|
Post by olroy2044 on Apr 23, 2012 22:51:36 GMT -5
I took about a 20 year hiatus from photography in general. My interest was rekindled by a simple, fixed focus Vivitar. I've written about that at length previously, so I won't rehash it here. While it is true that there were some real clunkers foisted off on the unwary during the film point and shoot era, it is also true that there were cameras of that type that were (and still are) capable of very good results.
Pompiere hit it right on the head with that statement. In the hands of someone who is willing to treat the plastic fantastics like real cameras, and adhere to sound fundamental procedures, surprisingly good results can be obtained.
Many of the technical advances (camera mechanics as opposed to recording medium) used in modern digital point and shoot cameras can be traced directly to the advanced film p&s cameras. I have late model point and shoot cameras in my collection that are equipped with exposure compensation, selectable auto-focus, spot metering, diopter adjustments in the viewfinder, even one with the leaf-shutter equivalent of second curtain flash synch! Exposure and focus lock were not uncommon.
That being said, it is also true that some of the cameras were definitely of questionable quality, to say the least. A junker is a junker, no matter who the maker is!
Obviously, the majority of users did not take advantage of the advanced features, but that was quite often not the fault of the equipment, but of the user.
Roy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 23, 2012 23:15:37 GMT -5
I've just been looking at that 5200mm lens on another thread. On a point and shoot it was probably the lens that determined the final cost. The simpler the lens, the cheaper the camera. Cost wise it wouldn't really matter what camera was attached to that telephoto lens. It would always be somewhat pricey.
What was scoffed at as being cheap tat in one era can become art in another. Overpriced plastic lenses appear to sell quite well now on the back of that retro-art movement.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 2:56:26 GMT -5
Dave, I still have a hard time to agree with that Modern cameras do provide extended possibilities ... but not in the "mom and pop mode". Biggest problem is the zone focus, most P&S camera are working with in auto mode. If there is at least one object or person close to the camera, the camera becomes basically forced to close the lens down for getting everything in focus. The consequences are either motion blurr or a noisy picture at any conditions apart from a sunny day. I have a good buddy, who is really the classic technology believer. He buys every new camera, selling his old one again, living in the hope, that a camera will finally be intelligent enough to take the perfect picture automatically. We always have our friendly battles about that and the last one took place during the traditional japanese "o hanami" about a month ago. Sonys newest flagship VS my old Konica EE matic. Conditions: a cloudy afternoon in a park under trees and several cans of beer. AUTO mode 2012 VS AUTO mode 1963 ... and I was actually already pretty confident, who the winner will be ;D I would judge the success rate of the Sony at about 30 percent and the one of the film camera at about 90 percent. Of course, the Sony gets better if you choose specific settings ... but that hasn't been really possible after a certain amount of beer iPhones and Pads are at least a little bit better, because of their smaller sensor. They can keep more things in focus at F:2.8, when a larger sensored camera already needs a smaller aperture ( and therefore longer shutter times or a higher ISO ). The smaller the sensor, the better the auto features work. I have a DV-1, which can realize F:2.8 on a fixed focal lens. There is really not much, that can go wrong on that one ... but it just has a tiny sensor. That's definitely true for any camera. I can get pretty decent pictures even out of my cellphone. Why ? Because I always fix the ISO to 100 and know, when to use it ... and when not anymore. Within this limitations, it has a good camera.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 24, 2012 13:34:00 GMT -5
Berndt, the fault lies more with the user rather than the camera. Your friend needs to 1) sort his technique out rather than buy new cameras 2) drink less. Certainly on our Panasonic DMC-FS15 it is relatively simple in 'intelligent auto' to focus on the subject and hold the focus point and then re-frame as required. However I would use 'normal mode' as the mode of choice. This gives a central box for focus and again focus lock when the shutter is half pressed. Certainly my wife gets most photos in focus and properly exposed just using the Panasonic as a point and shoot. The overall success is not too much different to the film cameras, but the 29-145 (in 35mm terms) zoom lens is quite an improvement on anything we had on film point and shoot.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 24, 2012 15:43:10 GMT -5
Berndt
I remember seeing some of those colour shots that you took during "o hanami" if those are what you are referring to in your above post. It may not be that the camera was spot on all the time. It greatly depends on how good the place that developed the film was and if they chose to print the negs with corrections as is the usual custom here. The same would apply to any scans of either the negs or prints. C41 can be out quite a bit out of camera and it is taken care of in post processing and you would generally not notice. Perhaps if the digital files from your buddies camera were properly post processed the difference in success rates between the two camera would be a lot closer and then again maybe not. Now if focus was the issue that is a different can of worms altogether.
