When Did It All Go Wrong?

[Nikon Bob]

I don't know when it all went wrong or even if it did. Nothing wrong with the automation now offered in cameras if you like/need that sort of thing and can get along with the style of operating a camera that automation brings. Tired of button, button, push, push? We still have choices going back to as basic a set up as you want. Really can't say anything went wrong so long as there are still choices out there.

Bob

 

[gareth]

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.

Another old photographic saying is 'Don't economise on film'. I lost count of how many times I've read some of the best pro's saying things like, keep shooting, don't worry about wasting film because somewhere in all those shots will be the one that works.

The 'decisive moment' was a myth created by that cheeky devil Bresson. It's just bull ****. There is no such thing, and if there is, and you just missed it, another will be along in a minute or two.

Timing is still very important. Photography is often a fight against time, and in that fight I'm often thankful for the wonders of automatic film advance and auto-focus.

Auto-focus - Probably one of the most important developments in the evolution of the modern camera. I love auto-focus.

 

[gareth]

I can't believe it. I can't say **** in here. Modern technology is censoring me!

For ****s sake!

 

[gb hill]

I chose Minolta Maxxum 7000. I inherited my uncles when he passed away. It's too bulky, the LQD display on top of camera works but is starting to leak this black stuff, the built in exposure meter won't light up. To me it's just an awful camera. Has a built in 10 year batt. acording to instructions and so it's got to be dead by now. Just a stiupd thing to do. Maybe thats why Minolta is out of the camera business. He never hardly ever used the camera, bought it because I bought a Canon. This is one reason why I'm scared to put alot of money in a digital because I've seen first hand what time does to LQDs and such.

Greg

 

[jlw]

Early Returns

Early Returns

I just wanted to point out that in the poll results so far, more people think the Leica M3 was the "wrong turn" camera than the Pentax Spotmatic. ?!?

 

[jlw]

I can't believe it. I can't say **** in here. Modern technology is censoring me!

For ****s sake!

Not only can't you say ****, you also can't say **** or ****. And you certainly can't say ******* or ************.

Personally, though, I'm all for it. It ****** me off when ****s come in here and start talking their ******* **** like a bunch of ******* ********. A little ******* civility never hurt anyone, that's my motto.


PS -- How's Lynette?

 

[julianphotoart]

Who knew that the T90 was soooo despised? We need to have some therapy about this. My vote was for the AE-1; damn that camera. So anti-elitist; it (or Canon's advertising of it) led to people perceiving that anyone could make a good photo. The AE-1 made photography seem as easy, and unartistic, as using a toaster.

 

[mdelevie]

I'm with Gareth and Philipp. I chose "T90" on the poll because that was the last design I really like -- after the T90, SLRs went downhill in build quality and usability, in my opinion. Even so-called "pro" cameras started to suffer from feature saturation, where picture-taking became an afterthought to manipulation of the camera itself.

This isn't exclusive to cameras -- lots of consumer products get caught up in an escalating war of marketing hype and the endless addition of new features which only serve as purchase discriminators, not really doing anything to improve the product. Now that there's software in pretty much everything, manufacturers can add new features pretty cheaply in the form of new operating modes, etc. It's sad when you see 'killed' features, such as in the first digital rebel... the capability was there, but it was disabled by the software for competitive reasons.

It took me a while, but I have discovered that I really don't like autofocus. It just doesn't reliably do what I want. I've gone back to manual focus SLR systems largely because most AF cameras no longer include useful focus assists such as a split-image viewfinder. Perhaps an EOS-1 body with a focus-assisting ground glass would have helped, but I'd have to squint to see past all those damn AF focus dots.

If it's mirror blackout and/or mirror slap that drives you mad, there have been several cameras which use a pellicle mirror. The Canon Pellix and the EOS1N-RS come to mind. These are reflex cameras in the strictest sense, and offer ground-glass focusing and precise composition, but there's no mirror movement and they have nearly instantaneous shutter actuation. If I buy another EOS camera, it'll be an RS.

Independent of the 'film versus digital' issue, I mourn the slow death of larger negatives. There are now several emulsions that I can't buy in 220, and a few that aren't even available in 120. Time to get a bigger freezer!

With modern p&s digicams, I'd have to say that shutter lag is the biggest deal-breaker. Previewing and composing on the LCD are great, but waiting for the exposure is crazymaking.

 

[350D_user]

I'm currently 'viewing' someones photos who's basically bought the most expensive DSLR equipment currently available... yet has absolutely no compositional or handling skills whatsoever. He's quickly learning, expensive equipment does not guarantee superb photos... they come with experience.

So... it went wrong when the market decided to push technology and high-end equipment as being essential, as opposed to handling skills. Just my opinion, that's all.

 

[amateriat]

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..

And this one "solution" to an industry-induced problem led to yet another problem – red eye – which led to a series of convoluted high-tech "solutions" that frequently don't work, leading to software-based "red-eye elimination" solutions. This state of affairs would put "built-in flash" at the top of my own "to Hell in a handcart" list.

As far as cameras go, I think it's a mixed bag. I remembered buying, hating, and quickly reselling, a new Canon A-1, didn't understand the T90 when it came out, so ignored it, then much later buying Minolta's 9xi, then bought another one, and I still regard it as one of the slickest pro SLRs ever made, in terms of both its control layout and intelligent use of materials (cast-zinc bottom plate, high-grade plastic injection-moulded film chamber, stainless-steel mirror box and UV-coated fiberglass top cover, which was truly dent-and-scratch proof...proving that not everything plastic in a camera is evil). But I didn't like lugging the big-butt zooms that were necessary for fast shooting with slower films as I favored, and even the fast primes I favored were still on the big n' weighty side. And I was starting to use my Hexar autofocus a hell of a lot more...

So, aside from occasional use of an old Olympus OM-2n, no more SLRs for me. From my all-manual/mechanical Canon F-1 through my cybernetic-hero 9xi, it was a great ride. But traveling light with a pair of M-mount RFs and three lenses is so much better (and, however discreetly hidden, my Hexar RFs are highly technologically-enriched, but minus the show-off factor), which is all the better for my work.


- Barrett

 

[gareth]

I'm with Gareth and Philipp. I chose "T90" on the poll because that was the last design I really like -- after the T90, SLRs went downhill in build quality and usability, in my opinion.

Umm no, the T90 is a landmark camera, that's all. The control wheel was a revolution. SLR's have continued to improve since then. Auto-focus, multi-point auto-focus, more accurate metering, and yes build quality and reliability have continued to improve.


I haven't voted in the poll. It's a non-question. Technology will continue to improve, cameras will continue to get better and better. This is a question strictly for the luddites.

The only sad thing is that some camera makers will abandon film, but I'm sure not all will.

It just doesn't reliably do what I want.

If you are using a basic autofocus camera with a kit lens it can be frustrating, particularly in low light. The other reason that people can find it frustrating, and can't get it to do what they want, is they don't understand it and don't know how to use it. Sometimes I think auto-focus was miss-named. You have to be in full control of the auto-system to get the best out of it.

 

[Trius]

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..

But it is not just the slow aperture of the zoom substituted for the fast(er) prime. The slower zoom is bigger, heavier, less ergonomic. It is harder for joe schmoe to get the quality he was shown on the TV from that lens because he has to either use faster films (or crank the ISO on his digital) or flash; and what joe schmoe knows how to use a flash to get natural-looking results?

Have zoom lenses improved? Yes. Is the $50 kit zoom sold with the latest plastic wonder a statement of the lens-maker's art?

 

[jlw]

So... it went wrong when the market decided to push technology and high-end equipment as being essential, as opposed to handling skills...

Which happened roughly the moment George Eastman coined the advertising slogan, "You press the button, we do the rest."

Guess I didn't set the starting point of my poll early enough!

 

[ray_g]

I think technology has it's place. Don't you think having modern films with "forgiving" exposure latitude is a big part of what lets us enjoy shooting with old cameras? Meterless, guesstimating exposure, inexact shutter speeds. Add to this the fact that we mostly shoot with them for fun.

If you were to be the only photographer for your best friend's wedding tomorrow, for money, with slide film, and you could take only one camera - would you shoot it with a barnack or FSU and a weston meter? Would you use shoot meterless in the church? Or would you rely on something more modern?

 

[hth]

When the Hexar RF was dropped, it all went wrong. Best camera ever. Simple and intuitive user interface, gives you complete control and it has high build quality. (The only thing I can consider as an alternative is an old Leica M.)

In general I think 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. Poor viewfinders and zooms that more or less can only be used for autofocus comes to mind.

It started to go really downhill, but digital came and gave it a second breath. Soon all DSLR will be passed to the dinosaur heaven, to be replaced by small mammals (small point and shoots, that will evolve to something better than today).

Hopefully, we can also keep a good amount of film choices in various formats, as a complement to these small new mammals.

/Håkan

 

[amateriat]

And, speaking of George Eastman, and good/bad innovations...what about the stuff most of us here stuff our cameras with: film?

I think the the greatest emulsions ever made are with us right here, right now. I know there are people who think things started to go south ever since Kodachrome X was released (you wouldn't believe the bellyaching a lot of "serious" shooters did about "newfangled" films like K25/64, never mind this radical new E6 stuff...the world was coming to an end, and it was all Rochester's fault!

Of course, all wasn't sweetness and light (first-gen Kodacolor 400, anyone?), but it all got better, to the point where I can load up with certain ISO 800 color neg films, shoot in mixed-lighting conditions, have the roll developed, make scans, and have 8x10" prints that look spectacular. And this can be with most any decent camera of most any era (prefereably with a reasonably fast lens). And that film will likely keep a good deal longer than film types of the past.

As Carly sang, these are the good old days.

 

[ray_g]

And I agree with Gareth about the decisive moment fallacy. Even HCB's contact sheets were not full of one-shot wonders.

