William Robb wrote: Hi Bill,
Late in on this one but I pretty much share the same viewpoint. > Photography is my leisure time. > I want to spend it working with equipment that pleases me. If I don't like > the feel of the equipment, I won't want to use it. > The best equipment in the world won't give good results if you hate it to > the point of not using it. For years I used cameras as a device to record how bits came apart - car restoration and the like - no technical quality or inspirational shots - just does it show what I needed to know. If it did, job sorted. Now I have a different angle, taking pictures which please, for my benefit mainly. Certainly the camera is important in how it ~feels~ and my MXs/LXs do that. The 67 certainly does feel value for money. > I have handled a lot of cameras that are technically superior to what I am > using in most respects. Unfortunately, they have user interfaces that I > dislike, or they feel like plastic fantastic crap. > I tolerate the foibles of my 3 LX's because I enjoy using them > more than any > other 35mm camera I have tried out. There you have the advantage of me, I have nearly no experience with any other make. Pentax made what I wanted with materials I like. I look forward to handling an *ist D. > I like cameras, not photography. Photography is a means to an end. The end > is using equipment that pleases me, and gives me an excuse to travel to > places I might not otherwise see. If I get a nice picture for the wall, or > someone compliments one of my meager offerings to the PUG or > Photosig, thats > a bonus. I would love to have a published cover shot on a magazine, not anything necessarily with a big audience, not for money, just to say I have done it. I have only had one photo published (years ago in a local paper) with a feedback that was dire! > However, I am probably in the minority. Oh! I don't know. The only limit I have now set myself with camera equipment, is that if I have not used an item for 6 months, it gets sold. Malcolm
