Ever Shoot a T50?

[Smaug01]

So my brother went to a second hand store and bought me a T50 for a B-Day present. Nice gesture but I’ve got too many cameras already. Still I futzed around with it and read a manual online and I guessed it’s like a point and shoot being you can’t change the aperture without the camera defaulting to 1/60 shutter speed. Anyone here shoot one and have opinions?

I was just going to pickup a T70 for fun and for the extra features over the T50, a little more info/control, but after reading the manual online I thought, really, what drugs were they doing when they designed the camera and wrote the manuel? So I'm just gonna stick with my straight forward Maxxum 70 and use the T50 on the side a couple of times.

That was nice of him! Looking at these two quotes though, we can see why you have too many cameras already: in the first, you said you've got too many cameras, and the second (many replies later) you're thinking about adding ANOTHER one. :-D

Do you have an FD lenses? If not, you might consider picking up an inexpensive one just to go on this body, then take the body with you when you just want some snapshots. (but good ones) If so, you should keep it and even consider re-gifting it with a lens to someone who can appreciate it more.

And looks it I might add.
As neutered and lacking in charm and enthusiasm as the Minolta 370s or FM10.
Sure you could use it, in the same way you can use “comfortable, sensible” clothing or drive a Seat, Skoda or Hyundai “because it’s the same on the inside as all the other cars” and “it just need to go from A to B”.
It’s the baby out with the bathwater.
Aesthetics and provenance matters.
Even if you pretend it doesn’t.

Wow, just look at this snobbery! Is this how you react when your family member gives you a gift you didn't specifically request? Then, several long off-topic replies. I feel like you just came from DPReview Open Talk...

I must have a t50 and a t70 somewhere, or perhaps only one of both. What I remember of them is that these were by far the most annoying, least usable SLR's I have ever touched. It's odd, because the t90 is, apart from the noise and the way it eats batteries, one of the most pleasant, functional and intuitive cameras I've used. It's almost like canon first conceived the t90 but decided to strip everything that's good from it, resulting in the t50 and the t70, and then released the t90 as if to say "look, we actually had a very good idea, but didn't want you to know just yet." Needless to say, my t50 and/or t70 is/are in a box somewhere and unlikely to emerge from it before I die and someone will have to sort out all my junk...

It's not that; Canon was looking at the bigger picture. They were made for different target markets. We're generally not the target market for the T50. With the T50, they were trying to make SLRs more accessible to people who had been shooting (less capable) point & shoots or fixed lens rangefinders. Get them into the Canon system, so they can sell lenses and flashes to them. (similar to what Nikon tried with the EM, Pentax with the ME and Olympus with the OM10)

T50 target customer: See above.
T60 target customer: Someone who wants a manual SLR without paying a lot of money, and Canon didn't think the customers were enough to design their own. So they bought the generic Cosina design and had them slap an FD mount on it and re-brand it.
T70 target customer: Non-professional photographers, or possibly a back-up to a pro rig like an F1
T90 target customer: Professional photographers looking for newer technology than F1

Canon found out that autofocus was The Way of the Future, but they weren't ready to release theirs yet. EOS was probably already in development when the T90 came out.

Nikon released their F4 in 1988. Canon released EOS 650 and 620 in 1989 and the T series & FD mount were quickly obsoleted.

Canon later did the same thing with the EOS 850. It was their stripped-down EOS body; similar features to the T50, but adding autofocus and better looks.

 

[AgX]

As I hinted at the start of this thread the idea of a program-only SLR originated at about 1960 in Germany and then was revived in Japan in the 70s. By then the effective-price of such SLR has fallen remarkably.

 

[Smaug01]

As I hinted at the start of this thread the idea of a program-only SLR originated at about 1960 in Germany and then was revived in Japan in the 70s. By then the effective-price of such SLR has fallen remarkably.

Yes, I think SLRs originated in Germany as well. (Exacta?)

We western countries must be highly valued by the eastern ones, as we come up with these great ideas, but don't fully refine them or make them accessible to the masses. This is what Japan excels at.

The German stuff is too expensive and often not reliable enough because it's overly complex.

The American stuff starts out well, but them some greedy idiot who's making decision wants to cut costs and is willing to also cut quality. They want to cash in, but not invest further. In swoops Japan, refining the western designs to offer reliability and quality for less than German or American prices but more than Chinese prices. We can see it in electronics and cars. Before, we could see it in clocks, guns cameras and other precision mechanical devices.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, I think SLRs originated in Germany as well. (Exacta?)

We western countries must be highly valued by the eastern ones, as we come up with these great ideas, but don't fully refine them or make them accessible to the masses. This is what Japan excels at.

The German stuff is too expensive and often not reliable enough because it's overly complex.

The American stuff starts out well, but them some greedy idiot who's making decision wants to cut costs and is willing to also cut quality. They want to cash in, but not invest further. In swoops Japan, refining the western designs to offer reliability and quality for less than German or American prices but more than Chinese prices. We can see it in electronics and cars. Before, we could see it in clocks, guns cameras and other precision mechanical devices.

I don't own any Japanese guns yet.

 

[waynecrider]

Yeah Smog I’ve always had gas and when the T50 came along I started looking for a better version.
Luckily I’ve got 50mm F1.4, a 50mm F1.8 and a 200mm F4 + a 2x

 

[Helge]

It really wasn't. Postmodern architecture was mostly ornamented modern. It plundered c20th design to create a palimpsest of clashing styles. Pop Art was its cultural forbear. It aped the declarations of French intellectuals, who claimed we'd entered an atemporal age where truth was negotiable, and meaning was a skin deep. Design had run out of new ideas, so churned out old ones with a new label. It was vacuous, and celebrated its vacuousness as a virtue.

You make that sound as if it was a bad thing?
Modernism was however de-ornamented, Japan inspired, asymmetric crypto classical architecture, while PM architecture was an openly classisistic inspired architecture with lessons from modernism and modern art.
Criticising it as flippantly and nonchalantly as you do, is not really possible. It's like saying whether you enjoyed your latest cold.

Not the whole c20th, just the obsession with the aerodynamic, which counterpointed then then-dominant sharp edged look. Computer drawing tools enabled complex compound curves to be reproduced on an industrial level.

That is a bit of a myth, or half truth. There where "free" shapes in architecture long before computer tools. And some of the first computer tools for architecture actually suffered from being designed with preconceived notions about what architecture was. The first CAD tools ever, notably the DAC-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAC-1 operational in 59 and UNISURF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNISURF was made especially with aim at making it easy to visualise and measure the compound curves in cars. This and aeronautic design tools was soon also modified for architecture.

No, she really did enjoy the company of Nazis. The kindest description would be opportunist. Her clothes eschewed the pretty for the austere, which has unavoidable connotations in female attire.

You won't hear me defending her. But she was just the famous, amongst many like her.

It's lost because innovation is hidden behind an in-joke for those who thinks themselves culturally superior. A Hello Kitty logo on a small car is infantilism, arrested development pretending to be cutting edge. There was no need to put breakfast cereal packet iconography on a camera. Canon went back to a conventional typeface for its EOS cameras.

"Infantilism" or neoteny is a trait known from many phyla and species, but is especially pronounced in humans.
Some anthropologists would say it is the very thing that ultimately defines us and has made us into what we are.

Batman was already broken as a story. Making it camp was a gag for Madison Avenue types. It's been ruined in different ways since, turning a revenge epic into a psychological discourse.

I agree. But appreciating the shitty thirties series for its endearing "bad" qualities, was a new notion for the mainstream in the fifties. It directly inspired Batman 66 and much of the manufactured camp comedy that came after. Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker comedies for example.
Camp and kitsch had of course been known long before that, in more erudite and decadent circles under other names though.
It is again a neotenous trait.

TV Sci-Fi was still in the spandex phase, there was no reflexivity in 60s Star Trek production values. It was a peace-love story that explored racial difference and civil rights issues with alien life forms.

You need to watch Star Trek again. It was as intentional camp as they come. Same with other sixties series such as The Man from UNCLE.

 

[Helge]

Wow, just look at this snobbery! Is this how you react when your family member gives you a gift you didn't specifically request? Then, several long off-topic replies. I feel like you just came from DPReview Open Talk...

The right amount and kind of snobbery is the only thing advancing you in life. You have to be selectively snobbish.
And no, of course I wouldn't openly criticise a gift I was given. But I would also assume, that the giver gave the gift with the intent that I'd be using it.
If that means trading it for the next model, there is no harm or insult in that.
AFAIR the camera was chosen as just the one that happened to be there on the day.

Off topic and doorway talk is the real meat of a forum, or a causal party.
As long as the OQ was exhaustively and satisfyingly answered, I can't possibly see any harm.

 

[blockend]

Criticising it as flippantly and nonchalantly as you do, is not really possible.

I wasn't being in the least flippant. It's clear postmodernism was an intellectual and visual parlour game for people far removed from those they designed for.

Modernism was however de-ornamented, Japan inspired, asymmetric crypto classical architecture

You think modernism principally inspired by the orient? Have you a citation for that claim?

"Infantilism" or neoteny is a trait known from many phyla and species, but is especially pronounced in humans.
Some anthropologists would say it is the very thing that ultimately defines us and has made us into what we are.

Be that as it may the T-series logos were ridiculous, and soon abandoned. They suggested the machine was for the production of whimsey. Not all of us like our Fiat 500 headlights to carry eyelashes.

But appreciating the shitty thirties series for its endearing "bad" qualities,

It depends what you mean by "bad". Batman was aimed at juveniles. It only became lacking when people ascribed adult themes to its plotlines. The question is why those of arrested development want to perpetuate the iconography of youth into their adult lives, rather than move on to newer challenges.

Camp and kitsch had of course been known long before that, in more erudite and decadent circles under other names though.

Indeed so, but they were the underground language of outsiders. People who wanted to deconstruct society in their own image brought it to prime time.

You need to watch Star Trek again. It was as intentional camp as they come.

You could make an argument that sci-fi as a genre is camp. Beefcake men and scantily clad women in a surreal and other-worldly landscape defending against the Other.The Star Trek TV series was a continuation of this oeuvre with a barely concealed civil rights vibe.

 

[Helge]

I wasn't being in the least flippant. It's clear postmodernism was an intellectual and visual parlour game for people far removed from those they designed for..

Certainly not. While it's true that there where many people who didn't get it (those are usually the ones we hear about today in amusing anecdotes), there were as many people who "got it" in one way or another.
That's the great thing about it. There are many levels of understanding and getting it. That could be said for most art or cultural products, but I think especially for post modernistic design of this time.

You think modernism principally inspired by the orient? Have you a citation for that claim?

I actually discussed this with AgX over PMs some days ago.
As is often the case, the good literature is in books or behind paywalls. It is however quite firmly established in art history circles that modernism was inspired by Japanese architecture, design and culture in general, and in a major way.
Look at western design before and after 1867, when the forced opening of Japan had finished.
It's not that historicism get pushed out at once. But what later became modernism emerges in the 1870s.

For a concrete example, look at Christopher Dressers designs before and after his trip to Japan.​

All of modern painting. owes a huge depth to Japanese woodblock printing and painting of course.
Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Louis Sullivan and the guy they inspired so much; Frank Lloyd Wright, were all three of them deeply inspired by Japanese influences.

Be that as it may the T-series logos were ridiculous, and soon abandoned. They suggested the machine was for the production of whimsey. Not all of us like our Fiat 500 headlights to carry eyelashes.

Canon designed their share of whimsy after the T series, though not with as much flair and stringency.

For all considered and refined design schools and trends, there will always be a thousand "me toos" and exploiters, that ultimately will dilute the original ideas down to nothing, and make some people tire of what they consider "one thing".
Where you remember prol imitation PoMo design, like eyelashed headlights, giant wrist watches for the wall, piano neckties and faux "pop art", I remember the good stuff.
These are all from the about the same time Canon introduced the T series:

Consumer electronics



LA 84 OL


And of Course we have Robert Venturi to thank for much of the Idea of the unashamed, brash and bold billboard



If you don't like the above examples or get them at all, all I can say is "fine". There is no chance that I would convince you here anyhow then.

It depends what you mean by "bad". Batman was aimed at juveniles. It only became lacking when people ascribed adult themes to its plotlines. The question is why those of arrested development want to perpetuate the iconography of youth into their adult lives, rather than move on to newer challenges.

As with everything, there is a good and bad versions of this.
Batman 66 and Tim Burton 89 Batman = Good ™
Christopher Nolan 2005 Batman. Self important and trying naively to "scale" the idea, and totally not getting it = Bad ™

Indeed so, but they were the underground language of outsiders. People who wanted to deconstruct society in their own image brought it to prime time.

Don't we all?

You could make an argument that sci-fi as a genre is camp. Beefcake men and scantily clad women in a surreal and other-worldly landscape defending against the Other.The Star Trek TV series was a continuation of this oeuvre with a barely concealed civil rights vibe.

It's been argued many a time that science fiction is not a genre as such, but rather a method.
But yeah, some types of SF are inherently "silly" and abstract. But that goes way back to Lucians True Story

 

[blockend]

There are many levels of understanding and getting it.

I disagree. The only way of getting it is ironically. It's a world of the parenthetical, of free floating signifiers that can mean anything but ultimately nothing. The façade as the thing itself.

It is however quite firmly established in art history circles that modernism was inspired by Japanese architecture, design and culture in general, and in a major way.

There are a number of cues to modernism in art, music and architecture, of which Japanese influence is far from the most important. Some of it is a rejection of Romanticism, the valorisation of the machine age, and novel materials, all of which were primarily European concerns.

If you don't like the above examples or get them at all, all I can say is "fine".

The industrial examples look like period 80s/90s consumables, and as dated as an inflatable sofa. The architecture looks like visual quotes, faux classicism, Eqypt by way of the Odeon, Arts and Crafts by the Bauhaus. I completely "get it", I just consider it philosophically lightweight and visually shallow.

Don't we all?

Absolutely not. It's a character flaw of architects and similar Bond villains.

It's been argued many a time that science fiction is not a genre as such, but rather a method.

Science is also a method, but it doesn't stop scientists treating it as an ideology.

 

[Helge]

I disagree. The only way of getting it is ironically. It's a world of the parenthetical, of free floating signifiers that can mean anything but ultimately nothing. The façade as the thing itself.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that strongly. But you can villify anything with the right words.
Even a small child senses a kind of humour and lightness when looking at designs like these. Without necessarily getting to the bottom of why and how. That's part of what I mean by levels.

I think Robert and Denise put it very well here from 21:13 to 22:35:



I'd recommend two of their books:
Learning from Las Vegas and Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture.
If there ever was PM manifestos those are among them.
Worth remembering is also how influenced Venturi was by Italian mannerists and all they stood for. And that in a very profound way.

There are a number of cues to modernism in art, music and architecture, of which Japanese influence is far from the most important. Some of it is a rejection of Romanticism, the valorisation of the machine age, and novel materials, all of which were primarily European concerns.

Those alone doesn't by themselves lead to the look of modernism.
Look at Art nouveau and the design ideals of the Soviet Union. While not disconnected from other influences at all, or really being on an alternative timeline, they still show approaches that could be said to encompass those ideals you mention, without being modernist.

That's part of what's wrong with modernism and what ultimately led to its partway bankruptcy or metamorphosis in the mid twentieth century. That it's a masquerade, trying its hardest to convince you of its inevitability and rationalism.

The industrial examples look like period 80s/90s consumables, and as dated as an inflatable sofa. The architecture looks like visual quotes, faux classicism, Eqypt by way of the Odeon, Arts and Crafts by the Bauhaus. I completely "get it", I just consider it philosophically lightweight and visually shallow.

That you can say it looks remotely 90's tells me you either need glasses or that you have weak grasp of recent style. There is a seismic shift in the early 90s WRT industrial design. But of course the fundamentals of construction and manufacture remain virtually unchanged to this day.
When you want to manufacture stuff in the modern world, where you are forced into certain techniques and materials, you best be honest about it, and admit the products ultimately ephemeral nature. There is humour, reverence, elegance and honesty in those designs.
I can tell you I'm not the only one to admire them quite a bit.
Even John Ruskin predicted much the same, as described above, was inevitable in his 19th century works, in his short prediction of the best possible future for mass manufactured goods, ornament and architectural elements.

Absolutely not. It's a character flaw of architects and similar Bond villains.

To want to put your mark on the world, and to have the world ordered according to your inner image of right;
I'd say that is as human as it gets.
Learning to accept that most of the time that is not going to happen, and why, is what takes maturity and makes you a wiser person.

 

[blockend]

That you can say it looks remotely 90's tells me you either need glasses or that you have weak grasp of recent style.

I viewed them as thumbnails. The Walkman had an asymmetrical design that was popular in the 1990s but had antecedents going back to at least the 1970s. The colours mark them out as serious, and earlier. By the 90s they would be in nursery hues.

When you want to manufacture stuff in the modern world, where you are forced into certain techniques and materials, you best be honest about it, and admit the products ultimately ephemeral nature. There is humour, reverence, elegance and honesty in those designs.

That's where we differ. Planned obsolescence has long been with us, but the speed of redundancy does not sit well with philosophical or ecological concerns. Making a virtue of an object's landfill pretensions is pure cynicism.

That's part of what's wrong with modernism and what ultimately led to its partway bankruptcy or metamorphosis in the mid twentieth century.

Modernism became popular for a number of reasons. It was seen as intellectually superior, a rejection of human clutter for inhuman minimalism, it was politically fashionable especially with the left, and on a civic scale it was cheap to construct. Post modernism was amended modernism, it wasn't a rejection of modernism's values or technical construction. It was an attempt to introduce the cues of popular culture into a discipline marked by permanence.

My issue with post modernism is it's cynical and condescending. It is not a negotiation with the dweller, but an imposition. It says nothing you do is more important than the egg cups on your roof or vintage car sofa in the lobby. You will inhabit a game show set as your place of work and wear a permanent smile. Nothing about it is human scale or reflective of the human condition.