Bille
Well-known
OK, well your options are Leica or Fuji.Take your pick!
I have tried the Fuji X briefly and found it to be quite "digital". At least not less digital than my NEX-7. Menus, screen, buttons, EVF, etc.
Bille
Well-known
I´d like to see some of your photographs, Alan.
Well it has analog aperture ring, and similar operational feel. And optical VF if you choose. But there aren't many digitalis that don't have menus.
As stated more than once now, the analog era is still here. Choosing digital doesn't mean it is less relevant.
daveleo
what?
This is your idea of "easy"?
It wouldn't be any harder than downloading and installing camera "firmware upgrades" as most people do these days.
I think that writing the software (the various option packages) would be similar to writing an app for an ipad or whatever.
I think
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well it has analog aperture ring, and similar operational feel. And optical VF if you choose. But there aren't many digitalis that don't have menus.
As stated more than once now, the analog era is still here. Choosing digital doesn't mean it is less relevant.
Hi,
Now don't get upset but don't you mean a mechanical aperture ring and the film era?
Otherwise they will start saying analogue about everything that isn't digital. Imagine an analogue cup of coffee and you'll see what I mean.
OK rant over but I do hate the way words creep into things that are just plain wrong; then they start creeping everywhere...
Regards, David
Well, I actually meant analog. As opposed to choosing an aperture via a dial on the back of the camera until the desired aperture number appears on the LCD.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, I actually meant analog. As opposed to choosing an aperture via a dial on the back of the camera until the desired aperture number appears on the LCD.
Hi,
I think the problem (apart from the spelling) is that people use the word to mean not digital. I use it to mean representing something. I just hope my previous analogy worked...
Regards, David
cz23
-
Some of our greater comfort with older cameras surely has to do with familiarity. We had the same basic interface for decades, even across vendors -- aperture on the lens and shuttter dial on top. I used the same Nikon FMs for over ten years. In the last ten years I've owned eight or ten digital systems, each with a different interface.
Still, I have some trouble with this simplicity argument. A digital camera can be as simple or as complex as we choose to make it. Over the past 40 years or so I've used all my cameras --analog and digital -- largely in the same way: aperture priority and center spot focus/recompose. Now I'm starting to use matrix metering more and even face recognition and find them valuable.
My experience is that the technology has allowed me to focus less on execution and more on seeing. Those advances are not always trustworthy, but on balance I've welcomed them.
John
Still, I have some trouble with this simplicity argument. A digital camera can be as simple or as complex as we choose to make it. Over the past 40 years or so I've used all my cameras --analog and digital -- largely in the same way: aperture priority and center spot focus/recompose. Now I'm starting to use matrix metering more and even face recognition and find them valuable.
My experience is that the technology has allowed me to focus less on execution and more on seeing. Those advances are not always trustworthy, but on balance I've welcomed them.
John
Markus
Established
Agree. Todays cameras are toys. Small sensors, packed with lots of fuctions like "face detection". Why should my camera detect a face? I haven't bought a measuring device for faces. I mean program-modes are useful, like Av, Tv, M and P - but they are all a modification of M with one parameter set automatically. Modes like "Sport" or "Landscape" are in my eyes an insult to the users intelligence. 1984, the A-1 only had these few modes and a bright viewfinder. Today, a EOS has a dark viewfinder and every automatic-function you can imagine. They even have touchscreens - remember avoiding spots from your nose on the display? . But all this doesen't happen by accident. The leading camera manufactures today are giant electronics companies. They simply have no idea of photography. They want to sell their glint toys. Cameras aren't tools anymore, they are lifestyle products. In the history of photography, the size of a negative was shrinking. Think of LF, MF and the abuse of 35mm film, which was made for cinematic cameras. But if you need more resolution power, you can always increase the negative size because film is cheap and lenses with a large image circle have always existed. In digital photograhpy its the other way round: Sensor sizes are growing slowly. The largest sensors are used in MF-Backs, which actually aren't even MF, they are smaller than 645. Producing large sensors is expensive and 30.000$ for a back isn't marketable as lifestyle - but "face detection" is.
