Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-18-2011   #41
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
I would have put these ones in there:

Canon ae1 - sold heaps of them, first program SLR
Sigma dp1/Olympus e-p1 - the beginning of the big sensor in compact digital camera revolution.
Canon 5d - the first affordable full frame 35mm DSLR, one of the most used professional DSLRs in the world.

I agree. EXCEPT:

Canon ae1 - sold heaps of them, first program SLR
Panasonic G1 - the beginning of the mirrorless, interchangeable lens, multi-mount digital camera systems
Canon 5d - the first affordable full frame 35mm DSLR, one of the most used professional DSLRs in the world.



/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-18-2011   #42
Rico
Registered User
 
Rico's Avatar
 
Rico is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
Canon ae1 - sold heaps of them, first program SLR
Small correction: AE-1 (1976) had shutter-priority AE but no program. AE-1 Program (1981) added program, but still no aperture-priority! World's first program-mode AE was Canon A-1 (1978) with all AE modes implemented.

Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_ae1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_AE-1_Program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_A-1
__________________

Rico Tudor. Leica M4, IIIb, 28, 35, 50, 90, 135, 280. Contax T, RTS; Canon; Nikon; Profoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #43
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,604
The K1000 may not have been as absolutely great like the OM-1 or Nikon F but it was the entry level camera of its day. Some starving student somewhere probably took up photography because the K1000 was available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #44
Yuhi
Registered User
 
Yuhi is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
The first digital full frame should make it as well (was it a Nikon D3?)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #45
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuhi View Post
The first digital full frame should make it as well (was it a Nikon D3?)
As per wikipedia:

Contax N Digital (2002)
Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)
Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (2004)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (2004)
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (2004)
Canon EOS 5D (2005)
Nikon D3 (2007)

The 5d and 1ds were the first really popular ones, and really the first ones without some sort of major usability problem.
__________________
http://nopraise.tumblr.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #46
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
The K1000 may not have been as absolutely great like the OM-1 or Nikon F but it was the entry level camera of its day. Some starving student somewhere probably took up photography because the K1000 was available.
You are probably right, I bought one for my son when he was in High School. He still uses it, and I like to use it when I visit. If you cut away all this firsts stuff; the K1000 may have been the most influential camera. At least in the last 50 years, some kind of Brownie probably for the 50 years before that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #47
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,756
***... hello?



  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #48
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 1,046
Influential to whom?

I'd like to understand whether the status of, say the Minolta, is because they happened to be first to market or if they had technology no one else did and therefore prompted them to develop it. If they hadn't produced this camera when they did would Canon or Nikon or Pentax have been the first to market? Were they being innovative in their design or only fortunate in their product launch timing?

On that basis the Nikon F must have a place as a game-changer in showing that an SLR worked as a replacement for the Rangefinders and TLR press cameras, which the earlier SLRs despite technological innovation did not. The F wasn't so much about being an SLR as a true professional-quality system camera. This would also lead to the inclusion of the Hasselblad system.

You could also argue that the Leica M3 was also influential as it prompted other manufacturers to develop alternative technologies as they couldn't replicate the Leica, even though it was something of a by-water in camera design.
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #49
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,698
Well, I've know Jason for many years, and I've no doubt that he could (a) defend this at length and (b) give you a different list if you asked him the same question in a month's time.

The absence of the Autoreflex T (first auto-exposure SLR with focal plane shutter and interchangeable lenses) is obviously a major flaw; but then, when we were amiably arguing over this in the 80s, he said, "There's always some obscure Lithuanian tinsmith to whom you can point as the originator". We were talking about the (Hungarian) Gamma Duflex at the time, and the earlier patents for the Wrayflex.

Other obvious omissions are the Sanderson and the Rollei 35. He has his views; I have mine; and I doubt that either of us would claim that his list is indisputably superior.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #50
mrrobleyleica
Registered User
 
mrrobleyleica is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 47
What about the first compact SLR - the brilliant Olympus OM1, but hang on, isn't this a rangefinder forum? Most influential rangefinder cameras of all time, could be an all Leica list.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #51
Bobbo
Registered User
 
Bobbo's Avatar
 
Bobbo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Southern Tier, NY USA
Age: 30
Posts: 359
(From Dictionary.com) Influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.

