Trius
Waiting on Maitani
For me, it was definitely the Minolta Maxuum, though the AE-1 is close. I was selling cameras at the time the Maxuum came out. The marketing campaign for that camera was huge, unlike any other campaign for a camera previously.
Person after person came into the store nearly begging to get their mitts on the camera. They flew out the door.
And people came back complaining that all their photos weren't perfect. All the hype about the automation had raised expectations to such a level that an SLR had been raised to the level of P&S simplicity with National Geographic photographer results ... every time. It was my job to explain how the camera functioned and was not foolproof; in other words, that some brain-power was sitll necessary.
After that, every other camera company raced to match or exceed Minolta. As the automation was "improved" to try and eliminate the previous model's shortcomings, things became more complicated. Many people came to the conclusion that image quality wasn't really what they were after, rather they wanted simplicity, so the auto focus point-n-shoot became the focus of the camera manufacturers. There have been lots of casualties along the way.
Person after person came into the store nearly begging to get their mitts on the camera. They flew out the door.
And people came back complaining that all their photos weren't perfect. All the hype about the automation had raised expectations to such a level that an SLR had been raised to the level of P&S simplicity with National Geographic photographer results ... every time. It was my job to explain how the camera functioned and was not foolproof; in other words, that some brain-power was sitll necessary.
After that, every other camera company raced to match or exceed Minolta. As the automation was "improved" to try and eliminate the previous model's shortcomings, things became more complicated. Many people came to the conclusion that image quality wasn't really what they were after, rather they wanted simplicity, so the auto focus point-n-shoot became the focus of the camera manufacturers. There have been lots of casualties along the way.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
My gripe is lens speed, and zooms as 'normal'. What happened to consumer cameras and fast lenses? It used to be that f2.8 was normal, 3.5 was slow and anything wider than 2 was fast.. Canon GIII with the 1.7!?
Now look at the normal lens supplied on any consumer digital, film or dslr.. F2.8 is the new f1.4 one would observe, despite the digital sensors being best at asa 50.
I don't remember when it happened, but I remember a film SLR being sold with a 35-70mm zoom as the standard supplied lens, with it's attendent f 3.5 maximum opening- I think that was when it all went downhill, when people began thinking they had to have a slow little zoom instead of a fast prime as the 'main' lens.
Then the ultimate sin- built in flash. That was the end.
Now look at the normal lens supplied on any consumer digital, film or dslr.. F2.8 is the new f1.4 one would observe, despite the digital sensors being best at asa 50.
I don't remember when it happened, but I remember a film SLR being sold with a 35-70mm zoom as the standard supplied lens, with it's attendent f 3.5 maximum opening- I think that was when it all went downhill, when people began thinking they had to have a slow little zoom instead of a fast prime as the 'main' lens.
Then the ultimate sin- built in flash. That was the end.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
> It used to be that f2.8 was normal, 3.5 was slow and anything wider
> than 2 was fast.. Canon GIII with the 1.7!?
You're comparing yesterday's medium to high end with today's low end. The common man between 1971 and 1976 bought a Canonet 28 with a 40/f2.8 lens.
> Now look at the normal lens supplied on any consumer digital, film or
> dslr.. F2.8 is the new f1.4 one would observe, despite the digital sensors
> being best at asa 50.
Zooms were never fast. They aren't a lot faster today, but they deliver a lot more image quality. People are apparently happy to trade speed for flexibility. Many customers want zooms. Those who want speed instead are welcome to buy $100 50/1.8 or a $250 50/1.4 autofocus lenses for their EOS that deliver excellent image quality. Hard to see the end of the world there.
Philipp
> than 2 was fast.. Canon GIII with the 1.7!?
You're comparing yesterday's medium to high end with today's low end. The common man between 1971 and 1976 bought a Canonet 28 with a 40/f2.8 lens.
> Now look at the normal lens supplied on any consumer digital, film or
> dslr.. F2.8 is the new f1.4 one would observe, despite the digital sensors
> being best at asa 50.
Zooms were never fast. They aren't a lot faster today, but they deliver a lot more image quality. People are apparently happy to trade speed for flexibility. Many customers want zooms. Those who want speed instead are welcome to buy $100 50/1.8 or a $250 50/1.4 autofocus lenses for their EOS that deliver excellent image quality. Hard to see the end of the world there.
Philipp
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"Canon Ixus Whatever. The camera that thinks for you."
This is where it all starts going wrong, I would say.
This is where it all starts going wrong, I would say.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
Agreed, I guess the built in flash that was needed to compensate for the slow is my real gripe, does not really apply to this poll tho.. sorry bout that..
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Bryce, you have a Veriwide? cool! Would you care to post some images (full frame) to give me an idea about its capabilities?
R
Robert
Guest
I think it all went wrong with the auto exposure and auto focus.
Twenty five years ago when I bought my MX and C330f to my mind were golden times, for me anyway.
Although I am now using auto everything and digital I would have liked things to have stood still back then. Definately no digital
Twenty five years ago when I bought my MX and C330f to my mind were golden times, for me anyway.
Although I am now using auto everything and digital I would have liked things to have stood still back then. Definately no digital
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
ferider said:
I agree. It didn't go wrong, just variations and flavors.
The list is a great little 35mm photography history lesson. I remember a lot of the developments mentioned, and at the time (being the purist that I was/am) I thought the some were pretty ridiculous, but not one of the developments listed has spoiled or ruined photography for me. In fact, I've come to really enjoy and learn how to make the most of things like meters-in-cameras and autofocus.
Right now, my biggest photographic bug-a-boo is the cameraphone. Cameraphones bug me like Disc and APS cameras bugged me back in their day.
R
ray_g
Guest
clintock said:
I love the built in flash on SLR's. I pretty much use flash for daylight fill, and for that, it is very handy.
HAnkg
Well-known
I think all that electronics made possible was/is a positive thing. I do think however that it was unfortunate that the focus shifted from the cameras essential ergonomics to a focus on features. So you had cameras with a boatload of electronic features but lousy viewfinders, poorly placed controls, etc., it's the reason most of the cameras I used when shooting film where 20 or 30 years old. That seemed to be the zenith of opto-mechanical design.
thawkins
Well-known
What caused me to revolt against the so called modern photo technology? Megapixels, digits, electronic menus loaded with mostly useless features and the cheap plastiky feel of the modern computerized photographic instrument. I enjoy the solid feel of precision construction and finish found in my two Retinas, QL17 and even a Zorki. With these vintage cameras I am involved in the photographic process rather the just being along for the ride while the hand held photo computer tells me what the focus, exposure, shutter speed and proper brand of lip balm should be.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I notice there isn't a single P&S in that list.
R
Robert
Guest
A lot of times photographers fire off many shots hoping to get one decent one. What about a single shot for that 'decisive moment'.
Taking photographs is too easy now. The difficult to use cameras aren't the multi programmed DSLRs but the manual cameras that require a little time to focus and set the exposure.
Taking photographs is too easy now. The difficult to use cameras aren't the multi programmed DSLRs but the manual cameras that require a little time to focus and set the exposure.
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Even though I wouldn't exchange the M2 for a F2 now (i.e. I appreciate the RF finder over the SLR one and therefore I'm not the intended primary target for this poll), the reason which brought me away from SLRs (to viewfinders back then) was the simplicity of the photographic tool.
I voted for the autofocus which was 'to much' for me since it had the biggest negative effect for the pictures made. Until the F100 I was hunting for more but had to realize that I prefered the older pictures and wanted to slow down during the process. The AF function was working like a traffic light turning green - saying 'ready, push now!'..
I voted for the autofocus which was 'to much' for me since it had the biggest negative effect for the pictures made. Until the F100 I was hunting for more but had to realize that I prefered the older pictures and wanted to slow down during the process. The AF function was working like a traffic light turning green - saying 'ready, push now!'..
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
At least 110 is gone, that's a good thing!
I forgot about fill in flash outdoors! duh- I was drunk earlier today.
I forgot about fill in flash outdoors! duh- I was drunk earlier today.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Robert said:
I remember thinking the exact same thing when the developments listed above came out. But is taking a "good" photograph really that much easier? With all the technological breakthroughs has our aesthetic regarding what makes a good photograph changed at all, or very much? The mantra here on RFF is "it's not the camera, it's the photographer." That goes both ways. Mastering a manual camera doesn't make you a better photographer, neither does mastering a multi-function DSLR. This diverges from the point you make, Robert, but maybe it's not right to dismiss a photographer based on the equipment he or she uses. Afterall, a good eye is a good eye.
dee
Well-known
I have a mild autistic ''glitch''. Over the years, I became increasingly anxious over the rapidly changing, increasingly complex, frighteningly disposable nature of taking photographs.
Recently I discovered early Leicas, and now, thanks to a small inheritance, I have several , together with some Russiian ''copies ''. All of which have returned to me the magic of capturing a little corner of a confusing world once again
[ I can't cope with cyrillic writing, so the Zorkis are all, controversially , ID -compromoised, Leica pretenders . ]
But, thet have all helped me to want to make ''magic slide shows'' again .
Ok, I am different from real people, but surely, the ritual of preparation / composing / and the soft click of the shutter are appreciated by ''normals '' too ?
Essentially, I also have the reassurance that my ''friends'' can be cared for ...the Russians can be CLA'd when they go wrong, and the Leicas, even of 1932/3 vintage are amazingly, expected to keep on doing what it says on the box - seemingly indefinitely, given sensible servicing...no-one has said to me ''Well, they are a bit old, you might find a newer camera more reliable '' !
By contrast, I have been told that fixing the Canon G2, which I have just got the hang of, isn't cost effective, and that I should find £350 for a replacement...and I bought it 'cos it was like a rangefinder...
Recently I discovered early Leicas, and now, thanks to a small inheritance, I have several , together with some Russiian ''copies ''. All of which have returned to me the magic of capturing a little corner of a confusing world once again
[ I can't cope with cyrillic writing, so the Zorkis are all, controversially , ID -compromoised, Leica pretenders . ]
But, thet have all helped me to want to make ''magic slide shows'' again .
Ok, I am different from real people, but surely, the ritual of preparation / composing / and the soft click of the shutter are appreciated by ''normals '' too ?
Essentially, I also have the reassurance that my ''friends'' can be cared for ...the Russians can be CLA'd when they go wrong, and the Leicas, even of 1932/3 vintage are amazingly, expected to keep on doing what it says on the box - seemingly indefinitely, given sensible servicing...no-one has said to me ''Well, they are a bit old, you might find a newer camera more reliable '' !
By contrast, I have been told that fixing the Canon G2, which I have just got the hang of, isn't cost effective, and that I should find £350 for a replacement...and I bought it 'cos it was like a rangefinder...
tkluck
Well-known
"Features"! features are evil! The work of the forces of evil!
I rather like a match needle meter in the finder. It points at the subject. It warns me that the sun has gone behind a cloud, or the subject has walked into a shadow. Nice. But that led to electric controls and that led to electronic controls. And to cameras that won't expose film without batteries. And to Features. All those functions and controls that show up on a cryptic screen and screw up the camera if you don't leave them in the default mode.
Just like they screw up your cell phone, your VCR and even your car.
The best thing about RF cameras is the lack of Features. Not to be confused with simplicity.(pull the top off a Kiev, it's not a simple machine) In fact, an SLR like my OM-1 is simpler than a good RF camera. But nether one have Features.
My wife bought the oldest grandchildren each a kid's digital camera. $20 each. And they have six "modes" and several features. No flash, but they have Features!
I rather like a match needle meter in the finder. It points at the subject. It warns me that the sun has gone behind a cloud, or the subject has walked into a shadow. Nice. But that led to electric controls and that led to electronic controls. And to cameras that won't expose film without batteries. And to Features. All those functions and controls that show up on a cryptic screen and screw up the camera if you don't leave them in the default mode.
Just like they screw up your cell phone, your VCR and even your car.
The best thing about RF cameras is the lack of Features. Not to be confused with simplicity.(pull the top off a Kiev, it's not a simple machine) In fact, an SLR like my OM-1 is simpler than a good RF camera. But nether one have Features.
My wife bought the oldest grandchildren each a kid's digital camera. $20 each. And they have six "modes" and several features. No flash, but they have Features!
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Fighting the machine
Fighting the machine
For me SLRs reached their zenith with models like the MX and OM1.
Features added after that were just unnecessary and confusing.
The Bessa R was the first popularly priced 35mm system camera in
decades offering the creative control and simple operation I require.
Chris
Fighting the machine
For me SLRs reached their zenith with models like the MX and OM1.
Features added after that were just unnecessary and confusing.
The Bessa R was the first popularly priced 35mm system camera in
decades offering the creative control and simple operation I require.
Chris
Nachkebia
Well-known
Admit it, only two brand made a real change, Leica and Nikon, everybody else was (is) just playing with there *** (don`t take it seriously, or do )
(don`t take it seriously, or do )