Why???

[farlymac]

After using M42 SLR gear for a couple of years (early '70s), I decided I wanted something with a bayonet mount, so I did my homework. I researched all the makes available at the time, and looked at where they might be going with their systems, and who had the quality lenses.

It came down to Nikon having the most comprehensive system to build on. Unfortunately, all I could afford at the time (and it took a whole months pay) was a Nikkormat FTn with the 50/1.4. But I was in the system. I added lenses when I could, and always thought of getting a degree in photography after I got out of the service, but things changed for me, and it was a long time before I actually took the plunge in starting a studio.

By that time the F2 I had lusted after (and this is the only camera I felt that way about) had been supplanted by the F3, but it was the FM/FE series I could afford. Granted, the local market for used F2's was almost nil, as most photogs were still using the heck out of them, so it was many more years before I ever got one. It was well worth the wait.

The last few years I've been able to try out the various other brands of SLRs, but always came to the conclusion that the Nikon system was still the best choice for me. They just seem to design their cameras with the user in mind more than the other brands did.

As for rangefinders, I've gone through quite a few of those too, and found I liked more of them than the SLR systems. However, when it came to deciding on a quick change mount, again I went with the Nikon because it was less expensive than the Zeiss or Leica offerings, and just seemed to fit my way of shooting better. Still, nothing really wrong with an LTM model because I tend to not change lenses that often anyway when using a rangefinder.

PF

 

[BillBingham2]

I bought my first controllable camera in the early 70's just as the OM system was coming out. While I liked the OM, my father used Nikons at work so I went with a Nikkormat FTn. I got used to the direction the Nikkors moved.

After amassing a lot more Nikon stuff I decided in about '83 I needed to enjoy life and not carry so much stuff. So I got an M4-P and switched to rangefinders. Got a eary M6 and some more glass, but realized that I liked longer glass for some stuff. Did some time with Bessas (T & L) as I had young kids. If one got trashed it wasn't as much of a loss as my M6. RFs worked, but were some things I just needed an SLR for. As I still had some Nikkors and a couple of SLRs and as kids and owning a home see to absorb any and all available cash I couldn't afford a Leicaflex so I added an F to the mix with my M6.

Eventually I got frustrated with the different directions of everything and bought an S2 (still no funds for an SP/S3) and loved it.

I've had a couple of digital Ricoh's over the years, used them all with a 28mm CV Brightline on top and loved them. They were my digital answer to my Bessa L & 25/4 Snap-Shot combo. Zone focus was a breeze and they were really small.

I think I'm going to jump back into a more controllable camera and pick up an old D300 to go with a couple of old Nikkors (24/2.8 & 85/1.8). I would prefer to pick up a XE3 (or 2) but I have no cash for the glass. When someone reminded me of the lack of fun focusing on a stopped down lens isn't, I think the D300 will do until I generate some cash with it.

If I had the cash now I'm not sure where I would go. Manufacturers don't seem to want to make small wide glass that doesn't distort. They have big stuff that reminds me of an old 28-90 Sun zoom my father had at work. MFT or APS-C are good enough for what I want to do, but the years of using great glass from Leica, Nikon, Cosina and others has spoiled me. I don't want to have to do post processing corrections and I don't want to know my camera is slowing itself down doing them there. I think autofocus will free me from the head aches and the EVFs has evolved sufficiently for my needs (as long as I can stick a brightline on top!).

B2 (;->

 

[Dogman]

My first adjustable camera was a Mamiya-Sekor 500DTL. I bought it because it had a screw-mount lens and I had a friend who had a Pentax and I thought I could borrow his lenses.

Within a few months, I was hooked and very serious about photography. I wanted to be a photojournalist. This was during the transition period of medium format to 35mm and rangefinder 35mm to 35mm SLRs in the journalism industry. Nikon was the most popular of the 35mm SLRs among journalists so I bought a Nikon FTn.

I used various models of Nikons daily for 20+ years. But when Nikon came out with the FM models and the F3, I had nothing but problems with the cameras. Those early models were not in the same category of reliability of the F and F2. At that point, I bought my first Leica, an M4-P. Why? Leica's reputation for reliability.

As Bill brought up in the OP, the Leica and Nikon focused in different directions. That was no big deal for personal pictures but it caused me misery on assignments, especially news assignment when things were moving fast. I was used to the Nikon way of focusing and I used the Leica less and less--eventually selling it and buying a couple of used Nikon F2 bodies for their reliability.

When I left photography as a career, I became a casual shooter. I used my old Nikons and a little Rollei point and shoot. At some point, I became interested in the newer technology and decided I could benefit from autofocus. My research at the time, including talking to some of my former colleagues, indicated Canon had superior AF. So I went against all my previous concepts and ideas and I bought a plastic Canon EOS. I used various Canon film and digital models until recently.

During the time I was shooting film Canons, I also got the rangefinder urge again. Previous Leica experience led me to buying a used M6. I really enjoyed using it. So much so, I bought a second body with a few Leitz lenses and I used them in conjunction with Canon until I switched to 100% digital with Canon.

After shooting digital for several years with Canons (and other brands, particularly Olympus), I found I missed using the Leicas. But digital Leicas and their modern lenses were beyond my finances. Then Fuji came along with their hybrid viewfinders in cameras with handling akin to real rangefinders. I bought an X-Pro1 with a couple of lenses and loved them. I used it more and more until eventually I had moved whole hog into Fuji--several models and focal lengths. The Canons saw zero use after a while.

That brings me up to today. That's a long story but I've been shooting for over 40 years and lots of cameras have come and gone during this time, many of which I did not mention.

 

[willie_901]

..

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.

Me too (sort of)

I very much enjoyed using the Canonet QL G-III and the Zeiss Ikon M. I never owned anything made by Leica.

My X100T and X-Pro 2 bodies enable me to recreate the joy I experienced using film rangefinder cameras. The new f2 23, 35 and 50 mm FUJINON lenses along with the pancake 27/2.8 meet practically all my needs.

Buying a D200 in 2006 to start a small photography business introduced me to digital photography. The kit I'm using now combines what I consider the best of both worlds.

 

[RichC]

I'm brand agnostic!

Since starting photography in earnest - with a Canon 10D dSLR - I've owned the following new cameras in this order, when necessary selling the lenses belonging to one system to move onto the next: Epson R-D1, Leica M8, Canon 5D, Nikon D800E.

I view my camera simply as tool, so will change it when my current tool no longer does the job I require of it.

The Canon 10D went because my preference moved towards cameras with manual controls; the Epson went because it was too fragile and 6 MP was too low; the Leica went because it was too unreliable, and still lifes were becoming my signsture photograph; and the Canon 5D went as I was starting to print very large and needed max. megapixels.

I'm now considering selling the Nikon D800E and buying the new Sony A7R III.

Unfortunately, as my bottom line is a camera that meets the needs of my photographs, including prints, everything else in subservient, including how much I like a camera. I've owned my Nikon D800E for 5 years - but I find myself still aggravated by it's ergonomics; for me, Canons feel much more natural to use - but, sadly, their image quality does not meet Nikon's, plus I find Nikon colour more subtle and "film-like"!

 

[Spavinaw]

Why??? Because!!!

Simple question. Simple answer. The rest is elaboration.

Anyway, my first adjustable camera was a Kodak Tourist II with f4.5 lens and 1/800 shutter that I got in highschool. I could make contact prints and did not need an enlarger or projector to have pictures. Later I did get an enlarger.

In the early 1970s I got interested in 35mm SLRs. Being able to change lenses and see your exact focus made then attractive to me. Pentax and Canon FL cameras used stopped down metering. Nikon metered wide open. No brainer. Got a Nikkormat FTN. Not long after that the Canon F-1 came out. I was ready for a more versatile camera. I compared the Canon F-1 to the Nikon FTN with gigantic metering finder, nonhinged back, motor drive that I think required factory fitting (not sure), had to rotate aperture ring to index, etc. Canon F-1 required none of this. No brainer. Got a Conon F-1 and still have it plus two more.

Cameras follow me home like stray cats. I don't have anything against Nikon. In fact I have seven Nikon SLR bodies at last count. I'm ashaimed to say how many Canon SLR bodies I have. I even have Pentax 110, 35mm, and 120 SLRs plus Minolta, Mamiya, Contaflex, Rolleiflex, Keystone, Polaroid, Olympus, Praktina, Praktica, Ricoh, and Tower SLRs.

But enough about me. What about you?

 

[Axel]

...

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????

For digital I use Fuji only. Because of the results. Tried hard to get Fuji colors with Canon and Sony - no way.
So it´s all Fuji. Display 90 degrees up and go - like good old TLR from waist level.
I´m done with trying cameras 😉

 

[summar]

I generally shoot b&w film, with Leicas because I inherited them (too expensive otherwise!). I also learned 35mm photography with one of my father's Leicas.
Nikons are my choice in 35mm SLRs because I worked as a reporter for a newspaper where all the photographers used them, and I was impressed by how they held up.
For MF I use a C330s Mamiya because I like TLRs and the Mamiyas have interchangeable lenses.
Most important I've always liked the results I get from these systems. Their lenses are just fine for my purposes.

 

[mynikonf2]

because...

because...

I started with Canon back in "76" [ not 1776 ;-) ] with the Ftbn & quickly moved on to the F1n & EF. They are wonderful cameras, reliable , strongly built and the SSC glass produced very satisfying images. Then Canon changed the construction of their lens line but I still hung in there with them. When they totally changed their line of lenses with the EF line I made the switch to Nikon. I just could not afford to invest in a line of lenses that seemed to keep changing.

Since making the move to Nikon I have built up a battery of lenses to cover all my varying needs. I'm very satisfied with the move I made because of the forward compatibility of the Nikkor lenses with the cameras I use (Nikon F & F2, as well as a D200).

As for rangefinder cameras I have owned the M2, M6 and several Barnacks. I still use a IIIc stepper, and a black paint II conversion to a III for B&W photography with a Summitar, Elmar 50/3.5, Canon 35/2 and a Nikkor 50/2 HC. My rangefinder days maybe drawing to a close because of my eye sight but I still enjoy the little screw mount cameras.