Here's what I'd keep:
1. Kodak Brownie 1900 (Duh)
2. Leica I, Model A, 1925 (Duh)
5. Nikon F 1959 (Name one truly pro 35mm camera introduced later that was not a sturdy SLR... the M4 is basically a fast-loading M3 with a film rewind crank and a modified viewfinder)
8. Sony Mavica 1981 (Too clunky, not really a digital camera... but it will do)
7. Minolta Maxxum 7000 1985 (They were the first with an actual "system")
12. Canon EOS Digital Rebel 2003 (Cheap... finally got most little rural newspapers out of the dark ages and spawned thousands of "professional" wedding photographers)
13. Apple iPhone 2008 (there should be a cell phone someplace, even though camera phones had been around for years, and we couldn't upset the MacWhores, could we?)

Here's what I'd take off:
3. Kine Exakta I 1936 (Unreliable... the SLR was a clunky, unreliable, over-priced contraption until the Nikon F. Notice how the Minolta SR-7 and Canonflex, introduced at the same time, are practically unheard of?)
4. Kodak Super Six-20 1938 (No...)
6. Asahi Pentax K1000 1977 (Just because something was popular doesn't mean it was influential on future design...)
9. Kodak DCS 100 1991 (Too clunky and expensive)
10. Kodak DC 210 1998 (Too clunky and expensive)
11. Nikon D100 2002 (Not all that popular... the Canon D30, D60 and 10D were already selling plenty by this point)
14. Sony SLT Alpha-55 2010 (No... The D90 is far more influential)

Here's what I'd add:
Canon A-1 1978 (Why? How many plastic cameras packed full of full auto features followed?)

Nikon D1 1999 (Why? Name a more influential digital SLR... It set the idea of a pro camera set up like the top-tier film SLR, taking up no more space, and offering speed and acceptable quality)

Nikon D90 (Why? Video. Try to find a DSLR made since then which doesn't have video)

There's 10... who picks 14 for a list? What is it, they have the math skills of Ken Rockwell?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #52
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayPA View Post
Aside from the 'auto-loading' statement, could not the same be said for Polaroid cameras? Polaroid, while popular, really wasn't influential—in the sense that it spawned a bunch of copycat cameras or a branch of instant cameras. It was pretty much a proprietary formula that only Polaroid used. Kodak was certainly influenced by it—enough so to steal it and later be successfully sued.

Polaroid certainly had an IMPACT on photography—changing the way pros worked, etc. But influential?? Maybe if you can make a link between Polaroid and digital....



/
I would say it was influentail, it along with the Kodak instamatic put affordable photography in the hands of the masses. Just as the P&S cameras are today. I wouldn't say a high end camera that few could afford is influentail, maybe for journalist but not for a kid like me.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #53
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,694
Maybe that last entry was the sole purpose of the list! Maybe Adorama scored a boatload of A55 bodies and wants to get rid of them. What better way than to include it on this list. :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #54
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
(From Dictionary.com) Influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.
It doesn't help much does it? Based on the definition, 'popularity' can be a factor of 'influential'.


/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #55
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrobleyleica View Post
What about the first compact SLR - the brilliant Olympus OM1, but hang on, isn't this a rangefinder forum? Most influential rangefinder cameras of all time, could be an all Leica list.
Oh, yeah...

A later, clunkier, badly-designed but ever-so-slightly smaller version of the Pentax SV, the nearest SLR ever to a screw-mount Leica. The SV was small, smooth, and had its controls (except the self-timer) in the right place.

(Dons fireproof suit...)

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #56
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
I would say it was influentail, it along with the Kodak instamatic put affordable photography in the hands of the masses. Just as the P&S cameras are today. I wouldn't say a high end camera that few could afford is influentail, maybe for journalist but not for a kid like me.
Polaroids AFFORDABLE for a mass market? You are presumably too young to know what they cost for the first thirty or forty years.

Sure, they were easily affordable for the financially overprivileged. Otherwise they were great fun as long as you didn't take too many pictures. Or if you were a professional.

Come on...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #57
Landshark
Registered User
 
Landshark is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montgomery, Il
Posts: 546
Polaroid affordable? Yes, when you consider cost of developing and printing of negative film. There was no wally world in those days. A roll of 20 would run almost $10. Polaroid film (8 exp) about the same. 2X the price, but convenient.

First auto focus camera Minolta Himatic AF. Not an SLR but Canon paid them a heap of money for infringing patents. Memory fails but I believe Nikon did too.

Last edited by Landshark : 09-19-2011 at 11:36.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #58
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landshark View Post
Polaroid affordable? Yes, when you consider cost of developing and printing of negative film. There was no wally world in those days. A roll of 20 would run almost $10. Polaroid film (8 exp) about the same. 2X the price, but convenient.

First auto focus camera Minolta Himatic AF. Not an SLR but Canon paid them a heap of money for infringing patents. Memory fails but I believe Nikon did too.
Or nearly 2.5x the price. To quote myself a few posts back, "they were great fun as long as you didn't take too many pictures".

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #59
mrrobleyleica
Registered User
 
mrrobleyleica is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Oh, yeah...

A later, clunkier, badly-designed but ever-so-slightly smaller version of the Pentax SV, the nearest SLR ever to a screw-mount Leica. The SV was small, smooth, and had its controls (except the self-timer) in the right place.

(Dons fireproof suit...)

Cheers,

R.
I'm not sure what a Pentax SV is, must be old. Most Pentax's were small, the only one I have ever had (still have) is the exception - 6x7. I had an OM1 and OM2 which I liked. I couldn't afford a Nikon then and it was a very handy part-ex to my first real camera an M3 plus Summarit f1.5. I liked the shutter behind the lens on th OM, it sort of made sense if you weren't used to it where it sort of should be. Shame the lenses were so slow, small but slow. But the UK had good summers in the 80's so it was okay.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #60
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Here's what I'd take off:
3. Kine Exakta I 1936 (Unreliable... the SLR was a clunky, unreliable, over-priced contraption until the Nikon F. Notice how the Minolta SR-7 and Canonflex, introduced at the same time, are practically unheard of?)
I disagree. What is the Nikon F except for a blander, Japanese version of the Exakta VX? Nikon apparently loved Exakta enough to copy their method of prism interchangeability, even though Miranda's slide in prisms were obviously better. Also for as much credit as Nikon is given for the F's industrial design, it obviously references Contax and Exakta.

Besides if we're talking influence here, the Exakta VX's interchangeable screens and viewfinders obviously influenced others, Topcon, Nikon, Miranda, etc. Nikon influenced photographers, Exakta influenced the industry.

I have several pre-Nikon F SLRs... alll of which are less clunky than the Nikon - which is basically the epitome of clunkiness (ignoring the Argus C3 of course).

Speaking of SLRs, the omission of the Topcon is GLARING. But I admit I didn't even think of it at first. Afterall the Topcon introduced TTL open aperture metering and had the whole industry scrambling for YEARS to catch up. Pretty much every camera today has it.

How can that be overlooked? As well as Topcons were first class machines in virtually every other respect too, and still have a cult like following today.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #61
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Polaroids AFFORDABLE for a mass market? You are presumably too young to know what they cost for the first thirty or forty years.

Sure, they were easily affordable for the financially overprivileged. Otherwise they were great fun as long as you didn't take too many pictures. Or if you were a professional.

Come on...

Cheers,

R.
Hey Roger,

You know that they called DSLRs affordable too. Or at least they did in 2001 when I bought my D100 for over two thousand bucks.
__________________
101-365
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #62
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,178
The Pentax SV was called the H3v on this side of the pond. It came just before the Spotmatic. I'm with Roger. The SV/H3v is ergonomically wonderful. It has an excellent focusing screen and wonderful lenses available cheaply. I have several and love them.

The Exakta line was a system camera but never took off as the Nikon F did. The F is easy to use and solid. I like Exakta's but they are a pain to use. Just my opinion. Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #63
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,108
I think there are many influential cameras out there that are hard to not notice.

How about Epson's effort in producing a digital rangefinder against all odds ... the M8 stole the limelight ultimately but Epson and Cosina had the cajones to do it first and Leica should be thankful that they did. Eight years on people here are still using the RD-1 and firmly believe that it's the better camera and deserved to go on and and claim the full frame mantle.

Or the current obsession ... the X100. The world's first combined optical and electronic viewfinder in a consumer point and shoot.

How will we look back on these two phenomenons I wonder?
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #64
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,671
- Minolta Himatic AF - First auto focus. Definitely has to be on the list.
- Polaroid... Arguably has to be on the list.
- Sony A55 - Definitely has to come off the list.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2011   #65
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,322
I agree about the 5D.

I think I want an f100...
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
twitter - @eastofadelaide

Fuji X photographer
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2011   #66
Luddite Frank
Registered User
 
Luddite Frank's Avatar
 
Luddite Frank is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,263
When I was in high school ( about 30 years ago ), I was into the early Polaroid Land Cameras, and was fortunate enough to still be able to buy the "roll-film" for the original large series folding cameras - the 95 and 850 series. I longed for the 110 series, which employed a Compur-type shutter and Wollensak lens, but they were too dear.

At that time, the only film I could get was their ASA 3000 B&W film, which developed in a mere 10 seconds, and then had to be coated with a special squeegee that smelled vaguely like horseradish. You got eight prints to a "roll". It was expensive then... I think a "roll" was something like $10 in 1980.

But, the idea of a camera that produced a positive image on the spot (originally in 60 seconds ),without a darkroom or chemicals, was certainly significant, if not influential. And by the 1970's, Polaroid was producing SLR instant-print cameras: the SX-70.

Ultimately, Polaroid's instant print system might have been a dead-end, but I think it was "influential" on how people took pictures. I certainly remember all the aunts & uncles having them in the 1970's, at family gatherings...


Changing horses, I think the Kine-Exakta deserves to stay on the list: again, even if the Exakta package quickly became outdated, it was the "first" system SLR 35mm camera...

Going back about six or seven years, I used an Exakta VX-II exclusively for almost two years, even though I had a perfectly good and functional Minolta XG-1 kit with motordrive and several lenses.

My biggest complaint about the Exakta is probably the slow lenses, due to small mount / body opening.

But, Ihagee blazed this trail some 15-20 years before other makers entered the SLR market.

Are there "better" ( "more refined" ) SLRs ? Certainly. But I don't think that lessens the "influence" of the Exakta.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2011   #67
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,819
Holga, now that's influential. It gave birth to the whole hipster photography movement

Also Nikon D700, as the only camera that gets more expensive as it ages
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2011   #68
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luddite Frank View Post

Ultimately, Polaroid's instant print system might have been a dead-end, ...
This is my main reason for arguing against Polaroids being 'influential'. The camera and system--while unique, significant, and popular--didn't really impact the development of camera manufacturing, design, or trends. I think the author excluded Polaroid from the list for the same reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luddite Frank View Post
...but I think it was "influential" on how people took pictures.
I don't see this. I don't think it changed how we took pictures. We all knew back in Polaroid's heyday (and I attended high school around the same time as you) that the instant print was great fun, but we all (young and old) also knew the limitations of a one-off print. And it was great to not have to wait for prints, but the wait was just an accepted part of the process (until the one-hour lab came into existence--talk about a game-changer!). We had a Polaroid in our house, but my parents intentionally used a film camera to record my (and my siblings) graduation from high school. Within our family photo albums there are very few Polaroids. I think Polaroid had a bigger impact on how professional (commercial and industrial) photographers worked.





/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2011   #69
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,933
Polaroid was affordable enough for a 10 year old with a Lawn Mower in the late 1960s. Model 104 Polaroid, shot 108 and 107 film. You could pick up some of it out of date for 1/2 price. Picked up a Model 350 when I got a paper route.

and Polaroid was Influential. Instant gratification in seeing the image right after taking it. The success of Digital Photography owes Polaroid for demonstrating how important instant gratification is to most people.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 09-20-2011 at 12:23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2011   #70
Luddite Frank
Registered User
 
Luddite Frank's Avatar
 
Luddite Frank is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
Polaroid was affordable enough for a 10 year old with a Lawn Mower in the late 1960s. Model 104 Polaroid, shot 108 and 107 film. You could pick up some of it out of date for 1/2 price. Picked up a Model 350 when I got a paper route.

and Polaroid was Influential. Instant gratification in seeing the image right after taking it. The success of Digital Photography owes Polaroid for demonstrating how important instant gratification is to most people.

I guess then further deliniation would be appropriate in terms of distinguishing the type of photography being influenced: the casual family snapshot or professional / art photography...

An I believe for a while, there was a Polaroid instant-print ID camera that had four lenses, and took four "thumbnail" images on one print, for use in creating passports / ID badges...

I was the only one in our household to own and use Polaroids, and that stemmed from interest in old cameras...

Dad had his Nikon S and that was all the camera he needed; Mom had a Kodak 110 camera with a built-in telephoto selectible lens, and she was quite happy with that until she began taking a photography course at the local community college, and she got a Canon AE-1 Program SLR...

And as late the the early 1990's, when I was working at a community dinner theatre, after every performance of a childrens' show, there were "photos with the cast", where your child could get a photo taken with some of the characters in costume, shot in glorious color with a Polaroid One-step or 600... only $5 each !

I think the influence was in the convenience / immediate gratification factor... not so much the photographic excellence or archival permanance realm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2011   #71
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luddite Frank View Post
I think the influence was in the convenience / immediate gratification factor... not so much the photographic excellence or archival permanance realm.
I can remember some immediate gratification shots. But like you I enjoyed Polaroid up until today. One of my first shots; 1964:

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2011   #72
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
 
Ken Smith's Avatar
 
Ken Smith is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Age: 56
Posts: 266
Seriously - I think you've all missed the boat here.

While the rest of the world is in the middle of a digital age where images are facsimilies of the real deal and people count pixels - you count inversions of a hand held tank. You work with focused images of light on chemicals spread over a backing. Many of you have cameras with no batteries what so ever. I would have thought the most influential camera is the one that brought you to this point in time when a generation walks the face of the Earth that hasn't a clue that cameras weren't always digital.

For me it was a simple Kodak Pony 35mm, a box of Kodachrome, and the exposure guide printed on the instructions. I was a kid. Most vibrant colors I had ever seen and I can still remember holding them up to the light and seeing them for the first time. Most were taken out of an airplane window - vibrant blue sky and white clouds from above. Heck - I didn't even know what a light meter was, I just followed the simple exposure guide. Took me a lifetime to get back to here.

That's an influential camera.

Last edited by Ken Smith : 09-21-2011 at 14:07. Reason: Can't type worth a [email protected]
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2011   #73
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Smith View Post
...Took me a lifetime to get back to here.

That's an influential camera.
+1









////////
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #74
Strappy
Registered User
 
Strappy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 6
One glaring omission for me is the Canon T90. The first ergonomically designed SLR, unfortunately released just as the world moved to auto-focus. Still, would DSLRs look like they do today without it?

(Yes, I'm biased, I'm still using one )
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #75
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strappy View Post
One glaring omission for me is the Canon T90. The first ergonomically designed SLR, unfortunately released just as the world moved to auto-focus. Still, would DSLRs look like they do today without it?

(Yes, I'm biased, I'm still using one )
That's kind of like saying the Renault Le Car was great because it was the first to have plastic bumpers...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #76
Strappy
Registered User
 
Strappy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
That's kind of like saying the Renault Le Car was great because it was the first to have plastic bumpers...
That argument only stands up if every other manufacturer copied the design of the Le Car though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #77
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
That's kind of like saying the Renault Le Car was great because it was the first to have plastic bumpers...
And it was... Influental != Great.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #78
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayPA View Post
It's Adorama's opinion on the 14 most influential cameras of all time.
I wonder how it correlates to Adorama's used inventory store.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2011   #79
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
I can remember some immediate gratification shots. But like you I enjoyed Polaroid up until today. One of my first shots; 1964:

I love this shot! So 1964. Pretty lady too - if you don't mind my mentioning
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.