The psychology of 'junk' cameras.

Chris101 said:
attachment.php


I was told the M4-P was the *best* Leica by a noted Leica-phile, as long as one used a 35mm lens with it. "Match made in heaven" was the phrase used, I believe.
Click to expand...

Nice junker, Chris.
And Amen for that last statement.
 
Wow. The answer to all the "Help Me decide..." threads about cases. That's the stuff(ing?) right there.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Then why stop at a Nikon F? Why not REALLY stretch youself and rebuild a 12x15 inch field camera? Note: 12x15 because the film is hard to get...

Sorry: from my standpoint, the purpose of photography is to get good pictures, not to purify the soul through suffering.
Click to expand...

Ah, but for most of us photographic hobbyists, process is part of what attracts us to photography and 'junk' cameras often require more process in order to produce good final images. By and large, Keith's Nikon D700 will produce a sharply focused, accurately exposed image of anything he points it at, without any special effort on his part (switch on, take off lens cap... errr, that's it); the same is obviously not true of any camera which is manually focused and requires exposure to be set manually. This requires some thought about what we are trying to achieve and how we want to achieve it; subliminally, I suspect it also means we pay more attention to framing, perspective and a host of other things too.

I'd go further, and say that this is one of the attractions of rangefinders over SLRs. In addition to setting exposure and focus, an RF camera also introduces difficulty over framing. It isn't insuperable, but it's there and it forces us to think about what we're doing that little bit more.

So, it doesn't surprise me that Keith takes more interesting pictures with 'junk' cameras than with his D700. I think I'm the same.
 
Ade-oh said:
Ah, but for most of us photographic hobbyists, process is part of what attracts us to photography and 'junk' cameras often require more process in order to produce good final images. By and large, Keith's Nikon D700 will produce a sharply focused, accurately exposed image of anything he points it at, without any special effort on his part (switch on, take off lens cap... errr, that's it); the same is obviously not true of any camera which is manually focused and requires exposure to be set manually. This requires some thought about what we are trying to achieve and how we want to achieve it; subliminally, I suspect it also means we pay more attention to framing, perspective and a host of other things too.

I'd go further, and say that this is one of the attractions of rangefinders over SLRs. In addition to setting exposure and focus, an RF camera also introduces difficulty over framing. It isn't insuperable, but it's there and it forces us to think about what we're doing that little bit more.

So, it doesn't surprise me that Keith takes more interesting pictures with 'junk' cameras than with his D700. I think I'm the same.
Click to expand...

You've expressed exactly how I feel about this very well.

The sentence in bold which you quoted does not ring true for many, I would think.
We often voyage for the pleasure of the journey, not simply to "arrive".

Was it Giacometti who said that he continued working, only for the pleasure that the act of working gave him?
 
Keith, here is a challenge for you as I don't think I have ever seen you post a comparison of images but then I don't spend that much time on the forums.

1. Take said interesting photo with a junk camera(s) of your choice.

2. Within seconds, take the same photo with the D700.

3. Post them side by side for discussion.

The reason is because of the crap I hear all the time (about it doesn't matter what camera you use because it is just a light box) that it is all about the lens. I submit that it is both the camera and the lens (not to leave out the film!) that make your photos more interesting.

With my Nikon DSLR's vs. the M3, the results are very different. So, much so, that I use only the Leica bodies with 100 iso and 400 iso film exclusively for my projects series.

So, let's see what you are talking about rather than doing all of this mental exercise and regurgitation of mantras.:p I bet it will be obvious.:angel:
 
I can totally relate to the topic and noticed this in my images, too. On a recent trip I brought an array of cameras (incl. Canon 60D) and ended up shooting mostly with my phone because the "crappy" pictures just looked much more interesting (well, my phone being waterproof might be another reason since it was raining for almost 3 days straight).

I also shot a few rolls of film with my Zorki with some likeable result - but the images from the Canon were all pretty boring...

And now I read this, just as I was thinking of getting an M8 ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom