Back to The Future.... In Photography

You've probably noticed that I've gone slightly "off the tracks". I know some of you are quietly saying that you've known this for years! I haven't yet decided that it's due to age induced nostalgia, or that I am in fact on to something. But here's the thing: I'm beginning to think that shooting pictures with film is different than shooting them in digital..... and "NO", I don't mean the technical difference in the medium which is an argument that will go on forever. No, I mean the psychology of shooting something that's permanent vs. what we know full well, we can and will simply delete because it isn't quite what we want it to be, then shoot again.

If you're "old" like me, you remember constantly keeping an eye on the frame counter to make sure you don't run out of it at a critical time. I even remember back when I was doing some "professional" work, I'd even sacrifice a few frames toward the end of a roll, and replace it with a fresh one just to make certain that you weren't caught reloading at an inopportune time. I even clearly remember luxuriating in the feel of having the relatively expansive 36 exposure rolls vs. the 24! There's nothing quite like that "film awareness" to keep you focus on getting the most from each frame.

I feel like I do a pretty good job of it when I'm using the D300, which is a weighty and serious camera. This is particularly true when I've got the old 50mm/f1.4 Nikkor attached, since it's manual focus only. However, it's still not quite the same. I find myself, spending more time making sure that either the automation is off, or I am in fact overriding it correctly, than simply setting and shooting. 

So, I find that the vast majority of the time when I want that simple connection of working with the light, I turn to the D40 with one of my collection of manual lenses. Since they have no connection to the body other than the mechanics of the mount, they really only pass and focus light. Yes, I'm aware that I can simply turn the settings on the D300 to manual and essentially do the same thing. But it's not the same mindset as having no other recourse.

In recent months, I've been involved in a bit of collecting with old photographic equipment. It started when my brother sent me some of his old gear with included a Topcon Uni. It's quite old and not really a practical "user", but it got me thinking and looking at old equipment. That, in combination of my posts regarding a "compact" DSLR system and the role of the Konica TC had in my consciousness really stirred the cobwebs in the old memory. So, I bought one. It was all of about $15 after shipping and had no lens, but did include peeling leatherette cover at no extra charge. I don't have the slightest idea if it works or not since the batteries it uses are no longer produced. I do have a couple of lenses for it though, so...... 

Yeah, this could be me. OK, no Jimmy Stewart spying on his murderous neighbor with the stunning Grace Kelly, but heh!?! OK, no weird Exacta VX camera or giant 400mm lens either. However, I do have some film in the cabinet here and I could see myself taking an old camera out every now and then to shoot a roll. What if that Konica isn't in "shooting" condition?

Here's what I'd love to use. A Minolta XE-7 (XE in Japan, XE-1 in Europe). It's the very first camera that I ever fell completely in love with.... back in something like 1973/4. It's in my humble opinion; the most beautiful single lens reflex camera ever made (especially when mounted with an MC Rokkor-X 50mm/f1.4 lens). They seem to go pretty routinely in the $35 range. It's a "dead system" (kind of like Latin as a language), so there is relatively little competition for the lenses. Of course there's the EVIL (electronic view interchangeable lens) crowd who adapt lenses to their cameras, but those guys are still relatively rare. They tend to concentrate on old Nikkors and Zuikos, driving those prices up! Will this become a successful experiment? Who knows. I just think it's important, and fun, to shake things up every now and then. Oh yeah; that pictures up at the top? The Contax RTS, arguably the most beautiful SLR ever made (designed by Porche); it's just eye candy. You can pick up one of the bodies for like $50, but those lenses go for ridiculous money these days!

The "Compact Camera" Reunion

Back in mid-December, while in the middle of my "Compact Camera" series, I wrote a post talking about my photographic roots. Of course, roots about anything for techno-geeks usually involves hardware and in this case, the Konica TC which back in the mid-70's was the object of my teenage photographer lust. In that post, I really only referenced it, but never really got into the discussing that camera and what drew me to it at the time. 

So, let's back up and start more or less from the beginning when pharmacist Rokusaburo Sugiura began selling photographic supplies at his store, the Konishiya Rokube in 1873. Note, that this pre-dates Kodak! Five years later, he gave the original shop to his younger brother and opened a new one called the Konishi Honten in the Nihonbashi district of Tokyo. In 1902, Konishi began selling the "Cherry Portable Camera", and later, the Konica I in 1948. So you can see, there's a little bit of history there and not just what most people think of today as a copier company called Konica/Minolta which had exited the photography business in March of 2006. In the intervening years, the Konica name developed quite a reputation for not only their fine cameras, but their Hexanon line of lenses which are generally thought of as top-notch. In their day, comparable to Nikkors, Canons, and Rokkors. 

So, it was in this state of affairs that I became enamored of Konica products. Nikons were just too professional (read expensive), Canons were too clunky, Olympus' too expensive and Minolta's stodgy. I was like the legendary little blond in the bear's house! Really, lenses were a non-issue. They were all good, and I couldn't afford any of them!

And that's were the situation stood in 1976; my freshman year of high school. Looking around at the lower end of all the major player's camera lines was an exercise in frustration, until the launch of the TC. I'm going to bet that the TC stood for Autoreflex "T" Compact. In any case, it had everything I wanted; great roots, impressive family of lenses and accessories, shutter-priority automation. WooHoo!!! What more could a 15 year old aspiring photojournalist want!?! As I've discuss before, I spent the summer of '76 and pretty much all the following year pining for this camera. However, by the time I had earned enough money to earnestly contemplate purchase, the Canon A-1 had come along and as they say; "that's all she wrote". 

 If, that's all she wrote, then why are we even having this discussion? Please humor me on this. Let's start by looking at the above image. Yes, it's a TC; so what? First of all, let me describe it's physical size for you: somewhat larger than the Olympus OM series/Pentax MX/ME which were the smallest of that day, but clearly smaller than it's contemporary, which was often described as "compact" Canon AE-1. Furthermore, as depicted it's fitted with the 40mm/f1.8 "pancake" which as introduced with the later FS-1, this is truly a compact camera. Small enough to fit in a coat pocket, but large enough not to feel awkward in "man-sized" hands!

"Holy Deja Vu" CameraMan! Yup, it's the compact camera rig, before my "compact camera" rig. Yes, yes, I'm aware that there are lots of makers out there during those 30 years between the two camera that made something similar. But the similarities in function, feature set between the two are astounding to me. Until a few days ago when I started reading collector websites about the TC, I had no idea that I had either been completely unaware of, or subconsciously recreated a modern day compact camera in the idiom of my first love. It's a little like those stories you hear about people who go a high school class reunion and rediscover an old flame!

 

The Compact DSLR System: Part 1

It's the summer of 1977, and the Konica Autoreflex TC had been introduced the previous year. I'm 16 and standing in a little camera store on University Ave., in Lubbock, Texas looking into a glass case, much like this one at the object of my desire. Things are just so intense in your teenage years. So much so that you can often get a ghost of it when some certain song plays, or you smell something in the air..... I often talk to my Psychology classes about how our memory and how it works....., but of course, they are teens themselves, so they look at me like I've "lost it". Anyway, I remember this camera so clearly that years later, when I'm standing in the space that store had been at, which would become ironically a maker of awards and momentos, called Paddle Tramps, that I can completely bring back the sense of that time. ...... Anyway; I had settled on wanting this camera because 

1. I wanted what every other camera buyer of the time did, a compact system SLR, and 
2. I didn't have any idea that the Canon A-1 was about to be released!

Why compact, and why, the TC? Five years before that, in Cologne, Germany at that years Photokina show, Olympus had set the SLR world on it's collective ear with the introduction of the M-1, later renamed the OM-1 due to Leica's protests over some unimportant model that they had previously used that designation for...... Anyway, all that aside, this not only propels Olympus from respected outsider to the wunderkind of the camera world. 

Every since it's introduction 13 years before, this had been the face of the now dominant Japanese photographic industry! This represented what was then new: combat photography from the jungles of SE Asia, student protest on college campuses, California counter-culture, and moon rockets! All gone in one fell-swoop! Big, old, heavy, dusty and out-of-step! The OM-1 and later the OM-2 sent every camera company in the world scrambling to get something put together that was going to be competitive. Good grief; even professionals were trying out the new camera (although they would mostly return to the Nikon F-2/3, and Canon F-1 soon enough). However, in that space of time between about 1973 and 1977, everybody was going small. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford small. Actually, I couldn't afford Olympus. The Olympus was almost as expensive as the pro Nikons and clearly out of the range of a teenager with part-time jobs.....which left me with the Konica TC. It was a system, and most importantly, it had shutter-priority automation, where you set the shutter speed and the cameras set the aperture. This is what every aspiring photojournalist wanted (or so I believed anyway), because you could be certain that the shutter speed could stop the action. Let those who shoot flowers use Aperture priority! Of course, most importantly, it was cool, small and did I say cool!?!

Fast forward 30 years, and we have gone from film to digital, and oddly, we also went through the whole growth in size path to compact dimensions.....again. Understandably, in the early days of DSLRs, the electronics were still relatively large, so the cameras needed to be bigger. Subsequently, like anything electronic, the successive generations have brought the components down in size as more and more powerful processors and integrated circuits have come into use. The last two major barriers being the elimination of the focusing motor from the body of the camera by using "ring-motors" inside the lenses themselves and the removal of the top info panel on all-but high-end cameras in favor of a larger control LCD on the back of the camera itself. I know what you are thinking: I'm not going to get into the whole "mirrorless" issue today, since I'm classifying those cameras as different than the DSLRs that we're talking about. Not worse, not better, just different.

For this, we have to go back to 2003, and the camera that started the DSLR revolution (at least as far as the consumer market is concerned), the Canon EOS 300D (or Digital Rebel on this side of the pond). It and it's successor, the 350D (built on the same chassis) was and still is the yard stick that all future compact DSLR are measured against. See the layout? The grip, control wheel, the mode dial on the left of the penta-prism? The lack of major controls on the right side of the body? If it looks familiar, huh; that's because, every manufacturer has copied this layout in the last 10 years! 

This change is pretty much the only reason for the major difference in size from the D50 to the D40. Yes, the removal of the focusing motor cuts a bit of height, but not enough to be a difference maker. No; the change from the CF card to SD, makes no difference. They only did that because the expected market for this type of camera is an up-grader from "compact digital" cameras to "beginner" DSLRs. And not having to buy a new card makes it easier for them. Don't believe me, go find a picture of an Olympus E-410/420. It's tiny! It uses a CF card. 

Where am I going with this? It's that the major sea-change originating from the Olympus back in 1972 has finally settled in to the digital realm as well....if you are careful. When Olympus originally made the design changes that they did, it wasn't just cosmetic. It was a change in philosophy. It wasn't just the camera either, they literally redesigned everything in the system to fit the new camera. Eventually it would effect the entire industry. I came to understand what that meant when I put my small (18-70mm f.3.5-4.5) zoom on the D40 and realized that even that lens was a little big. However, when I grabbed my "old" glass made in the late 70's after all the manufacturers redesigned everything, that I found the correct fit. 

 

The Tamron 300mm f/5.6 and my Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 fits the D40 like they were designed for it. That's because that they don't have motors built in to them, are made of brass and engineered from the very beginning to work with the Olympus OM-1s and Pentax MXs of the world. As you can see, after the Canon 350D, other cameras have come along and gotten even smaller. Left to right, you have the Olympus E-420, the Pentax K-x, then the Nikon D40. 

The lower end Nikons and Canons have grown a little since the 300D and D40, but last month, Canon released the EOS SL1, which puts them "back in the game". What I'm saying is, that it doesn't have to stop at that 40mm "Pancake" lens (I'm all too aware that BOTH Canon and Pentax "pancakes" in their line-up now). 

I clearly remember every month when my issue of Modern Photography arrived, I'd go right over to the great Herbert Keppler's column and read his thoughts. Quite often, he would be extolling the virtues of a lightweight, compact camera matched with high-performing, but equally lightweight lenses. From those articles, I learned the basics of how to create a traveling kit. You add all this together with a nicely performing compact DSLR, then you have the modern version of what Y. Maitani envisioned 40+ years ago.