Chris Brogden wrote: > The Nikon FM3A offers full manual control, with a hybrid > mechanical/electronic shutter. For those who don't know, this camera is > fully mechanical in manual mode, and only uses the electronic mechanisms > in aperture-priority.
> I think the big problem here is that you're not taking price into account. > The vast majority of people who use fully-manual 35mm cameras are > students, and most can't afford to drop $1000 on a new all-manual camera > I thought the FM3A was discontinued. Checking around, I see it's still in stock in several stores on line. OK, that makes two manual cameras. The price of the FM3A is not $1,000.00, but under $600.00 at B&H. > and many of them are probably going to be shooting MedF. There's > definitely a market for 35mm 3M cameras, but is it large enough? MedF is not really an alternative to the 35mm style of photography ... > Money talks. If enough pros bought the slow film, it would still be in > production. If enough people complained about the lack of it, it would be > reintroduced. Evidently we didn't buy enough of it to keep that area > profitable. > > As I see it, the 35mm format is about sacrificing quality for convenience. > If you want grainless prints, why are you shooting that itty-bitty little > negative? Use a MedF. Some are quite small and unobtrusive, and they'll > give you the quality you're looking for. The ISO 100 emulsions they have > for 35mm these days are quite good. If you need a less sensitive film for > exposure reasons, there's always ND filters. Why should people by slow film when it's practically incompatible with slow zoom lenses? Sheesh, Chris ... 100 ISO is "good enough" huh <LOL> So the photographer should swap ND filters on and off if wider apertures or slower shutter speeds are desired? Doesn't that defeat the whole reason for 35mm photography - spontaneity? > You can't tell me that most ISO 100 films, or a Nikon F5, or a Canon 1Ds, > or most f2.8 zooms are mediocre. In my mind a 2.8 zoom is mediocre, even if it makes great photos. It's big, it's slow to use, it's heavy, it's not unobtrusive, it's not as spontaneous as a prime lens. There's the "act" of making a photograph that, when done a certain way, and with certain equipment, allows a more intimate relationship with the subject. One can generally get closer to a subject with a smaller, quieter, less intrusive, camera. One can generally make pictures in "available darkness" better with a small, fast prime than a honking 2.8 zoom. > I love my LX, and I'm happy that they're still around on the used market. > I love the feel of using a good MF camera, and I'm happy to pay several > hundred dollars for one. But how many people would actually pay $2000 or > whatever a new LX was selling for recently? The market's just not there, > and you can't really blame a manufacturer for not wanting to produce a > camera that few people will buy and which will collect dust on Pentax's > shelves for decades to come. I purchased a NEW LX from Japan for considerably less than $2000.00 ... in fact, less than what people have been paying for the starkist DSLR. > While those who appreciate the benefits of modern technology have > high-intensity flashlights with some back-up batteries in their pockets. > Their tools will be smaller and lighter than the torches, will produce a > brighter, more controllable light, and will outlast every torch except the > one belonging to the guy lugging the keg of oil with him. While you suggest that modern gear is smaller and lighter than earlier cameras, I'd suggest that you are not 100% correct, and certainly not so with "pro quality" cameras. Compare the specs of, for example, the Canon D10 or the comparable Nikon to the specs of many earlier cameras. Likewise the Nikon F5 (is that the number?) compared to the quality Nikons of 25 - 30 years ago. And as for the new wundergear outlasting those old 3M's, well, it's certainly too early to tell, isn't it. Let's see how they fare in forty, or fifty, or even sixty years. Will they outlast the Spotties of the sixties and early seventies; will they outlast the early Leicas; will the F5 have as long a life as the venerable early F Nikons? Will parts and service be available for them? Good night ... shel
