Why do we love old things so much?

C

cmedin

Well-known
Local time
10:59 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
800
In this case, obviously cameras.

What is it that attracts you to older camera gear? Is it the history of that particular piece of equipment, the life it's been through (known or unknown, the latter might be even better); is it the more mechanical and manual aspect that lets you get away from the busy ever more digital world; is it that you think things were simply built better in the past; is it the character--real or imagined--that you see in the results?

Found myself thinking of this today as I realized I am torn when considering photo gear. On one hand, I like having a lot of things done automatically (when done well!) like metering, stopping down the lens, auto focus etc. On the other, it's a real joy to sometimes use the older gear with its manual everything. One day I might be shooting with my Pentax DSLR in Av mode (hey, I am NOT letting a camera pick the aperture) with auto ISO, and the next I might break out the Leica IIf + Summar and go have some fun without even bringing a meter.

And that's what it is, fun. But why is it that we enjoy the older, simpler gear so much? When I shoot with the Leica I want proper exposure just like on my DSLR. Why do I not use a meter with it? I want the focus to be where I want it, but sometimes I just like to do it myself without any assistance. Why? Hell if I know. Sometimes it's just more... fun, and I can't quite put my finger on why.

How about you?
 
Photograghy, to me is recording past events or places or people. So, I like to use older cameras to give some of the past flavor to my images. My subjects often says it looks so good and so real and like it could have been taken 25-50 years ago. As a study of one, that is why I like older equipment, my only heartbreak is that I can't always use the films that I wish I could have. Like old Ektachrome, my Uncle and his new car:

 
this is in general, but it also applies to cameras... *I* think the reason we love old things is because in our nature is the belief that somehow perfection had been reach in the past and then lost... and by shooting an old camera we are somehow trying to find that lost perfection...
 
Some of these older cameras such as the Leica, Nikon, and Contax (and many other goods) were built as well as possible as determined by engineers, rather than the way modern cameras (and most other goods) are built today to a price point and to achieve a profit margin as determined by accountants. In those days, planned obsolence had not become as pervasive as it is today, so in a way, perfection had been reached and then lost.
 
User Interface.

Ever noticed how simple and intuitive it is to adjust the settings on pretty much any of the most important mechanical cameras?

There are models which are more or less fiddly (some people will dispute the user-friendliness of bottom loaders, for example), but pick an old Pentax, a consumer rangefinder (canonet, hi-matic), or even a TLR and within seconds you have figured out what button does what, where to put the film, and so on.

Basically, I find that anything made during the 50s, 60s, and 70s has a very limited number of buttons, and they each serve a single function.

Modern cameras have better ergonomics in terms of espousing the shape of the hand, reducing fatigue, but they also have to integrate so many damn buttons, that the advances in the science of user interaction are drowned in the sea of features they must stretch to cover.

Of course there's nostalgia, design, coolness factor, exoticism, history, but those are very subjective factors that vary between people. Up to a point, I think that the clean layout of controls on certain cameras is a more solid advantage.

If there would be a modern camera combining the simplicity of minimal controls and the best advances in ergonomics, then I would very very much consider buying new. For now I just rationalize and enjoy my old gear.
 
I do not like old cameras because they are old. I like old cameras because they are well-made. They just happen to be old, because that's when they made cameras well.
 
They're like old friends. They're familiar. They're easier to use. They're much cheaper (with a few exceptions). All pretty straightforward and without any whistful melancholy.

Paul
 
Well for me it's like this..the modern process is lacking in internal previsualization that is at the heart of any artistic expression. Also the lack of a physical final negative is another fundemental requirement that digital process is not able to deliver. The film camera is also, in most cases a statement of optical excellence. Without expertise the results are clearly undesireable. any years ago the idea of a "goof proof" technology was the direction that the big camera people saw as profitable. Now looking back it has created the law of unintended results....lowering of creative quality.
 
Oh, this is tricky.

I bought both my Hexar RF bodies brand-new, along with a trio of lenses. The Hex has a host of modern technological flourishes, but the camera doesn't wear this tech on its sleeve; save for things like motorized film-advance/rewind built into the body, the thing is quite unassuming to look at, and–even better–quite unassuming in use. And, it has important bits of old-school tech where it counts: an M-mount and rangefinder. This nexus of old and new intertwine beautifully to me. It reminds me somewhat of the two SLRs I actually got on with most when I was working with them most: Canon's F-1 and Nikon's F3.

Remember, much of what we now regard as "old-school" was SOTA not all that long ago.


- Barrett
 
To me it's because it's a mechanical camera, and it's really simple to work with. And I have this idea, maybe I'm wrong, that since it's mechanical, it's reliable.

I have an old minolta xg-m my father bought me in 1981, not really a mechanical camera cause it requires a battery to operate, but it still works today. Even though at one time it was treated brutally by the security force here. And then my FM2, a mechanical and realiable camera. 14 years old and still going strong :D

So I guess it's the same reason why I bought a Sportster and ride a Sportster for the past 6 years. It's a new bike when I bought it, but it has an old technology, going back 50 years, and not much changed since then. That old technology makes it a reliable ride for me. This past 6 years it never had any major failure. If it breaks down, I can fix it myself, no special tools required. There are better and probably more realiable bikes out there with more advanced technology, but I prefer old and reliable technology.

Bob
 
I like old cameras because I view them as a window to the past. Not because the past was better (it was not), but rather because it was different. Also, because I was part of that past (to a certain extent), and there are feelings and emotions I'd like to relive.

I do appreciate modern cameras though. With the arrival of my Nikon D700 I've found it's a tool that adapts to the way I want to photograph things just like a glove fits my hand. It takes longer, and one feels that there's less human intervention in the results (just the number of custom functions is mind-boggling for someone used to the 19 found in the Nikon F100, and the 22 of the Nikon F5), but whatever the camera does, it does it because I gave it the input, just like a rangefinder camera like my M6TTL will over- or underexpose if I turn the aperture ring one way or the other.

In short, to contribute to the discussion I can simply say that sometimes I take my M3 in my hands and wonder where it has been, and what it has seen through some lenses of which I'll never know.

Oh, well... :rolleyes:
 
old stuff

old stuff

I like using my older Leica's IIIc, IIIrd & my M3 with the vintage lens. It gives me great satisfaction in knowing that I did it all like it was done in the 40's & 50's. They look like the photo's when I was a kid. These cameras are a work of art, cameras will never be made like this again. The fit & finish of the M's of the day can not be beat. All hand made by a craftsmen that have spent a lifetime doing, not by a mold in some factory in the far east. The Leitz len's can never be duplicated again with the quality they used back in the day. Not to mean that the new Leitz's are not good, its just that you are putting something in your hand with substance. There is something about Kodachrome 64 & B&W film that makes it all worth taking pic's. The old gear will out live me & someone else will still be able to use if they still make film if 50years.
 
Last edited:
I think the main reason is, that most of us are searching for happiness. And happiness comes with D O I N G anything that requires an effort and - maybe in the better case - that only a few others can a do as well. So first thing is to F I N D the old gear, to B U Y it before another one decides to, to L E A R N how it works and to T A K E P I C T U R E S better than those from a fully automatized DSLR.
It’s the same story with travelling. If you want just to A R R I V E you take the plane and work or read a newspaper during the flight. If you want to make a journey you take the car, the railway, a canoo. the hiking-boots or a steam-ship, so that T R A V E L L I N G is the event.
 
FrankS said:
Some of these older cameras such as the Leica, Nikon, and Contax (and many other goods) were built as well as possible as determined by engineers, rather than the way modern cameras (and most other goods) are built today to a price point and to achieve a profit margin as determined by accountants. In those days, planned obsolence had not become as pervasive as it is today, so in a way, perfection had been reached and then lost.
Click to expand...

Well said and sad ........................Robin
 
I guess I like to make photographs. There are times when composition is enough. But I find it more satisfying to be more involved in selection of aperture, shutter speed, film choice, perspective, post processing (developer choice, cropping); all those things that older cameras encourage. Then seeing if all those choices got me the photograph I envisioned.

I am not against automation because sometimes it makes the other things easier. There are times when I want or have to do things in a hurry. But if not, it just pleasures me to do it with more involvement. Auto exposure with a trusted system is a good example of what I can let the camera do many times.

I think there is a certain amount of nostalgia involved too. Also the chance to use things that maybe others can't.
 
Don't blame everything on the accountants. How much did a Leica IIIf or SL2 cost in its day and in today's money. I read that a Bell & Howell Foton with its $700 price tag back in the 40's represented a typical person's quarterly income. People are just not going to spend that kind of cash on a camera these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom