they mean.

  • Fully mechanical systems
  • Peak industrial design + durability
Key models:

  • Leica M3 (1954)
  • Nikon F (1959)
  • Pentax Spotmatic (1964)
Lenses:

  • Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4
  • Helios 44-2 58mm f/2
How it’s viewed:

  • The core definition of vintage
  • Highly usable today
  • Strong aesthetic identity (build + rendering)

4) Late 1970s–1980s →​

This is where things get blurry.

  • Introduction of electronics (light meters, aperture priority)
  • Still largely manual focus
Key models:

  • Canon AE-1 (1976)
  • Nikon FM2 (1982)
How it’s viewed:

  • Still widely called vintage
  • Sometimes “classic film cameras”
  • Less “purely mechanical,” but still in the vintage category

5) Late 1980s–1990s →​

This is the grey zone where terminology really splits.

  • Autofocus, electronic systems dominate
  • Beginning of “modern” ergonomics
Key models:

  • Canon EOS 650 (1987)
  • Nikon F5 (1996)
How it’s viewed:

  • Not always called vintage
  • Often labelled:
    • “modern film camera”
    • “collectible” (especially pro models)
Important nuance:
Some photographers resist calling this era “vintage” because it feels too technologically similar to today

6) Early Digital (1990s–2000s) →​

Digital changes everything.

Key models:

  • Nikon D1 (1999)
  • Canon EOS 5D (2005)
How it’s viewed:

  • Rarely called vintage (yet)
  • Typically:
    • “early digital”
    • “obsolete tech”
  • BUT: some are becoming collectible milestones

7) 2010s–Present →​

  • Mirrorless systems, computational photography
Key models:

  • Sony A7 (2013)
  • Fujifilm X-T5
How it’s viewed:

  • Fully modern
  • Sometimes styled to look vintage, but not actually vintage

The Key Boundary (the one that matters most)​

If you simplify everything, the most widely accepted dividing line is:

✅​

  • Roughly pre-1990
  • Mechanical or early electronic
  • Strong design identity

⚠️​

  • 1990s autofocus film cameras
  • Some now becoming “collectible,” not fully “vintage”

❌​

  • Digital cameras (even early ones)

A more nuanced way to think about it​

Instead of just dates, serious photographers tend to think in three overlapping labels:

1.​

  • Mechanical or early electronic film cameras
  • ~1930s–1980s
  • Example: Nikon F2

2.​

  • Important or iconic, regardless of age
  • Can include 1990s–2000s gear
  • Example: Canon EOS 5D

3.​

  • Digital era, current systems

✔️ Bottom line​

If you want a clean, defensible definition:

A vintage camera or lens is typically film-era equipment from roughly the 1930s–1980s, especially manual-focus and mechanical systems.
And the tricky part:

The late 80s–90s is a transition zone, where gear is often collectible but not universally considered vintage.
Click to expand...

Every 'vintage lens' I own and was using in the other thread is Manual Focus and pre-1983.
 
Last edited:
It's just a word for old, replaced, 2nd hand used goods that people bought and using the word to give it "character".

That's how I see it.

It's not like wine where there is a particularly strong year of harvest.

The fact that we are all looking at a bunch of 1's and 0's.....aka, all digital....makes the term vintage or analogue photography even more....erm....odd choice of word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top