(rant)I dont know about you but I..

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

1. Digital cameras can, and will become "Classics" too.

 

I really don't think that in 40 or 50 years, someone will pull out a digital camera from the present and shoot off a few frames just because it feels good to use a beautifully crafted instrument like my Leica M3. I really don't.

[loreneidahl]

Digital cameras have the "potential" to become classics. It depends entirely upon what technology is active in 30-40 years. :)

 

Will we have the ability and more importantly the desire to use the Digital cameras of today in 30 years?

 

Will I desire to use my Crown graphic from 1947 as much as my D2h from 2004?

 

Personally, being in the technology sector I doubt that even if I did have that desire that I would be able to act upon it.

 

Classic cameras are more than just cameras that are old. And "CHEAP" is not a absolute ( some can get pricey during rebuilds). Classic cameras are cameras that you use to recreate something inside you that transfers itself onto a photgraphic medium;whether that be Platinum,Silver,Gum,Paper or microbits.

 

Digital is not evil and neither is film. Close-minded thoughts that stiffle creativity are however.

[randyjay]

Being on this Earth for 54 years has taught me one important rule...follow instructions and obey the rules. This is a Classic Camera Forum and the owners or creators have posted these simple rules and instructions:<p><b>About This Forum?<p>This forum is for discussion of "classic" cameras that were manufactured until 1970, independent of film format, camera type, or manufacturer. Thus, this is the place to discuss folders, box cameras, Twin Lens Reflexes, press cameras, rangefinders, and other types of cameras that are no longer prevalent. Older SLR cameras manufactured before 1970 are also on-topic in the forum. The forum is focused on the practical use of these cameras rather than collecting them. </b><p>This is a Cut and Paste of the rules for this Forum. We talk about Classic Cameras here. I didn't have to have anyone slap me up side the head to understand these rules. If you want to talk about Digital Cameras there is a Forum just for you elsewhere at photo.net.<p>Randy Jay

[glenn_thoreson]

I understand OLD STUFF! It's what I grew up with. It's who I am. That's why I post here. Digital? It has it's place but this aint it. Go away, please.

[battra92]

I personally use classic cameras mostly because I find them at a much higher quality at my price range. Also, I tend to think that they are great educational tools for me.

 

Personally, I am a college student who hopes to look into photography as a possible career/side work. Since I am an amateur/student I want to basically learn as much as I can about the craft and thus I go through a lot of film and generally take 2-3 cameras with me at a time. I own and use rangefinders, an SLR and a few TLRs (which I prefer) and have been known to use digital.

 

One thing that always amazes me, and this is not exclusive to film or cameras or anything like that, is how quick some people are to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Nikon or Canon comes out with a higher MP DSLR, there are some who feel they need to go out and replace their 12MP with a 16MP so that they can take their 5 or 6 snapshots a month. Is it some sort of status symbol that they have that latest and greatest? Are they a higher amateur than this 22 year old college student often seen carrying around an Argoflex EF? ~_^

 

To me variety is the spice of life and at my budget, the DSLRs are much too high. My friend has offered to let me borrow his but I told him I honestly didn't think it would do anything better than the junk I play around with.

 

And one other thing I should mention is that a lot of classic cameras are pretty slick looking. Most of the modern SLRS and DSLRs are pretty bland so it's sometimes fun to carry around an art-deco styled classic, or wow people when you pull out a folder. To me that's part of the fun is that you look cool in a different way since you enjoy and get use out of the equipment you select.

 

But in the end, to each his own.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Sam - great answer. Now try this:

<p>

Digital has no irony.

<p>

(If Mike E can come up with some more we could put together a best-practice document.)

[minhnguyen9113]

I'm still loving taking pictures with old 50's, 60's, 70's cameras.

and I have many of them. I feel so confident when I use a Canonet QL17 when around me are many DSLRs and Digital cameras. I respect all other photographers. Because we take pictures together to make life better and enjoy them, sharing them to friends and know each other better and friendlier. Minh

[andrea_ingram]

I love using old folders, boxes and the like because they feel so wonderful. Yesterday, I was the only person taking pictures at the Folk Festival with an old camera [that I could see] - and loads of people [and dancers] were coming up to me to ask about the camera and ignored those using the digital cameras - and that made me feel rather special.

 

There seems to me to be craft in the conception and realisation of the final image with old cameras [which may or may not be the case with Digital]. Recently, on holiday, my partner took pictures with her Nikon coolpix compact digi and the results were great. Images in low light, such when looking round a [decommisioned] sub were brill compared to my underexposed pics - because of my lack of craft - and perhaps a flash!. I am not unhappy with this as I seek to improve my skill. The modern world seems to want instant results with little personal development. The 'soul' people talk about that is missing perhaps.

 

I want to live in a world to my values not the values of this instant gratification, superficial and unsustainable world. And I am happy for others to do the same as long as it doesn't impinge on others.

The final reason for the old camera thing - apart from matching the person with camera age - is that there is such a thrill to get occaisionally wonderful images fit for publication/display from old camaras that have been discarded/thrown away by others.

[h._p.]

In some of the old magazines which I (sporadically) collect, there are identical rambling discussions of the way in which 35mm is nothing like as good as roll film. Every so often some spoil-sport chimes in and points out that he's still using whole-plate and neither side is right.

 

Perhaps this site needs a digital versus film forum where this nonsense can be aired ad infinitum or until all participants expire from terminal boredom.<div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Frank,<br><br><i>I really don't think that in 40 or 50 years, someone will pull out a digital camera from the present and shoot off a few frames just because it feels good to use a beautifully crafted instrument like my Leica M3.</i><br><br>That is not what a classic is.<br>The Canon 300D/Digital Rebel, for instance, already is well on its way to become a classic, playing, as it does/did, a major role in making 'digital SLR photography' a thing of 'the masses'. It (and the Nikon D70 which followed suit) broke the price barrier that kept machines like it 'speciality market' items.<br>The Canon neither looks good, nor feels good, and beautifully crafted it certainly isn't. But a "Classic" it will be.<br><br>Maybe this forum shouldn't just be renamed to "Old Cameras", but to "Old Cameras That Make Us Feel Good"? ;-)<br>Anyway, the "Classic" bit is certainly hard to find, so either one would be good. ;-)<br><br>Loren,<br><br>Yes. If the desire to use an old camera today comes from the appreciation of the role such a camera played, it is part of being that "Classic" thing. The desire to experience yourself how a certain camera works, and trying to imagine how that changed photography from what it was before that camera arrived certainly is/can be part of appreciating why a camera is indeed a "Classic".<br>And that's quite different from the i-like-well-made-mechanical-bits-in-my-hands-feeling Frank alluded to.<br>But the role a camera played isn't affected by being still able to use it now, perhaps many years after the days the camera did what it did. That (no longer being able to act upon a desire) really does not change a thing. It will only rob us of the chance to recreate the experience people had when the thing was new. We will have to rely on history and imagination a bit more.<br><br>Randy (and Glenn),<br><br>When this Forum opened, the pre-1970 criterion was put forward as a workable definition of what "Classic" meant.<br>It, of course, is a completely arbitrary criterion, far removed from any real world meaning of the word "Classic". "Old" and "Classic" aren't synonymous, not even when you put a definite age to it.<br>But you are right: the rules say that only "Classic" cameras made before 1970 are 'on topic' here. So given that, we need a real "Classic Cameras" forum that excludes cameras that are just old, and does not exclude true "Classics" that do not meet that pre-1970 criterion. Then we could also strike the word "classic" from both this forum's name and its rules.<br>If the word "Old" doesn't sound appealing enough, i'm sure one could find a more fitting euphemism ;-)<br><br>And that "Arts & Crafts" thing people associate with "old" cameras, and lean on to define what is a "classic" camera.<br>I understand that people feel that setting, say, the aperture manually, is part of the art of photography. But is it? Knowing what apertures do, and using them deliberately is (if and when that makes sense). But old cameras aren't the only one that let you do that. Whichs brings the typewriter vs computer thing to mind: a typographer may like the output from the typewriter more (sometimes). A writer certainly doesn't care much for typewriters. Is this a 'writer's" forum, or a "typographer's"? ;-)<br><br>In fact, the art & craft side of photography hasn't changed much since photography was first invented. There are only a few parameters involved, and they have not changed at all.<br>The tools have. And with better tools we get more freedom to concentrate on the true art & craft that is photography (which is not fiddling knobs).<br>Or is this pre-1970s boundary condition some inherent, but well hidden, quality of photography itself? (Oil lamps: good - electric light: bad?)

[berk_sirman2]

Nicholas Douez wrote:

"50 years ago, when Pierre Boulez tried to convince the public he was composing something great and new although it was nothing else than dodecaphonic crap exercises, at the same time Duke Ellington produced some materworks which will stand in the music history forever. I bid that Pink Floyd's chef-d'oeuvre, "Dark Side of the Moon" will still be played on the air in 50 years, since some "difficult high-level music" pieces will have totally disappeared."

 

I do agree with the comment about Dark Side of the Moon but I urge you to go back and give another listen to Boulez. Listen to his Piano Sonata No.2. Boulez is, along with Elliot Carter, the greatest composer of the second half of 20th century. For people who are new to Carter (I am one of them) I suggest his String Quartet No.1 The contrapuntal writing is astonishing.

 

I do not even care to comment on your phrase "dodecaphonic crap exercises"

 

Berk

[bacsa]

Do we realize, how much precious time was lost writing/reading these answers? Precious time that could have been spent with bringing back to life a classic camera and using it to produce great photos...

[randyjay]

Harvey and others: There is a Forum that has a place for all kinds of Classic or Old Cameras, it's called The Camera Collector. There is a forum for classics to 70 and forums for classics after 70. Several members of this Forum and the Rangefinder Forum are members, we also have members from the Minolta Group, the Spotmatic Group, and the Classic Camera Group. Please stop by and have a looksee. Hope nobody minds the link.<p>Randy Jay<br><a href="http://cameracollector.proboards30.com">THE CAMERA COLLECTOR</a>

[jeff bishop]

I have a bunch of Nikons, a Canon, some TLR's and folders. I also have the old Zeca, and Graflex 2x3 & 4x5.

 

When I'm using the old cameras, it's for those big negatives that (for me) nothing else can match. It's that simple for me; old cameras = big negatives = the best possible results.

[charles_stobbs3]

Using a simple camera with no meter, no rangefinder, and even better, separate shutter cocking is like skinny dipping. Less is better.

[User_1172872]

"Matrix Metering, Anti-shake technology, Autofocus, and Auto Exposure are all CONVENIENCE features, that can allow the photographer to work faster and take shortcuts, but they do not add to the inherent quality of the image that a good photographer, working carefully and with proper technique, could not otherwise achieve with basic manual focus gear." I suspect your hobby is not bird photography. If you want to photograph birds, all that stuff is the difference between photos and no photos!

[Matthew Currie]

I sort of see Michael's point, but I don't quite see why it should take the form of a rant. I like my classic cammeras, and like him I like them in part because they're cheap and fun. I could, I suppose, afford digital, but prefer to squander my discretionary funds on manual Nikon lenses and the like because I get so much for so little.

 

I don't see that it matters whether or not the development of rangefinders and TLR's has stopped or not. They're fully matured already.

 

Anyway, why any rant about this? It's a non-issue. Mr. A likes this, Mr. B likes that. The whole film vs. digital thing reminds me of those little stickers people put on their pickup trucks, of Calvin peeing on the logo of some other brand.

[douglas_green1]

Canon User, are you contending that, prior to the advent of those hi-tech features I referred to earlier, that it was not possible to take great photos of birds? Or is it simply that a photographer of YOUR skill level was not capable of taking great photos of birds with basic equipment? Because I sure know for a fact that there have certainly been plenty of great bird photos taken by folks who worked for National Geographic, Audobon, Field & Stream, etc, etc, prior to the advent of Autofocus, and vibration resistance, and other modern convenience features. Similarly any other type of sports photography involving long telephotos and fast action. Some of the best action photos ever have been shot with stuff like Nikon Fs, Leica M-3s, Canon F1s, Rolleiflex TLRs, etc. etc. How'd they do that without autofocus, auto exposure, vibration reduction considering that it's impossible?

[dan_fromm1]

Douglas, those bird pictures you refer to are all paintings by artists in the school of J. J. Audubon. Look closely and you'll see the brush strokes.

 

Cheers,

[dan_fromm1]

QG, its name notwithstanding this is not a classic cameras forum.

 

This is forum for people who use mediocre old cameras and is a useful outlet for those who post here. Please ignore its incorrect name and accept that it pleases most of its users. Let them be happy. They harm no one, and unlike the fine folks who use other forums on photo.net, they're not gear snobs.

 

Some of the people who post pictures taken with mediocre and worse old cameras here are much better photographers than the vast majority of people who post photos on, e.g., photo.net's "Leica Photography" forum. The better pictures posted here demonstrate the idiocy, at least for normal lenses used normally, of obsessions about lens quality and the like. I find reminders that gear snobbery is just plain dumb useful and refreshing.

 

Cheers,

[john falkenstine]

hear, hear.

[john_wire]

Dan,

 

"This is forum for people who use mediocre old cameras" is not entirely correct.

 

A 6x6 or 6x7 negative/slide taken with many, many mediocre old cameras contain more "pixies" than any current DSLR and those mediocre old cameras cost a fraction of DSLR equipment.

 

The big difference in my mind is the mediocre old cameras take more knowledge and skill. Ask any DSLR operator what's going on behind the "scenes" and ....... uhh.......... what...... vs the photographer who knows what's happening and makes it happen a particular way. That's called control vs machine operation. I should not have said that. Peace.

[jonathan_brewer1]

After all the psycho-babble, endless 'shoehorning' of images into this or that classification, exhorting the greatness of the latest 'bells n whistles' there's only two kinds of images, good images or bad.

 

I'm going to my wife to LACMA to see a restrospective about Andre Kertez, one of the greatest, no anti-shake, no this, no that, no afterburner, no warp drive, this guy had what counted, the ability to execute whatever image he wanted w/skill and imagination.

 

If he were alive today, using his gear, he would still be using his incredible instints(putting the camera up to his eye ONE TIME, and coming up with a CLASSIC SHOT, no bracketing, no correction necessary) to produce something magical, and no amount of 'bells n whistles' will ever equal imagination and skill of execution.

 

Avedon has images hanging in museums and deservedly so, from Rollei TLR, I would agree in essence with what Dann Fromm says, but lets not forget that these cameras while not being 'state of the art' now, were exactly that in another time, today they can still be called, 'good enough', to produce excellence, if YOU are capable of producing it, not the camera.

 

I have 8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6, and 35mm, always restless, some time ago, I looked for a 'carry' camera for cheap, I bought a Minolta Autocord, and was introduced to MAGIC, that camera and its Rokker lens is not mediocre, it is a great image instrument, and Dann Fromm is right about gear snobbery, it would be great to drive a Ferrari on one day, a mercedes the other, but has absolutely nothing to do w/you skills as a drive, ditto cameras and photographic skills.

 

I audit a lot of pictures uploaded on this forums, and I think if you've also checked out the worked posted on these forums, you'll see that the skill, the imagination, the creativity that went into those images has absolutely nothing to do what camera was used, I've seen great pinhole images, terrible shots done w/a close to 10K cameras, so in terms of the relationship between a good image versus the amount of bells n whistles that happen to be in the camera used for that image MEANS NOTHING.

 

These tug of wars are useless, this is the Classic Cameras forum, regardless what it's going to be called later, I think it's understood from the 'getgo', that this is a repository for people who love and enjoy these cameras, NOT a forum that is against anything else, my '78 Mercedes belonged to my father, it is made out of steel, it has outlasted three of my other cars, it runs, I enjoy it for what it is, I DON'T CARE what out there that is faster, better on gas, when I'm into to that I park the Mercedes and drive something else, I wouldn't waste time arguing w/somebody or explaining about why I do this, so why go on this merry-go-round that goes on and on about this subject, delete these threads when they come up.

[dan_fromm1]

John Wire, a middling -- that's what mediocre means -- 6x6 or larger format camera will easily produce image quality that can't be achieved with the best 35 mm camera. The really crappy old Lubitel I bought for my wicked stepdaughter takes pictures, when intelligently used, that I can't match for quality with my Nikons. So what? And the Lubitel isn't even mediocre. Its much worse than that.

 

I don't want to get into whether some digital cameras produce nicer pictures than some film cameras. Or vice versa. None of my concern. I'm non-, not anti-, digital. There's a big difference between the two positions.

 

As for old cameras requiring real skill, the first 6x6 camera I used was a plastic-bodied Brownie Hawkeye. Fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed, fixed focus. All the user can do with such a camera is point and hope. Point and hope can get very pleasing pictures if attention is paid to composition. Please don't tell me fairy tales about crappy old gear requiring skill or knowledge to use.

 

Cheers,

[silent1]

With my (eight year old) scanner, I can extract 43 megapixels from a 6x9 negative shot with my 1928 Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera -- for which I traded a shutter and lens that cost me $10 plus about three hours to clean and repair, and a lens board that took me about six hours to fabricate (hobby time, I don't count it at wage rates -- the whole project was fun). I've done a little repair on the camera, as well, but I don't figure I've got as much as $40 into it (again, I don't count my hobby time at wage rates).

 

When I can buy a DSLR that will capture 43 megapixels for as little as ten times that, and repair it on my kitchen table with $15 worth of tools (or even the $500 or so I have into my lathe, which I used to bore the hole in the lens board above), I'll listen to arguments about digital being better quality. Meanwhile, I'll keep shooting my classics, and use the digital to take pictures *of* them.