Topic: How high tech is too high tech?

[Ordinal]

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but I was wondering what people here would consider a camera that was just too high tech for them to really... feel it. Anything up to the last film SLRs with auto everything and LCDs out of the rear? Or is a built in selenium meter just a step too far?

I'm not sure where I am on this personally - I think that autofocus is where I draw the line, but really, I've never had an autofocus film camera anyway. I'm quite happy with auto exposure, particularly in a pocket camera, as long as I can mess about with it when I need to. (I get on very well with the aperture priority AE in my Olympus XA for instance.) For medium format I'm happy without auto anything, because I'm paying more attention and taking longer over each shot anyway, but a built in meter is nice.

[Late Developer]

I'm all in favour of a camera making it easier for the photographer to get a good photo - so long as it's the photographer making the decisions. I think that those starting out in photography should buy and learn to use an all manual, non-metered camera. Whether they learn simply by trial and error / correcting mistakes or reading up on the relationships between film sensitivity, aperture and shutter speed, depth of field and acceptably sharp focus (or a combination of the two) I don't think there's a better grounding in the craft of photography.

For me, once the craft of photography has been learned and the photographer can get a good end result by understanding what auto and programme modes and exposure compensation dials are actually doing and they're using them as short-cuts to the desired end result, then I'm all in favour of on-board meters, etc.

I suppose I'm a bit old school but  I've always thought it's best to learn how to walk before trying to run.

[Jack Johnson]

I have a Nikon N65 that was given to me that I don't like. Too much trouble to adjust the aperture, autofocus too finicky in low light and viewfinder not manual-focus-friendly. On the upside, it's ultralight, the power winder is fast, and the built-in flash is convenient for fill. I would love something in between it and my old Nikon FG, which has a well though out shutter speed LED, decent shutter priority, and just as convenient EV adjustment.

The old guys at the lab where I take most of my stuff like to joke that all you need is a dark box with a hole in it. For me, a viewfinder and a light meter are convenient but not a deal-breaker. Some day I'll break down and buy one of those little Voightlander hot shoe meters and probably ditch my selenium meter and most of the batteries in my gear (most of my cameras have manual shutters).

I detest shutter lag, and can hardly pick up a digital camera because of it. I've shot a few in manual-focus mode, but I would have to say AF is too high-tech. I'd rather have a spot meter than a matrix meter. Aperture and shutter priority are fine, and the more I look at how well my $1 garage sale Canon AE-1 Program handles a variety of scenes I think there hasn't been so much gained in the last couple of decades that it's been worth the trade.

A lifetime customer used to be three cameras. Now it's probably fifteen.

[Francois]

A lifetime customer used to be three cameras. Now it's probably fifteen.

For some reason, I've just got a hot flash .... fifteen? only that? 

[Jack Johnson]

Rant continued. Sorry everyone. I suppose it's a topic near and dear to my heart. I'm a technologist, an IT supervisor, and spend a lot of time on the geek side of the house doing cost/benefit analysis and rarely is it there for any technology. I'm no Luddite, but occasionally I look at the Amish and think yep, that's right: if you can't build it or repair it yourself, the total cost of ownership may be too high. And even then, I suspect the Amish would give up iron tools if the whole planet were Amish and someone had to be subjected to working in the mines.

I randomly stumbled across an interview with Eric J Henderson and there's this fantastic quote:

I use the Brownie camera exclusively, but not for any nostalgia. I mean, I dig the design and the 1950ness of it, but I’m intrigued by the idea of technology often advancing not because we’ve exhausted it, but rather because we simply want something new.

When I look at the influence of LOMO and the toy camera popularity, even the digitized versions, I think the intriguing thing is that it comes back to the idea of what makes a compelling image. We've had the photographic equivalent of religious wars over the technical side, down to the importance of focus and exposure and classical composition, but at the end of the day we're really having philosophical debates about what constitutes a compelling image, and I think rightly so there should be some bleedover into the debate about what is the adequate, appropriate, maybe even sustainable amount of technology it takes to take and maintain a compelling image.

There are things we do because we can, things we do because we want to, and things we do because we should, and they don't always overlap.

[Jack Johnson]

A lifetime customer used to be three cameras. Now it's probably fifteen.

For some reason, I've just got a hot flash .... fifteen? only that? 

From the same manufacturer.

I think I have two each from Agfa, Canon, Nikon, Yashica, and Graflex.

[jojonas~]

well it depends on the camera for me I guess. like some slrs are built to be auto first and manual second, making them very fiddly to work with. and compact af cameras are a hit and miss with me.. for example the konica mr.70 and pentax pc35af cameras give me some misses per roll but I've never had that problem with my olympus af trip mini and mju 1.

auto exposure I don't mind at all. maybe I'm just more ok with some shots being blown out or underexposed from using toy cameras so much? haha~

[mart]

Cliche: All things are relative.

When you're in your 80s, all sorts of technological aids are welcome even if you still have your first camera from 1938, a Brownie Six-20.

[Jack Johnson]

When you're in your 80s, all sorts of technological aids are welcome even if you still have your first camera from 1938, a Brownie Six-20.

I worry that when I'm in my 80s I'll be living in a yurt making cyanotypes with rainwater from pinholes on glass negatives, possibly mumbling political obscenities on the streetcorner.

[LT]

I dont mind any kind of technology that aids my film camera experience. Especially with hand held cameras - auto-focus, IS, matrix-metering and so on are all up for grabs, if it helps you get your shot ... but seeing as I dont own any cameras that I would call hand-held anymore, then I am pretty much manual everything these days apart from the shutter on my SQAi/SQA bodies.

if it helps, why not use it?

[Alan]

i agree with leon and others, if its there and helps get the result - happy days.

it may depend on the application also.

for what i shoot i dont need auto focus, 90% of the time i dont need a light meter
i dont even need a second lens most of the time!

if your a sports photographer you would need all of the above !

[Jeff Warden]

No tech is too much if I like it   

The highest tech I've used on a film camera was my Contax G2, which had a learning curve but was a marvelous camera.  Now I'm using a Hasselblad a lot and man could this thing use a light meter!

[Lund]

Super high tech is great as long as it intuitive. If not then the camera is no fun.

I do however love good mechanical solutions and those tend to be found in full manual cameras.

[Francois]

It all always comes down to the human-machine interface. Ill placed buttons, bad ergonomics and functions hidden inside other functions are a definite no-no for me. It's just like a small Ricoh I have yet to try. The functions button is under the wrist strap lug on the side! Who would have thought of putting a button there?
Also, when buttons are too small like on my Nikon Teletouch, it just makes things hard. I also hate self resetting functions, especially when it comes to the flash... that's just annoying. I also have a camera that uses a two-step button where you don't feel the first step... Small narrow viewfinders are also a big pain in the...

As far as high-tech goes, I personally don't mind it as long as it's designed with humans in mind. I have an F-90x which I love and yet it doesn't get much more high-tech than that.

[DS]

I also hate self resetting functions, especially when it comes to the flash... that's just annoying

Yes! This is why I don't get along with my Espio Mini or Mju. Can't stand that every time I turn the camera on I have to double press to get rid of the flash. Harrumph (other than that they're lovely, but still, dealbreaker).

[Jack Johnson]

if your a sports photographer you would need all of the above !

But that's kind of the thing, right? For how many decades did we have sports photographers who had none of those things yet still gave us some of the most memorable shots of the last century?

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge anyone actively choosing any technology, but I am much more appreciative of an active choice rather than a passive one.

For instance, I'll pick on Leon. When everyone was polling their top 3 films, Leon chimed in much later and said that's all well and good, but hardly anyone said why they chose those films, and then he shared his selection and reasoning.

Or, take Daido Moriyama talking about why he uses a point & shoot camera. Or Eric Henderson talking about why he stuck with the Brownie Hawkeye. I think there's an often overlooked aspect regarding the selection of the tools used to make or study the art, and when that selection is passive I believe it can actually limit the practitioner rather than facilitate the desired outcome.

And, I'm not throwing stones, I think it's true for nearly every technological choice, and we just happen to be talking about cameras and photography today. I think most of us don't know what we're capable of as photographers, and most of us aren't lucky enough to serendipitously find it. If we're lucky, we're content with the ride if not the destination, and if that's true then I'm saying the selection of your vehicle may be just as important as getting in/on.

[Jack Johnson]

Or, maybe I should just have a beer and chill out.

[moominsean]

I want my camera to do almost nothing for me, like a manual 120, or do everything for me like a point and shoot.

[Late Developer]

The "just right" (for me) is a Nikon F3. I can switch virtually all the technology off and use it as a "manual everything" camera or, as I do most of the time, I use the metering as a guide, compensate as I feel necessary and know that focusing is in my hands.

My F5, on the other hand, has things called "custom settings". I've read and re-read the manual and I just can't see how any of them would major benefit what I want the camera for. The only "real" benefits of having that camera are the meter (virtually infallible in my experience) and the motor wind / auto focus for when I'm at an air show or sports meeting. The build quality is a much overlooked factor and is a benefit for me as I am a clumsy sod.

[Francois]

A bit like the F-90x which has custom scene modes... which I've never used

[Late Developer]

A bit like the F-90x which has custom scene modes... which I've never used

Actually, Francois, I think that's what they're called on the F5 as well. Someone must have thought they'd be useful - probably when it comes to auto-bracketing and some high speed shooting thingy. However,  won't be experimenting with them anytime soon.....

[Sandeha Lynch]

I'm thinking of going back to charcoal and red ochre ... 

[Jack Johnson]

I'm thinking of going back to charcoal and red ochre ... 

Do you prefer push or pull processing? My highlights are always crap with charcoal.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I'm thinking of going back to charcoal and red ochre ... 

Do you prefer push or pull processing? My highlights are always crap with charcoal.

Neither.  Just throw another bison on the fire.   

[Ordinal]

Thinking about this thread, I looked on eBay for a cheap autofocus camera, which is sort of tricky - I wanted a mju II, but they all go for a bit more than I was willing to spend on an impulse curiosity purchase, at least until I get paid.

However in the end I did pick up an Olympus IS-1000 for £5 plus P&P. I think IS stands for Integrated System - it is an SLR with a built in 35-135mm / f4.5-5.6 lens, plus AE obviously, AF, intelligent flash, DX and a few extra modes. It's really quite an impressive beast, at least for the daytime - f4.5 is a bit slow for me, but 35-135 is pretty flexible, and you can also "Power Focus" manually as well as do aperture-priority and manual aperture/exposure if you want to.

The AF is quite fast, if not as fast as my digital, but only in quite contrasty situations with vertical lines. Again, fine in the daytime, but I like to poke around in dark corners, and there's no ground glass or split viewfinder to help you manually focus.

I've ended up feeling a bit sorry for the IS. It's a versatile camera which isn't completely dumbed down, but nobody is going to buy one now apart from weird eBay people like me - it doesn't have any retro chic, looking pretty much like a long digital, it's not "lomo quirky", it isn't particularly compact, and it doesn't have the lens choice of a standard SLR. I shall try to use it a lot to make it feel better. (It would be a good "wandering around" camera for city walks I think, with that level of zoom.)

So maybe "too high tech" is "when you feel sorry for it for trying so hard just at the time when digital was coming in". I don't know whether I should really be buying cameras because I feel sorry for them.

[Suzi Livingstone]

Rant continued. Sorry everyone. I suppose it's a topic near and dear to my heart. I'm a technologist, an IT supervisor, and spend a lot of time on the geek side of the house doing cost/benefit analysis and rarely is it there for any technology. I'm no Luddite, but occasionally I look at the Amish and think yep, that's right: if you can't build it or repair it yourself, the total cost of ownership may be too high. And even then, I suspect the Amish would give up iron tools if the whole planet were Amish and someone had to be subjected to working in the mines.

I randomly stumbled across an interview with Eric J Henderson and there's this fantastic quote:

I use the Brownie camera exclusively, but not for any nostalgia. I mean, I dig the design and the 1950ness of it, but I’m intrigued by the idea of technology often advancing not because we’ve exhausted it, but rather because we simply want something new.

When I look at the influence of LOMO and the toy camera popularity, even the digitized versions, I think the intriguing thing is that it comes back to the idea of what makes a compelling image. We've had the photographic equivalent of religious wars over the technical side, down to the importance of focus and exposure and classical composition, but at the end of the day we're really having philosophical debates about what constitutes a compelling image, and I think rightly so there should be some bleedover into the debate about what is the adequate, appropriate, maybe even sustainable amount of technology it takes to take and maintain a compelling image.

There are things we do because we can, things we do because we want to, and things we do because we should, and they don't always overlap.

I LOVE that Eric Henderson quote