What do you want?

[willie_901]

Actually, for my interests I really don't want anything.

I can use my digital cameras as I used a Canonet III QL-17 or a Zeiss Ikon M.

The prime lenses I have are excellent.

My digital cameras' analog dynamic range and low-light sensitivity are not limiting.

I rarely crop to achieve composition, so 24 X 36" prints are not a stretch.

 

[Michael Markey]

Maybe that seems a bit harsh, but, if the criteria is “meaningful” as opposed to “sharp”, I have not seen any photographic evidence that our new gear utopia has been especially esthetically uplifting. But sharp, we’ve got all the sharp we can use. It may be pointless, but it’s sharp. And there’s a lot of it.

Possibly a bit harsh.
Yes there's a lot of it out there but people are having a lot of fun making photographs these days because the gear is so much easier to use.
I don't see that as a bad thing and I also see a lot of good work too..

When I started photography had too many gate keepers... fussy old guys and the only way was their way.

Now people seem more free to experiment, the cameras are easier and, of course, there is instant feed back.
Invaluable.

Whether we need more this or that…. I wouldn't care to say to be frank.

 

[Godfrey]

For personal work, this pretty much does it for me.


M-D and Coffee by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

+1 ... All my work is personal now. 🙂

In addition to the M-D (my favorite M and quite possibly my favorite camera of all), I also need a TTL camera for macro, long lens, and precision tabletop work. I don't need a lot of fancy features: an accurate exposure metering system, an excellent viewfinder, responsiveness, good dynamic range and low noise at reasonable ISO settings. Good control ergonomics are essential. 24 Mpixel is a good resolution, depending on format. Format ... well, that depends on what I want a specific camera for. For close up, long tele, and macro work, APS-C and FourThirds format work nicely. For ultrawide and portraiture, FF and larger work better, giving more options in focus zone control.

A huge consideration for a camera purchase is the range of lenses available for any specific camera ... both quality and cost. I already have a full complement of Leica R lenses that I'm very happy with, same for Leica M lenses, so it makes sense to stick with Leica bodies that are well optimized to use them. My requirements led me to buy a Leica CL, replacing my Leica SL (which proved more camera than I needed/wanted), and I'm delighted with it: It proves a perfect complement to my M-D.

Of course, I have other cameras (Light L16, various Polaroid SX-70 and derivatives, Hasselblad SWC, etc) which suit either fun or specific niche uses better than the two Leicas. And I have a couple of film Leicas (M4-2 and Leicaflex SL) so that I have options for film photography as well as digital capture using my Leica lens kit.

The key, for me, is that once the cameras have passed a certain point of fundamental usability—a combination of resolution, dynamic range, sensitivity, control ergonomics, viewfinder/focusing system quality, and lens availability—I'm much more interested in using them than adding to them. What I really want is a camera that disappears when I use it, that lets me just concentrate on seeing what I want to photograph than distracts me by making me concentrate on managing it.

I have to admit, I don't look for new cameras—film or digital—anymore. What I have is more than enough. New cameras will come along now and then, I'm sure, but whether I buy one or not is purely up to the whim of the moment. I'm much more interested in using the cameras I have now and making photographs... 😀

G

Seagull, Steel Water, and Horizon - Eastham, MA 2018
Leica CL + Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4
ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/320​

 

[Timmyjoe]

More resolution, autofocus, faster autofocus, extreme low light capability....none of those things have a bearing on the creation of “meaningful”. Meaningful still depends completely on the meat sack holding the camera, be it a Zorki or the latest wallet draining temptation.

“Better cameras give greater opportunity for more people to make unique and special images.”

Well. The opportunities are indeed there, but the “special images” have not been concommittantly forthcoming.

They used to talk about giving typewriters to a room full of monkeys, and waiting for the eventual good novel to be written. The democratization of photography with the advent of ever more “capable”, do-it-for-you digital cameras has indeed “leveled the playing field” in a way. But all it has done is given those same monkeys electric typewriters instead of the manual ones.

Maybe that seems a bit harsh, but, if the criteria is “meaningful” as opposed to “sharp”, I have not seen any photographic evidence that our new gear utopia has been especially esthetically uplifting. But sharp, we’ve got all the sharp we can use. It may be pointless, but it’s sharp. And there’s a lot of it.

This is the point I was trying to make, you made it more eloquently Larry, Thanks.

Best,
-Tim

 

[lynnb]

When I look at a new camera, it's usually a used camera, more often than not from a camera market or charity store 😀. What I look for is some lens that I want to use or some camera/format that I'd like to play with or use for a specific purpose. If budget were no problem I'd look at a Monochrom or a Foveon, as I like the output from both.

If the camera's going to be a carry-everywhere-user, size/weight and ergonomics are important, but I'll compromise if the lenses are desirable (desirable to me, that is), or if the camera is a beautiful instrument, like my Barnacks.

If I were looking to do paid portrait work and budget was no barrier I'd probably go for one of the new Canikon mirrorless models due to their system capabilities (lenses, flash). The new Canon f/2 standard zoom looks interesting.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Possibly a bit harsh.
Yes there's a lot of it out there but people are having a lot of fun making photographs these days because the gear is so much easier to use.
I don't see that as a bad thing and I also see a lot of good work too..

When I started photography had too many gate keepers... fussy old guys and the only way was their way.

Now people seem more free to experiment, the cameras are easier and, of course, there is instant feed back.
Invaluable.

Whether we need more this or that…. I wouldn't care to say to be frank.

My thoughts were only in relation to the word “meaningful” as it pertains to what easier, more modern cameras allow, in the sense that neither creativity nor “art” (fraught word, that) is made more plentiful by newer cameras, as neither of those things can be democratized. More people having fun, sure, maybe.

