Hi Fotoguy,
I read your conteplation as for the cameras either "analog" or "digital"
one.
You are absolutely right. Many thanks for you "message".
rene novak - prague - czech
www.studio-er67.eu

Fotoguy napsal(a):
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:35:20 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Fotoguy wrote:

A camera is a tool. As such the F5, the EOS-1n/1v, Maxxum 9 are the
absolute standouts in 35mm cameras. The F6 is a slightly watered down
F5 but incorporates what is needed by a serious film shooter. Why
then is the F5 better than the venerable F2? Because metering (etc.)
are tools that the photographer needs. While the F2 might be
legendary, that does not make it the best tool - elsewise nobody would
have bought the F5 (etc.).
A tool is only as good as the tool user. You don't really need all the
fancy features that today's electro-mechanical film (or digital) SLRs
have to be a good photographer. You don't even need a light meter,
built- in or hand-held, if you're a good photographer. I remember my
second semester college photo course: No light meters permitted. You
learned to "see" the proper exposure . . . eventually.
In limited cases I do that. (Recent pano for example). However, for
most photography the lack of a meter and relying on experience would be
somewhat error prone. Further while negative and B&W film allows you
more latitute (esp. if you err to the high side), slide film simply does
not give you that luxury. Digital is likewise prone to blow out in a
manner similar to slide.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying not to use a light meter. It is an
essential tool, especially if you're getting paid to take pictures. But
you should know its proper use, its flaws and failings, and not to trust
its readings as gospel all the time for many times the "correct" exposure
is not always the "best" exposure.

If the only choice was the F5, there was no choice.
If the F2,3,4 satisfied, the F5 would not have sold. Pros however

Wrong. Coming out with "new and improved" models is the best way to
improve one's market share and increase profitability in an a highly
competitive market with falling profit margins. (Decreasing product
quality is another way.) And there are always enough buyers who will buy
the new model just so they have the latest model even though there is
nothing wrong will the old model other than it's not "new."

upgrade gear at a fast rate. A legendary F2 that lasts forever somehow
gets replaced as there is a need.

Yes, when it breaks and can't be repaired, or when it no longer fulfills
one's needs, or when with some people it's replaced by a new model.

I remember when cameras got handed down from father to son (or daughter),
etc. Not so much today: Cameras don't seem to last long enough; and
offspring seem only to cherish that which is new _and_ cool. ;-)

I wonder how many F2s are out there that have as much mileage? We'll
never know, since the camera, being all mechanical, is incapable of
recording such statistics. Actually, in the mechanical camera days,
the longevity of the shutter in cycles (or actuations as it's now
called) was never advertised or even really considered (by the buyer).

Off the top of my head, my guess, is the F2 shutter was good for
500,000 cycles, typical, with the FMs or FM2s good for half that. It
took me about 12 years of fairly serious shooting with motor drives to
wear out the shutters on two of my FMs. So, that's in the ballpark.
A single point statistic.

Actually two data points. The shutters failed in two FMs within a couple
weeks of one another. Quite a testament to modern failure analysis.