My take on this forum and what constitutes a CMC

[marklcooper]

<p>Rather than hijack an existing thread I'd like to start a new thread.</p>

<p>I think this is one of the most interesting forums on Photo.net. It is certainly one of the liveliest. The majority of the folks here provide tremendous incentive and positive feedback for people growing up and living in a digital world to go out and use an older, to really old, film camera. After a couple weeks of following the threads on this forum I'm eagerly looking forward to getting out my film camera.</p>

<p>Some observations first. Nowhere in the guidelines does it specifically state that this is a 35mm forum only. I've seen the occasional post about a medium or large format antique. But it looks like 95+% discussions are based on 35mm cameras. I enjoy reading about someone's latest acquisition. It's uplifting to see their excitement. It's very educational for me to see what some of these older cameras and lenses can produce. I don't come to this forum to read about nature, sports, travel, portraits, fashions, etc. I like to see everyday pictures taken by enthusiastic photographers using older equipment.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D300 with auto-focus, zooms, VR technology, etc. Anything dealing with this camera specifically, belongs on the Nikon forum. </p>

<p>I have a Mamiya TLR and a Ciro-Flex TLR. They are both truly and fully manual. Seems obvious that the medium format forum is the place to discuss these cameras. I use an electronic light meter to adjust settings on both cameras based on film speed and what I wish to accomplish.</p>

<p>I also have a Nikon FE purchased new in 1978 that served me well through around 2002. Since then it has been gathering dust. I used a couple digital point and shoots until 2008 because of the hassle of getting film processed. September 2008 is when I purchased my D300. To me the Nikon forum has mostly become centered around digital dSLRs and questions about specific model film cameras needing some thingy repaired or replaced. It has not really been about going out and shooting pictures with a Nikon film camera.</p>

<p>To me, the FE is a manual camera. I manually insert the film leader in the take-up spool. I manually advance the film with a lever. I manually set the ASA (remember ASA?). I manually focus. I did usually use aperture priority mode. I did occasionally use full manual, still depending on the built-in light meter. It seems to me that nothing about the FE places it in the modern film camera world as long as I am talking about what it was capable of in its day and what quality of pictures it takes.</p>

<p>I think the Canon AE or AE-1 was available the same time as my FE with close to the same features and capabilities. I'd love to see someone pick up their/an old AE, take some pictures to post along with a little of that camera's history. Substitute Pentax, Olympus, whatever.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>This topic keeps coming up. I suppose it always will.</p>

<p>35mm has been the most popular film format for a long time, so I'm not surprised that most posts here concern that type of camera. Most posts are about SLRs for the same reason, but we have a fair number of posts about rangefinders, TLRs, etc. as well.</p>

<p>The position I take the classic manual vs. modern debate is that we have to accept that there is some sort of gray zone between the two. A fully manual, fully mechanical, pre-1980 camera with no use for a battery except (perhaps) to power a light meter is surely not "modern" by current standards. Autofocus and built-in winding motors are to my mind the hallmark of the fully modern camera. In between the two is the gray zone. A Canon A-1 is pre-1980, and is manual focus, but it has an electronic shutter, multiple auto-exposure modes, and an LED display in the viewfinder. I think of it as not quite classic but also not quite modern. The Minolta X-700 is very similar in terms of features, but was introduced in the 1980s (albeit the very early '80s). My own tendency would be to use the date of introduction as the main difference between these two; thus I would post about the A-1 in Classic Manual Cameras, and the X-700 in Modern Film Cameras. Others might choose differently, though, and I wouldn't consider them wrong to do so. It is, after all, a gray area.</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Classic or not classic we have so many debates. Latest decision is auto-focus auto exposure capability- modern film camera.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>He couldn't be all bad. He uses a Ciro-flex.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>And what a bargain that C-F was at $12.50<g>. With leather case!</p>

<p>I always feel kind of strange using my (purchased new years ago digital) Sekonic L-508 Zoom Master to figure out exposure for a $13 camera. Not so strange with the C330 Pro F.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

[joshroot]

<p>My take is that the forum definition is fine and won't be changing. It's a zero-sum game at this point. There is no change that can be made that will increase the percentage of people who are happy about the definition. Any change to please one person will just annoy the others. It's a topic that has come up over and over.</p>

<p>The forum works, the definition is fine, things are good. I'm not changing anything.</p>

<p>That having been said, feel free to debate the topic all you want. It's a subject that is worthy of discussion and many are interested in it.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Whew! That's a breath of fresh air from Josh; as my old man used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>It's Friday, Friday, lets have some fun....©</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Perfectly fine with the gray area. Although I would post from my Minolta X-700, XG-9, Olympus OM-G, and Nikon FE-2 in the Modern Film Cameras forum, I wouldn't kick up a fuss if someone posted from them in Classic Modern Cameras. I enjoy the photos that everyone posts of their gear whether classic, modern, or in the gray area. And I love seeing the results. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I don't worry too much about what belongs on which of these boards. An FE, if it feels classic manual to you, write about it here.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Mike - Exactly what I was trying to say. You can feel the enjoyment in the posts. I get a real kick out of the 'camera porn.' It's really nice to see pictures of the equipment being discussed along with some sample pictures.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[jim_mcdermott1]

<p>Perhaps I shouldn't have a say here (I own several CMCs but have never posted results), but it seems to me (and possibly me alone), that when a camera makes a decision re: what aperture or shutter speed to set on your behalf, it's beginning to slip away from the definition of 'manual'.</p>

<p>Of course, that would stuff the Rolleimagic ...</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Jim - I agree with you. Do you think the FE fully belongs in the modern film category? I don't feel comfortable putting it there. There was a period of time in the later seventies when cameras began to get the beginnings of a brain stem. These are the cameras in the gray area. Well into the eighties when they started auto-loading auto-focusing auto setting of the film speed, then I think we're well out of the gray area. </p>

<p>Mark</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ahem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd love to see someone pick up their/an old AE, take some pictures to post along with a little of that camera's history.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It not only shall be done, many times, but has been done more than once. Some postings predate the start of Modern Film Cameras, which you should look at as well. Others may be under the particular format or so. But the <strong>historical</strong> stuff - in my opinion (not shared by all)- fits here and on Modern Film Cameras rather than under Medium Format, Nikon, FD, or whatever else.<br>

Let the specialist forums deal with the "how do I attach the flash?", which lens should I buy?, and nuts and bolts questions as they largely do anyhow.</p>

<p>Canon AE1 Program Post: http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00XFXF<br>

Pentax H2: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y3Rk<br>

Olympus OM 1: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y2PJ<br>

And there are lots more. There is a search function here that will let you find posts - it's at the top right of the opening splash.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>I all I know is that I have posted stuff and asked question from 35mm to 4x5 here from time to time : Like the Mr. Rick Drawbridge said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." and if you have a camera that's totally electronic you can the use the modern film camera forum : Have fun</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>JDM - looking back on it now that didn't quite turn out the way I intended.</p>

<p>I'd love to see someone <strong><em>new to this forum</em></strong> pick up their/an old AE, take some pictures to post along with a little of that camera's history <em><strong>because of the positive/helping atmosphere of this forum.</strong></em></p>

<p>I need to look at my comments a little closer before I hit Submit. - Mark</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>No problemo.</p>

<p>But we were all new once upon a time.</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>it seems to me (and possibly me alone), that when a camera makes a decision re: what aperture or shutter speed to set on your behalf, it's beginning to slip away from the definition of 'manual'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's where we get into the gray zone. One thing to remember, though, is that auto-exposure dates back to the 1960s (e.g. Konica EE-Matic); you wouldn't really want to call a half-century old camera "modern", would you? But certainly it marks the beginning of a tendency toward modern automation. That tendency reaches its full fruition in the mid-1980s with the introduction of camera systems designed from the ground up for autofocus (as opposed to, say, the Nikon F3AF) and the disappearance of manual winding levers. At that point cameras are definitively modern -- at least for now. In another couple of decades we may look back and consider all film cameras to be pre-modern.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The Kodak Super Six-20 of 1938 is usually accepted as the first commercial auto exposure camera. I'd be very tempted to treat it in the Modern Film Cameras forum, although it could go into either. It's looks were also way ahead of its time.</p>

<p>Modern music, by the way, goes back well into the 1890s. Modern Architecture also.</p>

<p><em>Modern </em>in this sense is a 'style' not a particular set of years.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Ahem - you also have people posting now and then with Kodak Panorams, Widelux (various models), a Cirkut camera once in a very great while, and various press cameras.</p>

<p>I like that this forum has a loosely defined definition, and a tolerant group of regulars who are pretty accepting of unique machinery.</p>

[jim_mcdermott1]

<p>This forum is full of contributors making perceptive, well-informed, courteous and amiable comments. Jeez, you'd think it wasn't the internet at all. I 8 u adults ...</p>

 

[jim_mcdermott1]

<p>But seriously, I agree with several of you re: the grey/gray area of the 80s. I commenced my photography in 1983 with a Pentax MX, which at that time was the dog's proverbial of all-manual cameras (Olympus OM1 owners will disagree); but even then, cameras like the A1, X700 and SuperA/Super Program were marking the brief (hell, overnight) transition from what most of us would regard as 'traditional' to the Brave New Plastic World of the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7000 et al. I suppose I was lucky to start when everything was in such a fascinating flux, but it certainly makes life difficult for pigeon-holers. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

There is nothing problematic with the grey area aspect of CMC. On the contrary. Like Josh said: <i><b>"It's a subject that is worthy of discussion and many are interested in it."</b></i> No grey area = nothing to discuss.<br><br>So:<br><br>I'd love to see someone pick up their [FILL IN], take some pictures to post <i><b>along with a little of that camera's history</b></i> because it's a subject that is worthy of discussion and many are interested in it.<br><br>As a simple for instance, the post above talks about a contrast between <i>"traditional"</i> and <i>"the Brave New Plastic World"</i>. That's far more interesting than some people's (you know who you are) "it's a classic because i say so" (which is, in fact, extremely boring), or "it's interesting because i also post a series of uninteresting pictures".

[Mike Gammill]

<p>While CMC does seem to be mostly 35mm, we do see our share of medium format, expecially some of the old folders. In the past I've only posted 120 if it was from an older 120 camera such as my Yashica D or Rolleicord III. If I were to post from my Mamiya 645E, I'd likely post it in the medium format forum. </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Q.G., please sir, give this a rest. The thing you seem to miss by selectivly reading my previous post is that the XE is a classic because I say it is <strong><em>for all of the reasons I listed in the post</em></strong>. I did go quite in deapth on why its considered a classic and you completely ignored them.<br>

<br><br>

Furthermore, expecting a poster to include a cameras history in every single post that is submitted with photos from that camera is really quite ludicrous. The historical and technical information of most of the cameras here have been posted many times over in this very forum along with much more lengthy blogs and write ups across the internet. If someone posts photos here from a camera, be they banal or masterpieces, and those photo generate interest for someone then a quick web search will usually turn up any information one could want on said camera. You can also contact the forum member thru a personal message to receive more detailed info if needed. I assume what you want is a mini write up with photos such as I submitted back on July 7 concerning my XE-7.<br>

<br><br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Z0HP<br>

<br><br>

Is that what your looking for? The thing is, Im not going to submit a write up like this every time I post photos from my XE here. It would be silly and redundant. Now if the camera is somewhat rare or extremely old and there has not been any (or much) information submitted here for the archive then yes, its perfectly acceptable to expect someone to give historical and technical background. But for more commonly known cameras from the major manufacturers I would not expect everyone to constantly regurgitate what is easily accessible on the web. Mr. Drawbridge is a perfect example of this. He pulls out some very rare cameras from time to time and does wonderful little write ups on them. The photographs he includes are very well done and have actually inspired me to look at new directions in my photography.<br>

<br><br>

But I do not expect, nor should I, this level of quality from every poster here. Time constraints, writing ability, photographic ability...all these will factor in on the "quality" of an individuals posts. But even if they dont spend a lot of time on the post, they are in fact a terrible writer and even if there photography is not good they still have a right to post here. This is where the feedback and support of this forum become so critical. There is a constructive way to help people improve their posts and photography. I personally the feel the way you responded to the recent XE post was very uncharacteristic of the majority of posters on this forum and did in fact border on being rude.<br>

<br><br>

This forum is about old film cameras, their history and their survival. Its about where we find them and the photos we take with them. Its about people coming together in pastime we all enjoy and sharing our experience. Rules lawyers can apply elsewhere.</p>