i would actually say the fewer the dials and levers and such, the more "real" the camera!
Pinhole?
How can it be real if it has a hole in it?
How can light get to the medium it if it doesn't?
...but if it is only a medium, then how can it be a REAL camera? Aren't REAL cameras large or extra large?
I don't think that there is such a thing as a 'real' camera. The core of my disappointment with digital is how short sighted the investment in the endeavor is.
You're capturing electronic charges on a memory card, an image that doesn't exist until it's printed. But you could almost argue the same thing for analog - nobody wants to look at the negative. It's the print that matters, and we can nitpick about which is 'best' all day long without getting anywhere.
My argument is that many of the digital photographers I know have upgraded their cameras many times over, while I've kept the same 35mm camera all along (which is what I equate the digital SLR to). That's just solid waste in my opinion, especially considering how much pollution there is every time a new digital camera is manufactured. It's a disturbing aspect of it. And then on top of it, consider the mountain of electronics that they're trying to recycle... It's a horrible aspect of 'progress'.
A real camera, to me, is one that lasts. My 35mm Pentax is as old as I am (37 years) and it shows no signs of fatigue yet.
- Thomas
I don't think that there is such a thing as a 'real' camera. The core of my disappointment with digital is how short sighted the investment in the endeavor is. ...
A real camera, to me, is one that lasts. My 35mm Pentax is as old as I am (37 years) and it shows no signs of fatigue yet.
- Thomas
Give the cameras 40 years, they'll get mold.Yesterday I went to the bi-annual camera show in Toronto. Hundreds of film camera bodies, lenses, parts and accessories spread over approx 50 square meters. Old books and even prints were available. You could touch cameras, try them, talk to people and ask questions. There was a very fine smell in the air of leather, lubricating oil and mold. Ive had a very real and organic experience. Hmm, what is the smell of digital?
I grew up in a very tiny Southern town, and I tried out a new lens from fleabay last weekend while I was visiting my Dad. Earlier today I email my brother a few scans of of the best ones of the one street that runs through town. Tonight he replied asking what camera I was using because it sure took good pictures! Clearly it had nothing to do with the photographer.
MB
... Digital however, is mainly a "hardware" based technology and real improvements must be gained with the replacement of the hardware on a regular basis. The camera manufacturers are keenly aware of this and are very happy to have changed their product into something that runs on a schedule of obsolescence similar to the computer industry.
I think "real" is simply an issue of perception, and you could substitute "traditional" or something else...
Whats vrong with Rangefinders?
And how would you define "better than SLR"?
Kind regards
Three comments on this discussion:
First, of course, "planned obsolescence" wasn't invented in the digital age. When I bought my first SLR at the age of 19, I was hell-bent on a Canon A1 until the local camera store told me, sensibly, that I was crazy and sold me an Olympus OM10 instead. (I still have, and love, the OM10). Somebody recently gave me an A1 that they found in a fleamarket and I must say I still can't figure out why anyone needs all those features! But camera manufacturers went on to think of a whole lot more features even before digital came on the scene...
Second, while I agree that the "tradition" behind analogue photography is important and very well worth preserving, we should also remember that 150 years ago, analogue photography was the newcomer and seemingly a threat to the "traditions" of High Art. There is obviously a cycle in human history whereby the new becomes the old.
Third, and maybe most important - I suspect one of the things that makes traditional photographs seem more "real" to many people is that they are associated with "hand-work", whereas the digital age is associated with "brain-work". Certainly, for me, the physical activities of darkroom work are a significant part of the appeal - it is so different from simply sitting in front of a computer screen.
. Hopefully the crash of the credit market will keep consumers from being such godforsaken idiots and buying into the philosophy of conspicuous consumption, and the value of something well built and serviceable as opposed to expendable will make a slight comeback.
It's a cycle. Let's not forget pollution of the great lakes in the 50s then the restoration in the 70s.We can only hope that's true. But human nature being what it is, I wouldn't count on that sentiment lasting. Right now, it's becoming "fashionable" to tone down the conspicuous consumption aspects of our nature. As soon as things start to loosen up a bit, we'll be right back at it - in spades!
It's a cycle. Let's not forget pollution of the great lakes in the 50s then the restoration in the 70s.
There must be a balance. Consumerism creates jobs and gives you money. If everybody were to buy long lasting serviceable goods then the only thing left to do would be to put the resources towards a greater good. Something like world hunger and stopping cancer.
Surely such an idea is laughable.
It's a cycle. Let's not forget pollution of the great lakes in the 50s then the restoration in the 70s.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?