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, full lens-speed ahead). > They are certainly more than welcome here on the PDML (even though > discussions on images, film, processing, printing, manipulation, > etc., can be carried on on ~any~ photographic forum, since they are > not Pentax-specific). > > However, I would just like to point out that this ~is~ the ~PENTAX~ > Discussion Mailing List, and therefore that this is the ~most~ > proper place for us to discuss all the various and sundry nuances, > trivia, and minutia of all the various weapons in the Pentax arsenal > (or toys in the Pentax toybox), even if we do it "ad nauseam" (i.e., > "enough to make a working photographer puke"). > > So, now can we get a discussion going on the serial numbers of the > early and late models of the M 50/2, and their effect on handling, > cosmetic appearance, focus feel, looks, weight, balance, and bokeh? > <g> -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
