jayd
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by jayd on Jan 28, 2012 20:05:45 GMT -5
Hello to all
I've been a student of photography for over 30 years now and done a little professional work.
I'm a not very serious camera collector and repairer. Made a lot of slides for multimedia shows with my Topcon RE Super back in the day, a camera I still have and still consider better than the Nikon F. Have nothing against digital except the price of a DSLR and lenses to equal what I have in film capabilities would cause me to mortgage my house for a camera with a life of maybe 4 years. These days I actually prefer a camera with no computers, no electronics at all: let me apply what I have learned in these years with out menus to get in the way, shutter speeds and F stops is all I need.
Jay
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 28, 2012 20:39:22 GMT -5
Me too  "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Leonardo da Vinci |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 28, 2012 22:37:49 GMT -5
Welcome Jay.
I am sure your accumulated knowledge will be invaluable.
Mickey
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 28, 2012 22:39:47 GMT -5
Me too "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Leonardo da Vinci berndt, I am simple - duuuh. So I must be the ultimate sophisticate. Mickey  |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 29, 2012 2:59:51 GMT -5
Jay, welcome. I have a Topcon Super D and an RE-2, and a few Topcon lenses and accessories.  (This photo was taken to show the stretched rubber on the 1.4 lens - the only thing that has gone 'wrong' with the camera. It was a 'thread starter' somewhere or other on this forum.) As regards cost, yes Digital SLRs and equipment, especially at the professional end, isn't cheap but then neither is film. In the end one thing is a trade off against another. I took photos of a rugby game yesterday (Saturday): mainly action shots, but some portraits. I couldn't afford to use film for this and while manual (pre)focusing is a possibility autofocus certainly makes more sense. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication", well, I'm not sure it actually is. What I'm more sure about is that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't actually say it. |
|
jayd
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by jayd on Jan 29, 2012 13:03:31 GMT -5
I could go on a long discussion about how cameras and the industry have changed with pluses and minuses needless to say the world has changed some parts I like and some I don't.
One thing is clear we will not have cameras that will be usable for 40+ years in digital, rather we have entered the disposable mass marketed age for the most part.
Jay
|
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Feb 4, 2012 13:32:41 GMT -5
Hi Jay,
Welcome to the club, yes, I tend to agree with you, sad, but we live in a throw away age.
Remember there was a time when everyone thought that the Japanese digital watches will kill the watch makers of Switzerland.
Well they did not die but instead they came back stronger and their products are prized by all watch lovers.
Wisful thinking but who knows, mechanical cameras might also make a comeback, Regards
Hye
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Feb 4, 2012 16:47:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you can not say that modern digital cameras will not be usable in forty years: some will, some won't. That however has been true of all sorts of things down the ages: mechanical cameras have been no different.
The first digital camera I bought, a Panasonic FZ1, is still eminently usable (just coming up to) ten years on. That went through high humidity, on a holiday, with no problem. The mechanics of a Pentax MZ50, however, ceased up in the same conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by colray on Feb 4, 2012 17:21:34 GMT -5
|
|
