classic manual definitions

[patrickwells]

<p>I looked up your definitions of a classic manual camera. Since I have not found a definitive answer. I assume that I can post photo's from my P30t and my K1000. here. The P30t is manual focus and I use it as a manual camera. I do some times use the light meter. <br>

The reason I ask I looked for an answer is I tend to grab one about as often as the other and usually forget which shots are shot with which camera. I was going to post in the flowers thread but not sure which camera took which roll of shot's . I was using both that day. I hope you don't mind I'm going to post one of the shots <br>

Thanks</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That's an often discussed and much debated subject with no single answer, and there are a bunch of cameras you could write about here or in the Modern Film Cameras area, like a Nikon F3 or FM3a, Minolta X700, etc.</p>

<p>I'd call the K1000 classic for sure and the P30t one of the gray area models, and I think you can go ahead and write about them as much as you want here, and don't sweat the question of which you used too much.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>We're flexible here in the Classic Manual forum as well as in the Modern Film Cameras forum. Some cameras could probably go in either forum. The K1000 would definitely go here. Generally manual focus cameras with electronics (battery dependent), especially later ones, would be more at home in Modern Film Cameras, but could still post in Classic Manual. For example, my Minolta XE-7 from the mid-70's is electronic, but does have a manual shutter speed that will work without batteries so I might put it in Classic Manual. My X-700, though, is much later and totally battery dependent so I'd put it in Modern Film Cameras. I'm not familar with the P30t, but if it is totally battery dependent I'd post it in Modern Film Cameras. If it has some degree of battery indenpendence I'd say either category. <br>

Bottom line- these forums are to enjoy so don't worry too much as the line between these two categories is a little fuzzy. And we get lots of great posts in both.</p>

[patrickwells]

<p>Mike<br>

That's kind of what I was thinking. I was figuring the newer models like the ZX's and *ist as modern and the P models as some where in the middle ,with the K1000 as a classic Thanks</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>Some of the "modern" film cameras are pretty much classics, and some of the "classic" film cameras are fairly modern. Some of the rest are just junk. I would never try to post up a rigid definition. The definition is up to you and if you post something here that tends to cause someone heartburn over the topic or category, just ignore them. Many of us do.</p>

<p>Post away.</p>

[craigd]

<p>This subject comes up entirely too often. I think it's pretty clear that whatever definition one prefers, there is likely to be a gray area. My personal view is that a fully mechanical camera that can shoot without batteries (even if only at one shutter speed) is definitely a "classic manual camera", while electronic cameras that require batteries to shoot at all, or that have autofocus or program AE mode, are definitely "modern film cameras". There is a large gray area in between these, including a number of electronic aperture-priority or shutter-priority cameras. Another common criterion is age: a model that was introduced less than 30 years ago might be better seen as "modern" rather than "classic", especially given the changes in camera body designs that occurred during the 1980s, when classic stylings and metal bodies began to be replaced by black sculptured plastics that looked like props from science fiction movies.</p>

<p>I don't know very much about the P30T, but a quick Google search turned up a page that says it has aperture-priority AE but no program mode, and does not have autofocus. However, it was introduced in 1990. To me that says modern film camera, but opinions will vary and I'm certainly not going to post nasty remarks telling you you're posting in the "wrong" place. It's a gray-area camera as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[dave_g1]

<p>Unless you're manually fuming the silver plates with mercury vapors, it's not really a manual camera.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I've remarked before to this type of question, what's a "classic camera" depends on if you're buying or selling.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!<br>;-)<br><br><i>"[...] a fully mechanical camera that can shoot without batteries (even if only at one shutter speed) is definitely a "classic manual camera", "</i><br>No, it's not. It's "definitely" a manual camera.<br><br>The only "grey area" in this forum is one created by the reluctance to acknowledge that neither "manual" nor "old" equal "classic".<br><br>But to continue the quote i started with: the working motto of this forum is "[...] there is none of you [i.e. the old cameras discussed here] so mean and base, that hath not noble lustre in your eyes."<br>So as long as someone recognizes that noble luster in any old piece of crap, it's a thing deserving our attention.

[craigd]

<p>Q.G., if one thing is clear, it is that the term "Classic" as used here is not intended to limit us to cameras that are truly "classic" in the sense that the 1957 Ford Thunderbird is a classic American car. It would be a very dull forum if we were only allowed to talk about the Leica M3, the Nikon F, the Hasselblad 500C, and a handful of other indisputed "classics".</p>

<p>If I had named this forum I wouldn't have used the word "classic", but that's over and done with.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The assumption then is that there are only a handfull of true classics? Too few to build an interesting forum around?<br>I don't know that that is true. There certainly are far fewer than the number of 'just old' cameras that are discussed here.<br><br>But it would make for a very different discussion.<br>Instead of talking about inconsequential but nice (or merely nice looking, or sometimes not even that) old cameras, it would revolve about the things that brought us/photography where it is today.<br>About the things that made a real difference, and why. About if, and if so how, these things that made a difference are still relevant/important today. About why they only came to be when they did, and not earlier. About too whether a "disputed" classic indeed is or is not a true classic and (important) why so. Etcetera.<br><br>Nice though "here are some pictures my Praktica B produced" or "look at how my Singlex TLS still shines" threads may be, i would have loved to see some exchange of thought on those topics.<br>Now, we can read all about how many TLR models Frank & Heidecke made, how they differ, what accessories fit what model, where you can get them repaired, etc.<br>All very interesting, no doubt. But never a word about why Franke & Heidecke made such a thing to begin with, and why it was such a success.<br><br>But then, it's never too late to rename this forum and start a brand new one, devoted to the real classics. ;-)<br><br>And it isn't all bad here at all. There have been quite a few interesting threads about the history of a make or maker. Not necessarily classics, but still very much like what a true classic camera forum would be about too.

[gnashings]

<p>Proposed rule: never, ever, never ever never never utter the cursed "is this considered a classic?" question... look what happens at the mere mention of it! Its a veritable Pandora's box and guaranteed to start a 30 page thread dealing with anything but the actual pictures or cameras or anything photographic in particular. If something is really out of bounds, someone will respond to your thread with a helpful suggestion of where best to post it. </p>

<p>Now lets see the pictures! :)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What? And ignore an opportunity to lay the foundations for a new, 'true' classic cameras forum? ;-)

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Q.G. de Bakker: So as long as someone recognizes that noble luster in any old piece of crap, it's a thing deserving our attention. Please be careful some of us hold those piece of crap very dearly<br>

because some of us consider them as works of art that can take some good fotos<br>

LOL</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Be careful, Lauren? Why?<br>Because you agree with and confirm the motto?<br>;-)

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>It did not come out humors as I intended it to be , sorry:</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

No Lauren, it's me. I apologize and promise i will get more sleep.<br>;-)

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I sometimes think it would be fun to have a Classic Cameras convention. Everyone gathers with their favorite classics. The stories behind some of the cameras might be as interesting as the cameras themselves. Everyone takes photos to their heart's content. Darkroom facilities are available of course. Relatively few arguments about CMC vs. MFC until late. Then the following scene unfolds after a couple of the participants have had too much to drink:<br>

Photographer 1: "My camera is more classic than your camera!"<br>

Photographer 2: Knowing he's beaten, he thrusts open the back of his camera and pulls the film out and shouts: "Oh yeah, well my grain's bigger than your grain!" Then he passes out and falls to the floor still gripping his camera.<br>

Yeah, too bad we all live so far apart. ;-)</p>

[gnashings]

<p>sectarian violence... I can just see it now ;)</p>

[patrickwells]

<p>Mike your convention sounds like fun .Especially being the sober one watching . And for sure the next morning.</p>