In a world of hundreds of film cameras to choose from, there is a continuum of value for cameras. In this article I list out cameras ranging from most overrated to most underrated.
To preface this list, I would like to say that I don’t exclusively make an assessment on price but it plays the biggest role. Perhaps for that reason, I should have used “valued” instead of using “rated” but since price isn’t everything, I kept it with “rated.” In addition, I will say I consulted with a buddy of mine on this list as he works in the film camera department at the local camera shop and tries out their new stock just about every week so he was more familiar with the current going rates of these cameras as well as a wealth more first-hand knowledge. That said, the world of film photography is quite small and it doesn’t always take first-hand experience to know when one camera is hyped up to a point that it just doesn’t make sense and isn’t worth it.
If you recall from my article a couple weeks ago about film photography heading towards extinction, I argued that in film photography is in a bit of lose-lose situation at the moment. With nearly all film cameras being used and the majority of which are decades old, the finite supply will continue to dwindle until there’s little to nothing left at some point. Why then write an article pointing people towards different model cameras? First off, someone new to film may care to know which cameras are over-hyped/overpriced so they can stay away from them. Second off, because film is on the up and up and as such, more and more people have been making the move back to it – being pointed in one direction or another could be helpful.
I don’t expect, at all, for everyone to agree with me. Quite the opposite. I expect that anyone with even a fair amount of experience in shooting film to disagree with at least one thing and I whole heartedly hope that you will share those disagreements with me.
Most Overrated
This is the list I feel most nervous to put together. I believe in the list that’s been put together but I expect anyone with a camera on this list may well get a little bent out of shape. I would like for it to be noted that I’m not saying the following cameras and not good cameras to have and use. Indeed, I think all of these cameras are plenty nice. I’m just trying to say that I think they have become a bit bloated, over-hyped, and overpriced.
- Contax T2
- Contax 645
- Leica M3
- Mamiya 7(ii)
It should be noted that the Mamiya 7 is a bit of a dream camera of mine. My experience with it, however, is very limited. I almost picked up a Mamiya 6 once and I regret not getting it when I could have. The Mamiya 7 seems next level though. It takes advantage of benefits of a 6x7 camera while not having the size that’s typically associated with a 6x7. They aren’t particularly great for studio work I don’t think but for that I have a Mamiya RB67 anyhow. So why if it’s a dram camera would it be on this list? Because it is exorbitantly expensive. A basic Mamiya 7 kit is easily $2,000 and a 7ii kit could easily reach $3,000. With the limited lens selection and the premium prices for lenses, it is not a camera I see myself ever getting. Alas, life will go on.
I was really tempted to put the Nikon 35Ti and 28Ti on the list along with the Minolta TC-1. Similar to the Mamiya 7, I have quite a crush on the 35Ti but I can’t imagine paying so many hundreds of dollars for a point and shoot 35mm camera. Great glass? Sure. Great metering? Sure. But those things are also available for smaller SLRs and other point and shoot cameras that aren’t surrounded with as much hype. So why did I leave these off but point the Contax T2 on the list? Because at this point it is the most status-symbol camera out there. It is not at all better than the cameras at the beginning of this paragraph (which are already a bit overpriced) and yet costs hundreds more.
Right in the Middle
- Hasselblad 500 C/M
- Nikon F2-F5
- Mamiya RZ67
- Mamiya 645 earlier models
- Pentax 67(ii) and 6x7
- Pentax K1000
This was probably the hardest list to put together and I’m certain that I’m missing many cameras that just didn’t come to mind at the time of writing. There are so many cameras that get the attention they deserve and are priced well to the quality of the craftsmanship. This is not at all a comprehensive list but rather the cameras that seem to get the most attention in my sphere of film photographers.
On another note, if you're familiar with any of the above cameras, you'd know that they range in price from less than $100 to $1,000. As mentioned at the beginning of the article, while price plays a big roll, it isn't everything. Medium format cameras in particular command higher prices because they have a lot more to offer.
