Stephen S. Mack
Member
Who was it who said, "when I have a little money, I buy books. If there is anything left I buy food and ________" ; forgot what else he'd buy if he had any money left over from buying books, but I thought that it could be updated to: "when I have a little money, I buy cameras and film. If I have any left, I buy food and clothing."
With best regards,
Stephen S. Mack
With best regards,
Stephen S. Mack
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I've always heard it attributed to Erasmus. A good way for a group to get to know each other is to have everyone write down what thye would buy and then also what they think each other would buy in that sentence. Quite revealing...
William
William
John Camp
Well-known
I've read this entire thread, and sitting here thinking about it, I can honestly say that I've never had or collected any mechanical device, from camera to car to boat or pen/pencil, for which I felt any strong affection or thought of as anything but a tool. I do recognize that some of them had aesthetic qualities -- nice looking cars -- but I never felt any regret when I got rid of them.
The four things that I collect with serious affection are photography, paintings, pottery and books (I have a couple of thousand books on painting, perhaps five hundred on photography.)
One reason that I may eventually leave the Leica fold is that I have no particular affection for Leicas, which most other Leica people seem to have -- they speak about their love for the nocti or the M3 or whatever. I very much like the effect of a good nighttime informal noctilux street portrait, but it's the portrait I like, not the lens.
While I haven't felt any *strong* affection for these tools, I do find that wandering around with a Nikon D300 (but not the D3) hanging from my fingertips feels pretty good. I've always liked Nikons; they fit me. But I'm not pulled backwards by any of them -- when a new model comes out, I usually move along to it.
JC
The four things that I collect with serious affection are photography, paintings, pottery and books (I have a couple of thousand books on painting, perhaps five hundred on photography.)
One reason that I may eventually leave the Leica fold is that I have no particular affection for Leicas, which most other Leica people seem to have -- they speak about their love for the nocti or the M3 or whatever. I very much like the effect of a good nighttime informal noctilux street portrait, but it's the portrait I like, not the lens.
While I haven't felt any *strong* affection for these tools, I do find that wandering around with a Nikon D300 (but not the D3) hanging from my fingertips feels pretty good. I've always liked Nikons; they fit me. But I'm not pulled backwards by any of them -- when a new model comes out, I usually move along to it.
JC
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear John,
Has that made you a better photographer?
That's not an attack. Some people find that a new camera does, indeed, prompt them to become a better photographer. Others reckon that if they've got a tool they're familiar with, and that delivers good results, there's no reason to move on until the new model offers a compelling mix of new features.
Thus, I didn't get a new Leica between the M4-P and the MP, because although the M6 had a meter, it also had the M4-P finder which I find markedly inferior to the M2. Then the MP came along with the meter, better finder, trigger base...
Even then, it's not exactly a new model; more like an improved version of the camera I had. With Nikons, I love the brutal simplicity of the F; the F2 struck me as a ponced-up F, the F3 as just pointless, and subsequent models as increasingly oversized.
Finally -- let's be honest -- the less time and money I spend 'upgrading' my cameras, the more time and money I can spend on using them, which is the bit I really enjoy (and what they're for).
Cheers,
R.
-doomed-
film is exciting
I'll agree with you in that sense , classic cars at times really arent worth the money; I have two things i am enthusiastic about ,and those would be cars and photography . I mean the cars got me into it because i was always taking pictures of them , but soon i started wanting my shots to get more detailed so i got a camera with a zoom and all that , then it was a DSLR . I was in the middle of a decision between buying a donor to restore my beetle and a new lense for my DSLR (this was before i discovered the rangefinder and all its glory) I bought the lense.
I think back on it and say why did i buy the lense over the car, ive been a car nut for as long as i can remember. I bought it because i really and truly enjoy photography. I put my car hobby on the back burner alot to cameras and camera gear now.
My priorites have changed i guess , not so much that i feel one is better, but if it were between my beetle and a chance to pick up a decent used M3 or M4 , id pick the camera, i guess i just like being able to capture life or a moment in time i cannot replicate ever again.
I hope that all makes sense.
- Scott
Last edited:
Henryah
Member
About priorities.
There was a burglar some years ago,who made the following statement; If there is a Lada parked outside, there must be something valuable inside.
Keep your front door locked!
Henry
There was a burglar some years ago,who made the following statement; If there is a Lada parked outside, there must be something valuable inside.
Keep your front door locked!
Henry
John Camp
Well-known
Roger,
That quick assertion that the question isn't an attack made me laugh -- isn't that just the way of the Internet now, where any kind of a question, however innocent, is often treated as an attack?
The fact is, when I upgraded from an F3 to F4 to F5 to D1x to D2x to D3 (and D300), I did at each step become somewhat better as a photographer, mostly because I wasn't all that good to begin with. I believe a better camera helps a no-more-than-competent photographer more than an excellent photographer. Each of those F upgrades was significant -- much more significant, I would argue, than any M upgrade after the M3 -- especially for my use, which was mostly journalism. I was a writer, not primarily a photographer, though I was good enough and interested enough in the photography that I wound up publishing quite a few photographs in both newspapers and (scholarly) magazines and now in online publications.
I once had the privilege of working for an entire year on one project (as a writer) with a truly excellent photographer, and his ability to "see" actually altered the way I wrote; his pictures forced me to notice and to deal with things that I hadn't seen on my own, and made the stories much better. That's the difference between competence and excellence.
By the way, I've taken a good deal of instruction from you and Frances, and your books remain in my collection...
JC
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Indeed. I bought my first SLR because a colleague made breathtaking pictures with his Contax G1. I had a fixed focus piece of sh*t back then and didn't know anything about photgraphy. I worked that first plastic SLR very hard and within a few short years I upgraded to a top of the line model of the same manufacturer. The finder, the AF system and the new lenses were quantum leaps over my old equipment. My pictures got a lot better too. But working with that first SLR tought me what the limitations were of my equipment. So what made me a better photographer?
My Nikon D70 was actually a step back compared to my film SLR. But the instant feedback of digital also made me better, especially in the studio or when adapting to changing light conditions. Digital is a lot less forgiving on the edge than negative film is. When you see your mistakes instantly, it helps a lot that you can try again immediately.
But when I upgraded again to a D200, I had to admit that I appreciated the advancements over the D70... but it didn't show up in my pictures anymore. My photographic style and interests were changing too.
After picking up a Nikon FM, and shooting a few rolls of B/W I had a new challenge again. Figuring out the FM was quite easy and I really enjoyed its efficient simplicity. But getting the best out of 35mm B/W, that's a wholly different game... and I am still looking at new mistakes. But that won't stop me to get a nice MF camera soon. And yes, I also had to buy a rangefinder Leica with a 'cron, to understand what that's all about. I think I'm starting to get it...
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Scott,
Yes, and I think this is very important.
You need to be able to recognise when YOUR priorities have changed; when your younger self is still setting them; and when someone else is trying to change them for you.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Squonk
Established
I would submit that it's not upgrading your camera that makes you a better photographer, but (apart from taking lots of pictures and looking at good ones) changing cameras or camera systems. This will often induce new types of pictures and make you grow as a photographer. In that respect, upgrading from a Canon 40D to 50D (check out the flurry of 40D's currently being sold on eBay 
) will give you less gain than switching from that 40D to a full manual 70s SLR (i.e. downgrading!) or a rangefinder or a Ricoh GRD or a MF folder or TLR or...
I experienced the same phenomenon in music, when switching from a classical to an electric guitar or using a synth for the first time after only playing the piano. The new sounds at your disposal almost automatically make you play different kinds of music and rekindle your creativity.
) will give you less gain than switching from that 40D to a full manual 70s SLR (i.e. downgrading!) or a rangefinder or a Ricoh GRD or a MF folder or TLR or...I experienced the same phenomenon in music, when switching from a classical to an electric guitar or using a synth for the first time after only playing the piano. The new sounds at your disposal almost automatically make you play different kinds of music and rekindle your creativity.