When Did It All Go Wrong?

[peterm1]

Who says it did?

Maybe we should all go back to using a camera obscura and a highly skilled painter :^)

(The image is projected onto a canvas then the painter actually paints the picture over the image to make it permanent - and yes, it is reversed. Its now believed to be how many classic artists like Vermeer did their works.

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/camera_obscura/co_one.htm

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/cameraob.htm

 

[Trius]

Robert: Gotta disagree. I could go out and buy a camera with all those features and weighs about the same as any of my favourite cameras. But I stick with simple rangefinders and the the OM-1 and OM-2. And autofocus turned off does not yield the same manual focus functionality.

 

[Robert Price]

Robert: Gotta disagree. I could go out and buy a camera with all those features and weighs about the same as any of my favourite cameras.quote]

Show me what it is? I am curious to see this ultimate camera that can be the end all be all of cameras. Because if it is, I am going to buy it.

The SLR (film or digital) is quite a capable piece of kit. The main workhorse for quite some time for a great many protographers, and still is. Yes RF's had their place before the advent of the SLR, and that was due to their compact size. I would like to think that RF users are more deliberate in the photo's they chose to take. But the majority of the world is content with useing their phone as a camera. The advances in Digital SLR cameras are by far leaps and bounds ahead of any film RF'er, And put head to head would out shoot the latter by far.

Now don't get me wrong here, I shoot both out of nessity. Digital for the ease of it, and RF for the joy of it. Yes my digital feels like a toy at times, especially compared to some of my older SLR's (Minolta 9000) but it is far superior to it also.

I think the whole underlying point to be made is that we all shoot what we are comfortable with.

 

[Trius]

Olympus E-500: 129.5 x 94.5 x 66 mm 435 g (body only)
Olympus OM-1: 136 x 83 x 50mm 510 g (body only)
Olympus OM-4Ti: 136 x 84 x 50mm 510 g (body only)

Then we get to RFs and compact digicams, I won't do the math.

It's the interface and the "features" that intrude that make the difference. Not to mention the difference between film and digital, which is irrelevant to me for this thread.

Edit:

Olympus 35SP: 130mm x 81mm x 62mm 624g (w/ fixed lens)

I don't have significant first hand experience in "turning off" autofocus on a digital wonder. But from everything I've read, it's not like using manual focus on a film SLR at all. I could be way wrong.

 

[Keith]

I have my rangefinders which require a certain input from me to get a decent shot but I also have a little canon A620 point and shoot that can do things that are beyond belief for the camera's cost. I actually don't think that the process of camera evolution has gone wrong at any stage ... the choices available are very much up to the individual and the ability of afordable cameras now is phenominal!

The proposition that it has gone wrong at some stage doesn't make sense to me I'm afraid!

 

[Robert Price]

All excelent Cameras to be sure. I have had a few of the ones you mentioned in my life from time to to. Cameras are like girl friends, some times you love them..but they gotta go.

Now to get back on topic...

Camera Design really did not take a wrong turn in my opinion, they have just evoloved. Truly ugly cameras have perished as well as their film formats (Remember the disk camera ).

I think the design of todays modern cameras, SLR's for sure are have become a fanciful contraption. But tecnology and the wanting of the masses to "cram it all in" has dictated a lot of it.

Range finders have stayed quite true to their roots. Still employing gears and levers to activate the various funcutions. If all rangefinders were made to LEICA quality, then I guess most of us would be on a different forum.

I think the allure for most if not all of us is the joy of using rangefinder, design changes aside.

 

[Trius]

Damn, now I want a digital Disc camera with fixed focus lens.

If any of the classic SLRs (FM, OM, MX, SR-T Autoreflex T, etc.) were to show up in digital form with none of the electronic whizzbang stuff other than the absolute minimum, I am willing to bet there would a large market. While a portion of the market may have "demanded" all the features, I am not convinced it's as significant many believe. I know product managers out of control when I see them.

 

[rxmd]

Damn, now I want a digital Disc camera with fixed focus lens.

Go ahead: Sony Mavica MVC-FD73 - 0.35 megapixel digital camera that records on floppy drives. If this is not a "digital Disc camera" (picture), then I don't know what is. No fixed focus, but at least it has manual focus.

Philipp

 

[rxmd]

If any of the classic SLRs (FM, OM, MX, SR-T Autoreflex T, etc.) were to show up in digital form with none of the electronic whizzbang stuff other than the absolute minimum, I am willing to bet there would a large market.

No, there wouldn't.

If someone were to release, say, a digital Canon A-1, all the Nikon and Pentax and Minolta and Olympus crowd (and vice versa) wouldn't start being enthusiastic about ditching their lenses and buying FD stuff. If it were something Cosina-esque available in multiple lens mounts, people would scream bloody murder because it has too much plastic and is not from one of the big brands and Cosina always used to build junk. Something would be wrong, and hence people would find something to complain, the same way Leicaphiles complained about the lack of an advance lever on the M8. Many of us are too emotionally invested in their own view of what constitutes the ideal "digital classic" camera, so that they wouldn't be able to accept something that falls short of the mark (i.e. with the wrong mount, the wrong shutter speeds, made of plastic instead of metal, by the wrong maker, etc.) I guess these little differences would in the end turn out to be more important than the big picture. I actually think this poll is evidence enough how much we actually disagree on what is "acceptable" in a "classic" and what isn't.

Everybody in the the-grass-was-greener-back-then club agrees that a simple digital SLR with a classic lens mount could be a big hit. Unfortunately that's already all that they/we agree on. Come on, guys, let's get over it. It's not going to happen. The M8 is the closest we'll ever get, and that's only because it was made by one company that caters to their own customer base only.

Philipp

 

[RF-Addict]

Couldn't vote because I don't think anything went wrong - we have a lot of choice today - you can use the old-style, like view and field cameras, you are free to use rangefinders or SLRs and even DSLRs and if you feel like it, you can use them all. They all have their particular strengthsand are a joy to use. Why does everything new have to be bad?

 

[Trius]

Phillip: I agree with most of your posts, I think on this one I will have to disagree, quite strenuously. Despite the complaints of the construction and feel of the moder Bessa RFs, they, have been an unqualified success for Cosina. While I agree I am emotionally invested in Olympus gear at this point, a "simple", classic digital SLR or RF would cause me to switch and, I am certain, many others.

And I totally disagree that the M8 is the only close thing we will get. Who would have predicted a revival of RF photography, much less led by Mr. K? We should be dreaming, not pitying ourselves and bemoaning the lack of truth in digital photography.

 

[egpj]

Classic cameras and they way they do not intrude in the creative process is something that I seek out. I do not particularly care for the autofocus cameras or even those with a light meter. I voted that things went wrong when the Spotmatic was released. Of course the masses really do not want to think about what has to go into making a properly exposed image not to mention the framing and content. They just want to do their happy snaps and really, good for them. I have small palm sized video camera for taking video and stills for work. Without all those increasing complex cameras coming before my little Samsung sport video camera would not have been possible. Maybe that just lends itself to the argument, "the right tool for the right job at the right time."

 

[Al Patterson]

Trius, much as I'd love to have a digital A-1, I agree with Phillip. I doubt we'll see anyone other than Leica building an updated classic.

I'd like to be wrong here, but my gut feeling agrees with Phillip.

 

[ICU]

Couldn't vote because I don't think anything went wrong ... They all have their particular strengths and are a joy to use.

I agree. To suggest that one type of camera is universally better than another is, ethnocentric.

 

[ChrisN]

If any of the classic SLRs (FM, OM, MX, SR-T Autoreflex T, etc.) were to show up in digital form with none of the electronic whizzbang stuff other than the absolute minimum, I am willing to bet there would a large market. While a portion of the market may have "demanded" all the features, I am not convinced it's as significant many believe. I know product managers out of control when I see them.

Take a Pentax *istDS or DL, mount a manual focus "M" or "K" lens, and set the camera for manual focus and manual exposure mode. Just like using a Spotmatic! Set the aperture on the lens, focus, compose, press the button for stop-down metering (sets the shutter speed) and shoot! Check the histogram on the replay and adjust your exposure to suit.

And you also have the option of using modern lenses (auto-focus, auto-aperture) and letting the camera do it automatically if you choose to.

 

[Wimpler]

I think it went wrong when "new technology" became the "only technology". Want to use your point and shoot camera with an external flash? Sorry, no PC socket or hotshoe. That is the kind of thing that pisses me off.

"New technology" cameras have become cheaper to manufacture (cheaper then the cameras we love). Then our good old non auto everything cameras became more expensive because everybody bought the new stuff.

 

[rxmd]

Want to use your point and shoot camera with an external flash? Sorry, no PC socket or hotshoe. That is the kind of thing that pisses me off.

Go to dpreview.com's Buying Guide (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp). Select "Format: Compact" and "External Flash: Yes". Click "Compare". Result: "Too many results, only first 10 shown, please try to be more specific."

Granted, some of them are Canons that want a proprietary flash, but the others have either a hot shoe or a PC sync terminal. So if that's important to you, there's plenty of choice.

Philipp

 

[Socke]

I think it went wrong when "new technology" became the "only technology". Want to use your point and shoot camera with an external flash? Sorry, no PC socket or hotshoe. That is the kind of thing that pisses me off.

"New technology" cameras have become cheaper to manufacture (cheaper then the cameras we love). Then our good old non auto everything cameras became more expensive because everybody bought the new stuff.

To be true, my "good old nothing auto" Rollei 35TE was very expensive when I bought it new in 1980. Not much cheaper than a Minox with AE.

 

[mfunnell]

It all started going wrong with the decline in use of daguerreotype processing. Now those were the days! When a portable camera required a horse and cart, plus a tent for processing. Sure, some thought that mercury vapor was problematic, but now its gone I haven't noted that photographers lack for insanity. Have you?

...Mike

 

[ErnestoJL]

I do not like battery dependant cameras, it is cameras unable to be used if not fitted with an usually bulky, heavy and expensive or hard to find high tech battery.
I still prefer the manual types, either RF or SLR where the only battery is the one that drives the exposure meter (galvanometer based).
That´s my choice.

If there was a turning point from where things started going downhill, it was (IMO) about 1972 /1974 when the first examples of electronically controlled SLR cameras were introduced.
A very short time after came the plastic body era, full exposure automation, and sooner than nothing else came autofocus.
Up to this point, cameras were made to last. From there on, cameras were made to be obsolete in a few years, forcing the owner to replace it when spare parts became unavailable.

The newest camera I´m using today was made in the mid ´70s, all the other are way older, and still working perfectly today. They still can be repaired and in case I have no batteries, I can set the camera in total darkenss just lighting a match.

Would it be possible for any of the best auto everything film SLRs of today to be usable for its purpose 70 years from today?
Surely not. But a 1964 Zeiss Contarex Bullseye surely will.

That´s why I keep tied to some old metal bricks which don´t go useless if batteries are exhausted or unavailable.

Ernesto