As a no talent hack myself, I do get some shots with more modern cameras that are different than those I might get with older cameras, and I do sometimes enjoy just being able to fire away and see what happens. Results just not meaningful in a Winogrand way, that’s the only point I was attempting to make.

 

[zuiko85]

These comments by Larry Coletta and Timmyjo pretty much sum up this cranky old mans feelings. I probably sound like a broken record but....I keep thinking of the work done by two still current working photographers, David Burnett and Michael Kenna. Both use several cameras but both have also been using a Holga to good effect. A more simple, even crude 120 rollfilm camera would be hard to find, but their work with it is excellent.

 

[JeffS7444]

What do I look for these days? Mostly:

-Features
-Form-factors (look & feel)
-Novelty

Technical excellence is something of a commodity these days and can be had cheaply from the likes of Target or Best Buy.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"What do you want?"....... less gear love......more great photographs. No number of $10k (w lens) M10s.....can equal an Edward Weston photo taken with a $5 rapid rectilinear & contact printed with a lightbulb hanging from a wire.

 

[Mcary]

Nothing really, and by that I mean the M10 isn't enough of an upgrade for me to justify spending that much money and I simply don't feel like starting over with another system so I will simply keep plugging away with my M9 until the price of a used M10 or M246 reach a level that I'm comfortable spending on digital body.

 

[Harry Lime]

1) A digital Leica M with an advanced matrix metering system and a dual gain readout sensor that will give me the same highlight roll off as film. It also shouldn't be priced like a used car, because I need 2-3 bodies and pile of batteries.

2) The return of mid priced professional, dedicated film scanners like the Nikon 5000ED/9000ED. (I'm looking at you Kodak..., this should be a no brainer to a company wanting to sell film in the digital age)

 

[Contarama]

I'm still yearning for a 12-16mp digital back for F2. Powered by battery that fits in the battery compartment of said camera. Someone once said if you're going to dream then dream big

 

[Michael Markey]

My thoughts were only in relation to the word “meaningful” as it pertains to what easier, more modern cameras allow, in the sense that neither creativity nor “art” (fraught word, that) is made more plentiful by newer cameras, as neither of those things can be democratized. More people having fun, sure, maybe.

As a no talent hack myself, I do get some shots with more modern cameras that are different than those I might get with older cameras, and I do sometimes enjoy just being able to fire away and see what happens. Results just not meaningful in a Winogrand way, that’s the only point I was attempting to make.

Ah …. I understand.
Thanks.

 

[Michael Markey]

.I keep thinking of the work done by two still current working photographers, David Burnett and Michael Kenna. Both use several cameras but both have also been using a Holga to good effect. A more simple, even crude 120 rollfilm camera would be hard to find, but their work with it is excellent.

I agree …. I admire both those photographers.

David Burnet though has recently swapped out all his Canon bodies for the latest Sony bodies.
I rashly commented that I thought he would find it liberating and he agreed that it had been.

I`m always one or two generations behind digitally and can`t envisage buying any of the new offerings but I never rule anything out.

 

[BillBingham2]

Prime lenses that are reasonably priced for the advanced hobbyist that DO NOT need to have distortion correction in camera.

A converter that uses the Nikon AI tab to communicate the aperture to the camera and the close-down lever that closes down when the camera wants to take the picture and opens up after for a Z-Series camera.

A Nikkormat level Z-Series body, sort of a M-D version if you will. Keep the kick-a55 EVF from the Z6 and keep it simple. You might want to keep the internals the same for keeping cost down, just stop me from getting access to it for other than ISO/Shutter/Aperture/Shutter-Release. Oh, and it needs to have a street price of $1,000 please and thank you.

B2 (;->

 

[froyd]

It seems to me that the newest digital cameras market higher resolution (pixel count), higher ISO, and faster autofocus. Not sure why those are needed. I look at what the masters did with 35mm & 120 film, at speeds from ISO 100 to ISO 400, with manual focus lenses, and am not sure that can be improved upon.

-Tim

True, in part, but I doubt Winogrand would have taken the same pictures he snapped with his 35mm Leica had he used a wooden field camera. Fortunately, he did not care what the "masters" before him did with sheet film and slow emulsion and instead used the tools of his time to help achieve his vision ---and deliver memorable images.

 

[RichC]

I'm not on the look out for this 'cos it ain't going to happen... but I want a digital camera

• with a >50 MP cutting-edge sensor
• optimised for still images only (no video)
• for manual lenses only
• manual control only (no autofocus, autoexposure, auto-white balance, etc.)
• with real knobs and dials (not menus) for important controls.

Something like an Olympus OM1 with a high-end digital sensor stuffed in it – along the lines of what Epson did to the Bessa R3A to create the Epson R-D1 (albeit it's sensor was poor).

In short, a completely manual digital camera but with useful stuff like in-body image stabilisation and an electronic viewfinder (the new ones are now superior to optical viewfinders).

 

[zuiko85]

I'm still yearning for a 12-16mp digital back for F2. Powered by battery that fits in the battery compartment of said camera. Someone once said if you're going to dream then dream big

I dream that dream to, except its for a OM-1n and the battery/electronic part is in a thing that resembles a winder attached to the bottom of the camera. I figure that would have enough room for the necessary additional stuff required for a sensor.

When they (just who are ‘they’ anyway) bring that to market for less than $1K you can also watch me flap my arms and fly to the moon.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd like some new knees.

As far as equipment, I'm more than happy with the X1D, looking forward to one of the long lenses for it in the near future. After 25 years with the 8x10 I think I am going to be selling off the bulk of that kit, the X1D betters it - something I didn't think I would ever see.

 

[BillBingham2]

.... After 25 years with the 8x10 I think I am going to be selling off the bulk of that kit, the X1D betters it - something I didn't think I would ever see.

WOW!

B2 (;->