'classic' digital an oxymoron?

Classic cameras are more than just old cameras; they're a set of tools

enjoyed by a particular crowd of users (we geeks). I despair as to

what things are going to be in the future given the continual rise of

digital. I'm not against newfangled digital cameras per se (I bought

my fiancee one for xmas); digital has advantages like:

 

1. perfect sensor flatness

 

2. no need to wait for film to be developed

 

3. no need to spend hours photoshopping out scratches on one's negs

 

4. adjustable ISO on the same "roll" (card)

 

But...

 

My Kodak Medalist (converted to 120 by Ken Ruth -- highly recommended

btw) gives me negs that, when scanned, let me have 70 MP images to

play around with and enlarge as I please. Even when the technology

gets there for pro-cameras, it'll be vastly out of my budget, AND,

being modern electronics, by the time the pros have moved on to their

gigapixel cameras, the "old" 70MP cameras won't be serviced by anyone,

will take obsolete media, and have very little lifespan left in them.

 

As more moves to digital, those of us who use pro-level, obsolete,

"classic" equipment will be more and more s*** out of luck. When you

add in the steady increase in cost of tiny-market 'vintage' film types

(my beloved Impressa 50 is already unavailable at any price,

Kodachrome 25 is a memory, Tech Pan's disappearing, etc.), where are

we Luddite amateurs going to be in 50 years? Locked out of the new

'good stuff' and unable to afford to use the old 'good stuff'? Will

Ikontas, Medalists and their ilk be only for the well-heeled?

I do firmly believe that this will end up like the CD/vinyl market, and that film

will be available for a long time, at a premium price, but acknowledged as

having a distinct (and perhaps superior) look. I have a fantasy of a thin CCD

sensor which you can fit in a film camera, with a Bluetooth transmitter that fits

where the film spools would go, allowing us to take advantage of the great

lenses and heft of old cameras, but give us the option of seeing the results

instantaneously.

I don't normally post on the MF, LF, or classic camera forums. But, here goes...

 

For people that just like film and old cameras, I don't think you'll have to worry about it in your lifetime. Film will be available, at the least, as a specialty item.

 

The only thing that I'm concerned about is an upper limit on the quality of lenses. I don't think a 70MP sensor in a 35mm (or APS-C) format makes much sense, since the glass won't take advantage of it. I'm positive that, before too long (perhaps 5-10 years), 70MP 35mm or APS-C sensors will be available and relatively inexpensive. But, what's the point if my lens will only resolve 20MP? And, I don't expect MF sized sensors to be affordable for a LONG time. And, I doubt any of us will ever see LF size sensors.

How many actually did use a proper glass to make use Techpan's resolution? Why bother if you get 70 or 700 MP scans out a fixed lens camera? If someone likes their folders, all the power to him/her for collecting and using such classics. They have their place and use.

 

These were not "pro"equipment even 20 years ago. They are not now and they will not be in the future

you guys better check with Iggers if you can even discuss something made post 1970 !!!

I don't know who Iggers is, but we are; we're talking about the usefulness of classic cameras 50 years from now -- whether or not digital will make classic cameras no longer an option.

James,

 

I also thought your post here was a bit odd. There are many of us here who do own classics and as well use modern digital cameras. Each has its place. Whether or not something becomes a "classic"is hardly predictable. Lot of the box cameras from yesteryears have become highly sought after collectables, regardless of the fact if they actually can be used to make any photographs or not.

 

I very much like the friendly, non-confrontational and highly informed participants/their contributions here.

 

I would ask you to consider that.

 

Vivek.

 

Re: Daniel Iggers, just browse through this forum..

Folders suffer from alignment issues; performance varies alot with camera condition and build quality. The old Vigilant 620 here from circa 1947 is a pro quality over about a 5x5cm area; of the 6x9cm image. It is in the league of Rollei TLR or Blad in the central core; and will make an outstanding 11x14 or 16x20 print; in the cropped central region. Yjr Medalist has an outstanding lens; of pro quality; over a wide range of the big negative. It will consistantly shoot a sharp image; because of the robust helix. A folder can be used to shoot pro work; IF you have the experience to use a folder that is aligned; and not a bent mess with a tilted lens.

I think I only said "out loud" what other members also were thinking: its not appropriate to post for sale listings of non-classic cameras here. Like smoking cigars on elevators and telling filthy jokes at church, its not appropriate.

Some of my classics *were* pro equipment -- no, not 20 years ago, but when they were new. My Moskva-5 is a model that was used by news photographers throughout the Soviet Union from its 1959 manufacture until the communist regime fell. My Zeiss Ideal plate camera was a solid press camera, the European inspiration for the Speed Graphic. And there have been lots of prizes won and front pages illustrated with the output of a Pentax Spotmatic.

 

That I can afford these, 30 to 80 years after they passed from greatness, has more to do with the passing of fashion than with surpassing their performance; the Tessar in my Ideal will record to the limits of my scanner's resolution, all over a negative a dozen times the size of a full 35 mm sensor; even my older scanner will deliver 88 megapixels from 9x12 cm film (and a modern, high quality scanner can likely deliver better than 150 MP from the same film, still without exhausting the resolution and sharpness of the Tessar). With the Skopar I received today in place of its original Radionar, my Kawee Camera should be able to provide similar performance on the very same film, in a package that will fit in a coat pocket when folded (and three film holders in the other pocket).

 

My Spotmatic, with the legendary Super Takumar glass, will deliver higher resolution than that, though the small negative is a handicap -- but it holds 36 exposures, has a built-in meter (that still works), interchangeable lenses, and is a pure joy to operate.

Oh good lord -- the hand-wringing digital vs. film debate has made its insidious appearance on the classic forum.

 

The one thing about photography is that it will continue to be an expensive hobby. So whether you're spending it on buying truckloads of classic cameras + film and processing or overpriced, overhyped digital bodies + lenses + DVD storage or huge disk arrays for mirroring your images, you're always going to be paying something.

 

At a certain point, it makes no sense to make huge MP sensors, because of the time it takes to write these files to a memory card. The DVD is quickly becoming the preferred media to store images. CDs are quickly becoming inadequate -- the industry will quickly need another proven permanent storage medium, which should take several years to prove itself, standardize and become affordable.

 

I was chatting with a Sports Illustrated photographer last month. They all use Canon 1D Mark II, and the magazine requires them to shoot RAW + JPG. One of the things that really bothers them is the buffer limit. They can pop off at most 7 or 8 shots, which in sports photography isn't nearly enough, before they have to wait for the camera to write the images to the card.

 

Now advance the technology to a 20MP image, for example, and unless the memory card technology make a huge leap, it makes the camera unusable for certain types of photography.

 

We'll all be dead in 75 years or less, and someone else will be either throwing our cameras into the trash or buying them on some dopey online auction. There simply is not enough free time in my own life to worry about "sky if falling" film nonsense [even though I managed to pontificate much too long here].

I agree with Aaron and Mike - not in our lifetimes. There's just too many technological hurdles that digital has to clear before it can do everything film does and then do it better and then do it cheaper, which is what must happen to make film obsolete. Alot of chanting you hear about the death of film is no more than orchestrated market hype aimed at the casual consumer and it really has been going on for years now.

 

A more realistic concern is the diminishing silver content in films or the discontinuation of certain films once they fall out of popular fashion. AFAIC there is still more choices in film out there than I'll ever get around to using. And as far as digital is concerned I'm looking forward to the day when someone designs a digital back for all my 6x9 and 3x4 plate cameras.

Digital scan backs for 4x5 have been around for almost 10 years. I doubt they will even be dirt cheap in cost.

A ~~20 megapixel digital back capture would be superior to a 70mb MF scan in most technically important aspects.

 

I enjoy shooting film myself, but *not* for its mythic edge in quality over digital.

Honestly, I shoot with classics for no more reason than fun. Yes, many classics are capable of exceeding the quality of any digital system. Yes, film costs and processing adds-up and will probably get more expensive in the future. Yes, digital is darned convenient and can produce excellent image quality. Yes, the classics are often slower and less convenient to operate than modern cameras.

 

BUT there is something about taking a broken and tired treasure from the past, restoring it to its former glory, and seeing that first negative. This will never happen with the majority of digital cameras. Their construction and electronics are throw-away, mass produced to meet a cheap price. I doubt many will be properly functioning in 10 years, never mind collectable. I think most will be collected by landfill owners.

Jean-Loup Sieff, a famous French photographer, said once : "a good photographer is a photographer who can make a good photograph with a matchbox - family model - that has an hole in it. Rather making good pictures with a folding made in the twenties than beeing totally submerged by the labyrinth of the technology of a modern camera. Master the beast, don't be its foolish slave".

 

Isn't it still true ? Whatever we use, just think of one thing : the images. I like some of mine that have been made with a classic. Some others are not good. I like some of mine that have been made with a digital camera, and quite frankly, if at that time I had had a classic in hand, would have the picture been so different ?

 

Thinking of a nonsense post I recently read, attached is the proof showing that you can ALSO make good pictures of a black cat, with a digital camera (Canon Powershot G5, 380EX flash upwards oriented).

 

Using a classic just for using a classic is nonsense. Think of the images. Using a classic that will deliver THAT special image rendition as a BONUS to a GOOD and INTERESTING image must be the goal.

I'm closer to Mike Kovacs' point of view than to Nicholas'. First of all, for me photography with classic cameras is a HOBBY. Its purpose in my life is to entertain, refresh, sooth, re-create, etc. If it's providing stress, then it's not fulfilling its purpose. For example, I shoot a lot with Kodachrome. (This is a personal choice, not a recommendation for others; Scott Eaton, please don't disrespect my personal choices!) I KNOW we're in the final twilight of Kodachrome, and I intend to enjoy it while it lasts, then move on. I've been checking out E100G and E100GX to that purpose. I'm not going to subject myself to great angst over Kodachrome's impending demise, because that's stress, and that defeats the purpose of the hobby. I'll shoot whatever is available for as long as I can afford it. When there's no more affordable film, I'll put the cameras in a display case and find another hobby for relaxation. Probably not digital photography, because digital photography to me is all about results, not process, and I don't find that meets my criteria for a hobby.

 

Which brings me to my other point: for me, classic camera use is as much a journey as a result. It's like having old British sports cars - hardly anybody regards them as a serious and dependable form of transportation, but when they're running, they're sure as heck fun to bang around in. If I get 2-3 keepers per roll of film with my classics, I'm OK with it. The limitations of my technique and vision are probably as much at work here as anything from the old cameras. But the process is fun, the results if they're good are just an extra bonus.

 

Shoot film and be well, guys (and gals.) There's no guarantee any of us are going to be here in 50 years, anyway!

"where are we Luddite amateurs going to be in 50 years?"

 

Most of us? Pushing up daisies I suspect.

Pushing up daisies? Not me -- I'm taking my Contax IIa with me!