Anupam
Well-known
When did it all go wrong?
Rollfilm . . .
Rollfilm . . .
Steve B
Established
It is indeed the golden age!
It is indeed the golden age!
I'm with Mathew I'm afraid. I love my M6 and really enjoy using it but anybody that thinks that a DSLR "forces" you to do certain things should probably reconsider their phraseology. An automatic camera doesn't force anybody to do anything. Its extremely convenient to choose aperture, shutter speed, DOF, etc. I make the same decisions with my DSLR that I do with my RF. I just execute them differently, and usually more quickly and more conveniently. People made the same complaints when cameras with light meters came out, they said the same thing when roll film came out, they said the same thing when dry plates became commercially available. And somehow none of these innovations has destroyed photography. Quite the opposite.
Having said that I have to admit that I am frustrated with certain things. I hate that the viewfinder on my compact digital is so lousy, I hate the fact that my DSLR doesn't have mirror lock up. But one simply has to choose the right tool for the job. Its good to remember that its not necessary to turn off your brain when you turn on a camera that has automatic functions. And to avoid the plasticy feel, just buy a better camera the way we have all done for years. I'm not saying that everybody should run out and buy a DSLR, just suggesting that one doesn't have to trash other peoples choices in order to justify one's own. I like them all, and am glad that we have so many great options to choose from.
It is indeed the golden age!
I'm with Mathew I'm afraid. I love my M6 and really enjoy using it but anybody that thinks that a DSLR "forces" you to do certain things should probably reconsider their phraseology. An automatic camera doesn't force anybody to do anything. Its extremely convenient to choose aperture, shutter speed, DOF, etc. I make the same decisions with my DSLR that I do with my RF. I just execute them differently, and usually more quickly and more conveniently. People made the same complaints when cameras with light meters came out, they said the same thing when roll film came out, they said the same thing when dry plates became commercially available. And somehow none of these innovations has destroyed photography. Quite the opposite.
Having said that I have to admit that I am frustrated with certain things. I hate that the viewfinder on my compact digital is so lousy, I hate the fact that my DSLR doesn't have mirror lock up. But one simply has to choose the right tool for the job. Its good to remember that its not necessary to turn off your brain when you turn on a camera that has automatic functions. And to avoid the plasticy feel, just buy a better camera the way we have all done for years. I'm not saying that everybody should run out and buy a DSLR, just suggesting that one doesn't have to trash other peoples choices in order to justify one's own. I like them all, and am glad that we have so many great options to choose from.
dexdog
Veteran
Sorry to disappoint, but nothing went wrong. Technology advances, people and artists embrace the changes, or not, as each sees fit. The image is the product, and is more important than how it was produced.
Russ
Well-known
Steve B
Established
The FM was the first camera that I bought with my own money and I used it for almost 30 years. I sold it last year as I just hadn't used it in a long while and probably wasn't going to. Sometimes I miss it. But I still have the Rolliecord that my Dad loaned me before I bought the FM. Should send it in for a CLA and use it a bit. Then maybe I'll give it back to him, only 35 years late.Russ said:
kuzano
Veteran
If I think of it in terms of major milestones of camera/photography change alone.
The first milestone was camera automation... late 60's to mid70's and beyond. The public perception that the camera alone would improve their photography.
Second, the recent perception that digital photography has met and exceeded the quality of film cameras. I believe digit is not better, nor is film. they are different. The workflow is vastly different and a common complaint is the time at the computer. But for a few willing to spend the time on the learning curve and the work flow, they do believe that they have more control over the final image than they did with film.
It's a tough question. Personally, there's not enough time left in this lifetime to become a wizard at Photoshop. However, I do have a digital camera for the quick and dirty work related stuff. I just refuse to sit at the computer massaging from 8 million to ten million pixels, a few at a time.
The first milestone was camera automation... late 60's to mid70's and beyond. The public perception that the camera alone would improve their photography.
Second, the recent perception that digital photography has met and exceeded the quality of film cameras. I believe digit is not better, nor is film. they are different. The workflow is vastly different and a common complaint is the time at the computer. But for a few willing to spend the time on the learning curve and the work flow, they do believe that they have more control over the final image than they did with film.
It's a tough question. Personally, there's not enough time left in this lifetime to become a wizard at Photoshop. However, I do have a digital camera for the quick and dirty work related stuff. I just refuse to sit at the computer massaging from 8 million to ten million pixels, a few at a time.
literiter
Well-known
We never did go wrong, really, because we have some pretty good cameras out there right now. New digital stuff or old film stuff, doesn't matter as long as you get the image.
But I certainly have my preferences.
My first "automated" plastic, camera was a Canon A1. It froze up on me one cold winter day, but my old Leica M2 was still very useable even though it had been cold soaked in the car overnight.. (Absolutely amazing, even my light meter was frozen.)
The A1 went to a frind of mine who spends his winters in hot counties. I think, at the time it was the best camera he'd ever used. In a way I was sorry to see the camera go because I had taken some very good images with it. I found the automation freed me up to work with the image a bit more.
Since the A1, I've been a lot more careful of my choices in that I'll consider the environment I'll be using the camera etc. I've learned to see with rangefinder cameras, to not be bothered by the frame lines and focus mechanisms. I've taken my Leicas to some pretty awful situations and they don't seem to care.
As well I've been using Nikon F2 and a F3hp with similar result as the Leicas. They don't seem to be influenced by harsh weather.
If I were to find a digital camera that I could be assured could deliver the way my older cameras can, I'd get it. Perhaps one day.
These days I prefer to spend my time looking through a viewfinder than looking through camera catalogs.
But I certainly have my preferences.
My first "automated" plastic, camera was a Canon A1. It froze up on me one cold winter day, but my old Leica M2 was still very useable even though it had been cold soaked in the car overnight.. (Absolutely amazing, even my light meter was frozen.)
The A1 went to a frind of mine who spends his winters in hot counties. I think, at the time it was the best camera he'd ever used. In a way I was sorry to see the camera go because I had taken some very good images with it. I found the automation freed me up to work with the image a bit more.
Since the A1, I've been a lot more careful of my choices in that I'll consider the environment I'll be using the camera etc. I've learned to see with rangefinder cameras, to not be bothered by the frame lines and focus mechanisms. I've taken my Leicas to some pretty awful situations and they don't seem to care.
As well I've been using Nikon F2 and a F3hp with similar result as the Leicas. They don't seem to be influenced by harsh weather.
If I were to find a digital camera that I could be assured could deliver the way my older cameras can, I'd get it. Perhaps one day.
These days I prefer to spend my time looking through a viewfinder than looking through camera catalogs.
scottgee1
RF renegade
literiter said:
literiter raises an interesting point; all the digicams of which I'm aware have an LCD and some rely on one exclusively for composition.
IME, LCDs perform poorly in cold weather and some won't work at all in very cold temperatures.
This question may belong in a different forum but what is your experience with LCDs in cold conditions?
TIA!/ScottGee1
Last edited:
narsuitus
Well-known
“When Did It All Go Wrong?”
“Poll: At which point did camera design take a wrong turn?”
“At which point did camera design take a wrong turn?”
I did not vote in this poll because I don’t think that camera design took a wrong turn.
However, if I were forced to pick a time, it would not be one of the choices offered. Instead, it would be when Kodak put box cameras in the hands of the masses because that is when things first went wrong for the professional photographer.
“Poll: At which point did camera design take a wrong turn?”
“At which point did camera design take a wrong turn?”
I did not vote in this poll because I don’t think that camera design took a wrong turn.
However, if I were forced to pick a time, it would not be one of the choices offered. Instead, it would be when Kodak put box cameras in the hands of the masses because that is when things first went wrong for the professional photographer.
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Long before the M3, at the time when Barnack came out with his miniature camera and its pathetically small negatives and enormous depth of field... ;-)
Best regards,
Uwe
Best regards,
Uwe
kevin m
Veteran
It all went wrong with the first commemorative "Sultan of Brunei" M6. 
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
When the marketing dept decided which new features were necessary ... without talking to photographers.
amateriat
We're all light!
"Making photographers out of bums, and bums out of photographers" I think the saying went (but that was in reference to 35mm cameras catching on with PJs in the 1960s!).narsuitus said:
This is a bit like blaming Apple's Garageband for egging on non-musically-trained people to "make" music and inflict the results on others; we've had real garage bands (among others...ever hear of Karaoke?) do just that for decades, though I'll admit they had to pick up real instruments and plug in to do it.
Out of the sea of mediocrity will come a handful of diamonds, so to speak. Same with photography, although getting a certain degree os attention these days can be a bit tough, which I suppose is the real objection.
- Barrett
Ronald M
Veteran
It is still not easy. Just more junk is produced that is closer to correct exposure and focus.
Their still has to be a brain behind the camera.
Their still has to be a brain behind the camera.
wgerrard
Veteran
Being big is bad. So is being heavy.
Offering lots of capability is good. Having a complex interface to that capability is bad.
Not breaking is good. Plastics are not necessarily bad because not all plastics break easily. A number of modern non-metal products are both lightweight and very strong. If you also want a heavy camera, I guess the manufacturer could glue a lead plate on the bottom.
However... the real killer was the realization by most camera makers that they could make Really Big Bucks by going after the consumer market. That market consists of almost everyone on the planet who gets seriously sleepy when people start talking about depth of field, aperture, and all that. Note: that demographic also represents almost everyone on the planet, period.
So, if you want to sell a lot of cameras to people who just want to point and click, or to people who just want to point and click while holding an big expensive thing that props up their ego, you will give the people more of what they've been buying.
Most people are no more interested in learning how to focus and expose a photo from scratch than they are in learning how to make a pizza from scratch.
That's the market camera makers sell into, and they know their market.
Offering lots of capability is good. Having a complex interface to that capability is bad.
Not breaking is good. Plastics are not necessarily bad because not all plastics break easily. A number of modern non-metal products are both lightweight and very strong. If you also want a heavy camera, I guess the manufacturer could glue a lead plate on the bottom.
However... the real killer was the realization by most camera makers that they could make Really Big Bucks by going after the consumer market. That market consists of almost everyone on the planet who gets seriously sleepy when people start talking about depth of field, aperture, and all that. Note: that demographic also represents almost everyone on the planet, period.
So, if you want to sell a lot of cameras to people who just want to point and click, or to people who just want to point and click while holding an big expensive thing that props up their ego, you will give the people more of what they've been buying.
Most people are no more interested in learning how to focus and expose a photo from scratch than they are in learning how to make a pizza from scratch.
That's the market camera makers sell into, and they know their market.
amateriat
We're all light!
wgerrard: Wow...I think we could cap the whole thread on your "last word." Largely sums it up for me.
- Barrett
- Barrett
wgerrard
Veteran
hth said:When the Hexar RF was dropped, it all went wrong.
it went wrong when marketing started to sell on features and tried to make cameras cheaper and cheaper by taking away build quality for toss and replace.
/Håkan
I'm having an interesting read through this vintage thread.
The Hexar RF is a fine camera, but priced too high for the consumer market.
We need to remember the impact of software. All cameras with electronic parts have software of some sort. However, as technological capabilities increase, software developers rush to learn how to take advantage of those new capabilities. Sadly, they are usually in no hurry to learn the human interface techniques needed to make it easy for people to use that software.
So, what happens is that we get a lot of automated cameras that make us push Button A and Button B while standing in a full moon if we want to use Capability R.
This is the root of Featureitis, which happens when engineers say to software developers, "Hey, we made it do this now...."
As a result, we have cameras that promise easy-to-use automation that also come with thick, thick manuals. If it's so @#$ easy to use, how come there's a 400-page book in the box?
giovatony
Well-known
It never really went wrong! Only to certain people who think they know what a camera should be did it go wrong. They suffer needlessly over things they never had any control over to begin with. These inconsequential trivialities have little to no effect on normal folk whatsoever. We are thankful for the choices presented to us.
John
John
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
I hope Apple develops a DSLR.
No, really!
I bought my wife an iPod last Xmas and never had to consult the 'manual' it came with even once. About the time my brain formulated the, "hey, how do I..." question, my fingers had already found the answer. That's what Canon/Nikon etc. need to learn: Make a camera that teaches the user how to use it.
wgerrard
Veteran
ErnestoJL said:
Nah. Digital products really are cheaper to replace than to repair. For example, if the video card in your PC takes a dive, would you rather pay a tech $90 an hour to troubleshoot and repair the thing, or just go buy a new card? And that assumes the tech could actually fix the card once the fault was found, which is a questionable assertion.