The best one is the one you have in your hand second to the one that makes you want to go out and shoot with it, whatever that brand may be. I haven't owned all of them..... yet.... I am stupid but not that stupid.... Hasselblad H,C, Phase One and large format field cameras are still missing from my "learning experiences"....I always bow to @kenoh knowledge on which camera brands are best. He has owned them all!
No, no, no. The best camera is the one you don’t own yet that you are lusting after!
oh, yeah, he already has several identified, don't worry.No, no, no. The best camera is the one you don’t own yet that you are lusting after!
That’s the one you NEED!
Well, I'm sorry, but it does come across as particularly pretentious. The experience with a Leica camera is no more 'pure' than with any other. It's simply a tool for doing a job. It's this kindof pretentiousness that many other prhotographers just roll their eyes at, when Leica users come out with it.
This. Exactly this sort of thing. What does it actually mean? I'm sorry, but to me it's just pretentious. I know a lot of other photographers find it also. 'Purity of the craft'? Please.
You do know that most if not all of those have used other brands too, and that some of them are paid by Leica to promote their products? Steve McCurry's most famous photograph, the Afghan Girl (cover of National Geographic I think), was shot on a Nikon FM2 with a 105mm Nikkor. HC-B popularised the Leica because of its small, unobtrusive size. Once SLRs because available (from the 1950s onwards really), most pros switched to them as they were superior in use. Many fashion/portrait photographers used Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Mamiya medium format cameras, or large format behemoths. Now; don't get me wrong; I'm a massive HC-B fan, and I've already said I'd love a Leica, but let's not mythologise one brand unnecessarily. Yes, they're good. So are other things, that are often far less expensive.
These days, most of it.
Yes it did. I don’t appreciate being called pretentious but hey you are allowed your opinion and those who know me on here know how far off the mark you are. I am sorry that you didn’t enjoy the M6 as much as I enjoy my choice of cameras. I enjoy mine and that is all that matters to me.
I would like to try a field camera but dont fancy lugging one up a hill! The book 40 examples about Ansel adams has a great narrative of him making a mess of getting his image of Half Dome in Yosemite. He went up to a platform with 12 wet plates. He broke 7 of them on the climb up, ruined two because he failed to see the lens wasn’t mounted properly. Got exposure wrong on 2 of them but nailed it on the last one. The book explains it much better than this of course but it always makes me chuckle to remember.
The camera itself isn't all that bad to carry, but the tripod that the school issued us was very heavy (unnecessarily so in my opinion, and even if we had our own tripods, which most of us did, we were required to use the school-issued ones). Then there was the other paraphernalia that had to go along: the loaded unexposed sheet film in the holders (loaded prior to leaving home), the Polaroid Back , etc., etc...... I tried to find interesting scenes not too far from where I'd parked my car!
I think we all keep one eye on scenes within 20 feet of the car even now right?
Switching modes (P, A, S, M and presets) is a dial on top of the camera just like on the Nikon and has been since the first OM-D
I like it when you can shoot the scene from the car! Done that a few times in the rain.I think we all keep one eye on scenes within 20 feet of the car even now right?
That’s what I was doing wrong! I thought it was blurred because I had the wrong shutter speed!
One of my cameras is a Leica M and I love it, but as with most things, that’s going to be personal. I generally stay away from discussions around them being too expensive or a fashion accessory or a lifestyle thing as those sorts of chats aren’t that interesting. People do what they do. There are many things that fit within that too-expensive-lifestyle-fashion-accessory grouping that people gobble up with their cash all the time. Who cares? I don’t think anyone could deny or argue against any of the statements by Boidem. It’s something that’s discussed all the time with cars, pens, knives, or what-have-you.
.
Well, sometimes it helps to hear the opinions of others, to understand how you come across. If you make such a statement, you should expect criticism. Personally, I find guff like 'the purity of the craft' just utterly cringeworthy. But hey.
I have absolutely nothing against using tools that suit you, to do whatever. I also do woodwork, and have a range of tools, powered and old fashioned hand tools. A nice chisel, that fits nicely in the hand, has a good weight balance and is made from high quality steel, is a pleasure to use compared to a cheap one with a crap handle. The good tool enables better quality work. The reraltionsip between tool and user is important; nobody likes using stuff that feels uncomfortable or fiddly or produces poor quality results. Yes; a poor workman blames their tools, but equally, a good workman deserves good tools. I's fine to have a favourite tool; I love a small Japanese Dozuki saw I bought some years ago; it was inexpensive and is a real pleasure to use. With film cams, my 'favourite' is a close run thing between a Nikon F4 and an FM2, yet with digital, I'm not so enamoured with the actual cams themselves. If anything, my D600 is ergonomically nicer to use than my Z6, but the Z6 is all round the better 'tool'. The Leica I borrowed was lovely, but as I said I didn't find it as comfortable to use, altohugh I appreciated it's build quality. I did 'own' a Hasselblad for a very short period; again, exquisite build, but just not for my kind of photography. Too bulky and cumbersome to use for what I do. I sold it on at no loss (although now I regret this as I'd love to have one as an 'ornament' because I think they look lovely). I am a big fan of celebrating great design and style, and owning things that bring pleasure. We own pieces of art that serve no practical use, yet bring pleasure every time we look at them. But with tools, the real pleasure in owning them is in the results they can produce. A high quality lens such as a Leitz, or a Carl Zeiss, Nikkor, Schneider Kreutznach etc can produce wonderful results, with clarity, rendering and 'character'* that elevate them above other perfectly good alternatives, so it's nice to have such things. But the viewer neither knows nor cares what equipment you used; to them, their perception of an image is all about what story it tells, how it affects them emotionally, stuff like that. Go to any multi-artist photography exhibition, and you can't tell what equipment was used, unless it's stated. It's irrelevant what equipment was used; what matters is the end result. The rest is geekerey and marketing.
None of the objects in that picture have any more 'utilitarian value' above similar things, regardless of price. And that kind of proves my point regarding status symbols; if you own somethng purely because you admire its style, design, workmanship etc, then that's fine. If you own it because of what brand it is**, then that is nothing more than a status symbol. And there's too much of that in our world; vulgar ostentatious branding across clothing and baggage, rich people owning expensive stuff just to show off. I hate all that.
Nobody is disputing that MFT is smaller and lighter. If that system suits your needs, that's fine.
I'm clearly mistaken then. In fairness, I'd looked at a lot of smaller format cams, and I preferred the ergonomics and UI of the Nikon. I seem to remember the Olympus irritated my in some functional way. I can't remember. But that is purely subjective. A Sony (A6000?) I tried was just awful for me; I put it down very soon after picking it up, knowing it was 'wrong'. We all have our preferences.
Oh totally. The tool used really only matters to the creator of "the thing". I don't think anyone would dispute that. I hear the phrase all the time "a good photographer can take a great image with any camera" which is (maybe) strictly true but doesn't get at the heart of the matter. People do care which tool they use to create (woodworking, sushi knives, musical instruments, paints, computers, cameras) and how they interact with that tool will play a role in the thing they create. A concert pianist can play my grandmother's old stand-up banger piano but would rather play a Steinway or what-have-you (not speaking for all concert pianists of course
).
I was criticising the language used, not the person.
