Why??????

[Pioneer]

SLRs and DSLRs are all Pentax with the exception of one Canon 5D.

Why?

Because the camera that started this all for me was a Pentax K1000 which I bought used at a Reno pawnshop in the very early 80s. It came with a nice little M 50mm f/2 lens. A really basic kit but it worked continuously and flawlessly in the middle of the Nevada outback for over 30 years before I finally sent it in for a cleaning in 2015. I still own it and it still works perfectly.

I now use several Pentax film SLRs and a nice Pentax K5iiS digital SLR.

As for rangefinders it all started with an article by Mike Johnston title "The Leica as a Teacher." I am pretty sure a number of people here have read that article. Needless to say that started a huge GAS attack that has only slightly subsided.

Today I bounce between my Leica M-A, my Zeiss Ikon and my Leica III.

I think that I am most fond of small and handy cameras which is why I have settled on Pentax and Leica primarily. This trend is obvious even with medium and large format. I shoot folders or TLRs a lot, though the Fuji GA645 Pro and the Lomo LC-A 120 are my newest favorites. In large format cameras my two favorites are the Travelwide and the Intrepid.


Far too many cameras and far too little time.

 

[RichC]

When I became interested in photography my first camera was digital - a 3 MP pixel Fuji I bought 20 years ago in 1999.

I've tried film since but it doesn't feel like real photography to me - instead, it feels contrived, like dressing up in Victorian clothes and listening to rock music on a wind-up gramophone player!

So, to me photography = digital cameras. I've given up up on film and my analogue cameras are now decorations. (I last used film 7 years ago, and the roll's still half used in my camera!)

As to my camera choice - it's a means to an end. Photography to me is all about the end result: the picture. I don't care about usability, ergonomics, the camera as a pleasurable object to use and own, aesthetics, etc. It's a tool and has a job to do. Full stop.

I didn't always think that way. I used to use Epson R-D1 and Leica M8 digital rangefinders - neither practical nor efficient tools. But when I went to university to study photography I needed a tool and sold the Leica to buy a digital SLR. I now use a Sony A7R II. I think mirrorless electronic viewfinder digital cameras are the future if a photographer is serious about wanting the most efficient picture-taking tool.

I've no affinity for my digital cameras as objects (unlike I had for the Epson or Leica) and when they get dinged and scraped and worn out I buy a cheap used replacement. Like cars, digital cameras suffer massive depreciation, so I never buy new but instead look for cosmetically damaged ones in perfect working order - which can be picked up at little cost.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

When I became interested in photography my first camera was digital - a 3 MP pixel Fuji I bought 20 years ago in 1999.

I've tried film since but it doesn't feel like real photography to me - instead, it feels contrived, like dressing up in Victorian clothes and listening to rock music on a wind-up gramophone player!

So, to me photography = digital cameras. I've given up up on film and my analogue cameras are now decorations. (I last took used film 7 years ago, and the roll's still half used in my camera!)

As to my camera choice - it's a means to an end. Photography to me is all about the end result: the picture. I don't care about usability, ergonomics, the camera as a pleasurable object to use and own, aesthetics, etc. It's a tool and has a job to do. Full stop.

I didn't always think that way. I used to use Epson R-D1 and Leica M8 digital rangefinders - neither practical or efficient tools. But when I went to university to study photography I needed a tool and sold the Leica to buy a digital SLR. I now use a Sony A7R II. I think mirrorless electronic viewfinder digital cameras are the future if a photographer is serious about wanting the most efficient picture-taking tool.

I've no affinity for my digital cameras as objects (unlike I had for the Epson or Leica) and when they get dinged and scraped and worn out I buy a cheap used replacement. Like cars, digital cameras suffer massive depreciation, so I never buy new but instead look for cosmetically damaged ones in perfect working order - which can be picked up at little cost.

Wow! Hallelujah! What a refreshing post. Damn, I love this guy!

Mike

 

[rbiemer]

Back in the 70s, my high school had several Pentax K1000 cameras to loan to students--those of us who were "working" on the newspaper or the yearbook. I did both and had that camera until I graduated.
Then did not own a camera for the next couple decades.

I was about 10 years into a pretty decent career as a cook/chef and a short while before I joined RFf, I decided I needed some creative outlet that was not on demand for someone else. I didn't have room to make sculpture or furniture, and writing much of anything beyond a letter or a rude limerick feels too much like actual work to me so, photography.

I enjoyed that K1000 but, at the time, didn't have enough extra money to buy one. I did have enough for this weird rangefinder camera that the local camera shop had--some one had been on vacation in Europe and brought back a FED 5. That one I could afford.

Currently, I am using my Bessa R, an Intrepid 4x5, and my phone. Because those three cover 99% of what I want to do. They are each simple enough machines* to mostly get out of the way and let me capture some of the world around me.

Since that FED 5, I have bought, sold, and used a wide variety of cameras, most formats from Minox to 8x10 paper negatives. RF cameras, TLRs,SLRs, P&S, scale focus, and homemade pinhole cameras.

Why, those cameras for me? Because they are good enough. They fill my need to make something creative and while they are certainly not the best examples of their type, they are, for me, affordable and relatively replaceable should they fail.

Rob


*OK, the phone itself is not a simple machine but the camera in it is pretty basic.

 

[Archiver]

1. Leica M9, because it is the best balance of size and image quality, handles wonderfully, and produces images that I love.


2. Sony RX0 as a pocket camera, because it is tiny, silent, water and shock resistant, and has surprisingly rich, dense files with loads of sharpness and detail.


3. Panasonic GM1/GH3/GH4, because I need small but high quality cameras that shoot good video.


4. Ricoh GR, which would normally be my pocket camera, but it's got a lens fault which needs to be fixed. The Sony RX0 has taken its place.


5. Contax T3, because the images are just gorgeous and I love the smallness, quality and form factor.


6. Fuji Natura Black, because it's the fastest 24mm 'lens' I own, and the images are unique and awesome.


7. Leica M7, which feels just that much better than the M9, but I don't shoot film anywhere near as much as before, if at all.


8. Sigma DP1/DP2, because the images have a translucent wondrousness which I can't get with any other camera.


There's more, but what it boils down to is: small cameras with high quality build and excellent/unique image quality. I often think about getting a Nikon Z6 or the upcoming Panasonic S1, but I hold my chunky Canon 5D Mark II and remember why I stopped using it years ago.

 

[Harry Lime]

I'm shooting a mix of film and digital.

Film:

M2, M4, M6ttl, M7, R8, R6.2, Nikon F3, FM
Rolleiflex 2.8 / Hasselblad 503cx

Well, I still love film. But I do hate scanning and our options have become limited.

It's also getting to be very difficult to get film cameras properly serviced. Leica and Hasselblad are pretty much the last ones standing for reliable, professional service. Rollei has Harry Fleenor or you can send it to the Rollei group in Germany. With the Nikons you have to make sure you're sending it to the right person.

I still shoot film 6x6, because I can't afford medium format digital. And 6x6 film looks incredible. I would like a Mamiya RZ or RB 6x7. That would be a great portrait camera.


Digital:

Leica M10, Nikon D600, iPhone

Basically digital replacements for my film cameras. Simple manual operation, good dynamic range.

The M10 is a delight, because it's basically a true digital M, while being an exercise in frustration, because of it's dumb-as-a-brick metering system. The solution is to know when to use a handheld or built in meter and to 'learn' the sensor like we used to with film. Also the battery life is mediocre at best and the batteries are $200 a piece.

I shoot 28/35 on the M10 and 50mm on the Nikon, just like my film kit. I use the D600 primarily with manual focus lenses, but routinely curse Nikon for eliminating the ability to swap focusing screens... Some day I would like to upgrade the D600 to a D750 or its successor, because of the highlight weighted metering mode.

The iPhone is always with me and I've come to appreciate the aesthetics of phone photography. The arrival of the iPhone 7 with its dual 28/50mm lenses was a game changer for me. That said I really think Apple screwed up the metering system in their cameras starting with the 7. Since then iOS seems to favor exposure for the shadows over the highlights, which is ass backwards. AT least that's how it is on my iPhone 7.

The Ricoh GR III looks really interesting. I've always liked that camera and the 28 has grown on me over the years. I may rent a X-Pro II for a week to see what it's all about. I had the X100T, but found it too fussy, with too many buttons.



I think that once I get my Piezography setup going and I can generate archival carbon ink prints I'll be shooting more digital. I've neglected prints for too long and ultimately they are what matters. As Bill has often said, "Nobody hangs a negative in a gallery. It's the prints that count."

 

[Michael Markey]

The M10 is a delight, because it's basically a true digital M, while being an exercise in frustration, because of it's dumb-as-a-brick metering system. The solution is to know when to use a handheld or built in meter and to 'learn' the sensor like we used to with film. Also the battery life is mediocre at best and the batteries are $200 a piece.

/QUOTE]

I`ve never heard this mentioned before.
It`s a shame that they still can`t get the basics right after all this time.
I`m using a 5D3 more and more ,that and the latest Richo

 

[emraphoto]

I started off with contax slr's and a leica rf. Mainly habit kept me in those camps until digital came along. Then went through the d1x, d2hs, d2xs, d3 path until i became utterly fed up with huge cameras. I also migrated to the M8 when it was released however it didnt end well for me.

One year i working in a place where cameras attract a lot of unwanted attention. As a result i shot the assignment on a digital point and shoot. SHAZAM! Epiphany moment for me!

Now i shoot point and shoots or compact mirrorless cameras for everything. I suppose its because im lazy and thats ok by me. Ive never had an editor complain about IQ and small, pocketable (truly) cameras afford me a degree of anonymity/disinterest/lowprofile that i have learnt to take advantage of.

 

[Harry Lime]

I`ve never heard this mentioned before.
It`s a shame that they still can`t get the basics right after all this time.
I`m using a 5D3 more and more ,that and the latest Richo

The metering system is a more sophisticated variant of what is used in the M6/M6ttl/M7/MP etc.

Because it's not a 'smart' matrix metering system, but more of an averaging system it can be fooled by promient bright or dark objects.

That said I am consistently surprised by how good it actually works in real life.

But you have to know it's limitations. If you shot slide film, you'll be fine. It's just a matter of learning how the sensor reacts at various ISO settings and lighting conditions.

 

[peterm1]

So much of my life is driven by chance and circumstance. I start out heading down one path only to find myself on another. I go into a camera store intending that my next camera will be a Sony. But sitting in the cabinet is a beautiful fully accessorized Olympus OM D EM5 at a reasonable price. So now I am a M 4/3 shooter.

So in answer to your question "Why" I will give the only answer I can:

 

[Michael Markey]

The metering system is a more sophisticated variant of what is used in the M6/M6ttl/M7/MP etc.

Because it's not a 'smart' matrix metering system, but more of an averaging system it can be fooled by promient bright or dark objects.

That said I am consistently surprised by how good it actually works in real life.

But you have to know it's limitations. If you shot slide film, you'll be fine. It's just a matter of learning how the sensor reacts at various ISO settings and lighting conditions.

Thanks for that .
I shot slide film for twenty five years.
Still , I would have expected a more sophisticated system in a modern camera.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Still , I would have expected a more sophisticated system in a modern camera.

Be grateful they have meters at all. I heard the next model Leica will introduce will be the M10-S. The S stands for Sunny 16. It won't have a built-in meter, but will retain the fake wind lever. With no meter, it will be manual exposure only. They are still debating whether to reintroduce the MC light meter. It would appeal to a crossover audience of film and digital Leica users. Of course, old hands won't need it. Closer to the true Leica experience.

 

[Greg Maslak]

What a wonderful read! I would so much like to reply with a series of thoughtful camera selections, but alas, the cameras I use were often the result of wilful self indulgence, plain vanity, nostalgia, misplaced pride or the inability to resist a bargain.

A New Mamiya 6 was meant to mend a broken heart. I was so intimidated by the thing, I left in the box for 20 years. Thankfully, age if not wisdom gave me some courage and it has proven to be an astonishingly good camera.

A thrift store Nikkormat and Pentax SV are pure nostalgia. The first for the one my brother dropped from a ferry into the Aegean Sea so many years ago; the second for one my mom had when I was a kid. Yet, the Nikon has a rugged simplicity and the Pentax an elegant beauty that few cameras can match.

Replacing the lost Nikkormat lead to a Leica. In the Ontario, Canada of my youth, Leicas were made along the shores of Georgian Bay, not too far from were I lived. It just so happened that the best conditioned used Leica I could find and afford happened to be an ELC M4-2. Dismissed by many, adored by me, it has been my main camera for 30 years now.

Last year, a deep discounted on the little Fuji XE-2s was irresistible and I joined the digital age. I even got an iPhone, made a photo with it, and joined the forum.

Cheers Greg

 

[jsrockit]

More important, why do you use the cameras that you do? I hope it’s for a more intelligent, image specific reason than mine of being comfortable.

I've settled on Fujifilm cameras that are rangefinder shaped as my most used cameras (since they came out in 2011). I have used others extensively (namely the Leica X1 and M9, the Ricoh GR, the Nikon Df and a Sony A7R) and many other not so extensively, but these Fujis have been the most comfortable to me and I keep coming back to them. I think it comes down to the Leica M6 and the Contax G1 being the first cameras that I fell in love with almost 25-30 years ago. I like the brick shape in my hand and I am not a big fan of huge grips. I also prefer digital and autofocus these days but I prefer traditional camera controls still. I like to make my shutter speed and aperture choices before I bring the camera to my eye.

