On 9 September 2011 03:11, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Topcon, Miranda and Petri were gone long before AF came about. They left
> about the same time auto exposure came along.
>
Those three brands might have been marginalised by the rise of auto
exposure, but they managed to hang on for most of the seventies,
almost up to AF in SLRs. As I recall, manual exposure was considered
normal at that time. Using AE was practically an admission of
incompetence or laziness, so the paradigm shift from manual metering
to auto exposure was fairly gradual.
But AF was introduced in fixed lens compacts in 1977, and the the
first external AF systems like Pentax's ME-F followed closely (and
wasn't there some sort of kludged up AF in the Canon FD line?). That
signalled a rush for the exits. These companies raised the white flag
at that time, perhaps realising they weren't ready for another big
investment in new tech. Konica didn't transition to AF, either, but
at least they didn't fold up. Cosina survived by becoming an
outsourcing supplier while its own branded products moved into the
boutique category. Chinon dissapeared from Western eyes but was doing
something interesting with electronics, enough for Kodak to buy them
out and run them to this day as a subsidiery.
Older manufacturing techniques probably supported lower outputs as
well. Modern manufacturing demands higher volumes therefore supports
fewer brands.
I'd overlooked the rise of fixed lens compacts. Getting first use of
AF boosted sales of compacts at the cost of SLRs, but getting zoom
lenses was an even bigger deal. A lot of camera-buyers could now be
satisfied with a fixed lens camera, so one of the big advantages of
SLRs at the time, interchangeable lenses, was neutralised.
> You may as well toss Mamiya in there as well, with their lamentable 35mm SLR
> attempts.
> Yashica and Contax were one and the same at the time of AF, both were owned
> by Kyocera.
>
Can't comment about 35mm Mamiyas, but I always considered RB67s to be
pigs of cameras to use, and the lenses had horrible veiling flare.
Yashica never got AF and launched its last model in 1986. As an
amateur targeted camera it couldn't maintain viable sales without AF.
Contax survived longer because AF wasn't a priority in most
professionals' choice of camera in those times. Similarly, Olympus
kept upgrading its pro OM series, finishing with the last OM4Ti being
made in 2002. Even companies that embraced AF kept some manual focus
pro grade cameras in their catalogues long after the introduction of
AF. Witness the Pentax LX and Nikon F3 and FM-3A, which stayed in
production beyond 2000. Meanwhile Leicaflexes continued their steady
trickle out of the factory (there'll always be orthodontists). But
there weren't enough rich nonconformists to save ALPA, whose final
Swiss model launched in 1976. ALPA's Chinon-made models, being
incompatible with Swiss-made models and too cheap to interest their
old customers, saw it fade away almost un-noticed in the eighties.
Rollei blundered through in fits and starts, but it was inept
management and a failure to exercise good quality control at their
offshore factory in SIngapore that killed their reputation and finally
them, not misconceived products or paradigm shifts.
>
> EVF type cameras are going to happen, whether we want or like them or not.
> They cost less to produce, which makes them attractive to manufacturers, and
> they are the newest thing, which makes them attractive to marketers and
> people who buy based on hype rather than function.
> My only hope is that they can make a decent EVF (they are still crap) before
> the choice of optical viewfinder is taken away from us entirely.
>
EVFs will improve without a doubt. Reflex viewfinders are past their
peak, they were better in 1980 than they are in in 2011. There's too
much information being overlayed on and around the picture-composing
area. At least with an EVF you can customise the view, or strip it
away to a naked view of just the image with no information.
Fuji's hybrid finder is interesting but needs more work to get issues
like angle of view and eye relief sorted. (from what I've heard, not
hands-on experience).
Optical viewfinders are again becoming popular because AF is so
reliable you don't need to see focus in many circumstances. Face
recognition works well to grab focus on any people in the frame,
particularly when there's just one person in the frame.
My beef with modern cameras is that the three vital pieces of
information that I want to see instantly and instinctively are buried
in a sea of minor information. Sensitivity, aperture and shutter
speed! 98% of the time thats all I want to see. I want to look at
the top of the camera, without having to raise it to my eye or turn on
the rear LCD, and see those three basic settings, like photographers
have done for decades upon decades. OK, so your premium cameras with
top deck LCDs do this, but they're an exception and becoming more so.
Once there was a time when every camera, no matter how cheap, wore
their exposure settings on their lumpy metal skins for instant
reference, whether powered on or off. Sigh.
I've had too much time on my hands these last few days, these raves
are getting longer.
regards, Anthony
"Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight"
(Anon)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
