Cameras of Permanence - does anyone else feel this way?

A

Archiver

Veteran
Local time
7:16 AM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,892
Some cameras make me feel like I'm taking a worthwhile and permanent image, and I'm figuring out why. The Leica M9 makes me feel this way - the rich and sharp files, the feel of the photographic process, the time required between images, the satisfying crunch of the shutter, I associate all of this with images to which I ascribe a sense of positivity and solidity.

The faster and more technically advanced Panasonic G9 doesn't give me this same feeling - the rapidity of images makes me feel like I can bang out hundreds/thousands in a day (and I do), and I don't feel the images have the same sense that I'll be looking at them in decades to come. The shutter sound doesn't really do it for me, either. It sounds/feels softish and wispy.

Oddly, the original Sigma DP1 makes me feel this way, too. The sharpness, the colours, the need to be deliberate when taking the image, these factors contribute to a feeling of importance or significance. I've never shot medium format, film or digital, and I wonder if I'd get the same feeling from them, too. When I tried a Panasonic S1, I got that feeling of permanence, same with the Leica SL2-S, but not the S5 that I shoot for work at every turn. I don't feel this way about the Canon 5D Mark II, but strangely, I feel more of this with the Canon 30D when using the right lenses like the Sigma 18-35.

It's a combination of haptics, file quality, the feel of focusing and taking a photo, shutter sound. A camera doesn't have to be the best or most expensive, but some just hit the right combination of operational, haptic and image qualities and I feel like the camera itself is going to produce images of worth and longevity. Anyone else feel like this?
 
I get that we all have subjective perceptions and impressions that determine how we feel about something. I certainly have those, myself, regarding almost everything that I experience, including cameras in my possession, but "permanence" as you describe it isn't one of them.

Interesting thought, though.

- Murray
 
Not the camera but the format, and intentionality of the photography. For me, film. I share your expression in the quality and effort given by a format plus camera. Medium format film feels much more permanent, and requires an effort and selection from my side. Previously in 35mm I caught the tail end of Kodachrome at a young age and that was a project by itself with permanence and the end date of December 2010.
I also have a micro 43 which is well alright; but does not have the same heft as the OM-1 I previously used and started with. I would draw that it's an instance of psychological priming: Better build quality relates to the concept of permanence.

As of permanence, I have lost both film and digital images due to human negligence. I am rather young and somehow grew up with being exposed that the world has a large scale, is dynamic and transient; which imbibed an intense sense of nostalgia. Interestingly the latter seems much milder as it is much easier to photograph and I have more control over my actions.
 
Archiver said:
Come back with your thoughts if you'd like to share!
Click to expand...
My perspective on this wasn't really about any sense of permanence as such, but about certain cameras feeling comfortable to use because of build, haptics, and various qualities related to the outputs. And that that was related to the kind of pictures I am comfortable taking. For me that covers the various flavours of foveon, Mamiya + ZD back, A7R2 (for old legacy glass, enlarger lenses and now a pinhole) - my picture taking with these is generally controlled in some way that suits the often slow and light-hungry gear or situations - specific subject matter/scenario or in a home studio - it's hard to disentangle the gear's qualities from the photographic objective. The simple user interface on those cameras also works for me and feels like a big plus (even the Sony - I can find what I need when I need it), I love the shutter sounds, the solid build, the output quality they are capable of. And this coincides with my internal voice telling me I'm creating "art" :ROFLMAO:. Recently I got a spare AFD body so put a film back on it that I'd got cheap but never used - yet to have a film developed but oh gosh, the noise of the shutter and the motor winding on the film...

As to permanance - I leaf through pictures taken with those pretty frequently and ponder how to improve what I do, which i don't do with the output from other gear other than to reminiscence on the content. But I don't consider image longevity as such unless I print and frame (which has never happened with images I have taken in the last 8 years...). I used to paint, so permanence has more meaning for me in that regard.
 
I now use mostly digital cameras (Nikons, Fuji, a few odd bod brands) and also film, to a lesser extent than I did until just before Covid. The cost of film is, for me, the main reason for this.

