daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 26, 2012 3:19:48 GMT -5
Berndt,
I think the reason why "so few were made" is that CdS cells were becoming available around that time and so were miniature batteries to power the cells. I bet if you look at automatic, leaf shutter rangefinder cameras with CdS cells you will find plenty.
The problem now comes with the demise of mercury cells batteries. I hasn't been too easy for cameras to find batteries that will 1) fit are 2) are the correct voltage. The other thing with voltage is that it needs to be of a consistent voltage output for all its life - unless the circuit designer has really done his or her job really well - otherwise incorrect exposures will result.
Dave.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 26, 2012 6:56:04 GMT -5
Thanks Dave, interesting information !!!
I prefer selenium meters especially, because those cameras are still usable ... and also leaf shutters. I actually collect only cameras with leaf shutters. The biggest problem of those focal plane shutters is the limited shutter speed if using flash ( 1/60 sec ). It works fine in complete darkness, when the shutter speed doesn't matter, but if it is still bright ( or if using flash as a fill in ), 1/60 sec is often too slow and causing motion blurr. I also never really missed faster shutter speeds than 1/500 sec, which is the limit of leaf shutters.
Anyway, if we imagine ... an autoexposure feature without external electricity or electronics. Mechanical marvels of engineering, I think.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 26, 2012 12:53:03 GMT -5
Berndt, what you say is only partly true.
In terms of flash sync speeds it is broadly true that the older the camera design the slower will be the flash sync speed.
As far as I am aware the early FP shutters were horizontal. Later on vertical FP shutters allowed X-sync at 1/125 and faster. The Praktica LLC of the early 1970s, for instance, would sync at 1/125.
FP bulbs could be used at all shutter speeds, on horizontal and vertical FP shutters. FP bulbs were slow-burn, the flash would start before the first shutter started to open (M-sync) rather than when fully open (X-sync). (At the back of my mind I seem to recall there was also F-sync - perhaps that was an FP setting, or one manufacturers version?)
The last of the film EOS Canons, certainly at the top end, will sync with speedlights at any shutter speed. My EOS 30 (Elan 7) will (high-speed) sync from 1/30 to 1/4000 sec and from 30sec to 1/125 in normal sync mode.
Dave.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 26, 2012 22:15:50 GMT -5
Interesting information again, Dave !!! Yes, newer high end cameras might be better and more advanced, but somehow, I like the older and simple ones more Especially rangefinders. I personally have never been a big fan of SLRs or DSLRs as well. Big heavy monsters, not really handy, with autofocus and complicated menues. A friend gave me a Pentax Z-20 recently ... really complicated to handle and having so many "useless" features. I like simplicity and after trying so many cameras in my life, I slowly come to the solution ( just for myself, others may think different ), that I like those old leaf shutter selenium meter rangefinders most ( let's say, as a walk around camera ). Digital cameras might need all those sophisticated menues, options, features ... but film cameras ? There is actually not much, what we need for taking a good picture. I can even work with the sunny 16 rule, but an exposure meter might be convenient sometimes and a rangefinder is a good tool for setting the focus for me. I had problems with SLRs sometimes even it is also true, that SLRs are providing more opportunities ( exchangeable lenses, preview of the DOF, etc. ) ... but let's say, just for a walk around camera, those rangefinders are pretty nice and also easy to use with flash ( "dead safe", as my friend always says ). A rangefinder fits into my pocket and I usually have a small external flash too. I get fantastic pictures, much better than on a P&S or cellphone ( especially on parties, in a pub, etc. ) ... and I also have chances for some creativity. Full format in my pocket. Those old babies from the 60s have been quite underestimated, I think. I really enjoy using those camera.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 27, 2012 1:55:36 GMT -5
Any camera is perfect in what it does, if the photographer is happy to accept its limitations. If all that is being done is photos in decent light then an old box camera with its single fixed speed and its single pre-set f-stop will give good results. There is no need to have such complications as rangefinders as the box camera is focus free, all that has to be done is load and wind on the film. It is capable of trick shots, too, with its ability to double expose any frame.
The next level of sophistication brought several shutter speeds. but only between (say) 1/30 and 1/250 with a standard lens (focal length depending on film format) and front element focussing: still fairly simple, but with enough complications to mean that some thought was necessary. Photographs could be taken in a greater variety of conditions, but limitations were still there.
And so on, with increasing sophistication, to the modern DSLR, which can, never the less, be set manually to remove all that sophistication.
