| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 21 2008 : 10:47:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Vlad,
If a FED-1S had a different lens on it, in a collection of Russian cameras, then I would have to call it a "FED-1S with non-original lens".
If you have a FED-1S body with no lens, then I would call it a "FED-1S body, missing original lens". I would use these terminologies for collection terminologies because I am quite certain that the FED-1S came from the factory with the f 2.0/50 mm lens as standard equipment.
Even if you took the lens off a Smena, where the lens is permanently affixed, or if you cut a Smena in half and discard half, the remainder would be considered a Smena, but you would have to amend the description of the camera in some way.
That may be a bad or unreasonable example, but what I am saying is that the f 2.0 / 50 mm lens was 1/2 the reason why this camera was designated "FED-1S", the other half being the 1/1000th speed. So it is somewhat reasonable to say that the camera without the lens is a "FED-1S" without adding to the description that the original lens is missing.
Regards, Bill
Taking this into a separate thread since it started to becoming quite OT for the FED-S thread... Well Bill, we are taking two different approaches to the issue. I am taking more philosophical and classical approach wherein you are taking a more of a direct practical modern-world approach.
Let's start from the beginning. Word "Camera" in Latin, if I my vast nonexistent linguistic experience in my old age of 30 years old (turning 30 next week by the way), tells me correctly means "Chamber". Word "Chamber" means enclosed space or an enclosure or like a box. That does not take into account the existence of lenses. First camera was Camera Obscura which was a room with a whole (no lens, mind you).  ... thus this leads me to conclude that "Camera" really means "Camera Body" since that is a true chamber and the lens is an accessory. What you're saying is a cultural understanding and not the root of the term.
I invite everyone to jump into this argument. What does make a camera - camera? Are lens over the ages became an integral part of it, so you cannot separate the two? Or lens is still an accessory or an attachment to a camera? In my mind camera is the hand and the lenses are the gloves that you change depending on occasion. Is camera the same as "camera body" or not? If not when did lens become part of camera description? When lenses were first invented? Or when they made a first camera with non-removable lens?
Vlad |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 25 2008 : 11:58:04 PM
James, I do agree from collectors point of view as well... I guess my question was more general though.. concerning the concept itself and not a specific camera...
Vlad |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jan 25 2008 : 11:30:44 PM
Interesting discussion, but I agree with Bill and Zhang. Regarding the Fed S and from a Soviet camera collectors point of view the camera would not be complete and original if it is without the F2/50mm lens as it left the factory. A Fed S without it's original lens is therefore an incomplete Fed S and could only be described as such.
Incidentally I recently bought a Fed 2 in Baku with a Fed F2/50mm lens(Fed S) attached to it. In fact that was the only reason I bought the Fed 2, and at only ten dollars it was a real bargain.
Jim. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jan 24 2008 : 10:48:21 AM
Maybe I see it this way: When a camera is made, it is usually designed with a normal lens, which is sold with it. So what you buy is "a camera" (camera and lens). Most manuals include this lens in the instructions, as it is part of the camera (yes, it may come off the camera, but so does everything if you unscrew screws). So the camera is a complete unit that will take photographs from a 'normal' perspective that is supposed to loosely replicate what one sees (with 35mm cameras it is usually something near 50mm lens).
If you buy a different lens for the camera, it is an 'accessory lens', so possibly an accessory. But the lens that comes with the camera is probably not an accessory... it is part of the camera.
So FED-S is the camera and lens it came with. FED-S without FED 2 / 50 lens is an incomplete FED-S, or 'partial FED-S kit'.
Yes, the body, without wheels, engine, frame, etc. of a Lexus IS-200 is called a "Lexus IS-200 Body", but is not a Lexus IS-200.
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jan 24 2008 : 06:21:27 AM
Vlad
Luiz, you're being a bit evasive here - so is the lens also an accessory? So going back to original argument, in classic sense would FED-S body without lens still be FED-S "camera" no matter what lens someone puts on it?
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes the Lens is an accessory! By this same reason it is a lens!
You needn't them to make a photo. The pin hole or "steno" is an option. There is a third one, the LASER LIGHT, that forms an interference image (impossible with digital stuff) But the CAMERA is the basis of all. A known camera body is in itself a CAMERA with or without a lens.
The various applications of the term in the language are done as an information idea and is by no way the definitive sense of the word. That is true once the known terms vary from time to time.
Some time ago for instance, when you buy a Nikon camera, the EF for instance, was seen in its case: 'FULL CAMERA KIT" - Camera, Lens, Lens cap and Shoulder strap-. Is that true? |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 23 2008 : 4:13:19 PM
The different words in different languages can be surprising...
In French, we use "appareil photographique" or "appareil photo" (in Russian too: fotoapparat). No question of camera obscura or lucida!
But we use the word camera alone for "movie camera"...
Funny, isn't it? 
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 6:25:15 PM
I guess it should be called FED-1S Kit or Outfit then.. that would be a more accurate description...
Regarding human eye, yes I guess it is a biological camera of sorts... can't argue with that point. hehe
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 5:53:46 PM
Vlad,
I would have to put it this way about the FED-1S:
If you are a collector of soviet cameras and you have a FED-1S but it does not have a FED f 2.0 / 50mm lens on it (either because it has no lens or a different lens), then you should look for and buy a FED f 2.0 50mm lens to put on it.
Then you will be able to say: "I have a FED-1S in my collection".
If you don't have that lens on it, then you can say: "I have a FED-1S in my collection, but it is not complete because it is missing the proper lens".
So, I am saying, that in the case of the FED-1S, the camera was given the "S" designation by the FED factory, because it had both a faster lens and a faster shutter, not just one or the other.
I have nothing else to say about that FED-1S, as far as this question is concerned...
