Value of Pride of Ownership?

Ducky

Ducky

Well-known
Local time
1:23 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
1,287
Location
North Texas (Richardson) near Dallas.
View My Gallery
There have been many threads about "using the camera you have", and "it's not the camera, it's the photographer", etc.. I agree, no argument with any of that, however:
If a person hungers after a particular camera, saves and budgets, and finally gets it, will that "pride of ownership" contribute to the end product? Will there be a mental/psychological 'edge' in using that camera?
IMHO there will be.
Any thoughts?
 
Well, that depends. If the person goes through all of that, shoots the camera for a year, then gets convinced by folks on an internet forum that a completely different system is the path to nirvana, then the whole exercise is pointless. Many people here ping-pong among systems endlessly, even after spending a fortune on one or the other. But they rarely actually take photos.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Well, that depends. If the person goes through all of that, shoots the camera for a year, then gets convinced by folks on an internet forum that a completely different system is the path to nirvana, then the whole exercise is pointless. Many people here ping-pong among systems endlessly, even after spending a fortune on one or the other. But they rarely actually take photos.
Click to expand...

who are these people?

name names...;
 
To get back on track for a second, and to coment on Ducky's original assertion, I disagree that pride of ownership of a particular camera or piece of gear has anything to do with the quality of a photograph taken with said camera or piece of gear, and fail to see how it could be otherwise.
A good eye, the ability to see, compose, understanding light and it's qualities, the characteristics of the film being used, are the sorts of things that will contribute to the final product, not the fact that one is proud of owning this or that camera.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Well, that depends. If the person goes through all of that, shoots the camera for a year, then gets convinced by folks on an internet forum that a completely different system is the path to nirvana, then the whole exercise is pointless. Many people here ping-pong among systems endlessly, even after spending a fortune on one or the other. But they rarely actually take photos.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of that, but, leaving those members aside, when a photographer owns the camera he/she treasures, does it affect the outcome?
 
If you love your camera/lens, you might use is more and that might make you a better photographer.

Unless it's just novelty that wears off quickly every time, then it just makes you better ebayer.
 
FrankS said:
I think it does. Working with a quality tool can influence your mood/positive energy.
Click to expand...

Agree with this completely.

Also pride of ownership implies that you will want to use that camera more frequently, which hopefully hones one's skills.
 
No.

A few times I have shot an event with my M2 + Summicron and a Nikon EM + 50mm 'E' Nikkor. Sexy, quiet, smooth and stealthy with the best lens out there versus nasty, cheap, clattery plastic with a budget lens. One kit costs a tenth of the other. Both work.

But in truth, the amount of keepers and good pics is always about the same. So no, I don't believe pride of ownership does make much of a difference, but who would use a camera he resent anyway. Even that EM has its merits.
 
FrankS said:
I think it does. Working with a quality tool can influence your mood/positive energy.
Click to expand...

kxl said:
Agree with this completely.

Also pride of ownership implies that you will want to use that camera more frequently, which hopefully hones one's skills.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle, but I think "pride" is the wrong term.
 
If I screw up with the camera I am happiest with (and I am happiest because I do not find it limiting), it is I who screw up.

If I'm not happy with the camera, then -- however irrationally -- I can say, "Ah, but I'd do much better with a _______."

So yes, I firmly believe that pride of ownership (or something very like it) can make you a better photographer, just as being forced to work with a camera you don't like can make you a worse photographer. In the latter case you may expend so much effort on fighting with the camera that it drains away your creativity along with your tranquillity.

But 'can' is not the same as 'will'. As Frank said, it's not a guarantee. And Ronald: I like my EM!

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
If the features of the camera particularly suit your vision and work style, and it allows you to more easily perform the mechanical functions necessary to capture an image, it might help to make you a better photographer. If you even just love to handle it so much that it gets you off your *ss and onto the street, that might help too.

If you leave it at home or in the bag because you're afraid to get it wet/dirty/scratched or stolen, it's a hindrance.
 
Ducky said:
If a person hungers after a particular camera, saves and budgets, and finally gets it, will that "pride of ownership" contribute to the end product? Will there be a mental/psychological 'edge' in using that camera?
IMHO there will be.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Of course not!...you will probably go out and shoot more for a few weeks, but most people that 'hunger after' particular cameras - only think they will get better results, and seldom actually do - if totally honest!
Dave.
 
Intereting mix of ideas and opinions. Glad I posed the question.
Heres another thought. I have a Minolta Hi-Matic that was not working until I messed with it. It's fine now but requires some gaffers tape to stop a light leak and the advance/shutter interlock is gone, It is a walking wounded but I love using it for that reason. I think I try not to waste a shot with it because of this.
Maybe pride is incorrect, maybe affection is a better term.
 
I don't know if using a camera I have affection for makes me use it better than one I have no particular feeling for, but on the other hand, it doesn't harm my photos, either. And I derive enjoyment in using a camera I am fond of, so that seems a good enough reason to use it, supposing that I am understanding of its limitations and use it within those parameters.
 
Depends. Many have succumbed to GAS only to find the particular camera lusted after just didn't do it for them. Then OTOH some folks do find the perfect camera thats right for them & they make good photos.
 
Neither 'pride' nor 'affection' is quite the right word. But generally, I know within minutes of picking up a camera whether I am going to get on with it or not. I may revise my opinion up or down -- like it more or like it less -- but I do not recall an occasion when a change of mind has been anything stronger than indifference changing to mild liking as I get used to it.

The thing is, I just feel more at home with some cameras than others, and I make more and better pictures with them. In a fair number of cases, the cameras I feel most at home with are quite expensive, so 'pride of ownership' is as good a term as any. But there are also expensive cameras I don't get on with: the majority of roll-film reflexes, for example, whether SLR or TLR, or most autofocus SLRs, usually because they have too many controls, complications and modes, and are too damn' big. There are also inexpensive cameras I like, such as the Nikon EM I already mentioned, or my 55-year-old Retina IIa (not that it was inexpensive when it was new).

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom