Romantic camera


Status
Not open for further replies.

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#1
Who prefers the old manual cameras to the modern dslr? One is a romantic piece of work the other is a practical industrial machine. The slow thinking way or the fast snap? Is using manual lens on a dslr the best of both worlds?
http://lewwl.zoto.com//galleries/singaporephoto
 

tsjcsl

New Member
Dec 5, 2003
275
0
0
Simei
Visit site
#3
To me, it is not just the focussing. It's the smoothness of the film winding, the clicking of the shutter speed dial, the sound of the shutter.
But for practical purposes, I am using a dSLR.

But I will not forget my first loves - x700, F3, and now the FM2n.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 

Patryk

New Member
Mar 8, 2004
659
0
0
32
#4
I love oldies, as well as antiques...have a box camera from the 1920s-1930s that still works today which I use every now and then.. really gets you involved in the entire process from the initial exposure right down to the final print in the darkroom..
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#5
honda said:
Who prefers the old manual cameras to the modern dslr? One is a romantic piece of work the other is a practical industrial machine. The slow thinking way or the fast snap? Is using manual lens on a dslr the best of both worlds?
http://lewwl.zoto.com//galleries/singaporephoto
I use a lot of manual cameras.

I also use the most modern SLRs and DSLRs.

All my cameras are for practical uses. Some of my manual cameras allow me to take pictures of the equivalent of hundreds (if not thousands) of megapixels.

Depending on your skills, some of my manual cameras can take pictures faster than the Canon 1Ds MII.
 

plastic

Deregistered
Aug 19, 2004
700
0
0
In A Suitcase
#6
Remembering the days of old when I collected all the canisters bearing the different types of film tested on varios skin tones/objects... and the testing of various expired film on experimental stuff. Not to mention the fun of loading slides into the projector magazine.... the licking of the 120 roll, and discovering they started using peppermint on one particular brand (anyone remember which one was it?)... that was funny... freaking out when you could not find the notch on 4x5... the power of bellows... Prisms that weigh more than your average compact camera these days... Polaroids! They were the biggest thing for most people... your magnifier, light boxes... oh my goodness... you are rewinding time... I better stop. I really miss those days...

Digital has made things a lot more efficient (and cheaper), therefore making photography more accessible to the masses. But there is still a lot of development ahead for better sensors technology for better image capture and image manipulation... Looking forward to the new breakthroughs ahead.

But one thing stays pretty constant technology-wise, good glass is still very important. And that, is never going to come cheap. :sweat:
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#7
is modern glass cheaper n better than the old glass? meaning is there any point in buying old lens or should i stick to the new ones? i m worried about getting sucked in n spending too much money. i try to keep it as an affordable hobby.
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#8
honda said:
is modern glass cheaper n better than the old glass? meaning is there any point in buying old lens or should i stick to the new ones? i m worried about getting sucked in n spending too much money. i try to keep it as an affordable hobby.
AFAIK, new technology is always try and find a way to save cost. Maybe by replacing glass element with plastic element. New better coating (I am still waiting anti fungus coating :) ). Using faster computer and improved software to design a lenses (thus minimizing any distorsions, if not eliminating). Move factory to more economical countries. etc. etc.

Old glass may not in production line anymore (so you may only find it as 2nd hand lenses), or if you lucky on some stores. As a 2nd hand glass, you don't really know the histories of the glass. Whether the glass is ever been cleaned or open?

So I think you must do homework to check if you want to buy old glass. Buy only those really good one, check the condition and glass performance. And if the price is right...., the decision is yours.

Regards,
Arto.
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#9
sometimes questions like these makes me wonder if sports stars ever gets so obsessed with their gear? like Michael Jordan checking out the various types of basketball nets, things like that?
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#10
i finally bite the bullet n got the voigtlander 40mm f2 for my 350d. it looks n feels traditional. i like it. now i have excuses for out of focus n blurry shots.
http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com
 

Cikgu101

New Member
May 25, 2006
291
0
0
Ipoh, Malaysia
#11
I too share the best of both but not combining manual with auto ;)

I'm using a Nikon D50 with a Sigma 18-200mm AF :thumbsup:
and
a Nikon FE2 with a Vivitar 28-90mm MF :thumbsup:

Love both Cameras though :bsmilie:
 

hongjone

New Member
Jan 6, 2006
1,272
0
0
Singapore
#12
Hmph. I think I like the manual ones more. I still have my dad's yashica... But my wife think I take too long to compose and focus using the MF. Haha. Hence, I use my D70s, and AF to take pictures of her. :bsmilie:
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#13
I m trying to return to the good old days when i use only a manual slr and 50mm lens to take pictures. Nowadays i have so much trouble deciding what lens to use or buy. So the best compromise i think is a dslr with one manual or autofocus prime lens. No need to change lens or zoom also.
http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com
 

antitrust

New Member
Sep 25, 2004
317
0
0
#14
i've recently, okay maybe not so recent anymore, switched from a digital P&S to a film SLR.

i found that the film SLR has more "feel" to it. as in you really put more time and effort into composing your shots properly and then after you click the shutter you'll just like "woah. i captured an image". whereas for digital P&S and dSLRs alike, they're kinda like "aiyah just anyhow click, anyway the frames are machiam free like that."

and film is more tangible, you get to see your negatives and after you finish one roll of film, you wait for it to develop and look at your results. compared to the dSLR, you get instant review and "developing", its good for commercial use and purpose but it feels to me that it somehow lacks the "spirit of photography"? i wouldn't define what the "spirit of photography" is, but i think those who switched from film to digital and vice versa should know.

for me, a dSLR will always be a tool for commercial use, but an analogue SLR or any camera that uses film will always be the choice for photography as a hobby. :)
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#15
It's probably nice to have the best of both worlds. The DSLR is certainly a practical and very fast tool and I use it for fast action/ animal shots. For ultra-WA stuff and things that allow me the time to think and find the composition, I prefer an old manual focus camera. Plus, the latter feels a lot more solid in the hands, and I don't mind getting a little sweat and dirt on it.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#16
michhy said:
sometimes questions like these makes me wonder if sports stars ever gets so obsessed with their gear? like Michael Jordan checking out the various types of basketball nets, things like that?
:bsmilie: Yep, but I bet he spends a lot of time choosing what shoes to wear. Or perhaps he doesn't. He just wears the one made by the company that pays him the most. We, unfortunately do not have that luxury. If any companies would pay me to use their top of the range item, why, I'd probably just use it...save me the time of thinking about what I like and what I should use.

Sponsorship rules. :rolleyes:
 

Niccon

New Member
Mar 9, 2004
518
0
0
#17
I own a small range of Kodak Retina series folding camera. They are at least 60yr old. Like the mechanism, simply smooth & flawless. The quality of the lens is great (without any coating), picture is sharp, colour is contrasty & vivid. Body is of soild built (steel material) & small(slim) enough to fit into pocket.
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#18
I realised that many shots have turned out blur cos of out of focus due to small viewfinder and lack of no focusing aid. I wonder if its worth it going from autofocus to manual. Its worse than using a manual camera.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#19
antitrust said:
i've recently, okay maybe not so recent anymore, switched from a digital P&S to a film SLR.

i found that the film SLR has more "feel" to it. as in you really put more time and effort into composing your shots properly and then after you click the shutter you'll just like "woah. i captured an image". whereas for digital P&S and dSLRs alike, they're kinda like "aiyah just anyhow click, anyway the frames are machiam free like that."

and film is more tangible, you get to see your negatives and after you finish one roll of film, you wait for it to develop and look at your results. compared to the dSLR, you get instant review and "developing", its good for commercial use and purpose but it feels to me that it somehow lacks the "spirit of photography"? i wouldn't define what the "spirit of photography" is, but i think those who switched from film to digital and vice versa should know.

for me, a dSLR will always be a tool for commercial use, but an analogue SLR or any camera that uses film will always be the choice for photography as a hobby. :)
It's all in your attitude.. You can shoot with DSLR the same way as you would shoot film and you will get the same. When I first switched to DSLR, it became very tempting to look at the preview everytime. After I know how the image sensor behaves, I just shoot like I'm shooting film.

The most useful feature is that for critical shots, I get to verify the focus.
 

honda

New Member
Nov 30, 2004
558
0
0
#20
I finally discovered scale focusing. I just focus using distance scale on the lens. No need to turn the focusing ring back and forth so much anymore.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom