What has been lost?

Ramblings of a photo hobbyist from the 70's...

As an old photography hobbyist from the film days finally deciding to move into the DSLR realm, after a number of months of examining options and how to build a DSLR system that at least meets the flexibility and performance of my old film system, I'm struck with how much has been lost to photo hobbyists with the 40 year gradual move from manual-focus film systems to the DSLR world.

1. Cost.

Compared with film systems, DSLR bodies and lenses are breathtakingly expensive, even accounting for inflation.

2. Size and weight.

DSLR bodies are considerably larger and heavier than film SLR bodies were. It has even come to the level of perversity that this size and weight is looked upon as an advantage or a status symbol. The old Nikon F was not appreciably larger nor heavier than a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic (showing my age with that brand name...) or Minolta SR-T 101, although the F could be "gripped" (F-36 motor drive) into quite a monster for the times.

Likewise, the auto-focus and IS lenses are large, heavy monsters or cheap plastic lightweights. The hobbyist lenses of the film age were light, excellent performers, AND rugged.

3. Death of wide angle.

Well, "death" is overstating a bit, but since you need a trust fund to afford full frame digital, it is beyond the reach of most hobbyists, leaving us with APS-C sensors. My film camera gear included a 24mm and a 20mm prime. The 24mm was one of my most heavily used lenses. Both were reasonably priced, small, and reasonably fast. To match that on an APS-C body, I need to be looking at a 15mm and 12mm lens. None are either small OR reasonably priced, since they are in the category of extreme wide angle lenses. A 12mm prime does not even exist in EF mount. Is there a 15mm prime that is NOT a fisheye? If you have a couple of extra Grover Clevelands laying around, you can get a 14mm non-fisheye prime, but, as I said... hobbyist.

I'm left with this...

Why are DSLR's so huge? There is no need for a film canister, nor a film take up. What the heck do they need all that space for?

And why is big and heavy now a status symbol that some have even convinced themselves is an advantage? And don't say "balance", since if the lenses didn't have all that auto-focus and IS baggage to lug around, they'd be smaller and weigh 35% less.

Speaking of that, why are there no inexpensive manual focus, manual aperture, non-IS lenses that still couple with the camera's metering system? (i.e. I can set the aperture on the lens, but the camera knows what the aperture is set to for metering purposes so I can focus wide-open?)

I realize I'm hopelessly nostalgic / living in the past, but even so, I'm having a hard time coming to the conclusion that the losses (small, light, rugged bodies; light, reasonably priced excellently performing wide angle primes, etc.) are worth it.

Well I can tell you part of the reason for size and weight...DLSR's are pretty much computers. Its like having an SLR with a sort of "darkroom" built into it since you can view the image on the fly. Also you can change ISO in the camera rather than choosing film with your desired ISO. I've cracked open a few DSLR's to remove or replace the filters and its all electronics in there with almost no room. A film SLR is a bunch of mechanized gears and maybe some electronics depending on how new it is.

4. My sanity

RTPVid wrote in post #11188695
Why are DSLR's so huge? There is no need for a film canister, nor a film take up. What the heck do they need all that space for?

So..... you think they replaced the film and film mechanism with magic fairy dust or something?

I would propose to you that DSLR are in fact cheaper. Think about film and darkroom costs...
Those add up quickly.

Also, you can easily use older lenses on your DSLR that have full manual aperture and focus. Plus some companies, like Samyang, make new lenses that are fully manual. In fact, their 14 and 85 mm lenses have been given quite good reviews.

I do agree about the size thing, bigger isn't necessarily better. I remember from my film days how everyone seemed to love the Olympus OM series for their small size. I'm honestly contemplating going back down to something like the T2i so I can get something smaller and lighter. I don't know if there is as much of a price disparity as you think. $1000 in 1970 equates to over $5000 today so I don't think there's much of a price difference in gear. Figure in film and processing costs and digital is most likely cheaper. Yes, auto focus does add some size to the lens, but I don't really miss the MF days.

