back alley
IMAGES
then, let me apologise for this grievance as i usually take the time to say thanks, this was an oversight.
i do not mind being reminded to observe the niceities of life.
Should I buy a...?
- Thread starter Roger Hicks
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 13K
then, let me apologise for this grievance as i usually take the time to say thanks, this was an oversight.
i do not mind being reminded to observe the niceities of life.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I love it when I read these sorts of sweeping absolute statements, because they are virtually always wrong. As is this one.
I've been working in the newspaper industry for nearly 20 years, and have worked with dozens upon dozens of professional photojournalists. Some are pure gearheads who love talking about and lusting after lenses and bodies. I was introduced to Leica by one I met while I was back in college.
I'm sorry, but notion that real photographers don't care or talk much about gear is just sort of laughable.
tripod
Well-known
I wish there were a sarcasm emocon.
I agree with you, Tim.
I agree with you, Tim.
micromontenegro
Well-known
Frank G must be happily humming now!
BillP
Rangefinder General
Err...
Trying to get back on topic, I think I can see what Roger is driving at.
I have no problem with people who ask for opinions on lens x or body y or film z in terms of performance, etc.
Where I struggle is with the questions that are largely a matter of taste - chrome vs black being a prime example. I would no more ask for opinions on that than I would post here to ask if my next suiting should be pinstripe or birdseye check.
The daft question is compounded by the unfounded answer. These come from people who do not own, or have never owned, the gear in question, but have an opinion on it nonetheless.
Opinions, particularly those expressed on the interweb are like arseholes. We all have them and most of them stink.
Regards,
Bill
Trying to get back on topic, I think I can see what Roger is driving at.
I have no problem with people who ask for opinions on lens x or body y or film z in terms of performance, etc.
Where I struggle is with the questions that are largely a matter of taste - chrome vs black being a prime example. I would no more ask for opinions on that than I would post here to ask if my next suiting should be pinstripe or birdseye check.
The daft question is compounded by the unfounded answer. These come from people who do not own, or have never owned, the gear in question, but have an opinion on it nonetheless.
Opinions, particularly those expressed on the interweb are like arseholes. We all have them and most of them stink.
Regards,
Bill
John Robertson
Well-known
An artist I knew many years ago, McIntosh Patrick said when asked the difference between art of painting and photography said.
"when you ask a painter about his art he will show you his paintings, a photographer will show you his cameras!!"
Very true!!🙄
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Very well expressed. Thank you.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
You said it perfectly John. Or, rather Patrick said it. So right.
Chris101
summicronia
Before I bought my first Leica (and my first serious old camera - I have many old cameras, but I bought them all new) I knew nothing about the various models. I found one at a local camera shop, but they knew nothing about it. I asked "Should I buy a ..." on a forum where a well known Leica advocate posted often.
In return I got encouragement, testing advice and a raft of useful information. I bought it and now, 13 months later it is one of my favorite cameras. I even take pictures with it.
Water colors basically stink - they are for school children, as their main advantage is easy cleaning. Oil will never dry in your lifetime, and clean up requires an EPA supersite. Acrylic is the only real alternative for the 21st century. Good luck with that!
😛😛😛😛
In return I got encouragement, testing advice and a raft of useful information. I bought it and now, 13 months later it is one of my favorite cameras. I even take pictures with it.
Water colors basically stink - they are for school children, as their main advantage is easy cleaning. Oil will never dry in your lifetime, and clean up requires an EPA supersite. Acrylic is the only real alternative for the 21st century. Good luck with that!
😛😛😛😛
Ororaro
Well-known
Chris, the M4-P is king! 😀
BillP
Rangefinder General
Chris, I *think* you are probably referring to what I know as "poster paints" - powdered pigments mixed in water for use.
True water colours certainly do not "stink". I still go out to this day, occasionally, with a small water colour kit and a book of Windsor and Newton's finest. It's a totally different discipline, but no less rewarding.
Regards,
Bill
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry to have upset so many people, and really, the original post was not aimed at anyone in particular. Perhaps another restatement of the original premise is called for.
If you ask for opinions about 'should I buy A...?' or 'Should I buy A or B?'
1 Yes, you are going to get personal opinions, and those opinions will vary according to personal experience, expectations and purse.
2 WITH VERY OLD EQUIPMENT (I've used caps and bold because surprisingly many people seem not to have noticed this aspect of the thread), those opinions are going to be of limited usefulness because wear and tear and deterioration will often account for more variation than original quality.
I'll certainly agree with other posters that opinions tend to be polarized and are sometimes wildly overstated, and that some who hold the strongest opinions have never actually owned, used, or in some cases even handled the equipment in question, but that really wasn't the point.
What prompted the post was musing on the kind of reply which, when someone says, "Should I buy am aspheric or pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux?" replies, "No, what you really want is a Summicron/Canon/Nikkor/Voigtländer...
Some of these answers are very useful indeed, because they point out alternatives that are probably related to the inquirer's desires. Less useful, but still fairly relevant, are "Have you considered a 28mm [or 40mm]?" Probably least useful are the ones that go, "No-one needs a lens that fast, and the 35mm Summicron is a lot sharper" or "Why not buy a 90mm?"
None of these points is aimed at anyone either. Rather, the whole idea was a reflection on how questions should be phrased in order to get useful answers, and what answers are actually useful instead of showing off the respondent's knowledge (or lack of it), experience (or lack of it), prejudices or possessions.
Of course any answer is likely to contain one or more of those (knowledge, experience, prejudices or possessions) but some respondents (and some inquirers) seem more aware of this than others.
Cheers,
Roger
If you ask for opinions about 'should I buy A...?' or 'Should I buy A or B?'
1 Yes, you are going to get personal opinions, and those opinions will vary according to personal experience, expectations and purse.
2 WITH VERY OLD EQUIPMENT (I've used caps and bold because surprisingly many people seem not to have noticed this aspect of the thread), those opinions are going to be of limited usefulness because wear and tear and deterioration will often account for more variation than original quality.
I'll certainly agree with other posters that opinions tend to be polarized and are sometimes wildly overstated, and that some who hold the strongest opinions have never actually owned, used, or in some cases even handled the equipment in question, but that really wasn't the point.
What prompted the post was musing on the kind of reply which, when someone says, "Should I buy am aspheric or pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux?" replies, "No, what you really want is a Summicron/Canon/Nikkor/Voigtländer...
Some of these answers are very useful indeed, because they point out alternatives that are probably related to the inquirer's desires. Less useful, but still fairly relevant, are "Have you considered a 28mm [or 40mm]?" Probably least useful are the ones that go, "No-one needs a lens that fast, and the 35mm Summicron is a lot sharper" or "Why not buy a 90mm?"
None of these points is aimed at anyone either. Rather, the whole idea was a reflection on how questions should be phrased in order to get useful answers, and what answers are actually useful instead of showing off the respondent's knowledge (or lack of it), experience (or lack of it), prejudices or possessions.
Of course any answer is likely to contain one or more of those (knowledge, experience, prejudices or possessions) but some respondents (and some inquirers) seem more aware of this than others.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, the subject was the validity of opinions and preferences on the usability of old gear, given
A: The sample size available to any individual. I doubt I've had more than 30-40 Leicas in the last 38 years, or handled more than a very few hundred. I've only ever owned three Canon RFs, and handled maybe a couple of dozen. By 'handled' I mean 'looked at as carefully as if I were a prospective buyer, and sometimes taken pictures with or even borrowed for days, weeks and months at a time', not just 'picked up'.
B: The likely enormous variations in quality AS A RESULT OF THE INTERVENING DECADES, regardless of initial quality. Again I use bold caps because a lot of people seem to be ignoring this, which was central to the original post.
As I say, on my sampling, which is bigger than many but smaller than some, I'd back the Leica every time. Someone else, who had owned/handled lots of Canons but very few Leicas, might say the opposite. This is why I said, in the post you queried, any individual Canon might be better than any individual Leica AS A RESULT OF THE INTERVENING DECADES.
Sorry I can't make myself clearer.
Cheers,
Roger
F
former member
Guest
If you have a large enough pool that has sampled many cameras, you can probably pick up a trend by asking such questions. If someone wanted to choose between a 1950s Minolta 35 or a 1950s Canon, most here would sway them toward a Canon. The material used for the shutter curtains was much better. A 1950s Leica, we'd be telling them to reserve money for a CLA and possible beamsplitter replacement. I've replaced beamsplitters in 4 of 5 Barnack Leica's, the 5th was "okay" and the body not in good enough cosmetic shape to make it really cost effective. Of seven LTM Canon RF's, I've not had to replace a beamsplitter.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Very true. But this is still not the original point. The original point is the camera that is available to the inquirer.
On average, taking your concrete example, most might well agree that the Canon is the camera to go for. I certainly would.
But the range of samples available to the inquirer is nothing like the range of samples available to those who are answering his (or, very rarely, her) question.
The chance of getting a good or bad Leica, Canon, Minolta, whatever, is very nearly pure luck -- the more so as a camera that is being sold today is (be definition) likely to older than any camera of similar vintage that an RFF member has been using for a while. Also (by definition) someone is selling it, quite possibly because they are dissatisfied with it. That was my original point about 'If you get a good one'.
To try to restate my point yet another way, isn't it a good idea to find out all you can, about all the cameras you can, and then buy something (almost anything) because it comes up at a price you consider worthwhile, even if it means taking a chance on (say) a Minolta instead of a Canon? And isn't it a dubious idea to set your heart on one specific camera that you know little about, and try to find a good one?
There's always a gamble involved in buying second-hand cameras (and indeed, most other things). It just seems to me that generalizations ABOUT VERY OLD CAMERAS (bold caps not for you but for others who have missed this bit) are a lot less useful than generalizations about more modern cameras THAT HAVE NOT SUFFERED THE WEAR AND TEAR AND DUBIOUS REPAIRS OF SEVERAL DECADES. (Again, please don't take offence at the bold caps -- your reply shows that you have taken this on board, but there are apparently still some who haven't).
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's always interesting to go to bed ... get up in the morning and see which way a topical thread has gone. Water colours verses acrylic verses oils. 😱
A friend of mine does the most exquisit pencil drawings of still life objects ... I love them the way I love classic black and white photos of similar subjects! 🙂
A friend of mine does the most exquisit pencil drawings of still life objects ... I love them the way I love classic black and white photos of similar subjects! 🙂
Chris101
summicronia
Hey Bill,
I meant water colors, the kind that come in little tubes and you dilute with water, then mix them in in a little ceramic well. Plastic well these days I guess. And 'stink' was figurative and in 'I always end up with muddy brown and make a hole in the paper'.
I have seen some beautiful watercolor paintings, but I suspect they cheated and photoshopped it! 😉 Acrylic has become my (paint) medium of choice and I thought I should add to that sub-part of this thread. I also posted about where I stand on asking for buying advice in internet fora. I'm in favor of it when folks like Ned are so willing to share their passion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, Richard, that was the exact opposite of my intention.
As I said earlier, I was trying to think about what questions elicit the most useful answers, and what those answers might be.
Any answers to "I want to buy a ___________, is it any good?" are likely to be of limited use if a _________ is 40 years old and may have been used regularly (but not too much) and stored in a humidity-controlled cabinet; or not used in 30 years, stored in a humid cupboard, and 'repaired' last week by an amateur.
As Brian said, you can determine a trend. My sole argument is that once the kit is old enough, the trend is of limited use with a single camera. When it comes to deciding whether or not to buy the camera in front of you. it is necessary either to have quite a lot of hands-on experience of a variety of old cameras, or to be prepared to take a risk: indeed, usually both.
As so often in photography, people are looking for a certainty that is not there, and cannot be there. At least, that's how some of the questions look to me, and (still more) how some of the answers look: "If you can't get good pictures with this lens, you're not a REAL photographer."
Cheers,
Roger
Dan States
Established
I'll take wanking for 500! Who says you can't do both?
Chris101
summicronia
Roger, I guess you could say that whenever buying any piece of equipment one should evaluate the specific item, rather than a general consensus of other instances of that item.
This is true except for the person who is not familiar at all with the range of different, similar items. In those cases a general consensus is likely to be helpful regardless of the specific item. But then one should know how to evaluate the specific item of interest.
Because granted, most cameras that are 40 years old are bound to run into mechanical issues soon.
This is true except for the person who is not familiar at all with the range of different, similar items. In those cases a general consensus is likely to be helpful regardless of the specific item. But then one should know how to evaluate the specific item of interest.
Because granted, most cameras that are 40 years old are bound to run into mechanical issues soon.
Similar threads
