NickTrop
Veteran
Why are modern SLRs better camera bodies than the so-called classics?
One major reason is your classic manual focus camera is basically a shutter priority camera. You set the mechanical shutter speed dial on top to a set speed. Your aperture is virtually in "slave" mode since you adjust it accommodate your aperture setting. Nobody twirls around their shutter dial left and right to accomodate shutter settings. With a more modern electronic camera it's as easy to shoot in aperture priority as it is to shoot in shutter priority.
This is the last production consumer film camera made by a major camera manufacturer. Decades of R&D went into its design. It has electronics only dreamed of in the 50's., 60's, and 70's.
And they're neither trivial or frivolous (see above as one example). Electronics and CPUs helped eliminate much of the clockworks that wear over time. I know if my shutter is at 1/1000th, that's what it's shooting had not off be 1/2 a stop. I can see important information on the digital display on the top plate. I have sophisticated matrix metering. I can switch between modes easily. Another is seeing settings in the viewfinder and making adjustments from a thumbwheel without having to take my eye off the viewfinder.
It is much lighter than an OM1. It's shorter in length. It's a little taller due to built-in flash, absent on the OM1 and useful when you need it. It is a bit wider because it has a useful grip. Its ergos are better than the OM1.
You just have to get over the fact it's made from high quality plastic. Like your keyboard. Like your printer. Which you wouldn't really want made out of metal, would you? And like vast majority of lenses made today including very expensive high-quality ones.
One major reason is your classic manual focus camera is basically a shutter priority camera. You set the mechanical shutter speed dial on top to a set speed. Your aperture is virtually in "slave" mode since you adjust it accommodate your aperture setting. Nobody twirls around their shutter dial left and right to accomodate shutter settings. With a more modern electronic camera it's as easy to shoot in aperture priority as it is to shoot in shutter priority.
This is the last production consumer film camera made by a major camera manufacturer. Decades of R&D went into its design. It has electronics only dreamed of in the 50's., 60's, and 70's.
And they're neither trivial or frivolous (see above as one example). Electronics and CPUs helped eliminate much of the clockworks that wear over time. I know if my shutter is at 1/1000th, that's what it's shooting had not off be 1/2 a stop. I can see important information on the digital display on the top plate. I have sophisticated matrix metering. I can switch between modes easily. Another is seeing settings in the viewfinder and making adjustments from a thumbwheel without having to take my eye off the viewfinder.
It is much lighter than an OM1. It's shorter in length. It's a little taller due to built-in flash, absent on the OM1 and useful when you need it. It is a bit wider because it has a useful grip. Its ergos are better than the OM1.
You just have to get over the fact it's made from high quality plastic. Like your keyboard. Like your printer. Which you wouldn't really want made out of metal, would you? And like vast majority of lenses made today including very expensive high-quality ones.
dtcls100
Well-known
Says who? The specs and my personal experience owning two F6 say BS to that. I also own two F2as. The F6 has an all metal body, top and bottom. Don't confuse the rubberized covering as it being plastic.
You may be confusing the F100 (plastic back, back latch and rewind fork) with the F6, whose corresponding parts are all metal. The F6 is every bit as solid as the F2 and is weather sealed to boot. Don't get me wrong, the F2 is a retro delight to use, but the F6 is a much more capable shooter.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Huh! Among professional architects this term also means "functionally ugly" and is used to describe the more horrible examples of Brutalist architecture from the 1960s to the 1990s.
I've said "fugly" in passing to friends in Melbourne and had some odd looks. I now know why...
Solinar
Analog Preferred
If I had to choose between a 1990 Era pocketable 35mm point and shoot and a plastic bodied auto-focus SLR from the same period then I'm with Nick - but there are more options than these 2 genres for 35mm film photography.
Operations wise - yes, versus a two hundred dollar point and shoot Olympus Stylus, I prefer the ability to control the exposure that comes with a plastic bodied, auto-focus 35mm SLR like my Nikon N80/F80. Plus, there is usually no shutter laggggggggggggggg.
Second, as I mentioned above, the plastic bodied SLRs are usually priced less than a decent meal with beverages at a better restaurant.
But - like your choice of beers, there are more options than two genres. I don't usually opt for Bud, Miller or Coors. Consequently, the N80 led me to purchase a Nikon FE2 - which has the traditional control layout that I can glance at see all the camera's settings.
When I want manual control, I find the match needle meter of the FE2 quite intuitive. The micro-prism focusing patch on the FE2 is a bit more reassuring, which the N80 lacks. Also, the N80 does not meter with older Ai and Ai-S lenses.
By the way, I'm weird duck. I ran a couple rolls of film though my Retina IIa last weekend. I'll be developing the rolls later today. This would be anathema to most folks that truly enjoy an AF P&S film camera, but not all. My 30'ish barista at my local coffee shop has talented knack for any film camera.
Operations wise - yes, versus a two hundred dollar point and shoot Olympus Stylus, I prefer the ability to control the exposure that comes with a plastic bodied, auto-focus 35mm SLR like my Nikon N80/F80. Plus, there is usually no shutter laggggggggggggggg.
Second, as I mentioned above, the plastic bodied SLRs are usually priced less than a decent meal with beverages at a better restaurant.
But - like your choice of beers, there are more options than two genres. I don't usually opt for Bud, Miller or Coors. Consequently, the N80 led me to purchase a Nikon FE2 - which has the traditional control layout that I can glance at see all the camera's settings.
When I want manual control, I find the match needle meter of the FE2 quite intuitive. The micro-prism focusing patch on the FE2 is a bit more reassuring, which the N80 lacks. Also, the N80 does not meter with older Ai and Ai-S lenses.
By the way, I'm weird duck. I ran a couple rolls of film though my Retina IIa last weekend. I'll be developing the rolls later today. This would be anathema to most folks that truly enjoy an AF P&S film camera, but not all. My 30'ish barista at my local coffee shop has talented knack for any film camera.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Cheap cameras aren't necessarily bad cameras.
In the ate '90s I played with several Pentax SLRs which had appeared on the retail market a few years before and were soon to be found in great numbers in charity shops around Australia.
For the most part, these worked well, tho the zoom lenses gave slightly soft images, in a pleasing way. Light wrapped around subjects, that sort of thing. Nothing I would want to print or scan now, but.
In around 2005 Nikon dumped a load of F65s (aka N65) SLRs on the retail market inAustralia and I bought a new one, for around A$250 as I recall, with a 28-80 G zoom. A battery winder grip came my way for A$20 and I grabbed it. Also a second F65 body on Ebay, a few years later.
It has been ages since I've used an F65 but my partner makes do with a Nikon D90 with the older Nikon Series E lenses and an F65 as a film backup. The kit is very useful as the lenses are interchangeable. Alas, the F65 winder grip doesn't work on the D90 but one can't have everything.
There are many bargains out there if one wants to take the time to find them. As for using them, I've always believed that Henri Cartier-Bresson would have easily done most if not all of his brilliant photography, with a Kodak Box Brownie if the Leica hadn't been invented.
In the ate '90s I played with several Pentax SLRs which had appeared on the retail market a few years before and were soon to be found in great numbers in charity shops around Australia.
For the most part, these worked well, tho the zoom lenses gave slightly soft images, in a pleasing way. Light wrapped around subjects, that sort of thing. Nothing I would want to print or scan now, but.
In around 2005 Nikon dumped a load of F65s (aka N65) SLRs on the retail market inAustralia and I bought a new one, for around A$250 as I recall, with a 28-80 G zoom. A battery winder grip came my way for A$20 and I grabbed it. Also a second F65 body on Ebay, a few years later.
It has been ages since I've used an F65 but my partner makes do with a Nikon D90 with the older Nikon Series E lenses and an F65 as a film backup. The kit is very useful as the lenses are interchangeable. Alas, the F65 winder grip doesn't work on the D90 but one can't have everything.
There are many bargains out there if one wants to take the time to find them. As for using them, I've always believed that Henri Cartier-Bresson would have easily done most if not all of his brilliant photography, with a Kodak Box Brownie if the Leica hadn't been invented.
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
The sad fact is that despite all the good here, the fact a camera does everything great has never been a compelling reason to own one.
CMur12
Veteran
Prest_400
Multiformat
I agree with the rationale. However, part of the romanticism of shooting film is with manual and classic cameras which have quite a different camera. The latter AF SLRs are quite akin to DSLRs and don't depart much in experience compared to an OM-1 or a TLR, should we bring different form factors in discussion.
Supply and demand wise, the middle and lower range was owned by people who most probably are far away from film nowadays. I keep thinking about the graph in the ADOX keynote where the market went from 3B rolls to 26M in the lapse of these 20 years. A 1 digit Nikon F catches the attention as being the top line, and people prefer to own stuff they dreamed about back then because it's top end.
An F90 is more a prosumer, despite excellent, is in oversupply. Ditto for an F80, F65.
I came back from the camera club and brought my GW690III, talked with another member who had the mkII and commented about price increases. There was a thread on RFF about these cameras being underpriced. People would go first for the higher end and exotic cameras, once that segment becomes less affordable, other options will be explored.
Unironically, my OM1 jammed a few years ago and I "replaced" it with an F80. The cheap availability and AE convenience was excellent for more casual and dangerous beach duties, which ended killing that body. Saw the F90 as an excellent replacement albeit not as lightweight.
Given time I think the bad rap may wear out and be replaced with a certain nostalgic appreciation. I read about a concept called the 30 year old cycle, about pop culture, where the kids that grew up in an era bring those influences again when they grew up (music, directors, etc). Related to the frequent string of 1980s remakes and tributes.
Supply and demand wise, the middle and lower range was owned by people who most probably are far away from film nowadays. I keep thinking about the graph in the ADOX keynote where the market went from 3B rolls to 26M in the lapse of these 20 years. A 1 digit Nikon F catches the attention as being the top line, and people prefer to own stuff they dreamed about back then because it's top end.
An F90 is more a prosumer, despite excellent, is in oversupply. Ditto for an F80, F65.
I came back from the camera club and brought my GW690III, talked with another member who had the mkII and commented about price increases. There was a thread on RFF about these cameras being underpriced. People would go first for the higher end and exotic cameras, once that segment becomes less affordable, other options will be explored.
Unironically, my OM1 jammed a few years ago and I "replaced" it with an F80. The cheap availability and AE convenience was excellent for more casual and dangerous beach duties, which ended killing that body. Saw the F90 as an excellent replacement albeit not as lightweight.
Carbon Fiber bicycles and Aerospace composites! 90s cyberspace age polycarbonate!
Given time I think the bad rap may wear out and be replaced with a certain nostalgic appreciation. I read about a concept called the 30 year old cycle, about pop culture, where the kids that grew up in an era bring those influences again when they grew up (music, directors, etc). Related to the frequent string of 1980s remakes and tributes.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Likewise...
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Your preferences are your preferences, but are you really arguing that using a 2000's plastic fantastic AF SLR in manual mode gives the same user experience as something like a Leica M3 or Pentax SV (designed from the ground up to be used this way)?
zuiko85
Veteran
Not sure how you will take this Nick, but......Ken Rockwell agrees with you. In a June, 2008 article he calls the N75 "...among the best 35mm cameras ever made."
So you have bought a lot of camera for coffee money, congratulations.
My best bargain in a camera is a Sears KS500 (Ricoh KR-5) with it's 50 f2 standard lens for a total of $5, including working meter batteries. Lightweight, plastic top and bottom covers, common PK mount, really good viewfinder, and surprisingly quite shutter action.
Very basic, but come on, Five Dollars! You can't hardly buy a roll of film for that amount anymore.
One more thing Nick. If I were you I'd buy another one ASAP before all your yabbering make the prices go up.
So you have bought a lot of camera for coffee money, congratulations.
My best bargain in a camera is a Sears KS500 (Ricoh KR-5) with it's 50 f2 standard lens for a total of $5, including working meter batteries. Lightweight, plastic top and bottom covers, common PK mount, really good viewfinder, and surprisingly quite shutter action.
Very basic, but come on, Five Dollars! You can't hardly buy a roll of film for that amount anymore.
One more thing Nick. If I were you I'd buy another one ASAP before all your yabbering make the prices go up.
Ste_S
Well-known
I like that the purists on one hand and the fashionistas on the other are so dismissive over AF SLRs, keeps them dirt cheap.
The semi pro models like the Nikon F801 and F90 are probably the best bang for the buck you can get now. People are almost giving away F801 bodies.
The semi pro models like the Nikon F801 and F90 are probably the best bang for the buck you can get now. People are almost giving away F801 bodies.
Huss
Veteran
This thread has jumped the shark when someone tries to make a point by picking this car(buncle)
over this righteous ride:
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
The shark was jumped long ago, but you make a strong point.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Beautiful Bricks
Beautiful Bricks
Here's the insides of one model Eric Hendrickson calls a "Plastic Pentax" :
Just look at all those plastic gears!
The Pentax ZX/MZ series Achilles heel is a plastic gear in a critical place.
Once it breaks - and it invariably does - camera is completely disabled.
The replacement motor came with a metal gear, but it requires complete disassembly
and it is now no longer available.
IIRC some of the Minolta X-series cameras have a plastic gear that often breaks, disabling the camera.
No doubt countless other later model film SLRs from all manufacturers were built similarly.
Cheap now yes, but I consider them disposable cameras.
Chris
Beautiful Bricks
Here's the insides of one model Eric Hendrickson calls a "Plastic Pentax" :
Just look at all those plastic gears!
The Pentax ZX/MZ series Achilles heel is a plastic gear in a critical place.
Once it breaks - and it invariably does - camera is completely disabled.
The replacement motor came with a metal gear, but it requires complete disassembly
and it is now no longer available.
IIRC some of the Minolta X-series cameras have a plastic gear that often breaks, disabling the camera.
No doubt countless other later model film SLRs from all manufacturers were built similarly.
Cheap now yes, but I consider them disposable cameras.
Chris
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Everything breaks eventually
Everything breaks eventually
Dear Board,
Every camera will eventually fail so I can't see the harm in buying older model AF SLRS for the price of a disposable camera? One of those cardboard boxes with film in it costs $ 8.00 and I have a total of $ 20.00 in two fully functional Nikon 8008S's. If one pukes I have a back up.
Meanwhile when that older mechanical SLR fails you then spend more than the replacement cost for a CLA and/or the necessary repairs and wind up having twice the money it's worth in the camera. If you chose to do that OK, but from an economic standpoint it makes no sense.
Late model AF SLR's are generally good deals. They often come with lenses that can be used with full functionality on current DSLR's. I've bought several old AF SLR's that came with good usable lenses on them. The lenses, a Canon metal mount 50mm/f1.8 and a Nikon 50mm/f1.8 AF-D along with a Nikon 28-105 AF-D are being used on digital bodies when they aren't on film bodies and they produce great results. The value of the lenses themselves made the purchase cost of the cameras less than zero.
There are a lot of ways to skin a cat.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Everything breaks eventually
Dear Board,
Every camera will eventually fail so I can't see the harm in buying older model AF SLRS for the price of a disposable camera? One of those cardboard boxes with film in it costs $ 8.00 and I have a total of $ 20.00 in two fully functional Nikon 8008S's. If one pukes I have a back up.
Meanwhile when that older mechanical SLR fails you then spend more than the replacement cost for a CLA and/or the necessary repairs and wind up having twice the money it's worth in the camera. If you chose to do that OK, but from an economic standpoint it makes no sense.
Late model AF SLR's are generally good deals. They often come with lenses that can be used with full functionality on current DSLR's. I've bought several old AF SLR's that came with good usable lenses on them. The lenses, a Canon metal mount 50mm/f1.8 and a Nikon 50mm/f1.8 AF-D along with a Nikon 28-105 AF-D are being used on digital bodies when they aren't on film bodies and they produce great results. The value of the lenses themselves made the purchase cost of the cameras less than zero.
There are a lot of ways to skin a cat.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
JPSuisse
Well-known
Whereas I agree with you that the 80s and 90s SLRS are under appreciated, the statement above is difficult to follow. I thought the original point of the thread was about the under appreciation.
With regard to reliability, I bet the Impala overall will last longer than the Camry. Old American iron is robust and easy to fix just like a mechanical camera. The Camry will suffer from all sorts of electronic problems, EOL of microprocessors and deterioration of critical polymer components. Just wait.
I like the picture from Chris Platt above. Lots of electronic components, plastic insulation and wiring harnesses and plastic gears. Hell to maintain and fix once in breaks. Nonetheless, I am having fun with my F90X while it lasts.
It seems Nick`s obsession is to always find the right balance between bang for the buck and usability without any concern for the haptics and ergonomics that others enjoy. However, many of us don`t have that same obsession. I will gladly pay more for things that make me gel with the camera more.
Kent
Finally at home...
Some time ago, I bought a Nikon F90x for very little money. Excellent camera. No beauty, but reliable and well performing.
FujiLove
Well-known
Yes, I think they’re absolute bargains. I love my Dynax 5. Superb camera with very accurate exposure, fast AF, full featured and light as a feather. I paid £15 including a kit lens.
It pains me to say I can’t tell the difference between negatives shot with the Dynax from ones taken with my Contax G1 which was 30 times (!) more expensive.
It pains me to say I can’t tell the difference between negatives shot with the Dynax from ones taken with my Contax G1 which was 30 times (!) more expensive.