Oh for the days of ever-lasting film cameras

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I remember the days when you could buy a camera, say a Nikon Fm2n, use it for several years, drop onto (from a great height) concrete and smash it to bits then go out and buy exactly the same type of camera and carry on as if nothing had happened. Will this ever happen with modern electronic cameras or are we condemned to have to buy the 'latest' technology even though it adds nothing to ones photography. I had a motorbike for many years and would have loved to buy one of exactly the same model but alas they had moved on and become 'the latest thing' yea even though it did exactly the same job but more expensively and with more useless bells and whistles. Sometimes I wonder about buying a Leica camera -- apart from the price -- as they seem to be relatively stable in an ever-changing world.
 
film still exists, so you can still shoot your classic cameras. That's what I do, and many others
 
ShinySideUp said:
I remember the days when you could buy a camera, say a Nikon Fm2n, use it for several years, drop onto (from a great height) concrete and smash it to bits then go out and buy exactly the same type of camera and carry on as if nothing had happened. Will this ever happen with modern electronic cameras or are we condemned to have to buy the 'latest' technology even though it adds nothing to ones photography. I had a motorbike for many years and would have loved to buy one of exactly the same model but alas they had moved on and become 'the latest thing' yea even though it did exactly the same job but more expensively and with more useless bells and whistles. Sometimes I wonder about buying a Leica camera -- apart from the price -- as they seem to be relatively stable in an ever-changing world.
Click to expand...

Read it twice and i think i know what your saying :) we are blessed or doomed which ever is your way of thinking to continue with ever changing technology in most of our consumer products,i sort of get the same feeling when i use my D70 which i bought when they first came out,i now have a D7000 and D5100 also,as great as it is to handle and use the D70 the two newer cameras do out perform it with the same lens,this means i guess in reality i am in favor of the current situation its only nostalgia that makes me think differently.
 
You're not forced to upgrade, there's often very little to be had from 'the latest thing', all with the caveat that the technology hasn't quite matured yet.

My camera isn't quite perfect, it has loads of bells and whistles I don't need, and lacks a 2nd card slot and an edge of high ISO performance.

So I will upgrade it when the time is right, but I'm still using some very old cameras compared to many. My 'latest' camera is 5 years old? The oldest maybe 10, and is still a great camera.
 
Yes, regarding Leica, I am probably a little blinkered as I assumed they didn't change much because they look so much alike and since they are so expensive I haven't really paid attention to their development so scratch my remarks on Leica.

I suppose I just miss the elegant simplicity of my FM2n with it's two tiny batteries that lasted forever. Not that I would ever go back to film, as film development is too dark, too smelly, too messy, and very slow -- made you think about each picture though with only 36 goes at it.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Yes, regarding Leica, I am probably a little blinkered as I assumed they didn't change much because they look so much alike and since they are so expensive I haven't really paid attention to their development so scratch my remarks on Leica.

I suppose I just miss the elegant simplicity of my FM2n with it's two tiny batteries that lasted forever. Not that I would ever go back to film, as film development is too dark, too smelly, too messy, and very slow -- made you think about each picture though with only 36 goes at it.
Click to expand...

36 goes? You were lucky! I never owned or carried that many dark slides for my 5x4 for an entire day's shoot...

:exit:
 
It will never happen with digital cameras. I can't see a time when Canon, Nikon, Sony etc,. get to a point where they say "we're done" no more new models now.
Buts as Jayst84 said, you just replace your older camera with a used one of the same model. Depending on which model you have there will likely be a number of them selling on eBay at any one time.
Film cameras were the same and did develop from early manual SLRs to ones with more effective metering to ones with auto focus etc,. Compare an early SLR with one of the last Canon EOS for example. Was just a slower pace.
 
It's an eternal problem for manufacturers. Make something great that lasts for ever and you don't need to buy a new one. They cease to exist.

Make something 'better' and you have to upgrade... sell on the old one which gets more brand owners and future purchases and their firm lives on. They hope.
 
I've had a 20D for about ten years - i'm just upgrading it to a 50D this year (my principal camera currently is a 40D that i upgraded from my other 20D a few years back) - I rarely buy current generation tech - i'd rather have a minty second hand deal which is both cheaper and bug free.
 
jamiewednesday said:
It's an eternal problem for manufacturers. Make something great that lasts for ever and you don't need to buy a new one.
Click to expand...

When Nikon updated the F and introduced the F2, demand for the F was so high that they continued making it alongside the F2 for several years.


Steve.
 
I'm beginning to sound like an old fart these days. As someone born in the digital era, and someone who has spent over fifteen years working in a technology related career you'd think I would be in favour of the latest and greatest. I'm not.

As I get older I find myself longing for a simpler life. Sod the 24 hour social media connected culture, with disposable everything.

Stick your email, I want a handcrafted letter you actual spent more than ten seconds writing.

Stuff your new fangled digital super gadgets that are worthless a year after you bought them, I want solid mechanical goods built to last a lifetime.

End of rant, time for my nap.
 
Steve Smith said:
When Nikon updated the F and introduced the F2, demand for the F was so high that they continued making it alongside the F2 for several years.
Steve.
Click to expand...

When I bought my D7000 it was less than a year before they brought out the D7100 and I thought "crap, done it again, bought an old model" but it hasn't turned out that way as they are running the D7000 alongside the D7100 for the moment and after reading the specs I understand why. Despite my original post I am more than happy with my D7000 and unless it actually breaks I shan't be changing for a few years. The reason I shan't change is because of something someone said on this forum somewhere, -- my apologies because I can't remember who said it -- they said that above a certain number of pixels the definition is so great that it exceeds the capability of the lens to resolve detail; I believe that figure was around 16Mp or perhaps 24Mp (can't quite remember). This means that my D7000 at 16 Mp is as good as my lenses and can't really be improved on while I shoot DX and so if my D7000 breaks my two options are to buy another D7000 or make the move to FX; it is the latter I shall do as I have mostly FX lenses (thinking ahead) but I am in no hurry.
 
In all seriousness, nobody is making you buy the latest model if the camera you have has been superceded. I own quite a bit of camera equipment (digital and film) but even my latest camera (Fuji X-E1) has now been superceded by a newer "better" model. That doesn't mean my X-E1 suddenly takes bad pictures - it's still a superb tool and will continue to serve me well until I choose to change.
 
but we soon want more
ShinySideUp said:
Yes, regarding Leica, I am probably a little blinkered as I assumed they didn't change much because they look so much alike and since they are so expensive I haven't really paid attention to their development so scratch my remarks on Leica.

I suppose I just miss the elegant simplicity of my FM2n with it's two tiny batteries that lasted forever. Not that I would ever go back to film, as film development is too dark, too smelly, too messy, and very slow -- made you think about each picture though with only 36 goes at it.
Click to expand...

or you can drop off your rolls of film at boots and get dev + 9x6 prints done cheaper than they do 36 digital pictures.
so you can use your beautiful mechanical camera just fine today, and feel way more involved in taking the picture.
and you can buy a roll of film in poundland, but admitidly it might only be 24 exposure.
 
I shoot a few film cameras, it's fun and opens up a world of different options. My latest is Bessa R2A rangefinder which is still (in closely related R2M form) in production to this day. I don't only shoot film though, I also have a Canon 5D (mark 1) which is a lovely old tank of a thing. No bells or whistles but IMHO the image quality still holds up to this day.

The big camera manufacturers spend millions if not billions every year convincing us to buy their latest gewgaws but you don't need to fall for it. Great kit remains great kit regardless of the passage of time.
 
i think digital has aged worse, i mean with film, the film bit is the key part, and for most things most film camera's do fine, and there more fun to use. a old or super cheap digital camera feels meh :\
 
I'm not so sure digital technology has aged worse, it's just that upgrades in digital are fairly large upgrades (in general terms). Take my venerable D70 (which I still have); it's current "equivalent" would probably be the D7000 which is far better in every way, and is actually cheaper today than my D70 was 10 years ago! The D70 is still a reasonable camera but it lags behind in terms of high ISO performance, AF, you name it! It might possibly be capable of a faster flash synch speed but I have a feeling that even that might be possible with a more modern body and flash.

If you look at old film emulsions, the grain was far coarser 30 or so years ago than it is today and back then, 400 was considered a fast film - who would be satisfied with a DSLR with a top ISO of even 1600? (By 1600, grain was almost visible with the naked eye on Tri-X or HP-5.) These days, most DSLRs (and some compacts) deliver perfectly useable results at that, with some models being capable of significantly faster!

Compared to DSLRs, film bodies had it easy too. If you went out for a walk with a film SLR, you might shoot a whole roll of film, possibly even 2! These days, that number of shots can easily be rattled off in 20 seconds, if not faster and a simple wander can easily end up with a hundred or 2 shots. Of course, it's not as easy to count shutter actuations on film bodies but a look back at several years of films shows maybe 150 rolls through a couple of bodies - at 38 shots per roll, that's only 5,700 shots, maybe a couple of months of digital shots for some people.
 
Nod said:
who would be satisfied with a DSLR with a top ISO of even 1600?
Click to expand...

Me. ISO 100 is enough for me as I don't take photographs of black cats in coal cellars at night. I (almost) only use ISO 100 film so ISO 100 is plenty for digital for me.


Steve.
 
There's always one!!! ;) Who quite possibly doesn't want digital in any case!
 
Things get more capable as time goes on, I recently built a new pc to replace my 12 year old one because it could no longer keep up with higher broadband speeds or modern software. The same happens with cameras, the sensors get bigger and better and more modern internal electronics. Printers will also get better to handle higher quality photographs, maybe we will see the inkjet die away and be replaced with cheaper hi-res laser printers in the future.
Standing still is`nt good for business that's why all the great British motorcycle companies died off.
 
I have a 5D3 and a 70D now and I'm totally happy with the performance of both. I don't need any more bells and whistles than I've already got and for me, and the type of photography I do, they are the perfect pair. I don't see me 'needing' any of the features of the future 5D MkV when it finally arrives so I'll be keeping these bodies for the foreseeable future. When the time comes to replace a body, due to breakage or wear, I will look for the same again if it's still available (even if it means second hand) as I know the quality I get from them will be good enough. I know businesses need to keep making new models to keep competitive in the market share but I don't need any better than I have.

Maybe if I win a fortune on the lottery I would look into what's on the market as a better model (only 1Dx at the moment) but only is money was no object.
 
Steve Smith said:
Me. ISO 100 is enough for me as I don't take photographs of black cats in coal cellars at night. I (almost) only use ISO 100 film so ISO 100 is plenty for digital for me.


Steve.
Click to expand...
:plus1: Thats two of us.
 
modchild said:
I have a 5D3 and a 70D now and I'm totally happy with the performance of both. I don't need any more bells and whistles than I've already got and for me, and the type of photography I do, they are the perfect pair. I don't see me 'needing' any of the features of the future 5D MkV when it finally arrives so I'll be keeping these bodies for the foreseeable future. When the time comes to replace a body, due to breakage or wear, I will look for the same again if it's still available (even if it means second hand) as I know the quality I get from them will be good enough. I know businesses need to keep making new models to keep competitive in the market share but I don't need any better than I have.
Click to expand...

It's the job of the camera-manufacturers' marketing departments to persuade you otherwise of course! Their role is to come up with the latest "must-have" features that us mere punters didn't know we wanted before they told us we did :) Of course the other side of the coin is that professional photographers have to keep up with what other professional photographers are using in order to stay competitive. Amateurs like me can then wait to see if the new features are worthwhile or not.
 
One thing I do prefer about digital is the ability to change ISO on the fly. Nothing worse than setting the ISO to 100. Shooting a few frames, then realising yo need to up rate to 400 !


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
Nod said:
who would be satisfied with a DSLR with a top ISO of even 1600?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy with it if I was using an f/5.6 kit zoom, but stick a fast lens on the front and it's enough to shoot by candlelight. It's the max my 5D goes to but despite regularly shooting in low light, I very rarely want for more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top