What is a "manual" camera?

[colin carron]

<p><strong>Manual</strong> - adj - The origin of the word 'manual' in the phrase 'manual camera' is from the Latin <em>manus</em> meaning <em>hand</em>. A manual camera is one that is fingered lovingly, caressed, stroked by its owner. The word signifies the desire or love the owner feels towards the camera rather than any non-automatic function it might have. (See also 'Leica').<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[ernest-b]

<p>I have little interest in some of the cameras most heavily discussed in this forum. Conversely, some of those most interesting to me (esp. early rollfilm and plate cameras) are seldom addressed.</p>

<p>But so what?</p>

<p>The appeal of a good buffet restaurant lies in the variety of the dishes on offer. A guest doesn't need to (and shouldn't/can't) eat everything on the buffet line. Rather, he/she just takes what appeals, and leaves the rest to others. And a natural self-regulation is always at work, since dishes that go consistently untouched will soon disappear from the lineup.</p>

<p>Why try to impose, or administer, a narrow set of criteria for what is permissible to serve at such a restaurant...or to write about in this forum? Among the new threads that appear here daily, some will be heavily responded to, some not at all.</p>

<p>Without straining (gerrymandering?) to draw formal boundaries, the various interests and enthusiasms of participants in this forum will determine the forum's natural shape--as seems to be the case now. In the long term, what will decide the forum's vitality and longevity is whether those various, constantly evolving interests continue to be satisfied, and contributors' enthusiasm sustained. In that context inclusion helps, exclusion hurts.</p>

<p>My vote for a new name would go to "Vintage Film Camera Forum"--since, as has been pointed out, a large percentage of the cameras discussed here actually are not "classics"; they just were made during a (similarly subjectively-defined) "classic" era.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Richard Cochran- In 1959 the Nikon F was the hight of mechanical sophistication and inovation unfortunately I'm old enough to remember.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>How about this, NO free form, plastoblob, not a straight line on it, SLR's!<br>

Butt ugly! Ever since Canon brought out the T90 we have had an inexorable slide toward camera bodies that look like they are slightly melted. I just can't shoot with an ugly camera.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I have a T90 John, but I can't help but agree with you.</p>

[craigd]

<p>I have to agree with John Robison. The aesthetics of camera hardware has been on a long, mostly downward slide since about 1980 when it began to be fashionable to look "high-tech" and use LEDs for more than just the battery check light.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The "AUTO" Graflex SLR of 100 YEARS AGO!</p>

<p>is "AUTO" because when one "turns the focus knob" the lens barrel inside hits the front cover/door; and it pops open!</p>

<p>Thus it means the cover that keeps out some dust and hides the lens "automatically" opens when one uses the focus knob!</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Hmm. This kind of discussion makes me think evil thoughts about, um, self-abuse and hairy palms. So, let the record read that I've heaped abuse on the person who posts as JDM von Weinberg and on everyone else who treated his provocation as seriously intended. </p>

<p>I'm going to go on using and enjoying my relatively inexpensive (now) used cameras and lenses and not think about where I'm allowed to post (or not post, if banned) about them. For the record, my youngest camera is a Nikon N8008S that I got for its high flash sync speed and because it cost less than a used FM2n. So much for purity. It also has the nice advantage of TTL autoflash for times when I don't want to do GN arithmetic. Did I mention that it cost less than a used FM3A? I have no autofocus lenses for it but focus confirmation with manual focus lenses is a little helpful and even works -- sometimes -- with my 700/8 Questar that's really roughly t/11.</p>

<p>Thinking about lenses, self abuse, and all that, I wonder whether anyone thinks my youngest lens is fit to mention here. I use it on an aged camera, viz., a Century Graphic made in 1949, but my tubby little 35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon seems to have been made in 1996 or '7. If it has any of the nice automatic features I haven't noticed them.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>It is an interesting question. I think the answers will evolve as the years go by.</p>

<p>I started collecting late '60s early '70s manual SLRs. The battery is only for the meter. Lately I have started pairing them with bridge cameras.</p>

<p>For my Spotmatic I added a Pentax ES.</p>

<p>For my Miranda Sensorex II I added a Auto Sensorex EE.</p>

<p>For my Canon FTb I want to add an EF.</p>

<p>For my Minolta SRT-101 I want to add a XE-7.</p>

<p>I think these cameras are close to the theme of this forum. They haven't reached the CPU driven all automatic modes of the late '70s cameras. To me the designs and the operating characteristics set them apart from the earlier cameras. That is what I like but I can understand the feelings of others that feel a camera shouldn't have batteries.</p>

<p>Just wait, in 5 years there will be those who want to add the first CPU cameras. In another 5 years some will want to talk about the first auto focus cameras.</p>

<p>On the one hand some people want change to newer technologies, even in this forum, on the other people will still be showing their pre-war folders. Of course the war might be Vietnam and they are showing their folders from the fifties.</p>

<p> </p>

[leighb]

<p>I like Louis's definition, particular the requirement that the camera can still take pictures without battery power.</p>

<p>Definitely no auto-focus or automatic exposure of any type.</p>

<p>I take the term "classic" to mean not current production. Whether a particular model is held in high esteem or not is irrelevant IMHO. Just like the term "antique" can identify an item of great value, or an item that's just old.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lutfisk. Lutefisk is Norwegian (otherwise known as Western Swedish, Uff da).</p>

<p>My grandfather told the joke about the dog licking itself back in Lindsborg (KS) before the beginning of the 20th century, so its heritage is true Scandinavian, you bet.</p>

<p>Dan Fromm seems to be misunderstanding my purpose altogether, but this wouldn't be the first time. Certainly the record shows abuse heaped, if that's important.</p>

<p>Actually, I have been very pleased that the moderators have exercised a lenient guidance here in the last year or so. In some contexts, I (at least) think that an Nikon F3 is perfectly at home here. I like the fact, merely wondered if it were time for a broader name.</p>

<p>The church was taken with a Nikkormat FTn with a 55mm f/1.2 lens - manual?</p><div></div>

[ernest-b]

<p>JDM, nice church indeed but where's the dog? Has its opinion been solicited?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think the dog was a bulldog that died about 1905, so I never got to meet him, but heard lots of stories<br>

I'm very sure from the accounts, however, that the dog would have been adamant about only totally manual cameras being allowed here.</p>

<p>Bulldogs are so conservative. My Lab, however, definitely is in favor of including every film camera on the forum. She likes to retrieve the cassettes when they roll off the table.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Yeah, sounds like that bulldog would fit right in. And are you sure your Lab isn't really a "Lib"?</p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>I once caused a minor stir when I slipped an old Zenit lens on my A100 to illustrate some point or another. It was certainly manual focus but arguably not that classic, and I appreciated the moderators' tolerance of my youthful indiscretion (well, I was young to the forum).</p>

<p>Looking at the line of Minoltas on my camera shelf, my 9000 is beginning to look classic. The 9xi isn't yet, and I'd hesitate to use my X-700 here, but the XD7 is surely a contender. As for my 110 Zoom Mark I ... you tell me. (I know, Rick did a good presentation a few months ago.)</p>

<p>My rambling point is that surely it is up to us as 'camera operators' to make the case for any camera and for the rest of us to nod approvingly, or not, as the case may be.</p>

<p>I look forward to making the case with the 9000 one day.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>I'm with Louis and Leigh: film, no auto-focus, and must be able to function as a camera without batteries. The last point is particularly important. 20 years from now, I doubt the CPU-dependent cameras will still be working. But my trusty Pellix/F2/SRT 202/Auto-reflex/etc. will still be snapping away as long as they continnue to make film.... </p>

[eyespy]

<p>Well, thank goodness I found a link through google on how to operate my classic vintage GE DW.58 meter here on photo.net with a link to a web page with the original instruction booklet, although the post was more helpful. Point being that I needed this information to help me (if possible) to operate my classic yet vintage Argoflex TLR for the first time and using TriX-100 on ARGUS DAY!. <br>

<a href="../filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00BbnY">http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00BbnY</a></p>

[JTG1]

<p>I enjoy this forum as well, its my main forum here on PN. I'd be happy with a 20 year rule, I have a few film cameras that I enjoyed made from the 1980's. Also JDM mentioned classic digital, another forum I'd love to see included, make it 5 years or 5MP, I also buy them and have found some nice models but no place to talk about them.</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

 

[james_kennedy9]

<blockquote>

<p><em>What about, say, a prewar brownie with just one fixed aperture, shutter speed, and focus distance. No manual adjustment possible. Manual or auitomatic? Certainly they were marketed as if automatic.</em></p>

<p>Manual. You still have to press the shutter.<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

[james_kennedy9]

<p><em>How about this, NO free form, plastoblob, not a straight line on it, SLR's!</em><br /><em> Butt ugly! Ever since Canon brought out the T90 we have had an inexorable slide toward camera bodies that look like they are slightly melted. I just can't shoot with an ugly camera.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Form follows function. Cameras that take after the T90 style are much easier to grip securely. And I find the looks of T90 to be quite handsome. To me, an example of an ugly camera is the Nikon F with any of its metered finders, whereas the F with plain prism is looks great.</p>

</blockquote>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>JDM, thanks for the clarification on lutefisk. To me, Swedes and Norwegians are a difference without a distinction. My Father was born in Scotland, but he was tall with blue eyes, whereas many histories depict the original Picts and Scots was being short and perhaps swarthy? I am tall with brown eyes and my three younger brothers are blue eyed blonds. I like to imagine that I have some Viking blood.</p>

<p>My generalization is that most areas with a significant Scandinavian population are good civic places to live, although the weather might not be too great. I personally will continue to be a lutefisk or lutfisk-free zone, and to be fair, that list also include nook mamh (sp) and kimchee. I do love kippered snacks and pickled herring, on the rare occasions my wife allows me to bring them in the house, which is only in the summer, when she can open all the windows.</p>

<p>Isn't it wonderful how you have achieved unanimous agreement among our diverse community on classic cameras? I wonder what criteria would be used to judge whether we photogs/posters qualify as classic. I pretty sure I meet the age criterion, but very few of other standards.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>My idea of a manual film camera:<br /> OK: Electronic exposure meter, electronic shutter, add-on electronic film winder<br /> Not OK: Electronic autofocus, electronic automation to set both aperture and shutter speed<br /> ??: Electronic automation to set aperture only or shutter speed only, integral electronic film winder</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Any body who thinks Swedes and Norwegians are the same should (As <em>Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths</em> put it) go to a Settendemai celebration and announce: "I'm a Swede".</p>

<p>I am surprised by how tolerant the group has become. No wonder we're such a wonderful bunch of people :)</p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em></em>And good-looking, too.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You bet!</p>