View Full Version : Why do we love old things so much?
In this case, obviously cameras.
What is it that attracts you to older camera gear? Is it the history of that particular piece of equipment, the life it's been through (known or unknown, the latter might be even better); is it the more mechanical and manual aspect that lets you get away from the busy ever more digital world; is it that you think things were simply built better in the past; is it the character--real or imagined--that you see in the results?
Found myself thinking of this today as I realized I am torn when considering photo gear. On one hand, I like having a lot of things done automatically (when done well!) like metering, stopping down the lens, auto focus etc. On the other, it's a real joy to sometimes use the older gear with its manual everything. One day I might be shooting with my Pentax DSLR in Av mode (hey, I am NOT letting a camera pick the aperture) with auto ISO, and the next I might break out the Leica IIf + Summar and go have some fun without even bringing a meter.
And that's what it is, fun. But why is it that we enjoy the older, simpler gear so much? When I shoot with the Leica I want proper exposure just like on my DSLR. Why do I not use a meter with it? I want the focus to be where I want it, but sometimes I just like to do it myself without any assistance. Why? Hell if I know. Sometimes it's just more... fun, and I can't quite put my finger on why.
How about you?
back alley
11-22-2008, 17:07
i prefer younger women ;) ...
MCTuomey
11-22-2008, 17:33
yeah joe!! love your new avatar, btw.
i like old things out of pure self-respect.
charjohncarter
11-22-2008, 17:41
Photograghy, to me is recording past events or places or people. So, I like to use older cameras to give some of the past flavor to my images. My subjects often says it looks so good and so real and like it could have been taken 25-50 years ago. As a study of one, that is why I like older equipment, my only heartbreak is that I can't always use the films that I wish I could have. Like old Ektachrome, my Uncle and his new car:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4681614-md.jpg (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4681614&size=lg)
this is in general, but it also applies to cameras... *I* think the reason we love old things is because in our nature is the belief that somehow perfection had been reach in the past and then lost... and by shooting an old camera we are somehow trying to find that lost perfection...
Some of these older cameras such as the Leica, Nikon, and Contax (and many other goods) were built as well as possible as determined by engineers, rather than the way modern cameras (and most other goods) are built today to a price point and to achieve a profit margin as determined by accountants. In those days, planned obsolence had not become as pervasive as it is today, so in a way, perfection had been reached and then lost.
User Interface.
Ever noticed how simple and intuitive it is to adjust the settings on pretty much any of the most important mechanical cameras?
There are models which are more or less fiddly (some people will dispute the user-friendliness of bottom loaders, for example), but pick an old Pentax, a consumer rangefinder (canonet, hi-matic), or even a TLR and within seconds you have figured out what button does what, where to put the film, and so on.
Basically, I find that anything made during the 50s, 60s, and 70s has a very limited number of buttons, and they each serve a single function.
Modern cameras have better ergonomics in terms of espousing the shape of the hand, reducing fatigue, but they also have to integrate so many damn buttons, that the advances in the science of user interaction are drowned in the sea of features they must stretch to cover.
Of course there's nostalgia, design, coolness factor, exoticism, history, but those are very subjective factors that vary between people. Up to a point, I think that the clean layout of controls on certain cameras is a more solid advantage.
If there would be a modern camera combining the simplicity of minimal controls and the best advances in ergonomics, then I would very very much consider buying new. For now I just rationalize and enjoy my old gear.
bmattock
11-22-2008, 19:11
I do not like old cameras because they are old. I like old cameras because they are well-made. They just happen to be old, because that's when they made cameras well.
Paul C. Perkins, MD
11-22-2008, 20:19
They're like old friends. They're familiar. They're easier to use. They're much cheaper (with a few exceptions). All pretty straightforward and without any whistful melancholy.
Paul
larmarv916
11-22-2008, 20:27
Well for me it's like this..the modern process is lacking in internal previsualization that is at the heart of any artistic expression. Also the lack of a physical final negative is another fundemental requirement that digital process is not able to deliver. The film camera is also, in most cases a statement of optical excellence. Without expertise the results are clearly undesireable. any years ago the idea of a "goof proof" technology was the direction that the big camera people saw as profitable. Now looking back it has created the law of unintended results....lowering of creative quality.
'Cause most on here are old?
amateriat
11-22-2008, 20:31
Oh, this is tricky.
I bought both my Hexar RF bodies brand-new, along with a trio of lenses. The Hex has a host of modern technological flourishes, but the camera doesn't wear this tech on its sleeve; save for things like motorized film-advance/rewind built into the body, the thing is quite unassuming to look at, and–even better–quite unassuming in use. And, it has important bits of old-school tech where it counts: an M-mount and rangefinder. This nexus of old and new intertwine beautifully to me. It reminds me somewhat of the two SLRs I actually got on with most when I was working with them most: Canon's F-1 and Nikon's F3.
Remember, much of what we now regard as "old-school" was SOTA not all that long ago.
- Barrett
To me it's because it's a mechanical camera, and it's really simple to work with. And I have this idea, maybe I'm wrong, that since it's mechanical, it's reliable.
I have an old minolta xg-m my father bought me in 1981, not really a mechanical camera cause it requires a battery to operate, but it still works today. Even though at one time it was treated brutally by the security force here. And then my FM2, a mechanical and realiable camera. 14 years old and still going strong :D
So I guess it's the same reason why I bought a Sportster and ride a Sportster for the past 6 years. It's a new bike when I bought it, but it has an old technology, going back 50 years, and not much changed since then. That old technology makes it a reliable ride for me. This past 6 years it never had any major failure. If it breaks down, I can fix it myself, no special tools required. There are better and probably more realiable bikes out there with more advanced technology, but I prefer old and reliable technology.
Bob
SolaresLarrave
11-22-2008, 21:09
I like old cameras because I view them as a window to the past. Not because the past was better (it was not), but rather because it was different. Also, because I was part of that past (to a certain extent), and there are feelings and emotions I'd like to relive.
I do appreciate modern cameras though. With the arrival of my Nikon D700 I've found it's a tool that adapts to the way I want to photograph things just like a glove fits my hand. It takes longer, and one feels that there's less human intervention in the results (just the number of custom functions is mind-boggling for someone used to the 19 found in the Nikon F100, and the 22 of the Nikon F5), but whatever the camera does, it does it because I gave it the input, just like a rangefinder camera like my M6TTL will over- or underexpose if I turn the aperture ring one way or the other.
In short, to contribute to the discussion I can simply say that sometimes I take my M3 in my hands and wonder where it has been, and what it has seen through some lenses of which I'll never know.
Oh, well... :rolleyes:
I like using my older Leica's IIIc, IIIrd & my M3 with the vintage lens. It gives me great satisfaction in knowing that I did it all like it was done in the 40's & 50's. They look like the photo's when I was a kid. These cameras are a work of art, cameras will never be made like this again. The fit & finish of the M's of the day can not be beat. All hand made by a craftsmen that have spent a lifetime doing, not by a mold in some factory in the far east. The Leitz len's can never be duplicated again with the quality they used back in the day. Not to mean that the new Leitz's are not good, its just that you are putting something in your hand with substance. There is something about Kodachrome 64 & B&W film that makes it all worth taking pic's. The old gear will out live me & someone else will still be able to use if they still make film if 50years.
amateriat
11-22-2008, 22:30
“I like beautiful things, and things that are tough and serious.” - Ry Cooder
- Barrett
murpograph
11-22-2008, 23:03
I think the main reason is, that most of us are searching for happiness. And happiness comes with D O I N G anything that requires an effort and - maybe in the better case - that only a few others can a do as well. So first thing is to F I N D the old gear, to B U Y it before another one decides to, to L E A R N how it works and to T A K E P I C T U R E S better than those from a fully automatized DSLR.
It’s the same story with travelling. If you want just to A R R I V E you take the plane and work or read a newspaper during the flight. If you want to make a journey you take the car, the railway, a canoo. the hiking-boots or a steam-ship, so that T R A V E L L I N G is the event.
Some of these older cameras such as the Leica, Nikon, and Contax (and many other goods) were built as well as possible as determined by engineers, rather than the way modern cameras (and most other goods) are built today to a price point and to achieve a profit margin as determined by accountants. In those days, planned obsolence had not become as pervasive as it is today, so in a way, perfection had been reached and then lost.
Well said and sad ........................Robin
oftheherd
11-23-2008, 03:32
I guess I like to make photographs. There are times when composition is enough. But I find it more satisfying to be more involved in selection of aperture, shutter speed, film choice, perspective, post processing (developer choice, cropping); all those things that older cameras encourage. Then seeing if all those choices got me the photograph I envisioned.
I am not against automation because sometimes it makes the other things easier. There are times when I want or have to do things in a hurry. But if not, it just pleasures me to do it with more involvement. Auto exposure with a trusted system is a good example of what I can let the camera do many times.
I think there is a certain amount of nostalgia involved too. Also the chance to use things that maybe others can't.
Don't blame everything on the accountants. How much did a Leica IIIf or SL2 cost in its day and in today's money. I read that a Bell & Howell Foton with its $700 price tag back in the 40's represented a typical person's quarterly income. People are just not going to spend that kind of cash on a camera these days.
antistatic
11-23-2008, 03:52
I think the main reason is, that most of us are searching for happiness. And happiness comes with D O I N G anything that requires an effort and - maybe in the better case - that only a few others can a do as well. So first thing is to F I N D the old gear, to B U Y it before another one decides to, to L E A R N how it works and to T A K E P I C T U R E S better than those from a fully automatized DSLR.
It’s the same story with travelling. If you want just to A R R I V E you take the plane and work or read a newspaper during the flight. If you want to make a journey you take the car, the railway, a canoo. the hiking-boots or a steam-ship, so that T R A V E L L I N G is the event.
What he said.
When I use my Leica with film, I own every step of the process and when I nail a shot it is a result of those steps coming together. With my D300 I always have an uneasy feeling that part of the photo belongs to the ghost in the machine.
I also like the bare bones simplicity of mechanical cameras. I was explaining to my five year old about why exposure, shutter speed and aperture matter. We played with the FM2n with the back open. One dial, one aperture ring and a shutter you could see in action. Try that with a DSLR.
dave lackey
11-23-2008, 05:07
Yeah, I like the previous answer about self-respect. The last three cars I owned were 30, 40 and 56 years old. I am waiting for a 38-year old M3. I have a 30-year old antique watch and I am __ years old.:eek:
And Fred is right..."pre-visualization" is a term to be avoided.....and I wouldn't quite want to use the "visualization" for the future either...:D
Roger Hicks
11-23-2008, 05:08
Don't blame everything on the accountants. How much did a Leica IIIf or SL2 cost in its day and in today's money. I read that a Bell & Howell Foton with its $700 price tag back in the 40's represented a typical person's quarterly income. People are just not going to spend that kind of cash on a camera these days.
$10,000 for an Alpa says you're wrong.
More and more people can afford more and more stuff -- doesn't matter what the 'stuff' is -- and this is largely because 'stuff' is made cheaper and cheaper. This is achieved by automation (substitution of capital for labour); design for cheap production; manufacture or at least assembly in low-labour-cost countries; reduction of choice ('winner takes all' -- how many makes of car or film are there today as compared with 50 years ago); and reduction of margins all around: remember the days of Resale Price Maintenance?
On the one hand, this means that we can all buy lots more stuff, and it also implies that anything built to last (with the attractive features listed by many others earlier in this thread) is increasingly dumped by people fascinated with the new.
On the other hand this implicitly devalues the good stuff -- rather like Gresham's Law of bad money driving out good -- and it sets up a consumer treadmill where the middle classes, the principal consumers of stuff, run faster and faster to stay in the same place. The poor have always had to work hard in order to eat (but are increasingly joining the middle class in rich countries) and the rich can buy whatever they damn' well feel like.
Why do I buy old cameras? Actually, I buy fewer and fewer nowadays, but I was always fascinated by the surprising range of engineering solutions that have been applied to much the same set of problems -- which is why I wrote A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press, 1984) and why I ended the book at 1967 with the first auto-exposure SLR, when the degree of convergence in design had become, to my eye, boring.
There are plenty of excellent cameras since 1967, but for me, the vast majority are only 'users', unlike the Weird Stuff before then.
Cheers,
R.
$10,000 for an Alpa says you're wrong.
Cheers,
R.
About 6 years ago a collector friend offered me his 38mm Biogon clad Alpa for $5,000 and I held it in my hands, thought about it really really really hard while admiring the craftsmanship. I still regret not taking it and today would gladly pay $10000 for it.
But this is a niche market isn't it? I hope they sell more but while I see your point a thousand units a week or a month or a year do not represent the attitudes of the general buying public. I wish it isn't so.
Don't blame everything on the accountants. How much did a Leica IIIf or SL2 cost in its day and in today's money. I read that a Bell & Howell Foton with its $700 price tag back in the 40's represented a typical person's quarterly income. People are just not going to spend that kind of cash on a camera these days.
I wouldn't have be able to afford such premium products back in the day, but nowadays I can buy them used, and because they are so well made, they still function as new.
I wouldn't have be able to afford such premium products back in the day, but nowadays I can buy them used, and because they are so well made, they still function as new.
When I was a poor starving student I always walked pass the camera shops off Market Street in SF and drool over the F5 and I knew if I had $1300 I would sooner buy a car. Now they are going for less than half that and while I can afford one now I prefer simple mechanical cameras like the Contax IIa and the Leicas and the Nikon F, the camera I was holding while wishing for the modern marvels. Now I prefer to get another Nikon F preferably one in black paint and a black pointy top.
Rayt: agreed! Maybe it's like how I still like the music that I was listening to as I came of age, better than most modern music. And I don't like computers in cameras. As previously well-stated: satisfaction (in photography) comes partly from the effort exerted to achieve a result.
Roger Hicks
11-23-2008, 06:54
. . . But this is a niche market isn't it? I hope they sell more but while I see your point a thousand units a week or a month or a year do not represent the attitudes of the general buying public. I wish it isn't so.
Dear Ray,
That was precisely my point, really. The Foton was a niche product too. People will buy something cheap because they can afford it, which is good (probably, on balance, though consumerism can obviously go too far). But it won't be as good as something that is not built quite so aggressively down to a price.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger, While I am not in the camera business I am in the business of having things made and indirectly selling them. I wish I can share some experiences with you over a few pints somewhere.
Best regards,
Ray
Roger Hicks
11-23-2008, 07:22
Roger, While I am not in the camera business I am in the business of having things made and indirectly selling them. I wish I can share some experiences with you over a few pints somewhere.
Best regards,
Ray
Dear Ray,
That would indeed be delightful. Where are you?
Cheers,
Roger
Dear Ray,
That would indeed be delightful. Where are you?
Cheers,
Roger
I am currently in Hong Kong. If you ever come this way I'll make good on the pints.
Best,
Ray
The issue is mostly one of the approach to computers. Japanese designers have steadfastly clung to the no-computer model of camera design, and even when they have ventured into a computer GUI to set up their cameras, it has been very clumsy.
By continuing to insist that the camera be a stand-alone device, they become more and more awful to use, with endless awful menus, which on a computer screen would be simple to navigate.
Nikon, Canon et al. are not going to turn into Apple. In fact it would appear no one is.
A camera should be a very simple device,
Decide what film you want
Decide what shutter speed you want
Decide what f-stop you would like
Focus
Push the shutter release.
The designers have lost their way almost totally. In giving us so much control, they have left us with almost no control.
Yes, user interface design (or lack thereof!) has made several cameras very unpleasant to use. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Here's how I generally work the K20D:
Set camera to Av mode.
In Av mode, I use the rear dial (by my thumb) to set the aperture.
The front dial (middle finger, right below the shutter button) controls ISO. I can push a little button next to the shutter button to enter "auto ISO" mode if I just need to maintain a reasonable shutter speed and don't care which ISO it ends up at. 90% of the time I prefer to control it though.
Normally I autofocus, though the Limited series Pentax lenses allow you to manually tweak the focusing even in AF mode. It's pretty handy sometimes.
Metering mode (matrix, center, spot) is on a dial I can reach with a left finger easily.
So...
One finger controls aperture, another controls ISO, another controls metering mode. No menus, just simple rugged dials. That covers almost all my shooting.
Sure, there's 36 custom functions and pages of menus for doing all sorts of stuff I rarely ever need to, but I don't HAVE to go there. :)
PS: That said, I think I'll go load some sheet film and take the Crown Graphic for a spin. :D
With a Leica M2 (or similar camera), exposure settings are made based on a hand held meter or by educated guess (sunny 16), and focus is adjusted using a zone setting (based on the aperture used). From here, it's just point and shoot.
With a Leica M2 (or similar camera), exposure settings are made based on a hand held meter or by educated guess (sunny 16), and focus is adjusted using a zone setting (based on the aperture used). From here, it's just point and shoot.
And the same thing can be done with most DSLRs. You can 'point and shoot' with 100% automation, or manually set your ISO, shutter, aperture, zone focus and go blast away.
What Bill and FrankS said....
Reflecting a bit more, I don't think I like old cameras simply because they are old. I like certain old cameras, that are beautifully designed and built and that have an elegant simplicity to them and (no small thing) that I can now afford but could not have afforded years ago... Like Canon P, Leica M2. They just feel right, and I enjoy taking pictures with them.
Something about FrankS's post got me thinking (never a good thing!) so let me throw this out here...
It generally seems that people think it's more noble to go as manual as possible, zone focus, guess-exposure yada yada.
But how is that way of giving up control different from giving it up to the automation of a P&S?
If you get a "surprise" image that's really good because it ended up over/under exposed, focused on something you didn't realize because your distance estimate was off, or anything else... is that really any better or worse than leaving it to a point and shoot camera? Is the picture from a zone focused and sunny 16 exposure set Leica III any more "yours" than that autofocused and autoexposed by a point and shoot? Yes, you are "taking control" over the parameters with the Leica, but you are also guessing both on exposure and focus and since we're not perfect at either things are more or less being left to chance to a certain degree.
Does that make any sense?
I'm glad you asked that because I was just thinking of it as I was making a potato salad for tonight's dinner. I do think that the amount of satisfaction obtained during, and at the end of a task, is proportional to the amount of responsibility and effort put into achieving it. Using an all manual camera is more satisfying to me than using an auto-everything film and especially digital camera.
(I've said it before and I need to say it again here: I fully understand the need for pros to go digital. For my own hobby (and limited amount of paid) photography though, I find film and wet darkroom to be the most satisfying for me.)
Imagine for a moment that every picture you took came out wonderfully perfect with no effort on your part but composing and pressing the button. How long before the photography becomes meaningless to you? Sure, you may do it to pay the bills and save a nest egg, but I'm sure the pleasure of creating would disappear. Satisfaction comes from striving, persevering, and being successful.
Tonight's potato salad is going to be great. It took over an hour to make. It is in the style my grandmother and mother made/make with celery, onion, pickle, carrot, peas, and apple. (I add red chilli pepper powder to make it spicy.) It will be very satisfying to eat with my family tonight, instead of a store-bought pre-made salad that I simply need to remove the plastic lid from.
My opinion only, and only in reference to myself.
Pretty funny, I was out in the garage as you wrote that, working on stripping the paint off and polishing some motorcycle wheels. All the while thinking, "jesus, I wish this damn thing was done already".
Sometimes you just have a goal in mind and want to get to it.
For maximum enjoyment, you should embrace the process, not just the end product. But that's easier with some jobs than others, and it just sounds like zen-prattle.
For maximum enjoyment, you should embrace the process, not just the end product. But that's easier with some jobs than others, and it just sounds like zen-prattle.
Oh, I agree entirely. For instance, I love painting. Not painting art, but fences, houses, anything. There's something peaceful and enjoyable about the whole process.
But some processes are just not enjoyable no matter what. Hunched over in a cold garage on a concrete floor trying to strip paint is one of those. At least for me.
Some jobs just aren't that pleasant or practical to do, and that's why we often outsource them. Did you grow the potatoes for your salad yourself?
One reason I like to use manual cameras is because the manual controls are intended to be used, so they are easy and straightforward.
One way using a camera manually is different than letting the P&S do it for you is the P&S will always expose a given scene the same way. I'm not looking for surprises or happy acidents when I expose the film differently than a P&S. I am making a conscious effort to capture on film what *I* want, not what a book or algorithm says is the "correct exposure."
I find it easier to use a camera that was designed to be used manually over one that allows it but was designed to be left alone except for tripping the shutter.
As has been said, the satisfaction comes from the creating, not the having. The exciting part of a trip for me is the journey, not the destination.
As has been said, the satisfaction comes from the creating, not the having. The exciting part of a trip for me is the journey, not the destination.
But is there no satisfaction or worth in the creation itself? Once you have taken a great picture, do you not enjoy looking at it and sharing it?
If it's all about the creating, why even bother keeping the results around?
But is there no satisfaction or worth in the creation itself? Once you have taken a great picture, do you not enjoy looking at it and sharing it?
If it's all about the creating, why even bother keeping the results around?
It's not that deep. I enjoy making pictures. It's not because I really need a nice picture. :)
Sonny Boy Havidson
11-23-2008, 13:55
Time can be seen as a quality test?
dave lackey
11-23-2008, 14:34
I'm glad you asked that because I was just thinking of it as I was making a potato salad for tonight's dinner. I do think that the amount of satisfaction obtained during, and at the end of a task, is proportional to the amount of responsibility and effort put into achieving it. Using an all manual camera is more satisfying to me than using an auto-everything film and especially digital camera.
(I've said it before and I need to say it again here: I fully understand the need for pros to go digital. For my own hobby (and limited amount of paid) photography though, I find film and wet darkroom to be the most satisfying for me.)
Imagine for a moment that every picture you took came out wonderfully perfect with no effort on your part but composing and pressing the button. How long before the photography becomes meaningless to you? Sure, you may do it to pay the bills and save a nest egg, but I'm sure the pleasure of creating would disappear. Satisfaction comes from striving, persevering, and being successful.
Tonight's potato salad is going to be great. It took over an hour to make. It is in the style my grandmother and mother made/make with celery, onion, pickle, carrot, peas, and apple. (I add red chilli pepper powder to make it spicy.) It will be very satisfying to eat with my family tonight, instead of a store-bought pre-made salad that I simply need to remove the plastic lid from.
My opinion only, and only in reference to myself.
Bold - Absolutely, persevering is key to life. Successes are great, but so are the failures and all things in between. Like musical notes, successful as they are, they could be no more than noise without the nothingness between them. We need failures and perseverance.
Frank, I love your description of the potato salad...hey, does RFF have a recipe-sharing forum?:D
Dave, thanks. And I agree with you about how not just success is important. There can be no wave crest without a trough.
st3ph3nm
11-23-2008, 14:40
I have to agree that any device that's designed to be used manually is easier to use manually - compared to a device that has the "option" of manual control. I also like the immediacy of manual focus cameras - nothing annoys me more about modern AF cameras (digi or film, doesn't matter) is that delay between pushing the button and getting the shot. That said, there's times I'd like the convenience of a good modern DSLR - especially for sports events, but they're a small part of my photography.
Besides, I just like old stuff. The designs of the 50's and 60's really appeal, from cameras to cars to planes and trains. Can anyone tell me of a better looking camera than a Canon P, a better looking car than a Ferrari 250 SWB, or a better looking train than an early diesel electric? :)
Cheers,
Steve
(People just don't do nostalgia like they used to...)
bmattock
11-24-2008, 10:19
I have to disagree with regard to the 'manual control' comments. I require manual control of my vintage cameras as well as my modern dSLRs. I have it, and easily so, with them.
Despite the lack of a knob to turn, it is astoundingly easy for me to set the f-stop and shutter speed on my Pentax *ist DS. I have plenty of manual-focus lenses, some from the M42 era and some from the P/K or P/KA era - all work fine. I have the added benefit of focus indication and ISO adjustment without changing a roll of film midway through. I have added a split-ring focus screen to increase my ability to focus manually.
No knobs, and no menus to traverse. It's quite easy. If I can do it, so can anyone who can use a camera.
I do not like old cameras because they are old. I like old cameras because they are shiny. :)
http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/mcollection.jpg
rolleistef
11-30-2008, 07:31
I thought about a theory of design. There would be 4 era to design : pre-industrial before the 1920s : the object shows its inside, its function
1920s - end of 1970s Bauhaus : it gets a status of piece of art, and is thus treated as such : invention of design. Question of material isn't up to date yet. Bronze, brass, aluminium, titanium.
1980s : modernist, launched with the Canon T90. The camera behaves by itself, except for focusing, but it only a question of time. The link is being cut between the camera and the photographer. Also, plastic is cheaper and lighter than plain metal. It's not that heavy nor nice to hold.
1990s : age of individualism. Your camera (or car) is getting bigger and bigger : Nikon F5, Dynax 9 ; VW Golf II to Golf III... and you don't have any more link with the camera, that whizzes and shakes whitout much comment, you don't understand its mechanism anymore becausee it's so electronic.
The differences between a mechanical shutter and an electronic shutter are :
-the electronic shutter has a better accuracy
-you know that your the mechanism will close on the mechanical one since the clockwork has stopped whizzing.
End of the story : you get back to your M2 because you can understand it, because it is made so that it looks really beautiful (the chroming), and it's unobstrusive, so don't need to show what your camera is potentially capable of to take good photos.
Same for cars : the difference between a Mustang 1968 and a Mustang 2004 is that the Mustang 68 has a human feeling. It's a box with something inside, on which you have a controle - and you can understand.
Any comment?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.