Cameras - aesthetics and/or function ?

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
10:29 AM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
At times , I find that a [ digital , these days ] has acceptable specifications , but does not excite .
I know that ASdee gets in the way of 'seeing' things , but I wonder if real people experience this .

I have been this way with Nikon and Canon offerings , have bought a Sony A35
which leaves me indifferent , it feels plastic and looks boring .
it has to go .

By contrast , a stripped out entry level Sony A290 , made for just one year - clearing old CCD 14mp sensor ? and even more hard plastic looks and feels ' comfortable/ familiar '.

Most of all a severely outdated 7mp Panasonic L1 is ever a delight to return to .

I mention this because i have acquired pair of new bargain Fujifilm cameras - X-Pro 1 27mm and plastic bodied X-M1 16-50 .
Both appeal in style and 'comfort zone '. I like the IQ and files of the 16mp sensor which appears in both cameras , so it's form AND function.
They evoke the same attraction as the Pan L1 ' Leica Dig 3 .

Despite having no funds , I have played with several Fuji X cameras in stores and they all have that indefinable aesthetic .

For this reason alone , I am considering an SLR styled Fuji X-T10 which is more up to date
than my deleted bargains .

In other words , having entered the Fuji world for sensible outlay , by Fuji standards of £520 , I am contemplating outlaying that again for the X-T10 , maybe clearing the X-M1 body , and other cameras to help finance it .

it's wholly unexpected - I anticipated being content with a foothold into Fuji , but seem to have been hooked on the system .
I don't need any other lenses - the 27 and 16-50 cover my mainly architectural preferences .

Would you persist with a camera which performs perfectly , but simply does not grab you ?

dee
 
dee said:
Would you persist with a camera which performs perfectly , but simply does not grab you ?
Click to expand...

I have at times, and at other times, I haven't. I had used a Sony for about a year, and while it was great results wise, it never really felt right. For me, the Fuji stuff just feels right and works great. I truly feel that I make better photographs when the camera feels right in my hands. That is enough for me to make the change when the camera doesn't grab me. Let's face it, many of these new cameras are pretty great results wise.

Of course, if I was a professional, maybe I'd need the best tool for the job. But as a proud amateur that is only trying to make art, I feel I have the benefit of using exactly what I like.
 
It ain't the saw it's the sawyer

It ain't the saw it's the sawyer

Dear Dee,

I have nothing state of the art, or even rather recent, as far as photographic gear goes except for a couple of 2 or 3 year old digital P&S's.

I simply enjoy taking pictures of things that interest me in the outside natural world. I am overwhelmingly a bird and wildlife photographer. As such, I do the best I can with what I have and overall I am generally happy with my results.

I have both Canon and Nikon DSLRs purchased used and a number of lenses to accompany both. I also have Canon and Nikon film cameras and lenses for them as well. Both brands suffice for me and I can easily deal with the vagaries of either brand when I am out using one or the other.

However, if money was no object I would definitely buy some newer, more modern gear. And it could be from either brand or even from both. I like to make do with I have in hand as I view a camera as a simply a tool, and I'm just a lousy mechanic trying my best to make something work.

Here is a recent photo of mine that I am pleased with so you know more about the things I'm talking about. Taken with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 150-600 OS lens.


Buck 7-12-17 by Tim Murphy, on Flickr

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA :)
 
dee said:
Would you persist with a camera which performs perfectly , but simply does not grab you ?

dee
Click to expand...

Simple answer...no. Probably because I have the two cameras I have always wanted. Life is short and we only live once...demand for yourself whatever makes you happy and content and that is within your means I say.

Another point...I have a great camera on my phone...hardly ever use it though because it just doesnt trip my trigger. Plus I leave the house everyday with at least one of the two cameras sans walkie talkie mentioned above..sometimes both.
 
Sony cameras and lenses are worst for appeal to me. I was surprised to see Leica copying Sony A7 with SL (disaster by all means, IMO.) Except those ultra-slick Sony P&S, but I don't think they made them wide enough on the lens end to be functional for P&S.
IMHO.
 
Since I'm not an artist or even a competent photographer then the 'looks' of a camera are about all I have left. I can relate to having no 'feeling' when you pick up a plasto-blob digital SLR or mirrorless. However my pulse still quickens when I handle my Pen F or OM-1, they are a delight. Mind you, there were butt ugly cameras in the film era too. For sheer lumpy ugly you couldn't beat a Contarex Bullseye. Exacta's could be ugly, but like V-dub bugs, they grew on you. The Miranda D was a sleek, pretty camera but the Sensorex was lumpy ugly. M-42 mount Pentax's were ok until they made the ES. Adding that 6~7 mm on the bottom to hold the batteries just spoiled that cameras appearance.
The original Canon F-1 was just right but the F-1n's styling changes sorta ruined that cameras look. And of course most folks agree a Nikon F always looks so much better with the plain, non-metered prism.
 
dee said:
Would you persist with a camera which performs perfectly , but simply does not grab you ?
Click to expand...
I would - and have...

The answer depends on why you take photographs.

I loathe my main digital camera, an expensive Nikon D800E I bought new.

My preference is for manual cameras and manual lenses, and metal not plastic. (My ideal camera would be a digital Nikon F2.) Before the Nikon I used an Epson RD-1 followed by a Leica M8 - the closest I could get to a 1970s SLR camera with a sensor when I bought them in 2004 and 2007, respectively! Both beautifully made cameras that were a joy to use. I especially loved the Epson with its dials and knobs.

But for me it's become all about the image. I need a tool - a camera that gives me the photographic results I want efficiently and reliably. So, I examined how I took photos and what I needed from the images (wide dynamic range, high-megapixel files as I print large, reliability, ease of use, accurate viewfinder, wide choices of manual lenses, fully manual mode, etc.) and chose a camera that fitted as many of my goals as possible and which I could afford (the perfect camera would be medium format digital - but unaffordable!). That was the Nikon D800E. I sold my Leica M8 and lenses so I could buy the Nikon.

That was 4 years ago. To this day I have no love for my Nikon. It remains a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. It does its job very well but I have no affection for it all, and in fact feel faintly irritated every time I use it as the controls don't really suit me (Canon SLRs feel more natural to me).

For others, it may not be all about the image. For some, it might be entirely about the camera. For many, which probably includes you, its a bit of both.

So, before getting seduced by the need for more gear, think about what photography means to you and what factors contribute to it. If owning new cameras is part of what you enjoy about photography, buy the cameras! You can always sell things (not necessarily cameras!) you no longer want or use!
 
If we're photographers, it's a given that aesthetics are a priority. But I agree the feel, handling and function are involved in the package along with aesthetics. As the adage says, "Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes to the bone."

A visually beautiful camera with lousy handling, feel and function is not really beautiful anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom