New forum - Let's give this a try...PLEASE READ

<p>Okay,</p>

<p>So there have been a few posts recently that have indicated the interest in a film based forum that covers cameras that aren't addressed in the Classic Cameras forum.</p>

<p>The issue is that many of these cameras are covered in places like the Nikon, Canon EOS, Canon FD, Olympus, and Pentax forums. So on one hand, there is little reason for having an <s>"Electronic Film Cameras"</s> "Modern Film Cameras" forum. Duplication doesn't help organization. And with a site as large and active as photo.net, organization is key to relevance for most people. If we make it confusing for new users to know where to post, people will just move on. On the other hand, Photo.net isn't an encyclopedia, we're a community. And a big part of what creates community is people connecting over a shared interest. If we have enough people who are interested in discussing something but feel there is no location for it, then it behooves me to consider addressing that fact.</p>

<p>However, and here's the deal, it is unavoidable that there is going to be some amount of confusion created by adding a forum like this. Threads are going to get posted here that really should be located in another forum. And those threads are going to get moved. Many will be straightforward, like a discussion about buying this vs that EOS lens. But others are going to be judgment calls that someone may or may not agree with. <strong>So please everyone, let's work together to give this forum a chance.</strong> I don't anticipate there being many problems, after all the Classic Cameras forum has some of these same issues and works well 99% of the time. But we also see some amount of "why can't I talk about this here, I want to change the forum topic description!" threads as well, which don't help anyone. If a thread gets moved, just "let it ride" as it were. I think there is a opportunity here for this forum to be pretty special for a lot of film photographers. But I need your assistance to make it work.</p>

<p>Any questions, please ask. But please keep them to the topic at hand. Discussions about overall photo.net policy/organization/etc are better done via email and that is where I will re-direct them.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Here is the description of the Modern Film Cameras forum:</strong></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>

<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>

<p>It seems there has needed to be a way to address the large segment of film "modern" AF film cameras. I thought the current set up was fine, but I could see how film folks could get drowned out by the digital crowd since so many digital users interact on those forums. As someone who enjoys the Canon FD forum, I can understand the pleasure of going to a forum and find posts about specific film-based topics and find folks with similar interests.</p>

<p>OTOH, while the major forums contain a high level of digital competencies within its membership, there are <em>many</em> long-time, say Nikon, users that use digital now but have decades of experience in the film camera area. I hope they will bounce into the new forum so that lifelong expertise is not wasted by dilution.</p>

<p>Good luck with the new forum. I'll be happy to contribute as I can. While we are on the subject of new forums....Still life/tabletop?</p>

<p>Good! If I can't be the first, I will try to be the second:-)</p>

<p>Would any of the 3-party AF lenses that come with options for various mounts fit in this forum? They don't really belong to any forum for a particular camera brand.</p>

<p>One way as I see it " AF : cameras<br>

thoughth that would include my $5.00 olympus P&S<br>

or the Canon P&S that are all auto<br>

but the Pentax ME Super or the canon AE-1<br>

because they are manual focus , But are automatic ( except for focus)would not be included</p>

<p>Walter, I think the description of both the Classic forum and this one are pretty clear.</p>

<p>If it requires batteries to run and uses film, it goes here.</p>

<p>If it doesn't require batteries to run and is older than 20-30 years or so, then it goes in classic.</p>

<p>The forum title reads like "Electronic Film" Cameras (digital cameras that produce film-like results like that Hipstamatic app or EOS 60D's creative filters...?) -- maybe change it to something less confusing.</p>

<p>When I first saw this I was a little disturbed as I thought it would divide and weaken the Classic Camera Forum. However thinking about it I had started a number of threads there with electronic manual focus cameras, for example the Olympus 35RD and OM1, whilst being a little nervous about whether they were really appropriate - although the tolerance and good naturedness which pervades the Classic forum tends to override these qualms. I can now see there was a large gap in the forums particularly for the smaller brands of electronic film camera, for example Ricoh, Chinon etc. So look forward to a thread about the Ricoh KR2S in the new forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The forum title reads like "Electronic Film" Cameras (digital cameras that produce film-like results like that Hipstamatic app or EOS 60D's creative filters...?) -- maybe change it to something less confusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm open to ideas, that was the best I could come up with. Saying "AF film cameras" leaves out a number of non-AF cameras that don't really fit in the Classics forum.</p>

<p>When I saw this, I thought of "electronic film" for film cameras, like that "Silicon Film" con from years ago...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm open to ideas, that was the best I could come up with. Saying "AF film cameras" leaves out a number of non-AF cameras that don't really fit in the Classics forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about "AE Film Cameras"? All AF film cameras have some sort of AE mode.</p>

<p>I don't envy the mod for this group. Proper organization is going to be tricky. E.g. the Konica Auto-Reflex which would qualify as an AE Film Camera, but should by rights appear in Classic Manual Cameras (IMHO).</p>

<p>I appreciate the effort you've put forward, Josh, in a thankless job. We'll see, eh?</p>

<p>Oh btw the forum doesn't show up in the main Forum page, at least not for me.</p>

<p><a href="../community/">http://www.photo.net/community/</a></p>

<p>I for one welcome it, though I suspect we Minolta AF film camera users were well looked after in the Sony/Minolta section (which is awfully quiet at times).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about "AE Film Cameras"? All AF film cameras have some sort of AE mode.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not bad. We could also go with "Modern Film Cameras" which might make even more sense and be more descriptive.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If one does not understand what Film is and Electronic is, then I have no hope for the world. If someone thinks that their iphoney apps question belongs here, then I hope they suffer a massive hard-drive failure. Josh, I think it's fine, and things will sort out eventually.</p>

<p>This was always the problem when dealing with the EOS film cameras, although they didn't fit in too badly into the EOS forum. I did a series of posts there on historical EOS cameras and it received at least not a hostile audience. However, although I hope I don't actually go there, the question was what did someone do who wanted to post on a 1987 Maxxum? Moreover, there are many 'electronic' film cameras from the late 80s on that really didn't have a home at all in any existing forums.<br /> Having pushed for something like this in the past, I guess I should be happy now, but the recent open nature of the Classic Manual Cameras, notwithstanding the 'manual' in the name, has actually put more of the historical interest posts all in one place. As always, I guess, you have to be careful what you ask for. ;)</p>

<p>I do not foresee too much in the way of complications. So many of us don't actually pay a lot of attention to the forums at all (cries of yes, we could tell!) since we typically enter from the Unified page and see most posts except for those we have specifically chosen to stay away from, like, just for a wild, out-of-the-ballpark example, the Philosophy forum. :)</p>

<p>Since no one later on who's going to start a thread is going to read your above description of what this forum is suppose to contain, many interpretations of the forum title will be made. If someone has a Mamiya RZ-67 medium format with electronic metering they could post here or under the Medium Format forum but the RB-67 user without the electronic metering can only post on the latter. However, if the issue is about the shutter, then the RB67 user won't see the thread in the new forum. Maybe this is not a good example. But I think you get the picture. The new forum might just add confusion. But like the last poster I also use the Unified page to avoid those issues too. Not sure how many others do that though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since no one later on who's going to start a thread is going to read your above description of what this forum is suppose to contain, many interpretations of the forum title will be made.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is why it is repeated on the index page, with a note at the top of the page pointing to the description, and is repeated again on the "post a new thread" page.</p>

<p>If someone chooses to ignore all that, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.</p>

<p>I look forward to using the new forum, thanks Josh. My one and only gripe about pnet has been the ease with which film camera posts get overwhelmed in the EOS forum. And Contax cameras now have a home! Excellent!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is why it is repeated on the index page, with a note at the top of the page pointing to the description, and is repeated again on the "post a new thread" page.<br />If someone chooses to ignore all that, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee I didn't see that until you pointed it out to me. Maybe the font should be red. And do you always insult your customers?</p>

<p>My point was not only about the OP but the viewers afterwards.</p>

<p>Sorry if you took it as an insult Alan. I was just pointing out what was there and stating that if someone doesn't care to read instructions when using the site, I'm not real worried about moving their thread from this forum when it shouldn't be here. The same would be true if someone posted a Nikon thread in the Canon EOS forum.</p>

<p>With this type of thing, I can only do so much to force people to make the effort. It's not like I can burn directions into people's eyeballs. On some level a photo.net user has to take some responsibility for their actions. We're all adults here.</p>

<p>Josh: One thing I learned about brainstorming, you don't put down the idea. You try to encourage all sorts of ideas from everyone because they can often lead to something valuable even if the original idea doesn't work. You never responded to my thoughts about red font. The font you have now is black with a blue background indistinguishable from the other text. I'm sure I wasn't the only person who missed the "warning". If red doesn't work, maybe another way of flagging it. Anyone else have any brainstorm ideas about this? Just trying to help. Alan.</p>

<p>This will be cool, my Yashica Electro 35 now has a home, the only other place was the <em><strong>Leica </strong></em>(& rangefinder) group. It is electronic but not auto focus but its not a <em><strong>Leica </strong></em>so I never venture there.<br>

I, for one don't use the unified view, I go to the forums that I like that pertain to the cameras and the type of photography that I like, 1st B&W film developing, classic cameras, film and developing, large format, medium format and then B&W Printing. Would be another fun one to look through. I do have an EOS Rebel G that I play with from time to time.</p>

<p>Josh, since there are two generic "film camera" forums, why not just name them "Vintage Film Cameras" and "Modern Film Cameras" and explain the differences in the description (old, pre-70, most manual vs electronic, post-1970, AE/AF). However, since many cameras also fit in the manufacturer's forum (Nikon, Canon FD/EOS, Pentax...) plus the type forums (Leica+rangefinder, medium format...) things are getting more and more confused.</p>

<p>For example, goes a thread about the Pentax Spotmatic in the "Pentax" forum (because this is the maker/brand), or the "Classic Manul Camera" forum (because of pre-1970) or the new "Electronic Film Camera" forum (because of the electronic metering)? Is the Mamiya RB67 "classic" because of the fully manual operation and the RZ67 "electronic film"? And where does the medium format forum fit in all this? You see, even before the forums were pretty confusingly arranged and without a serious reorganization the threads/information may become even more fragmented and scattered.</p>

Maybe to clear up the confusion you should call it "cameras that use photographic film and depend on a battery for

either automatic exposure or autofocus or both." But that might be hard to fit in the dropdown menu. ;-)

 

All kidding aside, I don't really have a problem with the current name, but "modern film cameras" might be less

confusing.

 

I'm looking forward to this new forum. I have a few modern film cameras that would fit in this forum very well.

 

<p>Electronic Film Cameras is an awkward construction. I have never heard anyone say I own an electronic film camera. Cameras have been using batteries for at least 40 years. It is about time that we don't qualify a camera as modern because it is using batteries. </p>