RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
I wasn't picking on Harrison, Gabriel. LOL
I just thought it was funny because we don't have any "old folk"on RFF. 😛
R.J.
I just thought it was funny because we don't have any "old folk"on RFF. 😛
R.J.
Photographer or gear-head
- Thread starter FrankS
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 108
- Views 6K
- Status
einolu
Well-known
hms624 said:
what a birthday 😀!
I started with rangefinders with a Kiev 4, that was broken, so then I got a Yashica GSN, which broke, and then I got a MIR, which was no fun to use, and then I got another Kiev, which broke, so then I finally spent some money and got a Bessa R, which actually had slanted framelines so I sent it back, I then used my trusty Zorki 1 for a while and then got another Bessa R, which actually worked. I tryed the Canon 7 in the middle there and didnt really like it, so I sold it.
Am I a gear head? Kind of, but I spent so much money on shit that I have now decided to buy quality once. I wouldnt mind buying a Leica eventually.
Last edited:
hms624
"Precocious" Pariah
I just figured that I may as well start with equipment that I could grow into, instead of out of. As I am now in college, I am in the phase where I do not receive much superfluous stuff from my parents, nor do I make my own money yet. Therefore, I thought that it would be cheaper and more practical to make a one-time investment and stick with it for quite some time.
And RJ, to me, you are all old folk. 😀
And RJ, to me, you are all old folk. 😀
Jack
Member
Gear heads or tech heads are found in every endeavor and I think it comes down to those who strive to understand every aspect of whatever they are involved in and those who are happy to pursue a result oblivious to what is required in achieving it.
Both make a contribution its what makes the world go around.
Both make a contribution its what makes the world go around.
Stu W
Well-known
There are people on "that other forum" that think if you take good care of your equipment you have serious issues and are subject to tons of abuse. One member asked a question about the new LHSA MP-3 and promptly was gang banged by the members because he was purchasing a collectible. They like to make everyone think that they feel that the camera is only a tool, and dings and dents are battle scars. Their drama could make you puke. Battle Scars? Like any one of them came ashore on Normandy?
This forum is a nice balance. Collectors, shooters, people who do their own repairs, people who send things out. I like you guys. No extremists. Stu
This forum is a nice balance. Collectors, shooters, people who do their own repairs, people who send things out. I like you guys. No extremists. Stu
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
hms624 said:
If anybody would try to " decide" here what the right or wrong use of a camera is it would be the end of the dialog. Exactly THIS happens at many other places and we all know how this always ends, with names.
Of course everybody can do with his camera whatever he wants , at least as long as he does not pretend to be another kind of person to hide his intentions.
Why does he do that ? You asked it some posts ago and said that for you it is confusing that people do so.
I think it is quite easy to explain, such folks would feel excluded from a large part of the photo community , they are afraid of beeing considered as "collectors only" and that would be sad and embarrassing for them. The wrong way nonetheless , leads to misunderstandings and trouble, you should always stand for your intentions.
I' d respect even somebody who puts a $ 800.000 Ferrari in his living room instead of driving it. He's fun to watch this car like an artwork , too noble to use it.
No prob !
BUT if this person would tell me something about the excellent roadholding of the car at top speed and the superior response of the enginge above 7000 RPM I would consider him as a ridiculous eunuch: He can tell you how it works but he can't show you how it must be done !! 😀 😀
Regards,
Bertram
i
Uncle Bill
Well-known
- Local time
- 10:58 AM
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,077
I am both and unrepentant about it....
Bill
Bill
Sean Chan
RFFer
There are people who start off taking photos because they want to be photographers but they end up being gearheads and there are people who start off buying cameras because of the spec and the look of the cameras (gearheads) and end up being photographers.
I personally am the latter but without the photographer part. Ha ! Ha !
I am trying my best to add the 'photograhper' part to my live recently but sometime the GAS really can get in the way badly.
What are your thoughts?
I personally am the latter but without the photographer part. Ha ! Ha !
I am trying my best to add the 'photograhper' part to my live recently but sometime the GAS really can get in the way badly.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited:
Peter Klein
Well-known
hms624 said:
HMS624: I never questioned anyone's legitimacy. The only one who did that is you, in the above quote, where you publicly questioned mine. And you did it not once, but in two separate posts. Despite the fact that I only made one post in this thread before this one.
Frankly, you have made me angrier than I have ever gotten in a photo forum before. As this is supposed to be a friendly forum, I am going to keep this civil (and I've already written and deleted two responses before this one). Let me simply point out:
1. I do not need lessons in tolerance from you.
2. I never said that camera collecting wasn't legitimate . I simply said that I preferred cameras to be used rather than sitting on a shelf, and that for me the beauty of a camera was a combination of its function and its form, not just its form. I also included a smiley in the post, along with the self-deprecating signature "Peter, waxing philosophical. . ." to indicate that I was speaking a little bit tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it was too subtle. Rest assured, I have no plans to send any camera collectors to the Gulag, or even to Politically Correct Re-Education class.
3. RFF is not high school debate team. The purpose here is friendly conversation and the friendly exchange of ideas, information and photographs. The purpose is not winning verbal competition.
Think about it.
--Peter
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
Better gear, better photography. So you gotta be a gear-head. 😎
hms624
"Precocious" Pariah
Peter Klein said:
Sorry my friend. Observe my smiley face: 😀 I did not think this was that big a deal.
I thought about it,
Harrison
hms624
"Precocious" Pariah
Peter,
I realize that this is not high school debate, although your numbered arguments had me think otherwise for a moment. If it was debate however, I believe that you would lose. Here I am again, with my two posts to your one. How oppressive of me.
Best regards,
Harrison
I realize that this is not high school debate, although your numbered arguments had me think otherwise for a moment. If it was debate however, I believe that you would lose. Here I am again, with my two posts to your one. How oppressive of me.
Best regards,
Harrison
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
P.nut-like banter? 😀
Sonnar Brian
Established
> Us old folk didn't have the burden of growing up with Pokemon and Barney.
Oh Yeah? Have Kids. And telling a 6 month old that Barney is a Dinosaur that likes to eat babies does nothing to deter the problem.
> And RJ, to me, you are all old folk.
We actually have some teenagers that hit this site.
And I know one 7-year old that is quite good with a Nikon SP, Nikon S3, Leica M3, Leica M2, and Retina IIIS.
> Hey Brian, how's this: If you can convert a Prominent-mount lens to an M-mount, then I know who the Mad-Scientist-in-Chief I could go to...
You know, converting the Nokton (original) to Nikon RF mount is done via a simple adapter. I've seen it adapted to a LTM using a focus mount from a screw mount lens. I have a Leica "Nooky" style focus mount just crying for a lens module. I would use the Canon 50mm F1.5 focus mount that I repaired from the Oly RD parts, but I KNOW another lens butt will come along and Joe will get his F1.5 Canon.
Oh Yeah? Have Kids. And telling a 6 month old that Barney is a Dinosaur that likes to eat babies does nothing to deter the problem.
> And RJ, to me, you are all old folk.
We actually have some teenagers that hit this site.
And I know one 7-year old that is quite good with a Nikon SP, Nikon S3, Leica M3, Leica M2, and Retina IIIS.
> Hey Brian, how's this: If you can convert a Prominent-mount lens to an M-mount, then I know who the Mad-Scientist-in-Chief I could go to...
You know, converting the Nokton (original) to Nikon RF mount is done via a simple adapter. I've seen it adapted to a LTM using a focus mount from a screw mount lens. I have a Leica "Nooky" style focus mount just crying for a lens module. I would use the Canon 50mm F1.5 focus mount that I repaired from the Oly RD parts, but I KNOW another lens butt will come along and Joe will get his F1.5 Canon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Stu, your final remark "No extremists" and your avatar picture together create a very funny image about you🙂
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I'm not (too) ashamed to admit that I'm a bit of a gearhead, and not just in photography. I would also like to think that I'm a photographer, but some people may say that ain't the case. Ahh....
I think just about everybody would agree that the right thing to do with a camera is to take pictures with it.
I think just about everybody would also say that there isn't anything wrong with looking at a camera, and admiring it, without taking pictures.
Most of us on this forum live in free countries (hopefully someday all of us) and as such, as long as you aren't hurting anybody, then what's the big deal?
A lot of times the people who insist that collectors are jerks are people who can't, for one reason or another, get the things they want, and they blame the collectors. That may be fair, that may not be. I personally pine, lust and pray for a Leica. One of these days I'll be able to get one. Until then, I will be silently jealous of people who have them, and I will silently hold "collectors" in contempt, because they have something I don't have. I will do so silently though, because I know that it's only a product of my own inadequacy, and not rather something that the "collectors" are doing wrong. It's no big deal if somebody collects, shoots, or oggles. It's their camera!
On the other hand, most of us would agree that a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh belongs in a museum, where it is both reasonably assured of longevity, as well as public access. Few things make me sadder than having the world's greatest art being bought up by collectors, to stash away in their basement, never to see the light of day again.
But then, that's life I suppose.....I was almost heartbroken a few years ago when that Japanese billionare bought Van Gogh's Irises (or am I thinking of Starry Night?) for a monumental pile of cash...when the media asked him about it, he said that he would bury the painting with him when he dies. I think it's pretty normal for people to say that that's just about the worst thing to do with such a painting.
Cameras are different though, because there's always another one...so let the collectors have their way, and live your life the best you can, either way.
To the consternation of my wife, I like to keep some cameras on my bookshelves, so that I can look at them. Yes, I shoot them (I don't have the money to "collect") but I like looking at them when they're at rest.
To paraphraise Plato, a thing is its essence; a camera is not just a camera, but also an object of photography, and a tool to make photographs with. A hammer likewise is not just a hammer, in its essence, it is an object you can use to pound nails into wood, kill Cockroaches with, or even scratch your back. But, it is a hammer.
So to look at a camera is to see and understand its purpose; whether you are taking pictures or simply fondling your Leica MP, you're acting photographically, in response to a photographic object.
So perhaps there are logical legitimizations of both collecting and shooting, and perhaps both pasttimes are indeed largely the same thing.
Personally, I think my gear-headedness is somewhat logically founded...when I spend countless hours pining for a Leica, or a Linhof, or whatever, I don't just think about how cool the thing is, but rather I think about what I would do with it...this picture, or that picture, etc.
Likewise, my wife thinks it's ridiculous how much I know about fishing reels and rods; what she doesn't realize (boy, I am an addict) is that different equipment accomplishes different purposes, and does things differently according to quality, etc.
Or when I look at a '74 Dino driving by (rarely) I don't just think what a lovely car it is, but I imagine myself driving it in the hills of Eastern Oregon, swooping through dangerous curves at just a hair under stupid speed, the tires gripping the road like a monkey holds a banana.
Of course then there are some of us who think the same way when they see beautiful women walking down the street, so I think you guys understand. (I know what people would say if somebody simply "collected" women, although fondling would be much more congratulated.
I think just about everybody would agree that the right thing to do with a camera is to take pictures with it.
I think just about everybody would also say that there isn't anything wrong with looking at a camera, and admiring it, without taking pictures.
Most of us on this forum live in free countries (hopefully someday all of us) and as such, as long as you aren't hurting anybody, then what's the big deal?
A lot of times the people who insist that collectors are jerks are people who can't, for one reason or another, get the things they want, and they blame the collectors. That may be fair, that may not be. I personally pine, lust and pray for a Leica. One of these days I'll be able to get one. Until then, I will be silently jealous of people who have them, and I will silently hold "collectors" in contempt, because they have something I don't have. I will do so silently though, because I know that it's only a product of my own inadequacy, and not rather something that the "collectors" are doing wrong. It's no big deal if somebody collects, shoots, or oggles. It's their camera!
On the other hand, most of us would agree that a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh belongs in a museum, where it is both reasonably assured of longevity, as well as public access. Few things make me sadder than having the world's greatest art being bought up by collectors, to stash away in their basement, never to see the light of day again.
But then, that's life I suppose.....I was almost heartbroken a few years ago when that Japanese billionare bought Van Gogh's Irises (or am I thinking of Starry Night?) for a monumental pile of cash...when the media asked him about it, he said that he would bury the painting with him when he dies. I think it's pretty normal for people to say that that's just about the worst thing to do with such a painting.
Cameras are different though, because there's always another one...so let the collectors have their way, and live your life the best you can, either way.
To the consternation of my wife, I like to keep some cameras on my bookshelves, so that I can look at them. Yes, I shoot them (I don't have the money to "collect") but I like looking at them when they're at rest.
To paraphraise Plato, a thing is its essence; a camera is not just a camera, but also an object of photography, and a tool to make photographs with. A hammer likewise is not just a hammer, in its essence, it is an object you can use to pound nails into wood, kill Cockroaches with, or even scratch your back. But, it is a hammer.
So to look at a camera is to see and understand its purpose; whether you are taking pictures or simply fondling your Leica MP, you're acting photographically, in response to a photographic object.
So perhaps there are logical legitimizations of both collecting and shooting, and perhaps both pasttimes are indeed largely the same thing.
Personally, I think my gear-headedness is somewhat logically founded...when I spend countless hours pining for a Leica, or a Linhof, or whatever, I don't just think about how cool the thing is, but rather I think about what I would do with it...this picture, or that picture, etc.
Likewise, my wife thinks it's ridiculous how much I know about fishing reels and rods; what she doesn't realize (boy, I am an addict) is that different equipment accomplishes different purposes, and does things differently according to quality, etc.
Or when I look at a '74 Dino driving by (rarely) I don't just think what a lovely car it is, but I imagine myself driving it in the hills of Eastern Oregon, swooping through dangerous curves at just a hair under stupid speed, the tires gripping the road like a monkey holds a banana.
Of course then there are some of us who think the same way when they see beautiful women walking down the street, so I think you guys understand. (I know what people would say if somebody simply "collected" women, although fondling would be much more congratulated.
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian
Established
Collector's like cameras in EX+ and better condition. They are getting harder to find, and the prices stay up there. "Shooters" should be happy with a camera in good operational condition, and not worry about the cosmetics. The price of user condition camera gear is way down. A good-user Leica M3 (a camera that everyone here at RFF should own) with a Summicron is down under $800. So why pine away for a new MP and latest Summilux at $5K? Get an M3 and Type I Rigid Summicron!
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
Until some recent vet bills, as yet ongoing, I was well on my way to just such a camera!
Except, I much prefer black cameras, so something M4-ish was a bit more likely. I'll probablly have to wait until next summer.
Either way, a Leica will be mine! (evil laugh)
Except, I much prefer black cameras, so something M4-ish was a bit more likely. I'll probablly have to wait until next summer.
Either way, a Leica will be mine! (evil laugh)
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
You could always use your C.C.
W
wierdcollector
Guest
Personally I don't understand posts that state what a great bunch we have here, tolerant and nice, then go on to call names like "ridiculous eunuchs" or "
And exactly there is the limit where the annoying part begins. That's when collectors and fondlers begin to state they are photogs, present their care- and thoughtlessly taken photos to the public and bother others with technical and artistical pseudo knowledge read in manuals books catalogs or funny websites put up especially for folks like them .
Worse is if they begin to take part at artistical discussions and want to critizise other (real) photogs photos, seldom funny, mostly annoying.
Worst however is when status shall play a roll too, if people buy photo stuff to replace bad or no sex with expensive gear or to support their image of a rich and well established person for their largely virtual existence on photo sites in the web."
Just seems like an attempt to categorise all those whom are beneath your particular artistic standards or tastes. What would meet your exact definition of Photog? Who sets the parameters of a proper photographer or an enthusiastic amateur?I could be wrong but veiled criticism and beating around the bush slander strikes me as just more verbal braying I for one don't really need. Correct me or slap me at will, but c'mon now, if you consider a certain amount of the members here as "beneath you" why would you come here every day? "Care-and thoughtlessly taken photos"??? "Pseudo knowledge" , "folks like them", "other (real) photogs" by whose standards again?? or "replace bad or no sex" and "largely virtual existence". I begin to understand your avatar more completely. As far as I'm concerned you need to learn tolerance, understanding and the true meaning of the word "egotistic". By the way, it's "artistic" not artistical.
And exactly there is the limit where the annoying part begins. That's when collectors and fondlers begin to state they are photogs, present their care- and thoughtlessly taken photos to the public and bother others with technical and artistical pseudo knowledge read in manuals books catalogs or funny websites put up especially for folks like them .
Worse is if they begin to take part at artistical discussions and want to critizise other (real) photogs photos, seldom funny, mostly annoying.
Worst however is when status shall play a roll too, if people buy photo stuff to replace bad or no sex with expensive gear or to support their image of a rich and well established person for their largely virtual existence on photo sites in the web."
Just seems like an attempt to categorise all those whom are beneath your particular artistic standards or tastes. What would meet your exact definition of Photog? Who sets the parameters of a proper photographer or an enthusiastic amateur?I could be wrong but veiled criticism and beating around the bush slander strikes me as just more verbal braying I for one don't really need. Correct me or slap me at will, but c'mon now, if you consider a certain amount of the members here as "beneath you" why would you come here every day? "Care-and thoughtlessly taken photos"??? "Pseudo knowledge" , "folks like them", "other (real) photogs" by whose standards again?? or "replace bad or no sex" and "largely virtual existence". I begin to understand your avatar more completely. As far as I'm concerned you need to learn tolerance, understanding and the true meaning of the word "egotistic". By the way, it's "artistic" not artistical.
- Status