There are very few simple digital cameras, unfortunately. Less is definitely more, cost wise.
There are very few simple digital cameras, unfortunately. Less is definitely more, cost wise.I don't debate analog vs digital but rather simpler vs complex camera. I prefer the simpler camera regardless of analog or digital.
There are very few simple digital cameras, unfortunately. Less is definitely more, cost wise.
As a recent returnee to film, it was a mixture of nostalgia and curiosity that drew me back; having taken a conscious decision to use a CAMERA rather than the ubiquitous smartphone to collect my images and memories ( my last-bought camera being an Olympus OM-10 around 198x, and the previous purchase a Praktica BC-1 which I still treasure!) I decided to spend a minimum in case the interest fizzled out, so bought a Canon EOS50D, which did all I asked of it but having accumulated a range of lenses etc proved to be quite a heavy outfit to lug about, I chose to replace it with an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and that decision was in part because of it's superficial visual resemblance to my OM-10.
I enjoy using the OM-D and it has kindled the flame of interest started by the Canon, and also a hankering for film, the setting-up, taking, and processing of my own pictures just as I did around 30/40 years ago.
The choice of camera was made with practicalities in mind as well as nostalgia; I adored the usability of the OM-10 which I sweated to afford in my younger days, but was able to indulge myself as a reasonably-well-off middle-aged bloke and so chose the OM-2n on the basis of it being the camera I always aspired to; my first camera was an Ilford Sprite 35 which was simplicity personified, but the shortcomings of such simplicity drove me to take on Saturday jobs, paper rounds etc to purchase more capable equipment - from Zenit, Praktica, and finally OM-10.
My intention is for the OM-2n to be a continuation of this 'series', albeit with a longish 'pause' which has now ended; I'm just glad that I no longer have to deliver papers to fund my cameras, either analogue or digital.....
The OM-2 is as simple or as complex as you want it to be (in terms of automation of the taking of images rather than the mechanical/electronic technology behind it) and I expect to use it as much as the OM-D; It will perform the bulk of B&W tasks and the digital will be used more for colour.
Dave
Yes unfortunately! The simple cameras are more expensive because so few people want them.
[ ... ] 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:
[ ... ]
Ken
I think comparing digital to film is like comparing oil to watercolor and, therefore, is meaningless.
Meanwhile most people use smart phones.
One of those criteria is that the camera has a mechanical button or dial for each of the basic controls, and each of those buttons or dials has one unambiguous function.
I agree, but maybe its a generational thing?.
IIRC, the Nikon F came out in 1959. Then the F2 around 1971. Years later, 1977, they introduced the F2A(F2AS) and the F3 in 1983. Now days they introduce a new digital camera at least once a year. Case in point, the Nikon D7000, D7001 and D7002 all within about a year or two. There are those that trade up each time to the latest and greatest model. With each model the manuals get more and more thick and the menus more complicated. On some models if you want to change the ASA setting(or ISO as it's called) you have to go into the menu to do so.
I agree, but maybe its a generational thing?
I'm 29 years old, so perhaps it's not.
With film you always get a hard copy, the slide or negative. With digital you have something that exists as a code or on a screen until you print it - no screen, no image. That may or may not be an issue for the user, but it's interesting that very few galleries deal in virtual artefacts, while plenty trade in photographic prints, silver, ink jet or other. So while people can argue over the relevance of hard copies in a screen sharing world, the commercial sector have no such dilemmas. If you can touch it you can sell it!I agree it is good to have a physical copy. I don't really see the need to print every picture though. I would never do that. Mainly cause of the expense and also because I don't hit the nail that often. I mean from a role of 36, if I get one really worthwhile picture, I am lucky. Only print the very best. As long as I have the negatives anyway, they should keep better than the digital files
I don't think there is any problem comparing film and digital (...)
And here obviously people favour film mostly.
I don't think either, but then some people will start to talk about "the forum's charter" and how the d-word is not welcome here... And, all of a sudden, we're gonna have 10 pages of posts about why APUG should be limited to "analog" subjects.
Believe me, I am relatively new here (little more than a year) and I've seen this twice. This thread is going well and I don't wanna see it go that way!
I apology for talking about digital but I must say that although the OMD series cameras look like to old OM they are much much more complex and their operating interface are much different than the old OM. And so the OMD are complex camera and the OM are simple camera (OM-1,OM-2,OM-3,OM-4 and even the OM-10)
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?