Many of the great photographers spend a lot of time choosing equipment,
many of those choices based on minutia and subtle differences between
lenses, film, and camera bodies. A case in point that comes quickly to
mind is a Magnum photographer who, for many years, used Leicas for
almost all of his work. He then had a specific project in mind, and the
Leica would not suffice. After quite a bit of searching and asking
questions, he decided that a certain Rollieflex would work.
Unfortunately, the camera's viewfinder did not satisfy him 100%, and he
continued exploring his options. He finally decided on the Rollie, but
had a (I believe it was) Hassleblad finder modified to work it. So,
here we have a successful working professional bogged down in the
minute details of camera construction and features in order to get a
camera that would be just right for his photographic assignment and
personal preferences.
In addition, through reading about them, I know of several LF
photographers who have several lenses of the same or similar focal
length to use in different lighting situations and with different
films. Their choices run from older, uncoated, and low contrast optics
to new, coated, and much sharper and much more contrasty lenses.
Elliott Erwitt happened to have a very strong preference for a specific
tripod, although most any would have gotten the job done. WES in later
years chose from several different SLRs depending on his needs, yet any
one of them could have taken the picture. David Hurn used a cheap
Canon Rebel to supplement his more expensive gear based solely on the
sound of its shutter. And Baron Wolman, when he decided to get back
into photography, chose a late-model Pentax 928 IQ zoom to supplement
his Nikon gear based on two things: how it felt to him and the optical
qualities of the lens. He told me that he really loved the way it felt.
Those who disparage others for talking about things such as balance,
feel, optical subtleties, and the like, with the allusion that they are
true photographers while others are equipment junkies strike me as
somewhat disingenuous. Why did they choose a Pentax as opposed to some
other camera? After all, any camera can be used to take a picture, so
there must have been some qualities about the Pentax that they
preferred. Further, I contend that many true photographers pay lots
of attention to the qualities of their lenses, the viewfinder image,
ergonomics and the way a camera feels to them. After all, the gear will
be a constant companion for a long time. Some, and I know this to be
true, have had certain lenses modified, sometimes at great expense, to
fit cameras of another manufacturer, sometimes giving up certain
features such as open-aperture metering, in order to use the lens that
gives them the qualities they want. A true photographer is often very
picky about his or her gear.
I know of several Leica photographers who have spent huge sums of money
to have their favorite body modified to take the rangefinder from
another body because they prefer the way a certain body feels to them
(and when you realize the the M-series Leica has been around, almost
unchanged since 1954, those differences are pretty subtle) but want
certain frame lines in the finder. Others want a M6 because of its
meter, but won't use an M6TTL because they don't like the meter
readouts, and others prefer the M6TTL because they prefer the film speed
adjustment dial over earlier M6 models.
I've had quite a few discussions with Bob Walkden about the subtle
differences between various M cameras, and he pointed out that he liked
the way the film advance lever felt on one model over another, although
the cameras were essentially identical. There are some leica users who
have removed the advance lever from their newer cameras only to replace
it with a 40yo lever from the M2/M3 because they preferred its feel.
As for the numbers of the M50/2.0, I'd like to note that there are
several Pentax users here, as well as leica users that I know, who have
gone so far as to use a sharpie to black out the letters on their lenses
and black camera bodies in order to give them a greater stealth
factor, and to, I'm sure, give them the feeling of having a camera
that's a little different and more personalized than the next guys.
A camera is a very personal piece of equipment. That's my dos centavos.
Fred wrote:
It seems as if we Pentax junkies have been getting criticized lately
by the working photographers and the true photographers (i.e.,
the dedicated, serious, true image-makers, as opposed to us
rather pathetic Pentax equipment lovers), simply because we like to
discuss the details of the various pieces of Pentax stuff that's
out there.
Well, I don't want to criticize the serious image-makers who
either may simply want to just get the damned job done, or instead
may want to dwell upon all the subtle ins and outs of photographic
images (and may the equipment be damned,
