What would the 1960's/70's photographers use if digital was alive then?

I'm just chucking out this question to see people's opinions on a subject that fascinates me.

Basically, if technology had been more advanced earlier on (we had the current digital camera's around in the 1960's - 70's) what camera's do you think the street, photo journalists, war reportage, etc photographers would use?

From what I can gather, they mostly favoured Nikon F camera's, but if digital had been here 40-50 years sooner, would they have taken a tank like full frame, or something light in a crop sensor camera?

Going back even way further, I wonder what Henri Cartier-Bresson would have laid his hands on...

Hold a Nikon F or a Leica M3 in your hands and you will understand it all.

The current revolution in sensor technology is amazing. We are fixing to see FX sensors in very compact bodies with interchangeable lenses that are also small and will have better IQ's then ever before.

Someday soon clunky big DSLR bodies are going to go the way of the dinosaurs and we are going to have something similar to the F's and M's of days past again.

I cannot wait myself.

How long? Inside of 5 years...

After all Oskar invented the 35mm mini camera so he could have a compact camera to take with him hiking.

Fujifilm xpro1 or even the little x100 ! IMHO ! And they would not be complaining about grain - they would have embraced it ! Lol

Well I was a photographer in the 70. I shot a Mamiya 645. I have big hands and I like a camera that feels like it fits my hand. I shoot the D 3100 now and it is at the low end of what feels comfortable. I hope they don't drop the DSLRs any time soon. Don't get me wrong though. I like the little pocket cameras for certain things

We built things more sturdy back then, so a digital camera back then would probably have been all metal and heavy. It's hard to imagine one technology advance without the rest, would it have a screen and all the menu options? It would be interesting if someone came out with a retro DSLR now!

tracsoft said:

I have big hands and I like a camera that feels like it fits my hand. ...

Click to expand...

Good thoughts tracsoft. When I shopped for my DSLR, I quickly found that some camera bodies felt too small and awkward to hold. This matters greatly, as the body should fall comfortably to hand without fumbling with it. Shopping merely by camera specification would be a big mistake I think.

Back then, late 60's early 70's, I was wondering what film to buy, ISO 100 or 400 and actually wondering what it actually meant. I had an Agfa something 'er other camera and I just loaded it, pointed and clicked it. You had about 20 shots per roll to prove your worth and I could never wait til I got those photos back, usually took 3 - 4 days to get them developed and for a schoolboy, waiting that long that was murder. I used to haunt the local racetrack in the summertime and had mountains of photos of car and bike drivers/riders,, some of whom went on to become very well known or even world champs in their classes. They used to come here during the northern hemisphere off season just to stay in-tune over their winter. No such worries for a teenager about which camera to have.. You had what you had and made good use of it...

It all seemed so real back then... Now, looking back, it all seems so surreal...

If someone mentioned digital cameras, megapixels or even computers and tried to explain just what it all meant and how they all inter-relate, I'd look them in the eye and ask what drugs they were on... Boy we've come a long way since then,, thanks heavens...

I'm thinking that they would be shooting what todays equivalent photographers use in the field, DSLRs - perhaps not the street photogs since there are better options. I am also sure that they would use other cameras, like the one in the iPhone. If the technology was around as it is today, why would it be any different than today? Here is a look inside of a war photographers bag:
A Glimpse Inside the Camera Bag of a War Photographer

I don't believe big DSLR bodies are going away any time soon. I agree with the posts here about having something substantial to hold on to. I think there is room for both full size and compact sizes in the future. I have big hands and I can't stand the smaller DSLR's. I am deathly afraid of dropping them when they are that small. I owned Pentax cameras for years and their schtick has been to make them as small as possible...much smaller than most Nikons. I had to have the battery grip for every body or I didn't feel comfortable using them.

I will always shop for a camera that fits my ergo requirements and I assure you I'm not the only one.

I was at BestBuy yesterday buying a new SD card and there was a young couple there looking at a pocket Nikon for their 14 year old daughter. I could over hear the salesman telling how great it was.Right next to it was a Nikon Coolpix 510. IT was the same price, same Megapixel, longer zoom. In my opinion it is a better bargain for the money. I told the mom to pick up the camera and see how it felt. You could see it in her eyes. The camera felt more like a REAL camera. She and the dad both said that the camera looked more professional. IT is still a point and shoot but I think the daughter will be happier with it since she wants to learn more about photography. Look and feel are an important factor in everything we do/buy. [h=3][/h]

My favorite nikon slr is the F3, and would love if my D800 would fit the same form factor, but would not have enough room for the display and buttons so form follows function a bit.

I see Olympus has came out with a retro 3/4 SLR with what looks like a metal outer body, tough looking, weather sealed, and smaller. I know this is a Nikon site, but maybe they have something. When I was a film person, Nikon was a primary setup, but did own an Olympus PC, and still remember how nice the old PC felt in the hand.