You know you're getting old when...

Page 1 of 2  
the tools you bought new now show up on the various antique tool web sites... sigh...
I did a search to find out if my Union combo square was any good since I didn't remember how much I paid for it when I bought it during my first stint as a mechanic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jkajpust@###ameritech.net says...

Smithsonian and they had the computer I worked on way back when :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SAGE FYQ-47 by any chance ?
says...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Yea, but you don't have to be *OLD* for your computers to be. I've worked with super computers any decent PC will now out perform. Heck, even CRAYs, the very name of super computers are now kept up as antiques with the owners powering them up on weekends so people can play with them over the net.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is my life with my camera. Buying a new camera of any kind isn't very high on the priority list. So I took my old Nikon to a camera shop to get the problem it had serviced. I needed light seals. The guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service antique cameras. Never in my life did I feel as old as at that moment. I turned around and dragged my tail out of the store knocking over several display cases in the process :D
BTW, I did find a place to do the work and now the camera works as good as new.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany". The others pre-date WWII.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:29:58 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Do they all work?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course! I'm a camera _user_, not a collector. I 'know what I'm doing', and prefer a 'manual' to one of the 'automatics'. Fewer things to "go wrong, go wrong", plus I've got _complete_ control over the picture and quality optics. In the contemporary market, that costs a small fortune, _and_ includes a computer I won't use -- well, unless one gets into the Hasselblad class (a _large_ fortune :), where they _do_ leave off the computer.
I did have to re-tension the spring on the 'songbird shutter' on the Contax, `cuz it was _way_ slow, though. Absolutely scary -- I did it strictly 'by ear', and it was within +/- 2% across the entire range of exposures, when I had it tested a few months later. Not too shabby, for a first-time disassembly of _any_ camera.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:44:13 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

I can't say my Nikon's that old, I bought it about 27 years ago. I had wanted one of the all mechanical Nikons of the time (Photomic F), but the price was beyond my reach at the time.
So I've got an FE. Some electronics, but nowhere near what they do now. And it's got some real heft to it, and very nice optics.
In fact, after getting new light seals, I went on Ebay and bought some more glass for it. This camera takes some absolutely brilliant pictures when I pay attention to what I'm doing.
And Hasselblad cameras. Well, what can I say. It'd be nice. Nice in the way that owning a Rolls Royce would be nice. The cachet of owning the best. I'm afraid my own skills are not good enough to justify ownership of such a camera. Why spend money on one if I can't take a great picture?
But in keeping with the times, I think that at some point I'll have to get a digital camera. But I want one that works like my FE. Interchangeable lenses and all. Hopefully the same lenses I use now. Good glass is expensive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lazurus Long writes:

Nikon has some good ones out just now, and more coming. I'd wait a year, maybe 18 months, though. You're right. Good glass costs the earth. My old Canon F1 (all mechanical) is a fond memory (destroyed in a fire 20 years ago). That thing took better pictures by accident than I've done with other cameras on purpose. The only electronics was the match needle metering.
It was a tank and I sometimes drove it like one. I bought it, IIRC, around 1970, maybe a year or so earlier and covered lots of off-road motorcycling with it in some not so great weather and some really great weather. Never failed. Never had a glitch.
Also, simple to learn and use something that has totally bypassed even the P&S digitals, never mind the terribly named prosumer models. The DSLRs are a bit easier to use, as SLRs in general tend to be.
Charlie Self "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I had the EF until it took a salt bath. Still have an FTb and AE1, and a full SEA set of lenses which, unless they get better megapixels, are wasted on digital. The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe syndrome, after all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George writes:

Check http://www.pbase.com/charliediy/galleries
Only one photo and it fuzzed up something awful making it small enough to upload.
Imagine it tack sharp, because that's what the original is.
That is not from a particularly fancy digital camera. Minolta Dimage 7i, 5MP, now supplantec by the 7Hi, the A1 and the A2. The pace of change in digitals is incredible. I bought the 7i in August of '02, and it was supplanted within 3-4 months. That was supplanted in maybe 6 months, and then the A1 was supplanted in February or early March.
These are all prosumer (godawful word) cameras at or under a grand (way under for the refurb 7is you'll find now).
The Canon 10d and 1Ds (I think) make them look lousy, but I can't afford the money for the body plus lenses. The 10d is going for about $1400, while I leave lenses to the imagination, because that's where most of the prices reside, AFAIAC. A decent package would probably run $4000, maybe 5.
Ouch.
To do the same in film, knock about $750 off (all off on the camera).
The go with the 1Ds, add about 2 grand.
Charlie Self "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like that turn of phrase. Is that your own or is that a quote? Enquiring minds need to know.
Gerry <being serious and not sarcastic>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Was common in USAF. Possible some crusty old zebra may have originated it, though I doubt it.
Anyway, used to use Panatomic-X and 1:3 Diafine, and the grain size was still larger than the resolution capability of the lens. Pixels are even bigger. Guess that's why the large-ratio zooms are capable enough.
Come to think, since the images are interpolated all the time, do you really need color-corrected lenses?
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ayup. with fine-grain film, and careful processing, you can easily get 200 lines/mm resolution. For 35mm film, thats equivalent to about 10,000x15,000 pixel resolution digital. We won't bother to talk about equivalents for medium- or large-format film. :)

For 'snapshot' photography, not really.
For more demanding work, and especially at longer focal lengths, it does get to be "rather important" that all the colors _do_ focus at the film plane (or the plane of the CCD array, in the case of digital cameras)
Without it, you get 'fuzzy' edges on objects that aren't the 'right' color.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But - given the "grain" size and the digital dither....
Oh well, just a thought.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
This weekend at the zoo - I was reminded of how much I *hate* my wife's digital. The delay between shutter depress; lock-on and then picture acquisition is unbearable! So many great candid shots lost because of that damned delay. It's not a bottom of the line digital either...
You can't beat the simplicity, the instant gratification and the time savings. But, those advantages sure come at a price for those of us versed in older SLR's. I was ready to show my kids a Professional Grade Tantrum -- grinding that digital into the asphalt.
What kills me is that my "old technology" Canon 630 EOS can lock on within a tenth of a second.

My neighbor's a pro. He popped for the top-line digital Nikon to keep all of his glass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AH, but on rare occassions the shutter delay works in your favor (admittedly, rare). I was taking a picture of dad and my bird was perched on the arm of the couch. Well, apparently the camera sound scared the critter and he took off. The delay was just enough to get him midflight, wings caught mostly open in mid-flap. Turned out to be a rather cool shot.
OTOH, the sailboat that was nicely heeled over, viewed between the two buildings, in Monterray (Bee-u-tifully framed), mostly righted and made for a much less dramatic shot. Can't blame the digital on that one though. Me pulling out finagling with the dang SLR...
Renata
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When I bought my first digital camera a few years ago, I couldn't figure out why I taking so many pictures of my shoes. It turned out, I'd click the shutter and then put the camera down - just in time to get a picture of my feet.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't you just hate the trend of digital camera manufacturers to make them smaller and smaller. I have fairly large hands and cannot imagine trying to use a fiddly little camera that's maybe 2.5 x 3 inches. I love my two old Konica SLRs with the honking big Toshiba flash unit always attached which I use as a carrying handle. Now that's heft.
Gerry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.