Professional camera equipment is usually bought by two types of people: those who take great pictures and those who think they do/can/will. I would make sure that I was in the first group before plunking down $5000 on a camera.
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 LACON Condensor set
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 Lamphouse and Bulb Adjustment Mechanism
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
OP
OP
haris
Andrew Sowerby said:
This is, and rfshootists thoughts, more or less what I thought when started this discussion. It is interesting how most discussions at the end become discussions about equipment...
haris
my teacher, bless him, also had some thoughts about photo gear:
you buy a camera like you buy a pair of shoes.
want to play tennis ? buy tennis shoes.
want to go run ? buy running shoes.
you find the shoe that is made for what you want to do,
get one that is well made and fits, you buy it and that's that.
of course, this was 35 years ago, and long before you bought a pair of sneakers because they were endorsed by somebody.
at the time, 1970, there was a raging argument over the top of the line canon, and the top of the line nikon. what was the difference ? simple. if you were left eyed, the advance lever of the nikon poked you in the right eye.
of course, left eyed photographers were used to that but that was the only real difference. and that was enough of a reason to buy one over the other. simple, really.
today, if you want a rangefinder camera ( and if you want to know the difference between shooting a rfdr and and slr... they are different. ) you have a choice between leica, cosina... and nikon.
the cosinas are pretty neat, but are a little cheesy. if you want a great value, and a cosina (voigtlander) will do the job, great. problem solved.
if you want a great bargain, and won't want a lot of lenses, look at the 2003 nikon s3 (b&h has 'em). if you want a leica because of what it does, get it.
if you either don't see the point of a leica, or think it's worth the money, forget it and move on. nothing raises a fuss as fast as saying the leica is a great camera. (insert flame war here) but it is a great camera.
but for nearly every photographer who grew up staring into an slr, a rfdr is the last thing they think is useful or good. if you think a zoom is essential, and 8 frames per second is necessary, forget the leica.
but there are things you can do with a leica that simply can't be done otherwise. (insert flame war here) and if you are the off-the-bell-curve shooter that cares, get the camera and be done with it. get one lens, a couple bricks of tri x or neopan 400, and go shoot.
a good used m6 is pretty cheap today. get a 35 summicron. not terribly expensive. hunt for a used leica enlarger. have fun, and stop worrying about it.
oh, yeah. if you want to shoot a 35 or 50 mm lens, there is NOTHING that focuses as well a rfdr. Not AF SLRs, nothing. and nothing comes close to focussing like a leica. (insert flame war here)
but if you aren't an up-close, low-light, quiet kind-of-guy...it might not be a big deal.
good luck, haris..
my teacher, bless him, also had some thoughts about photo gear:
you buy a camera like you buy a pair of shoes.
want to play tennis ? buy tennis shoes.
want to go run ? buy running shoes.
you find the shoe that is made for what you want to do,
get one that is well made and fits, you buy it and that's that.
of course, this was 35 years ago, and long before you bought a pair of sneakers because they were endorsed by somebody.
at the time, 1970, there was a raging argument over the top of the line canon, and the top of the line nikon. what was the difference ? simple. if you were left eyed, the advance lever of the nikon poked you in the right eye.
of course, left eyed photographers were used to that but that was the only real difference. and that was enough of a reason to buy one over the other. simple, really.
today, if you want a rangefinder camera ( and if you want to know the difference between shooting a rfdr and and slr... they are different. ) you have a choice between leica, cosina... and nikon.
the cosinas are pretty neat, but are a little cheesy. if you want a great value, and a cosina (voigtlander) will do the job, great. problem solved.
if you want a great bargain, and won't want a lot of lenses, look at the 2003 nikon s3 (b&h has 'em). if you want a leica because of what it does, get it.
if you either don't see the point of a leica, or think it's worth the money, forget it and move on. nothing raises a fuss as fast as saying the leica is a great camera. (insert flame war here) but it is a great camera.
but for nearly every photographer who grew up staring into an slr, a rfdr is the last thing they think is useful or good. if you think a zoom is essential, and 8 frames per second is necessary, forget the leica.
but there are things you can do with a leica that simply can't be done otherwise. (insert flame war here) and if you are the off-the-bell-curve shooter that cares, get the camera and be done with it. get one lens, a couple bricks of tri x or neopan 400, and go shoot.
a good used m6 is pretty cheap today. get a 35 summicron. not terribly expensive. hunt for a used leica enlarger. have fun, and stop worrying about it.
oh, yeah. if you want to shoot a 35 or 50 mm lens, there is NOTHING that focuses as well a rfdr. Not AF SLRs, nothing. and nothing comes close to focussing like a leica. (insert flame war here)
but if you aren't an up-close, low-light, quiet kind-of-guy...it might not be a big deal.
good luck, haris..
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
If you're including used gear, by all means take a look at the Contax G2 - they made a series of fantastic lenses for it, and you get the benefits of auto-focus and rangefinder viewing all in one.
To echo what has been said several times before, know what you want to do, then go buy the tool that will best do that. If you're looking to saw wood, you don't go buy a $500 hammer. If you've never sawn wood before, get a $10 saw at Home Depot until you find out if you like sawing wood. If you do, and you decide you want to get into fine furniture making, once you have the fundamentals of the craft down, then go spend the money on the best tools you can afford so the tools won't get in the way of your doing your job.
The whole point of having a tool is that it makes your goal easier to achieve. Knowing your goal is the most important part - and perhaps the hardest. If you know your goal, then you'll know how to find the tool that best fits it. You may still have to try many tools before you find the best one, and what is the best one may surprise you. As df cardwell said, if your goal is low light, hand-held, close up photography in quiet circumstances, a Leica is probably the best tool. If your goal is studio portraits, then a Hasselblad might be the answer, but maybe it will be an 8x10. If you're doing platinum prints, it's the 8x10. If you're doing silver gelatin enlargements, it's the Hassy. Once you determine the goal and the type of tool, the expense of the specific tool becomes a very easy decision.
To echo what has been said several times before, know what you want to do, then go buy the tool that will best do that. If you're looking to saw wood, you don't go buy a $500 hammer. If you've never sawn wood before, get a $10 saw at Home Depot until you find out if you like sawing wood. If you do, and you decide you want to get into fine furniture making, once you have the fundamentals of the craft down, then go spend the money on the best tools you can afford so the tools won't get in the way of your doing your job.
The whole point of having a tool is that it makes your goal easier to achieve. Knowing your goal is the most important part - and perhaps the hardest. If you know your goal, then you'll know how to find the tool that best fits it. You may still have to try many tools before you find the best one, and what is the best one may surprise you. As df cardwell said, if your goal is low light, hand-held, close up photography in quiet circumstances, a Leica is probably the best tool. If your goal is studio portraits, then a Hasselblad might be the answer, but maybe it will be an 8x10. If you're doing platinum prints, it's the 8x10. If you're doing silver gelatin enlargements, it's the Hassy. Once you determine the goal and the type of tool, the expense of the specific tool becomes a very easy decision.
mrcallow said:
Then Mamiya 7 certainly won't fit !
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |