I was in San Francisco today with my family and my sons wanted to visit a Salvation Army store to check out old camera equipment. Both of them are intrigued by the older 35mm film cameras. In the display case we saw a couple Canon AE-1 cameras, a Canon AE-1 Program (?), and an Olympus OM-1. These are, if I’m not mistaken, cameras from the 1970s. “Back in the day” I shot with a couple of small Pentax bodies from the same ear, the ME and the MX. (Each son has one of those bodies now.)
At this point, I’m a confirmed digital photographer – I have virtually no interest at all in shooting film again. I can sort of understand the retro appeal of film, and I don’t resent those who like to use it. (Though I’ll admit that I can get a bit annoyed when some folks become self-righteous about it… :-)
That said, the better cameras from the era are beautiful little mechanical/optical marvels. At one point I pulled out my excellent Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens – a great performer and a lens I rely on a lot – and held it next to the 50mm f/1.8 lens from the OM-1. My Canon lens simply looks like a big plastic toy next to the efficient and well-crafted little metal Olympus lens. And the body of the camera is solid and tight, and barely larger than the biggest point and shoot style digital cameras today. The control systems are simple and direct – the OM-1 aperture and shutter speed controls are both on the lens barrel, a simple switch turns the meter on and off, there is a MLU switch, and the viewfinder with its match-needle meter is big and bright. These are cameras that don’t give the appearance of trying to look like space ships and that don’t shout “my camera is bigger and more expensive than your camera!”
If a current manufacturer came out with a DSLR body like these, I’d be an immediate customer.
By the way, early happy birthday to Jameson – and enjoy your new OM-1!
(Update: After a comment from Jim Goldstein, I clarified a few things about this idea in a follow-up comment.)
Ben’s comment #12 correctly brings up a point that some of those old film cameras were big and heavy…but at least one had the choice of whether to attach the motor drive or not! Why can’t digital have this same flexibility?
I have an ongoing joke or humorous thought when I see or pickup the latest DSLRs at my local camera store (a few still exist) and feel the heft: When you’re not shooting with it, it is still handy around the house as one can use it to easily drive 20 penny nails through 2 x 4s for home woodworking projects…who needs a hammer!
But going back to Dan’s original thought: why can’t we have the guts of a DSLR but have them stuffed into a SLR body?
Don’t forget Greg that Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and others had just as heavy film cameras back then as they do now with digital. You take a Canon F-1 and throw on a full motor drive (10 fps), 250 exposure film back, and you got one big and heavy camera not even counting a metal constructed lens. These were big and heavy cameras almost equal as what we have today but as Dan pointed out when writing this blog, the controls were simple and direct. Back then, as pointed out, you learned the art of exposure for a photograph by those simple direct controls.
Ben
Comment #10 brings up some very good advantages of digital over film. When one stands back and looks at all of the numerous advantages of DSLRs over SLRs it is amazing to realize the manufacturers had the winning hand in every category except one: size.
In an age when everything is becoming increasingly miniaturized, only the DSLR bucks this trend and is going in the other direction.
I had a somewhat similar experience recently when I dusted off my old Minolta X-700s. I was struck by how light they were compared to my Nikon digital bodies and also how solid the shutter felt. I’m tempted to stick a couple of rolls of FP4 through them just for “old time’s sake” but will definitely not be moving back to film after 10 years on digital equipment. The thought of spending 25 cents every time I press the shutter, having to wait several days to see the images, being unable to change white balance and sensitivity on the fly and having to spend ages mucking around with chemicals is enough to keep me firmly in the digital darkroom.
I enjoyed Cynthia’s comments in comment #6 in comparing digitial/film to acrylic/watercolor. That is a great attitude to take in these digital vs. film discussions, and in my belief is absolutely true.
The digital shooter cannot criticize the film shooter for using film, anymore than the film shooter criticizing the painter for choosing to use brushes and paints for portraying the scene before their eyes.
Additionally, I understand Dan’s comments for a small, competent, DSLR. I have been waiting for such a camera, but have yet to see one hit the markets; when one does, I’ll buy it. I love the automation of the DSLRs, but the bulk really turns me off, so I still shoot with small form factor film cameras.
These days when consumer products last for perhaps a year, then you throw them out, instead of fixing them, the older film SLRs stand as a living testament to good engineering design and manufacturing…at least for me I have a very hard time throwing away a product that works so well, and for so long, with hardly any maintenance.
Perhaps now that DSLRs are becoming more mature, the manufacturers will think about building a DSLR, that is small form factor, high-resolution, and has enough automation to do the job, with out going overboard (leave out the HD video).
