are you an equipment snob ?

[markbarendt]

Yeah a bit.

I came to Nikon because of a fantasy based in my youth, I stay because of the practicality and the interchangeability of stuff within the system; its easy to adjust within the system to almost any need.

 

[StoneNYC]

I am a bit, but only in that when I buy something or get into a new format, or system (like switching from medium format to large-format, or like switching from using SLR cameras to using rangefinders) I don't really want to start with the crappy camera and then "upgrade" because that just seems silly to me. I do a lot of research before I enter into a new system, so I'm pretty assured at that time that it's something that I'm going to want to use, so there's no reason for me to buy a beater first, and then have to spend more money later on something else, and have trouble selling that piece of crap camera, because then I'll just end up spending more money in the end, so I patiently wait for a good deal on a high-quality camera and then I get it.

It's certainly taken me a while to acquire all of them, but I use them all regularly, and if I have two of the same exact kind of camera, then I sell one of them, because it's silly to have multiples if they sort of have the same kind of handholding, like owning a Yashica TLR, and then also owning a Rolleiflex TLR, I don't want to show full cameras collecting dust, I want useful tools to create my art, but I know that because I'm particular about how I for my heart, that I have a better chance of making some better art with better equipment IN GENERAL.

If I want to picture to be fuzzy blurry, I can simply add a filter, or add some saran wrap or something and then I'll have an "artsy" picture. If I want a nice extra sharp picture, I just don't use the filter and use my nice high-quality lens.

Anyway without further do my cameras...

-TOYO 45a (later model revolving back version, so essentially the mark II model without the fancy knobs) [4x5 field camera]

-Mamiya 7 II [MF RF]

-Mamiya RZ67 [MF SLR]

-Yashica44LM [127 format TLR]

-Canon 1V [35mm SLR for current autofocus lens systems]

-Canon AE-1 [35mm SLR for manual focus]

-------

I do have a few "crappy" cameras but they get exceptions Kodak 120 folder, the only one that functions perfectly, a Kodak 116 folder, not perfect but let's me shoot 116 film, and 616 kodak folder, this one is the only one that has perfectly light tight bellows and think I might canibalize it for the 116, because this one is basically an automatic and the 116 can actually be set. I have a Zeiss Ikon ContinaMATIC II that I got to try out RF's only to discover it doesn't have a coupled RF but convinced me I want one because they are small and useful...

So the only camera I don't have is a Leica, I was actually kind of a snob about like us, and what I mean by that is the opposite of what people would think, I actually snubbed my nose at Leica owners, because of all of the pictures I've seen, leica owner pictures seem to be the crappiest. That whole load the glasses so perfect look at these perfect curves etc. attitude seems to trump the skill in actually using it to its advantage, but I think I would be like that other guy on the first page, the one who said that his is a users leica, mine would be scratched and doing and look like you had been through three wars, and like owners would be horrified that it was in fact and M6

However I can't really find one that I can afford, they're just too ridiculously expensive hah! Of all the camera systems I've "bought into", the Leica is the most expensive. So I will probably never have one, and of course I'm particular, and I only want the silver and black one, not the all-black one, if I'm going to spend the money on a Leica, I might as well have one that looks like a Leica not a point-and-shoot lol!

I know, in the large-format area there are better cameras, but I think mine is pretty well up there for the modern 4x5's and I also know that the Mamiya RZ67 is considered by some, inferior to the Hassleblad, however I think the two systems are pretty well matched, and I preferred the 67 format to the 66 format for most images, also it's easier to get frames in 6 x 7, then have to find square ones, but ultimately that came down to price, basically for the same quality lenses (yes I truly believe the Mamiya lenses are just as good as Hassleblad) I can get a much cheaper system with the RZ67 than I can with Hassleblad set up.

Apologies for any weird sentences, I'm dictating with my phone using Siri.

So yeah, I'm a big snob :munch:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

i guess i am a little bit of an equipment snob, i don't really like too much auto
cause i don't bother with any of that stuff, id like to over ride all of it ...

Couldn't have said it better myself!
Yep, 150% S N O B proud of it and no shame.

 

[jerrybro]

Yes, and no.

I appreciate and want to use good tools. In all my hobbies and interests. Good tools do not have to be the most expensive, or even the most well known. I like SK wrenches, Facom ratchets, and use Craftsmen sockets and Wiha screwdrivers. I drive Mercedes. Mine is a 1985 300sd, hers is a 2000 230 Kompressor. I listen to vinyl records. I prefer Kenya AA coffee beans, roasted dark. I have no idea what brand appliances I own, except for the coffee makers. I want the best quality I can get get for those things that are important to me. I do not look down on anyone with "lesser" quality property. If you are happy with a cup of Maxwell House dripped out of Sunbeam, thats great. If you offer me a cup I say "thank you".

I have seen some marvelous photographs done on all kinds of equipment. Some of the most revered art was created using equipment some of us would throw away. Talent trumps hardware every time. In my business I see how good marketing can create demand for a product, a lot of what I see in the camera hardware race is the result of great marketing. Is digitial really better than film? Depends. Is modern optics really necessary to pull the best out of todays cameras? Probably not, but maybe sometimes.

The question should really be, "are you happy with what you have?" Does what I think about what you own really matter?

Why are you taking photographs? If you take a good one, how do you know its good? Does the equipment used make a difference in your definition of good?

 

[ambaker]

Nope, not a snob. However, were I to buy a tee shirt, it would likely say, "My other camera is better than yours."

Just because it would be fun...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[winger]

I like and appreciate my nicer cameras (I have a Hasselblad), but I use whatever will do what I want in that moment (I have a couple of Holgas, too). Or whatever I have with me (sometimes only my iPhone - sorry). I actually use my Pentax 645N way more than the Hasselblad - it's got to do with how it feels in my hand. I like what I like and I don't apologize for it. I've even made my own 8x10 pinhole (well, it sucked, but it was only version 1).

 

[analoguey]

Not really, I generally dont understand people having too many cameras, I have less than half-a-dozen and that itself is too much of a choice sometimes - paralysis by choice, the term is, I guess!

I'd rather have the simplest camera to use and make pictures. Most often I'm looking for the camera n post-processing to be out of my way.
A digital camera with Nikon's post-processing engine with basic film controls as on the older manual cameras would be the best of all worlds. (no, fuji x100 doesn't cut it. Too disappointing too see bright rangefinder n then not-so-bright image on clicking)

i don't have any preference for the cameras i use.
i have too many of them so just grab what it handy
or that will be easiest to work with with the medium i am working with
so, a 35mm or half frame or 110 might work, or if i am using paper negatives
something bigger, but im not too particular ... that larger one might be a junky pre war box camera
or a 8x10 camera ..

i guess i am a little bit of an equipment snob, i don't really like too much auto
cause i don't bother with any of that stuff, id like to over ride all of it ...

so .. are YOU an equipment snob ?
why, why not ?

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[hdeyong]

No, I have and use my stuff because it's what suits me best. OM-1's, an AE-1, a Trip 35 and one of the later plastic Canon series are not snob fodder. The only camera that people seem to get a real kick out of is my Rollei B35, not because it's a Rollei, but because it's just a jewel of a camera, and still works perfectly.
If a Zenit or something like that is what I thought would be perfect for what I was doing, that's what I'd have.
To me, a true snob is someone who buys a particular item for it's ability to impress, not to do the job. It may indeed do the job, but little or no better than another less expensive brand.
I think that applies to cameras, cars, clothing and most other things we buy. I would no more go out and pay $100 for a pair of designer jeans than I would hit myself in the face with a dead fish.
To each their own.

 

[NedL]

Well, today the camera I used to make a picture at the river was a coffee can. I suppose there can be a sort of "reverse snob" when DIY people think they are better than people who buy things, but I don't really care what equipment other people use, including digital. I do like some equipment a lot: I have a Kodak 3A that is a beautiful camera and I always like using it. I was lucky to get it. Actually I like using all my cameras, but I don't compare them to what other people have. Maybe a little jealous when I see someone here with a beautiful handmade antique 8x10...

 

[Jim Jones]

I like cameras that are functional like a Leica or beautiful like a Kodak RB Cycle camera. There is also perverse pleasure in using old clunkers to compete with the fine equipment of others.

 

[gleaf]

Snob.. more happy that my selective choice of factors results in usable dependable cameras. Like the smart cow I seem to recognize the difference between food and sticks in posts and elsewhere. (Spit out sticks, ruminate on the mind food) I find myself enjoying the conversation with the jogger by the riverside so loves to shoot sunsets with his digital pocket camera and loves the color. Snob hmmm defensive over my choices.. not at 67. I just am who I have aged into. 50's Rollei T. 50's Crown Graphic. Graphic View UK came out of Air Force surplus sales. Nikon F3 replaced my long gone Ftn. Underwater with a Nikonos II not a Rolleimarine.. I'll have to agree with snob. I love my chosen forms of functional quality. I don't plant to abandon anything for something of sleeker racist style. Must be old age.

 

[gleaf]

Snob.. more happy that my selective choice of factors results in usable dependable cameras. Like the smart cow I seem to recognize the difference between food and sticks in posts and elsewhere. (Spit out sticks, ruminate on the mind food) I find myself enjoying the conversation with the jogger by the riverside so loves to shoot sunsets with his digital pocket camera and loves the color. Snob hmmm defensive over my choices.. not at 67. I just am who I have aged into. 50's Rollei T. 50's Crown Graphic. Graphic View II came out of Air Force surplus sales. Nikon F3 replaced my long gone Ftn. Underwater with a Nikonos II not a Rolleimarine.. I'll have to agree with snob. I love my chosen forms of functional quality. I don't plan to abandon anything for something of sleeker racist style. Must be old age.

 

[MattKing]

Not a snob, because I couldn't care less about what equipment other people choose to own or use. As long as they don't tell me my choices are wrong.

I do like beautiful and/or functional and/or durable and/or inspirational equipment - what is wrong with enjoying things of quality?

 

[TareqPhoto]

No, i am not an equipment snob, so that i have 10 film bodies so far, 7 MF and 3 LF, and still not done yet, so definitely i am jot a snob.....hehehehe

Well, getting into film is really a great decision i did, but it was in wrong place or time, because in my country it will be like i am one of 1-2% who is using film, and most of the year time it is hot and i got busy mostly since dad died in 2010, so i feel myself doing less and less photography, and with digital invasion i also feel that film will have used for about 5-10% per year, and i am trying to get back to film again and this time i hope to do it seriously rather than just tests shots.

This site with another site of LFF which making me to think a lot about using film and becoming snob, so don't blame me, close this site and hope the other site also closed then i will sell all my film equipment ;-)

 

[micwag2]

I don't consider myself a snob. I like all cameras in one way or another. It irritates me when some people, and they mostly seem to be the non-photographer types, immediately brush you off when they realize your using film or a camera that in their eyes is sub-par. I personally own many makes and brands. Folders, range finders, SLR's, TLR's, and a few i can't remember. I recently acquired a Kodak Hawkeye Brownie Flash for the princely sum of 50¢USD, never used one before. Loaded it up it some T-Max 100 and had some fun. "You can still find film for that?" I heard. Posted some of the pictures and most folks liked them. Some were fooled thinking that they were "old" photos I had dug out and posted. They had the look and feel of a vintage photo. Why? Because they were done exactly as the vintage ones were done. Sure, those who are skilled with photoshop can "duplicate" that look but why imitate when you can do the real thing? I have digital equipment in my vast and growing collection. I use different equipment for different applications. There are things my Mamiya C33 does better than my Nikon D70s. Then again the Kodak 3a will do things in a way that the others in my collection do not do as well. I don't really care what everyone else is shooting. As long as everyone can preserve the images that they've captured in a way that satisfies them, then great.

 

[jovo]

....... not at 67. ...... Must be old age.

Bite your tongue, gleaf. We're vintage, not old!!

 

[gandolfi]

It's certainly taken me a while to acquire all of them, but I use them all regularly, and if I have two of the same exact kind of camera, then I sell one of them, because it's silly to have multiples if they sort of have the same kind of handholding, like owning a Yashica TLR, and then also owning a Rolleiflex TLR, I don't want to show full cameras collecting dust, I want useful tools to create my art, but I know that because I'm particular about how I for my heart, that I have a better chance of making some better art with better equipment IN GENERAL.


-------

:

I disagree here: I have several twin reflexes for two reasons: I like the different models for their design and beauty, BUT more importantly because they are SO different!!

The forrest? = Super Ricohflex any day
Portrait? = Rolleiflex F
both? = Voigtländer Superb..

I might be a snob... I'll buy a Gandolfi if I don't allready have that model already... (maybe that just makes me a collector)

I don't look down on others - I look up to them with jealousy if they have something I want...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Not really. My best camera is the one that I have with me.

 

[desertrat]

Anti-snob. All my cameras and lenses except one I bought cheap on the 'Bay. All my lenses except one are off brands. The one snob lens I have is a 12" Dagor, but it's a beater. The one snob camera I have is a Voigtlander Bessa II that my late Dad gave me when I was a teenager.

 

[StoneNYC]

I disagree here: I have several twin reflexes for two reasons: I like the different models for their design and beauty, BUT more importantly because they are SO different!!

The forrest? = Super Ricohflex any day
Portrait? = Rolleiflex F
both? = Voigtländer Superb..

I might be a snob... I'll buy a Gandolfi if I don't allready have that model already... (maybe that just makes me a collector)

I don't look down on others - I look up to them with jealousy if they have something I want...

If the lenses aren't interchangeable, and you need to change whole bodies in order to get a different focal length, yes that in this case you have multiple bodies, however to me that silly, which is why I would buy into the camera system that has interchangeable lenses over a pretty body or pretty name. But that's just me.

 

[Black Dog]

Not a snob-I've taken some of my best pics with an old Olympus Trip and a pinhole camera made from a coffee tin. Any camera's only as good as the person using it!

 

[Truzi]

I'm not choosy, it's Penzoil or nothing.

I'm not a snob. However, I prefer a couple of my cameras because they have sentimental value, and thus use them most of the time.

 

[BradleyK]

No, not really. Although I do own a few pricey bodies, cost and "status" did not figure into either my purchasing decisions or my attitude toward my equipment. To wit:

1). I bought my first Nikon, an F2AS, new in 1979, on the advice of a colleague who stressed the extensiveness and ruggedness of the system. Given that (a) as a neophyte who had no earthly idea where photography would take him, the availability of a multitude of lenses and accessories was a major selling point; and (b) being totally bereft of any sort of mechanical aptitude (see my post re attempted - i.e failed equipment repairs) Nikon's reputation for dependability and longevity was the clincher. Although I have added new bodies as they were introduced, most were purchased for reasons of "improvements" in technology (i.e. F3HP: in camera metering, F5: multi-step shutter speed (nice for chromes), F6 (as F5: ergonomics...plus, for sentimental reasons, the "last Nikon?"). Further to owning a lot of Nikon bodies: I have been extremely lucky on eBay, paying sub $100 for the majority of my inventory (F5 bodies excepted).

2). The Leicas? I have always enjoyed the human circus (is there anything more entertaining than watching humans be humans?); that said, I prefer standing back - unnoticed, I hope - and watching the spectacle unfold before me. Leica was the first name that came to mind ( I confess to not doing any research beforehand re other options); most of what I have learned about the system, I have picked up here on APUG!

3). All my Hasselblad equipemnt was purchased used. Again, my initial foray into the system was on the advice of a colleague who stressed the simplicity, quality and ruggedness of the system as well as the quality of the glass. Over time, the system has proven to be a good compromise to lugging a view camera on hikes.

So...do I "look down" on other systems? No. I have what I have because each works for me. I invested in each system for reasons far removed from "status" concerns. When I say I am mechanically inept, I mean that to the fullest extent (also why I own a Civic and a BMW - things I don't have to fix!). I know many other photographers who will sing the praises of their Olympus, Canon, Pentax and Minolta systems; use what works for you (even a coffee can or shoebox). In the final analysis, it is about the image, not how you obtained it. Shoot on!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Bite your tongue, gleaf. We're vintage, not old!!

Speak for yourself, John.

I've measured, and I'm old. So is most of my photographic equipment. Getting here took all of my life and so did accumulating the gear.

Let's not talk about superiority, real or imagined. Neither kind gets me a discount when I go shopping, not even for the proverbial cup of coffee. I pay full price, like everyone else.

 

[gandolfi]

If the lenses aren't interchangeable, and you need to change whole bodies in order to get a different focal length, yes that in this case you have multiple bodies, however to me that silly, which is why I would buy into the camera system that has interchangeable lenses over a pretty body or pretty name. But that's just me.

I think you misunderstood my post...

All or most of my twinreflex cameras has the same FL.. so it is NOT to have different focal lengths - it is because of the obvious difference in how the different lenses perform!

I also have interchangeable systems and they are fine too - I get that point,but....

And the snob in me do think a beautiful body matters! ( )