Why???

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:22 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
I wonder why folks choose the specific camera brand that they do? I used film Leicas because they were small and reliable, good for a traveling news photographer who was on the road a lot (and quite often out of the country in places where there was no place to buy a camera or get service in an emergency) - plus the bright line finder was good for news photography.

I used Canon SLR’s for zooms and long lenses because they focused near to far by turning them in the same direction as the Leicas. (Remember manual focus? Eddy Adams was given a Canon as some kind of honor. I picked it up and yelled, “It focuses in the same direction as a Leica.” Nikons focused in the opposite direction. And Eddy gave me the camera.)

So, when news went digital, I purchased Leica M8’s. The first three were faulty and returned to Leitz and I stuck to Canon DSLR’s. But when Fuji came out with cameras that had both bright line finder and TTL finder, I switched over. Although, as a working stiff, I have a variety of tools, my workhorse cameras are the Fuji cameras with bright line finders. No deep research, no scouring websites with camera reviews… just going for the camera with the viewfinder I was used to and staying with it when the durability and image quality proved satisfactory.

I’m curious why people use the cameras they do. Is it that you have always used the same brand since you were an infant? Is it a somewhat specialized camera that suits your somewhat specialized needs? Is it because you think its reliable or because it has a wealth of features? Why do you use the camera that you do????
 
I started with an Exakta, moved to a Pentax, and then in the mid-1970s switched to the Olympus OM1. I subsequently added an OM4Ti. The reason for the shift to Olympus was the small size, full aperture metering, and wide selection of lenses, much better than that of Pentax at the time. Nikon and Canon bodies and lenses were bigger, clunkier, and more expensive. I've never had a reason to change. Although I got my wife a digital Canon Elph for family snaps, when I went to buy a digital camera a few years ago, I was appalled at the size and weight of the Canon and Nikon offerings, and went with Fuji. I liked that it was small and handled like my film cameras, with the aperture on the lens, and shutter speed and ISO both settable with dials. It is seamless to shift between film and digital, and I never really have to go into the Fuji menus to shoot.
 
I'm serviced my family FED-2 again. All shutter speeds works, but 1/250/500 are slightly uneven. And I'm servicing another FED-2. Why? Because it is camera I grow with, I guess...

In nineties, after FED-2 became too odd and not fancy and second film P&S broke my wife and I purchased Canon EOS 300. Why? Because it was great camera and most affordable SLR.
Seven years later my wife and I purchased digital EOS Rebel. Why? Also because it was great and most affordable DSLR.
Couple of years later I purchased Canon 5D. Why? Most affordable FF DSLR.
And few year later from 5D purchase I get back FED-2. Why? Because it is simple and elegant film camera.
And four years from getting FED-2 back, I purchased M4-2. Why? Because it is elegant and more advanced than FED-2.
In 2016 I was happy to own M-E. Why? Because it is just like M4-2, but digital.

Oh! Our tiny Lumix is back! This time it was hiding in my ski suit. Why I'm still using 8M digital P&S? They don't make them this small anymore. And it has true Leica lens, it means rendering is pleasing.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Oh! Our tiny Lumix is back! This time it was hiding in my ski suit. Why I'm still using 8M digital P&S? They don't make them this small anymore. And it has true Leica lens, it means rendering is pleasing.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be a "true Leica lens"? Design, manufacture, brand license?
 
The Lenses. Unfortunately, that is going to likely mean more than one system, for someone partial to film, whereas someone satisfied with digital can use mirrorless and adapters. But, it's always been about the lenses, M42 to Leitz and everything in between that appeals; I can get used to just about any body, and have.
 
For me, photography is a hobby. I started out using cameras I could afford - a Zenit 3m, then a Praktica LLC. In the late 1990s I started collecting cameras, and I try to put film through each one I aquire, just for the experience. For general photograpy, I use a Canon G12, or a Canon 60D. Why Canon? Early in my collecting days, I repaired a Canon FT, and was impressed by the engineering, and by how the camera felt when I used it.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I used Canon SLR’s for zooms and long lenses because they focused near to far by turning them in the same direction as the Leicas.
Click to expand...

I would say this to my friends ...well, I'd say Nikon MF focused the wrong way!... and I'd get blank stares. I guess it doesn't bother everyone, but it did me.

As for why I use Fuji... I was always a Leica fan, but decided I preferred AF about 10 years ago. I feel the Fuji is closest to Leica in spirit while having the AF and stuff that I want in a camera.
 
Started out with the Canon FD system in 1976. Don't remember Nikon being an option at the store where I purchased. Shot with that system until 1995, when I started thinking I was missing shots without having Auto-Focus. Never liked the EOS system (partially because I felt Canon screwed us FD folks over by not making things compatible). So I sold all my Canon FD gear and bought Nikon AF. Been collecting Nikon SLR lenses and bodies ever since, and is still my go to kit. Have a few rangefinders, but for some reason, I'm more comfortable shooting reflex. I like the sense of "what you see is what you get", and I can usually focus closer with my SLR/DSLR than I can with a rangefinder.

Not the most exciting story, but there you are.

Best,
-Tim
 
I used Olympus then Nikon for film photography. When I went digital I stuck with the Nikons but they and their lenses were getting so big there was no space in my back pack for anything else. Finally I decided to go back to smaller film cameras and remembered the Leica M6 I had seen as a student. Thinking I might get one eventually, I bought my first Leica lens - a 35 Summicron Mk4. On its arrival, I couldn't believe how small it was. Then I bought a 90 Summicron followed by my first Leica film body. I immediately felt at home, and noticed that the photos I was taking had horizontal horizons. For some reason, rangefinders are the only cameras I hold level. I've never looked back.
Pete
 
I bought my first Pentax SLR (an MX) in 1977 after having travelled with screw mount SLRs and finding lens changing to be a challenge. I moved on to LX bodies, then Pentax digital. I am still using some lenses I bought almost 40 years ago on my current Pentax K3 digital cameras, and they hold up well against much newer lenses. For film, I mostly shoot my Contax III and IIIa RFs, although I still look longingly at my Rollei TLRs and 4x5 Toyo at times.
 
Medium Format RF. Mamiya 6 and the Bessa III 667w. There is something special about the 6x6 image. Properly framing it with bright line finders is a pleasure. Sometimes I need to crop to 8x10 for a more balanced composition, but I always prefer the square.
 
I've always liked compact cameras, although in 1969 my first "good" camera was a Minolta Hi-Matic 9. Soon I discovered a used Olympus Pen VF type camera (the original all manual version, not the very limited EE) and I loved the compact size. That naturally lead to a couple of Pen F bodies and when Oly came out with the OM system it was for me a no brainer.
It's all just personal preference and getting the camera that checks the most boxes of what is important to you.
 
My father had a Nikon, and as a boy i believed that they were the best because my dad had one. Boys are easily brainwashed, so Nikon it was and still is.
Digital is another story. Not easily brainwashed nowadays, i choose wisely:)
 
leica= the lens. on the digital side the fuji x100 then x100f is the only digital I've owned, for me its the closest user interaction/enjoyment to analog with immediate results...
 
I grew up in the (US) Midwest in the 50s-60s when there was a choice of tractors... the dealerships were run by local community members of different persuasion, and you could tell which church the farmer attended by the tractor he was using ; )
 
Photography is just a hobby, so I've never been faced with the extreme reliability requirement that photojournalists must have, and generally not had multiple bodies of anything. First SLR's were Canon, but for no special reason. Later, I sold my Canon gear (A1 - never really liked it) and bought a Nikon FM2. The size and feel are much better than the Cannons, so now I have two other Nikon bodies (FM3a and F2) just for pleasure.

My first digital camera had more thought put into its selection. I bought the Olympus E1 when it first came out as I needed the weather sealing for work photos in dusty humid environments (underground mines), and it was also relatively compact. I still have that body, but now also have the OM-D EM-1 II. It is very compact & lightweight, and I don't worry using it in harsh environments. So, the Olympus line was planned because of work needs, but film cameras were chosen just for pleasure. The camera I have had longest from new is a Rollei 35 SE, a brilliantly small, beautifully made idiosyncratic masterpiece that my hands know their way around. Tactile familiarity is important.

Steve
 
Chance!

I started out shooting Nikon because my first camera was a Nikon Nikonos 5 for underwater shooting and I scuba dived. Chances are that had Canon an underwater camera or I had not scuba dived I might have chosen a Canon when I switched to normal photography. But once started on a particular course it is hard to change so one does not do so unless there is a strong reason. At least I did not. My considered opinion is that many things in life come down to chance. Though we hate to admit it of course.
I was adopted at birth and ended up with a particular family - pure chance! I met a woman at work and eventually married her but am conscious that I could have equally ended up with someone else had I worked elsewhere or perhaps gone to nightclubs more (who knows?). I wanted to get into Uni in one course but it was full, was accepted into my second choice so studied that instead. And so on. Pure dumb chance. Like that feather floating around in Forrest Gump.

And when I bought a small sensor camera I walked into the camera store not even really intending to buy that day but convinced that when I did buy I wanted a Sony due to its larger sensor. But they had a nice OMD EM 5 fully optioned with battery grip and so forth at a good price so guess what i bought (OK I bought a Sony later too). Again pure chance.
 
My father-in-law gave me a Spotmatic in 1969. I was in heaven, I added two lenses and used it exclusively until when I bought a used Rolleiflex. I still used the Spotmatic most. In 1989 I bought a Pentax P3n. Pentax: I liked the size and build quality. Rolleiflex:I like the images. Pentax P3n: I like the size and the auto exposure feature. I still own them all and the same with my Leica IIIf (bought in 1964). I'm thinking about a K-1 (FF DSLR) now, but I'm not sure I'll use it much.
 
Started with Pentax in the late 70s, moved towards larger formats, and when I hit 8x10 I was finally satisfied. Shot the Pentax, then Nikons and Hasselblad or Pentax 67 for $ work. Ended up with a contax G1 and 45 lens as something I could just carry around with me when I realized that there were good cameras that didn’t weigh what an F4 or 503CX did. Was totally blown away with the image quality from that 45 Planar, so started investigating what other of these rangefinder cameras could do. When my stock houses stopped taking slides I decided to pack it in and sold a bunch of the Nikon kit and got an M7 and 50 starter kit used from Camtec in Montreal rather than selleverything to get a digital body and a zoom (I had nearly all Ai or older glass that wouldn’t meter on the then available digital bodies). Have not missed the bulk, weight or IQ of the Nikons.

I still shoot MF and the 810, but my daily carry has been a Leica for twelve years or so now.
 
First real camera, Mamiya SD rangefinder. Why? Friend of brother had it for sale and I could afford it! :)

Second real camera, Pentax Spotmatic. Why? I wanted to "go SLR" and it was more affordable than the Nikon F series, which was the Holy Grail back then.

Pentax K1000. Why? Loved the Spotmatic but disliked the clumsy unscrew-rescrew lens change. Ironically I bought a zoom shortly after the K1000.

Canon GIII. Why? Wanted to get back into RF and the folks here recommended it.

Those are a few of mine over the decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom