antistatic
Well-known
What he said.
When I use my Leica with film, I own every step of the process and when I nail a shot it is a result of those steps coming together. With my D300 I always have an uneasy feeling that part of the photo belongs to the ghost in the machine.
I also like the bare bones simplicity of mechanical cameras. I was explaining to my five year old about why exposure, shutter speed and aperture matter. We played with the FM2n with the back open. One dial, one aperture ring and a shutter you could see in action. Try that with a DSLR.
dave lackey
Veteran
Yeah, I like the previous answer about self-respect. The last three cars I owned were 30, 40 and 56 years old. I am waiting for a 38-year old M3. I have a 30-year old antique watch and I am __ years old.
And Fred is right..."pre-visualization" is a term to be avoided.....and I wouldn't quite want to use the "visualization" for the future either...
And Fred is right..."pre-visualization" is a term to be avoided.....and I wouldn't quite want to use the "visualization" for the future either...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
$10,000 for an Alpa says you're wrong.
More and more people can afford more and more stuff -- doesn't matter what the 'stuff' is -- and this is largely because 'stuff' is made cheaper and cheaper. This is achieved by automation (substitution of capital for labour); design for cheap production; manufacture or at least assembly in low-labour-cost countries; reduction of choice ('winner takes all' -- how many makes of car or film are there today as compared with 50 years ago); and reduction of margins all around: remember the days of Resale Price Maintenance?
On the one hand, this means that we can all buy lots more stuff, and it also implies that anything built to last (with the attractive features listed by many others earlier in this thread) is increasingly dumped by people fascinated with the new.
On the other hand this implicitly devalues the good stuff -- rather like Gresham's Law of bad money driving out good -- and it sets up a consumer treadmill where the middle classes, the principal consumers of stuff, run faster and faster to stay in the same place. The poor have always had to work hard in order to eat (but are increasingly joining the middle class in rich countries) and the rich can buy whatever they damn' well feel like.
Why do I buy old cameras? Actually, I buy fewer and fewer nowadays, but I was always fascinated by the surprising range of engineering solutions that have been applied to much the same set of problems -- which is why I wrote A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press, 1984) and why I ended the book at 1967 with the first auto-exposure SLR, when the degree of convergence in design had become, to my eye, boring.
There are plenty of excellent cameras since 1967, but for me, the vast majority are only 'users', unlike the Weird Stuff before then.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
About 6 years ago a collector friend offered me his 38mm Biogon clad Alpa for $5,000 and I held it in my hands, thought about it really really really hard while admiring the craftsmanship. I still regret not taking it and today would gladly pay $10000 for it.
But this is a niche market isn't it? I hope they sell more but while I see your point a thousand units a week or a month or a year do not represent the attitudes of the general buying public. I wish it isn't so.
FrankS
Registered User
I wouldn't have be able to afford such premium products back in the day, but nowadays I can buy them used, and because they are so well made, they still function as new.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
When I was a poor starving student I always walked pass the camera shops off Market Street in SF and drool over the F5 and I knew if I had $1300 I would sooner buy a car. Now they are going for less than half that and while I can afford one now I prefer simple mechanical cameras like the Contax IIa and the Leicas and the Nikon F, the camera I was holding while wishing for the modern marvels. Now I prefer to get another Nikon F preferably one in black paint and a black pointy top.
FrankS
Registered User
Rayt: agreed! Maybe it's like how I still like the music that I was listening to as I came of age, better than most modern music. And I don't like computers in cameras. As previously well-stated: satisfaction (in photography) comes partly from the effort exerted to achieve a result.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ray,
That was precisely my point, really. The Foton was a niche product too. People will buy something cheap because they can afford it, which is good (probably, on balance, though consumerism can obviously go too far). But it won't be as good as something that is not built quite so aggressively down to a price.
Cheers,
Roger
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Roger, While I am not in the camera business I am in the business of having things made and indirectly selling them. I wish I can share some experiences with you over a few pints somewhere.
Best regards,
Ray
Best regards,
Ray
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I am currently in Hong Kong. If you ever come this way I'll make good on the pints.
Best,
Ray
FrankS
Registered User
With a Leica M2 (or similar camera), exposure settings are made based on a hand held meter or by educated guess (sunny 16), and focus is adjusted using a zone setting (based on the aperture used). From here, it's just point and shoot.
cmedin
Well-known
And the same thing can be done with most DSLRs. You can 'point and shoot' with 100% automation, or manually set your ISO, shutter, aperture, zone focus and go blast away.
Bingley
Veteran
What Bill and FrankS said....
Reflecting a bit more, I don't think I like old cameras simply because they are old. I like certain old cameras, that are beautifully designed and built and that have an elegant simplicity to them and (no small thing) that I can now afford but could not have afforded years ago... Like Canon P, Leica M2. They just feel right, and I enjoy taking pictures with them.
Reflecting a bit more, I don't think I like old cameras simply because they are old. I like certain old cameras, that are beautifully designed and built and that have an elegant simplicity to them and (no small thing) that I can now afford but could not have afforded years ago... Like Canon P, Leica M2. They just feel right, and I enjoy taking pictures with them.
cmedin
Well-known
Something about FrankS's post got me thinking (never a good thing!) so let me throw this out here...
It generally seems that people think it's more noble to go as manual as possible, zone focus, guess-exposure yada yada.
