Were the cameras of the past better than the new ones?

[samstevens]

So did I, and now I wish that I had never seen a digital camera.

 

The zero expense, and spontaneity of "the next frame" eliminated my previous habits of care, forethought, planning .... and care. I ended up with several hard-drives full of repetitious trivial crap, and a huge workload in editing ( and discarding) an exponentially larger proportion of pictures, and intentionally saving far fewer than my prior film average.

It might be the fault of digital cameras. Then again, it could also be a matter of discipline and self control. Maybe a bit of each.

[ruslan]

Better? Not sure about that, but they were certainly lighter. Thinking of my beloved Olympus OM-1 and Pentax MX: beautiful engineering and so light.....

There are bunch of lightweight cameras - all-plastic Canon EOS 200D, EOS 1000D, Olympus E-M5Mkiii have no weight.

But older cameras were built to last for decades... entry-level K-1000, remember?

[tholte]

Forty years ago, you could buy a Nikon F2A body for about $500. Today, they're still going strong, and an excellent condition one sells for about $175-$200. Just see if you can use your new Nikon D5 that costs $6000 in forty years. And check it's resale price.

Not very concerned at all about what anything I have is worth in 40 years much less a camera. Old cameras and lenses are great as are all the new ones.

[tholte]

Film is relaxing. Its slow. Its steady. Like drafting out a floor plan or small model steam engine.

 

ITs how im starting to slow my brain down. Spent an hour this afternoon wandering the yard chasing down a rabbit. Took maybe 10 minutes to stalk it, each step did a quick recheck on the settings, but if you leave 400 iso film at1/500 shutter speed, going from dark areas to brightly lit lawn your good to go at 5.6 - 8 on the aperture ring.

 

Spent one whole day without power looking at the rain come off the roof planning out how id setup for a single photo.

 

 

With a digital camera, id have fired off perhaps 150 pictures of the rabbit while I did a wild desperate run at it before it hopped into the flower bed. Or I would simply take 3,000 photos of the rain coming off the roof and hope to get a few good ones.

 

Whats superior about that?

If you don't like the whole digital process you should stick with film. Nothing wrong with that! I probably shot more film than most here on PN and enjoyed the whole process but since shooting digital with my first DSLR (Nikon D70) I seldom shoot film anymore except an occasional bw portrait with my Pentax 67. I don't get caught up in expensive gear and I am not very computer savvy but I learn what I have to do to maximize what I do have. To improve you have to love what you do, film or digital, and I am in the loving digital phase.

[samstevens]

Not very concerned at all about what anything I have is worth in 40 years much less a camera.

I agree! In 40 years I’ll be a hundred and six. At that point, I’ll expect no more than 20 more years out of my cameras and lenses. :rolleyes:

[markwyatt]

besides a good camera made in 1953 with good film will still take quality pictures next week. How well do your digitals hold up

 

My Contax iia (1953) is one of my favorite cameras ever, and the most used in the last year.

[markwyatt]

New cameras are wonderful, their technologies are superb - there's the rub. They are essentially appliances - which will become obsolete in the same way as cell phones or computers, or any of our other modern marvels. When the memory media and batteries become unavailable, (or software changes sufficiently) they become memorabilia. My first Nikon got in 1967, my father's Leica M 3 from around 1954 still work perfectly, with or without batteries, and will continue to do so as long as there is film and processing chemistry. One more point, high end cameras from the old days, regardless of brand, were at a manufacturing pinnacle, precision crafted metal and glass. Far more evocative than the admittedly extremely capable plastic coated blobs of today. Both types have their place, enthusiasts, and uses.

 

Agreed. I love my Fujifilm XT-2 for its technology, convenience, and results. I do not expect it will be as useful 25 years from now, but my 1953 Contax iia is just as useful now as it was 66 years ago (even more useful given that there are better film choices available now).

[markwyatt]

According to reference tables of tensile strength plastics/resins are 1/10 - 1/20 as strong as titanium.

 

Plastics are about toughness, not tensile strength. Materials are chosen for a variety of reasons, certainly not just tensile strength. I am not a fan of 1980s-1990s plasticized cameras, but to be honest some are probably very good for some people and purposes.

[markwyatt]

Today's cameras are worlds better . . . Get serious . . .

 

None of today's cameras have 1/12,000 on the shutter dial because you don't need it. It was a marketing gimmick to begin with from a manufacturer that had only a small share of the market. Today's shutters are more accurate and consistent. They last far longer without regular CLA. Viewfinders are brighter. Digital sensors and direct feedback (on the LCD) should make us better photographers. We don't have to carry multiple bodies to shoot different film stocks. In fact, we can wait until later to decide, digitally, what film stock we want to shoot on.

 

I still love film and expect to shoot more of it this year than I did last year . . . But, to imagine that I'm shoot it with a better camera? Get real . . .

 

In the end to me it is less about the camera (today's cameras are technologically superior in many ways) and more about the lenses (the camera is a holder/enabler for some light sensitive technology). Are older lenses "better" than newer? I cannot say that. What is the criteria? MTF? Lack of optical defects? Modern beat the older. "Look"? That remains subjective. I like some older lenses, and do fine with some newer also.

[samstevens]

In the end to me it is less about the camera (today's cameras are technologically superior in many ways) and more about the lenses (the camera is a holder/enabler for some light sensitive technology).

To me, while both those things are important, it's less about both of them and more about changing visions of the people using them and the photos that result. Gear is only as good as how it's used what it's used for.

[markwyatt]

To me, while both those things are important, it's less about both of them and more about changing visions of the people using them and the photos that result. Gear is only as good as how it's used what it's used for.

 

Agreed, in a bigger picture sense, the results are what matter. From a more gear/process perspective, I would add that the medium is also important (film, plates, Pt vs. silver, digital, RAW vs. jpg, etc.). Sometimes exploiting very limited technological means (i.e., pinhole camera) can lead to spectacular results because even within those limited means there are a transfinite number of possible results, and tuning the process and one's creative sense to those results that benefit the most from the limited means can lead to interesting results. I think this is the direction you are pointing.

[glen_h]

Many things were built tough in the beginning, and changed as people figured out what worked.

 

Look at house constuction 100 years ago, compared to today?

 

The Nikon F was designed for professional use, many shots per day.

 

In the 1970's, cameras like the Canon AE-1 were designed for non-professionals who

want an easier to use, and lighter camera, and won't need the high shutter counts.

 

On the other hand, many professionals use the lighter, cheaper cameras as throw-away,

where they can buy more of them, and use them until they fail.

[ed_farmer]

In the end to me it is less about the camera (today's cameras are technologically superior in many ways) and more about the lenses

 

That depends on what we are actually comparing . . . If you're shooting film then, yes, the camera is just a mechanical device to hold the lens AND the film in proper alignment during the exposure. When we are talking about digital, the camera replaces the film as an important component in the production of the image.

 

Today's lenses are clearly superior (with a few possible exceptions) but the older lenses, when used with film, were more than sufficient for the resolution available. Digital sensors have lens requirements that differ from film. Newer lens designs take these changes into account. This may, or may not, make them any better for film use.