multivitamins
Member
I think the right word is trust with the camera you are using...
This is starting to sound like a new-age seminar.
Like those three people who just suffocated to death in the "sweat lodge".
rbsinto
Well-known
It's truly difficult to argue with such a well thought out and beautifully stated opinion such as this one.
wgerrard
Veteran
Disliking and being annoyed with a camera's design seems to me to be rather different than pride of ownership. It's easy to envision being the proud owner of a thoroughly obnoxious camera.
I come down this way on this issue: Pride of ownership can alter the owner's relationship with the camera, and that might alter the photos that are produced. However, for every person who actually increases his or her picture-taking skills due to the motivation provided by pride of ownership, perhaps an equal number start thinking their pictures are better than they really are. I.e., "I love this camera so much my pictures gotta be better."
"relationship with the camera"??
wgerrard
Veteran
Yes. The design and ergonomics of a camera determine how you use it and whether or not it feels comfortable in your hands. That's the relationship.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In a way, yes. Something you're happy with, especially if you've used it for a while, creates a sort of relationship. You know what it can/can't do; you know how to get the best, and avoid the worst; and there is a sort of affection along the lines of "We've been through a lot together."
Of course you an overstate this, and of course, logically, it's one-way: I don't believe that my old Nikon Fs harbour any deep feelings of love for me (or indeed for anyone or anything else). But it sometimes feels that way: the right camera, or car, or motorcycle, lets you achieve things above what you may regard as your natural level.
I've never regretted buying my Leicas, or Nikon Fs, or my BMW R100RS (since 1982) and although I am sometimes exasperated with my 1972 Land Rover Series III (bought in 2001) I'm happier with that than with most of the other cars I've ever owned -- and the LR is both more affordable and more practical than the handful of other cars that I've really liked when I owned them (TR II/III, Peugeot 504, Rover 105S, Rover 3-litre) or really wanted and considered buying after more or less extensive test drives or even loans (Sunbeam Talbot Alpine, MG TA, Bristol 400-402-403, Mk. VI Bentley, Jaguar XJS).
Cheers,
R.
back alley
IMAGES
'gear heads are empty heads'
roger hicks
let's start a movement and all put that quote in our sigs...
roger hicks
let's start a movement and all put that quote in our sigs...
bmattock
Veteran
I somehow think it's more than that. But like a "good five cent cigar," you're not getting any of it, and so you must take out your petty frustrations here - tormenting gear heads on a gear head forum for being gear heads. As awful as you feel their needs are, yours are worse; and sadder.
I like to trust the camera that I am using. I just spent some time collimating lenses and RF's of the camera. When I take them out, they will focus where I want them to.
Modern cameras? I did not write the embedded software that runs in them myself.
And what needs does a man who thinks he's "Johnny Appleseed" for the ages, mechanically clicking the shutter on thousands of events and posting tens of thousands frames on flickr, who posters his memorization of minutiae from his storehouse of mildewed 1950's photo magazines online get out of posting here?
I never said anything is wrong with being a gearhead. I'm one. But there's a point where "gearhead" ends and advanced delusionary neuroses begins.
(one armchair psychiatric analysis deserves another....fair dinkum, tit for tat)
I never said anything is wrong with being a gearhead. I'm one. But there's a point where "gearhead" ends and advanced delusionary neuroses begins.
(one armchair psychiatric analysis deserves another....fair dinkum, tit for tat)
I think the original poster was using the term "trust" in a way which didn't imply mechanical reliability. I think he was venturing into the metaphysical, which is where he lost me.
bmattock
Veteran
Me?
A couple of laughs, the enjoyment of sharing information, helping a person out now and again, arguing passionately-held viewpoints, and learning things I did not know. Crossing swords with people who can reason and argue as well as I can gives me immense pleasure as well.
Thank goodness we have you to point that out for us.
