Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 9:12:58 GMT -5
Back in the 1980s and 1990s I sort of drifted away from 35mm photography and shot a lot of video (one of our daughters was a pretty decent high school basketball player). During that period when I didn't have an SLR, we acquired several point and shoot 35s--plastic, built-in flash, etc.--some of them by big named camera companies. The only thing I remember about them is they all had one thing in common--you couldn't get a sharp photo out of any of 'em. That era had to turn off a lot of people who were just getting into the hobby. Sort of the Disco, Bell Bottom era of photography.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2012 11:05:58 GMT -5
Oh yes ... I remember that era well ... and I have also been a "victim" of it. If I look at those pictures now ... horrible ... and I am quite angry about myself for not using a "decent" camera at that time.
But it's actually not only an issue of that specific era. It continued with digital P&S cameras and cellphones up to the present time. If I look at all those pictures, posted by friends at Facebook every day, I would say, that convenience is obviously valued over quality. Those cameras are just working fine in good daylight ... but honestly, every camera does. But only very less people obviously mind to get pictures with a lot of picture noise, motion blurr or messed up colors.
It probably just started in the 80s and 90s ... or maybe even earlier ? I read an interesting article about Agfa box cameras recently. The Agfa company did a research on customers habbits shortly after WWII. In their report, they stated, that the average customer for cameras is not capable of understanding the connection between aperture and shutter time. That's why they decided still producing those quite simple box cameras still in the 50s ... with great success BTW. Interesting, isn't it.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Apr 22, 2012 12:18:36 GMT -5
On the other hand..............
I've known a lot of folks over the years who, in spite of having the best of everything, couldn't make a decent exposure if their life depended on it.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 22, 2012 13:29:53 GMT -5
Let's be fair. All some people want is a recognizable image. They aught not be criticized for that.
I am sure there are some things about which most of us are indifferent but about which others are ecstatic.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Apr 22, 2012 14:01:35 GMT -5
Those 35s-- plastic, built-in-flash, etc., point and shoot, are still very much alive, those who are not into serious photography and want only occasionally to record perhaps their annual holidays or family occasions do use them. They are easily obtainable in our supermarkets and photo shops.
Hye
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 22, 2012 15:52:48 GMT -5
I was lucky, got a Yashica T4 back then and can't say it would not take a sharp photo. There are the odd good ones. Still have the T4.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Apr 23, 2012 8:53:50 GMT -5
I bought a T4 recently at a thrift shop for $3. I was surprised to find people happily paying $100-200 for them on auction sites.
Those plastic p&s cameras are capable of sharp pictures if you learn to work within the limitations of the camera. Autofocus takes a finite amount of time, the lenses don't have a very wide aperture, the flash is only good to 10 feet, etc. Most people assume the camera will do everything for them and don't take the time to read the manual to learn what the camera can and cannot do.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 23, 2012 9:38:20 GMT -5
Ron, "..if you learn to work within the limitations of the camera." I've got to agree with that. No one camera does everything. If one is happy with its limitations every camera can produce decent results.
Mickey, "All some people want is a recognizable image." I've got to agree with that too. For many people all that is needed is a memory of the event. Neither technical quality nor artistic merit really matter to them.
I have always had reasonable quality equipment. As I have said before the first digital camera I bought was a Panasonic FZ1: only 2 megapixels but a good lens. Had the quality of the results been poor, I wouldn't have used it.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 23, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -5
I think, much depends also on how we are viewing pictures. Back in the days of the "cr@p era" Wayne is talking about, people usually had 9x13 cm prints, rarely 10x15 cm as I remember. In this format, nearly every camera is producing a "recognizable picture". I am not exactly sure if this camera is falling into the mentioned category, but I think, I used an Olympus Miu for quite a while. It has been a very popular P&S camera at that time, having a lot of auto features in a compact size. The pictures have been okay for its purpose ... but if I look at them now ? Digitised on the large high resoluted screen of a computer. Well ... but on the other hand, using much older and simplier film cameras from my collection now, the quality does still look stunning.
The more becomes taken away from the photographer and replaced my some automatic, the bigger are the chances for failures. The newer technbology hasn't always been the better one in the history of photography. Of course, there are situations even for people who know how to handle a camera, when they just want to press the shutter button. For those, I now take one of those "electric eye" cameras and always stick an external but small flash in my pocket. Very simple and reliable equipment ( for parties and other snapshot scenarios ). Using the flash at 1/125 sec and f:8, you can fire almost blindly ... but the pictures do look much better than on those compact high tech wonders like the Olympus Miu or others.
The thing is always, that camera makers try to sell the ultimate intelligent camera with every new model ... and people are believing in that. The truth is, that it is much easier taking a good picture with just a little knowledge of photography.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 23, 2012 13:39:24 GMT -5
In all honesty most photos taken from Wayne's cr@p era (or even earlier eras) are not as good as those taken now. Modern cameras offer more at (relatively) cheaper prices. In the hands of the proletariat (in photographic terms) results are better than they ever have been. Automatic this, that and the other has helped considerably. What, of course, is unchanged is the ability, or inability, to get the composition right. If composition is everything then there can be no improvement: composition pre-dates cameras.
I believe that automatic everything, with a bit of user tweaking, does, in fact, produce the best results. It doesn't get everything right, but it gets less wrong than letting the average user decide everything. Of course if you take every photo in reasonable daylight then leaving the camera at 1/125 at f11 won't be too far out. Similarly with flash, if everything is done at standard distance, then standard exposure will produce decent results.
The worst camera I have had was a Hanimex (late 1980s). Exposure was okay, but the lens wasn't the sharpest. Even that, though, gave acceptable results - but nothing like as good as a same cost digital camera.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2012 15:17:18 GMT -5
Dave: I tend to agree that photos taken with digital point and shoot cameras today are better than point and shoot shots from the cr@p era. The operative word is camera. Few phones can produce images of the quality of a decent digital point and shoot. And nothing looks quite as silly to me as someone holding up an IPad in front of their face to take a vacation photo.
W.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 23, 2012 15:45:03 GMT -5
Wayne, I don't disagree,....but phones can give half-decent results. This is on a 2mp Sony-Ericsson W580, a model now five years old, modern camera-phones are better. ISO 125, 1/20 f2.8. ISO 125, 1/100 f2.8 Neither is exactly "quality" but without the camera-phone I wouldn't have got either.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 23, 2012 17:24:22 GMT -5
Dave,
That model cannot possibly be 5 years old. Perhaps 7-1/2.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 23, 2012 17:27:08 GMT -5
7-1/2 isn't that a hat size?
Am I on the correct thread?
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 23, 2012 19:43:36 GMT -5
Ron
You got a good buy on that T4 and IIRC the price new was about what they are getting on the auction sites now. I used to just set infinity focus and use 400 speed film outside, frame and shoot. Slow but sharp lens that produced negs that you could enlarge quite a bit.
Bob
|
|