One of the things I like about SLRs is that when a new film came along, you could still use the same camera…and just change the “sensor.” Why can’t DSLRs be made that way, when the next generation sensor comes along one could just pull it out, and plug in the new one? (Answer: greed)
(By the way I do shoot with digital cameras and enjoy them…it’s just that I like shooting with the mechanical SLRs, more.)
Hi Dan,
I realized I missed the main point after I clicked submit. I must admit to being a late comer to photography and I never bothered with it through the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. I had an old Pentax K-1000 film camera that I purchased around 1980 but I never put that much effort into it and I never took that many pictures. Mostly I didn’t have the money to spend on the hobby and I was busy with other things and so I lack that perspective to compare with. But I hear you about having a small and solid little DSLR. I tried to take my 40D and one lens and my smaller tripod backpacking once and it added a good 10+ pounds to my pack and was two heavy to do. If i can ever afford it, I think I would t least buy something like the Cannon G10 for backpacking. Maybe one day.
If I can add my two cents, I enjoy both. I shoot more digitally because of the obvious convenience and the almost instant gratification of seeing my images on the LCD and then being able to download them and work on them that night at home. And maybe I am wrong and maybe I am not but I have the feeling that digital cameras these days produce images that are superior to film. And to me, my (now) old and obsolete Canon 40D which I still love and adore and shoot with, feels as solid as a tank. And yes, I can’t wait for the day when I will be able to afford a new digital camera like the 5D Mark II or its successor.
But I still like film too and I still shoot it. Because of the expense I feel it makes me be more careful as a photographer and I definitely enjoy the creative things I can do with multiple exposures and slide sandwiches. Yes, Nikon lets you do some of that stuff digitally in camera and for the life of me, I don’t know why Canon doesn’t, but to me, film has a different feel in the result that I really like.
So I hope film never, ever goes away because for me it is not that film is better than digital or digital is better than film anymore than saying that oils are better than acrylics or watercolor or even charcoal in painting a picture. To me, film is just a different medium and I enjoy it just as I enjoy digital. I think if I could paint I would play with oils and acrylics and watercolor and charcoal or any other medium you can think of too. Whatever I use, I get the same joy of creativity when I get something I like.
Good points, Cynthia. I like your acrylic v. oils analogy – it is certainly possible to enjoy using and viewing both.
It is interesting how the follow-up to my post has moved back toward the film v. digital question. That wasn’t supposed to be the main idea of my original post – I think I need to write more clearly! What I was trying to say in the post is that even if you like the newer digital photographic technologies – and I do – there are still some wonderful things about the cameras and lenses from the “film era” that seem to have been lost. While I made it clear that I have little or no interest in shooting film at this point (which is not to say that I think everyone else must agree with me!) I really like the way that many of those cameras from a few decades back were built, and I’d love to see a DSLR that was as small and compact and beautifully constructed as some of those cameras. (In particular I waxed rhapsodic about my old Pentax ME and MX and about the Olympus OM-1 that my son wanted for his birthday.)
I very much like what my DSLRs can do and what I can do in my “digital darkroom” in post. It isn’t an “either/or” thing for me – I’m very happy with my 5D2. But if someone produced a small and solid little DSLR along the lines of these vintage 35mm film cameras, I’d be near the front of the line to buy one. (If anyone will do this, my bet is on Pentax, since they’ve seemed willing to differentiate their DSLRs from the Canon/Nikon gear.)
Dan
Interesting blog Dan and can’t say I want to go back to film either except maybe my Mamiya 645 system from time to time. I do miss my Canon T90’s but not that much, they would be just paper weights around the house these days. I always did enjoy turning knobs and throwing switches, now I just push buttons. The only lever I get to throw now is the on/off switch and it is a bit flimsy looking at that. I also miss the depth of field scale on the lenses, now I use an app on the iPhone to do it. Don’t know if all this is progress or not…
Yes film, the medium that needed to be precisely controlled to get a useful full range image. You needed to know what dials to turn to coordinate ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop to get that magical image. Match that needle to your built-in light meter or you were going to blow it or so it seemed. Now you get a digital image and if your exposure is close enough you have an image to use. I now have thousands of slides sitting in their little yellow boxes not knowing what really to do with them…
If you still like to turn those knobs and throw those switches Minox just came out with their digital Classic DCC 5.1 replica of a classic 35mm rangefinder, you might want to check that out.
Nope! I’m still sticking to my digital Canon’s for now…
Ben
On the contrary, Jim, I’m the type of person that enjoys clumsy switches and knobs. When buying my first dSLR, one of the major factors I considered was the control layout. It seemed like most of the Canons and Nikons were heavy on the digital controls, so I ended up with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. Just about everything could be switched and changed from a non-digital control mechanism. Great camera all around (except for the 6MP sensor). I’m glad that Sony kept much of the design intent when they inherited the line of cameras, and I still find comfort in the switches and knobs of my a700 (and I’m sure other brands are equally “mechanical” at this point with their controls).
Even so, I’m still impressed by the older cameras (60’s, 70’s, and 80’s era). I’ve opened up more than one camera and they’re such incredibly clever mechanical wonders. Certainly, they’re built like tanks and seem to last forever, but there’s more to them. The fact that a camera capable of measuring and executing proper automatic and semi-automatic exposure controls only powered by a button sized battery, is quite astonishing. On top of that, I’ve got a few cameras that have been going well over a year or two on a single battery. “Elegant” is the term that wraps that up.
Not to be a downer on digital cameras or anything — I do enjoy my digital just as much as my film cameras. But I also wonder from time to time if the “bigger, better, faster” approach will ever peak. Seriously, the newest full frame dSLRs are monsters in comparison to the size of any MF film SLR. And what do we gain with the extra size and power consumption? More time spent adjusting camera controls that aren’t necessary? I manage to take decent shots with my rangefinders that only require me to focus and choose a shutter speed — 2 controls — both on the lens barrel.
Again, not trying to be a digital downer/hater… just interested in the conversation.
Interesting points, Jim.
I guess what I’d really like is a DSLR with the form factor and solid, tight build quality of the old cameras. I wouldn’t mind having the lens barrel aperture/shutter speed settings, but that wouldn’t be a deal breaker either way.
I’ve (almost) never been one to want a bigger camera just because it is bigger. That OM-1 is a fine piece of gear and it is small! Since it accommodates 35mm film and a transport mechanism for it, it seems like a full frame sensor could be put into a similar small body. I also like the very high quality and very small lenses. Clearly this wouldn’t work for the AF zooms that we rely on for so much of what we do, but I don’t think that the size of the current crop of f/1.4 50mm primes brings any IQ improvements over the better f/1.4 50mm primes from that era.
While I’m fine in some cases with a fully manual camera, there are other situations in which some level of automation like that found in contemporary DSLR bodies is a very useful and good thing. I’d like to keep that! And I’d still want such a camera as one of several bodies. For example such a beast would be very cool for doing street photography and for certain types of travel photography.
And don’t get me wrong – I’m definitely not interested in going back to film! I’m nostalgic about the cameras and the lenses but I’m very definitely not nostalgic about film. That isn’t what interests me about these bodies – been there, done that. There is no doubt in my mind that digital capture technology is better in almost every way than film technology, especially in these smaller formats. I still think that the current resurgence in interest in film among certain (mostly) younger photographers is a temporary thing.
Leica is making such bodies though they are rangefinder cameras. At the price of the current one with a full frame sensor (the M9?) I’m not interested. I think that the majority of what one pays for with this camera is the Leica name – not better photographs. (Probably just stepped on a couple of toes with that one, but it is my opinion – and I respect those who hold a different opinion and use such cameras to make great photographs. :-)
Dan
There is a certain feel to older cameras in terms of build quality. That being said I can never get past the quality of the output or the effort it takes to share film images online compared to a top of the line digital camera. Having had my wedding photos taken with film when digital cameras were around I still value what they offer, but as an artist there has to be a select need to use film at this point. I can’t help but feel I’d be wasting my time otherwise.
As to a digital camera made like an old film camera… I would not be a customer. The reason being is that I’d prefer the refined ergonomics of making quick adjustments. I always found the switches and setting knobs on old SLRs to be quite clumsy. I thought Leica was making retro bodies that were digital at one point. Perhaps I’m not remembering correctly.
I’m probably going to split the difference here. I especially relate to this part of Brian’s post: “I’ve opened up more than one camera and they’re such incredibly clever mechanical wonders. Certainly, they’re built like tanks and seem to last forever, but there’s more to them. The fact that a camera capable of measuring and executing proper automatic and semi-automatic exposure controls only powered by a button sized battery, is quite astonishing. On top of that, I’ve got a few cameras that have been going well over a year or two on a single battery. “Elegant” is the term that wraps that up.”
They are little jewels in the hand – and “elegant” is an entirely appropriate word for them.
But what I’d like to see is a fusion of the best from both types of equipment – the elegant and jewel-like design and construction of these wonderful older cameras combined with the distinct advantages of digital technology.