I relate differently to my digital cameras than to my film gear. This I believe is due to my decades of film photography. I 'matured' with film in the 1970s when analog was in its heyday. When D came along and cameras got better (early 2000s) I still held off until 2008 when Nikon brought out the D90 and I realized it was then time for me to make the move. Which I did. And my photography changed in many, to me, significant ways. Yet my partner and friends who've followed my work for decades tell me they don't se much difference - which means, in candid terms, my images are as boring now as they were then, ha!

Mechanical cameras go on and on. My oldest Rollei TLR dates to 1962 and has been serviced two times, firstly for a lagging shutter, lastly a complete CLA as my Melbourne tech was retiring and I decided to have him go over the camera and fix up every little thing he found wrong with it. It cost me AUD $195.00 (this in 2001 or 2002) and when I got it back I found the shutter speeds were as accurate as when I bought it in 1966. I still use it one or two times a year and the speeds do not appear to have slagged at all. Not bad for a 62 year old camera last taken apart and fixed a quarter century ago.

In the past I've had even older Rolleis, notably a prewar 'flex with an uncoated Tessar which made gorgeous B&W negatives but produced quite odd results on color films. I kept it for a few years as a curio and eventually gave it away to a young photographer who sold it. Bummer, this. I could have sold it myself and bought another TLR. Oh, well. It's in a collection which in a way is its own consolation.

My 1970s Nikkormats also go on working. They are FT2s and I use them without batteries, with an old Gossen meter for my settings. They still make the comforting Kerplunk! the shutters were renowned for. The one second settings on both seem quite accurate but as I never take images at this slow speed, I can't be sure. (All my film cameras seem to be firmly stuck on 1/25-1/250 and the lenses on f/8-f/11).

I have a 1950 Zeiss Nettar and a 1953-1954 Voigtlander Perkeo I, with Synchro-Compur shutters which were a rarity (and an upgrade) in their day. Both function to reasonable accuracy. The Voigtlander has a Color-Skopar so it's sharper than the Novar on the Zeiss. Folders without rangefinders can be iffy to work with but for general photography (= landscapes) and portability they are super good.

My Leica iif is also reasonably accurate in all its functions, but I did have it serviced, and oi! did I pay for it. But worth it.

Digital cameras are wonderful machines in their way (and in their world) but our film cameras suit us 'oldies' well as they impose a mindful discipline we are used to from our film days. I nowadays only use my 'mechanicals' a few times a year but I enjoy the experience and it takes me back to when I was young, the world was my oyster, my life seemed endless and I appreciated the few items of good photo gear I owned. Digital is good, but for me, it's not quite the same.
 
Last edited:
DennisM said:
Finished a roll of HP5+ in a Minolta SRT-102 with a 40mm lens last night; felt really connected to picture taking; several people who remembered using cameras from”back then” commented favorably on the “thunk” of the shutter.
Click to expand...
My recently purchased SRT-201 shutter 'thunk' reminds me of just how much shutter shock I'd have to compensate for if shooting film with it. It reminds me to be appreciative of the IBIS in my cameras now that I'm old. When I need to 'slow down, and take a photo' I just put a manual lens on and set them on full manual for the experience of shooting like film.
 
Nope, camera doesn’t matter other than using one of sufficient quality for what I want to do. What really matters, if an image has permanency for me, is if it can be used in a project and makes the final edit. Some cameras are nicer than others and some are more comfortable to use, but what matters after the feeling of being there and doing it fades, are the images that endear. And believe me, I really do like cameras and go out of my way to use the cameras I truly love. However, as far as an image having long lasting love from me…the camera doesn’t matter. Cameras can matter in making you want to use them though.
 
A camera is a fickle mistress. One day you feel like you can't miss, everything you do with her is sweet and beautiful. The next day, it's the opposite. She has grown cold and you're puzzled as to what happened and why she's not responding to you. Best to leave her be when that happens. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back and the magic will return.
 
Dogman said:
A camera is a fickle mistress. One day you feel like you can't miss, everything you do with her is sweet and beautiful. The next day, it's the opposite. She has grown cold and you're puzzled as to what happened and why she's not responding to you. Best to leave her be when that happens. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back and the magic will return.
Click to expand...
That happens often, but you shouldn't blame the camera. It's up to the photographer himself. He has to go through meditation and concentration to discover that this day is not his day. Taking a beautiful photo is a grace and not a merit.
Most of the time it doesn't work out, but when you take a nice picture, you understand that God wants the best for you that day. But it's a grace, because the next day it's rubbish again. Persevere!
 
Years and years ago in HS I got to use a Leica IIIf, a then new camera. I had been shooting a folder Vito II, my logo, and it worked alright. But with the Leica I was more sure of myself and got what I judged in my naivete to be better photos. There is no way to accurately measure this. But I still feel better today hefting a "good" camera and still believe in all my naivete that I am taking better pictures. Who knows? But as I am doing this as a hobby, something to enjoy, if it allows me greater enjoyment maybe it is a good idea. And if I am getting what I think are better pictures that gets me out to take more pictures with the chance that I can up my game.

Will expensive gear make you a better photographer? I wish it would. But in my case it gets me out shooting more and having more fun. For me it's about the fun.
 
Last edited:
splitimageview said:
The camera isn’t forcing you to shoot quickly. :)
Click to expand...

Agree. This is known as "spray and pray". I see much too much of it posted on almost all web sites (excluding RFF, long may this last!).

To be brutally honest about it, I sometimes do it myself, usually when I'm in a new location or situation and unsure if I will ever return. My instinct then is to make the most of it and overshoot. But I've trained myself to file away almost all the images I make there, in a folder in one of my portable hard disks. And keep only the best ones. Which I nowadays too rarely rarely look at. Oh, well.
 
Archiver said:
It's a combination of haptics, file quality, the feel of focusing and taking a photo, shutter sound. A camera doesn't have to be the best or most expensive, but some just hit the right combination of operational, haptic and image qualities and I feel like the camera itself is going to produce images of worth and longevity. Anyone else feel like this?
Click to expand...
I think I know the feeling, but it's illusory in the sense that however I may regard the equipment on a particular day doesn't mean I'll produce a long-term favorite photo that day. It IS nice to have equipment with pleasing haptics, no question.
 
Last edited:
I think the experience of shooting large format certainly delivers that sense of "permanence". You're using a camera much like those at the dawn of the medium, and there is a near-infinite amount of control which you can choose to use, or ignore, but both reflect a decision to control the image in multiple ways. That feeling of connection to a long tradition is sobering. And so is the expense per sheet of film!
Unfortunately, I think a lot of LF shooters put so much time, effort, and money into each shot that they are unable to acknowledge their failures. And let's face it, we all know that the failures far outweigh the successes. That sense of permanence in LF shooting has some drawbacks.
 
I would not call it "permanence". But I notice that when I shoot a camera, the handling / haptics etc. and the "feel" of satisfies me (and perhaps it has a certain "name" that conjures up quality) I tend to psychologically be drawn more towards the images it produces. Perhaps because I want to feel good about the images made by a camera I enjoy owning and using. Assuming of course that the images are technically at least, up to par, and do not betray themselves by consistently having some egregious shortcoming. I feel something the same of lenses I use. I am somewhat drawn to fairly "chunky" and heavy lenses, particularly older lenses that are all steel, brass and glass. And I have to admit to being more happy with their images than sometimes I perhaps should be. Some of this is warranted - I tend to prefer the classic rendering of older lenses which have more aberrations, but some of it still, I suspect has at least some of its roots in psychology. For others it might be the fact that with some cameras and lenses you must work harder to get images you value. And when you do, you naturally value them more than maybe you should if you were being realistic.

The same thing happens with people. You fall in love with a woman. And suddenly everything she does is wonderful. She is the perfect woman, the "permanent" one. Or simply, "The One" as people with a romantic inclination often say! Until regrettably, too often she isn't when you realize she is just another person with flaws and shortcomings like yourself.

Same, same! As a friend of mine would say.
 
Last edited:
I am not inspired by the ''it's just a tool'' approach to cameras but I am not a camera fondler either. The intrinsic value of a camera increases with simplicity. The multiplication of menu options within digital cameras has led to inoperability. There is a similar issue with post-processing software: the seemingly inexhaustible range of features has resulted, not in a more diverse output but in uniformity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom