How about "Pre- 1985?" for this forum

From time to time I see this question discussed - is the pre-1970 designation

for classics still valid? I'd propose we use 1985 as a cut-off. I think that

was the year Minolta marketed the 7000, which I believe was the first true AF

SLR available to everyone. To me, 1985 is synonymous with autofocus,

polycarbonate, no thinking needed by the user- camera systems. Just a thought...

It makes sense.

How about a new catagory for 70s - 80s SLR?

Paul

To me "classic" means something quirkier than what the average Joe would hand down to a student (an option for fully manual seems still an requirement) or grab to burn the odd roll of film these days. - Would you really call a Pentax LX Nikon F3 or Canon A1 / F1n classic?

 

Who is supposed to service the electronics of an ME Super's shutter at home? - I haven't seen the heads of these asking about Minolta SRTs or x300s here bitten off, But I doubt that the spirit changed much since the forum and "pre 1970" were established.

 

And why has it got to be a camera system? - Here are fans of fixed lens (IMHO another aspect of quirky classic) cameras too.

IMHO I don't think you will find much difference in development between film cameras between 1985 until the big fade out - different brands, and different features maybe, but no great strides forward. (no flames please, we all have our favourites, just live and let live, OK)

 

So if the state of the art cameras start at 1985, those we love that are older become the classics.

 

Seems like a good idea to me.

Fine by me. Then I could include my 'classic' Nikon F2, the last

hand-assembled Nikon and last completely 'manual' camera, and last

batteryless camera.

/Clay

1970 has always been a perfect practical and intuitive cut-off for me. It is a stretch to include my Canon FTb and Rollei 35; I had always felt these were good cameras to use, but somehow feel outside of the aims of my hobby and my enthusiasms.

 

Thus the year is somehow a magic delimiter. In MY mind, anyway.

 

One practical point is that posters who say, "The blinkin-gizmo on my Panasonic super-123 camera stopped flashing" are less easily steered away, and others will be encouraged to "stretch" the contributions to 1986, 1987, or the early '90s. Somehow my questions on an Ihagee Exakta rest comfortably beside a post concerning a Topcon, but not beside posts concerning a Canon AE-1 or whatever.

I tried to raise this issue some time ago ( http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lstf ) without any success.

 

The pre-AF, pre-auto everything cameras predating the Maxxum and Canon EOS, etc. makes sense to me as a breaking point, but read the above thread for long discussion of this. It's all threshed over there at length.

 

At the end of all that, the moderators assured us that they would be lenient in tolerating 'classic', but post-1970 cameras.

I have been an advocate with "at least 30 years old", but 1985 would be fine with me. The current pre-1970 excludes the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 which I think most people would include as classics. I thank the moderators for being flexible on what constitutes a classic.

George, thanks for your suggestion which deserves open debate. Iy you had made it on the leica forum, you would now be in flames.

A valid question to raise, but the forum seems to be working very well as is.

There are a variety of of GREAT manual mechanical cameras that came out in the 1970s and they get discussed frequently enough. I do think a special forum for manual focus cameras after 1970 would be nice. As mentioned, alot of manufacturers really didn't put much into developing anything revolutionary in their equipment after 1985 or so. But if you make a forum for just manual focus post 1970 cameras, that leaves you with the entire genre of historical auto-focus cameras left out. So then you need a special forum for those... and then all of a sudden you've got two new forums instead of just making this one more inclusive. People ask questions about post 1970's cameras here all the time. Friendly members of the group answer those questions or point the poster in the direction of a different group that is better equipped to field the question. I honestly think that 1980 is a more realistic cut-off as that seems to be when heavily electronic cameras really took over. The 1970s really was a kind of hey-days in the development of both SLR's and rangefinders and it's a shame that people are discouraged from discussing some of those important cameras!

To me the current forum title is just muddled because there's a big difference between 'classic' and 'vintage'. The former is somewhat timeless in it's connotations, while the latter is a straightforward date definition. Consider: are Nikon F2 and Leica M6 'classic' or not? How about a Nikon F3/4/5/6?

 

'Classic-ness' is inevitably open to interpretation; but a date isn't, however arbitrarily it is decided upon. So, 1980 or '81 are fine by me, and 1985 is the upper limit. But ....

 

Why not just have "Vintage Film Cameras and Related Equipment (Pre-198x)" and be done? It ain't snappy, but it's unambiguous - AC

Y'know, George, we've got along just fine with the present very loose restriction. When a poster mentions cameras made long after 1970 the worst that happens is that he/she/it is teased gently. Leave well enough alone.

 

If I were king this forum would be renamed the crappy old cameras forum with crappy, old, and camera to be interpreted at the poster's discretion.

HAR HAR HAR!!!!

Wow Dan, that's a great idea.... maybe a sub section. Could also sort them by their smell (already have one for Retinas)

 

Maybe could take a leaf from the classic car people where anything over 30 years old is considered. My daughter has a '73 VW beetle and is stoked that it is a classic!

 

Tony

I dunno. Liberals and the general lack of discipline is ruining the world. I'd hate to see this bastion of rigidity go the way of, well, you know.

I think rather than a date, I would be more interested in changing the description to be XX years old. Or to do away with the "year" designation all together and come up with a description that explains the forums purpose better.

How about the "Film cameras that will operate without a battery" Forum?

Tony, in that case, I just turned classic! woohoo!

I find anything manufactured before my birth acceptable to call classic. Not everyone's a fogie here.

Lots of good thoughts here. I'm glad you all didn't make my posting personal! I just wanted to get some ideas. I do know and appreciate the fact that the moderators do allow some flexibility, because, in the end, we all may have different opinions on just what constitutes a "classic".

 

Alan- very good point re: "classic" vs. "vintage". I hadn't thought about it in that way.

 

I'd like to think of myself as a classic, but one man's definition of classic may be another's idea of an old fart!

I've never seen anyone actually shot down in flames for asking a valid question about a post 70's camera. I'd have to say that 99% of us who frequent this forum are quite tolerant of those who would be considered "off topic" and the majority of questions are answered in a civilised manner. Changing the title of the forum to "Pre-1985" brings to mind two sayings; "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT" and "LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE". Interesting post, though.

Hi,

 

The date George proposes, moreso the reason is something I considered as well. I remember this camera's release and thought too.. as for here (Classic Cameras) the beginning of the end!

Unfortuantely, there are too many hybrids and variations etc that "classic" becomes hard to define. .. Manual/cloth/electric shutters?

Aperture Priority? Electronic whatever ..is not really "NON"-Classic as some forms of electronics have been around even in the late 50s or early 60s. I haven't seen anybody kicked-out for discussing the wrong

thing. I might have seen one or two improper questions.. that didn'T get any responses for just that reason. replacement gears for autofocus lenses, cost of repalcement plastic body parts for CANON etc. Most of us seem to know the difference even if we can't define it!

Y'know, there's old and there's classic, whatever classic means. Most of the cameras discussed in this forum are old, were near the bottom of the barrel when new, and will never be classic in any sense of the word. This is also true of the old farts among us, including me, and doesn't bother me.

 

What does bother me is silly proposals to define what we can and can't discuss here. Rigid definitions lead the demands for mindless enforcement. Better to leave the definition of what fits here as loose as possible and to ignore violations.

 

Its a pity that some of us can't bear, um, ambiguity.