I’ve favored autofocus cameras for the last four years because they make creating images easier. In particular, aperture priority shooting with accurate metering leaves me unencumbered to compose and shoot. When chasing birds and insects, autofocus is a no-brainer choice. So, I am surprised by my growing affection for 50s cameras with no meter, and in the case of the Semi P and Semi III, no focusing aid.
I’ve been trying to understand this new affection for older cameras. Compared to my Maxxum 7, the Semi P is cumbersome. The Minolta Semi IIIa, a 1946 folder, is no easier to manage. Yet, even when mildly frustrated by another accidental double exposure, I still want to use them.
I’m not trying to prove anything. There is no Zen moment nor any attempt on my part to comment on “real” photography. But a good image from an old folder or rangefinder seems to be a bit more satisfying result than one from a modern camera. There is more of me in it. It comes down to being caught up in relishing the challenge of bringing something to fruition when it is not necessarily easy. An hour in the darkroom feels more rewarding than an hour at a computer monitor.
Perhaps it comes down to a sense of craftsmanship. Like the times I made beer. I had taken to dark, full-favored brews and used a kit to make a few kinds. I tweaked the final product until it tasted exactly how I wanted. It was tremendously satisfying to have one of my brews with a burger. (My grandmother, who made a mean brew, would be proud.)
Using completely manual cameras without meters may be satisfying for the same reason. When estimating the subject’s distance, guessing the exposure setting, composing, and shooting, it quickly becomes evident whether photography basics are sufficiently understood to make a decent image. Every well-exposed, sharp image is a small personal triumph.
Photography has many aspects, and there are many ways to capture an image. Sometimes, you want to capture an image as efficiently as possible. While at other times, there is a need to test one’s abilities, limits, and mastery of concepts. At those times, the simplest instrument is the best.
Speaking for myself, one of the big reasons I got back into film three years ago was to learn things like the exposure triangle and manual focus, things that are pretty hard using most digital cameras that weren’t a DSLR. And those 90’s SLRs were pretty close to their digital offspring, so I avoided them. Plus, I was into more of a mid-century vintage aesthetic, something impossible to get with a Minolta Maxxum.
I’ve used a few autofocus point and shoots and have enjoyed them. And some of my cameras have simplified zone focus and autoexposure. I can see the value in autofocus, especially for birds and sports. But I rarely shoot birds and never shoot sports.
I’ve taken a small degree of pride in figuring out focus and exposure, something that seemed nebulous and otherworldly, a “dark art” before I got into it. Perhaps it’s because I didn’t really shoot much film in my teens and twenties. I never ended up buying an SLR like I hoped, and the hand-me-down uninspired 70’s fixed-lens rangefinder had no real exposure control. I’ve come to realize that it isn’t as hard as I thought, so unless someone gives me a Maxxum for free, I doubt I’d seek out a 90’s SLR.
So I understand why making good images with simple machines have appeal.
Hi! Good to hear from you!
I think it is interesting how I react to different cameras. I never take as much care with my digital Maxxums as with film—I just make shots until I get what I want. When using the 50s rangefinders and folders, I am even more thoughtful because I am concerned not only with exposure, but also light angles and possible flare. With the folders, add in field of view as a consideration. Much more time is spent imaging the final image before taking the shot. That extra thought clears the mind.
I know that’s it’s cliche to say “Film slows you down”, but with old cameras (basically anything pre-1960) it really does. When I shoot with my Ricohflex Diacord TLR, I have to think about focus and exposure (determined with phone app) with every shot and look at the front of the camera to make sure the controls are in the right spots. So every exposure is a bit more precious. The later SLRs with auto-everything don’t give off that feel.
I completely agree. I would say my activities fall into two broad types: sometimes I just want to get the shot, at other times I want to enjoy the process. Although, when doing studio stuff, I may spend hours setting a scene and know long before snapping the shutter what the settings will be. In such cases, the thought goes much more into scene and meaning than concern for camera settings.
Interesting. I’ve gone from using manual focus cameras to needing to use autofocus cameras. I guess it all depends on how good one’s eyesight is.
I understand. I wear glasses and find focusing plain matte screens difficult. Rangefinders are easier. However, with the Semi P and Semi III, focusing is done by determining distance to the subjects, then setting the distance on the lens. Vision does not come into play.