Daryl J.
Well-known
The M3
It fit my hands
It fit my face
It didn't make me a better photographer. Taking photographs did.
It didn't make me a better person. Moral compass does that.
It didn't make me elite. Nor did I expect it to.
I like the renderings of a 2/55 Takumar on a Pentax Spotmatic.
I use my SRT-102 and inexpensive lens about as much. I love the renderings. I use my M's with various glass and love their renderings too.
The M3 is a simply a photographic tool. A very well made, durable photographic tool. One that can mount incredible lenses. But the job of creating the image is up to me.
Maybe that's why my favorite photograph came from my Holga.
It fit my hands
It fit my face
It didn't make me a better photographer. Taking photographs did.
It didn't make me a better person. Moral compass does that.
It didn't make me elite. Nor did I expect it to.
I like the renderings of a 2/55 Takumar on a Pentax Spotmatic.
I use my SRT-102 and inexpensive lens about as much. I love the renderings. I use my M's with various glass and love their renderings too.
The M3 is a simply a photographic tool. A very well made, durable photographic tool. One that can mount incredible lenses. But the job of creating the image is up to me.
Maybe that's why my favorite photograph came from my Holga.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
If it would be Olympus Trip or Smena-8M, I would buy the "creating the image up to me". But Holga is the camera which creates image for you. Just like pinhole. I think, LC-A is in the creativity meridian .
Pioneer
Veteran
The Holga and M3 are very much alike!
The Holga and M3 are very much alike!
Nah.
A Holga is really no different then any other camera. Once you get used to how they work, and you do figure them out if you use them, then you begin to create.
In that respect a Holga and an M3 are very much alike. Both of them have strengths and weaknesses. They both depend on their users to understand them and use them in a way that emphasizes their strengths.
Among other things, the build quality of a camera has a direct impact on its durability and repair-ability, not its creative potential.
That is entirely up to you.
The Holga and M3 are very much alike!
If it would be Olympus Trip or Smena-8M, I would buy the "creating the image up to me". But Holga is the camera which creates image for you. Just like pinhole. I think, LC-A is in the creativity meridian .
Nah.
A Holga is really no different then any other camera. Once you get used to how they work, and you do figure them out if you use them, then you begin to create.
In that respect a Holga and an M3 are very much alike. Both of them have strengths and weaknesses. They both depend on their users to understand them and use them in a way that emphasizes their strengths.
Among other things, the build quality of a camera has a direct impact on its durability and repair-ability, not its creative potential.
That is entirely up to you.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The cure is to ditch the M3 and get yourself a Nikon SP
Even if you never put film in the SP, it is still nice to own and handle and it is good looking camera too.
Even if you never put film in the SP, it is still nice to own and handle and it is good looking camera too.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Nah, indeed.
Holga has crappy lens and light leaks, it applies strong effect on image by the camera for you, not by you. Also M3 with Summar which has front element in the "ground glass" state will do it for you.
Both cameras will do the same, applying the effect, which will be noticed first and foremost, but not what you did.
Then I'm taking image with M3 and clean, sharp lens like the Cron and then I apply my vision what I want it to be printed as lith or bromoil only then the image is created by me, not by special effects camera like Holga is.
M4-2 and Elmar-M 50 2.8.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Surely the photographer has some part in creating the image. Composition? Subject matter? It can't be all up to the camera, can it?
Pioneer
Veteran
Nice shot and nice print.
As you observe, all lenses impart their own effect or signature on your image. You may prefer the signature you get from the Cron but both lenses have one. You may not like the signature of the Holga's "crappy plastic lens" but it is there to be used if you wish. Creativity is possible with either one.
In fact, it could be argued that the "signature" you impose on your photograph is far more important then the signature of any lens.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thank you!
If we put on the tripod DSLR with sharp lens and take brick wall image and then on same tripod, same brick wall, but Holga. Which image you would prefer? I would take home Holga. How much of "Composition, Subject matter" mentioned above are involved here from those who pressed the shutter button? Zero. It is dull lens with de-centered, vignetting lens which made it looks interesting. You just have to print it right
Or you could take digital camera with great sensor, sharp lens and make it looks crappy:
M-E and Summarit-M 35.
Who created it like this? Not the crappy lens and leaky camera, but me.
You create with camera which creates special effect for you, or you have vision and taking it according how you will create the final image. To me second way is more creative and more challenging. Polaroid, Holga is easier and often all looks the same way, IMO.
gnuyork
Well-known
Except the M2
gnuyork
Well-known
Ain't that the truth. I'm also trying to build a guitar (well painting and putting one together anyway (pine esquire - probably much easier than what you are doing) and I demand perfection! It will take me a year to find the right pickup.
maggieo
More Deadly
Well, the whole problem is you got an M3 when what you really need is either a '65 Fender Mustang or a pine and padauk Telecaster.
1965 Fender Mustang, September 12, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Bowery Pine Tele With Padauk Neck, November 26, 2016 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
There you go. Oh, and M2s R00L!
1965 Fender Mustang, September 12, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Bowery Pine Tele With Padauk Neck, November 26, 2016 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
There you go. Oh, and M2s R00L!
steveyork
Well-known
I shot Leica rangefinders, the 0.72 variety from old (M4/5) to modern (MP/6/7), exclusively from circa 1997 to 2007, and then slowly got away from rangefinders totally. When I got back into rangefinders over the last year or so, the tinted viewfinders with higher magnifications appealed (Nikon S2, Leica M3), and that has made a big difference in terms of enjoyment. So yeah, for me, the M3 is the best Leica rangefinder, but I'm more of a 50mm guy.
After shooting SLRs pretty exclusively for 7-8 years, and now shooting some rangefinders again, I really notice the lack of shutter vibration. Something I didn't fully appreciate with my first go round of rangefinders.
But you can take great pictures with any camera, obviously. And yes, Leica rangefinders ect. are a bit overpriced, and overhyped.
After shooting SLRs pretty exclusively for 7-8 years, and now shooting some rangefinders again, I really notice the lack of shutter vibration. Something I didn't fully appreciate with my first go round of rangefinders.
But you can take great pictures with any camera, obviously. And yes, Leica rangefinders ect. are a bit overpriced, and overhyped.
steveyork
Well-known
Try a Leicaflex SL. That same instant shutter in an SLR.
Gregm61
Well-known
Why do some like Exakta cameras? Contarex SLR's? Russian rangefinders? Beats the heck out of me, and there's no use anyone trying to figure out what anyone else likes or not.
All that matters is, someone else does. No doubt, someone will take it off your hands and you can go back to....whatever it is you do like.