jss (06/29/82)
Subj: New Camera I'm a more or less experienced SLR shooter. I periodically will photograph a party for a friend, etc., but frankly most of what I shoot is for me alone. So: a brief summary of camera brands and some tips I hope will be valuable: NIKON: Generally good, though I'm told prone to breakdown. Is a status simbol (sort of), but leaves you in the lurch in terms of flexibility, as they de- liberately made their lens mount different from everybody elses, which to my way of thinking is an attitude which does not bode well for the company. Reality: you dont need all of the fancy add ons for good pictures. Most people can't use them effectively anyway, they are just not that good or hypercritical. Face it, a 1/2 f stop screw up can and should be fixed at the enlarger. Further, NIKONS are dependent on their batteries, which leaves you really screwed when you're shooting in the woods and it dies. Olympus: These are generally more expensive than they are worth unless you are a professional who is really fantastic. My advice is forget it. Konica: Their breakdown rate is phenominal and they can't be fixed correctly by anybody I've ever met, including the konica company. The only one which is solid is not SLR, which you will want given that you shoot two vastly different types of shots. Cannon: More adaptable than NIKON, but generally the same things apply. Also battery dependent. My personal favorite is the Pentax K1000 or the Pentax K1000 SE (special edition) These cameras are simple (no fancy useless add ons) are not battery dependent, and are uniquely rugged. Reality is that a camera is a delicate piece of precision equipment. It isn't theoretically designed for backpacking. Fortunately, the K1000 series seems to be virtually indestructible. It is the camera most photo course teachers will purchase to loan out to a class with people who dont own their own cameras. The base price is reasonable, and the lens mount is normal, so you can shop around when you eventually decide you want to expand. If you plan to use it as a +1 cudgel, I would reccomend you burchase the metal case version, as it is even more indestructable than the normal one. To give you an idea of how good these things are, I know of one (metal case) which has been abused by high school students for 12 years, has gone n for routine maintainance once, and is still as good as ever. This seems about typical. For an individual who is halfway careful; it should last damn near forever. My bet is you could safely will it to your grandchildren and expect it to be viable. Getting the picture...? For the kind of shooting you describe, you would want to buy a wide angle lens in addition. These give some great effects. Drop into your local bookstore and pick up a camera book and look. The K1000 SE has an extra (and I think useful) additional focusing mechanism. I reccomend it over the normal. Besides which, the warrantee is twice as long, always worth the extra $15 you may pay for it. It turned out that when I got mine (the SE) it was actually cheaper than the standard, so... A note regarding blow ups, etc. If you shoot with a 110 instamatic, forget it. The negative is just to small to get good resolution when you blow it up. Grain is not a linear effect. You are blowing up an area, not a line, and its therefore exponential. Even with the best of cameras an 8 x 10 will show grain under ideal conditions. For that you're getting into a whole new and expensive line of specialized cameras, but for the number of pictures people want to blow up to 8 x 10 in the normal lifetime, dont bother. Further, the machine processing done by kodak or anyplace else is MURDER on film. It leaves incredible SCRATCHES, DUST SPOTS, etc. If you really get serious about quality, shoot black and white and have a friend develop it. Generally if the person has experience he will get better results than kodak, and he will know how to optimally develop a given picture and will be willing to give eaach one a look which the machines dont do yet. With regards to flashes: DON'T BUY VIVITAR. I personally reccomend any Sunpak flash. If you are willing to spend the money, the Sunpack 422D is excellent and allows for future expansion/changes. As this article is admittedly not without slant, I'm looking forward to hearing from anyone else who disagrees, has comments, etc... --Jon Shapiro, Bell Labs, Murray Hill N.J.
rrb (06/29/82)
I tend to agree about the description of brands, but have had just as
must luck with my Minolta SLR. Back in high school days Pentax was
the camera bought by the school not for the ruggedness but because
they were the cheapest. Inherent in this was a general lack of features.
Pentax has come a long way, but I believe they still have the screw in
lense mount. The bayonet lense mount is preferred by many of us for ease.
