Value of Pride of Ownership?

Those folks suggesting that the perceived value to the user does not matter, must have never played and/or coached sports and had a streak or a slump.

The perceived value may be about them, their equipment, or how their equipment affects them. Either way, it can dramatically affect performance. The duration, of course, depends on how long the perception persists, as some posters have mentioned. But to deny that it can't make a difference goes against my experience.
 
Hector Negron said:
You have to face the fact that 99% of the people who devote an enormous amount of time posting on forums are gear fetishists, and almost exclusively male.

They project their egos and aspirations to the gear they buy and use, they debate endlessly minor points of technical matters, and just like Japanese girls who hang cute animals and charms on their cell phones, they personalize their cameras like totems with accessories, paint jobs, straps, etc etc.

Of course, they must pretend that they are interested in shooting pictures, but this is clearly not the reality, even though they may not realize it themselves. Decorated, "legendary" gear is an end to itself. Hoarding mental facts about gear is the same, like the guys who know every baseball statistic and can recite what happened in every game in the last 100 years. Men like to do it. It's wired into your brains.

Why not embrace the fact that you just like owning esoteric cameras because it reinforces who you want to be? Once in a while you'll get lucky and perhaps take an interesting photo, but drop the pretense and admit you're all little boys with toys. You don't have to be photographers. The ownership of certain cameras lets you maintain the mental construct of who you want to be, not who you really are. The maintenance of a sense of self is hard to do. You need props. You needs objects which reinforce what you think you are and want to be. You'd never leave your house in a polyester leisure suit. You'd never be seen in public with a crummy camera, because you want to feel above the herd. You don't want to be one of them, one of those dopes with a Canon XT DSLR and plastic lens, you want to be special. You want something that makes you superior.

In reality, any name brand modern camera will take perfectly adequate, sharp, well-exposed photos.

OK, some will be more expensive, a bit sharper, what have you, but it doesn't matter. You either have the creative eye or you don't.

If the 50 or 60 year old man wants a Porsche, let him have it to drive to the supermarket. If he wants a Leica and it makes him feel superior, let him have it. If he wants to talk about bokeh or straps all day long, why not.

The man who cannot examine himself and perceive the truth is to be pitied. Deep down, you all know what you are and you aren't, but admitting what you are to yourself is what can put you on anti-depressants.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head and it's going to hurt a lot of people for whom these comments are all too accurate. I continue to struggle with the desire to acquire gear when I know it won't improve my photo making abilities one iota. Thanks for the reminder.
 
i agree with basically everything hector wrote, but let's not forget that a commitment to creativity and art-making is not necessarily totally beyond reproach. there are good and bad apples in everything.

anyhow, i came back to this thread with a thought: a good camera is like a good book. :)
 
Hector is just being a mean old man.

So pride really IS a sin? You looked it up? And you're an atheist? I didn't think that atheists believed in sin either. You're probably confused.
 
Yes, my Leicas and other cameras are mostly aproaching or past the half century mark. Most of them look it! I have no trouble being seen shooting with my once-upon-a-time black finish 15mm Heliar on a beat up $59.95 Bessa L body or a 60 year old scratched and dented M2. My truck could use some body work and a paint job but it gets me where I'm going. I prefer being judged by my photographs.
 
FrankS said:
So pride really IS a sin? You looked it up? And you're an atheist? I didn't think that atheists believed in sin either. You're probably confused.
Click to expand...

A DEADLY sin! One of the seven.

I don't believe in a god but that doesn't mean that I find christian morals to be without value.

Pride goeth before a fall.
 
Mack said:
A DEADLY sin! One of the seven.

I don't believe in a go"d but that doesn't mean that I find christian morals to be without value.

Pride goeth before a fall.
Click to expand...

I agree that many Christian teachings have value. The teaching that some some actions are "deadly" or mortal and unforgivable, is not one of them, IMO.
 
Man, did this thread go round and round. As the OP, I don't know what happened. If this had been an open classroom it would have been chaos. If I were the instructor I would have left long ago.

I truly admire anyone who can make any sense out of a sliderule. I tried and gave up, joined the Navy and learned about diesel engins instead.
 
I had a wife who worked as an accountant. She used an abacus because it was faster than a calculator. This was before small computers. Slide rules are sort of in the same category as the abacus. Also, neither needs batteries.
 
Al Kaplan said:
I had a wife who worked as an accountant. She used an abacus because it was faster than a calculator. This was before small computers. Slide rules are sort of in the same category as the abacus. Also, neither needs batteries.
Click to expand...

Good point about the batteries.
 
I used a Canon g11 last night in the city. It didn't flow well with me, I didn't like how all the menus and settings worked and therefore it ruined my "flow" and I got **** pictures.

Give me an m9 or a 5d and I would have taken much better pictures, because I like the cameras. The g11 I took an immediate disliking to soon after starting the night with it.

I make no excuses or apologies for wanting to use cameras I like/am proud of. If you think that is somehow pretentious or wrong, I'll happily direct you to kiss my ass.
 
fdigital said:
I make no excuses or apologies for wanting to use cameras I like/am proud of. If you think that is somehow pretentious or wrong, I'll happily direct you to kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Furthermore, I'll take the argument that REAL photographers (people who actually shoot pictures) don't worry about kit, and throw it back in the faces of those who advance it.

Every single professional photographer I have ever met has had his favourite gear, which gives him the pictures he wants, with the minimum of hassle. Ask him (and indeed her) why he/she uses that gear, and you'll get an honest answer: it gives them the best pictures.

The same is true of the vast majority of 'serious amateurs', again defined as those who actually take pictures. It is true that there are a few who suffer from sour grapes, or who take an intellectual position that they can use anything you throw at them. Of course they can; but give me a Rollei TLR and I'll take far fewer pictures than with a Leica; enjoy taking them less; and often get worse pictures.

In other words, the vast majority of those who don't believe in pride of ownership, or pleasure of use, or just long and happy familiarity, AREN'T actually photographers. They're gear-heads, and empty-heads at that.

Not all, so don't take this personally if you've already posted that gear doesn't matter. To a certain extent, I agree with you. I have half a dozen cameras (indeed, three or four whole systems) I am happy with. But I have also encountered plenty of cameras I don't like, and I therefore say, with some conviction, gear matters.

Cheers,

R.
 
Trius said:
For me, acquiring something for which I had to work hard is a positive. That's because I (now) give a lot of thought to my acquisitions, the purpose. Since those acquisitions are now more project-based, there's a greater chance of my choice being the right tool for the job, thus improving my work.
Click to expand...

This is probably of fundamental importance. There are those who buy new kit because they can, not because it will do anything for them. And there are those who see the limitations of their existing kit, and find those limitations irksome, and look for something that doesn't limit them the same way.

The point about finding the limitations irksome is also fundamental. In some ways, an M-series Leica is very limited as compared with an SLR, but there are also some things it does better than an SLR. If you don't find the limitations irksome, the camera does what you need, and you don't need another -- unless you also shoot another sort of picture, in which case, you need two (or more) parallel systems for different applications.

Cheers,

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