finished when new is not better

This commit is contained in:
counterweight 2025-01-31 23:04:39 +01:00
parent 68614c9de2
commit 2241ee8316
Signed by: counterweight
GPG key ID: 883EDBAA726BD96C
4 changed files with 129 additions and 33 deletions

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 337 KiB

Binary file not shown.

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 121 KiB

View file

@ -19,4 +19,9 @@ img {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
display: block;
}
figcaption a {
font-style: italic;
font-size: small;
}

View file

@ -19,8 +19,8 @@
<section>
<h2>When new is not better</h2>
<p>
One of the hobbies that has stuck with me for many years is photography. I've shot a few hundreds of
film rolls, and some unaccounted amount of digital pics.
One of the hobbies that has stuck with me for decades is photography. I've shot a few hundreds of
film rolls, and some non-recorded amount of digital pics.
</p>
<p>
It all started out when I was a slouchy teenager. One day I was diving through old cages at my parents
@ -32,46 +32,47 @@
</figcaption>
<p>
This little bad boy caught my eye and I started shooting with it for a bit. My father noticed the
passion building up and intelligently promoted it by making sure I would have as many film rolls and
passion building up and decided to promote it by making sure I would have as many film rolls and
print services as I needed, within reason.
</p>
<p>
This kickstarted a long passion which has walked with me for most of my life, with some high and low
activity periods and some brief adventures into digital photography which never quite worked out into
anything. I've ended up being an analog guy.
Unbothered by the expense each shot meant, a long passion started, and it has walked with me for most of
my life, with some high and low activity periods, as well as some brief adventures into digital
photography which never built up to anything. I've ended up being an analog guy.
</p>
<p>
A couple of years ago I stumbled upon that same Pentax P30n. It had been dusting away for another
season, this time shorter and in a shelf of my own instead of my parents. I took it out one day for
season (this time shorter) and in a shelf of my own instead of my parents. I took it out one day for
some fun and sadly found it not working at all. I tinkered a bit with it back at home, but nothing
seemed to fix it.
</p>
<p>
Beaten down by my ignorance in guerrilla camera repairing, I brought the camera with me to a local shop
with a technical service. They diagnosed an issue in one of the electronic components of main board, and
provided me with a budget. The budget was not expensive at all, but it was dramatically close to the
with a technical service. They diagnosed an issue in one of the electronic components of the main board,
and provided me with a budget. The budget was not expensive at all, but it was dramatically close to the
price these type of cameras will typically sell for in second hand markets nowadays. The heart told me
to just fix it, the brain to evaluate other options.
</p>
<p>
I started an interesting discussion with Sara, my favourite film dealer, about my options. At some point
in the conversation I asked her about the nature of the fault, and she explained how electronical
components of these cameras will always end up failing and are rather hard to fix, because the part and
components of these cameras will always end up failing and are rather hard to fix, because the parts and
knowledge slowly disappear from the market as the cameras grow older and put more years being
discontinued.
As we covered this, she pulled out a Minolta SRT-101 out of a shelf and put it into my hands.
discontinued. As we covered this, she pulled out a Minolta SRT-101 out of a shelf and put it into my
hands. The weight of it (almost two times that of the Pentax) caught me by surprise and I almost dropped
it.
</p>
<figcaption>
<figure>
<img width="75%" height="auto" src="../static/minolta-srt-101.jpg" alt="">
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
She tend proceed to just say: "This doesn't happen with cameras like this one", referring to the
unbelievably-for-its-size piece of metal that had just landed in my palms. I innocently asked why, and
she proceeded to explain how that Minolta was purely mechanical. Not only it didn't have electronics: it
simply didn't need electricty at all to work. It did have a small battery which would operate a
rudimentary lightmetering system, but that was completely optional. The camera could operate fully with
no battery in it. This was very different from my old Pentax, which would call it a day if its battery
died.
She then proceed to just say: "This issue doesn't happen with cameras like this one", referring to the
unbelievably-heavy-for-its-size piece of metal that had just landed in my palms. I innocently asked why,
and she proceeded to explain how that Minolta was purely mechanical. Not only it didn't have
electronics: it simply didn't need electricty at all to work. It did have a small battery which would
operate a rudimentary lightmetering system, but that was completely optional. The camera could operate
fully without power. This was very different from my old Pentax, which would call it a day if
its battery died.
</p>
<p>
I then looked back at the Minolta in awe. I knew enough about photography to know you don't need power
@ -84,11 +85,12 @@
So, why was I in awe with this Minolta? Well, I knew you could take pictures without power, but I didn't
know you could have a camera as sophisticated as the SRT-101 work fine without power. Except for the
lack of automatic speed selection and detection of the film roll's ISO sensitivity, it had every single
feature my father's Pentax P30n. It felt like as if I had some piece of alien technology between my
feature my father's Pentax P30n had. It felt like I had some piece of alien technology between my
fingers, which I had stolen from a time and place where things we couldn't even imagine were possible.
As if someone had given me a car that didn't need gas to work.
</p>
<p>
The discussion with Sara turned then swerved towards the Minolta. Sara told me about how the SRT-101 was
The discussion with Sara then swerved towards the Minolta. Sara told me about how the SRT-101 was
much simpler to fix than my old Pentax precisely because of the lack of electronics. Even though the
Minolta did have some very sophisticated mechanisms in its guts, the mechanical nature of it made them
easier to understand and patch. The lack of electronics also meant simpler parts sourcing.
@ -97,31 +99,120 @@
I was instantly sold on the Minolta, which has become my workhorse ever since.
</p>
<h3>
When new is not better
Old aluminium and young copper
</h3>
<p>
Now that I've delivered my long rant on how I fell in love with my Minolta and it's simplicity,
I want to jump into the lesson that I learned from this whole story. Well, actually, I don't think
I've strictly learned it from the Minolta only, but from many other similar situations when dealing
with human engineered things. The Minolta is probably just an incredible example.
with human engineered things. The Minolta is probably just an incredibly clear example.
</p>
<p>
The lesson is simply that new technology and features are not always better. Just like there is no
silver bullet for complexity, there is no silver bullet for adding fancy stuff into a camera without
sacrificing something. And I want to argue that not all of the combinations in the feature
richness/complexity spectrum make sense.
The lesson is simply that new technology and features are not always better than the old, previous
stuff. Just like there is no silver bullet for complexity, there is no silver bullet for adding fancy
stuff into a camera without sacrificing something. And I want to argue that not all of the combinations
in the feature richness/complexity spectrum make sense.
</p>
<p>
Let me focus on the example of my two cameras. Again, the features that the Pentax provides and the
Let me focus on the example of my two cameras. Again, the features that the Pentax does provide and the
Minolta doesn't are (1) detecting automatically the sensitivity of the film roll and (2) having an AUTO
mode for the shutter speed, which adjusts itself to the aperture and film sentivity to get the right
amount of light.
mode for the shutter speed, which adjusts itself to the set film sensitivity and shutter aperture so
that the shot gets the "right" amount of light.
</p>
<p>
The Minolta doesn't detect the film itself. Instead, this is solved by... you setting it. This is done
in a second by simply adjusting it on the same wheel where you select the shutter speed.
Not challenging or inconvienient by any means. You don't even need to know what the number means.
Roll says 100? Just rotate the wheel to 100.
</p>
<figure>
<img width="75%" src="../static/minolta-srt-101-iso-selector.png" alt="">
</figure>
<p>
On the shutter speed, the Pentax has the auto mode and the Minolta doesn't. That's it. Other than that,
both cameras are capable of a wide range of useful speeds.
</p>
<p>
Those are the two features we get with the Pentax. But what have we lost? Multiple things.
</p>
<p>
First of all, the inability to operate without power. Battery
died midway through the wedding? Too bad, hope you packed another one. Then, we have the maintenance
bit. The Pentax electronic circuits are key to operating critical elements like lightmetering or the
shutter. If the board gets fried, the camera is unusable. And getting someone to repair this kind of
stuff is becoming a harder to find, more expensive to pay service by the day, as demand fades away. This
contrasts with the Minolta, because there's a lot more people familiar with the mechanical operated
internals, which also tend to be shared across many cameras. </p>
<p>
So here I am, stuck with a beautiful 1968 piece of heavy metal that almost does the same that cameras
made in the 80s and 90s, yet is much simpler to maintain. I find this a beautiful case of when new is
not better.
</p>
<h3>
When new is not better
</h3>
<p>
I think a lot of us, a lot of time, confuse new with better. After all, we're progressing, aren't we?
</p>
<p>
In engineering, there's a lot of good engineers that know this is not the case. This gets embodied in
ideas such as that everything has trade-offs and there are no silver bullets. So every time someone
comes into the room with some fancy new candy that seems to be perfect, flawless, and completely
superior to previous technologies, a good engineer will quickly start searching for the drawbacks that
must be hidden somewhere. Or the call to <a href="https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">choose (old) boring technology</a>.
</p>
<p>
There are still young (or unprofessional) engineers which will go crazy over new stuff without judging
if it's the right tool or if it's better than what we already have. Obviously, we might try new stuff
for fun. But at work, we should choose the right, good stuff, not the novelty.
</p>
<p>
Outside of engineering, I think things are looking way more bleak. I see large chunks of society
swallowing new tech like crazy with no critical judgment of whether what's being put in front of them is
truly better that what they already have. And I think a lot of new tech is outright negative.
</p>
<p>I can see how Skype was awesome when it came out, for example, but I can't see how Instagram is a net
positive for society widely, and for each individual that's using it individually. Electric cars? It
feels dauntingly similar to my camera story. I've already seen several full electric and pluggable
hybrids in my social circles see their batteries go below 70% capacity in less than five years.
Replacements for those are super complex and crazy expensive. If only we had engines that could refuel
for 1,000 kms in two minutes... And let's not get into how vehicles in the 60s where highly repairable
at home, parts could be sourced from a million places and people would even have fun tinkering with them
to change their behaviour. I've had grandpa stories on pops operating the gas of his Seat 600 with a
guerrilla-like set up with a string coming in through the driver's window cause the gas pedal broke. How
beautiful is that?
</p>
<p>
Or videogames! 90s and early 00s game development was crowded by studios which were doing art. Beautiful
stories, innovative experiences, pushing the boundaries of tech to get what they wanted. Working on
their pieces to be great. For its own sake. Now we just get some kind of soft-porn version of slot
machines, and the fucking companies that built it proudly state that they "build unforgettable games
that delight millions of fans". Dear God.
</p>
<figure>
<img width="75%" src="../static/social-point-bullshit.png" alt="">
<figcaption><a
href="https://ifunny.co/picture/jack-megarry-oh-fuck-off-rebecca-he-did-not-say-KMp8QJ159"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oh fuck of Rebecca, you don't do that</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>
Anyway, now I'm truly ranting.
</p>
<p>
I wonder why this happens, and whether it has always happened. I want to think the problem wasn't this
intense some decades ago. People were more skeptic on new stuff. This probably had it's downsides in
terms of limiting adoption of great new things, but it also protected us from plenty of nasty stuff
that's pouring out now.
</p>
<p>
I guess we're in an age of such fast-paced change we're just having trouble judging everything that
flows into our lives. The world is changing fast, and lots of tradition and culture are just not being
able to keep up with it. I've also noticed how people have such terrible short-term memory. Again, I
don't know if this is a modern ache as well or it's been like this since the dawn of age. But it seems
people forget about why we do things in a certain way, and then we something new comes around, they
jump into it without appreciating the virtues of what they already have.
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="../index.html">back to home</a></p>
</section>