Any one person can get off (the ladder) where he or she is happy, where the camera and lens will give the required results. For me, if I had to have just one camera, it would have to be a modern, (fairly) high-end DSLR. It is the only camera that will cover all the shots, still and moving, that I want to take.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 27, 2012 2:37:37 GMT -5
That is well stated !!! I would also agree with that. Good thing is just ... we mostly don't need to have just one I really appreciate, that I can use different cameras for different purposes ... and I do so. That can also mean, "getting off the ladder" at different levels. If I have time for settings and if I want to take special pictures, I like a TLR and don't even mind, using an external lightmeter ... or maybe a high end digital camera, using a set of special lenses as well. But for daily life situations, I found those selenium meter based auto exposure rangefinders quite convenient. As I often said, I just had my old Canonet on my trip to Europe last summer and there hasn't actually been one situation, where I would have said: I need a different camera. And there is one other thing about those super sophisticated cameras. I would say, most people ( at least the ones, I know ) just use them in complete auto mode anyway, because it takes quite an effort to read the whole manual, discover all functions and settings and memorizing them or learn, which is better in which situation. I always notice that, when I take pictures with the guests cameras on weddings. Most people do not even know how to switch the flash on. So, too much sophistication often leads to an attitude like "this is too complicated for me anyway", I guess. It also depends on the situation. Even I can handle a complicated DSLR as well, I offen prefer a tool, which is more ... let's say, reduced to what is really needed. For example, I will certainly take a lot of pictures during the upcoming cherryblossom season again. It's like Carnival here in Japan. They call it "o hanami" here ... drinking with friends under cherryblossom trees. Situations, where I also start getting problems, handling a sophisticated digital camera after several cans of beer So, a simple camera is best
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 27, 2012 6:22:02 GMT -5
Absolutely right.....and many of those who do don't know how to turn it off (or the camera won't let them switch it off): witness the number of flashes at such as a sporting event. Their photos are probably saved by the fact the stadium lights are bright enough.
That's another can of worms. The rest of the world, in the main, persists with its lager which is often served too cold for the climate it's being drunk in. It's even difficult to get Guinness served at the proper temperature - and that includes Ireland itself. Real ale is the "thing", served at a cool-room temperature, something in the order of 12oC.
Berndt, I know that you can handle a camera - perhaps especially so when set to video: excellent stuff, your videos.
In terms of exposure metering the Topcon SuperD has a good system, which is easy to over-ride to give + or - 1/2 or 1 stop. In terms of external meters, I did have a selenium meter that fitted on the accessory shoe (don't know what happened to it). Also a hand held CdS meter from Boots (a chain of chemist shops - meter re-badged with their name). We had a Weston II when I was young, and I bought a EuroMaster, with its Invercone, later. Incident light metering is still the best for many situations.
The other hand-held meter I had was a Sixticolor - for determining colour temperature. It is somewhat unnecessary now, especially if shooting RAW.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 27, 2012 9:20:21 GMT -5
Hahaha ... that is very true. Here in Japan, everybody asks me, if we are drinking warm beer in Germany. Warm beer ? Of course not !!! But here in Japan, they usually cool it down to nearly 0 C, especially in summer. Then, it has no taste. Mmmh ... let's ay 8-10 C would be best ... for the beer in my area ( Altbier/Duesseldorf ). Not sure, what you mean with "over-ride". Do you mean "adjust" ? Sometimes, it is good and necessary to give +- 1 stop for the whole film. If so, I usally adjust it by choosing a different ASA setting on the camera. As for external lightmeters, an iPhone is not bad ( just in case, you have one - most people do meanwhile, even I don't ). Quite sophisticated. You can get perfect readings for the whole frame ( incl. a live preview, how the picture will look later ) and of specific areas in the picture, just by touching on them. As for a walk around camera, I would prefer an easier system though BTW, my critics for the Canonet are not so much the light meter, which worked really well for me ... but the range finder is not really that precise I adjusted it a few times, but still ... it doesn't work that perfect at all distances. I saw better rangefinders, regarding that. So I actually hoped, that somebody has used one of the other mentioned "selenium based autoexposure rangefinders" for getting some input, which one would be the next, worthy to give a try. But ... considering, that I want a similar fast lens as on the Canonet, I might go either for the Fujica 35 EE or the Minolta Hi-Matic. Haven't completed the testfilm on my Konica EE matic yet, but that's an interesting one too ... even more simpler designed than the others ( just working with one shutter time ). I'll post the results here later.
|
|