Simpler Cameras

Trabant Dave said:

another brand used extensively was OrWo, from the former German Democratic Republic; this was noticeably cheaper than major brands in the UK at the time

Click to expand...

I used plenty of Orwochrome when I was was young, mainly because it was £3.50 including processing and mounting! Grainier than equivalents, but not excessively so, and erred towards warm tones. Very nice in its way.

Orwo black and white (NP22?) was also nice stuff, I bought in it bulk rolls. It was available in the US a year or two ago, but hasn't had a UK importer for a while.

narsuitus said:

My simplest cameras consist of a sheet of film in a light-tight container with a small hole.

The images I am able to obtain from such simple cameras never cease to amaze me.

Click to expand...

This one has just amazed me.

segedi said:

Some shots, lab scanned, cropped to square in Lightroom...

[url=https://flic.kr/p/zEsRCd]

Summoning Winter[/URL]

Click to expand...

Really nice. I like that one.

I like the way the mid-level and higher Nikon digital cameras have two dials. I use those extensively to set the aperture and shutter speed, setting ISO is press a button and turn a dial. As someone said upthread, that's all you need to make a photo. Sure, there are menus, but those are for special purposes, system-wide settings, etc. I've seen other cameras, including Nikon's downlevel cameras, get it wrong.

Tactile controls, in a fixed position in space work well with the human body and memory system. That's one of the aspects of film cameras I enjoy. When those were made, electronic displays weren't an option. I think the machines are better because of it.

I claim that the Zen pinhole camera is the simplest camera in existence.

The Nikon F2 plain prism and N70 - those are the exact 35mm cameras I use also! (Not counting my Leica IIIf.)

The problem with the N70 is that I keep forgetting how to take advantage of its features.

narsuitus said:

My simplest 35mm film camera is the Nikon F2 with a non-metered view finder.


My most complex 35mm film camera is the Nikon N70.

Both are excellent cameras, however, I prefer simpler to complex for the following reasons:
1. The less bells and whistles, the less things that can break or go wrong.
2. The operations of a simpler camera are more intuitive. I do not have to carefully review the camera operations before shooting an important assignment.
3. When shooting in near total darkness, it is easier for me change the simpler camera settings by feel rather than by sight.

Nikon F2 + 18mm lens by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Nikon N70 + 180mm lens by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Click to expand...

It's hard to beat an F2 with the DE-1 finder and as rugged and dependable as it gets. You think the N70 is complex? Grab a D7000 manual for an eye opener.

Thanks Theo!

The Pentax Spotmatic is a very simple camera. A lot of people love using it...perfect weight and balance.

Iluvmycam said:

...Film is for people that find their pride is saying I shoot film instead of finding pride in bringing home the bacon.
...

Click to expand...

With all due respect, that may be true of some people. Others shoot film because they like film, they like the look of film, or the involvement. Or they like the cameras - and those cameras use film. It's not always about ego.

I've never seen anyone on the forums that can outshoot me

Click to expand...

Talk about ego!

Why are people talking Leicas and Nikons when this thread is about simple cameras? Let's talk about the joys of setting the aperture, shutter speed, and clicking a button!

What do you think a Leica M2 or Nikon F is? Those are about as simple as it gets.

Theo Sulphate said:

With all due respect, that may be true of some people. Others shoot film because they like film, they like the look of film, or the involvement. Or they like the cameras - and those cameras use film. It's not always about ego.

Click to expand...

Wow...yeah, that seemed a bit over the top
I "shoot" film for a few reasons:
1. Born in 1960, that is what cameras were. Getting back into it now, I had no idea that film had faded from photography. I KNEW about digital, but I had no idea it had circumvented film. I can now afford all the cameras I drooled over as a high school kid in the 1970's.
2. The "darkroom" is probably the biggest reason (for me) to use film. It is a magical place that has no analogous counterpart in the digital realm. It is a Physical Place...it is dimly lit, like a bar or a church, and it is intimate like both. It requires much more physical labor than the digital darkroom that is a computer. It is a preference.....not a "better".
I would much prefer a Porsche RS from 1973 than whatever 911 variant exists today.....another choice.
3. There is an inconvenience with film. It takes much more space, and is much more difficult for most people to access. I would say that digital is a "better" choice for most people. Most by a big margin.....90%. at least if I had to guess.
I do not know, but I have a feeling that more people gravitate From digital and To film, than the other way around.
It is a niche market and probably (at this point) always will be. Just like my Black Powder cowboy guns and vacuum tube guitar amps. Some things just work better for a certain percent of the population. It is definitely nothing to come unglued about.
best

Iluvmycam said:

OP, your right and wrong.

nsfw - digital and film examples

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/

Simple controls are great for my type of work. (social doc) But they must be coupled with digital for getting todays pix. Film in today's social doc world is pretty useless. Film is for people that find their pride is saying I shoot film instead of finding pride in bringing home the bacon.

Unfortunately there is nothing but Leica that fits the bill and Fuji as a second rate choice. (OK, Nikons bulky $$ manual as well.)

I've never seen anyone on the forums that can outshoot me. I say easy to use, manual controls are best coupled with digital for social doc work. OK, they may not be best for birding or something else, but for my work manual rules.

Don't believe me?

How many others have done anything important with infrared flash? Two people..that is it.

Anyone do IR flash in this world better than me?

nsfw / digital examples

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/piercing-darkness-update/

I think I should know what cams are best for the job.

Stop arguing with people to bloat your ego OP, just press the GD button. The proof of the pudding will be in the eatin.

Click to expand...

you are a digital dude so what are you doing here? I don't want this thread closed because of you.

Iluvmycam said:

Film is for people that find their pride is saying I shoot film instead of finding pride in bringing home the bacon.

Click to expand...

Theo Sulphate said:

With all due respect, that may be true of some people. Others shoot film because they like film, they like the look of film, or the involvement. Or they like the cameras - and those cameras use film. It's not always about ego.

Click to expand...

Some people don't even take photographs to bring home any bacon. In some cases, photography takes away the bacon!

Iluvmycam said:

OP, your right and wrong.

nsfw - digital and film examples

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/

Simple controls are great for my type of work. (social doc) But they must be coupled with digital for getting todays pix. Film in today's social doc world is pretty useless. Film is for people that find their pride is saying I shoot film instead of finding pride in bringing home the bacon.

Unfortunately there is nothing but Leica that fits the bill and Fuji as a second rate choice. (OK, Nikons bulky $$ manual as well.)

I've never seen anyone on the forums that can outshoot me. I say easy to use, manual controls are best coupled with digital for social doc work. OK, they may not be best for birding or something else, but for my work manual rules.

Don't believe me?

How many others have done anything important with infrared flash? Two people..that is it.

Anyone do IR flash in this world better than me?

nsfw / digital examples

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/piercing-darkness-update/

I think I should know what cams are best for the job.

Stop arguing with people to bloat your ego OP, just press the GD button. The proof of the pudding will be in the eatin.

Click to expand...

wow this took a turn fast You do sound confident! I am not arguing with your abilities cause I am unaware of them. I am not going to look at someone's work when they force it on people like that. All I really said was I like simpler cameras. I never said digital was crap nor that more recent ones are bad. Nor did I say that all work is suitable for all cameras necessarily. I am not bloating my ego at all. My ego is about the same size as when I came in here. Interesting you read that into what I was saying.

ongakublue said:

I recently posted on a digital forum about my experiences with old cameras from the late 70s and early 80s. Pre AF cameras with very few functions compared to today's cameras. I was trying to make the point that these older cameras in many ways have something better going for them than a modern full frame digital camera because the simplicity can lend itself to a different approach to creativity. I was met with very mixed reaction. Mostly negative. I suppose it's not surprising. People saying they can't be without the latest tech and so on. That older means not good enough. Which is kind of nonsense in most ways. I was also accused of trying to impress people, that I can work a camera that is only MF and so on.

Click to expand...

Go take some amazing photos with your old cameras... then show your work to these naysayers who proclaim older means not good enough, and casually mention what camera you used. That will shut them up!

CMoore said:

Wow...yeah, that seemed a bit over the top
I "shoot" film for a few reasons:
1. Born in 1960, that is what cameras were. Getting back into it now, I had no idea that film had faded from photography. I KNEW about digital, but I had no idea it had circumvented film. I can now afford all the cameras I drooled over as a high school kid in the 1970's.
2. The "darkroom" is probably the biggest reason (for me) to use film. It is a magical place that has no analogous counterpart in the digital realm. It is a Physical Place...it is dimly lit, like a bar or a church, and it is intimate like both. It requires much more physical labor than the digital darkroom that is a computer. It is a preference.....not a "better".
I would much prefer a Porsche RS from 1973 than whatever 911 variant exists today.....another choice.
3. There is an inconvenience with film. It takes much more space, and is much more difficult for most people to access. I would say that digital is a "better" choice for most people. Most by a big margin.....90%. at least if I had to guess.
I do not know, but I have a feeling that more people gravitate From digital and To film, than the other way around.
It is a niche market and probably (at this point) always will be. Just like my Black Powder cowboy guns and vacuum tube guitar amps. Some things just work better for a certain percent of the population. It is definitely nothing to come unglued about.
best

Click to expand...

Nice contribution CMoore; we are almost the same age - I was born in '59 and as I said in my earlier post I've recently come back to film; I have been using digital for a while and like you have the means to own the camera I always gazed into the shop window at; in my case it was the Olympus OM, and the window was Duval Studio in Chiswick, west London. All those wonderful models from all corners of the earth; the Nikons, Pentaxes and Canons from Japan, along with the Zorki and Zenit from the Soviet Union, and the Praktica from the German Democratic Republic, and the oh-so-out-of-my-range Leica and Hasselblad..... For me though the pinnacle of cameras was the Olympus OM-1, with its myriad accessories, all matching and perfect! Now, 4 decades on, the dream is reality - I have my OM-2n, pristine in black! It has a substance to it that my OM-D can only approximate, and I'm now acquiring the bits of the 'system' as I come across them; tracking these down is part of the fun for me!


The craft of film is part of the joy; the care not to soil it with fingers, or scratch the emulsion when wet, the timing, mixing of chemicals etc; it's all part of a ritual culminating in that image magically appearing on a sheet of empty white paper...... As you rightly say - not better, but a question of preference, where the human input can make a huge difference to the final 'product'. Mess it up and there's no Photoshop to make it all better...


Part of the attraction of analogue cameras is (again) the massive human input that went into the design and the construction of the camera; while I may be wrong on this score, I think a lot of the work of BUILDING the camera was done by hand, and I admire that craftsmanship - even if the person on the production line was assembling 10,20,50 units a day, an incredibly high level of precision went into each camera, regardless of where it was built, Tokyo, Dresden, or Krasnogorsk....


I also agree about the car thing you mentioned; maybe we are clouded by nostalgia or just the loss of hair,teeth etc, but the car we look at now that was built in 1973 seems to have a 'character' that is lacking in the sterile product of 2015; having said that, in the 1970's I owned 1950's cars, some older than myself, but because they had this mysterious element of 'character' and individual design where you didn't need to seek out the badge to identify the vehicle.... My personal favourite was a 1958 Vauxhall Cresta PA, bought as a semi-derelict for £25 or some ridiculous sum, and several months and a few quid later emerged from the lock-up in Rock'n'Roll pink and cream, with whitewall tyres! That drew some attention while I had it, but was sold, to be replaced by a 'sensible' Ford Granada when children started arriving..... Don't know how that happened I'm sure!

Us baby-boomers are very lucky; we have the best of our pasts to choose from as well as the present, and they can happily co-exist.

ongakublue said:

I recently posted on a digital forum about my experiences with old cameras from the late 70s and early 80s. Pre AF cameras with very few functions compared to today's cameras. I was trying to make the point that these older cameras in many ways have something better going for them than a modern full frame digital camera because the simplicity can lend itself to a different approach to creativity. I was met with very mixed reaction. Mostly negative. I suppose it's not surprising. People saying they can't be without the latest tech and so on. That older means not good enough. Which is kind of nonsense in most ways. I was also accused of trying to impress people, that I can work a camera that is only MF and so on.

People say it's the person behind the camera that is most important. I really believe that. I am just not sure many people really do.

Click to expand...

i think the reason you were met by negativity, is because you were touting film based cameras in a digital forum, you were suggesting that old was good, and
the folks there didn't really need the stuff they love to use and what their forum is about. you were met by pretty much the same reaction that people here
get greeted with when they talk about diggital rather than film. negativity, and people suggesting they take their conversation to a different forum &c.
as for behind the camera being most important, for some people this is true. but for others no so much. having xyz camera, whether you are accomplished, know all its ins and outs
or someone who uses it on auto everything / as a point and shoot &c is sometimes bragging rights. with professional film based gear at fire sale prices, it is easy for someone
to buy what used to be a 10,000$ professional system from 20 years ago for like 200$, a dream kit of goodies, and it is their first camera, they have never shot film before
it is just bragging rights, bling or whatever ... others. a lot of people forget the camera doesn't do much, the optics don't really do much but the person who uses it does it all.
its not hard to find threads here on apug all about the gear ...
but that's ok people like what they like, and they are having fun, whether it is with SVG or CHIP...

have fun with your fun-stuff.
john

I don't totally trust my warm 'n fuzzy memories of the past because those memories tend to be a best-of compilation!

Suffice to say that I appreciate what film can still do for me, some of which can be really expensive to do digitally, assuming that the digital analog exists at all. Wouldn't an affordable Fujifilm digital 6x9 rangefinder camera be nice!

4season you do have a point to a certain extent - in my post #95 I indulged in a sepia-tinted version of my younger years; however from a UK perspective, the administration of this country was certainly less 'greedy' back then in terms of maximising revenue by attempting to redistribute wealth from 'us' to 'them' using any means, covert or overt; whether by over-zealous enforcement of parking regulations or 'clever' locations of speed cameras etc etc. You get the situation?

I am too-painfully aware that I will never recapture my youth, health, flexible joints and so on, but I do have photographic equipment that not only can produce some wonderful images, but puts an immense grin on my face too! Just to establish that I'm not a total nostalgic; we have a late-model Volvo rather than a model T; and the computer doesn't run Windows for Workgroups 3.11

Trabant Dave said:

...
but I do have photographic equipment that not only can produce some wonderful images, but puts an immense grin on my face too! ...

Click to expand...

Right. As a student in 1971, I could barely afford my one and only camera: a Pentax SP500. Nowadays, cameras I could only dream about are affordable. Yet, the very basic cameras such as a Nikon F or Pentax Spotmatic seem to be growing in appeal.

Theo Sulphate said:

Right. As a student in 1971, I could barely afford my one and only camera: a Pentax SP500. Nowadays, cameras I could only dream about are affordable. Yet, the very basic cameras such as a Nikon F or Pentax Spotmatic seem to be growing in appeal.

Click to expand...

People want to remember their youth. A 50cc sports moped from the mid-1970s can cost £5000, whereas a superbike from the same era can be had for a few hundred, in spite of costing five times the amount at the time. It's a desire to turn the clock back to a time when things were simpler and you didn't need 200 mph or 40 megapixels to be cutting edge.

Nostalgia-it's a wonderful pastime. I think many times that's why I enjoy the cameras I do like the Nikon F, F2A, Leica rangefinders and film. I remember the advent of transistor radio, color and solid state TV, the pill, panty hose and the demise of the drive-in theater but, I won't go through all that. Many here recall the same things and we loved those times...simpler indeed. Precious memories.