Trius
Waiting on Maitani
So I sorta disagree with Gene ... I think it is a bit of a backlash, although quite small and minor. But it is a good sign. Not because it's "anti-digital", which of course it isn't. Some of it may be a retro fashion thing, but more than that I think a lot of "kids" really do understand better design, something that is more "user-friendly" in many ways.
I look at it this way ... they've grown up with electronic devices, digital everything, and so they know the subtle differences in UI and industrial design. They're not wowed by something just having a gazillion features but being poorly designed. And they've been through devices that quickly lose their attention despite a plethora of features, not to mention being discarded by the next great thing.
So I think they may be sensing, if subconsciously, that here is a device that is not only well designed, but is dedicated purely to a single task and is built like the proverbial brick outhouse. That's a huge paradigm shift, and even if just for the novelty of it, they will get interested.
The single-purpose aspect is also interesting. The incidence of ADD may be related to the ubiquity of multi-function devices, IMO. If you're ADD and you get something that only have one real function and is pretty intuitive to use, it may just help move you into a space that is far less noisy.
I have a friend who wanted to become a freelance photographer in his retirement. Digital has been a good tool to improve the technical aspects of his work, due to the immediacy of feedback and the lower processing costs. But I swear the number of "keepers" would be much higher if he switched back to film. He's extremely ADD, and all the fiddling he does with his gear (and the fact that he almost always has to cart along EVERYTHING he has) drives me a bit bonkers.
I look at it this way ... they've grown up with electronic devices, digital everything, and so they know the subtle differences in UI and industrial design. They're not wowed by something just having a gazillion features but being poorly designed. And they've been through devices that quickly lose their attention despite a plethora of features, not to mention being discarded by the next great thing.
So I think they may be sensing, if subconsciously, that here is a device that is not only well designed, but is dedicated purely to a single task and is built like the proverbial brick outhouse. That's a huge paradigm shift, and even if just for the novelty of it, they will get interested.
The single-purpose aspect is also interesting. The incidence of ADD may be related to the ubiquity of multi-function devices, IMO. If you're ADD and you get something that only have one real function and is pretty intuitive to use, it may just help move you into a space that is far less noisy.
I have a friend who wanted to become a freelance photographer in his retirement. Digital has been a good tool to improve the technical aspects of his work, due to the immediacy of feedback and the lower processing costs. But I swear the number of "keepers" would be much higher if he switched back to film. He's extremely ADD, and all the fiddling he does with his gear (and the fact that he almost always has to cart along EVERYTHING he has) drives me a bit bonkers.
davidbivins
Established
Trius - right on.
I would add that part of the elegance of a GSN or an SRT101 or any other classic is that you feel and have to understand the direct relationship between several variables: film speed, aperture, shutter speed, focus. The Yashica is just magical to use, but it's actually leaving off one of those variables--shutter speed. But you understand it, especially once you've taken a long exposure.
Look at cell phones. There is a niche market for phones that have no extra features. They're marketed to elderly people, but they're very appealing to a broader demographic who just want a phone--no camera, no sudoku game, no bluetooth, etc.
I think a digital camera that had the basics like that at a touch of a button would be very interesting. But given that it's digital, it would be almost bizarre to not have additional features that only digital can provide. All of the digital SLRs that I've played with have required more than a button-push to provide all-manual control.
And hell--I love developing film and I hate seeing what I just shot a moment ago. Takes all the fun out of it. To be clear, I don't depend on photography for my livelihood which would probably alter my take on digital vs. film.
I would add that part of the elegance of a GSN or an SRT101 or any other classic is that you feel and have to understand the direct relationship between several variables: film speed, aperture, shutter speed, focus. The Yashica is just magical to use, but it's actually leaving off one of those variables--shutter speed. But you understand it, especially once you've taken a long exposure.
Look at cell phones. There is a niche market for phones that have no extra features. They're marketed to elderly people, but they're very appealing to a broader demographic who just want a phone--no camera, no sudoku game, no bluetooth, etc.
I think a digital camera that had the basics like that at a touch of a button would be very interesting. But given that it's digital, it would be almost bizarre to not have additional features that only digital can provide. All of the digital SLRs that I've played with have required more than a button-push to provide all-manual control.
And hell--I love developing film and I hate seeing what I just shot a moment ago. Takes all the fun out of it. To be clear, I don't depend on photography for my livelihood which would probably alter my take on digital vs. film.
T
tedwhite
Guest
I had my first DSLR, a Pentax istDS for over a year, and was doing a money shoot (a retirement of a faculty member at a local college) when a young woman photographer from the local newspaper, laden with huge Canon DSLR's - who had apparently been watching me as I took pictures, said, "What's going on with you, how come you never look in the LCD after each shot?"
I said (truthfully) that it had never occurred to me. She looked at me blankly. Then I said, "If you were looking into the viewfinder when you took the shot, then you know what you got." She, obviously, had never used a film camera.
Then I said, "Besides, it would spoil the fun. What's photography without anticipation?"
Obviously the conversation wasn't going anywhere. We smiled at each other politely and went our separate ways.
Ted
I said (truthfully) that it had never occurred to me. She looked at me blankly. Then I said, "If you were looking into the viewfinder when you took the shot, then you know what you got." She, obviously, had never used a film camera.
Then I said, "Besides, it would spoil the fun. What's photography without anticipation?"
Obviously the conversation wasn't going anywhere. We smiled at each other politely and went our separate ways.
Ted
BillBingham2
Registered User
Is it the small life span you must recover your investment in that causes the problem or is it sucking sound that is the ADD generation of product management. I agree earlier, give me a simple (well made, easy to use) box like the Bessa lineup. While seeing a histogram of the picture is great, I do not have that today. Give me an ISO adjustment, shutter speeds and an apature dial, let me do the rest. IMHO, the RD1 has too many choices and costs too much. Let me shoot only in RAW, my Mac can convert it to jpg quicker than any camera and I bet a darn bit better.
A few months ago I wanted my blackberry to be my phone too. So I gave up carring a phone when I got it. I did not like being Batman in other jobs (two phones and a pager), I wanted light weight. The blackberry is great for email, but it 5ucks as a phone. The UI is just not well thought through as any phone I have ever owned (goes back to a brick phone). Now I am going out to get a razor before the deals go away and changing phone numbers on my blackberry.
I want a digital camera that lets me keep my glass and gives me good RAW files to work with . No bells, no conversion, no LCD, keep the cost down, so when you double the pixils in two years I will feel alrigth with buying another.
I have to believe that the hardest part of the digital cameras are the controls and conversions. The most advance part of the camera should be that is supports different size memory cards and tell me how many more pictures I have left.
OBTW, no USB interface, I will buy a $9 USD card reader for that, less is more.
I love digital. It can allow people to learn so much faster than traditional film (read polorid side film was great for short classes). problem is the UI designers love bells and whistles.
B2 (;->
A few months ago I wanted my blackberry to be my phone too. So I gave up carring a phone when I got it. I did not like being Batman in other jobs (two phones and a pager), I wanted light weight. The blackberry is great for email, but it 5ucks as a phone. The UI is just not well thought through as any phone I have ever owned (goes back to a brick phone). Now I am going out to get a razor before the deals go away and changing phone numbers on my blackberry.
I want a digital camera that lets me keep my glass and gives me good RAW files to work with . No bells, no conversion, no LCD, keep the cost down, so when you double the pixils in two years I will feel alrigth with buying another.
I have to believe that the hardest part of the digital cameras are the controls and conversions. The most advance part of the camera should be that is supports different size memory cards and tell me how many more pictures I have left.
OBTW, no USB interface, I will buy a $9 USD card reader for that, less is more.
I love digital. It can allow people to learn so much faster than traditional film (read polorid side film was great for short classes). problem is the UI designers love bells and whistles.
B2 (;->
T
tedwhite
Guest
Apparently the Blackberry (I have no idea what it is, and may be better off not knowing) was invented by some folks in Kitchner (Kitchener?), Ontario.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I'm just trying to get across the point that modern SLRs actually work very well in manual mode, something that many seem to ignore.
ps. did you know all the digital rebels have DOF preview :angel:
ps. did you know all the digital rebels have DOF preview :angel:
furcafe said:
S
Socke
Guest
Kin Lau said:
While I've used my Yashica FX-D, Contax RTS, 139 and 167 almost exclusive in AE I tend to use the Canon D60 in manual.
furcafe
Veteran
No, you're right. Curmudgeons like me will often exaggerate how difficult it is to work w/the modern shooting irons (to paraphrase Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man: "In my day, cameras didn't focus by themselves. So what if every picture of a moving subject was blurry? We liked it!") And DoF preview isn't as big of a deal w/digital, but they got rid of DoF preview on a lot of entry-level AF SLRs long before digital came around. Grrrr (shakes fist @ young punks).
Kin Lau said:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
furcafe said:
No, *you* sir, are right...
Modern Digital SLR's *do not* work well on manual mode. I have been using my Olympus E-300 with OM lenses because of the quality (and affordability) of the lenses in manual mode. It's a *pain* to get a good focus because the VF is dim and small. Even when it's a bright sunny outdoor shot, I still have a problem because the darn VF doesn't have any focusing screens (I know, I can install one, but it takes a lot of money and time to do it).
Now, why do the VFs on DSLR's have to be dim and small? because of the CCD size.
Have you ever seen the VF on a digital Rebel and immediately switch to that of a Rebel T2? the VF on the Rebel T2 is way bigger and brighter.
So unless you are using a DSLR with a full-frame CCD (i.e. costs megabucks), I can't accept the notion that DSLR's are a joy to use in manual mode.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'm with Trius here (well-said points, too).
I have similar experience when I brought my old film cameras to my small church, the youngsters were getting the kick out of trying the camera, so much that my wife and I are planning to incorporate photography in the youth bible class. I've never seen that level of excitement from them over their Digismall-pocketable-zoom computer that has a "camera" label in front. Nor over their parent's big and bulky DSLR with big and bulky flash attached to it.
Digital cameras to youth nowadays *feels* like their computers, which some of them already had too much of. This and the fact that almost everyone and their dogs feel like professional photographers as long as they own a DSLR (including me, many moons ago
), can blind them to the "real" aspects of photography.
Kudos to NickTrop (the OP) for bringing this up, keep showing the youngsters what real photography is all about and where digital's perfect roles are, which are among others, make photography easier and more versatile, not to replace film.
Boy, do I sound like an anti-digital bigot which I assure you, I am not.
I have similar experience when I brought my old film cameras to my small church, the youngsters were getting the kick out of trying the camera, so much that my wife and I are planning to incorporate photography in the youth bible class. I've never seen that level of excitement from them over their Digismall-pocketable-zoom computer that has a "camera" label in front. Nor over their parent's big and bulky DSLR with big and bulky flash attached to it.
Digital cameras to youth nowadays *feels* like their computers, which some of them already had too much of. This and the fact that almost everyone and their dogs feel like professional photographers as long as they own a DSLR (including me, many moons ago
), can blind them to the "real" aspects of photography.Kudos to NickTrop (the OP) for bringing this up, keep showing the youngsters what real photography is all about and where digital's perfect roles are, which are among others, make photography easier and more versatile, not to replace film.
Boy, do I sound like an anti-digital bigot
which I assure you, I am not.Trius said:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
tedwhite said:
Ahh, yes. Been there myself.
A few years ago I was shooting at a demonstration. I was in the middle of a pack of news photographers (everyone shooting digital) and pulled out my lightmeter to take a reading for my Leicas. One guy looked at me like I was some weirdo who had just pulled out a sex toy and another older guy gave me a good natured laugh and then asked me what I was shooting. I answered Tri-X@400 and he guessed the proper exposure setting. His estimate was dead on. Now that's pretty damn cool
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
Ah, a fellow curmudgeon!
I wasn't agreeing w/Kin that modern SLRS always work well in manual mode, only that they can be made to work manually without too much difficulty.
I heartily agree w/you re: the dim VFs on many of the sub-pro-level dSLRs. They sort of remind me of the VFs on the 1st generation of SLRs to have TTL metering, when they had to sacrifice brightness because of the big semi-silvered portion of the mirror. In addition to economizing, I think 1 reason the manufacturers feel they can get away w/it is that modern autofocus is, on the whole, good & fast enough for general photography, though they seem to forget that VF brightness can help w/composition, too, or that users might occasionally want to use manual focus. An LCD screen, no matter how big & bright, isn't really a substitute for a good VF.
I wasn't agreeing w/Kin that modern SLRS always work well in manual mode, only that they can be made to work manually without too much difficulty.
I heartily agree w/you re: the dim VFs on many of the sub-pro-level dSLRs. They sort of remind me of the VFs on the 1st generation of SLRs to have TTL metering, when they had to sacrifice brightness because of the big semi-silvered portion of the mirror. In addition to economizing, I think 1 reason the manufacturers feel they can get away w/it is that modern autofocus is, on the whole, good & fast enough for general photography, though they seem to forget that VF brightness can help w/composition, too, or that users might occasionally want to use manual focus. An LCD screen, no matter how big & bright, isn't really a substitute for a good VF.
shadowfox said:
Last edited:
T
tedwhite
Guest
Because the istDS Pentax DSLR has an actual microprism, just like a Spotmatic, it's quite easy to see through.
Ted
Ted
K
Kin Lau
Guest
tedwhite said:
Does it actually come standard? I have aftermarket focusing screens on my 20D & 300D that I installed myself, but I wasn't aware of any dslr that came with one as standard equipment.
S
Socke
Guest
shadowfox said:
Depends on what you call manual, for me manual exposure with AF is manual.
AF SLRs aren't realy meant for manual focus as are AF lenses and usualy the AF is better then everything one could do on a small viewfinder, you're right, APS is worse than 135 but I'm spoiled by a Rolleiflex
The Canon D60 was my first AF SLR and I got used to it pretty fast, and to be true, the metering is damn good!
I love my Weston Master IV and my Zorki 4 or Kiev 4, but I have to admit that the Canon is better in 9 out of 10 situations.
T
tedwhite
Guest
Kin Lau:
Read up on it. The answer is yes, right out of the box. I was using it today with an M42 to K mount adapter so I could fit a Super Takumar 300/4 and take some bird pictures. The lens becoms a 450mm equivalent on the istDS, but of course it won't autofocus and becomes a preset. The viewing experience? Bright as you could ask for.
Ted
Ted
Read up on it. The answer is yes, right out of the box. I was using it today with an M42 to K mount adapter so I could fit a Super Takumar 300/4 and take some bird pictures. The lens becoms a 450mm equivalent on the istDS, but of course it won't autofocus and becomes a preset. The viewing experience? Bright as you could ask for.
Ted
Ted
David Murphy
Veteran
One thing I find interesting about RFF are the number of energetic photographers or just traditional photography fans active on this site at 30 years of age or less. I am ever more impressed with todays youthful generation (note that I am 50).
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Ted,
Did you mean this has a proper prism so that the viewfinder is much brighter? I do know that the *ist D series has one of the best VF's among dslrs.
But a microprism is a focusing aid for manual lenses. The 1st twenty or so hits on google on "ist ds microprism" specifically stated that the *ist DS didn't have it.
Did you mean this has a proper prism so that the viewfinder is much brighter? I do know that the *ist D series has one of the best VF's among dslrs.
But a microprism is a focusing aid for manual lenses. The 1st twenty or so hits on google on "ist ds microprism" specifically stated that the *ist DS didn't have it.
tedwhite said:
T
tedwhite
Guest
Kin Lau:
I misspoke. I meant pentaprism. Sorry.
Ted
I misspoke. I meant pentaprism. Sorry.
Ted
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Man, oh man, the idea of a digital camera with no menus, no USB, no diplay panel, one manual shooting mode, a RAW-only write mode, and controls only for ISO and shutter speeds, which would take ANY currently available lenses with good manual focus and manual aperture rings would be the first digital to really get my blood pumping. It's the lame and over-automated user interface that turns me off, even more than the cheap plasticky build quality of most affordable digi-cams. A digital FM2 with 5 or 6 megapixels (or more) would be all I'd ever need- and I too would be happy enough to buy a new one when they double the pixel count or make other similar upgrades to image quality. Hell, I'd buy two or three cameras like that.
Earlier tonight, I was at a rehersal and dinner for a wedding I am going to tomorrow (my gf is the Maid of Honor). The groom asked me to take some shots with his little digital P&S. Fine- but the thing frustrated the heck out of me- and it's a pretty good little camera, as far as P.O.S.- er, I mean P&S- cameras are concerned. Tomorrow I'll bring my 48-year-old RF, a 50mm lens, and few rolls of film, and shoot some good photographs. I won't have to spend the whole day looking at the back of my camera to get good shots- I'll watch the wedding.
Earlier tonight, I was at a rehersal and dinner for a wedding I am going to tomorrow (my gf is the Maid of Honor). The groom asked me to take some shots with his little digital P&S. Fine- but the thing frustrated the heck out of me- and it's a pretty good little camera, as far as P.O.S.- er, I mean P&S- cameras are concerned. Tomorrow I'll bring my 48-year-old RF, a 50mm lens, and few rolls of film, and shoot some good photographs. I won't have to spend the whole day looking at the back of my camera to get good shots- I'll watch the wedding.