But how is that way of giving up control different from giving it up to the automation of a P&S?
If you get a "surprise" image that's really good because it ended up over/under exposed, focused on something you didn't realize because your distance estimate was off, or anything else... is that really any better or worse than leaving it to a point and shoot camera? Is the picture from a zone focused and sunny 16 exposure set Leica III any more "yours" than that autofocused and autoexposed by a point and shoot? Yes, you are "taking control" over the parameters with the Leica, but you are also guessing both on exposure and focus and since we're not perfect at either things are more or less being left to chance to a certain degree.
Does that make any sense?
It generally seems that people think it's more noble to go as manual as possible, zone focus, guess-exposure yada yada.
But how is that way of giving up control different from giving it up to the automation of a P&S?
If you get a "surprise" image that's really good because it ended up over/under exposed, focused on something you didn't realize because your distance estimate was off, or anything else... is that really any better or worse than leaving it to a point and shoot camera? Is the picture from a zone focused and sunny 16 exposure set Leica III any more "yours" than that autofocused and autoexposed by a point and shoot? Yes, you are "taking control" over the parameters with the Leica, but you are also guessing both on exposure and focus and since we're not perfect at either things are more or less being left to chance to a certain degree.
Does that make any sense?
FrankS
Registered User
I'm glad you asked that because I was just thinking of it as I was making a potato salad for tonight's dinner. I do think that the amount of satisfaction obtained during, and at the end of a task, is proportional to the amount of responsibility and effort put into achieving it. Using an all manual camera is more satisfying to me than using an auto-everything film and especially digital camera.
(I've said it before and I need to say it again here: I fully understand the need for pros to go digital. For my own hobby (and limited amount of paid) photography though, I find film and wet darkroom to be the most satisfying for me.)
Imagine for a moment that every picture you took came out wonderfully perfect with no effort on your part but composing and pressing the button. How long before the photography becomes meaningless to you? Sure, you may do it to pay the bills and save a nest egg, but I'm sure the pleasure of creating would disappear. Satisfaction comes from striving, persevering, and being successful.
Tonight's potato salad is going to be great. It took over an hour to make. It is in the style my grandmother and mother made/make with celery, onion, pickle, carrot, peas, and apple. (I add red chilli pepper powder to make it spicy.) It will be very satisfying to eat with my family tonight, instead of a store-bought pre-made salad that I simply need to remove the plastic lid from.
My opinion only, and only in reference to myself.
(I've said it before and I need to say it again here: I fully understand the need for pros to go digital. For my own hobby (and limited amount of paid) photography though, I find film and wet darkroom to be the most satisfying for me.)
Imagine for a moment that every picture you took came out wonderfully perfect with no effort on your part but composing and pressing the button. How long before the photography becomes meaningless to you? Sure, you may do it to pay the bills and save a nest egg, but I'm sure the pleasure of creating would disappear. Satisfaction comes from striving, persevering, and being successful.
Tonight's potato salad is going to be great. It took over an hour to make. It is in the style my grandmother and mother made/make with celery, onion, pickle, carrot, peas, and apple. (I add red chilli pepper powder to make it spicy.) It will be very satisfying to eat with my family tonight, instead of a store-bought pre-made salad that I simply need to remove the plastic lid from.
My opinion only, and only in reference to myself.
Last edited:
cmedin
Well-known
Pretty funny, I was out in the garage as you wrote that, working on stripping the paint off and polishing some motorcycle wheels. All the while thinking, "jesus, I wish this damn thing was done already".
Sometimes you just have a goal in mind and want to get to it.
Sometimes you just have a goal in mind and want to get to it.
FrankS
Registered User
For maximum enjoyment, you should embrace the process, not just the end product. But that's easier with some jobs than others, and it just sounds like zen-prattle.
cmedin
Well-known
Oh, I agree entirely. For instance, I love painting. Not painting art, but fences, houses, anything. There's something peaceful and enjoyable about the whole process.
But some processes are just not enjoyable no matter what. Hunched over in a cold garage on a concrete floor trying to strip paint is one of those. At least for me.
Some jobs just aren't that pleasant or practical to do, and that's why we often outsource them. Did you grow the potatoes for your salad yourself?
40oz
...
One reason I like to use manual cameras is because the manual controls are intended to be used, so they are easy and straightforward.
One way using a camera manually is different than letting the P&S do it for you is the P&S will always expose a given scene the same way. I'm not looking for surprises or happy acidents when I expose the film differently than a P&S. I am making a conscious effort to capture on film what *I* want, not what a book or algorithm says is the "correct exposure."
I find it easier to use a camera that was designed to be used manually over one that allows it but was designed to be left alone except for tripping the shutter.
As has been said, the satisfaction comes from the creating, not the having. The exciting part of a trip for me is the journey, not the destination.
One way using a camera manually is different than letting the P&S do it for you is the P&S will always expose a given scene the same way. I'm not looking for surprises or happy acidents when I expose the film differently than a P&S. I am making a conscious effort to capture on film what *I* want, not what a book or algorithm says is the "correct exposure."
I find it easier to use a camera that was designed to be used manually over one that allows it but was designed to be left alone except for tripping the shutter.
As has been said, the satisfaction comes from the creating, not the having. The exciting part of a trip for me is the journey, not the destination.