Jump to content

What is a "manual" camera?


JDMvW

Recommended Posts

<p>Is it a camera with <em><strong>all</strong></em> manual functions?<br /> You set the aperture, f/stop, shutter speed, focus, and press the shutter release?</p>

<p>However, we have seen an increasing number of posts here (which I personally welcome) of cameras that have manual focus, but do have either aperture-preferred or shutter-preferred exposure control. Does manual focus become the "criterial attribute" for this forum then?</p>

<p>When I recently posted a report on the Canon T90 (FD mount) camera in the FD forum, at least one commenter wondered if it, as a historical treatment, didn't more belong in Classic Manual Cameras, yet the T90 has essentially the same automation as many current digital cameras, excepting only that it is <em>manual focus</em>.</p>

<p>Several years ago, this forum used to exclude all cameras that were made after 1970 (discussion of a modest proposal by me some three years ago actually became a little rambunctious at times <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00Lstf">LINK</a>).<br /> For me I confess, "Classic" is film, although I am willing to stipulate that there are some "classic" digital cameras like the early Kodaks.</p>

<p>Wouldn't a Maxxum camera be classic even though it was autofocus? It was the forerunner of all modern cameras.</p>

<p>I would expect we should be able to discuss this calmly, but I do know that some people have strong feelings about it.</p>

<p>What is a "manual" camera anyhow, and should this be the "Classic Film Camera Forum" or some such?</p>

<p>Or is the opinion here that I should just shut up and suck it up? We Swedes are always thought to be a little pushy (no wait, it was <em>dumb</em>, wasn't it? Much the same anyhow).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p>"Manual" for us oldies means a camera with no automation at all, not even a built-in meter, where the photographer has to set everything (f stop and shutter speed, focus by manually rotating the focus control, possibly according to some built-in focusing aid). For younger photographers, manual means a camera where some manual intervention (such as matching needles) is necessary with a built-in meter. These days, virtually every 35mm/DSLR has an A or P mode, so manual relates primarily to a metering mode (M).<br>

As regards classic status or not, I don't think this depends on a camera being manual - as with cars, the number of modern cameras which will go on to be hailed as classics will be very small or zero, simply because most of them are dependent on electronics, and when this dies, the camera dies, since replacement electronic modules will not be available.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>JDM - you're funny. :)</p>

<p>My take would be that the definition is evolving. My first camera was, like many, a Pentax K1000, manual in every way except the light meter. Personally, while I love seeing the completely manual varieties, I don't think I'd raise my eyes against anything here that lacks both auto focus and auto exposure (i.e. aperture and shutter priority ok).</p>

<p>If you get 1000 responses you'll get 1000 variations. My bottom line is that I just love seeing and experiencing the functionality and engineering of the pre-microchip era. Though we could argue that too - I think of my dead Pentax LX as a manual camera as well, and it had a reasonably sophisticated circuit board (whose death was the cause of its death).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think the name of the forum accurately represents what we discuss here.</p>

<p>A "classic" generally signifies something that is not merely old, but that is well-remembered and considered (in retrospect at least) to be more significant than most of its contemporaries. <em>Casablanca</em> is a classic film, but not every movie made in 1942 is a classic. Yet in this forum we welcome posts about long-forgotten cameras of no great historical significance, and in fact these are sometimes the most interesting posts.</p>

<p>"Manual" could mean anything from "all functions manual" to merely "less automated in some way than typical cameras of today." One could even be so extreme as to deny coupled rangefinders a place in this forum, but I doubt anyone really wants to do that. Personally, I think, at this point, that manual focus is the principal factor. Not having a program mode is nice but not essential; I think manual focus cameras such as the Canon AE-1 Program and Nikon FA are suitable for this forum.</p>

<p>"Vintage Manual Focus Cameras" might be a more precise name for the forum, but I think the current name is good enough in practice. Not everything in the world has to be labeled with mathematical precision.</p>

<p>The Maxxums are certainly classic cameras, but they aren't manual. Of course you can focus manually, and it has a manual exposure mode, but the same is true of the latest and greatest DSLRs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ah well, the perennial can-of-worms...Always a good topic, <strong>JDM</strong>, and I feel duty-bound to make some sort of response. <br>

First, "Classic" is fine by me; it's a description that's pretty much in the eye of the beholder and I don't find it restrictive.</p>

