Cameras Without Batteries

At least with the old cameras, it's nice to have one that doesn't rely on a battery versus one that uses a battery that isn't made anymore and requires adaption or expensive wein cells.
 
sirius said:
At least with the old cameras, it's nice to have one that doesn't rely on a battery versus one that uses a battery that isn't made anymore and requires adaption or expensive wein cells.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention this, I have successfully "replaced" two obsolete battery formats (PX640 and PX1) with two ordinary SR44 and a wad of Aluminum foil :)

... with good results!
 
Joe

Trolling and inducing GAS in other people are both cruel.

I had real trouble getting any 35mm film in Malmo (Se) Sunday week ago a SR44 dont be cruel.

Noel
 
Xmas said:
Joe

Trolling and inducing GAS in other people are both cruel.

I had real trouble getting any 35mm film in Malmo (Se) Sunday week ago a SR44 dont be cruel.

Noel
Click to expand...

Er... Noel, I don't know if you're referring to my mentioning the SR44 battery. If not, sorry.

First off, this is Will, not Joe :)
Secondly, at least you get to go to Malmo !!
I haven't got any chance to travel at all this year :(
 
I just like using a camera with no batteries!
I ilke to load up a roll of film, shoot and develop myself. It seems to make the process so much more satisfying.
I shoot thousands of frames a year on a DSLR that is just amazing - but I still get more joy from my 40 year old Leica - go figure?
 
"Are people living so far from civilization that a spare battery in the bag is not enough?"
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously a *spare* is enough... whether it be a battery, roll of film, memory card or whatever - providing you have one when you need it. And if you're the kind of shooter who takes 2 bodies, 4 lenses and 6 rolls of film everywhere you go, then hey, what's one more item. I too, when going out planning to shoot, take spare bodies/lenses/film.

But in the past I've been left high and dry in the backwoods or a remote Mexican village or at a friend's house with a dead battery and I missed some shots because of it. I've also missed shots because the spare roll of film in my pocket had already been shot!! *rolleyes*

All of my local friends shoot digi and I can't count the number of times I've heard, "O crap! My spare battery is (a) back in the car (b) at home (c) in my sock drawer (d) still on the shelf at Walmart!" And in fareness to them, though my ol' beater RFs don't need batts, they've heard me say, "O crap! My other roll of film must be with your spare battery!!" :eek:

I guess it's the minimalist in me (and my geezer memory) that likes the idea of having one less thing to worry about. But minimizing has bitten me in the butt too when I've seen an opportunity for a quick candid shot and reached into my bag only to realize... I'd left my camera at home. :( Maybe that's just a tad too minimal.
 
I love having a camera that works without batteries. There's less chance of it just suddenly deciding to screw up for no reason and not let you shoot.

When I was on a trip with some people and we were shooting out in the canyons, my Canon SLR decided to stop working. It had a new battery too, who knows what the problem was. It works again now. Luckily I had brought the Leica too, so I just shot with that for the rest of the day, but as the light got low I guessed the exposure wrong because I didn't have a light meter.
 
I love fine mechanical things, as a one-time mechanical engineer. But I'm with Steve in wondering about all the fuss over the often expressed preference/requirement for non-battery-dependent gear. I can't recall any occasions over the decades of shooting that I was put out of action by a battery dying. I do check batteries before a photo trip or excursion, and often take a spare. I'm much more likely to run out of film than electricity. :)
 
Batteries are small

Batteries are small

I'm with Doug & Steve. A lifetime supply of spare batteries takes up about as much space as a roll or two of film depending on the batteries in question. My one and only F.U.B.A.R. in a once in a lifetime situation was caused by operator error: using an EMPTY camera. :bang: :bang: :bang:

That said, I do carry two non-battery powered lightmeters. I own three bodies that require power to function. :eek: And 6 bodies that don't. :D
 
People who shoot time exposures a lot and have come back to find their shutter locked open and no way to close it find battery dependance a little annoying. My younger brother traded in some EOS film gear on an OM1 for that reason.
I'm not a purist, and feel that having no meter is more than a minor inconvenience. With 2 exceptions (both cameras used primarily on a tripod) all of my cameras have onboard meters. Only one needs batteries to fire- my digital.
Modern cameras irritate me generally; not so much because they need batteries but because they are hard to use manually....
 
Well, so far I’d say my opinion hasn’t changed on this one. A number of valid reasons have been given, but all seem to be specialized and uncommon situations.
I’m really not a very organized person, but even I manage to have film and batteries on hand appropriate to the cameras I intend to use, and since my photography isn’t essential to my life or livelihood, I think I’d survive a mistake in this area.
If ever I move below the Arctic Circle or to a remote jungle village, I’ll be sure to take only manual cameras with me. Otherwise….

Honestly, the best answers amount to “Cause I like it that way.” That is, of course, as good an answer as anyone needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom