Deleted member 88956
In other words you never had entire kit of Nikkor or FD, as they too had not so great glass, just like Minolta did. At he same time, there is no single high spec lens from either that Minolta could not match with its offering.
In other words you never had entire kit of Nikkor or FD, as they too had not so great glass, just like Minolta did. At he same time, there is no single high spec lens from either that Minolta could not match with its offering.Minolta MC and MD glass is selectively nice. Not all the glass is as good as an entire kit like Nikkor and Canon FD. I've resisted the Pentax glass and that's probably a big mistake, but I really can't find a Pentax body that I can get attached too. There was one that I tried hunting down for a few weeks and gave up, the Pentax SV Black. The Olympus OM caught my eye, but I just can't seem to get the body and lenses in decent shape.
I've leaned really heavy on the fully mechanical side and steer away from electronics all together. All the built in meters I have in my mechanical SLR's work really well. Hopefully they outlast me. If not, I have a handheld meter.
In other words you never had entire kit of Nikkor or FD, as they too had not so great glass, just like Minolta did. At he same time, there is no single high spec lens from either that Minolta could not match with its offering.
38mm Rolleicord Automatic is very, very rare; rarer than Kiev-90, Leica Luxus, Red Flag 20 or Hansa Canon.
I'd never been a Canon user until I acquired someone's complete outfit for very little cash, over a decade ago. The lenses were definitely less expensive than other brands on the used market, and to some extent still are. Initially this was because FD flange distances made them unsuitable for adapting to DSLRs (including Canon's own cameras), and also because Canon was a huge manufacturer who produced lenses by the million, so there's plenty of availability. Mirrorless digital cameras triggered a price rise in all old lenses, but FDs are still at the less expensive end of the market. In my experience very few film era lenses are capable of fully resolving the potential of modern sensors, so I restrict them to film camera use, except for video.The choice to go with Canon FD was based on image quality for non FD L glass and the affordability compared to EX or better Nikkor glass.
A camera only needs necessary knobs and dials to set the aperture and shutter speed. Everything else just needs to move as smooth and accurate as possible. No need for all these bells and whistles..
All pre 1980 film camera had only one major issue, the position of the shutter speed dial. If they had placed that on a vertical surface, that would have been perfect. (thumb wheel)
Random thought of the day: Wouldn't it be ironic if the future film supply for our Hasselblads, Rolleis, and Mamiyas depended upon hipsters shooting Lomo and Diana cameras?
Andy
Random thought of the day: Wouldn't it be ironic if the future film supply for our Hasselblads, Rolleis, and Mamiyas depended upon hipsters shooting Lomo and Diana cameras?
Andy
It seems the twenty-somethings (not sure if this is what hipsters are) have moved on to better stuff...the Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67 and all manner of obscenely expensive point&shoot 35mm cameras seem to be the preferred cameras for the young up-an-coming photographers. Some of these kids are quite accomplished in their early 20's.
I'm in no way dissing the young photographers who choose film.
Andy
Then perhaps you should refrain from using a term like "hipster", which is almost universally used as a derogatory. Just sayin'.
I used to dump on hipsters, too. Then my daughter (she’s 48) showed me a definition of hipsters in Urban Dictionary describing people who live downtown, listen to vinyl, shop in thrift stores and shoot film and since that pretty much describes me I have broadened my views. At least I hope so.Perhaps you should question your own preconceptions. I question your characterization of this as a derogatory term. It's pretty generally accepted as a term for younger people of a certain demographic. And in my book it's not derogatory at all, just descriptive. They are saving us.
Andy
They certainly seem to have access to equipment most of us could only dream of at their age. Perhaps we only see the youngsters who own a couple of double stroke M3s, a Mamiya 7 and Contax point and shoots, whereas lower profile but equally talented young people are shooting cheaper gear.It seems the twenty-somethings (not sure if this is what hipsters are) have moved on to better stuff...the Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67 and all manner of obscenely expensive point&shoot 35mm cameras seem to be the preferred cameras for the young up-an-coming photographers. Some of these kids are quite accomplished in their early 20's.
The Olympus OM got it right IMHO. I never understood why people liked the shutter speed on the top deck of a camera.
Still photography will be a hobby pursuit of the leisure class or a highly dedicated art skill, much like a number of older art forms (oil painting, watercolor, sculpture, woodcarving, etc.) are now and, as with modern oil paints, the materials will be expensive enough one won't fall into the activity by accident -- but they won't be so expensive a determined practitioner can't get started and, with some skill and luck, make a living at it. Or have all the fun they can afford.
I'm in no way dissing the young photographers who choose film. I love some of their work and the seriousness with which they take it. And you are quite correct that the Lomography aesthetic seems somewhat on the decline. I do wonder about the future availability of film if there are no new cameras for it. That day will probably come long after I'm gone, but I wonder whether it's inevitable eventually.
Andy
They certainly seem to have access to equipment most of us could only dream of at their age. Perhaps we only see the youngsters who own a couple of double stroke M3s, a Mamiya 7 and Contax point and shoots, whereas lower profile but equally talented young people are shooting cheaper gear.
I agree. Social media has made the difference between success and talent even more polarised. Content providers can accrue thousands of followers, without ever having to take a good photo.Well, yes, of course....obviously. Those who are better at self promotion tend to fair better financially.
I agree. Social media has made the difference between success and talent even more polarised. Content providers can accrue thousands of followers, without ever having to take a good photo.
I didn't mean to imply that you were dissing hipsters. I certainly didn't read that into what you wrote.
I was just trying to say that lots of the younger generation seem to have outgrown (?) the less expensive gear and the kinda frivolous attitude that goes along with it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, I find it encouraging that at least some of the younger generation are showing a very serious interest in and commitment to photography.
Well, you'd be wrong.In my experience very few film era lenses are capable of fully resolving the potential of modern sensors, so I restrict them to film camera use, except for video.
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?