Most people are clamoring for full frame cameras and I used to be the same way. However, I now find that I prefer the added depth of field that APSC offers and it is almost as good as FF in low light (a stop or two difference at best). I also prefer the size, weight, and price of these cameras as the overall best combination for me. The X-Pro2 is really like a modern Contax G Series. I love it. The Ricoh GR III will most likely throw a wrench into my fuji world though...

 

[peterm1]

What a wonderful read! I would so much like to reply with a series of thoughtful camera selections, but alas, the cameras I use were often the result of wilful self indulgence, plain vanity, nostalgia, misplaced pride or the inability to resist a bargain.

Yep, that's me too.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Lens quality is primary driver of my choices for cameras. If I could afford it, I'd use Leica digital. But since I can't, I use Fuji cameras and their fine choice of lenses.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have a large Flickr account, and when I select a camera to search MY account I find I like my Olympus 35RC photos better than any of my other cameras (or more expensive cameras). I'm not sure WHY??, but I don't think it is camera performance. I think it is the way I fit that camera. I have complaints about the 35RC; but I must have some unknown connection with it. HELP!

 

[Graham Line]

Until very recently I was regularly doing studio set-ups of fairly small products. Thought the Nikon D300 w/ a 50/3.5AIS Micro was the bee's knees until I tripped into a can't refuse deal on a D750 with a 60/2.8. Other work is done with either a Minolta CLE or an M4-P, because, sorry, they're comfortable and I know what all the knobs and levers do. People tell me the CLE will vaporize any minute but it's been working for 20 years now.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I work with Leica M digital for both my professional work and my personal work. 2-M 10s, an M 262 and an M-E for color and an MM for B&W.

I use the equipment I use because it fits the way I see and work. Maybe I am kinda like Bill and maybe a little mussel memory? I don't have to think about the function of hte camera when I pick up my Ms. That part is just second nature after over 40 years. I just love the way they feel in my hands and the way they function. I don't like a lot of automation.

When I went digital in 2005 (had to because of clients) I left film kicking and screaming (plus a divorce, downsizing and other circumstances left me without a darkroom) Leica didn't have a full frame digital option or I probably would have gone Leica instead of Canon in 05.

I still have a couple of my old F-1s and a new F-1 and love those but I dreaded using my Canon digital cameras because of the way they function. For me they were not intuitive to use no mater how hard tried. I had them for over a decade and never warmed up to them.

I picked up an MM in 2012 after using a good friends M9 on a trip to the Fla Keys and Key West. Fell in love with the camera so I picked up the MM for my personal work. Liked that experience so mush when Leica introduced the M 262 I bought one, picked up an M-E for back up and sold all the Canon gear. That was almost 4 years ago.

Picked up an M 10 when they first came out and then another M 10 last year. NO REGRETS. I do not miss the Canon gear at all. I really thought I would miss longer lenses like the 200 2L. I don't.

 

[Michael Markey]

I work with Leica M digital for both my professional work and my personal work. 2-M 10s, an M 262 and an M-E for color and an MM for B&W.

I use the equipment I use because it fits the way I see and work. Maybe I am kinda like Bill and maybe a little mussel memory? I don't have to think about the function of hte camera when I pick up my Ms. That part is just second nature after over 40 years. I just love the way they feel in my hands and the way they function. I don't like a lot of automation.

When I went digital in 2005 (had to because of clients) I left film kicking and screaming (plus a divorce, downsizing and other circumstances left me without a darkroom) Leica didn't have a full frame digital option or I probably would have gone Leica instead of Canon in 05.

I still have a couple of my old F-1s and a new F-1 and love those but I dreaded using my Canon digital cameras because of the way they function. For me they were not intuitive to use no mater how hard tried. I had them for over a decade and never warmed up to them.

I picked up an MM in 2012 after using a good friends M9 on a trip to the Fla Keys and Key West. Fell in love with the camera so I picked up the MM for my personal work. Liked that experience so mush when Leica introduced the M 262 I bought one, picked up an M-E for back up and sold all the Canon gear. That was almost 4 years ago.

Picked up an M 10 when they first came out and then another M 10 last year. NO REGRETS. I do not miss the Canon gear at all. I really thought I would miss longer lenses like the 200 2L. I don't.

I have there Leica film bodies but for digital use the glass on an A7R2.
I also use a Canon 5d3 with a 35/1.4 ,90/1,2 but mostly with the ubiquitous 70-200/2.8.


If I went Leica digital I would miss that long lens and wondering why you don`t.
Presumably your subject /type of shots have changed or do you use a 135 and find that suffices ?