Value of Pride of Ownership?

I have few cameras, so I use what I have.

However, I do often notice there is a confusion on the interweb between the cost of a camera and it's value
 
Roger Hicks said:
Neither 'pride' nor 'affection' is quite the right word. But generally, I know within minutes of picking up a camera whether I am going to get on with it or not. I may revise my opinion up or down -- like it more or like it less -- but I do not recall an occasion when a change of mind has been anything stronger than indifference changing to mild liking as I get used to it.

The thing is, I just feel more at home with some cameras than others, and I make more and better pictures with them. In a fair number of cases, the cameras I feel most at home with are quite expensive, so 'pride of ownership' is as good a term as any. But there are also expensive cameras I don't get on with: the majority of roll-film reflexes, for example, whether SLR or TLR, or most autofocus SLRs, usually because they have too many controls, complications and modes, and are too damn' big. There are also inexpensive cameras I like, such as the Nikon EM I already mentioned, or my 55-year-old Retina IIa (not that it was inexpensive when it was new).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...



so then, a favourite camera...with a favourite wrist strap...would fall into this category also?

;)
 
Pride in ownership is less important than skill and proficiency. I guess pride could impact one's desire to master the tool, but I suspect there are a list id other factors that have much greater influence over one's development as a photographer.
 
Pride of ownership/possession of objects is a nonsensical idea, (and probably a sin).

Be proud of your achievements, and be happy with your gear.
 
Mack said:
Pride of ownership/possession of objects is a nonsensical idea, (and probably a sin).

Be proud of your achievements, and be happy with your gear.
Click to expand...

A sin? You must be Catholic. Or Presbyterian maybe? Guilt is the main tool of the church.
 
It's fun to try out something different, and new or old isn't part of the equation. It's new to YOU! Your mind isn't caught up in trying to get a great photo. You just want to see how it feels and what it'll do.

The past few years I've mostly been getting rid of stuff, paring down the selection of cameras and lenses. I still have a 400mm f/6.3 "stove pipe", partly for nostalgia reasons. It shot two record album covers (for bands you probably never heard about...LOL) and more than paid for itself. The 280/4.8 Telyt and 180/2.8 Elmarit are gone. The fish-eyes, gone. The Haselblad kit, gone. The 4x5 view camera and lenses, gone. The Leicaflex SL's and R lenses, gone. It feels good.

I'll chime in that I too am an atheist.
 
Last edited:
We all get our chakras misaligned at times ... i take pride in my kids, the rest is just stuff and not worth arguing about
 
It could, if ownership of a long-sought tool motivates the owner to learn how to exploit it to the greatest extent.

OTOH, knowing the tool used to take pictures might sway someone to rate them higher than they merit.
 
bmattock said:
I don't know if using a camera I have affection for makes me use it better than one I have no particular feeling for, but on the other hand, it doesn't harm my photos, either. And I derive enjoyment in using a camera I am fond of, so that seems a good enough reason to use it, supposing that I am understanding of its limitations and use it within those parameters.
Click to expand...
What I'll add is that, the more experience you gain regarding the photographic process, the less "mystery" hangs around the tools and processes themselves. I still had a bit of Magic Box Syndrome when I bought my first really good camera (Canon F-1), moving from a Yashica GTN. Yeah, my photography in fact did improve noticeably, and not just technically, but I think I was attributing too much of my photographic "enlightenment" to the camera in my hand at the time. If you handed me Lance Armstrong's bike, I doubt my lap times around Prospect Park would budge all that much, although the riding experience itself might be interesting. I'm too old and experienced not to "own the process", regardless of the tool at hand.

But I firmly believe you have to like the tools you're working with. This has less to do with certain limitations of the gear (RFs have a smaller range of focal lengths than SLRs, and so on) as it does with how you get on with it in general terms (intuitive/quick handling, non-confusing controls, etc.) These are often things you might not reflect upon until you've had a camera for several years, long after the first flush of fascination has faded (though the images taken, hopefully, have not:)). I usually only think about this if I've started thinking at all about replacing what I've got with something else. This hasn't happened to me in a long time as far as my main shootin' iron is concerned. I've had the occasional p/s camera come and go (I'm currently addicted to my new-to-me Contax Tvs, which I've had since about May, while sending off my Konica Lexio 70 to Galfriend's niece in Iceland), but that's about it. "Pride of ownership" is something I don't quite grok anymore. Happiness, or at least serious contentedness with these things, I do grok.

("Happiness" at least by this metric, is a 'fridge full of film and a head full of ideas.)


- Barrett
 
The attitude with which one does something can affect the outcome.

The tool used can affect the user's attitude.

Therefore, the tool can affect the outcome (in this non-direct manner).
 
what about a lucky shirt? do you get better images while wearing your superstitious socks, your rabbit's foot, etc.?

can your attitude and emotional state contribute to the quality of your output? can what you're using contribute to that overall sense of well-being? sure. to a limited extent, it's possible. conversely, can everything be perfect, the right gear, the right light, your lucky shooter's vest on your back, money in the bank, your new/used MP having just the right amount of brassing, the magic 21 cron clicked carefully into the bayonet, etc. and you still get crappy images? sure.

I'll say that recently going back to film with an M2 and a hand-held meter has not made me better, but it does require me to more actively involved in deciding how I shoot. I need to be more mentally engaged. Does this make for better pictures? sometimes yes, sometimes no. the experience does have a far different texture to it. the requirement that I own a little more of the process by not being able to rely on AE from my M8 absolutely insists on a different level of mental investment. having to work with the one film stock I've loaded, without being able to click a button to go from 160 to 2500 iso or from color to b&w does changes the nature of the process. I also don't click off nearly as many frames with film as I do with digital. Nevertheless, at the end, it's simply a different tool in the same old hands. Give a me and a skilled carpenter both the same woodworking tools and one of us might produce a fine piece of furniture while the other might create eight or nine bandaged and bruised fingertips.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
The attitude with which one does something can affect the outcome.

The tool used can affect the user's attitude.

Therefore, the tool can affect the outcome (in this non-direct manner).
Click to expand...


So do we ascribe the outcome to the corporeal bit? or is it just the kit that counts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom