When Did It All Go Wrong?

[foto_fool]

I responded to this poll based on an esthetic consideration. My dad taught me cameras with his Contax IIIa and gave me my first SLR - and Olympus OM-1 I still use. So for me I guess the AE-1 Program marked a turning point.

Actually I'm not sure that there has been a WRONG turn. But like most things in the world, there has been serious fragmentation. Popularization of the Polaroid? Enabled some interesting artistic statements. Development of digital? Anyone checking out justin.tv? We now document everything.

I wonder if there are not more RF users in the world today than when the Barnack was introduced?

- John

 

[Socke]

Buttons and menus. Anything that detracts from the creative aspect.

I realy can't understand why people are so afraid off buttons and menues?

You choose a sensitivity which gives you an acceptable compromise between grain and sensitivity, then you adapt to the light, colour and amount, with filters and exposure settings.

When teh medium is exposed, you give it to somebody who prints it.

Even with a single use you have to decide if you want flash or not and which sensitivity and if you want colour or B/W.

How many photographers carried two bodies, one loaded with B/W the other with colour, since they didn't know beforehand what they would need?

 

[Alex v T]

My gripe is lens speed, and zooms as 'normal'. What happened to consumer cameras and fast lenses?

I totally agree that this is the major culprit.
For example, amateur photography to a major turn for the worse with the introduction of small aperture zoom point and shoot 35mm cameras.

There are shots where the wide aperture is almost mandatory, and there are shots where you want to stop down. The 35mm format with wide aperture lenses is a very flexible compromise. It is just right.

I have seen a huge number of wonderful looking snapshots (pro-like) that were created between the 30's and 60's (some in 70's). There have been much less since. This would be with both rangefinders and SLR's.

 

[dmr]

I realy can't understand why people are so afraid off buttons and menues?

I'm not afraid of them. To me, they are just annoying and unnecessary.

However, as I think back, to showing off my first real camera to friends, and they would take it and look it over and then more often than not exclaim "eeeewww, too many settings ..." or something like that, preferring their Instamatic.

Oh well, plus ca change ...

 

[micromontenegro]

IMHO, there was never a wrong turn. Today you can call whichever major supplier you choose and buy a new Leica M3, a new Nikon SP, a new Rolleiflex... but you can also buy the best digital whatchamacallit. The best of both worlds. There are also newfangled RFs, like the ZI and the CVs.
Again IMHO, all the cameras mentioned in the poll are great cameras, and no one of them was a turn for worse.
I use classic rangefinders because I cut my teeth with classic rangefinders, and feel comfortable with them. I like their jewel-like fit and finish. But I don`t think other photographic tools should be downplayed. Many a modern plastic "ugly" thing in capable hands has produced incredible results.

 

[Steve B]

what IS wrong?

what IS wrong?

I guess I ought to excuse myself from voting as I turned to rangefinders for their positives rather than "modern" camera's negatives although there certainly are enough to choose from. Lousy viewfinders are on the top of my list, but I use digital cameras as well as I think their advantages outweigh their shortcomings and find them very useful for many types of shooting. If though, heaven forfend, I had to choose one camera and forsake all others it would definitely be my M6, for all the usual reasons. If only we could combine the best of both worlds. Well, I guess we probably can, and folks more familiar with the M8 and R-D1 might argue that we have. I just have yet to experience it myself. But I hope to. I'd like to buy a lottery ticket, please.

 

[rbiemer]

When this poll was first posted, I looked at it and didn't vote. The choices didn't work for me. Since the poll has been bumped up again, I read all the previous posts and have come to a realization.
None of the choices are the "wrong turn" for me.
I'm not sure when "it" happened but for me it was/is when these tools we all like to use were turned into consumable products: when things started to be made just good enough to last for whatever product cycle and no better.
It isn't restricted to cameras, in my view, but to most of the stuff we use: watches and TVs and toasters and shoes and pens and razors and <insert your example here>.
In other words, I think it started to "go wrong" when manufactoered goods became essentially disposable.
Rob

 

[visiondr]

Rob,

You couldn't be more correct. That is, indeed when it all went wrong. It galls me everytime I poke my head into a retail store to see how little merchandise is designed to last. Sure, there are things that time quickly passes by; computers come to mind as a product that quickly become obsolete. Software is actually the changing factor here, not the computer itself. But, why are watches (to use your example) made to "crap out" in a few years or need yet another landfill filling - water table polluting battery? Time, the quantity watches are designed to measure, doesn't "change with the times" and thus a decent mechanical watch should easily last a lifetime.

 

[lament]

It all went wrong when Cosina released the R3A. That camera's just too good

 

[Vics]

I voted for the Maxxum 7000, because that was when I started shooting less and less... Then in 1991 I was handed an old (1959) Nikon F with a 50/1.4 and I was a gonner. Back into photography with both feet. Nikons, then Rollei TLRs, then Contax IIIa and now M3 w/Summicron 50. Seems like a very natural progression to me.

 

[feyz]

You don't want AF? Switch to MF. Don't like A and P? Switch to M. You don't want to shoot 1000s of photos? Then just don't do it! The only problem is in your mind not in the tools!

 

[gavinlg]

I agree with some of the comments here. Cameras never went wrong.

 

[rxmd]

In other words, I think it started to "go wrong" when manufactoered goods became essentially disposable.

In other words, the end of the world began in 1901, and Gilette is to blame? I don't see it that dramatically. The disposable razor blade did have practical advantages. And when as a camera manufacturer you can't sell any new products because your products are so expensive and your users are so conservative that you're constantly competing unfavourably against your old products, it takes a manufacturer of cheaper cameras to turn the market around and revive it for everybody. It's now a fact of life, and it doesn't have only a dark side.

Philipp

 

[pvdhaar]

You don't want AF? Switch to MF. Don't like A and P? Switch to M. You don't want to shoot 1000s of photos? Then just don't do it! The only problem is in your mind not in the tools!

Yeah, blame my mind..

Sure you can switch to MF, but AF-SLR viewfinder screens are so lame that I can't focus visually. So I end up going by the af-confirmation led, which basically is the AF systems interpretation of what is sharp. Tell you what; none of my AF-SLRs was ever as sharp as my Zenit-E (which didn't even feature a microprism or split center focus aid, just ground glass)..

Sure you can switch to M, but the limited digital meter scales are so uninformative I end up turning the wheels until the middle led lights up, which basically is the AE interpretation of what is correct exposure. Tell you what; none of my AF-SLRs ever had such a splendid meter as my Nikon FE (covering the entire shutter speed range, and having two needles)..

Although anecdotal, this is what I think is wrong.. Everytime something is automated, it goes at the expense of the quality of what was and could previously be done manually.

 

[feyz]

So you are good with the old zenit. Why you look at the modern cameras? You have all you want. Can't see where is the problem.

 

[rxmd]

Sure you can switch to MF, but AF-SLR viewfinder screens are so lame that I can't focus visually.

You just need the right camera, one that either comes with exchangeable viewfinder screens or where you can fit one in yourself. For example, many EOS cameras can take the rather good matte/split-image/microprism screen from the Canon EF-M manual focus camera. Etc. It's just about making the right choice based on what you want your equipment to do. If you want an AF camera with a good focusing screen, buy one. They exist. A lot of people do manual focus macros etc. on AF camera bodies, you are not alone.

Sure you can switch to M, but the limited digital meter scales are so uninformative I end up turning the wheels until the middle led lights up, which basically is the AE interpretation of what is correct exposure.

Same thing here. Just pick your camera so that it will fit your needs. People used to make choices in the good old days, too, so we can just do the same today.

I got camera socialized on Canon AE-1Ps and A-1s, with a meter that just told me numbers for aperture and (only on the A-1) shutter speed. You can easily have similar comfort on today's AF SLRs, with the added benefit of things like TTL flash on manual lenses if you choose the right body.

In the case of a matchneedle meter, they also come with a lot of disadvantages (such as they're mechanically sensitive, some of them are dependent on camera alignment, and most of them use a CdS cell with memory effect, sensitivity limits and the mercury battery problem). Actually they started to disappear long before AF cameras made their appearance.

Philipp

 

[rbiemer]

It's now a fact of life, and it doesn't have only a dark side.
Philipp

OK, I probably was a little extreme. And I agree, there is a bright side that mostly outweighs my point in my earlier post. If it weren't for that kind of marketplace, I probably would not have any of the FSU gear that I like so well.
I wouldn't be bothered so much by the "replace instead of repair" consumer goods if the replaced object was actually put back into the supply/material chain instead of mostly just being dumped into a landfill.
Rob
Edit: I have to admit, I wouldn't mind having an example of all of the cameras listed in the poll choices

 

[scottgee1]

In my little world AF is the least important 'automated' feature. I do like aperture preferred exposure -- when it works correctly.

As to the poll, I might have started earlier in the development of cameras, say, when the first camera came along that didn't require a tripod.



ScottGee1

 

[pvdhaar]

You just need the right camera

And that's the whole point..

If you need to exchange the focus screen to get even somewhat decent manual focus, something is wrong with that AF-SLR. And it still won't be as good as one whose design parameters are not dictated by the rest of the electronics show to support AF..

What's more a KatzEye screen costs over $100, while I can get a minty Zenit-E for a tenner (lens included).

Oh, and if ever you get an opportunity to look through a viewfinder on a Nikon-FE (or FE2 etc..), then do. It's the best meter display approach ever in my book. It's not an over/under meter like you find in present day AF-SLRs. It shows you the metered speed and the selected speed simultaneously on a scale that covers the entire shutter speed range..

 

[rxmd]

If you need to exchange the focus screen to get even somewhat decent manual focus, something is wrong with that AF-SLR.

No... it's exactly right! Today's customers largely use AF, for which it is nice to have a bright screen. If you want to have a dimmer screen that allows you to focus manually, with a good camera you get the option. How is this different from having the option to put an AE metering screen or an aftermarket one with gridlines into a Canon F-1 in the 1970s?

What's more a KatzEye screen costs over $100, while I can get a minty Zenit-E for a tenner (lens included).

So what? A new high-end product from a small-scale third-party manufacturer is more expensive than a different, old product with no real demand, mass-produced in a Socialist country? Not really surprising... And a dead EF-M to hack a good screen into your EOS 100 will cost you $20... And how much did new Beattie Intenscreens for Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes cost back in the good old 1960s?

Oh, and if ever you get an opportunity to look through a viewfinder on a Nikon-FE (or FE2 etc..), then do. It's the best meter display approach ever in my book. It's not an over/under meter like you find in present day AF-SLRs. It shows you the metered speed and the selected speed simultaneously on a scale that covers the entire shutter speed range..

OK, I will. I like this kind of metering approach with my M5 (where I don't get precise numbers, but I get the selected shutter speed as well as a visual estimate how far my exposure is off the spot-metered value)

Philipp