Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 5, 2008, 1:18 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Inspired by the talk of Instamatics & the like round here just now, I was inspired to extract and photograph two current excellent pieces of technology, plus two old ones. This involved rummaging in the back of a seldom-opened junk drawer for the bad one.

I have always been amused by the cycles in technical low-end consumer goods. Photographyis an extreme example, swinging to & fro, up & down, in a complex dancein the two dimensions of technical excellence andprice. This is at its best when amazing new technology is cheaply available, (arguably right now, for example), which I'll call the zenith;

...and it's at its worst when themass market public has a huge confidence trick perpetrated on them and there's a giant leap backwards technically, which I'll call the nadir.

On the left is my wife's camera when I met her in 1978. This must be the nadir of consumer photography. At a time when 126 Instamatics, 35mm compacts, and Minox subminiaturescould produce excellent images, this 110 Instamatic was on sale. Its results were predictably appalling, with its tiny negative and slow shutter speed.

At the back and right we have two recent pieces of state-of-the art. Although the throwaway camera is made of cardboard and plastic, armed with modern ISO400 colour negative film, as many of you will know, it can produce excellent results, at tiny cost. On the right is my much-loved Casio EX-Z750, which was my best digicam until last May when I bought my Kodak Z712. It's still in regular use and lives in my everyday vehicle.

In front my late lamented Rollei 35 is represented by its instruction book, found in the same junk drawer.It drowned in a boating accident on a Hebridean loch in 1990. Fortunately it was the only casualty. Everyone else could swim, including my now 16-year-old son, who was aged minus 6 months at the time. It had everything a pocketable camera needed except a zoom lens. Using insurance money I replaced it with a second-hand Olympus XA, which gave results just as good, but was a bit plasticky. I traded it in as a 'classic', along with mySLR kit, when I bought the Kodak in May.
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 5, 2008, 1:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Astonishingly, the Instamatic was in its case, with instructions, dated proof of purchase, and two rather outdated film cassettes...
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2008, 9:25 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,584
Default

Alan, my old Pentax was a bit awkward to lug around. Im so glad I went digital with a camera I could handle.
Attached Images
 
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2008, 2:32 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Bynx wrote:
Quote:
...a bit awkward to lug around....
..especially when Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)became widely recognised as a medical condition termed"ME ".

Actually, then, I was always impressed by the compact, lightweight but strong design of Pentaxes and my own Olympus OM-10. It was the glassware that strained the muscles, plus the rucksack space required. The heavyNikon F I used in the '70s spent its time clamped to an atom-resolving microscope.

[This still seems true now of a friend's Nikon dSLR plus lenses, GPS, giant flashgun etc. But he stores a tripod made of three scaffolding poles in his car boot (trunk). He borrowed my flimsy tripod once when he was flying off to do a high-speed-camera job on an off-island. He's a small chap with big kit, much in the style of your image, Bynx]
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2008, 2:54 PM   #5
Moderator
 
selvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,204
Default

Alan,

I recently hauled out my wife's Nikon F to see if it was still in working condition. Barely, since a bit of fungus had taken up residency in the inside of the body and lens.

One thing immediately caught my attention. The weight of the camera. In a pinch this could be used as a serious weapon. Hit someone over the head with a Nikon F and they won't forget it.

Bynx's picture is not too far from the truth. Hauling one of these things around with all the necessary accessories surely heightens Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I took it to one of our local "drug Stores" to get a battery and the young lady who waited on me was admiring the Nikon F for its glass lens compared to the plastic so prevalent in many cameras. You do pay a price in weight.

Aloha
selvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2008, 5:01 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
....drowned in a boating accident on a Hebridean loch in 1990....
I forgot to say that the Rollei died because I had it in my breast pocket, and it got just as wet as I did. Inside a garbage sack inside my rucksack, most of my belongings stayed dry, bobbing, floating along ahead of me as we headed for the shore propelled by a Hebridean 40-50mph 'breeze'.

So if I'd had my OM-10 SLR with me, it might well have survived intact inside the sack. On the other hand, if all the lenses had been there as well it might have sunk. There's a moral to this tale, somewhere.


Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:01 PM.