I have a 500D - that seems quite light. And now fairly cheap. I do use heavy IS stabilised zoom lenses, but I have an old tamron 90mm SP a very nice lens (never designed for a canon as far as I know) and with a very cheap adaptor it is pretty easy to use - completely manual including stopping down. It is light compared to my other lens. I think it is the zoom element that is the big weight contributor. I have a 10-22 zoom and that seems pretty good to me and is pretty low distortion. I also bought an older EF lens which is from the days of film and it works perfectly (only auto aperture. Manual focus).

PS I also do use a grip ALL the time (I did too on my favourite film camera).

There is a growing movement to cameras with a smaller "form factor". The size of the cameras in Canons dSLR range get bigger as you move up the price ladder. Hence the interest in non-dSLR cameras.

But I have to say I much prefer the bulk of the modern dSLR's because I've got big hands and long fingers, which always made holding cameras a bit of a problem back in the day.

Pricewise, surely thats just inflation hitting the real value of currency? Much as it sounds a bargain to read old adverts offering a new Nikon FE, with 50mm lens for £160*, Trust me, at the time I paid that it seemed a fortune.

* That was also the price of a Fireball racing dinghy when it first appeared in the 1960's. On an apprentice electricians wages there was no way I could afford that, so I built one. Now, current racing dinghys can cost as much as £25,000 - £30,000 each.

Your observations about cost are certainly correct. Likewise size and weight. I have a Canon AE-1 that I purchased in the 70s, and while it is very sturdy, it is neither large nor heavy.

However, I am willing to trade all of that for the advantages of digital. I used to do color lightroom work, and recently have been digitizing my slides. My conclusions about digital vs. film are based upon having spent a lot of time looking at 30-year-old "keepers" from my slide days. Those conclusions are that while digital may be expensive, the results, for the most part, are far better. (Birders can attest to this. Compare the film-based photos that used to appear in bird guides to the ones we have today taken with digital cameras. You can actually tell what all of the birds look like now!)

I know, it is the photographer, not the equipment, right? If that were all there was to it, pros would be using Rebels (or Brownies?). The innovations that have been introduced in digital cameras do in fact enable us to get better and more consistent results. Auto-focus may not always work the way you want, but it works pretty well, and in a lot of circustances (moving subjects) it gives you a better chance than manual focus ever did. The ability to shoot as many frames as you want without worrying that you only have 72 exposures left in your bag dramatically increases your chances of getting good pictures. The ability to change ISO on the fly is a Godsend. Perhaps most important is the opportunity to post-process an image on the computer with tools that could not have been imagined in the 70s. (Anyone who is nostalgic for darkroom work is crazy.)

As far as the IS/AF lenses, these were originally made for EOS film cameras, and have nothing to do with a camera being digital.

I understand budgets, and good lenses are indeed expensive. However, today's lenses are the way they are in order for us to have the advantages of AF and IS. The better zoom lenses allow you to cover a range of focal lengths in a manner that is more economical than primes, and will give you excellent results. As far as the wide end on a crop sensor, I would not trade my 10-22 for anything.

It's not clear whether you have already purchased a DSLR. If not, let me predict that if you do, and once you have experienced the real advantages, you will be able to answer your questions yourself.

1) Not really. Specially when you factor in you don't need to buy film after buying a camera. Also, the "what's in the body" changed quite a bit: Electronics (lots of it) instead of gears.

Eos 1vHS or Nikon F6 cost about $2000,- new.
Eos 1DMk3 cost about the same at the end of it's cycle.

Eos 1Ds should be compared against medium format IMO. Say a mamiya RZ or a Hasselblad. Not 35mm film.

There were cheaper camera's, but there still are.
An Eos 1000D now doesn't cost much more then an analog Eos 1000f back then. Or a Nikon EM.

2) First company to scale down camera's was Olympus I think. Before that, everything was (way) bigger then the current line of Rebels.
The current x0D without grip is no bigger then for instance a Nikon F801 or F90x was.

Eos 1D series is the only one that grew, since the 'grip' is no longer detachable.

