daveleo
what?
Well, okay. If patrickjames was just "getting tough" with Joe to snap him out of it, I get it. Just seemed to me his words were a bit harsh for a fairly casual thread topic.
thegman
Veteran
Certainly harsh, agreed, sometimes "tough love" is the way though.
Paul T.
Veteran
My frustration is based more on my average photos than my gear. I've found that by far my best photos tend to be with the Konica Hexar; one camera, one lens, learn to know its foibles really well.
When I got my X100, the photos were far better than my GF1, but still worse than the Konica. So I'm still learning it, and know that my photos would be worse with a new camera, rather than better.
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's funny that when i get all weird about gear i'm told to take more pics or that i'm not a real photographer. in terms of quantity i bet i shoot more than most here...i am always posting pics.
last week when i talked about 'style' no one told me to buy more gear...
last week when i talked about 'style' no one told me to buy more gear...
Paul T.
Veteran
If you're directing this at me, I'm not criticising, I'm just sharing my feelings!
back alley
IMAGES
cz23
-
There's something wrong here. Judging from this thread, few care much about new gear. But from post counts it's obvious that equipment drives this and other forums. I know of only one forum (OPF) that attempts to focus on the art of photography, and it gets little activity.
I'm rarely "overwhelmed" by gear choices, but I'll confess to being generally preoccupied with something other than what I have. Or at least exploring options. I find all the innovations pretty exciting and enticing. I try to keep interest in the latest whiz-bang offerings well behind my photography, but sometimes they do gain the upper hand.
John
I'm rarely "overwhelmed" by gear choices, but I'll confess to being generally preoccupied with something other than what I have. Or at least exploring options. I find all the innovations pretty exciting and enticing. I try to keep interest in the latest whiz-bang offerings well behind my photography, but sometimes they do gain the upper hand.
John
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Originally Posted by bwidjaja
I think part of the frustration is because digital photography is a relatively new technology, so it is still evolving and changes are happening very quickly. Sooner or later, once the technology matures, certain features become standard, such as sensor technology, and it is more of a matter of personal preference on the camera operations. I think we are not quite there yet, but not that far off.
very true!
The rate of technological 'innovation' is primarily driven by fundamental changes in consumer behavior. And I don't believe this is going to change any time soon.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm. Cameras as toys.
It makes the notion of how you consider your photography seem somewhat trivial. Cameras as toys can be interpreted to mean that you get bored with them easily and quickly, need something different to stimulate you. As if the fun and passion you obtain from doing photography is a result of exercising the novelty of the toys you use in doing it.
That could be the basis of your dyspepsia. Toys and novelty go hand in hand: an addiction to novelty drives toy acquisition.
I enjoy the novelty of new cameras too. But when the novelty wears off—usually pretty quickly—I start thinking more seriously about the camera as tool, "Now that I've had my play with it and understand it better, how can this particular camera affect my photography? What can I do with it? And do I want to go that way in my photography?" That's when it becomes less a toy and more a tool, when my perception of the camera's value becomes more what the thing is for than what it itself is.
Not all cameras make the cut in that perceptual transformation. Many fall by the wayside, they remain only neat toys that litter the cabinet. Only the few get out of the way and become transparent to my preferred intent, the development of photographs.
The thing is that nearly any could—the basis of the "it's not the camera" sentiments—but our capricious psychology gets in the way of that.
Oh well. I'll put these heavy ruminations on hold for a bit. My weekly walk starts in an hour, I've had a cold all week ... What camera will I walk with? Perhaps the Polaroid ...
It makes the notion of how you consider your photography seem somewhat trivial. Cameras as toys can be interpreted to mean that you get bored with them easily and quickly, need something different to stimulate you. As if the fun and passion you obtain from doing photography is a result of exercising the novelty of the toys you use in doing it.
That could be the basis of your dyspepsia. Toys and novelty go hand in hand: an addiction to novelty drives toy acquisition.
I enjoy the novelty of new cameras too. But when the novelty wears off—usually pretty quickly—I start thinking more seriously about the camera as tool, "Now that I've had my play with it and understand it better, how can this particular camera affect my photography? What can I do with it? And do I want to go that way in my photography?" That's when it becomes less a toy and more a tool, when my perception of the camera's value becomes more what the thing is for than what it itself is.
Not all cameras make the cut in that perceptual transformation. Many fall by the wayside, they remain only neat toys that litter the cabinet. Only the few get out of the way and become transparent to my preferred intent, the development of photographs.
The thing is that nearly any could—the basis of the "it's not the camera" sentiments—but our capricious psychology gets in the way of that.
Oh well. I'll put these heavy ruminations on hold for a bit. My weekly walk starts in an hour, I've had a cold all week ... What camera will I walk with? Perhaps the Polaroid ...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Herjulfr
Established
No. I don't like to spend money. Once I have the gear I need, I do not think about it anymore.
I had some problems with lenses. It took me some time to learn what I wanted, what I liked. So i bought and sold several. Now, there is no urge to change anymore, and I keep all my money (and time) for prints, books, travels and taking photos.
I had some problems with lenses. It took me some time to learn what I wanted, what I liked. So i bought and sold several. Now, there is no urge to change anymore, and I keep all my money (and time) for prints, books, travels and taking photos.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Yes, yes, yes, YESSSSS! Thank you Dave, for saying something rude, disgusting and true.
Buying new cameras (or second hand cameras, for that matter) moves wealth around, provides pleasure and harms no-one. I, for one, am unimpressed by the "I'm a real photographer, who only needs one camera" posing and accept that different people have different desires. If you only want one camera, great. All the more for the rest of us to play with.
dabick42
Well-known
@ Peter Wijninga...
...''The rate of technological 'innovation' is primarily driven by fundamental changes in consumer behaviour.''...
Camera consumer behaviour is surely determined and changed by whatever new bell, whistle or pixel count that the manufacturers can convince the consumer that he/she MUST have to make better photographs more easily and painlessly !
The manufacturing ideal would be for every photographer on the planet to buy the latest wunderkamera at least once a year and throw the old one in the trash.
From reading many of the posts on RFF, I assume a lot of people are doing this quite happily.
I can only shake my head in wonderment... (!)
...''The rate of technological 'innovation' is primarily driven by fundamental changes in consumer behaviour.''...
Camera consumer behaviour is surely determined and changed by whatever new bell, whistle or pixel count that the manufacturers can convince the consumer that he/she MUST have to make better photographs more easily and painlessly !
The manufacturing ideal would be for every photographer on the planet to buy the latest wunderkamera at least once a year and throw the old one in the trash.
From reading many of the posts on RFF, I assume a lot of people are doing this quite happily.
I can only shake my head in wonderment... (!)
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I have images in my head that I want to make, and at times it seems like one camera will work better at creating those images than the one I am currently using. Then I get gear lust for that particular camera. Once I eventually acquire it, if it succeeds in helping me make my imagined image, I keep it. If it fails, I sell it. (I do hate selling equipment, but that is the cost of trying to make the images in my head). The cameras I currently use the most are ones I've had for many years.
I'll occasionally lust for a particular camera as an object, as I did for the Leica M9-P black paint. I have no real need for that camera and it won't do anything better than any of the cameras I currently have, but I just thought it was an absolute beauty and lusted for it. So I went to a Leica dealer and spent some time with it, and walked away with the realization that "It's only a camera", and now the lust is gone. Saved myself a bundle and the hassle of reselling it.
Best,
-Tim
I'll occasionally lust for a particular camera as an object, as I did for the Leica M9-P black paint. I have no real need for that camera and it won't do anything better than any of the cameras I currently have, but I just thought it was an absolute beauty and lusted for it. So I went to a Leica dealer and spent some time with it, and walked away with the realization that "It's only a camera", and now the lust is gone. Saved myself a bundle and the hassle of reselling it.
Best,
-Tim
greyelm
Malcolm
I don't think I'm overwhelmed, I'm just underfunded.
oftheherd
Veteran
Well, I am usually the odd man out, and am in this thread too. I am mostly a film guy (that is, I prefer film shooting). But due to time constraints, I probably (scratch that, no doubt I) shoot more digital than anything else. My "new" toys are cameras that I wanted in the past, or newer ones I hadn't considered before but are now "old." Go figure.
I haven't bought a new camera since about 1983 or 84. It was a Contax 139Q that died after a house fire. I am guessing the acid in the smoke got to the electronics. About 2 or 3 years ago I bought a Contax 167mt because I got it cheap. Before then, I let my Yashica FX3 and FX103 cameras use the Contax T* 50mm f/1.4 lens.
Several Christmas seasons ago, my daughters bought me a Sony 6mp P&S. It has worked pretty well for me as a P&S, and sometimes for other shooting as well. I broke the viewing screen, bought one from China and replaced it. Still works quite well for me.
Point being, I do prefer film still, but I am not afraid of digital. One of the reasons I didn't move away completely away from my Fujica ST 901 was cost of replacing all the lenses I was used to using. That is really the main reason I don't move to a higher end digital, SLR or RF, although my personal preference would be SLR. I don't want the added expense, and frankly, just prefer film. Oh, I said that didn't I.
For anyone, Joe or others, who prefer digital, why not? I really think film versus digital are silly. Just like past arguments about glass versus film, real cameras versus that miniature movie format, auto exposure versus manual, etc. The photo that the photographer ends up with really is the important thing in my opinion. If the photographer prefers objects on a sheet of photo paper and call it art and a photograph, why not?
Joe, I think your only problem is one that seems to infect everyone on RFF (sadly, me included), called GAS. Get over that and be happy twice. Once for getting over it, a second time for all the money you are going to make from the book on how you got over it.
I haven't bought a new camera since about 1983 or 84. It was a Contax 139Q that died after a house fire. I am guessing the acid in the smoke got to the electronics. About 2 or 3 years ago I bought a Contax 167mt because I got it cheap. Before then, I let my Yashica FX3 and FX103 cameras use the Contax T* 50mm f/1.4 lens.
Several Christmas seasons ago, my daughters bought me a Sony 6mp P&S. It has worked pretty well for me as a P&S, and sometimes for other shooting as well. I broke the viewing screen, bought one from China and replaced it. Still works quite well for me.
Point being, I do prefer film still, but I am not afraid of digital. One of the reasons I didn't move away completely away from my Fujica ST 901 was cost of replacing all the lenses I was used to using. That is really the main reason I don't move to a higher end digital, SLR or RF, although my personal preference would be SLR. I don't want the added expense, and frankly, just prefer film. Oh, I said that didn't I.
For anyone, Joe or others, who prefer digital, why not? I really think film versus digital are silly. Just like past arguments about glass versus film, real cameras versus that miniature movie format, auto exposure versus manual, etc. The photo that the photographer ends up with really is the important thing in my opinion. If the photographer prefers objects on a sheet of photo paper and call it art and a photograph, why not?
Joe, I think your only problem is one that seems to infect everyone on RFF (sadly, me included), called GAS. Get over that and be happy twice. Once for getting over it, a second time for all the money you are going to make from the book on how you got over it.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
As well you should. Consumerism is the source of the wealth we now have. It drives every developed economy and is generally a force for good throughout the world. The old source of wealth creation was weaponry and before that, conquest. Consumerism doesn't work if you kill the consumers, so consumerist economies discourage indiscriminate killing. Nor does it work if the consumers lack the resources to pay for goods, so it encourages wealth distribution.
It ain't perfect, but it beats the hell out of a slave based aristocracy or a vicious dictatorship. What's more, it means that there are all those lovely cameras to play with...
Paul T.
Veteran
It's also the source of many ills. Your view is a very Western-centric one. Rampant consumerism, where fulfilment only comes from the objects we buy, also leads to depression because it is ultimately empty. America has more consumer goods than any other nation - but it not, according to many if not most studies, any happier. Why is anyone so naive as to think that corporations have the interests of the consumer at heart?
If Joe takes pleasures from the novelty of a new camera, few here would criticise him. For a start, he's posted many good photos he's taken with his new toys. But to counter by saying that consumerism, per se, is good... feels empty, as a statement. And as a means of living your life.
Nokton48
Veteran
It's funny, but I too seek out items that I have wanted in the past, and am now able to find and afford. Few are expensive so that is good.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Yep, and hugging a tree fixes every ill.
Consumerism is the worst possible economic system - except for every other one we've yet invented.