I've been thinking of late

[Range-rover]

A few weeks ago I was on another site, and a group of us were commenting of the Nikon SP saying what nice camera it is and such.
Next thing you know someone comes up and say it's just a box that that holds the lens, mmm! that got me thinking and I know a few people
think that but I and a few don't. I look at it this way and call it a optical timing device, if it's just a box the focusing could not be done and it the
shutter was off your exposure would be off. When I look at a old Leica M3, M2 and other and see inside it's a mechanical to me with a great
rangefinder and shutter. Am I wrong is it just a box and do we love it more than a box?

 

[jsrockit]

It is obviously more complicated than a box. I think someone is just being cute because it is not cool (for certain people) to be someone who likes your camera. I am over it. Why would I not use the exact camera that I love using (if I can afford to do so)? They make so many different models for a reason. Everyone chooses what they choose for a reason and most do not choose a camera at random. I have to admit though, I love bodies more than lenses. I think most lenses are good enough!

 

[cassel]

Yeah, lot's of variations on the old "It's just a light-tight box...the lens is the important part"... Like you're supposed to feel bad about liking the camera. I'm also of the mind that the camera is the fun part AND many of the "best" lenses are VERY expensive - much much more than the body. Makes it harder to try out lots of different lenses. Bodies aren't always cheaper but at least a system camera - like that Nikon SP - can use many different lenses....

Leica screwmount camera = my favorite "light tight box"

 

[xayraa33]

With that pessimistic/realistic mindset then a Ferrari 250 GTO is a slender box with four wheels and an engine, A Vincent Black Shadow motorcycle is a tube frame and two wheels and a V twin engine. A 54 Stratocaster is two pieces of wood and some plastic and three copper wire bobbins with tiny magnets. Some things are greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is individual. To me Leica M and LTM are not just a boxes. All Canicons are.
As individual I started with FSU clone and I just prefer the origin, while FSU LTM was earliest adoption and most massive one.

 

[Richard G]

Artitsts and artisans and tradespeople have always had their preferences for tools. I bought a lousy screw driver today. It got the job done, but I will try not to use it again. My M2 and my Monochrom have the sweetest shutter action. That affects how I use the camera. When I use the Hasselblad it also makes the picture making a pleasure. My daughter won't let me use her F3HP, but I'm sure that's a sweet machine too. We are also meant to apologise for our cars (It's just a box with wheels to get from A to B.) Rubbish.

 

[gavinlg]

The 'a camera is just a tool' thing is a fantasy. All things have their own aura, their own personality. I shoot my Pentax 6x7 completely different to my Leica, although both are capable of being used similarly if one really wishes to.

I play my telecaster differently to my les paul, and although both can be played similarly, I tend to pick one or the other up depending on my mood.

 

[Rob-F]

It's not a box. It's an instrument, the photographer's violin. Just as Sarah Chang must have a Guarnarius and not a Stradivarius, one of us must have a Nikon, another a Leica or Contax.

 

[raydm6]

I'll never forget the feeling I had when I first held a IIIf w/Collapsible Summitar. More diminutive than I expected; but amazed at the heft, density, and jewel/watch-like quality packed in such a small package. Very special. And it takes pictures to boot!

For me, no other camera comes close to providing that tactile/visceral aesthetic; however, not a knock on them - for they too - have their own special qualities.

 

[former member]

Someone that thinks a complex mechanism is "just a box" knows nothing about engineering.

 

[jszokoli]

Take for example a Voightlander L, it’s pretty close to the light tight box. It does have a light meter, but in use it’s about a simple as it gets. It works. It has its charms but a Nikon SP or Leica M are in a different universe. The tools you use have an effect on the result. This is the Rangefinder forum, many of the members see this difference and stubbornly stick to rangefinders and their offspring simply because they care what features their light tight box has.

Joe

 

[Doug A]

We're comparing apples and oranges here. I have three Gibson mandolins. A person familiar with mandolins can easily tell them apart in a blind sound comparison. I have five LTM Leicas. Assuming I use the same lens, film and developer with each I defy anybody to tell the resulting pictures apart. That said, the 1943 IIIc has the sweetest shutter release of any camera I have ever used, the factory rebuilt IIIf has the brightest rangefinder of any LTM Leica I have ever used, the IIIg viewfinder is nicest to use, and so on and so forth.

 

[Coldkennels]

We're comparing apples and oranges here. I have three Gibson mandolins. A person familiar with mandolins can easily tell them apart in a blind sound comparison. I have five LTM Leicas. Assuming I use the same lens, film and developer with each I defy anybody to tell the resulting pictures apart.

I don't think that's quite it. Changing film is like changing the strings; the natural sound of the woods in each of those Gibsons is more akin to the way a lens renders. But changing the body of the camera is more like changing the instrument completely; if a IIIf is a Gibson mandolin, a Nikon F might be a Gretsch archtop, and a Hasselblad might be a classic Gibson Dobro. Sure, you could probably arrange the prelude to Bach's Cello Suite no. 1 on all three instruments, but the way each one feels in the hand is going to dictate (or, at the least, influence) the style of music played on them. Same thing with cameras.

 

[markjwyatt]

It is obviously more complicated than a box. I think someone is just being cute because it is not cool (for certain people) to be someone who likes your camera. I am over it. Why would I not use the exact camera that I love using (if I can afford to do so)? They make so many different models for a reason. Everyone chooses what they choose for a reason and most do not choose a camera at random. I have to admit though, I love bodies more than lenses. I think most lenses are good enough!

The camera is important, but to me the lens is more important. For instance I have a Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, and built my M42 kit around it. I can shoot it on a Spotmatic, a Parktica, a Fujica, etc. I also have some Schneider Kreuznach DKL mount lenses. I can shoot on a Retina Reflex, or adapt to some of my M42 cameras, as well as my Fujifilm XT-2, but it is more about the lenses than the camera. For sure some cameras are much easier to use, etc., than others, and that can make a difference in some situations. Many of my cameras contain the shutter, and that is also important. In the case of the Mamiya TLRs it is about the system. Same to some degree with my Contax iia, but this also has emphasis on the lenses (Zeiss, Voigtlander, Nikon). For sure the Contax iia is a joy to shoot.

 

[DwF]

The 'a camera is just a tool' thing is a fantasy. All things have their own aura, their own personality. I shoot my Pentax 6x7 completely different to my Leica, although both are capable of being used similarly if one really wishes to.

I play my telecaster differently to my les paul, and although both can be played similarly, I tend to pick one or the other up depending on my mood.

I agree with your "a camera is just a tool" is a fantasy. I agree in that we understand the sentiment of that phrase but yes, there's much more to it. And with many of these old cameras (for me particularly ones that can be fixed to live on - most pre 70s), the design of say Rollei 35 coupled with craftsmanship, there's a lot to love.

Telecaster vs Les Paul, that's another thing altogether. And I've owned several of both both going back to my first tele purchased in '68 ( from Stu at Manny's) A good Tele (a light one made of Ash) is a very musical instrument with acoustic properties that other " slabs" lack, while being a solid body with single coil pick-ups -remember what Roy Buchanan said about placing a humbucker on a Tele. A good Tele is a thing of beauty.

Les Paul guitars are "over built" for the purpose of sustaining notes over any acoustic aspect to the sound. And they need substantial power (watts) to make their voice heard. Just saying, and emphasizing what you said, they are so different! I love a good Telecaster, the most musical slab there is....just MHO

David

 

[rbiemer]

I figure that, yes cameras are tools. But I would not preface that with "just" or "merely". Tools are important for making things and we need those tools to make photographs.

Certainly some are simpler or more complicated, some are easier or harder to use, and some are nicer or more annoying to use.
Prefacing the word tool with "just" seems to imply that because they are tools they are somehow not important. That I absolutely disagree with.

As well, I do have a few cameras that really are only a light tight box to hold the film and lens. I usually refer to them as my pinhole cameras... although, one of those cameras does have an advance mechanism for winding on the 120 film that it uses.

I get that a skilled worker can make do with lesser tools but I will contend that a worker will need a tool--regardless of how basic/simple it may be--to accomplish their work. If your work is to play guitar, then you will need a guitar. If your work is to make photos, you will need a camera, if your work is to make screws, you will need at least a file.

 

[neal3k]

I shot this some time ago to compare "boxes" as far as styling.


Contrasting Designs by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

But it is hard to beat the originals, at least in 35mm production cameras.

Leica I and Leica II by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

 

[gavinlg]

Telecaster vs Les Paul, that's another thing altogether. And I've owned several of both both going back to my first tele purchased in '68 ( from Stu at Manny's) A good Tele (a light one made of Ash) is a very musical instrument with acoustic properties that other " slabs" lack, while being a solid body with single coil pick-ups -remember what Roy Buchanan said about placing a humbucker on a Tele. A good Tele is a thing of beauty.

Les Paul guitars are "over built" for the purpose of sustaining notes over any acoustic aspect to the sound. And they need substantial power (watts) to make their voice heard. Just saying, and emphasizing what you said, they are so different! I love a good Telecaster, the most musical slab there is....just MHO

David

As someone who grew up in heavier music scenes I'd always regarded the Les Paul as the most versatile guitar and the Tele as a country music guitar. Over the years I started to appreciate the purity of design of the Tele - I finally picked up a humble Mexican made one earlier this year and I am absolutely smitten. Compared to the LP, it vibrates and chimes and sings and feels utterly alive - and the headroom in the sound from it is unbelievable. I've had several Les Paul variants over the years and I literally can't believe I'm only just 'getting' how good the telecaster is.

(I feel it's also improved my playing - something to do with the chimey clarity of the sound making me careful?)

The musical instruments theme is a great analogy to cameras actually.

 

[xayraa33]

"A good Tele (a light one made of Ash) is a very musical instrument with acoustic properties that other " slabs" lack, "


I own a heavy standard Tele among other ones of varying weights that sounds like a good Les Paul guitar. That heavy Tele would be the last guitar I would ever get rid of.

 

[DwF]

As someone who grew up in heavier music scenes I'd always regarded the Les Paul as the most versatile guitar and the Tele as a country music guitar. Over the years I started to appreciate the purity of design of the Tele - I finally picked up a humble Mexican made one earlier this year and I am absolutely smitten. Compared to the LP, it vibrates and chimes and sings and feels utterly alive - and the headroom in the sound from it is unbelievable. I've had several Les Paul variants over the years and I literally can't believe I'm only just 'getting' how good the telecaster is.

(I feel it's also improved my playing - something to do with the chimey clarity of the sound making me careful?)

The musical instruments theme is a great analogy to cameras actually.

I've played several "humble Mexican" Teles and even owned a fretless Fender Jazz Bass that was Mexican made and each of those I personally found better made than that first 1968 Tele from Manny's that I picked up, even though the latter would sell now for way too many $$$ (more than worth).

xayraa33- I have my opinions about the Tele and feel too often the conversation about the Tele is, well this guitar is great for country or chicken pickin or that sort of thing without acknowledging it's "acoustic" qualities. And yes, it really is an adaptable design. That for sure is another aspect that makes the guitar so good. If a player wants a beefy LP-like Tele, that's perfectly fine. And while Roy B stated that a Tele should never get a Humbucker, it sure worked fine for Canadian guitarist Ed Bickert and others.

I am a bit of a purest myself about Telecasters, but who am I to judge- I just have opinions about what works for me. I appreciate the versatility and again the musical (gavinig's "chimes and sings") qualities of a great unadorned Tele.....especially when I listen to a player like Danny Gatton, but also playing one at very intimate volume, something I find rewarding about the Tele that an LP does not provide me.

To bring this back to cameras, I'm tempted to say that adding anything on to a Tele is like placing a Visoflex on your M3, but not sure that is a great analogy either 🙂

David​