A simple question

[farlymac]

I know what I can and cannot do with a camera, so it's basically what the camera can do that intrigues me. I bought many a camera to see what the fuss was all about the particular system, and whether they would fit my type of photography.

Then I got into collecting the old and odd things that no one seemed to care about anymore. And purchasing many a P&S for a dollar or two to see which ones were optically and mechanically good to excellent.

I can't stop because I keep finding interesting little bits of history, like the Donald Duck camera I got last week, and yesterday the Polaroid Mini Portrait (Model 203) used to take passport photos. I also have a hard time figuring out the best way to divest myself of the accumulation.

I wish I could find the time and money to use and enjoy all the cameras I have but things have changed over the years, and it gets harder to justify keeping them all, especially living in a one bedroom apartment.

Used to be I would tell people I was a user, not a collector of cameras. Didn't take long for that to flip over.

PF

 

[kshapero]

I want them and enjoy them and also it's GASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!

 

[JeffS7444]

I got three primary (digital) cameras, with FF, M43 and 1" sized sensors respectively. I like to think it's a logical arrangement, but I admit that if you took away two of them, my photos would probably look much the same.

Film cameras: No carbon angst about buying cameras which were manufactured decades ago! The film itself isn't pollution free, but these are lightly-used toys for me, and especially for the prewar or iron curtain cameras, a way to touch history. Refurbishing and reselling film cameras also provides me with a bit of extra spending money.

 

[RichC]

No idea. I've got just one now. All I need despite photography being important to me - I've an MA degree and was taught by a Magnum photographer (Mark Power).

Perhaps because I'm not interested in cameras except as a tool, and modern high-end mirrorless digital cameras (Sony A7R series, Nikon Z, Canon R) are like Swiss army knives: they are so versatile and adaptable they can do anything you ask of them with an almost limitless choice of lenses and options.

The only thing that matters is the end result - the photo. Why would I want to make achieving that more difficult by using several cameras when owning just one makes getting "that shot" faster and more efficient by avoiding the clutter of pointless extra and unnecessary equipment?

As for collecting. I don't get it. I don't understand it. Never have, never will. I've not collected anything in my life, and not had the slightest urge. Utter mystery why people have an obsession to own groups of stuff...!

 

[Dogman]

Fascination turned to obsession. Boredom during COVID lockdowns. Ease of internet shopping.

Those are the "how's". The "why" is harder to define. Maybe because I like 'em?

 

[mapgraphs]

To borrow a simple equation, the number of tools needed to pursue a creative process is n + 1.

One sharpened or mechanical pencil might make it through a sketch, however tips wear down, leads break so it's n + 1. That doesn't mean you sell the worn down pencil. Rather it suggests that a backup might be appropriate...

This is without getting into graphite hardness, by scale and brand (Japanese pencils tend to be softer than a corresponding German or Czech) or paper surface, sharpeners, erasers etc....

Then there's ink and pens... Dip, reservoir, nibs... I think there might be a slippery slope in here somewhere but I'd say it all comes down to n + 1... ; - )

 

[jsrockit]

Not such a simple question after all. The answer is personal and probably has nothing to do with accomplishing goals in photography. There is also no right answer despite what some of us might think. Some people see cameras as tools to use for a final resulting photo, some see cameras as art in themselves. I would not own cameras if I didn’t want to make photos. That doesn’t mean I don’t still think they are cool objects.

 

[farlymac]

Not such a simple question after all. The answer is personal and probably has nothing to do with accomplishing goals in photography. There is also no right answer despite what some of us might think. Some people see cameras as tools to use for a final resulting photo, some see cameras as art in themselves. I would not own cameras if I didn’t want to make photos. That doesn’t mean I don’t still think they are cool objects.

As an amendment to my earlier post, as I've upgraded my camera systems, I tend to not get rid of the older gear. They can come in handy as back-ups, and sometimes it's a sentimental reason to keep them like being able to show my progression from 1/2.3 to 1/1.7 to APS-C to FF.

PF

 

[Darthfeeble]

Simpler answer: Because we can.

 

[Pál_K]

There are psychological aspects of buying things. As with many hobbies, there is an enormous amount of satisfaction in learning about a camera, doing the research, anticipating the purchase, and imagining how much fun it will be to own. Once bought, there is a certain anticlimax. Soon, you want to experience that pleasure again. So the process begins anew.

A friend of mine once said that people who are addicted to shopping do so because it gives them a sense of re-birth.

Here is a link to a wonderfully entertaining article I read about 21 years ago on TimeZone - a mechanical watch forum. It was written by Ludwig, an ultimate connoisseur of mechanical watches, who describes his “descent into Hell” - starting with just one watch and then buying more and more...

(“My Descent Into Hell - The Mind of a Watch Addict”)

https://omegaforums.net/threads/my-descent-into-hell-the-mind-of-a-watch-addict.118376/

I met Ludwig once at a dinner for TimeZone readers in Seattle. He let me hold two of his F.P. Journe watches - over $100,000 in each of my hands!

 

[seany65]

I bought most of mine partly 'cos I liked the look of them, partly 'cos I wanted different formats, partly 'cos most of them work a little differently to most of the others and so make me have to adapt to each camera, partly 'cos it's just New Buttons and Switches and levers to fiddle with.😱😱

 

[Oscuro]

Darling Bill,

I think perhaps it may be this:
When I work in the past in film I chose Tri-X and Plus-X and Kodachrome. With the right exposure these films working for me in the best ways. The camera (Nikon and Leica) were less important: they are the box that holds the film which is the look of the picture with the right exposure and framing. I did not have many cameras in film. Some lasted more than thirty years!

Now digital. Don't talk to me about RAW. I would rather many things than sit at a computer "processing" a picture. Not this girl there ever! But with digital jpg the camera has become the film in a way. Some cameras [the sensor, and something my husband says is "jpeg engine" (shhh, I know is software)] look one way and some cameras and engine look another. How do you like the way some and others look with the right exposure and framing and subject?

This may be why I have more digital cameras in my past than film cameras - even when I have shot film for many years longer than digital.

At first I thought it was the enchantment of the process. Somehow I was made more real by making images of the subjects in front of the camera. There is maybe a exchange of "realness" when I make a picture. Perhaps a unconscious need to buy more "process of making myself real". This may be a reason.

But I try lipstick until I find the colour that is right in the right light. Camera jpegs are more subtle than the lipstick so it takes longer to decide if the camera is right--in the right light.

The life is strange... the more I am shooting in digital, some part of my heart wants to shoot more like with B&W film. Now I am trying to make acceptable split-tone look with camera jpeg...

Abrazos,
Mme. O.