Cameras of Permanence - does anyone else feel this way?

For me, a history of success I have had making satisfying images, become associated with the camera I made those images with, leads to confidence and trust in that camera and in my ability to use it well. The camera produces the results I want, in my hands. It's a bit like a violinist finding that a certain instrument enables them to make the sound they are striving for. The right one for them may not necessarily be a Stradivarius, even if the world thinks a Strad is "the best."
 
Out to Lunch said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a corollary, I might say that the intrinsic value of photography for an individual increases with simplicity. I have four, or maybe five, 6x6 medium format systems. Absurd! There are days when I can't decide which camera(s) to take out. Sometimes I bring the one that's had film sitting in it for too long, only for that reason. There's an uncomfortable sort of creative paralysis that sets in with that glut of cameras, and more and more, I find myself reaching for a Rolleiflex 3.5 just to slice through that Gordian knot.
I'm finding myself tempted, these days, to sell it all off and get a mint Rollei 2.8f, with the 3.5b for a backup. At the very least, my back will feel better!
 
Retro-Grouch said:
As a corollary, I might say that the intrinsic value of photography for an individual increases with simplicity. I have four, or maybe five, 6x6 medium format systems. Absurd! There are days when I can't decide which camera(s) to take out. Sometimes I bring the one that's had film sitting in it for too long, only for that reason. There's an uncomfortable sort of creative paralysis that sets in with that glut of cameras, and more and more, I find myself reaching for a Rolleiflex 3.5 just to slice through that Gordian knot.
I'm finding myself tempted, these days, to sell it all off and get a mint Rollei 2.8f, with the 3.5b for a backup. At the very least, my back will feel better!
Click to expand...
Oh, how can I understand you.
Should I take the chrome one or the black one today? The SLR or the rangefinder? The 35mm, the 6x6 or the 6x9?
(If I think about it for much longer, the day will be over...)
To introduce a kind of equality, I have lined up all the cameras in a row and consistently take the next one. So everyone gets a turn.
The exception to the rule only occurs when I want to use a certain focal length or a certain format for a certain purpose.
 
The t.o. made me think about permanence.
The medium makes the difference for me: Any well working film camera I own will produce pictures of permanence. The negatives on b/w-film are real and lasting.
I never have this feeling when using digital cams. While I enjoy digital photography a lot, I never trust the medium completely. As long as there are only files, no paper prints, the results may evaporate into the digital nirvana any second. I secure my files, of course, but still.... they are just 0s nd 1s in the end.
Considering cameras. The development of digital cameras is going on and on, so that any camera on the market is not finished, but just a product in transition. "What will they bring next?"
I had an M9, by the way. It was the digicam I liked least of all and was glad when I had sold it again. Any of my following cameras seemed much more reliable to me. More permanent.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
As a corollary, I might say that the intrinsic value of photography for an individual increases with simplicity. I have four, or maybe five, 6x6 medium format systems. Absurd! There are days when I can't decide which camera(s) to take out. Sometimes I bring the one that's had film sitting in it for too long, only for that reason. There's an uncomfortable sort of creative paralysis that sets in with that glut of cameras, and more and more, I find myself reaching for a Rolleiflex 3.5 just to slice through that Gordian knot.
I'm finding myself tempted, these days, to sell it all off and get a mint Rollei 2.8f, with the 3.5b for a backup. At the very least, my back will feel better!
Click to expand...

I'm much in he same boat, so to say. But I've resolved the impasse by just leaving most of my cameras in a cabinet at home.

I try to use every camera I own at least one time every year. This has caused me to repeat much the same photography in the same places as I always do. This year I decided to exercise the shutters on this gear, put them through their paces but not loaded with film or, in the case of my digitals, by deleting the images, usually made in the back garden of my home or of our cats. Boring stuff ended, but there you have it.

To compensate for this, I try to travel with only one camera (Nikon D800 or Fuji XE2) and one lens (always the '28) with an '85 or a '180 in the bag.

Obviously this won't work for everyone, but it seems to suit me to a KISS...

PS I admit to a strong urge to offload my entire lot of cameras, while the market (especially for film gear) is still reasonably strong, and buy one camera. Currently I would go for a used Leica CL. And two lenses at most. Of course I will keep my 1966 Rolleiflex 3.5E2, the first good camera I bought (new, as a demo).
 
Alpsman said:
Oh, how can I understand you.

The exception to the rule only occurs when I want to use a certain focal length or a certain format for a certain purpose.
Click to expand...

Well said. Your last line is why I use always the same camera and lens - Nikon D800 or Fuji XE2, '28.
 
How great it would be to have the best haptics and image quality in a single camera! But until the day that planets align and pigs fly, I'll continue to vote for image quality with my dollars.

I have more flexible standards when it comes to film cameras, but I regard them as collectables as much as functional objects.
 
splitimageview said:
Explain please! :)


The original IG comment was about software features as opposed to cameras but I suppose this is getting off-topic.
Click to expand...
Greed: a lot of the people who are conforming to Instagram trends are hoping to influence the algorithm in their favor and maybe develop as influencers or otherwise promote themselves.
 
Rob-F said:
For me, a history of success I have had making satisfying images, become associated with the camera I made those images with, leads to confidence and trust in that camera and in my ability to use it well. The camera produces the results I want, in my hands. It's a bit like a violinist finding that a certain instrument enables them to make the sound they are striving for. The right one for them may not necessarily be a Stradivarius, even if the world thinks a Strad is "the best."
Click to expand...
I feel this way about the Sigma DP1. It's slow as molasses being pushed up a hill, focuses like a creaky door, it's terrible at anything over ISO400 and spends ages writing to the card, and yet the images delight me endlessly. For me, it's a camera of permanence, where I know the resulting images will be something I continue to look at for years. It also fits pretty neatly in the hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom