My take on this forum and what constitutes a CMC

<p>I've been keeping out of this one as I think its a fairly pointless argument but there is one thing I've been thinking about, and that is the quality of the images of the classic (?) cameras themselves. I think the standard of these it to say the least variable, some are excellent, works of art almost with carefully chosen backgrounds and compositions. Others seem to need more attention, especially to lighting and depth of field. I don't claim that my own are perfect by any means but we surely all have digital cameras of sufficient quality to achieve this? And isn't that what digital cameras were made for?</p>

<p>I think my Yashica GSN is a classic, yes its not truely manual. And when I use my Argus C-3 I use a modern hand held lightmeter sometimes. Personel Im glad we all have different views, I like reading about different cameras and what the owner thinks of them. Such conversations have opened up a lot of new ideas for me, about 6 months ago I bought my 1st meduim format a Ricoh Diacord. It put the zing back in me to get out and take pics.</p>

<p>I see most of the cameras discussed here as modern cameras. But then, I use a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa and a 1914 Kodak Special No.1 on a regular basis. That is, when not shooting my 4x5 with the 1914 Tessar, 1892 rapid rectilinear, or ~1860 Derogy Petzval. One of these days I will probably get a newer camera. I have my eyes open for a green Voigtlander Bergheil, circa 1932.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Just when</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like that this forum has a loosely defined definition, and a tolerant group of regulars who are pretty accepting of unique machinery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>Fair comment, <strong>Kent</strong>. I'd love to see some of your work from the Kodak Special No.1. Even some pics from the 1914 Tessar or the Derogy Petzvals would be nice. Not to mention some images <em>of</em> these fine old classics....Good luck with the green Voigtlander.</p>

<p>Hey! a duscussion about what<em> Classic Manual Cameras</em> means without anyone trying to scratch each others' eyes out. Congratulations to all and is this a record?</p>

<i>"Furthermore, expecting a poster to include a cameras history in every single post that is submitted with photos from that camera is really quite ludicrous. The historical and technical information of most of the cameras here have been posted many times over in this very forum [...]<br>Im not going to submit a write up like this every time I post photos from my XE here. It would be silly and redundant. [...]<br>This forum is about old film cameras, their history and their survival."</i><br><br>In short, sometimes people do not have time, skill or the opportunity to write a post that is about <i>"old film cameras, their history and their survival"</i>. And sometimes it would be redundant to write a post about <i>"old film cameras, their history and their survival"</i>.<br>Then why post anyway in a <i>"forum [that] is about old film cameras, their history and their survival"</i>?<br>Would you suggest that people also not have the time, skill or opportunity to figure out that forums are devoted to a topic, and that not all posts are on topic in all forums? Or that an on-topic post being redundant would be an excuse for ignoring the topic?

<p>We're talking about all kinds of cameras here typically dated, but tolerant of most anybody or anything pesented in a relevant manner. Perhaps the longer you hang out here the more you'll see MF and LF posts and of course the inevitable where can I get film for 828 127 etc with tips on how to adapt and above all USE old cameras! I love mixing it up with old folders and mid 50s RFs. I never sneer at 80s whatever nor do I laugh at posters saying I never used a manual camera before! Spread the news there's good rockin' tonight!</p>

 

<p>I still want to get some film into my 1941 Kodak Medalist. It takes 620 but I think I will try to respool 120 onto a 620 spool. Have to find a 620 spool first! </p>

<p>I've seen this forum break into two, now there is the Modern Film Cameras forum, which seems to mean AF 35mm bodies. Classic Manual Cameras means no AF for the most part, but a camera like the Nikon FE2, with electronic shutter and battery only operation, is still a Classic Manual Camera. </p>

Dave on the off chance you can't find a 620 spool sometimes you will find a seller with badly outdated 620 film. Just toss

the film if it's really old or maybe check thrift shops for Kodak Brownies. Sometimes a 620 spool may have been left inside

.

<p>Mike, thanks, I had planned to just buy a cheap 620 camera and retrieve the spool from it. Probably next year when I go to the yearly camera swap meet near Seattle. Should find one easily there.</p>

<p>David S. - exactly! I like to hear why someone purchased a particular older camera.</p>

<p>My first TLR was the Mamiya C330..because of the interchangeable lens system. I purchased my Ciro-Flex primarily because it was manufactured in Delaware, Ohio...a few miles due North of Columbus. I have a major client in Pataskala a few miles due east of Columbus. The fact the Ciro-Flex is a TLR and cost me $12.50 + shipping were a bonus.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

<p>Q.G., Im not even going to pretend to follow your previous response above. Its convoluted and not only selectively quotes my text (which I dont mind) but it selectively quotes the <em>ideas</em> behind my text (which I mind very much). A good parallel here is how the Nazi's pulled certain quotes from the writings of Nietzsche to justify their idea of a master race. Granted, our little discussion is nowhere as important or historical as that worldwide tragedy but the premise is exactly the same. I can only discern some small logic in your last paragraph in which you seem to be continuing along with the assumption that people are mis posting stuff in CMC. Sorry, but administrater Josh has weighed in on this and the forum is working fine as he sees it. And thats good enough for me and most everybody here. I really think your the odd man out on this one.</p>

<p>To everyone else, I must apologize for feeding the troll. Im really very sorry. Truly, I am.</p>

<p>Now, <em>moving on...</em></p>

<p>Someone mentioned that a good dividing point they see in the Grey Area of the late 70's and early 80's (which someone else quite elegantly mentioned as the time cameras started to get a brain stem) is the inclusion of Auto Focus. While there is some debate on how 'manual' a cameras functions have to be for it to be worthy of CMC it seems we all agree the presence of Auto Focus on a camera pretty much damns it to hell as far as that goes. I completely concur with this. Im sure some of you dont, and thats fine to.</p>

<p>I would have no problem posting any old film camera in CMC that is based around a series of manual focus lenses. Whatever automation the camera has is secondary in nature to the much more important and easily discernible fact of whether the camera can <em>focus itself</em>.</p>

<p>For instance, I would have no problem posting (and I have) something on the Minolta X-700 here. Yes its plasticky, yes it has every type of AE under the sun, but it is at the tail end of the great Minolta manual focus camera line beginning way back with the original SR7 (if I remember that correctly). Its definitely not a modern film camera and for the aforementioned reasons it does not fit very well in the Sony/Minolta forum either.</p>

<p>Speaking of that, I think a neat idea would be to consolidate all the old film camera lines back into CMC, or another new forum (such as 35mm Film Cameras). Mark Cooper elegantly pointed this out in his original post with his observation that the Nikon forum has become centered around the digital Nikons, with the occasional post on the film stuff. Its this very reason I dont post Minolta manual focus posts in the Sony/Minolta forum. So bring all the Nikon film cameras back home. Same with the FD line, same with the Pentax line. Bring all the old film stuff together in one place. With such a new forum in place CMC could then become the elitist, country club forum for the "Truly Great Classic Manual Cameras" that some of you <em> </em>seem to want it to be.</p>

<p>These are just some ideas. I dont expect any of it to actually change the forum. But it seems that while CMC flourishes (with posts from all kinds of old equipment) the other satellite forums that cater to a specific brand or niche era are suffering from fewer and fewer post. Just an observation, and it could be entirely wrong.</p>

<p>Good discussion everyone.</p>

David,<br><br>You mentioned the Nazis, so by good internet tradtion, you lose.<br><br>There's nothing convoluted about my reply to your post. It's about being on topic.<br>You however have tried to argue in many convoluted ways that there is no need to heed that thing called "topic".<br>Clearer now?<br><br>See (the rest of your post) how interesting CMC can be if people do stay on topic? If people spend some time asking themselves and each other why a certain camera would be at home in CMC?<br> See also how different that is from posting thingies like "Hey! I got a [ _ ]* and here are some pictures of the mail man's bike to proof it!"?<br>See how, while ignoring the topic - because you say so - is a bore and pain, sticking with it is the exact opposite of that?<br><br><br>(* The reference may be lost to some: "_" is code for "any inconsequential thing", the Don't Care Variable.)

