Simpler Cameras

Chan Tran · Oct 17, 2015

I bought the F2AS in 1977 when it was introduced. It was stolen from me in 1984 (I believed an employee in the 1hr photo lab which I managed stole it) and today it seems to cost about the same price to get a used one. I think I paid about $700 for the camera with the 50mm f/1.4. $550 for the body. I wish I still have it.

ColColt · Oct 17, 2015

That sounds about right. They were and still are(to me) Nikon's finest. You can get pristine F2A's and F2AS cameras from Sover Wong without having to wonder what you're getting from ebay and they'll be as good as when they left Japan.

CMoore · Oct 17, 2015

bergytone said:
Another neat thing regarding older, simpler cameras... they are affordable. Cameras that I could only drool over when I was a teenager in the 70's are now available for less than $50. I hear these stories of people dropping $5k on the latest new fangled mirrorless digibox and I think about how much film I could buy with that money....

Just a beginner photographer, and I have no gripe with film or digital.
But.......if I sold all my (Canon AND Nikon) film bodies and lenses, I am not sure I would have enough money to buy the latest "pro" body and 50mm lens. I would not be able to do what I am doing now if it had to be digital.
Even though I am relatively old (55) I feel fortunate to have taken up this hobby at this time. I remember being at Road Atlanta in 1979, and watching the fence line where all the Pro Photographers were, and wishing I could afford an F2. Nobody could have forseen the digital fallout that would effect Nikon and Canon prices.
It's like cars started to use square wheels, and you can pick up all the classic 1973 Porsche/Ferrari dream cars for pennies. I have no idea where the logical conclusion of all this is taking us.....but I am glad I am here for the start.

swanlake1 · Oct 17, 2015

I agree with CMoore...I now have a several 35mm SLR cameras and two medium format folders plus a handful of very sharp primes...all for less then the cost of a good used digital SLR and one AF prime. That said, processing is very expensive! I suggest a lightbox and process only, then print only a handful of negatives.

Alan Gales · Oct 17, 2015

Today my buddy told me that his first digital camera which he paid $2000 for and is probably only worth $200 today (if that) won't write to a card anymore.

His screw mount 35mm Leica still works!

ColColt · Oct 17, 2015

Electronics always take a nose dive over time. Case in point are VCR's, VCR recorders and DVD recorders. When they first hit the market they were mega bucks-upwards of $1000+. Look at them today.

Ono the other hand you have certain stereo equipment that has only went up over time like Marantz receivers and Nakamichi tape decks. The still command a healthy price in LNIB condition.

Chan Tran · Oct 17, 2015

ColColt said:
Electronics always take a nose dive over time. Case in point are VCR's, VCR recorders and DVD recorders. When they first hit the market they were mega bucks-upwards of $1000+. Look at them today.

Ono the other hand you have certain stereo equipment that has only went up over time like Marantz receivers and Nakamichi tape decks. The still command a healthy price in LNIB condition.

I have a Nakamichi CR-7a bought new in 1989 and after 26 years it still works and looks like new.

ColColt · Oct 17, 2015

My Marantz 2265 and Nakamichi ZX-7 is still going strong as well. You'll never see the likes of those again.

and, did I mention my Teac reel to reel is still humming along?

ciniframe · Oct 17, 2015

Personal preference. My favorite 35mm SLR is a OM-1, fits like a glove. When people ask why I still use film I tell them it is because the cameras I like use it. A brand new sensor pulled into the film gate for every shot.

swanlake1 · Oct 17, 2015

wow...looks nice

John_Nikon_F · Oct 17, 2015

I use both. For camera pr0n and snapshots, I typically use the D-word. For more serious stuff, I'll use one of my film bodies. Lately, the D2x has seen a bit more use, but, then again, I've not been getting out as much as I normally do. Partly finances, partly needing to get cars working, etc, so it's easier to grab the D2x and shoot with it. That's not to say that I haven't shot anything analog recently. I have. About a third of the way through a roll of Ektar in the F3P, and have a roll of Portra 400 waiting in the F. F2AS may be fed a well-expired roll of XP2 that I have, just to see what images I get out of it.

Speaking of the F2AS, bought it four years ago for $225. Last year, had it serviced by Sover Wong. Yeah, it wound up being the cost of a minty F2AS off fleaBay or through KEH, but, camera works better than those minty bodies. Likely works better than it did in January 1980. Camera has some brassing and a couple tiny dings, but I wouldn't trade it for a nicer looking one.

-J

4season · Oct 17, 2015

I get a kick out of telling people about my compact full-frame camera with eye level finder and organic sensor technology, which delivers moire-free performance without the need for an optical low-pass filter. Nothing against Sony's version, but after searching under the sofa cushions for lost change, I came up about $3299.75 short.

ColColt · Oct 17, 2015

You'll never go wrong getting Sover to service your F2's. Mine came back from him not long ago and yep, not cheap but he turned it into a superb piece of craftsmanship totally taking it apart to see what other problems could be lurking. You even get a CD of the pics he took through the process and some written tips. Not many like him today, unfortunately.

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 17, 2015

Tut-tut. I have never ever found digital photography forums to be a place of enlightenment or factual discourse (including DPUG). I'm surprised you'd blunder into their lair, but unsurprised by their pack-mentality put-downs. Obviously the modern day technology that does everything for them is what the lazy bastards want — no thinking needed on their part, just buy the camera, shoot and claim the credit what what eventuates. Except that's not quite how things work. There are cameras 100 years old or more producing the most exquisite images that a digital camera will never equal. There are still more and more down through the decades that are infinitely more satisfying, engaging and productive than the all-electronic wunderkinds. It's a very sad mindset. I'll tell you those foolish enough to pick an argument with me about the Pentax 67 vis their Nikon D800 or whatnot will be told that the moment they start blathering I'll begin charging them by the second! Can't stand them and I encounter these people in most places I go.

jeffreythree · Oct 17, 2015

I like simple to use cameras, and find myself ignoring some fun but sometimes complicated to use cameras. It is why I love my Fuji GL690 with the 100 AE lens set to auto making it a giant aperture priority point and shoot. I even picked up a really cheap and small 35mm camera today, a Bell & Howell 28mm FF, just because it was so pocketable and light. You can't get much simpler than a set aperture and shutter speed with only a winder and a button.

GarageBoy · Oct 17, 2015

Why must it be either or? I like using my F2as as much as my f100 and Sony a7. I like the look of e6 films, tmax 400, and portra. The A7 has not disappointed me either. Clean ISO 3200 color shots!

I don't shoot the f2as to "slow down", hell, I feel like I'm chasing exposure sometimes when the lighting changes. I know that when the pros who bought it new didn't buy it to slow down... I use it because it's a working piece of history, and its a mechanical marvel

The Sony does not "confuse" me and all the buttons don't "distract" me. One dial controls aperture, one controls shutter speed, just like a film camera...

swanlake1 · Oct 17, 2015

Two things I love most about film:

- photos are not on my computer
- I don't go out and take 3,000 photos

makes things simpler! But, digital is cool, too...just nicer for me to take film right now.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 18, 2015

Regarding cameras, I would much prefer that any photographic mistakes I make, or successes I may enjoy, result from my own thought processes and not the thought processes of an anonymous software engineer. This applies to both advanced film cameras as well as all digital cameras. Both are hideously over complex in the extreme as a result of unchecked marketing feature creep.

I mean, there are only four settings one is required to think about when making a picture. ISO, aperture, shutter, and focus. That's it. The entire envelope. The full ten yards. The whole tomato. So why do I want or need a camera whose instruction manual reads 500+ pages to explain 100+ computerized user modes? Just to manage those four simple settings? Really? This is a joke, right?

:confused:

Simple things last longer. Simple things are more dependable. Simple things fix easier. Simple things are more flexible and adaptable. That last one is often overlooked...

When I was in college I had a '72 VW bug that I once drove for a couple of months with a dead battery that I could not afford to replace. I adapted that extraordinarily simple vehicle by trying to always park it on an incline. It didn't need to be much of an incline. A gentle slope was fine. But even without a slope the adaptation still worked, just with a slightly more complex implementation.

Can anyone under the age of 30 explain that very simple adaptation?

Ken

blockend · Oct 18, 2015

I was a late digital adopter, 2011 before I got my first DSLR. It's useful to know what digital's strengths are (immediacy, high ISO performance, screen sharing) and also its weaknesses. The latter are to do with pace of change and the skill set required to achieve consistent image quality. The software to process digital images is fleeting, and a microscopic number end up as paper prints, a combination that will end in tears for anyone serious about image longevity.

Digital isn't all bad, it's undoubtedly democratic, but unlike film there's little opportunity to get off the bus and stick with one camera. Even if you're happy with image quality, manufacturers drop their support and third party software will fail to recognise it existed in a few years. The underlying problem is that creativity has become the servant of technology, which may suit manufacturers and geeks, but does little to inspire confidence in anyone hoping to invest in a long term set up.

ongakublue · Oct 18, 2015

blockend said:
The underlying problem is that creativity has become the servant of technology, which may suit manufacturers and geeks, but does little to inspire confidence in anyone hoping to invest in a long term set up.

I like this Very true.

GarageBoy · Oct 18, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Can anyone under the age of 30 explain that very simple adaptation?

Ken

Kick starter, crank starter, sprayed ether into the air intake, magnetos?
Your VW bug probably needs more maintenance when even when new, compared to newer cars. We can reach 100,000 + miles by literally doing nothing more than add gas and change the oil. No points, no carb adjustments, no valvetrain adjustments

Camera with lots of modes? I never even bothered looking at that part of the manual- you put your camera into Aperture Priority or Manual and it behaves just like whatever classic camera you favor

Chan Tran · Oct 18, 2015

blockend said:
I was a late digital adopter, 2011 before I got my first DSLR. It's useful to know what digital's strengths are (immediacy, high ISO performance, screen sharing) and also its weaknesses. The latter are to do with pace of change and the skill set required to achieve consistent image quality. The software to process digital images is fleeting, and a microscopic number end up as paper prints, a combination that will end in tears for anyone serious about image longevity.

Digital isn't all bad, it's undoubtedly democratic, but unlike film there's little opportunity to get off the bus and stick with one camera. Even if you're happy with image quality, manufacturers drop their support and third party software will fail to recognise it existed in a few years. The underlying problem is that creativity has become the servant of technology, which may suit manufacturers and geeks, but does little to inspire confidence in anyone hoping to invest in a long term set up.

I don't debate analog vs digital but rather simpler vs complex camera. I prefer the simpler camera regardless of analog or digital.

fdonadio · Oct 18, 2015

Chan Tran said:
I don't debate analog vs digital but rather simpler vs complex camera. I prefer the simpler camera regardless of analog or digital.

Good. The thread was deviating into a" D versus A" thread, as they always do here in APUG.

So, back on topic. This talk reminds me when I had an FM2 and F3, but dreamed of the F4. The F5 came out and I thought it looked too complicated.

Russ - SVP · Oct 18, 2015

I just returned from a week of shooting in New Mexico. When it came time to do some long night exposures, I happily abandoned the F100 with its maximum 32 second exposure limit on A setting, and whipped out the FE. The FE will deliver very long exposures in aperture priority mode. It was nice to use it again.

removed account4 · Oct 18, 2015

I will be documenting an old opera house with natural and strobe lights in a few weeks ( or so it seems )
all digi, no film involved... and while I have easily photographed similar situations with a toyo
view camera and Polaroid back for exposure tests .. polo doesn't exist and I'd rather know I got things right before I leave the job site
and stand in the dark for 3 hours ( or shell out 5$/chrome(4x5) to get them back and see they are off.
I like having settings and complicated ways for my camera to remember that when I am in a certain situation,
to do its thing, so I can concentrate on doing my thing.
complicated has its place as does simple.

Simpler Cameras

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency