Simpler Cameras

[fdonadio]

Oh Man...this thread could go on forever.

That's why discussing digital x film is pointless.

 

[ColColt]

There's something soothing about the sound, the percolating in the glass, and the coffee smell.

...and, the taste. Especially when you grind your own beans.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Oh Man...this thread could go on forever.
I have about 400-500 records. Mostly of the "classic" Blues/Rock genre. About 5 years ago, I had considered selling them and replacing with CD's, but most are not worth too much money...better to keep them and I am glad I did.
Anyway.....I raised this topic on one of the guitar amp forums I belong to. I was Very Surprised when several of the members responded with.....CD's...!!??. Who buys a CD anymore. That is obsolete technology.!
Good Heavens...CD's are now (5 years ago mind) obsolete.?
I suppose I am turning into my Father. No wonder he was so happy as he got older. He was ALMOST oblivious to all the new electronic gadgets and technology. He was very happy with vinyl records, 25" tube television, percolator coffee pot, rear wheel drive cars, and I imagine.....the missionary position.
I guess ignorance is bliss

It was a sad day earlier this year when I realized my hearing has degraded with age and hard use to the point that I couldn't hear the tiny sound generated by the needle on the record.

By the way, CD's definitely are obsolete. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: the younger kids who want a hard copy of their music look for vinyl. All the stuff that's new to us is old and boring to them. The cool stuff is things like vinyl and film...and the 80s (which I find horrific..the 80s were terrible the first time around). So those kids will probably be the ones who turn into odd ecentric folks like many of us did

Because my grandmother used one, I deliberately sought out and bought a percolator coffee pot. It is my only coffee pot. There's something soothing about the sound, the percolating in the glass, and the coffee smell.

I'm still looking for a good percolator and haven't found one. I just need to dig around better I think.

-Jason

 

[MartinCrabtree]

How to find a good percolator.

 

[ColColt]

It was a sad day earlier this year when I realized my hearing has degraded with age and hard use to the point that I couldn't hear the tiny sound generated by the needle on the record.

I knew my hearing was taking a nose dive long ago but procrastinated getting it checked. I like listening to some classicals, mostly Mahler, Bruckner and Mendelssohn. I couldn't hear the soft violins in many passages despite cutting the volume up. After I did get a check up some months back I found I not only needed a hearing aid in the bad tinnitus left ear but the other one as well. Both would have cost a tad over $3K. I didn't do it...I may later.

A funny story about records. Back in 1995 I was doing a wedding and the bride wanted me to play a certain song as she walked down the isle by Celine Dion. I had never heard of her or the song. So, I went to WalMart looking for it in the music department. I looked around and couldn't find what I was looking for so asked the cashier in that section where they now kept the 45's. She looked at me and said, "Honey, where have you been? They don't sell records anymore." Several people thought it was funny but I was serious. There always were records and I couldn't believe all they had were CD's and cassettes. Time moves on for some, I suppose.

 

[fdonadio]

A funny story about records. Back in 1995 I was doing a wedding and the bride wanted me to play a certain song as she walked down the isle by Celine Dion. I had never heard of her or the song. So, I went to WalMart looking for it in the music department. I looked around and couldn't find what I was looking for so asked the cashier in that section where they now kept the 45's. She looked at me and said, "Honey, where have you been? They don't sell records anymore." Several people thought it was funny but I was serious.

Well... I would be more than serious if record companies were wasting precious vinyl with Celine Dion recordings.

 

[Mikkornat]

I just started photography. I fell into it because I found a Nikon FT2 at a garage sale and it looked like a neat item. It's got just the basic 3 settings: film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. I'm still learning how to use it and manipulate those settings. (I'm a slow learner.) I'm happy I started with film and a used camera (a $20 investment including the 50mm lens) because I'm learning the ins and outs of photography. If I had started with a DSLR with all its built in settings and modes, I probably wouldn't know half as much about photography as I do.

On the other hand, I'd be shooting a lot more because I'm having to invest time in learning how to buy, process, and print film on the cheap...

 

[mweintraub]

I just started photography. I fell into it because I found a Nikon FT2 at a garage sale and it looked like a neat item. It's got just the basic 3 settings: film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. I'm still learning how to use it and manipulate those settings. (I'm a slow learner.) I'm happy I started with film and a used camera (a $20 investment including the 50mm lens) because I'm learning the ins and outs of photography. If I had started with a DSLR with all its built in settings and modes, I probably wouldn't know half as much about photography as I do.

On the other hand, I'd be shooting a lot more because I'm having to invest time in learning how to buy, process, and print film on the cheap...

Yes! That's exactly what I try to tell people. Learn exposure, forget the other settings. I never go into my menu on my D, I prefer film cameras anyway. Ok, I lied. I go into the menu on the D to add a new non-CPU lens, that's it.

 

[Wallendo]

It is interesting how a "simple v. complex" thread morphed into an "analog v. digital" thread.

I shoot any kind of camera I can get my hands on, and generally choose the best camera for whatever it is I plan to shoot (and often take 2 or 3 with me). In some cases the right tool is a digital camera with all the automatic features and articulated screen, often it is not.

I find that shooting my simple cameras are more fun as I can stop and think about my shots. I am also less likely to be surprised than when my more automated 35mm cameras make creative choices I didn't expect.

I would expect negative comments from a digital board simply because most posters on these boards are more gear-head then photographically inclined. Before APUG, I was a frequent visitor to a brand-specific board. Although there were a few 35mm shooters, most had migrated to digital, and those who hadn't were shooting the most recent complicated 35mm cameras. People became excited when a new model was released every 6 months or so and rushed to sell their old cameras to buy the latest and greatest. This may make a little sense for a professional in a highly competitive market who actually can benefit from the latest bells and whistles (although I doubt it), but made no sense for me to replace a perfectly functioning camera that still works as well as the day I bought it 4 years ago.

One day, in a moment of unbridled lust for a full frame camera, I realized that I already owned several cameras with "full frame sensors". It was just that these "sensors" were made by Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford; not Sony. With this in mind, I slowly moved back towards mostly analog. And have progressively moved towards simpler cameras. I have also found myself visiting APUG much more than my older board, because most APUGers actually seem happy with the gear they already own.

 

[EdColorado]

It is interesting how a "simple v. complex" thread morphed into an "analog v. digital" thread.

Well this is after all Apug...

My camera collection ranges from a early 1900's up to my Nikon F5 (1996 release date), The oldest camera I use would be an Agfa Memo from 1939. It takes lovely pictures. Overall I think I prefer cameras from the 70's though, things like the Canon F1, Nikon F2, Olympus OM-1 and 2, Minolta SRT 101. At times though a "high tech" camera like the F5 can be a joy, but the older are just simpler and I like simple cameras. Its not that I'm a Luddite either, I actually really enjoy tech and spent 20 good years working high tech positions in the IT industry. My iPhone and iPad are cool and I have multiple computers around the house. I just like simple cameras.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I shoot both digital and film, 90% film, in terms of 35mm many of my cameras are from the 60s and 70s, a few are from the 50s, I don't think I have any from the 40s, no I take that back I have a new in the box C33 which needs to be serviced. I own 3 AF film systems, Sigma, Pentax, and Minolta. I like my Pentax Spotmatic and other M42 mount cameras because they are so basic, it is all about the image in the viewfinder, I use Konica because of the lens. I use either Pentax or Minolta AF when shooting sports or wildlife, the metering is so much better and my Maximum 9000 shoots 5 PFS when needed. When I do shoot digital I tend to use my older bodies as I like the look better.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

To the OP's comments:

It is a freeing experience to use my Canon FX and Minolta SR-1. Solid, well built cameras with everything necessary and almost nothing unnecessary needed to make a quality photograph.

 

[trondsi]

I don't think digital is inferior or anything, but I do know that I like using my film cameras more. I just find their mechanisms fascinating. I also have a very advanced film camera from the 90s that I use for quick images, but quite often I like the older "clockwork" models more in my hands. I have purchased a couple of batteryless light meters, so I can make images completely without worrying about batteries.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

To be honest... I observed several photogs jumping to new digital cameras. Nothing improved at all. In photography of theirs. Me included.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I recently picked up an F3. I’m liking it.

 

[CMoore]

View attachment 212838 I recently picked up an F3. I’m liking it.

.......that is quite a nice shot, BTW
I sold both of my 3's.....i am definitely an F2 Man, but you have captured the appeal of the F3 rather handsomely; if i dare to say.

 

[Russ - SVP]

.......that is quite a nice shot, BTW
I sold both of my 3's.....i am definitely an F2 Man, but you have captured the appeal of the F3 rather handsomely; if i dare to say.

Thanks. A quick grab.

 

[guangong]

I bought most of my cameras from the 50s to the 70s, the only excepts being a Hassy 2000FCM ( to replace defunk 1000F), a Minox BL (too expensive when new), a Fuji 67 folder and a Contax T3. I have also acquired and use other cameras from the 50s to 70s. My experience with the one or two cameras I have used driven by electronics is that they all die at the wrong time.
Someone has remarked that there will be no collectors of vintage 21st century cars because once the electronics and servo motors die the cars will be dead. Same can be said of “ PhD” ( Push here Dummy) cameras. Once the suppliers for the electronics stop producing a component, that’s it.
I always have anxiety about possible demise of my 2000Fcm,T3 and Fuji cameras. Couple years ago bought Hassy CM backup.
Better to have computer in head rather than in hand.

 

[John Earley]

... Once the suppliers for the electronics stop producing a component, that’s it....

I think that the idea that lenses will outlast cameras will soon be proven wrong as the electronic functions on the latest ones start to die. We have entered a "throwaway" cycle in the photo world. More reason for me to hang on to my MF Nikkors and F, F2 and Nikkormat cameras.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I think that the idea that lenses will outlast cameras will soon be proven wrong as the electronic functions on the latest ones start to die. We have entered a "throwaway" cycle in the photo world. More reason for me to hang on to my MF Nikkors and F, F2 and Nikkormat cameras.

Exactly so. About 80% of my cameras and lenses are completely manual in operation - no electronics or batteries required.

 

[jim10219]

I like the simple electronic cameras best. The Pentax Super Program is one of my all time favorites. I like having the choice between automatic and manual modes, and not having to carry a separate light meter. I'm an electronics guy, so I like working on electronic cameras better than fully mechanical (it's easier to replace a capacitor than a gear). But I don't like the late 90's cameras that have overly complex circuits, digital and software controls, or lenses with built in autofocus motors. For me, the late 80's to early 90's was the pinnacle of electronics engineering. It was before everything was controlled by software and after IC's got smaller, cheaper, and more powerful. My function generator, oscilloscope, DMM's, stereos, and just about anything else that's practical to still own are all from this era. They're the last era of electronics that are easily repaired. Most things made after that are better off replaced when broken due to too many proprietary parts.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP...hate the modern cams, as far as controls. I grew up with manual cams. I shoot manual 95% of the time. I like simple, Leica like cams. Back in the day everything was manual, it was no big deal. Now it seems to be a big deal. If you want manual you got to pay $7000. OK, Fuji is half-ass manual, but that only goes so far with their terrible focus by wire lenses.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I really like my Nikon F100 & N90s bodies. But I get more enjoyment out of shooting with my FM, FE, FE-2 and F3. And the results are every bit as good as those from my more modern cameras. I find that same enjoyment using the rangefinders too. I have yet to even own a digital camera.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I'm an electronics guy, so I like working on electronic cameras better than fully mechanical (it's easier to replace a capacitor than a gear). But I don't like the late 90's cameras that have overly complex circuits, digital and software controls, or lenses with built in autofocus motors. For me, the late 80's to early 90's was the pinnacle of electronics engineering. . . .

In some ways the pinnacle of electronics engineering came earlier. The LM (Navy) or BC-221 (Army) frequency meters were a model of performance from simple devices. I believe they were in production during WWII. The Hammarlund SP-600 multi-band radio receiver from about 1951 was better than competitor's radios before and after. In the 1960s at one small Navy unit, we were still using one piece of electronics equipment made before WWII. It was perfectly reliable except for one vacuum tube failure. A well designed four tube receiver with one rf stage and a regenerative detector performs quite well, considering its technology from the 1920s. With the advent of transistors and ICs, it became too easy to merely add components instead of making the most of a few basic elements.

 

[cooltouch]

Regarding the OPs opening comments, I quite strongly agree. I got interested in photorgraphy during the relatively early years of camera automation. I bought my first 35mm camera, thus my first real camera, in 1982. It was a Canon AE-1. It had just enough automation where I wanted more. So about a year later I bought a Canon A-1 and thought I'd arrived. Even though the A-1 was first released in 1978, it was still state of the art in 1983, and I was captivated by all those capabilities. But you know what, after using that camera for maybe a year or so I began to feel a growing sense of dissatisfaction and it was mostly because I felt that the advanced automation of the A-1 was preventing me from getting close enough to photography where I could begin to understand the basics better. So I decided to take a big step backward, and bought a Canon FTb -- a completely manual mechanical camera with only the meter requiring a battery.

What a revelation that ended up being. Finally I was learning Photography and I was loving it. But I wanted more of this non-automation, so I bought an original Canon F-1 and promptly fell in love. And I've had a love affair with the original Canon F-1 ever since. It does everything I need. It has no exposure compensation -- who needs it, when you understand exposure? No DX film coding -- why would I want that when I would often fudge my ASA dials back then (still do). It did take a giant-sized motor drive, which I did spring for, mostly just so I could keep my eye on the action without having to look away when I advanced the film. And all those interesting focusing screens and finder options -- what wasn't to love. Plus the original F-1 (and FTb) had mirror lock-up, which I actually would use with macro and long telephoto shots.

As the years went by, I reached out to other camera systems and slowly acquired cameras in these other systems, but my preferences were always for their manual mechanical models. Nikon F2s and FMs and Pentax KXes and LXes, etc. Each system had its strong points and they all helped me improve my skills as a photographer. As I acquired various cameras I also picked up the occasional "advanced" model -- like the Canon T90, I bought my wife an EOS Rebel so she'd have an easy-to-use camera to take pics of our young daughter and that got me started with EOS and its inevitable automation and complexities. But I found that, even with the EOS cameras I own, I figured out how to set them to manual mode and preferred using them that way. A few years ago I bought a Nikon F4, just to have one more than anything else, but when I use it, I usually set it to manual. I just don't see the need for all the little whizbangs and geegaws that modern cameras are festooned with. Not when I have a good grounding in the fundamentals of photography. Oh, maybe I'll relent on some things, like having a tight metering pattern or even a spot pattern available, and I'll admit that TTL flash is a nice convenience, but that's about as far as I feel I need to stretch things.