Fast lenses were always big and heavy.
And as for "hobbyist lenses of the film age were light, excellent performers, AND rugged.":
Light: maybe. But today's "plastic" lenses are way lighter then anything made out of glass and brass.
Rugged: Yep, they were that.
Excellent performers: Hahahaha. No. You just didn't see half the defects on film (or a 4x6 print) like you do now at 100% view on screen. Film was more forgiving in some senses. (B&W film doesn't show CA )
3) Wide angle: EF-s 10-22.

As to why DSLR's are huge: They aren't. Frankly, a 550D is way too smal for my taste / hands: I get cramped hands if I hold it for a while. It's smaller then an Nikon F2 for sure
I think that also answers the "status symbol" part?

On the last question: Have a look at Voigtländer. Might come closest. Not inexpensive though, because there's no big numbers involved.

Focus wide open, then have the camera stop the lens down won't happen on non-EF lenses anytime soon: Unless you build an Aperture motor into the lens, there's no way to operate the aperture.
Unlike Nikon (used to do?), Canon operates the aperture only electronically.

One answer to what they need the space for is: Batteries!

I've only ever replaced the battery in my Eos-3 once. I recharge the two in the grip of my 30D nearly every week. The electronics packages busy guzzling all that electricity also need space.

As someone who shot a lot with film cameras in the 70/80s I think the fog of nostalgia may be working it magic on you. Rebels are not significantly bigger or heavier than many of the all metal slr's from the 70's. As for cost, I paid $500 for an A1 around 1980, You can get an XS with a kit lens for not much more than that now. And the A1 was a technical marvel in its day, it had AV, TV, and P modes all in one body, imagine that!! Now you get those modes on any body you buy. Wide angle isnt dead. Its just moved to another place. 28 on a cropped body isnt that wide, but they make the EF-S lenses for that. In fact the canon line up of ultra wides mean there is better access to wide angle than in the FD mount days. My only gripe, and its inevitable that the lenses are bigger in circumference so that the divide in my old domke bag is a bit tight for many of them.

But look what you get in return. The ability to review your shot immediately. This allows the confidence to use flash in ways that were only an adventure in the old days. The ability to change ISO for each shot as needed. Remember when you had to wait 24, or 36, shots before you could ponder an ISO change? Enlargements: How big could you go with your old 35? maybe 16x20 if you used the right film. Now 24x36 is easy with better quality than before.

I used to have the same lament about cost as the OP...way back when (50 years ago), it could cost $169 for entry level, $269 for a mid-grade, about $369 for a top grade camera. Now the entry camera is $800, the mid grade is $1600-2600, the top grade is $6000! While factoring in film and processing makes the current dSLR a bit more palatable, it forces the hobbyist to pay UP FRONT all of the cost even if they only shoot 5-10 rolls (200-400 exposures) in a year of family snapshots ($120 in film and processing costs)

But put into a different perspective, as a student in college with a good paying summer job at a public utility, it was about 0.8 week of my pay for entry level, 1.3 week of pay for mid-level, and 1.7 week of pay for top level. Using $45k (2006 mean salary for a male) , the entry dSLR is 1 week salary, 2 weeks of salary (7D) to 2.9 weeks (5DII), 7 weeks salary for a 1DsIII. So it is at the top end that costs have mushroomed, but the entry grade is not any different and the mid grade is only slightly more and there are no processing costs. Yes, you now have have some money in post processing software (to add to the computer already in the house), but that can be relatively modest ($100). I will admit that as a college student with a good job, I was still nowhere near the MEAN income for a male at that time!

Only things I really miss about shooting with my Minoltas are the split prism and the fact they were metal and felt like they could take a beating. My 50d is magnesium so technically tis metal, just lightweight metal. And I'm pretty sure you can get split prism focus screens, just not sure how that effects the AF for when you want to use it, or how hard they are to install.

hella 325 wrote in post #11188990
Only things I really miss about shooting with my Minoltas are the split prism and the fact they were metal and felt like they could take a beating. My 50d is magnesium so technically tis metal, just lightweight metal. And I'm pretty sure you can get split prism focus screens, just not sure how that effects the AF for when you want to use it, or how hard they are to install.

• Easy to install in the prosumer and pro bodies
  
• Will not affect AF
  
• But will affect spot or central metering especially with lenses slower than f/2.8