What were they thinking??? (rant)

jernejk · Jul 23, 2010

It seems it's all Oskar Barnack's fault. He put shutter dial on the body, not on the lens, as god intended.

This

is how cameras should be operated, isn't it? Aperture and shutter should be together, which enables constant Ev by simply turning both dials. And, lens absolutely should have DOF scale for different f-stops. I mean, at least the later is the foundation of photography, isn't it?

Well, they managed to push these

down our throats.

Why on earth did we accept that? My guess is, it was pre-digital equivalent of "megapixel madness". Fill it with features, sell it to the masses.

Ok, I accept the "P" mode. It's fair. Use evaluative metering to get a decent exposure for shots where the moment is everything.
But what on earth is the purpose of Tv and Av? If i want to control my exposure, I HAVE to take different readings and set exposure compensation anyway, so it's actually the same as simply shooting in manual mode at the first place.

And even dials wouldn't be all that bad, if manual mode would let me keep my exposure value constant, and simply choose any of the equivalent settings (probably some bodies do, my current don't).

But the true sin (which is the consequence of using dials in the first place) is taking away DOF scale. They basically sacrificed the basic tool every photographer needs to implement features which made photography more accessible to everyman, ruining the camera in the process. How on earth did real photographers accept that?

eddym · Jul 23, 2010

There, there... Feel better now?

DWThomas · Jul 23, 2010

Well I don't suppose you wanted any logical counter argument but I have a camera with a "mode" dial close to identical to the one you show and I use Av and Tv a fair amount. The lower half with all the little icons could disappear and I wouldn't notice. I often use Av when photographing a series of objects where I want decent depth of field. I set the aperture, the camera figures out the exposure. I've also used Tv to force the camera to do nasty things to maintain a high shutter speed to reduce motion blur while blazing away documenting ceramics workshop demos and such. I consider it 'semi-automatic" and relatively useful.

Now Zeus forbid you ever try to set focus by estimating and setting the distance in that little window! And yes, I'll bet these days when they could put a few megabytes of programmed memory in the beasties, they could easily have a button to push to bring up a depth of field scale on the LCD indicators -- they could even offer a user programmable circle of confusion!

Anyway, progress always seems to be a two-way street.

"Hope you feel better now."

BradS · Jul 23, 2010

Get a real camera and quit tur bitchin

Sirius Glass · Jul 23, 2010

jernejk said:
It seems it's all Oskar Barnack's fault. He put shutter dial on the body, not on the lens, as god intended.

The only thing wrong is your perception.

Real cameras like Hasselblads have apertures and shutter speeds on the lens so that they can be linked or unlinked to the EV setting. That way, if the shutter in one lens has a problem, one can change lenses and continue photographing while the first lens gets repaired.

[You may remove your foot from your mouth now.]

Steve

jernejk · Jul 23, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
Real cameras like Hasselblads have apertures and shutter speeds on the lens so that they can be linked or unlinked to the EV setting. That way, if the shutter in one lens has a problem, one can change lenses and continue photographing while the first lens gets repaired.

While that's the reason, they could implement it differently and discard this quite usable feature, don't you think?

Sirius Glass · Jul 23, 2010

jernejk said:
While that's the reason, they could implement it differently and discard this quite usable feature, don't you think?

No. The Hasselblad V Series uses leaf shutters rather than focal plane shutters*. The 1600 and 1000 series which was made until 1957 had a focal plane shutter but they were too unreliable and fragile. Leaf shutters have some advantages, for example, the guide number for a strobe is the same at all shutter speeds and all speed are synced. Focal plane shutters are very limited in choices of shutter speeds with strobes.

With the Hasselblad V Series, once the EV is set, the aperture and shutter are linked. Rotating the two together keeps the same exposure [for a faster shutter speed, the lenses is opened one stop, ... et cetera]

Steve

* skip the discussion on the 200 and 2000 series for now. Just keep it to basics for now please.

lns · Jul 23, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
The only thing wrong is your perception. Real cameras like Hasselblads have apertures and shutter speeds on the lens so that they can be linked or unlinked to the EV setting.....]

Steve

Isn't that what he said? I read him as preferring the Hasselblad/Zeiss design, with shutter speed on the lens, to the Barnack/Nikon/etc. design of shutter speed on the camera body.

The Hasselblad lenses are so large it's easy to rotate both shutter speed and aperture dials, and I do love the linked EV. But I also prefer having shutter speed controls on the body of 35mm cameras. The lenses of 35mm cameras, especially those designed by Barnack, are much smaller. Too many dials on a small lens would be hard to fiddle with. Maybe that's why most 35mm cameras are designed as they are, and not as Hasselblads are.

I do agree with the OP about how helpful it is to have a depth of field scale. That's another reason I like manual film cameras and manual focus lenses. But let's face it, the vast, vast majority of camera buyers want cameras that do everything for them, and probably only a very few even understand what depth of field is.

-Laura

stillsilver · Jul 23, 2010

Since this is the 35mm page, I won’t mention that no LF lenses have DOF scales .

Mike

Q.G. · Jul 23, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
No. The Hasselblad V Series uses leaf shutters rather than focal plane shutters*. The 1600 and 1000 series which was made until 1957 had a focal plane shutter but they were too unreliable and fragile. Leaf shutters have some advantages, for example, the guide number for a strobe is the same at all shutter speeds and all speed are synced. Focal plane shutters are very limited in choices of shutter speeds with strobes.

There are a few issues with that.

First, let's say: more limited.
Some (35 mm format) focal plane shutter cameras sync up to speeds not (or if only by a stop) slower than most leaf shutter lenses.

Focal plane shutters (almost) all offer faster speeds than all leaf shutters, and that would make the leaf shutter more limited.

The guide number of a flash does not depend on what type of shutter you use.

And i have a few 1000-series cameras that still work pretty well, thank you!

Sirius Glass said:
With the Hasselblad V Series, once the EV is set, the aperture and shutter are linked. Rotating the two together keeps the same exposure [for a faster shutter speed, the lenses is opened one stop, ... et cetera]

They are only linked when you want to, so "can be linked" would be more accurate.

Sirius Glass said:
* skip the discussion on the 200 and 2000 series for now. Just keep it to basics for now please.

The 200/2000-series have the shutter speed ring where the OP wants it to be too.

Just like Olympus OM cameras: Jernejk, all you have to do is pick a proper camera!

Sirius Glass · Jul 23, 2010

Q.G. said:
There are a few issues with that.

First, let's say: more limited.
Some (35 mm format) focal plane shutter cameras sync up to speeds not (or if only by a stop) slower than most leaf shutter lenses.

I answered the basic question as simply as possible and not fill in all the detail in one post. Yes, that is true, but the issue is not leaf versus focal plane, it is why is the shutter speed on the barrel. Not everyone has the large photographic background that you do. If a short question is answered directly then there is less chance that the thread will get hijacked.

Q.G. said:
Focal plane shutters (almost) all offer faster speeds than all leaf shutters, and that would make the leaf shutter more limited.

See answer above.

Q.G. said:
They are only linked when you want to, so "can be linked" would be more accurate.

Again, I was conveying the concept, not writing a Hasselblad manual.

Q.G. said:
The 200/2000-series have the shutter speed ring where the OP wants it to be too.

Again my answer was not a tutorial on the Hasselblad, rather answered the question as to why the shutter speed was on the lens. Therefore I footnoted* that I did not want to confuse the OP about the V Series which does include the 200 and 3000 series, just refer to the V Series as the 5XX for simplicity. If I wanted to give a complete tutorial, I would have provided a link to Hasselblad Historical.

Steve

*The footnote was placed there to avoid this part of the discussion, not to provide an opportunity to raise the post count.

Q.G. · Jul 23, 2010

Well, Steve. I think you had just brought up a few points that were neither relevant nor correct.

And i don't understand wanting to exclude cameras that do have the shutter speed ring where the OP says it should be from the discussion.
And besides: what confusion would that be? Between cameras that have the shutter speed setting where the OP wants it to be and cameras that have the shutter speed setting where the OP wants it to be?

Rol_Lei Nut · Jul 24, 2010

I never did accept that.... All my cameras & lenses have "real" speeds on a dial and DOF scales.
I've simply stayed away from the "techno-gadget" cameras and brands. ;-)

thisismyname09 · Jul 24, 2010

I don't mind having the shutter speed dial on the body; it's actually more logical than it being on the lens in the case of a camera with a focal plane shutter. I cannot understand why the aperture would ever be anywhere but on the lens barrel, however.

Rick A · Jul 24, 2010

Lets not forget the OM' s that have the shutter speed dial set at the lens mount where it feels as if its part of the lens, and naturally convenient for one handed operation of aperture and shutter speed. Why are we comparing Hassys to any 35mm here, thats an apples to grapefruit discussion.

Q.G. · Jul 24, 2010

ralnphot said:
Lets not forget the OM' s that have the shutter speed dial set at the lens mount where it feels as if its part of the lens, and naturally convenient for one handed operation of aperture and shutter speed. Why are we comparing Hassys to any 35mm here, thats an apples to grapefruit discussion.

No, it isn't.
It's not even a comparison. Just a summing up of cameras that have the shutter speed setting thingy where the OP wants it to be.

I had mentioned the OMs, by the way.

macrorie · Jul 24, 2010

The Nikkormats came pretty close to having the shutter speed control on the lens barrel.

ic-racer · Jul 24, 2010

We could even rant about the Japanese cameras where the aperture and focus ring scales go the wrong way

Q.G. · Jul 24, 2010

ic-racer said:
We could even rant about the Japanese cameras where the aperture and focus ring scales go the wrong way

Yes... What were they thinking!

John_Nikon_F · Jul 24, 2010

And, we could also rant about the fact that this thread seems to be more medium format camera oriented than 35mm oriented.

If you want something Hassy-like with 35mm gear, get a Nikomat or a Nikkormat FT series body. If you grip the shutter speed ring and the meter coupling ring (at least on the non-AI bodies), you can move both a stop at a time, just like the Hasselblad C lenses. I've done it, and it works well.

The Olympus cameras have one disadvantage. Aperture ring is on the front of the lens on the zukio lenses. Less convenient. With aftermarket lenses, then, yes, the Nikkormat trick works.

With respect to the focusing ring and aperture rings turning different ways, it really isn't that hard to figure out. I've shot Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Hasselblad cameras in the past, and it's pretty easy to switch back and forth.

-J

Sirius Glass · Jul 24, 2010

John_Nikon_F said:
With respect to the focusing ring and aperture rings turning different ways, it really isn't that hard to figure out. I've shot Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Hasselblad cameras in the past, and it's pretty easy to switch back and forth.

-J

IIRC Nikon and Minolta aperture rings turn in the opposite direction to open [or stop down]. That bothered me when I switched from Minolta to Nikon. Some how I learned to survive.

Steve

David Brown · Jul 25, 2010

My first 35mm slr was a Sears (Ricoh) TLS. The lens did not have a manual/auto switch for the aperture, it had two separate scales on the ring !!!

Stregone · Jul 26, 2010

I've never found DOF scales on lenses useful. A DOF scale depends on alot of things like the detail the film can capture and the viewing size and distance, not to mention the quality of the lens itself. The DOF scales on lenses are just rough guestimates that have never turned out useful to me.

Sirius Glass · Jul 26, 2010

The DOD scales are very useful if the camera does not have a range finder, for example the Voightlander Vito II. That was my first serious camera and it taught me about the hyperfocus range.

Features are only useful if you use them. If you do not use them, that is your choice. See the thread about useless features.

Steve

Rol_Lei Nut · Jul 27, 2010

Stregone said:
I've never found DOF scales on lenses useful. A DOF scale depends on alot of things like the detail the film can capture and the viewing size and distance, not to mention the quality of the lens itself. The DOF scales on lenses are just rough guestimates that have never turned out useful to me.

I have a pretty good idea of which of my lenses use which circle of confusion, as well as how "conservatively" I should use (or interpret) the DOF scales for whatever purpose (also a factor of the film I'm using and general effect desired).

If you don't use it you lose it...

What were they thinking??? (rant)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency