GeneW said:
An analogy to camera gear is acoustic guitars.
Ha, I was about to post exactly the same thing
😀
I am not a terribly good guitarist. I would rate myself as just about mediocre. But I play an exceptionally fine instrument (imo some of the best guitars in the world are made in a small worskshop in Newtownards, Northern Ireland). It is very fine, it is definitely not cheap.
Why? Partly because we had some money left over from selling our house a few years ago and my wife wanted to treat me for me birthday. But partly because as long as I had been playing, that had been the instrument I had desired to own.
These desires were nothing to do with being seen to play that guitar - it was because
I wanted to play it. Because it is truly a pleasure to play. And while it is always the player who makes the guitar sing, a good instrument can help a keen player play better - partly psychological or inspirational, and partly because there are no inadequacies in the instrument that a virtuoso may over come with ease, but that may stand in the way of the more average player. (And, incidentally, I guess there is some sentimental attachment to an instrument crafted by hand not very far from where I grew up.)
Now, to pull back on topic. I would describe myself as a mediocre photographer: certainly, in my own eyes, I am a very long way from making the images I want to make.
I spent a silly amount of money on a DSLR, because I was silly. These days I'm glad of having done it, because it reawakened my interest in photography (I had 'lapsed', if you like, and bought the DSLR from a techy-geek rather than a photographer point of view, if you get what I mean). That was maybe a year and a half ago. By now, I do most of my shooting with manual gear on BW film, and develop in my bathtub. However, the DSLR stills sees plenty of use, because there are some applications (I shoot gigs for local bands, for example) for which I find it the perfect tool.
Where am I going with this?
Right here: I am (and will be for a very long time) saving to buy myself a Leica M of some description - which one depending on how long and how hard I discipline myself to save. But a mediocre photographer doesn't 'need' a Leica. Indeed, I am very fond of my Bessa R.
I don't want a Leica because it's a Leica. In fact, I'm not sure I particularly want to become a 'Leica shooter'.
But a surprisingly significant part of the pleasure I get from making images is the process. Without shame, I enjoy the act of using a well-made mechanical camera, and of taking the time to do it as best as I possibly can. Solidly-made equipment is a pleasure to use.
When I get my Leica, I fully expect it to be the last 35mm camera I buy (strong words, I know - please don't hold me to them
😉), and I will expect it to outlive me and then some.
And I know it will be a much better camera than I will ever be a photographer. On some levels that does bother me - why am I not content with my Bessa R? I should be. It certainly doesn't limit me in my image-making.
I don't know.
Why do I write on good paper with a quality fountain pen filled with ink made by a small company that specialises in only making very good inks? Because you just can't beat it. I
could write with a biro on a sheet of foolscap - it wouldn't affect the words I write.
But then, I'll still be using that pen in 50 years time (as long as I can still hold it, anyway) as well.
That's worth something.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not about 'aspiration' (I couldn't care less what people think about what I write with, or play, or shoot with). It's about 'inspiration' (I do care about what
I think of what I write, play or shoot with. And about how others repond to what I write, play or shoot).
Therein lies the difference, for me.
(Sorry, I really can go on a bit, sometimes.)
