batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Gosh Nick, has it occurred to you that English is not btgc's native language? Don't make such a fuss over one word. I'm sure he meant "innovation" not "gimmick."
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
That's not even so bad. Check out the Scott "digital receiver" for $1,500 in 1975!
Me, I'll take that $8,000 Alfetta GT, thank you very much
btgc
Mentor
Yes, English isn't my native language. I thought (and still think) "novelty" isn't same as "gimmick", it refers to innovation. Cameras of 50's also were marketed as automatic - you just attach selenium meter into hot-shoe, set ISO, read LV and transfer it to camera controls, that is, you don't have to know about light or what. That is automation! In 70's AE met on Electro or Canonet were new thing, you had to set either aperture or speed, camera calculated other factor itself. So AE were novelty at the time.
By calling Electros and Canonets cheap replicas, I don't want to diminish them, nor their role. Market had to pay for new features, automation, speed and ergonomics - manufacturers invested more into development and to make prices affordable, they had to simplify materials, constructions and opt for cheaper workforce. Oh, competition also cat prices, and that echoed at manufacturing process. Thus cameras got better and easier to use, yet at same time they were built cheaper. Call it paradox, but when technology advances each year, not decade, things should serve less because when market is saturated, people aren't ready to replace their old things just because new is better than old. Current digital cameras aren't made to last simply because industry would choke and collapse if people could and would use those high-end devices for say, 20 years. Yes, current compact camera is high-end device, in certain manner...because it has accumulated huge amount of innovation and technology built into $200 unit.
The better things you want use, the shorter time of lifecycle you can expect. Industry is ready to improve only if promise to upgrade often. This is closed system - increase one counter and decrease another.
By calling Electros and Canonets cheap replicas, I don't want to diminish them, nor their role. Market had to pay for new features, automation, speed and ergonomics - manufacturers invested more into development and to make prices affordable, they had to simplify materials, constructions and opt for cheaper workforce. Oh, competition also cat prices, and that echoed at manufacturing process. Thus cameras got better and easier to use, yet at same time they were built cheaper. Call it paradox, but when technology advances each year, not decade, things should serve less because when market is saturated, people aren't ready to replace their old things just because new is better than old. Current digital cameras aren't made to last simply because industry would choke and collapse if people could and would use those high-end devices for say, 20 years. Yes, current compact camera is high-end device, in certain manner...because it has accumulated huge amount of innovation and technology built into $200 unit.
The better things you want use, the shorter time of lifecycle you can expect. Industry is ready to improve only if promise to upgrade often. This is closed system - increase one counter and decrease another.
amateriat
We're all light!
I agree with Nick: many of these "cheap" RFs were made at the tail-end of an era where the Yen was still dirt-cheap relative to the dollar, Japan's economy was going great guns, there were a lot of camera companies competing in the market, and bean-counters weren't ruling the roost quite yet. I was using a black Canonet GIII right alongside my F-1; no, the Canonet didn't have the last measure of build quality of the F-1, but it didn't have to...it was built better than it had to be the average snapshooter.
Which, in a way, may itself have become a "problem": with the new business model that was ushered in with cameras like the Canon AE-1 and the implications of ramped-up and automated production, cameras–even SLRs–were slouching toward commodity status. And new-product turnover needed to speed up to keep those new, high-tech production lines humming. New-model introduction used to be glacial in the business: suddenly, new or "improved" models were being announced every three years (which itself seems an eternity compared to the here-today-gone-next-year dSLR product life-cycles). When they come and go so fast, and the perceived "upgrade cycle" is commensurably shortened, you wind up with products–cameras included–that simply aren't built to last too long, unless you're buying top-drawer, where the product should still work ten years from now, but no one will be interested in buying something that's "obsolete."
(Something like...oh, I don't know, this.)
- Barrett
Which, in a way, may itself have become a "problem": with the new business model that was ushered in with cameras like the Canon AE-1 and the implications of ramped-up and automated production, cameras–even SLRs–were slouching toward commodity status. And new-product turnover needed to speed up to keep those new, high-tech production lines humming. New-model introduction used to be glacial in the business: suddenly, new or "improved" models were being announced every three years (which itself seems an eternity compared to the here-today-gone-next-year dSLR product life-cycles). When they come and go so fast, and the perceived "upgrade cycle" is commensurably shortened, you wind up with products–cameras included–that simply aren't built to last too long, unless you're buying top-drawer, where the product should still work ten years from now, but no one will be interested in buying something that's "obsolete."
(Something like...oh, I don't know, this.)
- Barrett
btgc
Mentor
Right you say - industry can make things which last, even electronics. But then they cost accordingly, they aren't affordable to each housewife while they haven't aged beyond point when eventually no one wants them.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify that I'm not purist dismissing anything cheaply built. Some of cameras I use most of time, are from 70's, and some even from 80's. My comment were just observation of trend.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Interesting article. The one perennial fave here, the GIII, is all but an also-ran in that article. It's also one of the more expensive (US$204 list, I assume street price was somewhat less) and one of the heavier ones.
"Flashmatic"? That's a new one on me. I used to read both PP and MP back in those years and I sure don't remember that term being common.
"Flashmatic"? That's a new one on me.
I used to read both PP and MP back in those years and I sure don't remember that term being common.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Besides the cameras there is a lot of other stuff in that issue I'd like to have (now): the Alfetta, a couple of the motorcycles, the lever action Marlin 336, and maybe the Mercury outboard. Thanks for posting.
cklammer
Member
Wow - so many accolades. My pleasure, really.
I was surprised that nobody had twigged to this article yet when I posted.
Thanks to the poster with Fujica Compact Deluxe - I'll look into that one ..
I was surprised that nobody had twigged to this article yet when I posted.
Thanks to the poster with Fujica Compact Deluxe - I'll look into that one ..
btgc
Mentor
anyone noticed databack...no, it's rather datefront...p.77.
It's hard to believe people ever used such device, but hey, in early days of AF it were built into lenses (making them big and clunky), not bodies - so why not attach date imprinting to lens?
It's hard to believe people ever used such device, but hey, in early days of AF it were built into lenses (making them big and clunky), not bodies - so why not attach date imprinting to lens?