<p>I fail to understand why the gray-area isn't eliminated completely by saying all cameras mentioned here have to be usable without a battery. Anything else is modern. Konica Autoreflex T3 = classic. Minolta XD-11 = classic. Minolta X-700 = modern.</p>

<p>This simplifies things quite a bit, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Wolfeye - my FE is usable without the battery. At only one shutter speed. Do you wish the camera to be fully functional without battery? Or, partially usable?</p>

<p>Another question. I use my Ciro-Flex fully manual TLR with a digital zoom spot meter. Is that cheating? Or, should I use with a light meter of the Ciro-Flex era, if available?</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

<p>So where does the Hasselblad I'm looking at fit in? It's got a C/M mirror box, A12 magazine, Black 150mm Sonnar, a late 45 degree metering prism and a plastic lever wind salvaged from an aquaintance's dead 'F' series. So its construction dates range from late 'sixties to early 'nineties - and it has a battery in it!</p>

<p>Do we need a FrankenKamera forum?</p>

<p>:-)))</p>

<p>Josh Root already set up the Modern Film Cameras forum to better define the two types. A modern film camera has AF, integrated motor drive, and is wholly battery dependent. Classic Film Cameras are usable with or without battery, but do not have AF or an integral motor drive. <br>

I think the Nikon FE2 fits into the Classic Film Cameras forum as it has manual film advance and no AF operation. The Nikon F100 fits into the Modern Film Cameras forum because it does have these things. <br>

Even the Nikon F needs a battery to be able to meter the scene, and nobody would call it a modern film camera.</p>

<p>If in doubt, there is always the "Alternative Film Cameras" forum...</p>

<p>Just to wrap this up, here are the forum definitions from the Classic and Modern film camera forums:</p>

<p>Classic:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The name of this forum is "Classic Manual Cameras" with the goal that it encompass all cameras up to the electronic/autofocus era. If it's manual (or mostly manual), it probably has a home in this forum. Although, obviously, some camera systems are probably better served in their respective forums (Canon FD, Leica, or Medium Format being good examples). But you get the point.</p>

<p><strong>Keep in mind</strong>, there are going to be exceptions and judgement calls on this sort of thing. The Canonete QL17 GIII requires batteries to run. And yet we all would agree that this 30+ year old camera would qualify as a classic and be fine for discussion here. The Nikon FE2 is considered by many to be a classic (25+ years old), but there is a decent chance that a thread about it will get moved to the Nikon forum as that is a better place for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Modern:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The name of this forum is "Modern Film Cameras" with the goal that it encompass all electronic AE and/or AF cameras. If it uses film and requires batteries to run, it probably has a home in this forum (and this includes point and shoot cameras). It is important to note that there are existing photo.net forums that cover many of these cameras. For example, if you have a Canon EOS Elan II, you are very likely to find the answer to your question in the Canon EOS forum. In fact, due to it's large size and activity, you are probably significantly more likely to find your answer there. But you do not HAVE to ask your Elan question in the EOS forum. You can ask here. However, please do NOT post your question in both forums. Make a choice and stick with it please.<br>

<br /><strong>Keep in mind</strong>, there are going to be exceptions and judgment calls on some of the topics in this forum. A question about using a particular lens on a Nikon film body might go well here. But a question about the difference between two current vintage Nikon lenses will be better served in and may be moved to the regular Nikon forum as it doesn't have anything to do with use on a "Modern Film Camera" specifically. Part of using this forum is accepting that you understand that. Organization is part of what allows photo.net to be as helpful of a resource as it is.</p>

</blockquote>