"The hand of God" - Sports cameras in 1986

[Nod]

Great photo, more important to have the moment than a pin sharp result.
1/1000th SS, how fast were the old cameras before digital?

Maximum shutter speeds depended on model. The Nikon F6 could go as fast as 1/8000 whereas my old Pentax S1 could only manage 1/500.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Great photo, more important to have the moment than a pin sharp result.
1/1000th SS, how fast were the old cameras before digital?

This was shot on digital. This particular camera had a top shutter speed of 1/8000th BUT although, in theory, the ISO could be set to (I think) 800, the quality was pretty poor at this setting and so it just wasn't possible to use high shutter speeds in poor light. The great thing about this camera was that it could get wet and still work.

Just 2 or 3 years earlier, most digital cameras were pretty unusable above 100 ISO. Most of the "professional" 35mm film cameras could go to 1/4000th or 1/8000th but again, 35mm quality wasn't great at 100 ISO and pretty terrible with faster films, and this limited usable shutter speeds in poor light.

 

[Crotal Bell]

This was shot on digital. This particular camera had a top shutter speed of 1/8000th BUT although, in theory, the ISO could be set to (I think) 800, the quality was pretty poor at this setting and so it just wasn't possible to use high shutter speeds in poor light. The great thing about this camera was that it could get wet and still work.

Just 2 or 3 years earlier, most digital cameras were pretty unusable above 100 ISO. Most of the "professional" 35mm film cameras could go to 1/4000th or 1/8000th but again, 35mm quality wasn't great at 100 ISO and pretty terrible with faster films, and this limited usable shutter speeds in poor light.

I must order that B&W film for my old SLR and get on with the little project I wanted to do, it may help me appreciate the tech I have in my Lumix G80 more.
On that note, am I right in thinking Micro Four Thirds would not have been possible without the advances of digital tech?

 

[Musicman]

On that note, am I right in thinking Micro Four Thirds would not have been possible without the advances of digital tech?

Inasmuch as you need a digital sensor to provide a continuous display in the EVF, but that is more general to Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras that just m4/3.

It's a convergence of several different technologies, We had half frame cameras with film that had pretty much the same image circle as m4/3.

 

[Nod]

Lots of compacts only had live view and small sensors and there were plenty of different sized film formats.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The interesting thing is that the immediate ancestor of M43, the "Four Thirds" system, originally defined by Olympus and Kodak, included two closely related cameras that offered early examples of live view: Panasonic's DMC-L1 and Leica's Digilux 3.

Anyone seeing these cameras for the first time might be forgiven for not realising that the viewfinder is an optical SLR system, rather than electronic.

 

[Musicman]

The interesting thing is that the immediate ancestor of M43, the "Four Thirds" system, originally defined by Olympus and Kodak, included two closely related cameras that offered early examples of live view: Panasonic's DMC-L1 and Leica's Digilux 3.

Anyone seeing these cameras for the first time might be forgiven for not realising that the viewfinder is an optical SLR system, rather than electronic.

Possibly because the viewfinders were so dim

Olympus were slightly ahead of Panasonic with Live View on their E-330 (the L1 borrowed much of the E-330's optical systems) though with all of these 4/3 cameras being SLRs, live view was only available on the rear screen, not though the viewfinder.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Possibly because the viewfinders were so dim

My experience with optical viewfinders in smaller formats is that they are ALL very dim, and a half decent EVF is much better. I was a bit horrified when trying cameras out just how murky OVFs were on entry level cameras.

 

[SFTPhotography]

My experience with optical viewfinders in smaller formats is that they are ALL very dim, and a half decent EVF is much better. I was a bit horrified when trying cameras out just how murky OVFs were on entry level cameras.

I had a couple of these amateur APSC bodies - and yes the view finder was small, but it was perfectly usable and ok. The 35mm format and indeed MF digital SLR systems do have larger view finders, which gives the illusion of brightness but light in is light in. It's just a smaller mirror, so smaller finder you see in a small format SLR

 

[ancient_mariner]

I had a couple of these amateur APSC bodies - and yes the view finder was small, but it was perfectly usable and ok. The 35mm format and indeed MF digital SLR systems do have larger view finders, which gives the illusion of brightness but light in is light in. It's just a smaller mirror, so smaller finder you see in a small format SLR

Perhaps it was the kit lens having a small max aperture, but the VF seemed very dim on the Nikon and Canon APS-C bodies that I tried. Maybe there were some better ones and I just got unlucky.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Perhaps it was the kit lens having a small max aperture, but the VF seemed very dim on the Nikon and Canon APS-C bodies that I tried. Maybe there were some better ones and I just got unlucky.

Low end ones were pretty horrible, and not even full 100% view coverage. That's why I went to 1ds ii very quickly and that was epic at the time.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Perhaps it was the kit lens having a small max aperture, but the VF seemed very dim on the Nikon and Canon APS-C bodies that I tried. Maybe there were some better ones and I just got unlucky.

You notice it with the cheaper kits yes - I wound up with a plastic fantastic 50 1.8 and yes it livened up the D5000 viewfinder.

The time I noticed viewfinder dimming was with the 200-500 F5.6 I briefly owned when I attached it to the D810.

 

[Phil V]

I had a couple of these amateur APSC bodies - and yes the view finder was small, but it was perfectly usable and ok. The 35mm format and indeed MF digital SLR systems do have larger view finders, which gives the illusion of brightness but light in is light in. It's just a smaller mirror, so smaller finder you see in a small format SLR

Many of the cheaper ones are noticeably not as bright because they use a pentamirror instead of an actual prism.

 

[Musicman]

The Lumix L1 and Oly E330 had an optical porro finder which used a four mirrors (one sideways swinging) to bend light from the lens to the viewfinder eyepiece.

To quote DP Review at the time

Unfortunately just like the E-330 the L1's viewfinder view is very small compared to other digital SLR's, it's also darker than you would expect.