<p>Secondlly, I get a little frazzled by the "Manual" stipulation; I impose my own definition on the cameras I discuss on this forum, mainly that the camera is not auto-focus or auto wind, and that it's capable of manual exposure choices. I <em>could</em> accept auto wind; I'm very fond of my Canon T-70 but it wouldn't qualify for this forum under my definition. I feel that exposure automation should extend only as far as "aperture or shutter preference", and not expand into a range of exposure "Modes" and automated flash operation.</p>

<p>Thirdly, I think we have enough on our plate without discussing digital. Perhaps the time is ripe for a "Classic Digital Cameras" Forum, but it strikes me that film is the essence of this Forum, and many or our members have either little interest in, (or even a resistance to), digital imaging.</p>

<p>Well, that's my little say.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of automatic has definitely evolved. Early "automatics" may have boasted of automatic diaphragm or LVS

exposure setting (you supply the meter). Or matching needle in viewfinder "automatically" sets correct exposure. Nothing

wrong with "updating" the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 1959 Nikon F was advertised in its day as a "fully automatic" camera, even without a meter or any place to put a battery! It had an auto diaphragm that both closed and opened automatically, and an reflex mirror that flipped up and down automatically. (Those two features were lacking on my first 35mm SLR, an Exakta.) Its lenses had the word "Auto" prominently displayed on the front, denoting the automatic diaphragm.</p>

<p>http://basepath.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/popphoto1959nikonfads-7.jpg</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In my opinion if the forum is limited to a strict definition it would soon become a niche forum<br>

with very few contributors who talked only about a limited number of brands made before<br>

1960.</p>

<p>Technology drove the camera industry. Manufacturers used it to simplify the camera so it<br>

appeal to the masses and increase sales. The innovations one manufacturer introduced<br>

soon became the standard for the others thus the camera evolved from a totally manual<br>

operation which required the operator to have the knowledge to make a proper exposure<br>

to the point and shoot in which the only thing the operator has to do is turn on the camera<br>

and push the button and that evolution is the fascinating story this forum tells.<br>

Well thats my two cents worth. It's getting late and my keepers are here so I'll go now.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me the definition is simple, anything non af, non auto-winding is a classic, and of course, using film being a most definite pre-requisite. Even in automatic cameras, I find myself adjusting the auto-exposure dictated by the camera, about 70-80% of the time.</p>

<p>To illustrate, I was using an Olympus XA2 recently and strong backlighting in one of shots was deinitely going to full the built in meter and underexposer the subjects faces. I dialed the only switch I had at my disposal to fool the automatic meter, and dialed the ASA setting down by 2 stops. When I got the processed negatives back, I was glad I did that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>After the fall of the 1970 limit, it clearly opened the door to many "mostly manual" cameras as indicated by the re-written forum definition. This leaves a large range of cameras that use of electronics in some form from simply operating meters to controlling shutters speeds. So the attempt to draw a line in the sand becomes difficult when the sands are shifting. This is perhaps by design. I don't feel the need to have things so black and white. For myself, I have, in my own mind, created my own definition:<br>

1- Film based<br>

2- Manual focus<br>

3- Battery power is acceptable for any and all operational functions, except focusing, with one primary caveat, <strong>if the batteries are removed, the camera must still be able to take pictures</strong>. Period. This brings many mechanical/electronic hybrid cameras into the fold like the Canon EF, Pentax ES and many others but excludes completely battery dependent cameras like the Canon T90 or auto focus cameras.</p>

<p>Certainly the term <em>classic camera</em> becomes a moving target as time marches forward. There is no doubt that, eventually auto focus cameras will live under that banner. Some already have reached this point. However, as long as the forum is designated classic <em>manual</em> cameras, then one must not only exclude auto focus but maintain at least the primary grounding of manual (or mostly manual) operation as I described above.</p>

<p>A forum called simply Classic Cameras, with say, a definition of all cameras 30 years or older, would be more inclusive and self regulating year by year. With dedicated forums for major makers like Canon EOS, Nikon and Pentax, that would be a hard sell even though I would guess the bulk of those forums now are focused more on digital cameras.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Very interesting topic. I would urge that we not become too ultra orthodox. One of our problems is that as soon as you define sharp criteria, you can bet that someone will come up, "Hey, wait a minute, what about the xxx?" I throw out for consideration that the term manual include all film cameras where one can <em>override</em> automated focus, shutter and aperture. This may be too broad. I like to think of the T90 as being Classic, because it is one of the last of the FD cameras, and I think most would agree that the FD line is classic. I like to think of the Nikon F3 as being classic, but it is not quite totally dependent on electronics as in the T90. Age is another criterion. Age can be a creeping criterion such as at least 30 years old, or fixed, as with prior to 1980.</p>

<p>One way to think about is to consider specific models and get opinions as to classic or not. I would consider the Nikons F and F2 as certainly classic, but the FE2 is questionable. I hope this topic will lead to great and friendly discussions. Dialog from people of good will is this forum's highest virtue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's clear from the contributions offered so far that most of us, no, all of us, realise that 'classic' has a fluid definition, or at least a viscous one. From the moment I first held my Contax N1, I knew it was a classic. Everything is in the right place ; it is a joy to hold ; the design is elegant with depth ; it exudes style. And it has everything that would disqualify it from this forum, and I'd agree with the disqualification. The criteria can never be set in stone, but Louis's 'not battery dependent' has a strong case for inclusion. It's always useful to have this periodic reflection on what constitutes being a classic, and as long as we have the liberty to make an occasional nod to cameras that are classic in ways that are at the periphery of the common acceptance here, I'd say we've got it just about right. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>We Swedes are always thought to be a little pushy.</em></p>

<p>JDM, you should come and visit the Ballard district of Seattle. I think you have to show a Swedish passport to get in. Are you familiar with the Swedish fish treat, ludafisk?</p>

<p>The old joke around here is why does the Swede's dog lick its butt. It's trying to get the taste of ludafisk out of its mouth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The cameras that fit my definition (not necessarily that of this forum) are those that leave me in as much control as I want when I want them to. Totally manual cameras are great to use but also a Nikon F3 or an OM2 set to automatic or programme, because I want to use them in that mode, would not necessarily exclude them from my own pantheon. However I find having to turn off a function to make the camera behave as I want a step too far. The question for me is, I suppose, 'Was the camera designed to work in this mode, or was it designed primarily as an automatic tool with manual as an after thought?'<br>

Examples might be the comparative difficulty in manual focussing an AF camera due to the short travel and less helpful focussing screens often provided, or metering systems that demand endless fiddling to set near invisible manual settings (mind you, the F3 is not perfect here either!) <br>

I do use autofocus and digital for commissons if they are the appropriate tools for the job, but when taking photos for my own pleasure totally different rules apply.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think our individual opinions on this subject are often shaped by the time period we got into photography. For myself that would be the early to mid 1970's. This has the effect of my defining a 'manual' camera as:</p>

<p>*Not battery dependent, mechanically timed shutter speeds.<br>

*In an interchangeable lens SLR the linkage from body to lens, if any, is mechanical.<br>

*manual focus</p>

<p>Thus, in 35mm SLR's some examples would be; a Nikon F and F2, original Canon F1 and FTb, Minolta SRT series, Olympus OM-1 and OM-3, Pentax Spotmatics and some K series, Topcon D, Konica Autoreflex A and T, just to name a few of the well known brands and models.</p>

<p>What does all this mean? Nothing really, just my opinion and certianly no more valid than anyone else.</p>

<p>By my definition, a Hasselblad 500C with a digital back is almost a manual camera, you still need power for the back. This gets complicated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At this point in time I think that any camera that uses film qualifies. Our pigeon hole is growing smaller all the time. But for our purposes, "lacking auto focus", is probably enough.</p>

<p>Manual, to me means a match needle or LCD meter system that the user must set. But how can we not allow a c1972-1985 camera in because it also has an aperture or shutter priority exposure meter? These are 25 years old, or older, and many deserve "classic" status. For example by the hard "all manual" rule. Cameras such as the Nikon FE, Canon AI, and Olympus OM2, would have to be excluded.</p>

<p> I own several of the classic "auto exposure" cameras, but strangely I've always shot them on "manual". I came from the old days when we didn't trust electronics to make our photographic decisions.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I remember when open aperture metering was looked on as being a bit racy. Questions were asked about whether it was as accurate as stop down metering. I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion, other than the fact that hard and fast rules don't work. Just keep things loose. We know what a classic manual camera is, even if we can't define it.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I love this topic - the Classic Cameras forum has become my "go to" forum on Photo.net, largely because it covers such a broad range of equipment.<br /> It seems to me that imposing a set of criteria that determine what is a "classic camera" will inevitably exclude <em>some</em> model that doesn't quite fit.<br /> Pre 1970 excludes the F-1, F2, OM-1 etc etc<br /> No built-in meter excludes too many classics to count - but let's use the F2 Photomics and the original F-1 as screaming examples.<br /> Battery independence - push this one and you'll be talking to a bunch of irate F3s and OM-2s<br /> Built-in motordrive/winder - what about the Contax 137 MA or IIRC the Minolta XK Motor?<br /> Automatic exposure - again, too many to count<br /> I think "classic" is like porn (like this is a revelation or something!) - hard to define, but you know it when you see it. If I can say about a camera "wow - they don't make them like that anymore" in a positive sense, then it's a classic. If I had to identify a single criterion, it would be film - not every film camera is "classic", but every classic camera uses film (one day we might be talking about the D1 as a classic, but thank god we're not there yet). I'd allow myself to be persuaded that manual focus is a requirement, although I'm not sold on this (my F4 is a classic, as far as I'm concerned).<br /> Personally, I'm OK with a loose definition of "classic" - it makes the forum more interesting, and allows technocrats like the T-90 and OM-4 to rub shoulders with grizzled mechanical veterans like Fs, SRTs and Rolleicords. SLRs, TLRs, rangefinders, Box Brownies, whatever - so many ways to get the light to the emulsion, and I love reading about people's experiences with them and seeing the results (BTW August - the F-4 lit by the setting sun - beautiful!)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lots of good comments here. I think it's pretty clear no single definition will please everyone, and that's fine. Personally I would have no objection to discussing something like the Nikon FM3a here even though it's a 21st century camera. It is, at least, out of production and fully manual, and it is a direct descendant of the 1977 FM. The Holga, as a modern replica of a 1960s camera, is also acceptable to me. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider the F6 or F100 to be relevant to this forum even though they are film cameras, because they're far too automated and still pretty recent (though older than the FM3a!). So to me time and functionality are both involved in my sense of what fits here. I think the 30-year sliding window is generally sensible, but I'd make exceptions for overly-automated older cameras and more recent manual cameras.</p>

<p>The historical examples of cameras we would now consider "manual" being marketed in their day as "automatic" shows that the word's meaning varies with historical context. Anything that makes a camera easier to use, especially if it reduces the number of manual steps involved in taking a picture, can be considered automation. As I hinted earlier, even a coupled rangefinder could be said to "automate" focusing compared to having to determine the distance with an uncoupled rangefinder and then manually setting focus as a separate action. But what matters for us right now is what we, at this moment, consider to be "automation", not how the word was used in promotional material fifty years ago. I don't think a coupled rangefinder should disqualify a camera from this forum, nor should a built-in meter. Aperture-priority and shutter-priority modes get near the limit for me but do not cross it. Program mode is really pushing it but I can live with it as long as the camera does not have auto-focus. I don't really care if the shutter is electronic or if the camera requires a battery to shoot, though I will certainly agree that a purely mechanical camera with no battery (or a battery only for the meter) is most purely in the spirit of this forum. A film winding motor is certainly acceptable as an add-on (e.g. Nikon MD series) but I start gritting my teeth if the motor is a standard feature built into the camera body. One could further get into technical minutiae by considering the presence of integrated circuits and firmware, but that's enough for now...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suggest we look at this question from a broader perspective.<br>

Consider "Classic Cars". The baseline definition for this group is a car aged 15+ years. That definition is good enough for the insurance industry. Of course, over time, that means whatever newfangled features that seem "too modern" eventually become part of the classic car experience too (i.e. automatic transmissions, cruise control, radios, etc.) I know sometimes it is jarring to see a car that is younger than me on display at a classic car show, but there are dedicated folks who love those cars and they have the right to be there too.<br>

The other perspective to consider is the rest of the photo.net (and photography) ecosystem. I think it's fair to say that cameras that use film are often an anachronistic topic in the camera-brand discussion groups. The use of film itself is "classic" enough to warrant inclusion here. Nor is there a good place for the other film cameras that fall "in between" currency in the brand-specific forums, and the definition of classic on this forum. I think this forum would be the most supportive place to discuss the fine points of a Nikon F100 or Pentax MZ-S. Or even moreso the less celebrated models that get lost in the shuffle, like a Canon Rebel, Nikon F60 or Pentax SF-10.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I suppose we could refer to the Supreme Court Justice that was asked about his definition of porn, and his reply was "I know it when I see it." That probably also applies to our "classic manual cameras." <br>

For some of us that have been on here a long time, the old pre-1970 definition was limiting. Now, with very few film cameras being made, in a few years an F100 will be thought of as vintage. As with any group, it's better to be flexible and yet, carefully point people towards the appropriate forum if their post is not really appropriate for this one. Case in point, PN has an Olympus and 4/3 forum, and I doubt that questions about an Olympus OM-PC or OM-10 would really have much of an audience there, but here they would. However, someone with an EOS Elan II would be better off in the EOS forum. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...