Nostalgia Thread
Comments
-
-
My first camera was a Kodak Brownie Box.elbowloh said:Jeez did you guys have those flashes with powder and duck you heads under a blackout cloth to take the exposure?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.briantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
0 -
Not quite a tonne, but a tad under 1kg, without a roll of film in it.elbowloh said:
Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.briantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
0 -
briantrumpet said:
Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
There’s something very satisfying about the feel and handling of these Olympus cameras, not yet replicated in the digital age IMHO0 -
The thing about cameras is that up to a limit mass actually gives more stability. FWIW my D600 weighs more than yours but less than Brian's. Chuck on a heavy lens and...elbowloh said:
Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.briantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
Suddenly realising that my camera is 8 years old. 😱 Not so important in a film era but an age in digital terms.
PS - Still fancy an FM3A but I dare say I'd rarely use it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I had a Pentax film camera, I used to take loads of black and white, I bought the film in bulk rolls. I developed and printed in my own darkroom It was lovely to see the images come up in the tray. I still have all the stuff, perhaps I'll have a another go one day.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Yes, I think that these days particularly film cameras only make sense if you've got your own darkroom, so you can do it from start to finish. The ease and cheapness of digital, plus some pretty awesome kit (which can get stunning results on auto settings) at relatively low prices, makes it something few people would have the patience for.capt_slog said:I had a Pentax film camera, I used to take loads of black and white, I bought the film in bulk rolls. I developed and printed in my own darkroom It was lovely to see the images come up in the tray. I still have all the stuff, perhaps I'll have a another go one day.
0 -
Being able to go on a site visit and people accepting you weren't going to be contactable for the day. Ruined by mobile phones. Now some people expect you to be contactable any time of day or when you're on holiday.
Also, if you had forgotten to do some work, being able to say you posted it a few days ago and act surprised they hadn't received, promise to resend it and finally get around to it. Some of this was ruined by fax but being able to send emails with drawing attachments was the real killer.0 -
I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.0
-
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
0 -
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nah, I used to take loads of really bad pics back then too
... never mind all those films that failed to engage in the winder and the whole spool came out blank, or the ones that got lost in the post, or....0 -
Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.pblakeney said:
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.0 -
True, and I do.rick_chasey said:
Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.pblakeney said:
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
Ease makes people lazy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
I'm flattered that you won't allow me a psychological weakness.rick_chasey said:
Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.pblakeney said:
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.1 -
I tried an exercise where you take as many as you want and at the end of the day delete all but 6. Makes you think about what you're taking a bit more as you don't want to be endlessly deleting stuff.pblakeney said:
True, and I do.rick_chasey said:
Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.pblakeney said:
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
Ease makes people lazy.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I was given one of these by my mother, stamped USSR on the base Works perfectly still, lens is lovelybriantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
Anyway, nostalgia.
Woolworths pick an mix
Panda pops
4 star fuel
Only having four channels on the tele
Proper weather (ie when it was cold it was actually very cold an snowed an you got decent thunderstorms in summer)
Marathons and Opal fruits
John Lewis being closed on Sunday and Monday0 -
"Only three" I think you mean. And closedown at night, and no daytime TV.step83 said:
Only having four channels on the tele
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/october/launch-of-daytime-television0 -
Yeah, I've been through that process and refined it down to only taking 10 in the first place, although the number depends on where you are. 😉pangolin said:
I tried an exercise where you take as many as you want and at the end of the day delete all but 6. Makes you think about what you're taking a bit more as you don't want to be endlessly deleting stuff.pblakeney said:
True, and I do.rick_chasey said:
Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.pblakeney said:
It's not though.rick_chasey said:
This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"TheBigBean said:I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
Ease makes people lazy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Some of us were lucky to have 2 ITV channels. 😉briantrumpet said:
"Only three" I think you mean. And closedown at night, and no daytime TV.step83 said:
Only having four channels on the tele
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/october/launch-of-daytime-televisionThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.
This factor also means I put less effort in.
In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.
*I never did this anyway0 -
Someone should also tell people in crowds at major events about this phenomenon.TheBigBean said:Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.
This factor also means I put less effort in.
In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.
*I never did this anyway0 -
My main type of photography is wildlife photos, so the "joy" is actually experiencing the moment (or not). Can go hours without seeing anything, sometimes entire trips and not see what you were actually trying to see.0
-
A photo of you in front of the Taj Mahal at least shows you were there.TheBigBean said:Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.
This factor also means I put less effort in.
In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.
*I never did this anyway0 -
My quiet and calm time, especially at dawn.elbowloh said:My main type of photography is wildlife photos, so the "joy" is actually experiencing the moment (or not). Can go hours without seeing anything, sometimes entire trips and not see what you were actually trying to see.
Much like cycling but without the effort. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.briantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
0 -
£75? Even more for Olympus lenses.piker2 said:
That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-OM10-35mm-SLR-Film-Camera-with-Lens-and-Flash-Kit/303840949724?hash=item46be54f5dc:g:zYsAAOSwn41f82ntThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Can't remember how much the lens was, though it was lovely having used just the fixed 50mm lens for years. I only had those two. Apparently my 1981 £110 for the camera would be about £450 now, allowing for inflation, so not silly money for some fantastic engineering. And yes, you can pick them up on eBay for £100 or less now.piker2 said:
That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.briantrumpet said:Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!
0 -
£35 for the lens on eBay. A lovely thing though.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-OM-Zuiko-35-70mm-F4-M-F-Zoom-Lens-Crystal-Clear-Optics/313376198381
0