A real camera.

[23mjm]

What is a "real Camera"? Any camera you take a picture with!!!! I have always hated this taste great----less filling argument. Photography is all about taking pictures, not the gear. I love shooting pictures and sometimes I like my wizzz bang D300 and others I like my 4X5 or maybe my 645. I ride bikes too and I get ask road or mountain--my answer is "yes" it's all cycling. It is the same with photography there is not one format/media that is better than the rest.

 

[nickrapak]

I believe that she meant "real" as in tangible. Not in the tangibility of the image capture medium, but in the tangibility of the camera itself. Despite the fact that they are perfectly acceptable image capture mediums, digital cameras, from the $39.99 Wal-Mart special to the most expensive, most technologically advanced DSLR (this week). The average snap shooter will throw the camera around until it breaks, and then buy a new one. A pro will use their $3000 camera for all of two weeks, until an improved model comes out, now with one additional shutter speed!!!:rolleyes: Film cameras, at least until the 1990s, were built to last, or at least look like it. The exposed bare metal gives the cameras a look of ruggedness, given that nowadays, anything not made out of plastic is "built to last". I am 16, and I can say that my mom's (now my) old OM-2n feels more "real" than any digital camera on the market today.

 

[MrMushroomMan]

i would actually say the fewer the dials and levers and such, the more "real" the camera!

Pinhole?

 

[2F/2F]

Pinhole?

How can it be real if it has a hole in it?

 

[MrMushroomMan]

How can it be real if it has a hole in it?

How can light get to the medium it if it doesn't?

 

[2F/2F]

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?

 

[MrMushroomMan]

...but if it is only a medium, then how can it be a REAL camera? Aren't REAL cameras large or extra large?

*recording medium, there

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

 

[bob100684]

Any camera that you plan on using for the long term. My Elan 7e is never getting upgraded, until it becomes impossible to repair if it breaks. I think people don't view digital as "real" because they are constantly seeing new and better models, with more "mega-pickles"(as one of our customers called it). My original digital rebel is a real camera as well, and like the elan, it doesn't need to be "upgraded" or "replaced" by something newer/faster/better until it completely kicks the bucket.

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

 

[CBG]

Hmmmmmm, Whilst I'm very wedded to film, especially big cameras and sheet film, I can't really say they are the only "real cameras". That seems to be a too narrow definition. I think any device that makes images has the potential to make great images, given the right project and the right photographer. I think the man (or woman) makes the camera, not the other way round.

C

 

[markbarendt]

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

I agree completely. Been there, wasted that. The digital upgrade cycle is over for me.

The last straw was figuring out just how many 35mm film shots I could take for what I planned in one year for digital upgrades.

It would take me 17,000 film shots to equal the cost of the normal photographic upgrades (camera & computer stuff; hardware, & software).

I shoot less (a lot less) than 17,000 shots a year.

I'd bet most of us shoot less than 17,000 shots a year.

I now have a couple new-to-me N90s's that are my babies now. The only upgrade camera I have actually considered is getting and F2 or FM2n to be able to shoot without a battery.

The digital camp claims that they are greener because of the lack of chemicals used to develope the negs/pos's but I don't buy that argument anymore either. All the electricity used and the pile of "waste" cameras, batteries, cards, computers, and other trash generated is just incredible. Every one is loaded with heavy metals and other bad things.

 

[JBrunner]

At the core of the issue is the basic philosophy of progress. Film cameras are a "software" driven technology. The same hardware remains viable as long as it is cared for and the technology is mainly in what you load it with. 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. For me it is a matter of what feels cathartic, and also meets my needs. I do what I need to stay adept at what pays, but the beauty of film is that lessons learned are not made useless by the next new doohicky. I don't have to read a constant supply of ad laden magazines in search of the next magic bullet I must buy. Most of my heroes worked with less than I have, so I don't waste my time with keeping up with the Joneses. I evolve, and my work evolves, unhindered by a constant mutation of my medium.

Besides, I'd rather make a negative in a camera, than an arse negative in a chair.

 

[eddym]

The only real cameras are those in the hands of real photographers.

 

[Andrey]

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. I’ve had a very real and organic experience. Hmm, what is the smell of digital?

Give the cameras 40 years, they'll get mold.

Why is film real? A lot of non-photographers I know think that film is more professional than digital.

 

[rosey]

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

Reminds me of the time recently when a lady pal saw my photos and said I must sure have a good camera. When I tasted her next cake, I noted that she must have some really good pots and pans.

 

[erich potgieter]

... 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...

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.

 

[2F/2F]

My 5-year-old (or more, maybe?) 10D doesn't seem obsolete in the slightest. There are better cameras, but I don't need them at this point. 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.

 

[Polybun]

A real camera has a ladder on its tripod and you change F stops by slamming home steel plates! When your done there are perment indentions left in the earth and major fish kill results from processing the plate!

 

[Polybun]

Whats vrong with Rangefinders?
And how would you define "better than SLR"?
Kind regards

I would say a Speed Graphic complete with flash gun and solenoid.

 

[markbarendt]

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...

I agree, you made good decisions and avoided the trap. "Planned obsolescence" is an ever growing bane. Cell phones, as an example, have taken this to a whole new level.

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.

That's okay traditional art methods haven't gone away. One difference that I suggest exists between the transition from spreading paint to light sensitive emulsion and the transition to digital is the banality-in-general and lack of commitment to the craft of the new medium.

This is not to say that there are no good digital artists. It is to say that people buy big fancy fast Nikon and Canon DSLR's and expect to be doing great work at the end of the week. Can you say "point-&-shoot".

My wife made the comment this week "what I hate about getting good at photography is seeing how bad my shots used to be".

I don't believe that "point-&-shoot" work is a threat to art of any type, the content only has a market of one family.

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.

Yes!

 

[fschifano]

. 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.

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!

 

[Andrey]

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.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Far from laughable but quite a sea-change.

Maybe we even need to discuss as a country self-sourcing rather than even local out-sourcing.

I recently took a new job. Cut the income a bunch but now I work 4-tens instead of 6to7 12to16-hour days. Before I had to pay for everything to be done now I have time to do many things I outsourced locally myself.

Getting off the 70-90 hour/week treadmill is huge. Truly if we took all the overtime hours many of us work and gave those hours to other people we would have full employment even in the recession.

What's wrong with working just 40 and doing your own chores like changing the oil?

Have a feeling there's too many people trying to outrace the Joneses in fear of falling behind.

 

[michaelbsc]

It's a cycle. Let's not forget pollution of the great lakes in the 50s then the restoration in the 70s.

What cleaned up the Great Lakes wasn't so much an effort of enlightened society as it was an accidental release of a non-native mollusk into the ecosystem from bilge tanks of ships. As I understand it, at first the local authorities worked diligently to contain the little buggers, but lost the battle. Within a few years the effect of their constant filtration of the water through their gills was beginning to noticeably clean the water.

Now, did they crowd out and destroy a native species? Maybe, or maybe the native species was already on it's deathbed because of the pollution and the invaders were merely less susceptible to the effects of the pollution, so they filled the "pollution modified niche" better than the native species dealt with the change. I can't really say, since I'm not a biologist, and I don't live near the Great Lakes. But I don't think I'd attribute the cleanup to a sudden outpouring of benevolence to the environment from society.

MB

 

[Andrey]

They actually dumped less phosphates and oil in the lakes. The mollusks probably helped if they feed on the algae, but there was lots of government regulation.

If there weren't any government regulation, then mother nature is cleaning up the prosphates. lol Everything works out perfectly.

My point was mostly that it's a cycle, like globalism vs iron curtain. You can't change it unless you're in policy, so there's not much point thinking about it.