Topic: Would you care to own a camera that belonged to a famous photographer?

[gothamtomato]

Fotocare here in NYC has a Hasselblad SWC 903 for sale that they say was owned by Lee Friedlander. So if you'd like to own a camera previously owned by a famous photographer, here's your chance. The price tag: $4995. 

[Aksel]

For me it`s something special about knowing the history of anything old, its just interesting - don`t know why.
I use my grandfathers tools, the tools he bought in the fifties when he sat up his garage, still in perfect shape and a good reminder to spend those few extra (choose your currency) on quality that lasts.
A gentleman I once allmoast sold some Leica Lenses to had a friend who had a Leica M3 sitting around on a cup board. Once given by the Leitz family to a German Buddhist monk by the name Sugata. The camera traveled with the monk all around Asia back in the days. When he could not afford film he would still fire the shutter, to "capture" the moment.  This Monk lived his last days in a rural area a cupel of hours drive outside Oslo. He gave away the camera just before he passed away, together with large amounts of photos and negatives taken with it. It would be kind of special to us that camera as a daily beater, as it was built to be used, knowing it`s history.
Irrational but still - I believe - very pleasurable 

[Late Developer]

If it's not going to help or make me take better photos, I'd be loathe to pay much, if anything, extra for a camera used by someone famous. The other thing is that, dependent upon who owned it, the camera might be absolutely battered if it was a professional tool and might end up being no more than an expensive ornament.

I would, however, like to own some photos taken by someone famous. I saw some beautiful prints of photos taken by (and printed by) Dorothy Bohm a while back. I would love to own a couple but they were upwards of £1,500 each; so I'll have to make do with her books.

Incidentally, for those interested, there's an exhibition of over 100 of Ansel Adams' prints to be shown in Greenwich from early November. Lara and I will be there one weekend. Anyone interested in meeting up for the exhibition / day shooting in the area?

[charles binns]

Whilst I would quite like to own a camera previously used by someone famous, I baulk at forking out $5,000 for the privilege.  To be honest, I agree with LD,  I'd rather own a print made by someone famous - after all it's the images that made the photographer famous, not the camera. 

The Anselm Adams exhibition sounds well worth a look.  Will discuss with Mrs B.

[DaveO]

    If you want to see some unbelievable photographs look up Gregory Crewdson.  I believe he uses a large format camera.  They look more like paintings than photographs.  I assume they are for sale.
    They remind me of the illustrator that used to do the cover of Look Magazine.

[gothamtomato]

I agree, I'd balk at the 5K price as well (which is one reason I didn't buy it) the price was way too high. The condition is OK. They said it was his backup camera. But I thought it was way overpriced for the condition.

And funny you mention Ansel Adams; I remember after he died, his Hasselblad was auctioned off for charity. And years ago I went to the auction of the estate of Sammy Davis Jr, and his camera equipment (he had quite a bit), including a Hasselblad system and a Rolliflex system, were for sale - and actually went pretty cheap. So cheap that afterwards I wished I had bid.

[Lino]

I guess it depends on the photographer. But i wouldn't pay 5 grand for it!

[gothamtomato]

For me it`s something special about knowing the history of anything old, its just interesting - don`t know why.

I'm the same way. Whenever I find myself walking past the building where Alfred Stieglitz had his gallery I always wish I could walk in the door and back in time to visit the gallery.

[astrobeck]

I'd just like to bring some of the passed on photographers back to life so I could follow them around and watch them at work.

Owning their camera is really of no use to me if they aren't around to show me how they used it.

 

[moominsean]

Adam Goldberg recently had his Super 23 signed by William Eggleston at a show. That's the kind of thing I could get behind if I were there and he had signed my camera. It would be really special to me. Owning someone else's camera, regardless of how famous, wouldn't mean much to me, unless they gave it to me or something. I have had a couple cameras that had interesting historical backgrounds, like one that I was able to trace to a professional photographer in Kansas City that used it back in the 1940s (It had his name etched in the bottom). But I still sold it because I never used it.

[tani.P]

I don't really see the point in just owning something a master photographer owned--it's no different than other cameras of the same make & model, right? I get more pleasure out of digging up old cameras in thrift stores, friends' basements, and the like.

On an semi-related note, several years ago I went to a Lee Friedlander show at MOMA in NYC and saw a photo he took of a cellist whose music I love, Erik Friedlander (his son!). I hadn't realized they were related before that. Later that week I went to see Erik Friedlander play at Cornelia Street Cafe and in walks Lee Friedlander! Leica around his neck and all. I didn't approach him though and I regret it immensely. Anyway, check out Erik's music because it's amazing stuff.

[Francois]

If anyone wants a beat-up Trip-35 with David Bailey's signature on it, I could probably arrange something in my workshop 

[gothamtomato]

I don't really see the point in just owning something a master photographer owned--it's no different than other cameras of the same make & model, right?

It isn't any different, but people collect all kinds of things. After Andy Warhol died and they auctioned off his estate, people spent absurd amounts of money buying common items he owned. I think the most infamous was someone spending (I think it was) about 200K on a collection of Fiestaware that was worth only a tiny fraction of that. I heard that that person later tried to sell the dishes and took a bath.

THere is no item so strange or ordinary that someone, somewhere, doesn't collect it.

[benjiboy]

I don't subscribe to the idea that  because a celebrity has owned something makes it more valuable, their charisma/talent does rub off.

[mcduff]

Some part of me likes to know the history of any used piece of equipment - partly for logical reasons (like how abused it was) and partly what could be considered emotional reasons (knowing the 'story' of camera). I really don't care if someone famous used it but if it has done neat things that is a different story.  I was really influenced by 'paddle to the sea' by the great Bill Mason (http://www.nfb.ca/film/paddle_to_the_sea/) whenI was a kid that makes me care where stuff has been haha. But not who held it.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Makes a nice story ... http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Saving-Sergeant-Mapham-s-camera/story-17134391-detail/story.html

And an artefact of historical value.