Bob
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 22:32:00 GMT -5
I would definitely agree with that Also Bob is right. But I think, you guys understood, what I wanted to say. The fact, that an "intelligent" camera automatic can be better ( or replace ) the photographers mind, is a fairy tale. But that's what camera makers are advertising over and over again ... and people believe in that. At least a minimum of knowledge about the camera and photography and things change a lot ... regardless, what camera will be used. I also think, that most of those newer auto cameras are badly designed. Manual setting are hidden somewhere in the jungle of the menues, if provided at all. The concept ( especially of those mom and pop ones ) is different. A bunch of complicated scene modes and other useless stuff instead of providing control over simple things like ISO, shutter speed and aperture. The best mode in my opinion would be just shutter priority ( for making sure, that there is no motion blurr ), central spot focus and fixing the ISO to a still acceptable number for avoiding picture noise. Exposure metering on field and I would say, that would provide the best average results in a just P&S situation. But honestly ... how many users are getting this far ? Most get lost in their modes and menues ... if they have read their manual at all. And people actually bought those cameras because of all those fancy auto features like face or smile detection, scene modes, motion detection and whatever. If that is not doing the job for them, what are those features for then ? ( Not my thinking, but the thinking of an average P&S user ). Comparing to this, older cameras have been already designed much simpler and efficient, already providing just the settings naturally, which I suggested. The ASA is fixed with the film and if choosing a proper shutter speed ( let's say something like 1/125 sec ), everything will be fine. Being even more lucky to have a bright standard lens like 1.9 on the Canonet or some others, it covers quite a large range of situations. Also the manual focus does not force the camera into silly apertures. It can be as simple as that ... and the central spot auto focus is also not always easy to handle. Coming back to Daves point 2, the beer ... well ;D Let's say, it is even not that easy if people or objects are moving. Just a personal habbit, but I am better using a rangefinder ( even just having a few or no beer at all ) ... ot I often just guess. In "guerilla shooting" situations, when there is a lot of action, I just trust on my experience. Choosing a proper aperture, I don't need any camera automatic to know, that everything will be sharp from 1 m to infinity and just shoot. I am 100 % confident, that the success rate is higher than any fancy face- and motion detection, field focus metering or whatever. The more complicated things are, the higher are the chances of a failure. Of course, there is always the argument, that we can immediately check the picture on a digital camera and modify our settings for another shot ( that's at least an advantage to the film cameras of the mentiones "cra@p era" ) ... but still ... a shot can often not be repeated, simply because the same situation doesn't happen exactly the same again. I noticed, that I missed a lot of good pictures on an auto designed camera ( either film or digital ), while shooting quite safe with just simple settings and just a little bit knowledge and experience. I mean really just a little bit, because things are actually not that difficult. Talking to a lot of young people about photography, so many of them don't even know what shutter time and aperture is ... and even less know, what a depth of field is. They are used to blindly trust on what their camera or iPhone is providing ... and it will become even worse, I guess. The newest generation of cellphones is even able to listen and talk So the future ( or already the present ) will look like that: "Please take a picture of my GF." "Hey ... THIS is NOT my GF. You don't know my GF ? " ;D ;D ;D
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 24, 2012 23:33:05 GMT -5
Berndt, I hear all that, but: The only camera which is foolproof is that camera which has one shutter speed, one f-stop and fixed focus. Choose the right subject in the right light and you get a result every time - as long as you hold the camera still. Your theories are fine if you just want to take photos that fit into a box. The box is slightly bigger than than the 'foolproof' box above, but it is still fairly limited in size. The truth is most of Joe public's photographs were pretty awful with a simple box camera. They were pretty awful with everything manual, and they will remain pretty awful with everything automatic. Poor Joe doesn't want to spend ages learning all about it he, or she, just wants to record something. Fully automatic does it better for Joe than anything else. Digital costs nowt to run either. Dave.
|
|
kennb
Contributing Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by kennb on May 22, 2012 8:07:33 GMT -5
Over the years of teaching photography and seeing what people turn out with different cameras, I am a firm believer that a camera will not make a photographer. A good photographer can take great pictures with a piece of junk, while taking the finest and most expensive equipment in front of some they will still take lousey pictures.
I personally think that knowing your equipment and its limitations along with the (for the loss of a better word) "esthetic eye" far outweighs all. I take good photos, but can not sing even with a bucket to carry the tune. We all end up with different talents and sure great equipment can enhance them but will never make a photographer out of a violinist any more that a great violin will make a virtuoso out of a mechanic.
Just my 2 cents KennB
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on May 23, 2012 2:52:47 GMT -5
Someone elsewhere has as his/her signature that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you (or words to that effect). I don't think that is far from the mark.
A good photograph has to obey (or sometimes break) certain laws. Some of these laws can not be defined, while others can. Any given camera can only take "the best photo in the world" within the limits of what that camera can do. A good photographer will always achieve "better" results than a poor photographer. A pin-hole camera is capable of excellent results, unless you want to capture each micro-movement of such as a golf swing. No amount of "photographic eye" on its own will produce the required result if the camera is incapable of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 10:05:49 GMT -5
I agree that the Photographer is more important than the equipment. But back in the late '80s and early '90s we had two different 35mm P&Ss that would not produce decent photos (both were in the $100 range). My mate and kids kept producing unsharp pictures with them and I figured it was just operator error. But with all my photo background I couldn't do any better. There was a decade-long period when I think we only shut about 10 rolls of film. Still have the negatives and they are still soft. Only P&S I could ever produce decent images with was the Olympus XA and that was years later when I got a used one out of curiosity.
W.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on May 23, 2012 13:49:28 GMT -5
Wayne, I had a Hanimex of that era which gave 'iffy' results. The Ricoh 500G which I had immediately before it was better. (Unfortunately the Ricoh 'broke' and didn't seem worth the repair estimate.)
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on May 23, 2012 17:24:50 GMT -5
While I agree that many of the "cr@p" era cameras were just that (cr@p), one should not lose sight of the fact that there were also high quality cameras offered in the category of "point and shoots." The obvious examples are the Oly XA series of cameras. However, the ultimate camera in that series, the XA, is not a true point and shoot, being an actual rangefinder. I have in my collection examples from Olympus, Canon, Pentax, Ricoh and Vivitar. Every maker represented produced cameras that were very competent picture takers. Granted, the best were not inexpensive. Some of my "plastic fantastics" sold for well north of $300 when new! I just finished a roll of film with my latest acquisition of this type, an Olympus Superzoom 115. Obviously, it lacks the feel and handling of one of my quality SLRs, but the results are surprising. Sometimes, we, as "collectors" and "photographers," are guilty of having, for lack of a better term, "gear snobbery." I know that I did, until I started messing around with these little plastic wonders. Will they ever replace my beloved SLRs? The answer is a resounding "NO!" But they have gained my respect! Roy
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Jul 1, 2012 9:48:59 GMT -5
I am always surprised how good the pictures are from my Samsung Focus cell phone. I agree that I feel a little stupid taking a shot with it. But then, if I minded looking stupid, I'd have missed out on a lot of good images.
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jul 3, 2012 3:07:24 GMT -5
Lots of trueisms in this discussion. I more than agree with the Oly XA, some others P&S's are equally fine, but I learned to pick the camera which suits me best for the moment. In town, without any haste one can take a Contax I or whatever you like to produce great results. On a hike - climbing the first day from 1400 to 2950 meters and over the pass go down for a kilometer and carrying Contarex gear (for whatever snobbish reason) like I did once - you'd better carry a P&S with moderate zoom and a built-in flash. Just understand the limitations of the particular camera. One thing I learned is better to take a tripod (or a one-leg) with you to produce good results than whatever expensive gear... Even if it looks silly:-)
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on Sept 25, 2012 16:59:02 GMT -5
I've started to pick up some of the better looking plastic compacts and have been pleasantly surprised by some, but not all. The winners so far are - Samsung Vega 140 S and an Olympus Superzoom 140S. I think there's a theme developing here, both of these cameras are remarkably similar. Both are autofocus rather than fixed, which I think makes a huge difference on this kind of camera. Both have 'named' 38-140 superzoom lenses ( Olympus and Schneider Kreuznach Varioplan ) and many features, the Samsung wins on the features. Both deliver remarkably sharp pictures, I'm very impressed. The other compact worth a mention is my Olympus XA2, which so far I have had very mixed, mainly poor, results from. But this is fixed focus. Apparently the earlier XA was a far better camera ?
With cheap film, Agfa from the Poundshop, and 99 pence processing at the supermarket, then scan the neg's I just throw them in the glove box of the truck and leave them there for the times I haven't got a 'real camera' with me. Don't discount the later auto focus compacts, they can surprise you. And I pay on average a UK Pound for them at charity shops, they can hardly give them away.
|
|