Old photogs and gear.

[Ko.Fe.]

I have to update my Canon 5D, it is getting clunky. Don't have free money for it, I'll need to sell it and one L lens at least to get used 6D and what's it. I want M240, 262, but I would never made such money.

I'm looking at older and known for good reason photographers like George Zimbel (Montreal) and Frank Herzog (Vancouver) and as of now they aren't using high-end cameras. Just nothing special cropped sensor cameras, like NEX and X series cameras. Some, like John Free, are using old, not expensive film gear they have used for decades.
And almost nobody from old stock known photographers I'm aware of are with latest digital Leica gear...

Is it due to wisdom or income?

 

[bmattock]

There is so much great gear out there, and it's going begging for the most part. Why not shoot with what you're most comfortable with? New, old, film, digital, whatever floats your boat.

 

[ww2photog]

Shoot the camera that connects best with you. I'm a minamalist, less technology between me and my subject is best

 

[Dektol Dan]

5d?

5d?

I will never quit mine. I much prefer it to many cameras new and old. Cameras, old and new are like guitars. I prefer my old Tele to everything new. Go ahead and enjoy a newer model with better low light capabilities, but there is a trade off, less color saturation, and 'personality'.

The M8 is that way, an old Canon D 20/30 is that way. I don't speak Nikon, but I'm sure that lives there too. Don't sell the 5D. It's worth nothing in dollars. What's it worth to your eye?

I still shoot Barnaks (among many others) too. I will never sell them.

Get the 262 when you collect the cash, and love it too, FOR YEARS!

 

[Darthfeeble]

How is the 5D taking lesser pictures than it was when it was new? Getting clunky?? It's been "clunky" all along. I have a 6D and it's only a tiny bit less "clunky", I can't recommend it for your problem.

 

[FrankS]

There is so much great gear out there, and it's going begging for the most part. Why not shoot with what you're most comfortable with? New, old, film, digital, whatever floats your boat.

Talk about old photogs: welcome back, mattock! 🙂

 

[lynnb]

I'd say wisdom. As long as it works and you like using it you can make pictures. Dropped my 5D and 24-105L, both kaput, replaced with 6D and pancake EF40. Now zoom with feet. Happy with results. But I'm using my IIIc and Nikon F a lot more. A few decent primes is all I need.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Talk about old photogs: welcome back, mattock! 🙂

Hey, BMattock! I think about buying a Mamiya Super Deluxe like once a week because of you. Nice to see you.

 

[B-9]

Mattock, I haven't seen you active in ages, possibly my lack of depth on the forums.

Nice to see others from the Mit posting, especially with such reputation.

 

[mdarnton]

I just bought a Nikon D7200 last month to replace my 8 year old D300, but it turns out I'm not using it much. Its a good camera but for most of what I'm doing the D300 is still as fine as it was before!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

There is so much great gear out there, and it's going begging for the most part. Why not shoot with what you're most comfortable with? New, old, film, digital, whatever floats your boat.

It is an honor to get reply from someone like you!

I'm most comfortable with M4-2, but not able to afford digital RF which is as good at ISO6400 as my consumer DSLR is (Canon 500D)🙂

How is the 5D taking lesser pictures than it was when it was new? Getting clunky?? It's been "clunky" all along. I have a 6D and it's only a tiny bit less "clunky", I can't recommend it for your problem...

I will never quit mine. I much prefer it to many cameras new and old. Cameras, old and new are like guitars...

Like any tool which you know after years of use it is easy to notice if something isn't as good as it was. I don't know what exactly it is, showing age or lack of regular use, but it is acting up on me. So, I'm not going to sell it "like new" and with 5K clicks on it.
Yes, files from 5D were very distinguishable with 50 1.8 II, Zeiss 50 1.4 ZE and now from 50L 1.2 I have for couple of years. To me colors and saturation comes from lens first, at least with Canon DSLRs. Modern Zeiss glass was giving me so much colors, I wanted to de-saturate...

Any way, my preferences in gear is just something particular. But the thing which I noticed and mentioned about gear some old photographers are using... I keep thinking about it.

 

[btgc]

But the thing which I noticed and mentioned about gear some old photographers are using... I keep thinking about it.

Probably it's about money when they aren't active and backed by huge contracts, and probably plain wisdom which comes (or not) as years add up tells them any camera they use is giving about same pictures. Yes, there are diffs and as individuals they have preferences for size, shape, controls etc. but these measures aren't going to boost or kill creativity. It's either there or not. If they know little nex is giving them what they after then why carry bulk of pro DSLR or invest into digital Leica? That is, we all know this but age gives some determination and certainty.

 

[John Bragg]

Lenses matter most, especially with film. A good handfull of fast primes and you are set for life. In fact it doesen't have to be the most expensive glass either. Many shoot with a 50mm f1.8 ish standard and produce stunning results on a shoestring.

 

[JP Owens]

I have no nostalgia for old digital cameras. The original 5D was a great camera. I literally shot the shutters out of a couple of them. And they will still take great photos. If you are willing to live with their limitations. Compared to my 5D Mk. II and III, the files are mushy, the back LCD is dark and low resolution. The autofocus (especially compared to the 5D III) is awful. The camera seems sluggish.

IMO, even a Sony A6000, at about the price of a used 5D Classic, is a far better investment of $500. It is just scary good for the money. Where digital is concerned, it is hard to go backwards.

As an old photographer, I can tell you that even old "famous" photographers are often stuck in the past.

 

[hepcat]

Probably it's about money when they aren't active and backed by huge contracts, and probably plain wisdom which comes (or not) as years add up tells them any camera they use is giving about same pictures. Yes, there are diffs and as individuals they have preferences for size, shape, controls etc. but these measures aren't going to boost or kill creativity. It's either there or not. If they know little nex is giving them what they after then why carry bulk of pro DSLR or invest into digital Leica? That is, we all know this but age gives some determination and certainty.

For about fifteen years, camera technology progressed in revolutionary steps from model to model, doubling resolution in sensors and changing pixel technology that almost demanded that pros use the next generation equipment to stay viable in the market place. Today, the differences in cameras from model to model are evolutionary. The images they produce are of the same quality. It makes no difference whether you're shooting an M9, an M240, or a Canon 1Dm(whatever) the final images are essentially indistinguishable.

When dollars for gear are dictated by income, and the gear you have is adequate for making the images your market demands, then it's good business sense not to spend money on something new.

At about 12mp, digital began out-resolving film in a 35mm frame size. At 18mp I have plenty of "crop room." And at the high-end, the differences in lenses pointed out here and in other gear-centric forums really don't amount to anything in actual use. I keep saying that there isn't any recognizable difference between my Voigtlander M mount lenses and Leica M mount lenses when you're looking at images online... or even in prints up to 24x26".

I think you're going to see much less gear-movement among working pros in the next few years. Most of the folks who buy the latest and greatest are going to be amateurs who believe the advertising hype.

The best analogy I can think of remains the parallel of golf clubs. There are people who buy new clubs every season thinking that the clubs will make them play a better round of golf. It just ain't so. Neither does a new camera cause you to take a better image just because it's new.

My studio lights are corded Normans from about 1975. Is the light they produce too old to make good images?

 

[rbsinto]

Many years ago a young photographic newbie asked a wise old photographer what he thought the most important pieces of photographic equipment were.
The old shooter replied, "This", said as he pointed to the lens on his camera, "But mostly this", said as he pointed to his own head. "And everything else is just commentary."
Me? I don't pretend to be a great photographer, and I do very, very little professional work, especially now in the Digital Age, but I do just fine with my laughably old, horribly backward, clunky old manual focus film SLRs, rangefinders, and lenses from the previous century.

 

[Bille]

Is it due to wisdom or income?

It may as well be due to age.

 

[skucera]

I think I'm torn three ways in this discussion:

Convenience... I set aside my film cameras in 1998 because of the convenience of seeing a picture the moment it is taken, and the ease of posting it on-line or e-mailing it across country. I still use my iPhone for most casual pictures because it's in my pocket and it takes good snapshots.

Cost... I use my old film cameras because I own them, but receiving my wife's grandfather's Leica M3 outfit as a gift rekindled my passion for film photography this summer. As much as I lust to own a new digital Leica M typ 262 or a new digital EOS to complement my old film cameras, I just don't have the ready cash to buy one. But I do have money for film and developing. $1400 or $4000 or $8000 buys a lot of film and developing, so maybe I'm just old fashioned enough to leave digital photography in my pocket.

Gadget-head instincts... I have always been intrigued by gadgety cameras, and I don't know why. I've found this summer and fall that there are lots of small, cool cameras that I couldn't afford to buy years or decades ago that are now under $20 at thrift stores, and they're in excellent condition! A month or two ago it was a Bell & Howell Dial 35-2 (made by Canon) in perfect shape. Last week I bought a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 for $6, and it is a rangefinder. I'll finish rebuilding the battery this weekend, and see how it shoots. These thrift store cameras let me indulge the gadget-head in me very cheaply indeed, and I don't know if I would get much more enjoyment from a new Leica or EOS.

But for me wisdom isn't a factor. When I find a new camera, or develop a roll and look at the prints, I'm still an 18-year-old art geek at heart. Perhaps it's wisdom to embrace the inner 18-year-old and just enjoy photography.

Scott

 

[B-9]

Sometimes we take our cameras, our gear, and ourselves to seriously.

Do what's fun and shoot what feels right. The rest is just filler and talk.

I do love a good thrift camera...

 

[gb hill]

I'm looking at older and known for good reason photographers like George Zimbel (Montreal) and Frank Herzog (Vancouver) and as of now they aren't using high-end cameras. Just nothing special cropped sensor cameras, like NEX and X series cameras. Some, like John Free, are using old, not expensive film gear they have used for decades.
And almost nobody from old stock known photographers I'm aware of are with latest digital Leica gear...

Is it due to wisdom or income?

John Free is the primary reason I picked up the SLR film camera again. I know with him it's not the money but the camera. He absolutely loves his F3 & a 50mm lens. He had a you tube video at one time explaining why he prefers an SLR to a rangefinder camera. I'm still not ready to give up my bessa cameras yet.