Maybe a bit of a deviation, but here is a good quote from an old photonet discussion:

The book "On verra bien" (ISBN 91-973787-6-3) is a commemorative over the work of Swedish master photographer Christer Strömholm (1918-2002). In an interview (p168) Strömholm says the folloving:

"My first encounter with Cartier-Bresson [in the early fifties] was quite strange. I had found out where his agency was and asked if I could come by and show some pictures. So I made four prints (which was quite difficult in Paris, I seem to remember that I got help at United Press), of what I felt were bloody good Paris pictures. He looked at them for three seconds - or maybe half a second in fact, very quickly anyway, and then said: 'May I see your contact prints?'.
- Contact prints!, I said, more or less as if I always..., I haven't got them with me, but I can bring them tomorrow... convinced that he would say no, that won't work. - Good!, he said. I'd like to see your contact prints. Are your pictures all on the same roll? - No, they must be on two or three rolls, came my reply.
- Bring them round tomorrow!
- Well, now...! What the hell did the old codger want with my contact prints? I couldn't understand it. Was it to annoy me, I mean can you see anything on contact prints? And yes, in the end I managed to go up to United Press again and make those contact prints after having spent half the night ruining a bunch of paper, and I returned to Cartier... . He put on his glasses and pushed them up on his brow, examined each frame carefully, and we're not talking two seconds now, it was more like three bloody minutes per sheet... And then he began to point: 'How did you do this, what was your thinking, why do you choose to photograph from this point, have you noticed the light, why aren't you on the other side, why aren't you faster here?' That was when I began to realize how important contact prints are, how much can be read from them. That was why, later on, we were so careful about contact prints at Fotoskolan [Academic photo school founded by Strömholm] ."

 

[DavidH]

It never went wrong...it's all tools for the job...when I have to shoot wildlife for work then I have a Nikon DSLR with a silent wave fast focus long lens to get the shot. When I have time to enjoy myself then I use a G2 or a fully manual SLR and shoot THAT way. I enjoy the small size of the RF kits but it simply couldn't take many of the shots that the work demands - nor could other RF - horses for courses at the end of the day...

 

[amateriat]

When the Hexar RF was dropped, it all went wrong. Best camera ever. Simple and intuitive user interface, gives you complete control and it has high build quality. (The only thing I can consider as an alternative is an old Leica M.)

Well, no argument from me, of course.

In general I think 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. Poor viewfinders and zooms that more or less can only be used for autofocus comes to mind.

One problem was that the highly-automated-production concept that Canon helped usher in (the AE-1 essentially being the Model T of the camera industry) led to larger-scale production industry-wide. Now the industry could easily make a lot more cameras per-annum than before, and more cheaply, but the corollary to this is that they have to keep selling that many cameras annually. Like the auto industry, the camera biz has been cranking out a good deal more product than the market can comfortably absorb, and this can lead to some rather unfortunate trends in product design, such as cameras designed to essentially be tossed once they break (non-repairable/replaceable parts), extremely short product life-cycles, and numerous corner-cutting schemes (crazy-dim film/dSLR viewfinders, cramped and confusing controls/displays, etc.). 20 years ago, when someone decided to purchase an SLR, the camera was regarded as a fairly long-term investment, something that might even be handed off to the kids (if there were any) many years down the line. No one is going to hand off any current-production camera to their kids (unless the kid's lucky to have parents who prefer Leicas, ZIs or CVs, a rather small minority). I find that prospect particularly sad.

It started to go really downhill, but digital came and gave it a second breath. Soon all DSLR will be passed to the dinosaur heaven, to be replaced by small mammals (small point and shoots, that will evolve to something better than today).

I remember Photo.net's Philip Greenspun speculating that perhaps all still photography will die off in favor of HD camcorders with "acceptable" frame-grab quality, in the same way that higher-res camera-phones are slowly picking off compact digicams (when technology such as displayed in Samsung's 10-megapixel camera-phone becomes more widespread in the market, it's all over). That idea depresses me, but I also question how soon such a thing would truly come about, if at all. But "never say never", especially in this century.

Hopefully, we can also keep a good amount of film choices in various formats, as a complement to these small new mammals.

/Håkan

Dare to hope...that's my motto.


- Barrett

 

[FoldingCamera]

I do not believe that cameras took a wrong turn, they were developed and changed with time, and we all have our own preferences. For years I used a Canon F1 with three lenses (20mm, 35mm & 100mm) as my prefered kit. More recently I wearied of the weight of this really quite minimalist selection of hardwear, especially if I was carrying it about and not taking many pics.
This was when RF became more attractive, choosing medium format folding cameras, 6x6 & 6x9 for there much higher image quality, as well as 35mm rigid RF's. for their larger number of frames, oh yes and one folding 35mm camera that is so small that I can slip it into my pocket without its presence being too obvious.

That said, in my view camera design went down hill after the first version of the Canon F1, which is my obvious choice if wanting to use anything other than a standard lens.

Stephen.