Would you want AE-1 body with 1Dx internals?

CoPhotoGuy wrote in post #16596863
And I used an AE-1...took fine pictures but what we have today is far better feeling and usable.

I beg to differ. Today's 1-series are overly large heavy bricks. Compared to the pro cameras of yesteryear, these new 1-series are big behemoths.

It's interesting how this discussion has evolved over the past few years. Before, if someone said they would like a digital version of an AE-1 (or something similar), the detractors typically focused on the unmarketable aspect of such a contraption. Now, given that they were essentially wrong about the economics, the detractors like to condemn these camera form factors as some type of hipster-retro fashion accessory.

The problem is that there is this staggeringly myopic assumption that what technology, or for that matter, what time itself brings us is universally superior to whatever came before. While the newer item might be optimal for the majority of the people, it doesn't mean that it's for everyone.

I know it's hard to believe, but some folks, like myself, prefer physical dials, manual focusing, and aperture rings. No, it's not for everyone, but on the other hand, to suggest that my preference is just a symptom of retro-chic appetite would be, I assure you, remarkably ignorant and presumptuous.

I have a Nikon FM2, and if I still used an SLR (I use rangefinders now), I would choose the FM2 over any other SLR or DSLR, with perhaps the exception of some of the Olympus OM models. There's absolutely nothing to debate here; it's simply personal preference. And when people argue FOR the limitation of choice, they only expose their narrow-minded proclivities.

As for the 'fashion' comments, one would have to be addlebrained to believe that no one buys a huge white L lens without any consideration about how cool it's going to look---in the most glaring way possible, mind you. Monstrous DSLRs scream "pro" to the casual observer, so let's not think that the modern offering is purely a tool and not, within itself, an accessory, at least for some folks. But of course, how one appropriates a camera, or any tool, is a) not the camera's fault, and b) does not degrade the effectiveness of the camera's original intent.

Oh, and I know this is going to be very complicated for some of you to comprehend, but functionality and aesthetic form (accessory) are not mutually exclusive concepts; think very nice wristwatch, or, think of any mechanical or computational device where industrial design was skillfully applied.

So let's ease back on the hypocrisy. And really, if we're going to indulge in stereotypes, I'd rather be a hipster (too old) than a materialistic suburban automaton; at least the former, despite all of the pretense and annoying accouterments, has greater propensity for legitimate creativity. And no, I'm not remotely implying that all or even most DSLR users fall into the latter category---I'm not the one making blanket accusations about people's motives.

Also, let's consider the word "retro," as the current bulbous DSLR design is now about three decades old. And let's also consider how certain DSLR owners get quite defensive when technology's latest additions, whether in the form of mirrorless cameras or smartphones, appears to be rendering these DSLRs as yesterday's flavor. Look, he uses a DSLR, how nostalgic. Look, that guy has a DSLR; he's so retro...what a flake!

Seriously, if I had money and a pilot's license, I would love to get myself perched in an old Spitfire. Why, because I'm nostalgic for the 1940s or because it would be fashionable? No, only a halfwit would automatically make such an assumption. I would love to fly one because it is simply one of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed, and I have a hunch it would be a blast to fly.

Yeah, well, put that Spitfire up with an F-16 (or any other modern fighter) and see how well it does? This is a straw man argument, because it assumes that I would prefer the Spitfire for dogfighting purposes against modern aircraft. Likewise, it's ludicrously arrogant to assume that one needs the latest photographic technology to take the best photos.

Personally, even if a smartphone could do everything that a DSLR could (hypothetically of course, calm down), I'd still choose the DSLR...ergonomics, that simple. And yes, ergonomics are important to me. Others might like the smartphone better. So don't assume that what works for you works equally well for everyone else. That should be extremely obvious, but from reading this thread, it's obviously not.

If you can't get why people want to go "backwards", then just maybe, you are likely a simplistic slave to technology, and you are just as inclined to follow fashion as the retro hipsters you deride...after all, you are the one attempting to impose your own form of conformity based on equally frivolous and arbitrary standards.

And in the arts in particular (but not exclusively), what actually is going "backwards"? Using a piano, a paintbrush, your hands to mold clay, or even an electric guitar? All of these are retro devices.

But really, one must have a stellar thought process to believe that the rest of the seven billion people on the planet should be just like them; the fascism of it all. Anyway, this type of "future or nothing" person better not so much as put on a pair of jeans lest hypocrisy abound!!!

Yeah, but you're right, everyone should use the latest and greatest, because there's nothing more original and individualistic than blindly following what the ads tell you to. And 'evolution' and 'revolution,' someone's a corporate marketer's wet dream come true...sucker! Actually, I have no gripe with what one wants to follow; photography has room for all of it!

Yes, I get that 'retro' can be fickle and ephemeral, but some things are more timeless than others, and moreover, arguing against the fashionable by imposing your own set of standards is just as nonsensical and superficial. No one is saying that you have to like anything---hate retro this and that all you want---but that's the point, what puts you in the position to tell people what they should like...we're talking cameras here, not ethics.

As it stands, full frame DSLRs are, to me, comically large, but I don't make sweeping generalizations about their users, and I'm glad that the cameras exist to provide folks greater choice. But suggesting that it's foolish that I use a five decade old camera is as ridiculous (and futile) as telling me that my favorite color is somehow wrong.

Also, if a tool is just a utilitarian object, that's fine, but others might find the overall experience more pleasurable if the tool provides ergonomic congruence or even aesthetic value itself. A car is just a tool for transport...think everyone only cares about a car's ability to get from point A to point B?

By the way, the digital Olympus Pen, which heralded the 'retro' look, came out nearly five years ago, and demand is still strong for similar styling...folks, that's not a fad, that's a norm, deal with it.

The funny thing about all of this, of course, is that there are probably a number of insipid 'hipsters' using their grating retro cameras to take photos that are superior to the majority of ones taken with DSLRs and posted on this site. Well, maybe not, but one never knows...it's a big world out there folks.

Use what you need, use what you want.

And choice, it's a good thing...it's truly stunning how many people struggle with this.

Said what I need, I'm out, but PM's always welcome.

Hogloff wrote in post #16597441
I beg to differ. Today's 1-series are overly large heavy bricks. Compared to the pro cameras of yesteryear, these new 1-series are big behemoths.

And with today's quality glass, the 1-series (or 5x/7x/etc. with grip) feels far more balanced than what it would without the extra weight. Besides...I shoot a lot with a 5DII Gripped and 70-200L Mk II and I don't find that combo heavy in the slightest. And it feels much better than an AE-1.

Remember that you had add-on auto winders which added some balance as well back in the day.

i would like the 5d3/1dx cameras to have the same feel as the old film cameras...

the best feeling in terms of heft and grip to me is the AE-1 with a plain winder (no grip type winder)...

it was very comfortable to me in terms of ergonomics and maneuverability for lack of a better term...

and those FD lenses were a joy to work without the bulk of todays AF lenses...

solepatch wrote in post #16595356
I will sometimes go out and shoot film just so that I have to go slow and take my time making sure I get it all right, and I love that.

BTW: the DSLR police will not arrest you if you go slow and make sure you "get it all right" when shooting with your DSLR

RPCrowe wrote in post #16597611
BTW: the DSLR police will not arrest you if you go slow and make sure you "get it all right" when shooting with your DSLR

Oh I know and I consciously try to, but being a 24 year old Male who still believes on the inside that he is 18 I am somewhat impatient so I need all the help I can get.

I'd consider it. I like the DF is one ugly beast, and unnecessarily slow to use (like the mode button needing to be lifted to change, or all of the dials that require two steps to change, etc), but a 1DX sensor, with 70dx dual pixel tech, in a mirrorless body to make the body smaller/more compact and you will probably have a better realization of the "DF concept".

Hogloff wrote in post #16597436
Really...so to get the job done you need a modern DSLR...one that is designed off of a very popular model from days gone by is just a toy? I use an X100 which is a retro designed camera and not only is it a joy to use, it produces some fine images.

It depends on what the job is of course. I never said it was a toy. I said that when people start buying specifically for how they look with no regard to functionality, they are buying jewelry.

Just like someone else above mentioned about cars...yes, how they look is important. But no matter how good it looks, I won't drive it if it is horribly uncomfortable, handles like crap, and is underpowered.

Ltdave wrote in post #16597561
i would like the 5d3/1dx cameras to have the same feel as the old film cameras...

the best feeling in terms of heft and grip to me is the AE-1 with a plain winder (no grip type winder)...

it was very comfortable to me in terms of ergonomics and maneuverability for lack of a better term...

and those FD lenses were a joy to work without the bulk of todays AF lenses...

An F1 with a 250 exposure film chamber was huge and still had way less capacity than a modern DSLR with even a modest SD or CF card. Plus changing and handling film was a pita
http://mir.com.my …assics/canonf1n​/databack/

kfreels wrote in post #16597769
It depends on what the job is of course. I never said it was a toy. I said that when people start buying specifically for how they look with no regard to functionality, they are buying jewelry.

Just like someone else above mentioned about cars...yes, how they look is important. But no matter how good it looks, I won't drive it if it is horribly uncomfortable, handles like crap, and is underpowered.

But why do you feel the retro look will handle like crap, be horribly uncomfortable and be under powered. Personally, I'd live to see the old Olympus OM-2 camera form factor and ergonomics to come back. I just don't find the DSLR of 2014 to be that ergonomic...not even taking into account the weight and heft.

stpix wrote in post #16597846
An F1 with a 250 exposure film chamber was huge and still had way less capacity than a modern DSLR with even a modest SD or CF card. Plus changing and handling film was a pita
http://mir.com.my …assics/canonf1n​/databack/

But we would not need that chamber with digital. That chamber held rolls of film which digital obsoleted.

Hogloff wrote in post #16597907
But why do you feel the retro look will handle like crap, be horribly uncomfortable and be under powered. Personally, I'd live to see the old Olympus OM-2 camera form factor and ergonomics to come back. I just don't find the DSLR of 2014 to be that ergonomic...not even taking into account the weight and heft.

Maybe I'm wrong. I just know that for myself, a whole day of carrying and working with my AE1 always cramped my hand after a long day of carrying it around with a heavy lens on it.
Also, having the QCD is a heck of a lot easier than rotating a ring around a lens. And that QCD does a lot more than just change the aperture. If the camera is more useful and comfortable to you than the current models, then by all means enjoy it. But I suspect that for the majority, that isn't the case, nor is it the reason for buying it.

stpix wrote in post #16597846
An F1 with a 250 exposure film chamber was huge and still had way less capacity than a modern DSLR with even a modest SD or CF card. Plus changing and handling film was a pita
http://mir.com.my …assics/canonf1n​/databack/

i know. but i wasnt saying id use a film AE-1. ive got one and its not been unpacked since i got out of the Air Force. what i was saying was FOR ME, the AE-1 with a plain winder (or the F1-n that i also have) is more comfortable FOR ME...

was that redundant? it was supposed to be...

Hogloff wrote in post #16597909
But we would not need that chamber with digital. That chamber held rolls of film which digital obsoleted.

thank you...

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16596690
I never get why people want to go backwards. I hate retro furniture, clothes or anything else. The future is made up of evolution or revolution, not retro crap because some designer lacks creativity or insight.

kfreels wrote in post #16597769
It depends on what the job is of course. I never said it was a toy. I said that when people start buying specifically for how they look with no regard to functionality, they are buying jewelry.

Just like someone else above mentioned about cars...yes, how they look is important. But no matter how good it looks, I won't drive it if it is horribly uncomfortable, handles like crap, and is underpowered.

Folks seem to misunderstand the motivation behind the retro look Nikon...it does this, not merely 'look retro'...

1. Directly supports the legacy Nikon lenses that so many long time Nikon users have in their gear inventory.
   
2. Allows full aperture control and metering automation with legacy Nikon lenses
   
3. Effectively speaking, it is like using an older Nikon film body with digital sensor retrofit...something which is easily done (in theory) with any film SLR with removeable film backs!
   

Hogloff wrote in post #16597441
I beg to differ. Today's 1-series are overly large heavy bricks. Compared to the pro cameras of yesteryear, these new 1-series are big behemoths.

^
For all the love that folks have for dSLRs, one needs to understand that dSLRs are bulky behemoths in comparison to what we used to carry in less volume for a kit with body and lenses! and therein is Reason #4 for wanting something similar to the Nikon digital 'retro' body.

Here is a comparison of a contemporary camera with one from the days of yore...

A 5DIII with the EF 70-200 L MkII f2.8 and a Canon FT-b with a Vivitar Series I 70-210 f2.8-4.0

At the time Vivitar was the class in third party lenses and the Series 1 was touted as the first designed using computers...