Roger Busico
Bell Labs, Whippanydonald (06/30/82)
I would like to comment on Jon Shapiro's opinions on cameras for novices. First of all, I think that people beginning photography should completely ignore his article because it is grossly inaccurate and contains a lot of hearsay, most of which is also wrong. I don't mind a photographer having biases towards certain brands or types of equipment, but spreading inaccurate information is inexcusable. The claimed "high breakdown" rates of Konica cameras and "unreliable" Vivitar flashes is one example of hearsay which is totally unsubstantiated and vicious. I have used both types of equipment with satisfactory results. Granted Konicas are not built like Leicas, but they are certainly on a par with the Pentaxes that Jon thinks so much of. Vivitar flashes include some of the most technologically advanced and flexible flashes available and I know many a pro and amateur which use them and like them. Jon's comments on cameras were a mixture of half-truths and ignorance. The Nikons and Canons are NOT battery-dependent in general. Only the Nikon EM, Nikon FE, and Nikon F3 are battery-dependent. Every other Nikon, including the venerable F and F2 (the mainstay of most Pro photographers in the world) are completely workable without battery power (albeit sans metering). ALL incarnations of the Canon F-1 work without batteries, as do the old FT's, FTb's, and EF. The Canon AE series, and A-1, however, do depend on batteries. The Olympus OM-1 is not overpriced as Jon claims, it is a reasonably- priced, well-made, and reliable camera. It is also light and quiet (as SLR's go) and a pleasure to use if you lean towards austerity. Sorry about the length of this and the flames, but really, I'm not in league with the camera manufacturers, just a concerned photographer. Don Chan
steve (07/02/82)
I guess I'm really disappointed. I just found out my KONICA TC that has been with me only four-and-a-half years is not reliable. I don't know how to tell my wife that a camera that has been abused by a gorilla with ten thumbs and has only pilot errors to its credit is not going to hold together. I'm stuck with one of those gosh-awful VIVATAR flash units on top of that. Its just incredible that all this time I've had a lousy rig just on the verge of failing. That guy with the NIKON who helped me pick it out must have though I was an easy touch. I had never owned an SLR and I was green when it came to setting the aperture and shutter speed. I just wanted a good automatic exposure SLR that I could use to take pictures of my daughter who at the time had just been born. Gee, I guess all those good pictures were just flukes...
jss (07/04/82)
I beg to differ with don chan's article. While I agree that
my blanket comments on battery dependency were too strong,
please allow me to mildly rephrase. What I should have
said is that most of the popular cameras of each of these
companies is battery dependent - mostly because all those
featrues that the novice who hasn't seriously considered
things thinks he wants require a battery. I fully agree
that there are some fine cameras out there by each of those
companies, and I would therefore like to retract the original
phrasing of the article, with apologies to all concerned.
As far as my comments on Konica reliability are concerned,
they are based, contrary to Mr. Chan's assertions, entirely on
my personal experience and on the experienc of others I know.
Granted, there will be some good camera's in any companies lines.
That does not necessarily imply that ALL of their cameras
are good. (The converse is, of course, also true.) I agree
that much of what I said was based on hearsay, but that is a
funny word. What I heard being said came from the following
types of people:
1: Photo professionals - I.E. people who make
their livings in this game and who therefore probably know
something about it.
2: Photo course instructors, who are also oftentimes
professionals. Unfortunately, when someone in this group
has been shooting for magazines and other sources of income
for most of his adult life, I am somewhat inclined to trust
his opinion in such matters.
Vivitar flashes are great, but the sunpack equivalents
are cheaper and just as good. When I bought my 422D, having
shopped around to get the best price, I found that if I wanted
the vivitar, I would have to pay $40.00 above and beyond the
already obscene prices of most camera equipment. It just
isn't worth $40.00 in my opinion, to be able to say you own
a vivitar.
With due respect, let us attempt to keep our responses
in all of this civil. This is not a war we are fighting.
Looking forward to hearing from all of you.
--Jon Shapiro