But to the general discussion of the definition of a camera, I would ask... just to complcate things...
Is the human eye a camera? (chamber, box, makes picture, has lens, has aperture, memory serves as imperfect film...etc.)
Regards, Bill
|
| Kievuser |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 4:27:44 PM
IMO, a camera must have a body and a lens(or a pinhole to serve as a lens). I think you talked about Fed-1S without a lens, but that is a Fed-1S camera body.:-) It seems that all Fed-S should come with a 50/2 lens as an original camera when they were sold.A camera takes pictures, but a camera body can't.
My two RMB.
Cheers,
Kievuser |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 4:25:18 PM
Luiz, you're being a bit evasive here - so is the lens also an accessory? So going back to original argument, in classic sense would FED-S body without lens still be FED-S "camera" no matter what lens someone puts on it?
Bill, I know it is much more general topic, but it started to puzzle me in more general sense, that's why I started this thread... I'm trying to figure out whether "camera body" and "camera" are 2 interchangeable words and although it is often assumed in commercial applications that camera usually includes lens. If this is established that we can go back to the original argument whether just mere presence of 1/1000 speed on the FED-S camera body makes it a FED-S or not. Do lens play a difference in calling the camera FED-S or not... whether if lens are removed that it becomes a FED-1 with 1/1000s... That is the dilemma, can we change the designation or model of the camera body if you all of the sudden remove the bundled lens.. I always thought lens was a bundled accessory which had no impact on the camera model and I don't see why FED-S would be an exception unless you tell me the reason for it.
If I'm being stubborn let me know, it's just I find this topic very fascinating
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 3:38:00 PM
Vlad,
Of course definitions can change over time. Just think of the meaning of civilization dirung the earliest times of the word and the definition of it now.
Also, as all resders of the dictionaries know, there is often many definitions to a word and an object can fall under many categories... not just one.
But I must say... this is not what we started to discuss when we were talking about the FED-1S ! In fact, that discussion would be OT here and was in the correct thread as we were talking about it.
So, it seems you are changing the subject a bit, and although this is also an interesting subject, it is much more general.
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 3:30:29 PM
Very easy people!
Camera is an Italian word CAMARA. This name was proposed by Leonardo da Vinci. This simple means ROOM.
The CAMARA OBSCURA or DARK ROOM , is exactly what you use for taking pictures. Leonardo resting in the floor of the closed and darkened room of his father's country house In the lighted Summer days had in its ceiling, visions of his future inventions.... One day, although he saw in the wall a hurried lamb and the shepherd running back. As he used to see all his inventions in the ceiling of the darkened room, he became intrigued in seeing such things in the Wall!  He soon discovered a hole in the window - The responsible for making the image. The FUTURE PHOTOCAMERA WAS UNVEILED!
So CAMERA is the basic device to take pictures. Everything else is accessory or complement. This includes the film and the CMOS, soft, circuitry, memory, cards etc |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 1:04:51 PM
I guess you are correct Jacques, well I'm just puzzled whether the definition of something changes over time or not... the core of the definition..
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 11:25:08 AM
Well, if we take the problem by the other side...
One can say that there are commonly two parts in a definition: comprehensive and extensive. You will find in each part a part of our discussion. The two ones are necessary to reach the concept.
I cannot go any farther in English (sorry) except to say that I propose we name our discussion the paradox of the marsupial (which has a pocket, but which is unable to put itself inside!).
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| okynek |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 10:47:35 AM
Yes, we also can not make pictures without film, developer, fixer, enlarger, photo paper and hack know what else. So should we include all of the above in camera definition? It can get crazy  |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 10:11:09 AM
I guess Jacques has something that makes some sense though... a notion of Camera (disregarding the original meaning of the word) is something that is able to function in terms of producing a result? So pin hole box camera if it is able to produce a result without the lens, would be a camera, and the leica with lens would be a camera since as Jacques said without the lens it cannot produce the result thus it's not a camera.. so physical description of the camera is fluid from one type of camera to another... it's the complete functionality that is the key..
But if thinking this way bring me to another topic.. jeez this is becoming too philosopical...... if functionality in terms of a result is what make a camera, I, for example, due to my lack of experience, need a light meter with my FED to produce a result, otherwise I over or under-expose and do not get the result... would that mean that for me a camera is my FED+lens+light meter? Is this a subjective or objective notion now?
And that ties in Okynek's theory, if it is subjective, it is then what people call a camera in their mind. But he also introduces the aspect of not having knowledge about particular camera - does it not make it camera.. like you show a Box Tengor to a 15 year old now he will go "what the heck is it?". in his mind this does not constitute a camera as he knows it to be.. so I don't know if we should be going by subjective terms... because then you can also prove that Elephant is a marsupial.
Vlad
|
| okynek |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 09:46:57 AM
And on other hand,
Let show box with a hole to 1000 people on the street. How many will call it a camera?
Let show Leica (FED, Kodak, Polaroid, Zenit.....) without a lens to 1000 people on the street most of them (I hope) will say that they see a camera
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 08:50:29 AM
A very hard questions, with multiple answers...
For me , a camera is something able to make pictures.
A box for shoes, with a correct hole will take pictures. A Leica without lens won't.
The former is a camera, the latter is only a body.
Perhaps I'm too simple!
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| okynek |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 08:16:21 AM
You asking very hard questions Vlad I do not think we can find answers what satisfy to every situation. Many years ago I had Kodak prof. field camera what remind me your UFK “Konstryctor” set by concept:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=12&ParentID=1&ContentID=120&Item=UFK+2
That set has 3 chatters, set of rails, bellows with fittings, few different backs: for 120 film, for 6x9 plates, for Polaroid film, and 5 lenses. What would be camera in this set?  |
|
|
