| Author |
Message |
    
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 84
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 10:47 pm: | 
|
a fun fact that I learn fooling around with a Canon Rebel XT in a local everything store.
the bayonet mount on the lens is plastic.
sure the lens is cheapo, but I didn't think it would be that bad... and once upon a time, didn't Canon worry that changing of lenses would wear down the mount and skew the lens to film plane distance?...
and some 30 years ago, a camera called the Canon FTb was being sold somewhere in that price range... |
Mndean
Tinkerer
Username: Mndean
Post Number: 58
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:34 pm: |
|
All the Rebels have a plastic lens mount. The idea was (or so I heard) that if it wore badly enough to skew the lens-to-plane distance, it could just be replaced with a new one. I didn't like the idea any better than you do, but most cameras nowadays are considered "consumer electronics" and not precision photographic instruments. They last about as long as consumer electronics, too. When someone pulls out a 50-year-old DSLR (or a film Rebel, for that matter) that has had moderate use which still works well, I'll believe in the ruggedness of their design. I use film cameras that old quite often with no problems. |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 88
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 09:40 pm: |
|
but finding spare parts/batteries/chargers in 50 years won't be too fun, will it? |
Mndean
Tinkerer
Username: Mndean
Post Number: 59
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 12:27 am: |
|
Heh, it sure won't. At least all my mechanical cameras will work as long as someone makes film for them. The only ones I need worry about are the ones with electronic shutters, and only if the batteries are no longer available. |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 60
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 - 12:22 am: |
|
I agree with you, Mdean. I've heard some stories about the newer lenses breaking down after ten years or so, and the circuitry or motors being no longer available. At least, if my mechanical equipment wears out, I can conceivably machine new parts. Assuming the equipment is worth the labor. I am still somewhat pissed with Canon for not just converting the FD mount to all-electronic, rendering my collection of FD lenses pretty much unusable with modern cameras. Nooo, the EF mount is soooo much better! (For Canon's bottom line, that is...) |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 92
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 - 10:02 pm: |
|
well, they could get away with it, and they did. pretty lame move. |
Mndean
Tinkerer
Username: Mndean
Post Number: 67
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:10 am: |
|
As lame a movie as it was, I see benefits to us now. For one, it keeps costs low on MF lenses in "obsoleted" mounts - the only MF lenses on my Minoltas that cost a lot are the extreme rarities, and on Canon systems the FD mount lenses are similarly inexpensive. M42 mount lenses in particular are pretty cheap to purchase, even some very good ones. It may have been a self-serving bit of planned obsolescence by the camera makers, but we benefit now. The cameras made with autofocus were often mostly plastic, anyway, even if some had nice features. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 399
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 03:58 pm: |
|
As a professional photographer, I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory surrounding the EF mount introduction. Canon took a big gamble in introducing this mount onto the professional market. At the time my 35mm slr kit was based on the FD system and it was very comprehensive indeed. I managed to borrow some of the new offerings for a very difficult commission. The results dictated that the new system was definitely the way to go, and I did very quickly. I could have said 'stuff it' and continued with the FD, but auto focus definitely was the way to go - even in the early days.
My choice had nothing to do with brand loyalty, the product worked. However when digital became the norm, I found that the Nikon DSLR was ergonomically better suited to my operating/handling style. So the Canon EF kit was exchanged for Nikon, a decision I have never had to regret.
Sadly much of the electronics in modern equipment will prove awkward to keep functioning in the future. However why should photographic gear be any different to any other product available today? When I started motoring years ago, my first decent car was a well used seven year old Jaguar 3.8 Mk11. Along with an equally old ex WD Landrover, I ran these vehicles for ten years with minimum maintenance costs. I cannot see my son doing the same with a similar aged BMW or Mercedes. These vehicles may be inherently more reliable, but try DIY repairs on an electronic engine management system or emission control system when problems do arise. All modern day products have a limited life - planned at the design stage I shouldn't wonder. The only way to used this modern equipment when they are classics, will be to make sure you have built up a large collection of 'black boxes' for any future contingencies. Trouble is these electronic devices tend to be rather expensive. In the car world thieves are actually removing the management systems, because of their value on the second hand market.
So using the future 'classic cameras/lenses' will require some planning re spares and it will not be a cheap hobby anymore. |
Mndean
Tinkerer
Username: Mndean
Post Number: 68
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 05:29 pm: |
|
I consider most every electronic component has a limited lifespan, especially when dealing with consumer electronics. My guess is that even the highest-grade DSLRs are using electronics of the same quality as lesser models, and so even the idea of a "classic" DSLR having a lifespan similar to a classic SLR is to me ludicrous. They are useful for many things, but will not have the durability/repairability of a mechanical film camera. The electronics in newer digital cameras are far more integrated than even old electronic-exposure manual-focus SLRs. One weak component goes, so goes the camera. Someone who has a Minolta X-700 with bad electrolytic caps can have them changed and be back in business. I doubt any digital camera would have such an easy repair available. I have had two bad experiences with digital cameras (on one, I was specifically told to throw it away, it was an unfixable flaw), and will not buy another as I don't need it for work and don't have any desire for instant gratification. As long as film is made, I will be satisfied doing things the old way. |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 62
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 05:04 am: |
|
I do subscribe to the conspiracy theory, I am afraid. Canon could have easily converted the FD mount to an electronic, autofocus mount allowing those of us with FD systems to continue using our mechanical lenses, if only in stop-down mode. Witness also their decision to make focus confirmation dependent upon a signal from the lens, instead of default. You get no focus confirmation with a t-mount lens, for example, unless you jump across two pins in the body lens mount. Although I do like the low value of the "obsolete" FD lenses... |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 93
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 09:31 pm: |
|
"Although I do like the low value of the "obsolete" FD lenses..."
yup. and THAT's why I never got that Nikon F...
and my bro hates Sony because they 'stole' the Minolta AF mount... therefore pushing the price of the old lenses higher. |
Mndean
Tinkerer
Username: Mndean
Post Number: 76
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 11:24 pm: |
|
To show how amusing life can be, after mentioning how an X-700 is easy to fix, I found an X-700 on my local craigslist for $20. It came with a 50/1.7 and a winder G that the seller claimed didn't work (the seller was wrong). The serial number of the camera put it in pre-bad cap territory. Well, I took the whole kit out to shoot some Labor Day pics of a friend's band, and they couldn't have turned out better. I took the camera out knowing it didn't matter if it had problems, or even was stolen. It was funny to see all the guys taking pictures out there with thousands invested in digital gear (hell, the lady with the digital snapshot camera in front of me spent more money than I did).
The only thing I hate is finding film at the last minute. I have to order film now because nobody carries 100 speed color negative or ANY slide film anywhere near me. |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 68
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 04:12 am: |
|
I just sent 10 rolls of Fuji Velvia 50 / 120 to a friend of mine in Russia because Fuji won't sell it there, and won't allow stores to ship it. We old photo-dogs have to help each other, no one else will. Which is why this site is here. |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 104
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 08:43 pm: |
|
yep. how does it go now... united we stand, divided we... sit? (sorry, had to). |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 69
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 10:58 pm: |
|
I could forgive you for a pun... even a bad pun... but THAT was unforgivable. Sorry, Drag. For penance you must take a medium format kit to a wedding and let everyone there tell you what to shoot and when. I've been there, it's hell. |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 06:48 pm: |
|
haha...
well, being Canadian perhaps dulls the horribleness... I thought it was funny.
sounds nice, but I'm not sure anyone near here would want to have some young turd taking their wedding pics. and the cost...
and as for the kit? no money for an MF kit. and what'd I use it for anyways?
cheers |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 70
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 01:15 am: |
|
Oh, landscapes, portraits, extreme blowups whenever some egoistic idiot tells you film is dead, that sort of thing. Also, when you carry a big rig, people tend to assume you're a pro and treat you better. And they ask for advice, so you can send them a bill. Like a lawyer, but with moral standards. |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 117
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 01:06 pm: |
|
not gonna work. i'm like 5 foot six inches, and 16 years old. i'll look like a fool.
it's not dead... it's dying. |
Petercat
Tinkerer
Username: Petercat
Post Number: 71
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 05:11 pm: |
|
Don't sweat it. We all looked like fools at 16! |
Dragunov
Tinkerer
Username: Dragunov
Post Number: 121
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 07:02 pm: |
|
maybe, but it's funnier if you are using outdated technology, equiptment at least twice as old as you and you take forever to make your shot. that was me. the difference now is that I'm a little quicker on the draw than before. |