Underrated Cameras
- Nikon F100
- Canon Elan 7
- Pentax 645 (both models)
- Mamiya 645 Pro(-TL)
- Mamiya RB67
It was difficult for me to think of cameras that I think are properly underrated but I hope I’ve come up with a decent list. I’ve not yet written a review on the Nikon F100 but I’ve used that camera more than any other 35mm camera for the past year and a half. It is such a great camera – it can be bought for not much money and it takes advantage of an excellent metering system and autofocus. I also like the Canon Elan 7 but I don’t think that the build quality is quite on par with the F100. As for the Pentax and Mamiya 645 cameras, they don’t get much attention because of their format, being the smallest of the medium format line. As such, they aren’t much money and they both have a pretty extensive lens selection that are also available for not much money. And for those that have followed my film camera reviews, you probably know that I think very highly of the Mamiya RB67. It isn’t the fanciest camera of all time as it is pretty bare bones but it is 6x7 format and very affordable – you could actually get a RB67 kit for less than a basic kit of any of the other cameras on this list.
The Best Part
I hope that if you are familiar with film photography and have any thoughts/opinions about my list – be it that you agree or disagree with which list a camera is on if you think another camera should have made the list, I hope you’ll let me know in the comments below. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me completely and quite honestly, debate is how I and others that are reading will learn. Please and thank you.
I am familiar with older Contax cameras, and Zeiss lenses are top quality, but I don't think a newer Contax would be my choice. I was originally put off when they merged with Yashica. A little too esoteric and it would be difficult to repair if needed, plus it may be hard to find a long lens. Thanks for the comment.
I am familiar with older Contax cameras, and Zeiss lenses are top quality, but I don't think a newer Contax would be my choice. I was originally put off when they merged with Yashica. A little too esoteric and it would be difficult to repair if needed, plus it may be hard to find a long lens. Thanks for the comment.
I have a G2 and four primes plus one zoom lens and wouldn't swap it for anything. Love it!
I'm a sucker for a good copy of an F2. With that there are a lot of different lens options - most all of which are pretty affordable.
I like your picks but they are fairly mainstream. The Fuji GX680 III is a monster camera but one of the only medium format rigs to offer tilt shift and rise lens feature. It came with 18 different lenses and a full package can be had for under $1000. The list for accessories is long and most readily available.
I have hand held this beast for portraits but not something I would recommend. It is crazy fun to shoot with though and the available glass is legendary for it's time.
The GX 680 is quite a camera and the tilt shift/rise feature with bellows reminded me of the Century Graphic 2 x 3 camera that I bought used in the 1960s. It was a simple but wonderful camera, light weight and easy to handle. Mine had a Zeiss Planar 80mm 2.8 installed on it (same lens as Hasselblad at the time). It took 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 roll film backs that gave 10 exposures on 120 roll film (or 20 on 220 film). I had on occasion made use of the tilt/shift feature, but mostly used it to shoot weddings. I was in college at the time and it helped me pay for my education. I still have the camera, its a classic. (see photo)
I've had my eye on the Fuji GX680III system for a long time now due to the tilt/rise functionality since I'm too chicken to get into large format currently. The prices always seem to be extremely reasonable, and I've heard nothing but excellent things about the lenses. One day I'll snag one, but I've got my other MF cameras to keep me plenty busy until then.
I didn't think about that camera! I've seen a couple of them but never shot with them. They seem like quite a large rig for only 6x8. I don't understand why exactly someone who go for such a big setup when they could just get a 120 back for a 4x5. I would venture to guess there are LF setups that are smaller and lighter than the Fuji setup.
Yes, if you want to simplify things, get the 120 back. The Fuji options include a motor drive, masks and focusing glass that shoot 6 X 8, 6 X 7, 6 x 6, and 6 X 4.5 giving it a lot of variations on frame size, folding waist-level (with magnifier) and angle viewfinder, flash sync socket, hotshoe, and 18 different lenses available with a revolving film holder to mention a few. Agreed, it's more complex but it allows for so much more flexibility than a 4 x 5.
I always wanted to buy one like this ! But finally I bought a Rollei SL66, which looks like a Hasselblad, but with tilt (not shift) capability.
There is another great camera that has been overlooked over the years. The Pentax MX, a manual SLR camera (with meter) that was derived from the automatic ME body. In the 1970s my primary 35mm camera was the Nikon F2, but I purchased a black Pentax MX in 1977 for travel because it was much more compact and lighter. It was the only camera I traveled with for 25 years and it performed exceptionally. The MX is solid, compact, well built and has a large and bright viewfinder. It is a much better camera than the better known K1000 especially in build quality. It was an early innovation in smaller, more compact pro-level cameras. Perhaps it was overshadowed by the less desirable automatic ME for serious photographers. I think it is an unrecognized pro-level classic.
Someone else left a comment suggesting that camera. I am not familiar with it but plan to look into it.
Most overrated for me: the Hasselblad XPan (aka Fuji TX-1). I see photos taken with it on Reddit on a semi-frequent basis and it always feels like they get a ton of attention due to the camera used rather than the subject matter. The ability to get a panoramic photo in a single shot is pretty neat and all, but is it $3000-4000 neat? Nah, not in my opinion. I'd sooner spend $250-400 for a Bronica SQ 135W back and get the option of shooting 6x6 or panoramic in one body.
That's a good one! I should have listed that one too... they seem quite interesting but horrendously expensive for a fancy 35mm camera.
I miss shooting with my Elan 7. Still one of my favorite camera bodies to this day!
Nikon N90s - all the features of say, a Nikon FE2, but not "cute" - and only - $20-30
Canon Rebel with a 40 stm - poor man's fixed lens point and shoot - albeit a tad larger
Hasselblad el elm elx - 500 series on the cheap
Canon ae1 has a bit of the k1000 effect going for it - not sure why it's official camera of "I wanna shoot film casually"
I've seen one of those Hasselblad's and I don't remember it being particularly cheap. If I thinking of the right thing, doesn't one of them take some really obscure battery?
They have a cheap adapter available that allows use of a 9v - 500 El and elm are sub $300 - they may have seen some serious use, but are generally reliable, if heavy
Yes, they are quite heavy and the battery issue you mentioned. But there are few models for free... if you ask nicely to Elon Musk if he can make a stop on the moon :-)
good lists ... many brands/models still missing from all lists anyway!
Thank you!
welcome! :-)
Lumping a Nikon F2 in with an F5? The F2 a fantastic beast -- mine is going strong after 43 years. And you can buy them for under $100. You left a couple of vastly underrated cameras off your list -- and that's great cuz I'll still be able to buy 'em for the price of a couple of lattes.
You can find an F2 for less than $100? That's a steal!
No offense but seeing a lot of these responses about loving the Elan, Rebel, K1000, Mamiya 645, Nikon100 is like reading an enthusiast car magazine and seeing how much the readers love their Camrys and Accords. :)
Before you get out your pitchforks I have a Honda and used to have a K100
Ha! I don't know about that. They're all solid cameras.
Camrys and Accords are solid popular cars, best sellers because they get you from point A to point B reliably at a good price. Much like a Rebel or a K1000 but they are nothing to get excited about like a Mamiya 7, 500c/m or F2. :)
Good article! It's funny that on your overrated list, there are zero cameras I want to use.. but from the "RITM" I'd love a use/buy
* Hasselblad 500 C/M (dream cam)
* Mamiya RZ67
On the underrated list I own the F100 that I will NEVER get rid of but would also like to get my hands on:
* Mamiya RB67
I "think" I'd enjoy the process of shooting with a larger format.
Is there a "compelling" reason to choose the RZ67 over RB67? For portraits
I used to have an RZ and used to work for a guy who had an RB. Both good cameras and lenses.
I think the main difference in using them is that the RB winding and shutter cocking is two steps, and RZ it is one step, easier IMO when doing portraits.
A battery winder is available for the RZ. If I was going to buy either today I'd get the RZ just because it's newer and has 1980s lens technology instead of 1970s. But it has more electrical things in it. There are a few versions of RZ.
Compelling reasons to go with the RZ over the RB? No. There are reasons though. The native lenses are better on the RZ and it can still take and use RB lenses. With the RZ you get more electronics which, if they ever go out, may make your RZ a fancy paperweight.
The RB is completely mechanical and considerably less expensive. (At least half the price) and the K/L lenses are either the same as the RZ lenses or just as good. The 'C' lenses are also solid and way more available.
If you've never shot 120, you may find it addictive. Some people love the grain of 35mm and don't like 120 because it doesn't have the same pronounced grain. If you don't mind less grain and added clarity, you'll probably love 120.
Thanks great conversation starter. I have gravitated towards the later more plastic automatic cameras which dont seem to get much love. I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a nikon f4 and minolta a9 both magnificent. Cheaper nikon f90 which is actually my favourite with flash. Greatly underrated and cheap as chips pentax p30t and any of the earlier minolta af cameras. Cheers. Also a canon t90 is on the way after i founf a really cheap t70 and quite liked using it. All of the above seem to feel comfortable in my hands rather than some of the older ones except for the built like a brick outhouse minolta srt101 still reasonable price but getting dearer.
A buddy of mine as the Nikon you mentioned and loves it. It seems like a great camera! Thanks for chiming in!
Having never delved into medium format, mainly because of price, 35mm was always my go-to format. I believe the Canon A1 is one of the most underrated 35mm cameras, usually outdone by its sister AE-1. Look on e-bay and you'll find loads of listings for the AE-1, which is the lesser camera technically but often more expensive than the more capable A1. The theory goes that this looks better than the A1 because of its silver mirror housing and people are attracted by this, but the all black A1 is stunning to behold. The A1 is often quoted as one of the first if not THE first 35mm camera to have aperture priority, starting a trend that has carried through to this day. There is an excellent article on Casual Photophile that considers it to be Canon's greatest. Take a look! https://casualphotophile.com/2015/04/20/canon-a-1-camera-review/
That's cool! Thanks for sharing!
Your article created a lot of discussion and photographers all have their favorites. I was most active in serious photography in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1970s there were only 2 cameras that dominated professional photography and those were the Nikon f2 and the Hasselblad. There were lots of other cameras, but they were for the most part, also rans. Never saw any pros with anything else (except for studio 4 x 5s and 8 x 10s). Maybe that changed in the 1980s and 90s, I don't know.
RZ 67 started catching up the Hasselblads in the 80-90s.
I am very glad I got the film cameras when I did back between 2006 and 2008. Paid only 115 for Hasselblad 500CM and less than 100 for a 120 back and 80mm lens. Other cameras I bought were very inexpensive during those times. I took a chance, believing that their value would increase later....and they did. The Nikon F2a I paid 145 for is well beyond that now. I do use digital, but my heart is with film. Thanks for your article.
IT'S ALL ABOUT FEATURES / PRICE AND ACCESS TO LENSES:
It's a great article - but how best to advise you what to search out in, as you say, a market that can only get smaller as the essential ingrediant - the camera bodies - age and wither?
Start with the list of what you really need - and remember, there is no point having a film camera just to emulate digital! So modern film photography is now "slow photography" - just like "slow food" it's about mastering the controls to deliver the flavours. This means that AF and programmed auto-exposure are not essentials....in fact it's the opposite - so here are my suggestions:
THE ESSENTIALS FOR MODERN "SLOW FILM PHOTOGRAPHY"
[1] the Camera takes 35mm film - because that gives you the greatest range of choice and is the most cost-effective; move up to 120 film later when you have cut your teeth
[2] the camera must have full manual control of shutter and aperture and focus (even if it can also do auto)
[3] it must have a depth-of-field stop down function - and that means that it is an SLR camera -- remember there's no checking output on an LCD screen with film !
[4] IFor creative control it must have shutter speeds down to 1 second AND a threaded shutter release so that you can have "bulb-exposure control"
[5] it must have a hot shoe - even if it also has a pop-up flash, so you can discover the joys of soft strobe lighting bounced off the cieling and walls.
[6] must have a great tripod socket - no weak silly off-centred thing like on a Nikon F301, for in no time you will be taking 120 second exposure seascapes with your ND filters and then is too late to discover that the set up isn't rock solid
[7] It needs a big, bright viewfinder - for there are no digital focusing aids with film
[8] has to be a marque with a wide, wide, wide range of lenses - from cheap 3rd party "generic" to full-on professional 85mm F1.8s: so despite the wonders of Leica M's, quirky Mamiya Z's and Contax Y's this realistically means the "big 5" lens mount system sellers from Pentax, Minolta, Olympus-OM Canon and Nikon.
[8] Life's too short to have battery troubles - they must have "bridge circuit" exposure systems so you can use modern easy to find and inexpensive silver oxide batteries.
Now that makes things easier when searching for a camera - for example, off the list go nearly all the "amateur spec" Nikons since the FTN and Minoltas since the SR series (no depth of field control).
Since the image quality is being set by the lens and the film, not the camera, my advice is to look at the lens ranges; and big sellers mean big choices - so with your camera body and 50mm standard lens you will be wanting to add inexpensive 28mm and 135mm lenses. There are F2.8s of these in their hundreds every day from Vivitar, Sigma, and dozens of no-name alternatives on web-pages of the selling sites such as eBay. They will be 30+ years old so quality will be set more by the absence of haze, dust and fungus on the optics than the name on the barrel. Step up to the expensive branded Nikons, Zuikos, SMC Takamurs etc when you find those first choices are no longer enough.
So since the final brand name means nothing - its all in the lens range. Personally - my suggestion for the most underrated camera that fills this spec is the multi-million selling Pentax P30 (Europe) or P3 (in the USA). Big, bright viewfinder, DoF control, metal-bladed shutter, full manual exposure when you want it, 2 for a dollar batteries and the most fantastic range of lenses imaginable at every price. It has way better spec than the "fabled" K1000 Pentax, is 20 years younger, and sells at rock-bottom prices because it is seen as "low status"!!!. It doesn't even need light seals (that is the crumbling sticky rubber residue that falls into the shutter box with old cameras and takes hours to scrape out and replace). Fail to get one at auction - there will be another along later that day....and the range of lenses is amazing !
Now here is the chance for other F-stoppers to list the other camera's that meet this range of spec' !!!
(and yes, the Olympus OM's meet all the requirements save for the mercury battery issues with the OM1 but check out the prices and then worry - how long will those silk and rubber shutters last?)
Buy 2 or 3 of the same camera body - after all you are future-proofing your photography as Pentax P30/3's aren't worth repairing and you need a spare or two in the cupboard ---- and soon you'll be carrying multiple bodies just like we used to in the 1970s and 80's so that you have a variety of film types and speeds to shoot with at the same time.
And finally - buy a lens "spanning wrench" and learn to take off the rear element of your cheap bargain eBay lenses to clean them - haze seems to build up there most (was it because we store lenses that way up and oil and dirt fall downward with gravity?) and as that element of the lens is closest to the film, and usually also is the smallest diameter element of the lens, especially with wide-angles, imperfections there have the greatest relative impact on image quality. Dust and scratches on the front element have less impact, so leave them alone.
If you can't find a Pentax P30, with a 50mm SMC , 28mm and 135mm for less than $100 / £80 GBP then you aren't looking hard enough ! Spend the rest of your cash on a great tripod, a cable release, ND filters and a modern strobe with power output control...and enjoy it. Then when you have got hooked - those SMC Pentax 100mm and the 50mm F1.4 are just divine to shoot with (at a price) !!
Remember - it's "slow photography" - so take your time to set up the shot, check the depth of field and try out the effect of different apertures before you press the button !
Best wishes to you all - Paul C
Paul, Those are great recommendations and the Pentax P3/30 is a genuine bargain. There is another alternative that should also be considered and that is the Pentax MX. The MX was introduced in 1976 as Pentax's pro-level camera (and far superior to the K1000). It was innovative in that it was one of the first pro quality cameras that was compact and lighter than standard size SLRs. It is even a bit smaller that the P3/30 and lighter, yet is solid all metal construction rather than plastic. The viewfinder is larger and brighter also. And of course it takes all of the SMC and other compatible lenses that you recommend. They have held their value better, but can be purchased for around $150 with 50mm lens. In the 1970s my primary 35mm camera was the Nikon F2, but in 1977 I needed a high quality camera that was smaller and lighter for travel. I purchased a Pentax MX because it was about 70% of the size and just over 50% of the weight of the Nikon. I traveled all over the world with it for 25 years (before switching to digital in 2003) and still have it. It never let me down and still works great. I would recommend it for all the reasons you mention in your comments and that it is a notch above the P3/30 in quality. It's truly an underappreciated professional caliber camera.
MX WONDER MACHINE
B knows his cameras !!! - that MX Pentax is a thing of beauty and ticks all the boxes - especially the fantastic large and bright pentaprism viewfinder.
Sadly it isn't just B that knows it - and you really have to search to get a good MX at an affordable price today.
I think the arrival of the Olympus OM1 forced other camera makers to respond - and this was the Pentax reply; for Pro's with pentax lenses, this was the top of the range until the LX; so judging by the ones I see for sale today I suspect a lot of MX's had a hard life.
The good thing about "amateur price" but "pro-spec" control cameras (someone before posted about the fantastic Ricoh's made with Pentax K mounts) is that many were bought, put straight into the soft "ever ready case" and then sat in drawers to come out for 2 weeks holiday a year plus Christmas and family weddings. There seem to be lots of P30s, Canon AE1's, Minolta x300/500s, and OM's that don't have a scratch on them.
Now that's someting to keep a watch out for!
I bought a Bronica ETRS recently, I'd nominate it for the underrated category... Although then again, if people start to realise how great they are, the prices will probably go up :P
I just recently bought myself into Pentax 645 system. Having a Hasselblad 500CX, Rolleiflex and Kiev 60 and wanting something more reliable, more recent en more versatile. I respect the Hasselblad, but more as an design icon. I find it to fragile, to slow and to cumbersome to work with on-the-go. Maybe because don't want to see it get the tiniest scratch. T
The original 1980s Pentax 645 looks like the inside of a Lamborghini Countach and has age as its major disadvantage. The battery holder en power grip starts to disintegrate on a lot of models. I still have a good one. But this week I got a great deal on 645N - the newer model with added AF and it just... works. It checks all the things that are needed on a camera. It feels great in the hand - an underrated feature - and the button layout is more SLR like. A bright viewfinder and better overal built quality top it off. Would recommend. I see and feel the 6x7 hype all over hipster land, but I get 16 photos on one roll of 120 film with the Pentax 645N and with a small and fantastic 75 F2.8, it's really light and portable. Unlike a RB67 or Pentax 67. The biggest downside is it's 1/60s sync speed if you want to use flash. That's problematic during daylight. Although there is a lens with a built in leaf shutter available, offering the full 1/500s sync speed. But those are rare.
I can also confirm and recommend the Nikon F100. Just like the FE2, it's a great "almost flagship" camera. You can't beat that quality feeling from the past.
The Pentax looks like a nice camera and if you can get a good price and lenses even better.
I just never saw the use for the 645 format other than it's a bit bigger than 35 but not as big as 6x6 or 6x7. But maybe for wedding and portrait folks they were a sweet spot.
I used to live in Detroit where the main things that most commercial photographers shot were cars or people. Most product photos were shot on 4x5. for cars and people most people used Hasselblad 6x6 which would be cropped to roughly 6x4.5 to match the Vert or Horiz crop. Long before hipsters, the guys I worked for or with, moved to RZ67 (or Pentax 67) because of size of the film, rotating back and IIRC the leaf shutter. And if you want 16 exposures per roll there was a 645 back available.
I understand your motivation. But for me personally 6x4.5 hits the sweet spot. I don't need "huge" files or prints from scanned 6x7 negatives. And I find 35mm lacking in detail. This automatically brought me to 6x4.5. The difference with 6x6 is not that big and I'm not a huge fan of square format, not as a "daily" format.
The Pentax 645 is my own project, for now I'm not using it professionally. For high res and speedy work, I have a complete Nikon system. But this may change in the future, if I get my scanning on point.
And indeed hipster ratio is high these days, in the world of medium format. 21 year olds walking around with 6x9 and 6x7 cameras and shooting random snapshots people would ignore even with an iphone. And uploading it to 2K resolution Instagram photo gallery... quite funny. I'm at an age I don't follow the latest trends, I just find what suits my needs and try to enjoy photography with something else than my usual Nikon bag. Especially these days.
I don't know why, but I love the square. I have a 500c/m on long term loan from a friend. Ha, I think I have seen a video with the 20 year old and his musings on his RZ67.
site error
site error
I am surprised (maybe not) that you didn't mention any technical (view) cameras. Sinar can be had for a pittance compared to their real value, so can Toyos and others. Most "woody" field cameras though have held their value . . . some increasing even.
The Mamiya 7ii is a dream. Whilst it isn't exactly small, it is a wonderful camera for virtually any instance, and actually makes a fantastic walk-about camera if you have a shorter lens on it.
I think that I would be correct in supposing that most people who still shoot film do mostly black and white work . . . I would urge any of you that do, to read up on DR5 b/w reversal processing and give it a try. I know that is removing the DIY of a lot of b/w photography, but the results when coupled with the right film and good exposure practice can be astonishing.
Is DR5 still around? That was a fantastic look, Used it a couple times a long time ago.
Great List, much appreciated!