rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's a very bad choice for a future-proof camera. Here in Germany it's become nearly impossible to have a Contarex repaired because nobody has the parts and hardly anybody has the skills. There was a shop (Arlüwa in Cologne) that used to do it, but they stopped about a year and a half or so ago because the guy who worked on Contarexes was getting old. I know somebody who used a Contarex Bullseye as his main workhorse 35mm camera (link) and who sold it last year after having a very frustrating experience of having it repaired without success (and AFAIK that includes Henry Scherer). In 70 years simple and idiot-proof mechanical cameras will be usable, but overengineered marvels like the Contarex won't.
Philipp
S
Socke
Guest
The more answers I read the more I come to the impression that it started to go wrong when the weel was invented. May be climbing down from the trees was a bad idea as well 
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Ook ook?Socke said:May be climbing down from the trees was a bad idea as well
S
Socke
Guest
rxmd said:Ook ook?
You're right, fire was a bad idea, too.
georgefspencer
Member
Pherdinand said:
Amen to that. I have a Canon 30D. It thinks for me. Sometimes that's okay. I've gotten some pretty good pictures with it. But I went back to my Leica because I get to do the thinking.
S
Socke
Guest
georgefspencer said:
You can switch off most of the thinking by setting the dial on the left and the switch on the lens to "M". Works for me.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Is there a single point where things went wrong... or is it several
evolutionary points along the way? For me, Canon AE, printed circuits
and more plastic in 1976 are one jumping off point. Serious cameras
going plastic is another. The P & S digital revolution is another.
For me the SLR is still an appropriate tool for close-up and tele work.
Even if I returned to RF and film because I disliked the trends in the
camera industry in the mid-2000's, so what? The main thing is, I returned
to myself, so to speak, and thankfully am thriving.
Cheers, mike
evolutionary points along the way? For me, Canon AE, printed circuits
and more plastic in 1976 are one jumping off point. Serious cameras
going plastic is another. The P & S digital revolution is another.
For me the SLR is still an appropriate tool for close-up and tele work.
Even if I returned to RF and film because I disliked the trends in the
camera industry in the mid-2000's, so what? The main thing is, I returned
to myself, so to speak, and thankfully am thriving.
Cheers, mike
reub2000
Established
By that same logic, you wouldn't use film because a camera becomes a brick when you run out of film. And if you ran out of hc-110, (or it went bad) that exposed film that you just shot would be pretty much useless.
I don't really mind. Besides digital cameras, most cameras last a long time on a set of batteries. I used the batteries that came with my ELAN 7 for nearly half a year. Even with the 350D, I can expect one battery to be a lot more than I need for one day of shooting.
I don't think anything went wrong. New cameras are still able to produce good images in the right hands.
mw_uio
Well-known
Anything that is gear gadget based, cameras, electronics, etc...... is "opium for the masses" regardless if the design is good or bad.
cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
rbsinto
Well-known
For me, it started to go wrong when Nikon brought out the F3.
May the Camera Gods not strike me down for blaspheming, but The Canon New F1 was everything the Nikon F3 was supposed to be, and should have been.
It took Nikon until the F5 to once again bring out a truly great Professional film camera, However, by then it was already the beginning of the end for film.
And the less said about digital the better.
May the Camera Gods not strike me down for blaspheming, but The Canon New F1 was everything the Nikon F3 was supposed to be, and should have been.
It took Nikon until the F5 to once again bring out a truly great Professional film camera, However, by then it was already the beginning of the end for film.
And the less said about digital the better.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
The F3, the beginning of the "downslide?" I think that's harsh. I loved my (pre-"hybrid" shutter) Canon F-1s, but loved the F3 a good deal more. About the only thing you could dis the F3 for is for limited functionality when the battery dies, but (1) you do have one mechanical shutter speed – 1/60th – to fall back on (albeit with a sligthly odd shutter-release arrangement), (2) a pair of those S76 cells do go a long way in typical use, and (3) bolt on an MD-4 motor and you have an alternate power supply for the camera's electronics. And, Nikon didn't abandon their F-mount, as Canon did.rbsinto said:
– Barrett
rbsinto
Well-known
When the F3 was introduced, there were many pros who didn't trust an all-electronic camera, and shunned the F3 for F2's. While you are correct that the addition of the MD-4 gave the camera an eight "AA" battery source of power for the cameras electronics, I still believe that the New F1's electo-mechanical shutter was a much better solution giving one a range of usable speeds in the event of a battery meltdown. And the shutter release for the F3's one mechanical shutter speed was strange to say the least. The FE/FE-2/FA series of cameras had their one mechanical shutter speed marked on the shutterspeed dial, and selecting it allowed one to use the shutter button to trip it. At the very least the F3 could have had the same arrangement.
Additionally, with the F3 Nikon continued its idiotic tradition of positioning the hot shoe on the rewind lever. To be fair they corrected this with the F3P and the F3 Limited. Howver even with these two variants, one still had to use the rewind hotshoe to utilize the cameras TTL metering.
Finally, a personal problem with the F3's aesthetics; I intensely disliked the position of the shutter button in the film advance lever. In my opinion, the shutter button should have been on a separate pylon, as on the F and F2.
As a result, I ended up with a motorized F, motorized F2, and motorized FA, which make up my three-camera kit for street shooting, and I've never really considered buying an F3.
If, however in the unlikely event I change my mind, and get one, it would certainly be an F3P. At least then the hotshoe would be where it was supposed to be; on top of the finder.
And thus, I feel it all started to go downhill when Nikon brought out the F3.
Additionally, with the F3 Nikon continued its idiotic tradition of positioning the hot shoe on the rewind lever. To be fair they corrected this with the F3P and the F3 Limited. Howver even with these two variants, one still had to use the rewind hotshoe to utilize the cameras TTL metering.
Finally, a personal problem with the F3's aesthetics; I intensely disliked the position of the shutter button in the film advance lever. In my opinion, the shutter button should have been on a separate pylon, as on the F and F2.
As a result, I ended up with a motorized F, motorized F2, and motorized FA, which make up my three-camera kit for street shooting, and I've never really considered buying an F3.
If, however in the unlikely event I change my mind, and get one, it would certainly be an F3P. At least then the hotshoe would be where it was supposed to be; on top of the finder.
And thus, I feel it all started to go downhill when Nikon brought out the F3.
amateriat
We're all light!
Rbsinto: Point taken, regarding some of the F3's design peculiarities. The funny thing is, at the time, I had high regard for the New F-1's shutter design; I was using a pair of older F-1s at the time. But I was no longer crazy about the size and weight of either version, so went with something entirely different: the Pentax LX, which had a similar "hybrid" shutter design to the New F-1. I've told this saga before on this site, but let's just say the experience had my running to get a pair of F3s in less than a year's time. Had I gone with Canon rather than Pentax, the story would likely have turned out differently.
The way I use SLRs now (rarely, and largely for either close-up work (Macro lens) or architechture (PC lens), my desired body would be a Nikon F4 with 20, 28mm PC, and 55 or 105 Micro lenses (I have an Olympus OM-2n with 50 f/1.8 and a set of extension tubes; thought about a PC lens for it, but used Oly 35 PCs go for as much or more than Nikon 28 PCs!). For the other 90% of what I shoot, I reach for my RFs.
- Barrett
The way I use SLRs now (rarely, and largely for either close-up work (Macro lens) or architechture (PC lens), my desired body would be a Nikon F4 with 20, 28mm PC, and 55 or 105 Micro lenses (I have an Olympus OM-2n with 50 f/1.8 and a set of extension tubes; thought about a PC lens for it, but used Oly 35 PCs go for as much or more than Nikon 28 PCs!). For the other 90% of what I shoot, I reach for my RFs.
- Barrett
sepiareverb
genius and moron
the 'command dial' did it for me
the 'command dial' did it for me
When slrs went to having to move something other than what you wanted to move to move that something you wanted to move (you get what I mean?? confusion built in) they lost me. I think it was a combination of the 'commmand dial' of nikons and the lcd screens on the top plate. I really did hate not having a simple dial to look at to see what shutter speed I was set on, added frustration in having to 'wake' the camera up to make an adjustmentwhen I wanted to bracket. Thankfully Getty stopped taking film so I could justify tossing all the nikons and really get back to photography as it was meant to be- personal, simple and on film.
the 'command dial' did it for me
When slrs went to having to move something other than what you wanted to move to move that something you wanted to move (you get what I mean?? confusion built in) they lost me. I think it was a combination of the 'commmand dial' of nikons and the lcd screens on the top plate. I really did hate not having a simple dial to look at to see what shutter speed I was set on, added frustration in having to 'wake' the camera up to make an adjustmentwhen I wanted to bracket. Thankfully Getty stopped taking film so I could justify tossing all the nikons and really get back to photography as it was meant to be- personal, simple and on film.
NickTrop
Veteran
It pains me to say this, but it was the Yashica Electros that were the beginning of the end.
No light = good picture (or at least properly exposed). Light = bad picture, try move aperture ring toward direction of arrow. Yashica sold over a million of those cameras with very little in the way of change over a 17 year run and started a trend toward convenience and automation over control. Realize this camera did something radical. It did away entirely with shutter speed control /and/ display. Threw it out the window - who cares? Consumers, obviously, didn't care. They just wanted to take nice pictures that weren't blurry, that "came out" okay without screwing something up. It was all about simplicity, ease of use. Automation made cameras more simple to use and the expense of control. The success of the GSN was the camera that validated the philosophical or (I hate using this phrase) "paradigm shift" away from a spec-driven business model (who had the fastest, sharpest lens? Who had the fastes shutter? What camera had the best build quality?) toward a convenience-based model (What camera is easiest to use?) a decade before the AE1. The Canon just had more sophisticated electronics and was put into an SLR. The GSN was the first to tap into this new model, imo. And they sold bunches and bunches of cameras as their reward. It paved the way for cheap point and shoots, super automated SLRs, and digital by "teaching" camera companies that the camera market cared about ease of use far, far more than specs or control.
That said, the GSN will always be one of my favorite cameras, believe it or not. It just works. Great camera.
No light = good picture (or at least properly exposed). Light = bad picture, try move aperture ring toward direction of arrow. Yashica sold over a million of those cameras with very little in the way of change over a 17 year run and started a trend toward convenience and automation over control. Realize this camera did something radical. It did away entirely with shutter speed control /and/ display. Threw it out the window - who cares? Consumers, obviously, didn't care. They just wanted to take nice pictures that weren't blurry, that "came out" okay without screwing something up. It was all about simplicity, ease of use. Automation made cameras more simple to use and the expense of control. The success of the GSN was the camera that validated the philosophical or (I hate using this phrase) "paradigm shift" away from a spec-driven business model (who had the fastest, sharpest lens? Who had the fastes shutter? What camera had the best build quality?) toward a convenience-based model (What camera is easiest to use?) a decade before the AE1. The Canon just had more sophisticated electronics and was put into an SLR. The GSN was the first to tap into this new model, imo. And they sold bunches and bunches of cameras as their reward. It paved the way for cheap point and shoots, super automated SLRs, and digital by "teaching" camera companies that the camera market cared about ease of use far, far more than specs or control.
That said, the GSN will always be one of my favorite cameras, believe it or not. It just works. Great camera.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Yeah, that threw me a sucker punch at first...then I got hooked on the Minolta 9xi's dual-control-wheel. the crazy thing was, I really could grok menu-driven (almost wrote "menu-drivel"...somewhere, Freud is grinning) systems like this. tbe key to my acceptance of this was that I was shooting film. When digital sensors got stuffed into the damn things, all bets were off. Working with most dSLRs is fairly brain-chafing to me; not because I can't figure them out, but because of the general operating procedure most of them inevitably force me to work through. As well as the fact that most of the better-built dSLRs are still way too (expletive deleted) big, IMO. But I rediscovered RFs, so I'm good till the film runs out.sepiareverb said:
BTW, an old colleague of mine still shoots for Getty; last time I ran into him, he said it was "real, but anything but fun." Turning pro sure as hell ain't what it used to be.
- Barrett
reub2000
Established
Cameras with electronic controls aren't bad. I can adjust the exposure without taking my eye from the viewfinder. When it really goes bad is with menu based controls. For example with the 350D, settings like FEC. So if I want to turn down the flash I have to navigate through the menus. Even worse is when your on a tripod, and have the self timer and mirror lockup enabled, and then you pop the quick release. You press the shutter and see the viewfinder go black, and the self timer activate. Then you have to cancel these setting which takes a couple of seconds. Argh.
The funny thing about the cameras that pioneered automation is that they would hardly be considered automatic by today's standards.
The funny thing about the cameras that pioneered automation is that they would hardly be considered automatic by today's standards.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The most common theme here is: USER INTERFACE.
ajuk
Established
I said the D30, not because I am against digtal, I just see too much over zealouse use of it.
St.Ephen
Patronising Saint
mike goldberg said:
I'm with Mike on this. There are a LOT of joe-schmos, women at their kids' school graduation ceremony, or oyaji with their DSLRs (usually Canon Kiss) here in Japan, that when i see them, think, "you wouldn't even know how to use a camera like that if it were film." These old men tend to like photographing school-girls, and so have given genuine photographers a bad reputation.
Buttons and menus. Anything that detracts from the creative aspect.