In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera - Page 2
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2017   #11
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,117
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

I am not disputing that a dSLR is a good general-purpose tool, but it still has its own limitations that other camera designs do not. For instance, the mirrorless camera is quieter (no mirror slap) and less intimidating than a dSLR with the same image format, hence doesn't get in the way as much when taking pictures of strangers, especially when shooting candids. I really like my Nikon 995 for this purpose because the lens itself is unobtrusive and, because of the articulated body design, I can face in an altogether different direction than the lens is. I have even shot candids of people seated beside me, and even in the next row behind me, without their noticing. Works for selfies too, but not many pros take professional-quality self-portraits with a handheld camera. I would actually prefer a mirrorless camera with EVF for infrared or ultraviolet shooting because the "live view" feature gives a much better preview overall than a direct optical view.

Of course studio people didn't use rangefinders way back then very much because of the parallax problem - especially significant when the subject is close as is typical of product photography - or the extra steps necessary to compensate for parallax exactly. The rangefinders weren't good for wildlife photography because the rangefinder had to be calibrated to the focal length and couldn't readily handle the requirements of long telephoto lenses without adjustments from the general-purpose settings. These limitations do not apply to modern non-dSLR digital cameras, which in fact do focus through the lens, for the most part.

It should also be pointed out, as I did in my previous thread, that lenses that don't have to leave clearance for the reflex mirror leave more freedom for the lens designer to make smaller, lighter, and less expensive lenses, especially wide-angle ones. With good reason, camera manufacturers still make and sell separate models for APS-C only and full-frame wide-angle lenses. There would be less reason to do this if mirrorless full-frame cameras caught on. Partly because of the reflex mirror, old-fashioned SLRs were less reliable and broke down more often than their rangefinder counterparts. For these reasons, if mirrorless designs are not already competitive with dSLRs for professional use these days, I expect that they soon will be.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017   #12
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,117
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterKlick View Post
An accomplished photographer I was blessed to be the assistant to told me "Dont judge a carpenter by his hammer", he had top end gear and I mentioned I had a lowly 5300, he said "Thats a good camera!", then the wisdom came.

We also cannot judge mirrorless technology from 1960 to mirroless technology of 2017. Mirrorless means only one thing... mirror-less. It does not refer to the body, the lens or the sensor/film used. I surmise the OP statement should be regarded as ramblings
I wouldn't be quite so harsh as to say that we should dismiss the OP's posts as ramblings; I prefer to think of them as a "think before you act" warning before buying a "mirrorless" camera. I am trying to balance this with an admonition to think before succombing to laziness or inertia and automatically going the dSLR route. Remember, no one camera does everything best. Perhaps you would be wise to choose another dSLR, or perhaps something else would be better for you.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017   #13
Dromedary
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 1,059
CamelKarma: 1543000
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterKlick View Post
An accomplished photographer I was blessed to be the assistant to told me "Dont judge a carpenter by his hammer", he had top end gear and I mentioned I had a lowly 5300, he said "Thats a good camera!", then the wisdom came.

We also cannot judge mirrorless technology from 1960 to mirroless technology of 2017. Mirrorless means only one thing... mirror-less. It does not refer to the body, the lens or the sensor/film used. I surmise the OP statement should be regarded as ramblings.

Andrew

It has turned personal, so with this persons post I exit the thread. I stand by what I said.
Didereaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017   #14
Dromedary
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 1,059
CamelKarma: 1543000
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
Dideraux, you might find a thread I started in 2005 on rethinking SLR design informative and interesting. Now, if the camera manufacturers would bring back some of the old SLR viewfinder features...

I am not overly enamored with novelty and am still using that Canon 40D that I bought in 2010, though it is beginning so show its age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
I am not disputing that a dSLR is a good general-purpose tool, but it still has its own limitations that other camera designs do not. For instance, the mirrorless camera is quieter (no mirror slap) and less intimidating than a dSLR with the same image format, hence doesn't get in the way as much when taking pictures of strangers, especially when shooting candids. I really like my Nikon 995 for this purpose because the lens itself is unobtrusive and, because of the articulated body design, I can face in an altogether different direction than the lens is. I have even shot candids of people seated beside me, and even in the next row behind me, without their noticing. Works for selfies too, but not many pros take professional-quality self-portraits with a handheld camera. I would actually prefer a mirrorless camera with EVF for infrared or ultraviolet shooting because the "live view" feature gives a much better preview overall than a direct optical view.