When I go to a camera-shop I first look at the secondhand-area. Spending 300$ could get you a nice Canon A1 with perhaps theree lensens. 300$ in the new-area could get you a compact camera with a sensor smaller than the fingernail of your small finger. But people want electronics, they want automation, they want networking. What they don't want is to think about their work on photography.
It's like what we see in the automotive-industry: the development of self-steering cars - the automobil exists for about 100 years - who decided that we are too stupid for driving?
I started with digital photography and learned about the "other world" in the past few years. So I'm in no why used to old cameras or their comfort. Though I've had often a Leica in my hands, the "virus" of RF-cameras got me with my Mamiya 7. I perform it back on it's simplicity
. Thanks for the self-therapy, but I think for me there is no cure :bang:
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I miss nothing from the film era as I'm smack in the middle of it and have no intention of giving it up. That's not to say I don't enjoy shooting digital, too. However, I just don't see why anyone has to choose one or the other (unless dire financial constraints dictate otherwise).
Long live film.....
Long live film.....
choozart
Member
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
Well, for some of us, what "extra steps" is to photography is what "foreplay" is to sex.
Hmmmm
Well, for some of us, what "extra steps" is to photography is what "foreplay" is to sex.
Agree. Todays cameras are toys. Small sensors, packed with lots of fuctions like "face detection". Why should my camera detect a face? I haven't bought a measuring device for faces. I mean program-modes are useful, like Av, Tv, M and P - but they are all a modification of M with one parameter set automatically. Modes like "Sport" or "Landscape" are in my eyes an insult to the users intelligence. 1984, the A-1 only had these few modes and a bright viewfinder. Today, a EOS has a dark viewfinder and every automatic-function you can imagine. They even have touchscreens - remember avoiding spots from your nose on the display? . But all this doesen't happen by accident. The leading camera manufactures today are giant electronics companies. They simply have no idea of photography. They want to sell their glint toys. Cameras aren't tools anymore, they are lifestyle products. In the history of photography, the size of a negative was shrinking. Think of LF, MF and the abuse of 35mm film, which was made for cinematic cameras. But if you need more resolution power, you can always increase the negative size because film is cheap and lenses with a large image circle have always existed. In digital photograhpy its the other way round: Sensor sizes are growing slowly. The largest sensors are used in MF-Backs, which actually aren't even MF, they are smaller than 645. Producing large sensors is expensive and 30.000$ for a back isn't marketable as lifestyle - but "face detection" is.
When I go to a camera-shop I first look at the secondhand-area. Spending 300$ could get you a nice Canon A1 with perhaps theree lensens. 300$ in the new-area could get you a compact camera with a sensor smaller than the fingernail of your small finger. But people want electronics, they want automation, they want networking. What they don't want is to think about their work on photography.
It's like what we see in the automotive-industry: the development of self-steering cars - the automobil exists for about 100 years - who decided that we are too stupid for driving?
I started with digital photography and learned about the "other world" in the past few years. So I'm in no why used to old cameras or their comfort. Though I've had often a Leica in my hands, the "virus" of RF-cameras got me with my Mamiya 7. I perform it back on it's simplicity
Thanks for the self-therapy, but I think for me there is no cure :bang:
Geat post!
Archiver
Veteran
At what point does a camera become too complex? Surely the most basic digicam is easy enough to point and shoot; after all, it's designed for people who can only do just that. An all-auto digital camera will out-simple a manual rangefinder any day.
Digicam: Point camera. Press button. Done.
For me, what I miss about the film days is the notion that a camera could potentially last my lifetime, or a good portion thereof. Now, I'm not quite old enough to have been in the time of the purely mechanical camera, but I do like the idea that a mechanical camera can continue to shoot for as long as film and dev chems exist, and technicians can get or fabricate parts. I believe that this will be easier with mechanical cameras than electronic ones. If a sensor goes, or a specialized circuit board goes, then that is it if there are no spares. But mechanical parts can be machined quite easily.
And what we gain in potential longevity, we lose in features. I used to think that face detection was a gimmick and a joke until I used it in my OM-D. It's a freakin' revelation for street photography and candid portraits. I don't know of any film camera that can recognize and focus on a face. f8 and be there only gets you so far, especially in a low light situation.
Digicam: Point camera. Press button. Done.
For me, what I miss about the film days is the notion that a camera could potentially last my lifetime, or a good portion thereof. Now, I'm not quite old enough to have been in the time of the purely mechanical camera, but I do like the idea that a mechanical camera can continue to shoot for as long as film and dev chems exist, and technicians can get or fabricate parts. I believe that this will be easier with mechanical cameras than electronic ones. If a sensor goes, or a specialized circuit board goes, then that is it if there are no spares. But mechanical parts can be machined quite easily.
And what we gain in potential longevity, we lose in features. I used to think that face detection was a gimmick and a joke until I used it in my OM-D. It's a freakin' revelation for street photography and candid portraits. I don't know of any film camera that can recognize and focus on a face. f8 and be there only gets you so far, especially in a low light situation.
P
PhotoJim
Guest
This is an interesting thread.
What do I miss about the film era? A lot of what was mentioned above, I don't miss, because I still have it. I still have many film cameras - more than I could afford in the film era, in fact; I could not justify owning a Nikon F5, e.g., if not for digital photography - and I still use them. I also now, for the last few months, shoot digital.
Some things, however, have changed:
1. Films have disappeared. Kodachrome is gone, and so is Plus-X, and so are a lot of E6 films. Efke seems to be gone. Forte is gone. Some of these are of little consequence to me (I miss Plus-X but FP4 Plus is a delicious film); others like Kodachrome are sorely disappointing. (I ordered my last ten rolls of Kodachrome just before the film was terminated; my order shipped the day of Kodak's announcement. It was peculiar and interesting timing.)
2. Darkroom materials are disappearing. Ilford still makes a good, full line but Kodak's papers are gone and my favourite warmtone paper, Forte Polywarmtone, is long gone. (I discovered it too late, but at least I got to use it for a couple of years.) Doing colour darkroom work at home is getting more difficult because modest-sized chemistry is harder to source.
3. Processing labs are disappearing. I do my own black and white work but I have used a lab for almost all of my E6 and C41 work. I no longer have local E6 service, and most, if not all, of the local C41 labs have gone. It is not the end of the world to get processing by mail but even that is a challenge - my new Toronto lab recently decided to charge a fortune to mount 35mm slides. I now mail my film to Kansas.
4. New gear is getting hard to find. This is of relatively little consequence as long as good used gear and repair services are available, but if you want a new film camera, the choices are short in number.
5. This is diminishing now, but for a long time I felt as somewhat of an outcast shooting film. People - especially other photographers - would ask me when I was going to "go digital". Perhaps this is turning around, now that shooting film is "cool". (Then again, particularly when I travel, the gear I use tends to look much like the DSLRs of today.)
I'm getting to an age where nostalgia is starting to become a powerful force, and I can see why people resist change and dislike change. That having been said, we still have most of what we had in the heyday of film, and what we have remaining is extremely good. My options as a film shooter today are not terribly limited... but this may not always be so.
What do I miss about the film era? A lot of what was mentioned above, I don't miss, because I still have it. I still have many film cameras - more than I could afford in the film era, in fact; I could not justify owning a Nikon F5, e.g., if not for digital photography - and I still use them. I also now, for the last few months, shoot digital.
Some things, however, have changed:
1. Films have disappeared. Kodachrome is gone, and so is Plus-X, and so are a lot of E6 films. Efke seems to be gone. Forte is gone. Some of these are of little consequence to me (I miss Plus-X but FP4 Plus is a delicious film); others like Kodachrome are sorely disappointing. (I ordered my last ten rolls of Kodachrome just before the film was terminated; my order shipped the day of Kodak's announcement. It was peculiar and interesting timing.)
2. Darkroom materials are disappearing. Ilford still makes a good, full line but Kodak's papers are gone and my favourite warmtone paper, Forte Polywarmtone, is long gone. (I discovered it too late, but at least I got to use it for a couple of years.) Doing colour darkroom work at home is getting more difficult because modest-sized chemistry is harder to source.
3. Processing labs are disappearing. I do my own black and white work but I have used a lab for almost all of my E6 and C41 work. I no longer have local E6 service, and most, if not all, of the local C41 labs have gone. It is not the end of the world to get processing by mail but even that is a challenge - my new Toronto lab recently decided to charge a fortune to mount 35mm slides. I now mail my film to Kansas.
4. New gear is getting hard to find. This is of relatively little consequence as long as good used gear and repair services are available, but if you want a new film camera, the choices are short in number.
5. This is diminishing now, but for a long time I felt as somewhat of an outcast shooting film. People - especially other photographers - would ask me when I was going to "go digital". Perhaps this is turning around, now that shooting film is "cool". (Then again, particularly when I travel, the gear I use tends to look much like the DSLRs of today.)
I'm getting to an age where nostalgia is starting to become a powerful force, and I can see why people resist change and dislike change. That having been said, we still have most of what we had in the heyday of film, and what we have remaining is extremely good. My options as a film shooter today are not terribly limited... but this may not always be so.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
When I have to navigate the menus to turn off all of the automation to make the camera do what I want it to do instead of what somebody else programmed it to do.
I don't expect my camera to do that. That, my friend, is what being a photographer is all about... deciding WHICH face to focus on, how to frame it, and how to get the exposure that way you envision it. If all you're after is that "point and shoot" snapshot mode, you don't need an interchangeI able lens camera with manual settings to do it. As a matter of fact, most phones are up to the task today.
emasterphoto
Established
Wrong. Being a photographer means being able to understand, adapt and apply any and all available tools and techniques toward the task of making images, and nothing more. If a particular tool or technology lends itself to allowing you to create an image, then it's useful and valuable. A good photographer will use whatever means available to make the images he desires to make. If you want to make the case that something like face detection is useless or cheating, then understand that if there is another photographer out there that can use that technology to make useful, valuable and poignant images that they couldn't have achieved prior to that technology, and that you, by foregoing said technology also can't, then they are a better photographer.
And FWIW, being able to understand and navigate "complex" menus is exactly what allows me to customize and tune my D3 to the point that even another D3 owner would likely feel lost because it's so tailored to my shooting style. It's technology that has allowed me to control the camera to a finer degree than I've ever encountered in any prior camera I've owned. In other words, simplicity is often a result of complexity.
emasterphoto
Established
Interesting that you mention the A-1. Great camera and my favorite SLR; I've got a super minty one up in the bag on my shelf now. That said, you do realize that when it came out it was the pinnacle of SLR and electronic photographic technology, and sold as such, right? In fact, a little of what people complain about in current DSLRs was born in that camera. You could say it was a seed of today's "destruction of photography", so to speak: Entirely controlled by a digital computer? A-1 was the first. Entirely electronic input and output control? A-1 was first. Program Auto? A-1 was the first SLR to have it. Using a finger dial to adjust the aperture or shutter speed? A-1 was the first with its AT Dial. Self-illuminated exposure info in the viewfinder? A-1 was the first. Said info placed out of the framing area and into its own location? A-1 was the first. Electronic self-timer with multiple delays? A-1, yup. ISO capability to 12,800? A-1 had it. Exposure lock? A-1 all the way.
Seeing the trend here? In 1978 the A-1 was hailed by Canon and the photo press as the most technologically advanced SLR to date, with Canon taking great pride in the amount of electronic prowess poured into the thing (they take up a whole page of the manual just braggin' about the tech). By your definition then, it's just a toy with a lot of gimmicks put out by a giant electronics company that knows nothing about photography design. I say this because the same mentality that you're condemning now was the same mentality that existed then and was responsible for the A-1's creation, one of the most influential SLRs made to date and extremely popular as an excellent image making tool. And I'm not trying to slam you, just instead trying to make the point that it's simply a matter of perspective and nothing more. The A-1 was the pinnacle of SLR tech in '78 same as a D800e is the pinnacle today; they're both cameras that allow photographers more flexibilty and power to create images than any camera prior to either's debut. Why on earth should that be a bad thing? It's not something to be shunned, but embraced. I like my A-1 just as much as my D3 and love shooting them both. And I guarantee in 29 years people will be pining for a simple camera like the D3 like they are now for an A-1. Viewpoint, guys, viewpoint.
emasterphoto
Established
And I forgot - my D3, and my T2i for that matter, both have noticebly brighter viewfinders than my A-1, or any of my other manual focus SLRs come to think of it. That's an AF thing though, and not necessarily related to digital, but it is true just the same.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
An interesting philosophical perspective, but one I don't necessarily share, for a number of reasons. I think we have a basic philosophical divergence about the importance of tailoring the camera output to the nth degree. If you are exhibiting 30x40 inch prints in a gallery, and you control every phase of production, perhaps your perspective has merit. If, however, you leave any part of the production process to outside contractors, you've lost control. I see your approach largely as the the epitome of the old saw: "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe." The reality is that most likely today, the typical image viewer will be looking at your work on a 14" notebook screen, iPad screen, or worse, a smartphone screen at 800x800 pixels... and none of them calibrated.
It's nice that you're able to tailor your gear more to your liking to get whatever output you want. I don't think that level of fine tuning has a lot of value in the real world. I'm not a luddite; I see myself more of a philosophical pragmatist. I want consistency in the way I can expect my gear to operate. I like my tools refined, but to the point. I don't want my tools to think for me or to do the job for me. I want to understand how my tool works, exactly, and then be able to use it to its best effect knowing its strengths and weaknesses. I find the endless discussions about blown highlights, muddy shadows, and high-ISO noise issues to be largely without merit. Those discussions reduce the value of images to technical minutiae. "Better" is subjective.
All of the automatic functions of todays cameras are convenient, and brilliantly enable the marketing of complex and expensive cameras to people who have no idea how to make an image manually... folks who can (and do) make exactly the same images with their iPad.
This has led to digital cameras being over-sold to people who believe Canon's marketing hype that if you buy a Canon Rebel, you can "Shoot like a Pro." Most users of DSLRs (many "pros" included) now use them as an expensive "point and shoot." They configure the menus to the custom settings they want, and then they set the dial to the "green square," point, and shoot and expect the IQ of the sensor, auto focus, and the built-in programming to make their image. Even the TTL flash output is calculated for them, which leads to the current flood of evenly lit, "perfectly exposed," and completely anonymous snapshots that flood the web and photography markets .
Now, I confess that I used to think my philosophical approach was the norm; but, after buying and trying to use an X-Pro1 outfit for some time, I came to realize that not only am I not the norm, I'm apparently in a small minority of photographers. I'm not only willing and capable of manually operating my camera, I do operate it manually. I really don't want to have to fight with my camera when the programming doesn't think like I think, and then have the camera get it wrong as much as it gets it right. I got to the point with my automated gear that it was wrong often enough that I didn't bother turning the automation on. I quickly realized with the X-Pro1 that I couldn't quickly and effectively turn the automation off and use the camera manually with the OVF. That's when I switched back to Leica.
The fallacy in the "necessity of completely tailorable" is that it's frequently not possible to tell whether an image was made with an iPad, an iPhone, or a LeiCanikon M1D800 mark whatever. Those qualities that make an image memorable don't lie in the way the camera menus were configured. They lie in composition of the image itself. The harsh reality of having "technology that has allowed me to control the camera to a finer degree than I've ever encountered in any prior camera I've owned" is that it's largely superfluous. Nice perhaps for some situations, but largely superfluous nonetheless.
Looking at the gallery photos here, uploaded by some very talented and technically proficient photographers, viewed on my iPad 2 screen, do photos really look that much different because a photographer tailored the camera settings to the nth degree? "Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."
I'll keep my manual cameras and do my own calculations, and continue to focus my attention on the image, not the gear, thanks. I don't have to fight with the camera to get it to focus on what I want. I know what I'm focusing on, and if the exposure is off, I know I'm to blame, but if it's right on, and that image sings... I can also claim the rights to that.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Jim, for me it has nothing to do with nostalgia.
I don't have any past film "days" to fall back on.
I think film, especially when taken to the darkroom stage, is cool. Today. Now. Period.
And I'll do what I can to make sure it'll continue to live on as a small but stable niche.