Post the very best in obsolete and failed technology

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > Post the very best in obsolete and failed technology

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

lazer_chicken posted:

Tell me about it. I shoot a lot of black and white film in my cameras and I have to send it off to get it developed. Quite a few walgreens around here actually have real photo labs but they can only do C-41.

Develop B&W film your self. :argh:

# ¿ Jul 15, 2012 03:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:41

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Elim Garak posted:

Are you talking about Viewmasters?

You talking about them being a toy from your mother's childhood has made me feel depressingly old.

Not only can you still get Viewmasters but this place http://www.studio3d.com/pages/viewmaster.htm will make custom slides for you. I was looking into offering them to couples when I was regularly shooting weddings.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 11:33

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Delivery McGee posted:

Edit: When I'm at the office tomorrow, I'll try to find and photograph an example of the first DSLRs the newspaper had. I forget the name of it, but it was a top-end-at-the-time Canon 35mm body with a Kodak-branded sensor/computery bit bolted to the back and underside. 1.3 glorious megapixels, heavier than the Graflex, poo poo color reproduction, and used PCMCIA hard drives for storage. But good enough image quality for newsprint, and a hell of a lot faster to process than film.

That would a Canon EOS DCS 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_DCS_3. Film journalism is dead but I wouldn't say that film itself is dead. The fine art community will be using film for quite some time.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 12:28

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Delivery McGee posted:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8, 28 f/2.8, and a similarly awesome 105mm, all looking brand new. Then he got to the camera body itself, an F3/T. he didn't know how much it was worth, but he knew it was worth something, so he asked how much they wanted for it.
"$40."
He somehow kept himself from laughing. "Well,I really just wanted the bag..."
"How about $20 for all of it?"
"A'ight."

When he got back to the office he searched eBay for it, and it's worth a bit more than that. Like, a couple orders of magnitude more.

That is a hell of a deal, I paid like $200 for my F3HP. If that 105mm is a f/2.5 it is literally one of the best lenses Nikon has ever made. They are razor sharp even wide open.

8th-snype has a new favorite as of 17:41 on Oct 20, 2012

# ¿ Oct 20, 2012 17:39

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Delivery McGee posted:

I think it is. This was clearly the collection of a rich old dude who had more money than sense; the titanium F3 is so valuable nowadays because newspapers bought most of them and, well, newspaper photographers .

I wish my dad had been less frugal back in '76 -- he gave me his similarly mint, similarly top-end Olympus kit (OM-1, with one of the best 50mm f/1.8s ever made, 28mm f/3.5, 70-150mm zoom) but Olympus hasn't seen fit to make a DSLR that takes the old lenses like Nikon did.

If you shoot Canon you can get an adaptor for the Oly lenses.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2012 19:48

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Non Serviam posted:

These pieces of crap.
Hard to find and extremely expensive. I have a film camera that I simply can't use because I can only get those batteries online and they're too pricey to justify trying to practice film photography

So buy them on Amazon? Lithium batteries last forever, I change the CR123s in my Surefire flashlight maybe once a year.

Totally Reasonable posted:

The cameras that rock that battery will teach you jack poo poo about photography, for what it's worth. Go grab an old Nikon FE body from ebay, with maybe a 50mm prime lens. It may be an old way to learn how to shoot, but it's not quite obsolete.

e: and it's cheaper than the d40 kit i started out on

If the poster in question can't afford $12 worth of batteries then the cost of film, development, and scanning/printing isn't going to be acceptable t them either.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2013 08:04

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Non Serviam posted:

Here in the Netherlands at least, I've found them online for about 20 euros a pair, only in one or two stores. I simply can't find them. Also, when I used to play with this camera, the batteries would last very little.

As for "teaching", I already know photography, and regularly shoot concerts with my 7D and an array of lenses (in manual, since the other guy assumed I can't use a loving camera). This is an old SLR camera, not a point and shoot, I just thought it'd fun to try to apply my knowledge to film photography.

I never thought people would get defensive about a rare lithium battery format.

Sorry you don't live in a place with real online stores. My point still stands, if 20 of your fake european dollars is too much for batteries you won't be happen paying for development or scanning either. Congrats on knowing how to use a digital camera by the way.

Dr. Tim Whatley posted:

Autofocus is for losers.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2013 12:59

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Non Serviam posted:

OMG batteries are expensive! Now I can't use my lovely film camera that takes CR123s even though film plus processing costs more than the batteries I am lamenting as being obsolete. It's okay though because I can use my expensive digital camera, array of lenses and extensive knowledge of the art of photography to own all the noobs in here that will never get their lovely film photos on the cover of a dying print media magazine.

Also keep your ignorant goon lord assumptions out of the fist bump directed at forums poster Dr Tim Whatley, motherfucker. Not everything is about you or your lovely life choices. I just happen to own mostly manual focus cameras.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2013 14:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:41

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Jerry Cotton posted:

They cost $4000 more than gold-plated.

I'll take seven

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 20:47

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > Post the very best in obsolete and failed technology