Of course studio people didn't use rangefinders way back then very much because of the parallax problem - especially significant when the subject is close as is typical of product photography - or the extra steps necessary to compensate for parallax exactly. The rangefinders weren't good for wildlife photography because the rangefinder had to be calibrated to the focal length and couldn't readily handle the requirements of long telephoto lenses without adjustments from the general-purpose settings. These limitations do not apply to modern non-dSLR digital cameras, which in fact do focus through the lens, for the most part.

It should also be pointed out, as I did in my previous thread, that lenses that don't have to leave clearance for the reflex mirror leave more freedom for the lens designer to make smaller, lighter, and less expensive lenses, especially wide-angle ones. With good reason, camera manufacturers still make and sell separate models for APS-C only and full-frame wide-angle lenses. There would be less reason to do this if mirrorless full-frame cameras caught on. Partly because of the reflex mirror, old-fashioned SLRs were less reliable and broke down more often than their rangefinder counterparts. For these reasons, if mirrorless designs are not already competitive with dSLRs for professional use these days, I expect that they soon will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
I wouldn't be quite so harsh as to say that we should dismiss the OP's posts as ramblings; I prefer to think of them as a "think before you act" warning before buying a "mirrorless" camera. I am trying to balance this with an admonition to think before succombing to laziness or inertia and automatically going the dSLR route. Remember, no one camera does everything best. Perhaps you would be wise to choose another dSLR, or perhaps something else would be better for you.
You have emade some very cogent points, and for that I thank you. That was what I hoped would appear a broad overview from all points of view for those who are trying to decide between DSLR and Mirrorless. The needs of every user has never been filled by one camera in all its nearly two hundred years. Since the advent of the internet it does seem as though less and less debate and comparison is taking place and more just yelling slogans and insults. Again thank you for injecting logic, reason and a touch of sanity into this! I believe we have pretty much covered the bases or at least given an person of reasonable intelligence some pathways to research, and as one commenter has already brought in personalities I believe I will drop this thread and leave ot to live or die on its own merits. LONG LIVE THE BROWNIE!!!!!
Didereaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017   #15
Llama
 
ShutterKlick's Avatar
 
Location: SWVA,USA
Posts: 777
CamelKarma: 226472
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

To say something was in my opinion rambling is not a personal attack, its unfortunate that it was interpreted as such. Often times these misunderstandings occur. I myself have been guilty of rambling, which is... what I think I am doing in this thread. Any exodus is of your own accord.

I still stand fast with the point that 1960 technology has no bearing on today's mirrorless cameras. A DSLR is an awesome piece of equipment and has it's place... both have pros and cons however comparing 40+ year old concepts is at best a fruitless venture. That is my point, take it with salt or dont take it at all, but its not an attack on anything or anyone.

Andrew
__________________
My albums at Flickr, regularly updated with worthless pixels:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35295761@N08/albums

My albums at photocamel:
http://photocamel.com/gallery/u69945-shutterklick.html
ShutterKlick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017   #16
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Dromedary
 
BovrilArg's Avatar
 
Location: Jakarta Indonesia (Originally Texas)
Posts: 1,105
CamelKarma: 1606297
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by heaterguy View Post
This is the point of my posting this, I am not trolling, I am trying to get people to remove some of their ignorance about the history of cameras and photography... read historical accounts and not mfr press releases and moronic babbblings of the lemmings-of-all-things-shiny.

A little vituperative don't you think?
I learned a new word! "Vituperative" is a great one!

Regarding the ageless debate of Rangefinder versus SLR and Digital versus Film and mirrorless digital versus DSLR and Canon versus Nikon, I really love it! You cannot have a hobby without these historical debates which polarizes the community.

Shoot whatever you like but to argue one is better than the other is a subjective opinion and you KNOW that people will disagree and argue you to the death. But this does not make the debate any less fun.

Historically, yes the SLR beat out the Rangefinder with most professionals, if you measure that by number of cameras sold. Nikon built a great camera with the F2 (I still shoot mine a great deal then again I also shoot my Leica film camera a great deal as well) but how much of its success was propaganda and how much was solving a real issue?

I have, and still shoot, my Graflex 4x5, Hasselblad 500cm, Leica M6, Nikon F2 and F3 and a wonderful PentaconSix. Still shooting all of these cameras is my life's joy. I do not see one as better than the other, they each have their interesting limitations and strengths. But I am so very grateful for each of them and consider myself very fortunate to shoot them all.

And to settle the debate on film vs digital, once and for all...wait, wrong thread!
__________________
---------------------------
BovrilArg
AKA Patrick

www.filmstillphotography.com

My family and I travel all over the world so photography was a logical way to capture the wonder of the places we go.
The lifestyle requires sacrifices such as not having friends or family near us. This is why Photocamel is so wonderful.
It lets me keep friendly photographers with me everywhere I go!
BovrilArg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017   #17
F1 Camel
 
Golem's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,791
CamelKarma: 683702
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didereaux View Post
Back in the 60's when the first good reliable SLR's came out
you could literally go to trash baskets and pull out range finder
cameras aka mirrorless now. They were inferior to SLR then,
they are inferior to DSLR now. Just shiny new toys for the
uninformed. However, I do support their sales because without
the dumb money paying the tab the camera companies won't
be doing much in the research dept at the high end! SO ....
encourage the purchase of mirrolress! Get the T-shirt!

Your essay is very consistent with your avatar !
Golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017   #18
F1 Camel
 
Golem's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,791
CamelKarma: 683702
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles View Post
Pretty bold statement that mirrorless
is inferior, and wonder what you are
comparing to what.
Really ? You're wondering ? Or just being polite !

Clearly he's comparing his opinion to his opinion.

BTW, I been around since before SLRs "took over"
and his remark about trash bin diving to acquire
rangefinder cameras is fantasy ... but admirably
colorful expression !
Golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017   #19
F1 Camel
 
Golem's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,791
CamelKarma: 683702
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didereaux View Post
I am stating historical fact! The professional photographers at the
time who were using 35mm simply tossed the range finders aside
when reliable SLR's came out. The fact is that most of the people
oday aren't old enough to remember those things and in their
ignorance somehow ignore it when shown. They believe the new
'mirrorless' is some new advancement in technology and it simply
isn't true. (and yes I am old enough to have witnessed all of that)
If you wish to argue that range finders were a equal or superior of
SLR's then I suggest you locate some of NATGEO, LIFE, LOOK, and
other professionals who lived then...there must still be one or two
alive.
By early 70's the venerable Nikon F2 had finished off the range finder
other than for use by some older artists (think Bresson et al), and
Canon had the A1 picking up the leftovers. The New York Times
REQUIRED all their staff photographers to use F2's....does that sound
like the SLR was in second place?

This is the point of my posting this, I am not trolling, I am trying to
get people to remove some of their ignorance about the history of
cameras and photography... read historical accounts and not mfr
press releases and moronic babbblings of the lemmings-of-all-things
-shiny.
I couldn't edit out a single word of the above for space-saving or
brevity cuz every single word is so cogent to the whole expression.

I'm calling a spade a spade, and didn't care to delete a single word
cuz when you call something pure BS you shouldn't edit it before
you present it.

And yes, I was there. Did nearly every job in the bidnez.

But it's always good when generalizing ... when saying the whole
piece is just garbage ... to also nail at least one specific. That
phrase above about "the venerable Nikon F2" ? That in NO WAY
reflects the "welcome" the F2 received upon introduction. It was
shunned !

Basically, at that moment there were only two workhorse 35mm
cameras ... the Leica M and the Nikon F. A Leica kit cost about
triple compared to a fairly similar Nikon kit, and the greater sales
volume of the Nikon reflects nothing more than that.

At that time Leica advanced the M3/M2 "twins" by combining
them into the M4/MP "twins" and the user base was unruffled by
that. Meanwhile Nikon "upgraded" the Nikon F to the F2 and the
user base panicked and went around buying the remaining stock
of original F's and all the clean used ones that all the dilletantes
had traded in to get the new F2. [I'm NOT including dilletantes as
part of the real user base].

So the scene was that the dilletantes were the early adopters of
the F2 while those who needed a camera for their daily bread
shunned it. Over time acoarst, the F2 and later models did prove
themselves worthy.

Point is, in a nutshell, there was no "battle" to be "won" between
RF and SLR. There were ONLY two sturdy, reliable 35mm cameras
and one happened to be an SLR and the other an RF. Sales volume
meant nothing about any "winning" of a battle or contest.


######################################


You are entering "The Deep". If you don't quit here, please
don't say that you weren't given fair warning

Model proliferation and general sales volume of ALL brands and
models of SLRs greatly outstripped the RF camp, but that was due
to a different phenomenon. The SLR became the darling of popular
press [Pop Photo, Modern Photo, Camera 35 etc.] who are really
just toadies, industry flacks, and herders of lemmings. The SLR
was the newest tech and acoarst newness is what promotes sales
volume ... except amongst working photographers but they are a
teenzy weenzy tiny constituency. So the flacks promoted newness,
as they always did and do. Newness in 35mm happened to be SLR
but in rollfilm, rangefinders still reined supreme ... but amateurs
were already wedded to 35mm so they went SLR. As far as which
technology replaced the other, nothing happened in the world of
the working photographer.

It's critical to recall that Nikon and Leica were entirely separate
from all other "contenders" and Leica prices still kept Nikon ahead
of Leica in sales .... but that was a stable situation. In the rollfim
world, SLRs cost more than RFs unless you include the Leica-price
equivalent, which was Linhof. But Linhof was not the only sturdy
reliable RF in the rollfilm world, so you have a difference there
vs the 35mm world, where the sole sturdy RF was the Leica, with
its Linhof/Leica high pricing. AAMOF the rollfilm scene was almost
a perfect reverse of the the 35mm world ... cuz it had only one
reliable and sturdy handheld SLR, the 'Blad 500c, which cost far
more than RF rollfilm bread winners by Mamiya, Koni, Graflex,
Fuji etc.

Sorry for the long story, but it IS a long story. Didereaux poses
in his avatar with his classic 4x5, but then he presents a bogus
history based only on the amateur 35mm scene. IOW, the WHOLE
truth takes more space on a page. Admittedly, he specified 35mm
at the outset where he claims:

"professional photographers at the time who were using
35mm simply tossed the range finders aside when reliable
SLR's came out."
By definition, those supposedly "tossed"
35mm professional-use RFs are M-Leicas ... there simply was
no other make or model. And M-Leicas do everything that the
Nikon F cannot do ... and they're expensive. Tossed aside ? If
you believe that, I have some beachfront property to sell you.

But even within 35mm [which shouldn't be viewed in isolation]
his "history" is drawn from the amateur scene and has nothing
to do the "professional photographers" he imagines were tossing
aside their Leicas. ROTFLMFAO on that. If there had been a flood
of "orphaned" Leicas at that time, believe me that I'd have taken
in at least a half dozen of the poor abandoned darlings
Golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017   #20
Dromedary
 
Didereaux's Avatar
 
Location: swamplands of East Texas
Posts: 1,059
CamelKarma: 1543000
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: In the 1960's you could get a free mirrorless camera

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golem View Post
I couldn't edit out a single word of the above for space-saving or
brevity cuz every single word is so cogent to the whole expression.

I'm calling a spade a spade, and didn't care to delete a single word
cuz when you call something pure BS you shouldn't edit it before
you present it.

And yes, I was there. Did nearly every job in the bidnez.

But it's always good when generalizing ... when saying the whole
piece is just garbage ... to also nail at least one specific. That
phrase above about "the venerable Nikon F2" ? That in NO WAY
reflects the "welcome" the F2 received upon introduction. It was
shunned !

Basically, at that moment there were only two workhorse 35mm
cameras ... the Leica M and the Nikon F. A Leica kit cost about
triple compared to a fairly similar Nikon kit, and the greater sales
volume of the Nikon reflects nothing more than that.

At that time Leica advanced the M3/M2 "twins" by combining
them into the M4/MP "twins" and the user base was unruffled by
that. Meanwhile Nikon "upgraded" the Nikon F to the F2 and the
user base panicked and went around buying the remaining stock
of original F's and all the clean used ones that all the dilletantes
had traded in to get the new F2. [I'm NOT including dilletantes as
part of the real user base].

So the scene was that the dilletantes were the early adopters of
the F2 while those who needed a camera for their daily bread
shunned it. Over time acoarst, the F2 and later models did prove
themselves worthy.

Point is, in a nutshell, there was no "battle" to be "won" between
RF and SLR. There were ONLY two sturdy, reliable 35mm cameras
and one happened to be an SLR and the other an RF. Sales volume
meant nothing about any "winning" of a battle or contest.


######################################


You are entering "The Deep". If you don't quit here, please
don't say that you weren't given fair warning

Model proliferation and general sales volume of ALL brands and
models of SLRs greatly outstripped the RF camp, but that was due
to a different phenomenon. The SLR became the darling of popular
press [Pop Photo, Modern Photo, Camera 35 etc.] who are really
just toadies, industry flacks, and herders of lemmings. The SLR
was the newest tech and acoarst newness is what promotes sale
volume ... except amongst working photographers but they are a
teenzy weenzy tiny constituency. So the flacks promoted newness,
as they always did and do. Newness in 35mm happened to be SLR
but in rollfilm, rangefinders still reined supreme ... but amateurs
were already wedded to 35mm so they went SLR. As far as which
technology replaced the other, nothing happened in the world of
the working photographer.

It's critical to recall that Nikon and Leica were entirely separate
from all other "contenders" and Leica prices still kept Nikon ahead
of Leica in sales .... but that was a stable situation. In the rollfim
world, SLRs cost more than RFs unless you include the Leica-price
equivalent, which was Linhof. But Linhof was not the only sturdy
reliable RF in the rollfilm world, so you have a difference there
vs the 35mm world, where the sole sturdy RF was the Leica with
its Linhof/Leica elitist pricing. AAMOF the rollfilm world was almost
a perfect reverse of the the 35mm world ... cuz it had only one
reliable and sturdy handheld SLR, the 'Blad 500c, which cost far
more than RF rollfilm bread winners by Mamiya, Koni, Graflex,
Fuji etc.

Sorry for the long story, but it IS a long story. Didereaux poses
in his avatar with his classic 4x5, but then he presents a bogus
history based only on the amateur 35mm scene. IOW, the WHOLE
truth takes more space on a page. Admittedly, he specified 35mm
at the outset where he claims:

"professional photographers at the time who were using
35mm simply tossed the range finders aside when reliable
SLR's came out."
By definition, those supposedly "tossed"
35mm professional-use RFs are M-Leicas ... there simply was
no other make or model. And M-Leicas do everything that the
Nikon F cannot do ... and they're expensive. Tossed aside ? If
you believe that, I have some beachfront property to sell you.

But even within 35mm [which shouldn't be viewed in isolation]
his "history" is drawn from the amateur scene and has nothing
to do the "professional photographers" he imagines were tossing
aside their Leicas. ROTFLMFAO on that. If there had been a flood
of "orphaned" Leicas at that time, believe me that I'd have taken
in at least a half dozen of the poor abandoned darlings

You call it bogus history which is calling me a liar. Do your homework the New York Times REQUIRED ALL of their staff photographers to use Nikon f2's That is fact! That can be looked up. Did the RF almost disappear after the 1960's? YES, that is fact. So at the risk of getting kicked off this forum I am telling you right to your face you are so full of bullshit that you are starting to smell! and remember it was YOU who went personal on this not me.


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Didereaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes