Simpler Cameras

[blockend]

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

There are very few simple digital cameras, unfortunately. Less is definitely more, cost wise.

Yes unfortunately! The simple cameras are more expensive because so few people want them.

 

[Trabant Dave]

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

 

[Chan Tran]

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

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)

 

[ongakublue]

Yes unfortunately! The simple cameras are more expensive because so few people want them.

That's interesting indeed that the simpler full frame digital cameras styled on old slrs and rangefinders are so expensive. It just shows how much people will spend to have digital even though the cost of processing film becomes hardly a major consideration when you think about some of the prices on these models. Maybe those cameras have a prestige element to them or I don't know what. But I doubt the high ISO performance or the immediacy is enough reason. (But I think that in general. I don't mind waiting. I don't mind spending some money on processing every month (the cost of a meal out for two here), when I had digital, not once did I shoot with ISO above 800 - Odd as that may sound ) As for the supposed sharpness of digital. I gladly lose that in portrait and street work. No need for clinical look. Better without.

But I see myself veering in the direction of digital vs film now too. It's easy to happen Simpler cameras though would be my first choice in any case.

 

[DWThomas]

[ ... ] 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

Ho ho, Ken hits a nerve here!

Feature creep is out of control. "Face recognition" anyone? :munch:

The instruction manual for my Perkeo II is 32 pages.
The instruction manual for my Canon A-1 has 90 pages -- and it has multiple auto-exposure modes.

The instruction manual for my Canon G15 is 316 pages! Worse yet, as far as I know it is only available as a digital file -- so maybe I need a tablet if I want to carry the manual with me?!

(I had a 1961 VW Bug back in the day of 6V electrical systems. Yes, I know a lot about adapting!)

EDIT: By gosh, I just emailed myself a copy of that manual and picked it up on my iPhone --- I can actually read it --- barely. Damn, there goes another excuse to buy a tablet!

 

[Paul Howell]

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?

Ken[/QUOTE]

A complex camera can be as simple or even more so than a Spotmatic , my wife used 35mm point and shoots for years, as a trained artist and art director composition comes to like a duck to water. She move to digital but wanted to return to film, loaded Kodakcolor in a Minolta Maximum 600, set it P mode, no different than a point and shoot expect it has interchangeable lens.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I think comparing digital to film is like comparing oil to watercolor and, therefore, is meaningless.

Meanwhile most people use smart phones.

 

[blockend]

Although camera clubs aren't my thing - too many uninformed opinions, too much competition - when I come across them at county shows I'm always pleased to see they insist on prints from those who compete. If digital photography always finished in a print I'd feel more positively towards it. For one thing it would end in a tangible artefact to be passed around or kept in an album, for another users would see they didn't need 40 megapixels to make a photo - some of the best I saw at a recent show were from 6mp cameras.

There were also a good percentage of silver prints. I wonder if any clubs still have their own darkrooms?

 

[Alan Gales]

I think comparing digital to film is like comparing oil to watercolor and, therefore, is meaningless.

Meanwhile most people use smart phones.

I'd say it's more like comparing oil to acrylics. I've painted with all three and watercolor is more difficult than acrylic paint. With acrylic paint it is easy to let dry and paint over to fix your mistakes. Kind of like chimpiing.

 

[Nathan King]

There are several things I always look for in a camera that are, in my mind, not open to compromise. 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. Few cameras designed after the mid-1980's are of such simple design.

I am no technological neophyte, in fact I have a degree in electronics technology. No matter how much I try, that stream of creative consciousness going through my mind while photographing becomes interrupted by diving into a menu or remembering which function button paired with which control wheel does what. Once that train of creative thought is interrupted it often does not come back, so a very simple camera that doesn't call attention to itself tends to nurture my creativity best. I've sold everything aside from two simple bodies, one SLR and one rangefinder, and have never been happier.

 

[Alan Gales]

Love him or hate him I do agree with Ken Rockwell when he says the best cameras are the ones that get out of your way and just let you concentrate on photography.

I've always been a KISS fan. No, not the band. Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

[blockend]

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? I want a dial to be an index of something, a visual representation of more or less aperture, shutter, film speed, preferably with clicks! On the other hand my kids can get into sub menus in the time it takes me to find the button.

 

[Nathan King]

I agree, but maybe its a generational thing?.

I'm 29 years old, so perhaps it's not. SURPRISE!!

 

[ColColt]

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

The F3 was introduced in 1980.

 

[fdonadio]

I agree, but maybe its a generational thing?

I'm 29 years old, so perhaps it's not.

38 years old here. Same preference.

I must add I don't like feedback on a screen or in the viewfinder, but in the button/dial/control itself.

 

[segedi]

narsuitus - my first AF SLR was a Nikon 70. I used it on Program mode for a while until I realized most of the photos were not what I wanted - frankly, I was using it as a P&S and my photos were awful. I found aperture priority mode to my liking and my photos improved.

blockend - I agree. The device is just that, it's the results that count! Though most of the photos I've hanging

CMoore - I like the double-entendre of your screenname, welcome to the crazy world of Photography!

4season - Ha! Awesome description of your fuul-frame camera

Yesterday I shot the first roll in my new to me Pentax ME Super (black body!!), my 6th film camera (+ two digital) and took the roll to get processed straight away. The guy at the drugstore photo lab counter asked if my film was "old" - I had a roll of Ektar 100. Not a familiar emulsion in Canada apparently!

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


Leaving

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


Mimicry

 

[ongakublue]

Not wanting to steer off topic but I don't think there is any problem comparing film and digital because digital has more or less taken over from film for the vast majority of people. This means it is like comparing Vinyl with mp3s which is also worthwhile. It's true they both have their good and bad points. And here obviously people favour film mostly.

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

 

[blockend]

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

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!

 

[fdonadio]

I don't think there is any problem comparing film and digital (...)

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!

And here obviously people favour film mostly.

That's why...

 

[ongakublue]

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!

Yeah good tip

 

[narsuitus]

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.


Pinhole Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr


Pinhole image by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Trabant Dave]

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)

Agree 100% Chan Tran; the looks of the OM-D attracted me to it, and then it was a 'Hey! It would be great to own and use the flagship camera I always wanted and couldn't afford!' . hence the OM-2 purchase, I had such fun in the pre-digital age with not just the taking of pictures but the developing and printing - I even managed to produce some very passable colour reversal slides with home process but simply cannot remember the film brand, which was specifically aimed at home processors - maybe someone here could jog my failing old grey cells on the name!

A particular favourite film I used in the 1970's was a German brand called Perutz, their Peruchrome produced wonderful bright but not over-saturated slides which were perfect for me capturing holiday memories; 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, and I used it a lot after Perutz disappeared from the shops - I visited East Germany in the mid-80's and came back with a Praktica BC-1 and a fair amount of OrWo film that took a couple of years to use up.......

Now I have the best of both worlds and I'll be taking both analogue and digital OM's when we go a-travelling....

 

[M Carter]

I have civilians and amateurs ask for photo advice, and I point out that - primarily - exposure is three things - shutter, aperture, and sensitivity. With film, really only two once the film is loaded. When they wrap their brains around that we can talk DOF, FOV, visual compression, motion blur.

I shoot digital for corporate clients, and pay attention to all the stuff like WB, FOV, DOF, and try to set the camera so my JPEGs will only need a levels tweak; and I shoot JPEG + RAW so key images or exposure problems can get an extra pass when needed. So lots of complexity involved in just capturing the image.

With B&W film, it's more about knowing how the shadows will render and how the highs should develop. I just don't want a lot of controls for shooting my B&W work - I'd rather mess with many image details in the darkroom. I'm happy with shutter, aperture, a couple lenses and a good flash synch. DOF preview makes me happy.

For a 35mm, I like a simple meter, and I just use that on the street or for travel. For MF in the studio, I spend far more time with packs and heads and grip equipment than the camera anyway. Give me pro power packs with dial-down, an incident meter and a flash capable spot-meter.

And I still pull polaroids of complex setups (not for exposure but for balance between lights)… I'm the guy holding a stack of 4x4 NDs in front of the lens to use the 3000p...

All this to say… digital, yeah, gimme ten pages of menus, custom function buttons, etc. Film? Gimme a 1970's era Pro-s and I'm good.