There is a distinct difference between people who enjoy collecting insects and people who enjoy pulling the wings off of them. I know which one I am, and I know which one you are.
What are you?
You said you dreamt about fighting people, making a big commotion because you perceive you're superior, but nobody pays attention to you.
Have I made an error?
You said you dreamt about fighting people, making a big commotion because you perceive you're superior, but nobody pays attention to you.
Have I made an error?
kermaier
Well-known
My first photography instructor, Jeff Mermelstein, came to class one day carrying the black paint M6 he'd been given by the LHSA. He was very enthusiastic about the camera, and about Leica RFs in general. What he said in recommending it stuck in my head (maybe a couple of words off):
"If you can afford one, and use it regularly, then you'll have the pleasure of it."
I asked him what he meant by that, but he just repeated his statement and would not elaborate.
Ari
"If you can afford one, and use it regularly, then you'll have the pleasure of it."
I asked him what he meant by that, but he just repeated his statement and would not elaborate.
Ari
bmattock
Veteran
I am His Majesty's dog at Kew. Pray tell me, sir, who's dog are you?
Well, you seem to be rather obsessed with me. You seem to know a lot about a person whom you claim no one pays any attention to.
Apparently.
Just a good memory for the written word. I don't devote a moment's thought to you the instant I finish a post.
OK, you've read Alexander Pope. You also know how to Google for Latin phrases. Am I to be suitably impressed? I know a man who cleans toilets who can recite the entire volumes of Samuel Pepys from memory.
PS: I didn't say you weren't paid attention to. Your subconscious did.
OK, you've read Alexander Pope. You also know how to Google for Latin phrases. Am I to be suitably impressed? I know a man who cleans toilets who can recite the entire volumes of Samuel Pepys from memory.
PS: I didn't say you weren't paid attention to. Your subconscious did.
bmattock
Veteran
Sure, I believe that.
What's wrong with cleaning toilets for a living? If he can recite Samuel Pepys from memory, he sounds like a person worth knowing. A living "Jude the Obscure," eh?
As to being impressed, I would have to derive my sense of self from your approval for that to matter to me.
You're flailing. Get it up, or give it up.
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney
I like to trust the camera that I am using. I just spent some time collimating lenses and RF's of the camera. When I take them out, they will focus where I want them to.
Modern cameras? I did not write the embedded software that runs in them myself.
no. I do not do metaphysical. I did not write the software that runs in the camera myself. If I did, I would trust it. Look at the firmware error in the N8008s as a perfect example. Under certain instances, the camera will jam at the end of a roll and the On/Off button will no longer turn the camera off. You have to drop the batteries, and let it set for a few minutes. Then, you put them back in with the two rewind buttons engaged and it "might" not crash again.
They should have used a Watchdog Timer. Just imagine all the screwups in a newer camera. They probably used Windows CE. But the last time I wrote firmmware for a Data Acquisition System for a Digital Camera was over 20 years ago. So I stick to my classic mechanical cameras.
I like to trust the camera that I am using. I just spent some time collimating lenses and RF's of the camera. When I take them out, they will focus where I want them to.
Modern cameras? I did not write the embedded software that runs in them myself.
no. I do not do metaphysical. I did not write the software that runs in the camera myself. If I did, I would trust it. Look at the firmware error in the N8008s as a perfect example. Under certain instances, the camera will jam at the end of a roll and the On/Off button will no longer turn the camera off. You have to drop the batteries, and let it set for a few minutes. Then, you put them back in with the two rewind buttons engaged and it "might" not crash again.
They should have used a Watchdog Timer. Just imagine all the screwups in a newer camera. They probably used Windows CE. But the last time I wrote firmmware for a Data Acquisition System for a Digital Camera was over 20 years ago. So I stick to my classic mechanical cameras.
Last edited:
Now you say "I'm flailing"? Good way to worm out of your depth.
I have two words for you "idiot savant".
I have two words for you "idiot savant".