Is a certain type of person drawn to a fully manual camera?

[hamradio]

I was thinking about it the other day...is a certain type of person more apt to buy a fully manual camera over something with more automatic functions? Is that person more drawn to older and more manual technology, overall, in their lives? I've grown up around computers and all sorts of automatic devices to make one's life more convenient and easier...and I love things that aren't automatic...aren't designed to make life easier. I like having direct control over things, and not having a computer decide what it thinks would be best. My favorite slr I've used so far was a minolta srt201...I loved the fact that it was heavy, not the most ergonomic camera, and I loved the fact that there the only thing that could control every function of the camera was me. I do wish it was easier to control more things in some rf's...it bugs me a little with my yashica electro that I can never tell what the shutter speed is. I guess I like cars the same way; out of 4 cars I've owned, my favorite has been an '82 volkswagen rabbit diesel. I love the fact that it has power nothing, manual trans, and has almost no features for comfort or convenience.

/rambling thought

[dave lackey]

An '82 Volkswagen is old?

Tell you what, go drive a Mustang. Go drive any car that is sold new today. Then beg, borrow or steal one of these to drive and tell me which one you prefer?



Does it take a certain type of person? Well, in a word, YES. It certainly does. Not sure how to describe that type of person, but not everyone will enjoy driving one while most everyone really loves to LOOK at it!

I have found that this particular car crossed all age lines, genders, races, you name it. It is universally appreciated while a brand new Corvetter hardly got any looks at all.

If you like old machines, well, there is hope in this world!!!

[Carlsen Highway]

You mean the thrifty poor kind of person who also sunny 16's becasue they are too thrifty to buy a light meter as well? That kind?

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

You mean the thrifty poor kind of person who also sunny 16's becasue they are too thrifty to buy a light meter as well? That kind?

Heh, heh...yeah, thrifty...as in that old MG didn't even have a gas gauge...it had a dipstick. No kidding.

Sigh...sure do miss that car.

[Al Kaplan]

Thirty odd years ago my then wife was working for an accounting firm and it used to bug the hell out of her boss that she could add and subtract faster by flicking beads back and forth on her abacus than he could on a calculator. The big problem with automation in cameras is they can calculate based on observed facts but they can't think to determine which of those facts are important in the situation.

I think that manual cameras draw people who want to make their own decisions and/or realize that it can be more troublesome to figure out how to override automation when they know that the camera won't do what you want it to do if you leave it on auto. It's just a lot easier to set the f/stop and shutter speed on a manual camera to begin with. Other advantages include needing no batteries, and if the camera's meter on an automatic camera breaks it's off to the repair guy with the camera. With a seperate meter only the meter has to go.

Most of my cameras are over forty years old. There's not a hell of a lot of difference between a 1958 Leica M2 and a 2008 Leica MP. It was a good design then and it's a good design now. They keep right on working year in and year out with next to no mainanance. Contrast that to the latest greatest, the cell phone camera. I just want a cell phone that WORKS. I've never had one last over a year, and I've never really learned how to operate the camera function or the games or to dowload music or...and who cares, really, if what you want is a phone.

I guess that there are just some of us who value reliability over gimicks and we want things to do what we want and when we want.

My '64 VW Beetle had a dip stick "gas guage" and a knob you could pull when the car started to sputter so you could switch to the reserve tank and drive maybe another ten miles.

[mtwo]

Naw, it is some old retired guy reliving his misspent youth or at least trying to in a more constructive manner.
Aside from that, it slows you down a bit and makes you think even with a meter in hand. Not at all bad. Sometimes beats having your decisions made for you. John

[hamradio]

Very nice mg! Personally, I could never deal with the electrical issues of a british car.

Yes, I consider the rabbit old...if I go by the year it was built (not year on the title), it is 10 years older than me.

Back to cameras...old stuff seems to have a great solid feel that newer cams don't have, either...I was playing with my friend's eos 400d last night...I couldn't believe how cheap the kit lens felt, in terms of weight, construction, and manual focusing.

[bmattock]

I use everything. New, old, manual, fully automatic, digital, film, point-n-shoot, whatever. I like 'em all. I don't know if it makes me a certain 'type' but then again, I tend to think specialization is for insects.

[f6andBthere]

When a seventeen year old expresses an interest in manual camaras and old (sort of) cars I find it heartening and proof that there will always be a generation with these preferences.

Now get away from the computer and write us all a letter telling us more about why you feel this way please!

[biomed]

Originally Posted by hamradio

...my favorite has been an '82 volkswagen rabbit diesel. I love the fact that it has power nothing, manual trans, and has almost no features for comfort or convenience.

/rambling thought

I thought my '76 Rabbit was a luxery car compared to some of the old Beetles I've owned. The 1957 beetle was the most primative in terms of driveability and creature comforts - worse than even the 1936 Ford we had ( the Ford shared a common feature with the Beetle - an exhaust manifold heat exchanger, which works OK as long as the temperature doesn't get too low). As far as cameras go, I have only used a couple that I didn't like. One of the worst was the early Kowa SIX I had for a while. It took great photographs, but wasn't very reliable. I took it back and bought a Mamiya RB67. Now that was a camera! I use my R3A and R4M a lot. I also use a digital P&S when I don't feel like carrying all of the other gear. All manual is great, but automatic cameras are fun, too.

Mike

[CK Dexter Haven]

Narcissist or masochist. Something with an -ist on the end....

[CorreCaminos]

Originally Posted by hamradio

I was thinking about it the other day...is a certain type of person more apt to buy a fully manual camera over something with more automatic functions? Is that person more drawn to older and more manual technology, overall, in their lives? I've grown up around computers and all sorts of automatic devices to make one's life more convenient and easier...and I love things that aren't automatic...aren't designed to make life easier. I like having direct control over things, and not having a computer decide what it thinks would be best ...
/rambling thought

Absolutely, certain types of people are more inclined to be interested in what's going under the hood than the majority of people. I don't think it necessarily has to do with older vs modern, but more with an unwillingness to let inanimate objects accomplish the things that we really care about or to accept inferior results.

In my case, I've never been happy with auto transmission cars, digital cameras, electronic watches, and other things that hide the experience from me. I've owned all these for some time but hated the experience and soon found replacements. The replacements are much better in every way.

And then there's the scams that companies come up with to make you spend more money under the illusion that the new products offer advantages over perfectly good older ones. The obvious item in this category, but by no means the only one, is today's shaving razors; expensive, short-lived and using proprietary mounting systems that keep the user locked into using that company's razors. Several years ago I got tired of spending good money on those stupid Gillette razors that only last a couple shaves. I got me some inexpensive old-style double-edge razors made by Merkur, a good shaving brush, saving soap and I couldn't be happier now. The razors easily last three to four weeks each and provide a much better shave. But my favorit and best shaves come from a Thiers-Izzard straight razor. So much for new and improved.

[FrankS]

I dislike the Microsoft Office Word processing program's auto-format feature, and the photocopier at work that's default setting is "collate" and that chooses paper size for me. If I'm in control and something messes up, I have only myself to blame.

[snip]

Originally Posted by CorreCaminos

And then there's the scams that companies come up with to make you spend more money under the illusion that the new products offer advantages over perfectly good older ones. The obvious item in this category, but by no means the only one, is today's shaving razors; expensive, short-lived and using proprietary mounting systems that keep the user locked into using that company's razors. Several years ago I got tired of spending good money on those stupid Gillette razors that only last a couple shaves. I got me some inexpensive old-style double-edge razors made by Merkur, a good shaving brush, saving soap and I couldn't be happier now. The razors easily last three to four weeks each and provide a much better shave. But my favorit and best shaves come from a Thiers-Izzard straight razor. So much for new and improved.

Yeah but those of us with "disco hands" or "butter fingers" find it a lot harder to cut ourselves to shreds with modern razors.

I use the cheap brand ones though, £1.99 for 24 cartridges that are each good for two or three shaves.

//J

[Al Kaplan]

I figured I'm old enough to just let my beard grow, and stop getting my hair cut too, but I had to renew my drivers license in November. The license is good for 8 years. I'll buy a razor just before my 74th birthday.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com...adventure.html

shows a couple of pix of me with shoulder length hair from the early 1970's. My buddy Jon Sinish shot the pix.

For all you young dudes wondering how you can afford to buy Leicas? Stop shaving and getting haircuts saves a fortune! Once you get the Leicas you can keep using the same ones until you're an old coot like me.

[James (DC)]

Speaking of dipsticks, the jeepneys in the Philippines have a strip of wood that the driver pulls from a floor slot between his seat and the door to see how wet the wood is in the gas tank. That's the kind of vehicle Al would drive if he could find one. : )

Back to the issue of mechanical cameras, I agree that having something that puts the control entriely in one's hands makes the shooter feel more powerful and accomplished. I recenly bought a Nikon DSLR, and I like using it, but I feel like I'm cheating. I like the results, but I take pride in creating a nice image with an M2 or an M3.

[Al Kaplan]

James, you gotta admit that you were impressed when you jumped in a cab at Miami International Airport, gave the cabby an address, and he said "Oh, that's the photographer who has the maroon truck. He lives in the corner house!"

[Windscale]

Now all my cameras, except a couple of digital point and shoots, are fully mechanical. A few can take batteries, like the Minolta 7SII and the Canon QL17GIII (which will be sold soon), but they don't need batteries really and I never used their Auto functions. For some 20 odd years, most of my cameras had been fully mechanical. But I did have a couple of Sekonic L308 light meters which I found indespensible.

I hate computers. I know enough computing for the purpose of work. I see no purpose for using Photoshop unless it is for work and when one wants to cheat. For personal matters, there is nothing better than an honest real image.

Photography is all about composition. On top of this there are only 2 variables, namely aperture and shutter speeds, which are not difficult to work out. And all the fun is in fiquring out these 2 variables. on the other hand, as I hate all the knobs in digital cameras, mine never went beyond Auto or Program. There is no fun trying to set aperture and shutter speeds in digicam as I really could not get over the fact that whatever comes out is only an immitation of the real thing. They are really for P&S only.

So, fully mechanical cameras are really for old fashioned persons like yours truly.

[nightfly]

It's all about control. Automatic cameras make decisions for you about exposure. I like to use my eyes as a meter and my whole process is built around my control of everything from the metering (or lack thereof) to my development and they've all sort of evolved together. My process works for me. I could only do this with a manual camera.

I also hate batteries and having to make sure something is charged or any camera with an on/off switch.

There is also the satisfaction of using a really well built tool. In that way my Park Tools pedal wrench and my Leica are similar.

However I'm a computer programmer and don't consider myself particularly old fashion in other ways (although I do code in a text editor which is sorta the same thing as a manual camera). I use my iPhone to control music on my computer which streams wirelessly to my stereo (got to love Airport Express). But I also enjoy vinyl.

As far as the car thing goes, I don't own one now but I had a manual 1971 bug which was cool and I also had a 2005 (2006? I forget) Prius. As cool as the manual transmission was, the Prius had a continually variable automatic transmission which I thought was incredible and made separate gears of any kind seem ancient. Fun to drive in an entirely different way.

[SolaresLarrave]

Oddly enough, the only camera I came to dislike was a Yashica GS... because it had AE. Even odder is the fact that I really enjoyed my Canonet, despite the fact that I constantly used it in AE.

I guess... yes, there's a type of person drawn to things mechanical. Are we?

[CorreCaminos]

Originally Posted by snip

Yeah but those of us with "disco hands" or "butter fingers" find it a lot harder to cut ourselves to shreds with modern razors.

I use the cheap brand ones though, £1.99 for 24 cartridges that are each good for two or three shaves.

//J

I used to cut myself fairly frequently (and deeply) when I first started shaving with the straight razor but after I got the hang of it, it doesn't happen anymore. I find the double-edge razors as safe as the disposables, with the possible exceptions being when I need to remove them to replace with a new one or when stropping them.

[payasam]

I have a friend, my age, who's been into ham radio since the mid 1960s. He insists that things were better -- and more fun -- when he made his own transcievers and antennae.

With a manual camera, I know that the instrument will do exactly what I ask of it. Can't say the same for a digital camera. Blighters have "minds" of their own, which can make them do things I do not want.

[oftheherd]

I really like my auto-nothing folders, my Super Press 23, and am growing more fond of my Kiev all the time. But I still use my Sony P&S digital, my Yashica FX 103 with 3 zooms from 18mm to 150mm, and a few other cameras that I have. And I'm certainly not giving up my ST 801/901 and Fujinon lenses. I like all types of cameras I have, depending on what I want to photograph, or the mood I am in.

It is often satisfying to use the all manual cameras and a light meter, but I am not married to them.

[CorreCaminos]

Originally Posted by nightfly

It's all about control. Automatic cameras make decisions for you about exposure. I like to use my eyes as a meter and my whole process is built around my control of everything from the metering (or lack thereof) to my development and they've all sort of evolved together. My process works for me. I could only do this with a manual camera.

I agree 100%. I like to know exactly what's being metered and what's being focused on. When I use one of my mechanical, meterless cameras and then develop the film, I feel like I'm in total control and completely submerged in the process. Just a couple of days ago I thought of a very organic analogy; it's like a gardener getting their hands in the ground to make a hole for a new plant, then covering the roots with top-soil and watering the plant until established. Most of your senses are involved in the process and the final product is very much yours.

Originally Posted by nightfly

However I'm a computer programmer and don't consider myself particularly old fashion in other ways (although I do code in a text editor which is sorta the same thing as a manual camera). I use my iPhone to control music on my computer which streams wirelessly to my stereo (got to love Airport Express). But I also enjoy vinyl.

I too am a computer programmer and love high-tech gadgets but I prefer procedural programming over the prevalent object-oriented techniques. I rather write my own code than use someone else's.

However, I'm not distrustful person by nature as the above might imply. I just like to understand what's going on and only take credit for the things I myself have done. That's why I usually chuckle when someone shows me the last and greatest picture they took with their new whiz-bang camera.

[jwhitley]

IMO, a big part of the equation for manual camera use is simply dedication. Using a fully manual camera in this era is a minor act of dedication, because doing it in a successful way requires that the user apprehend the available controls and how they relate to picture taking. Consider that the bottom few rungs of DSLR cameras come configured out of the box for a point-and-shoot experience. Anyone who cares to move beyond that use of a camera meets a significant hurdle of commitment. It used to be compulsory to learn the ins and outs of aperture, shutter speed, etc. to take photos... but not anymore. New technology separates those who are out only for "functional" photographs (snapshots, etc.) from those with various manners of deeper interest.

I pose that this "deeper interest" varies widely, from technical to creative/artistic motives. As such, I don't think that it's apt to peg the use of fully manual cameras to any type of person. Using myself as an example of someone with a technical bent, I got a DSLR as my first "serious" camera.. and quickly learned the details to gain more creative control (tip of the hat to nightfly). Using a photographer of my acquiaintance as another example, he has a decades-long creative and artistic background in various media but (until recently) little technical photographic knowledge. Yet he's already done significant gallery-shown photographic work, frequently by burning film like nobody's business (photography by trial and error, and error, and error!). We were in a class together recently.. but came there by very different paths -- my technical bent led me to explore the creative aspects of photography, while his need to direct his photographic artistic vision led him to seek greater control of that process.

That said, this dedication also has little to do with manual camera use or otherwise -- manual cameras are just one choice of tool for photographic work. Some folks will use dSLRs (or large format, or video, or a photocopier, or ...) because those are simply better tools to capture their vision.