Thread: Why??????
View Single Post

Old 02-19-2019   #10
Registered User
ChipMcD is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 472
I started with a Yashica TLR, because a used one was all I could afford in 1970 when I started shooting as a teenager. I went fallow on photography after college until completing law school some years later. At that point I badly needed some diversion from law practice during my very limited free time. I went through a succession of Nikon 35mm SLRs and eventually also got back into medium format with a Hassie 500C/M "Classic Kit" and a Rolleiflex 3.5 F. I got a few more lenses for the Hassie when they got much cheaper after digital became practical for wedding photographers and Hasselblad equipment got dumped in a flood 10 or more years ago. Finally got bitten by the Leica M bug (MP) later. I resisted digital, then tried several brands and formats before settling on Nikon full frame (D4), mainly because I had Nikon lenses already, and Olympus micro four thirds (EM1 v1) because it was very good and was lighter for travel that was not strictly photo oriented (and where I didn't want to drive my wife nuts). I've settled on the equipment I have now because (a) it is paid for and (b) is better than I am. It will never be the limiting factor in my photography; I fulfill that function.

Having retired a year ago, I am shooting a lot more now. I too am back to shooting mostly film, most recently predominantly the Hassie on a tripod, but the Leica and Nikon film cameras still get a lot of use too. For me, film is for B&W and digital for color. I started in B&W and still mostly see that way. On both the film and digital sides, I can't see the need to upgrade from what I have now. Assuming that film still exists when I can no longer shoot or I die, some person or persons can take over a nice equipment legacy.
  Reply With Quote