Cameras and Stuff
Which is more important - the image or the means by which it has been captured ?
For me it has to be the image.
But, like most of us, I still avidly read the photo press and study the tests of equipment that I just instinctively know won't make my pictures 'better'.
Sure, they may be a bit clearer, or sharper, or enlarge comfortably to wall-size without pixellating.
And unlimited funds may, of course, make a difference to my list of 'must-haves'.
For the moment, though I'm more than happy with a couple of ( both discontinued ) mid-range DSLR's and a bag of not terribly expensive lenses.
One is the SAMSUNG GX-10. It's rugged, fairly heavy, has weather seals and an in-body anti-shake mechanism.
It also ( much joy ) will take the many great manual film cameras lenses produced by Pentax and many independent manufacturers in either the older 42mm screw mount or the current K mount fittings.
And will meter with the non-auto versions.
This is great for photographers on a budget - imagine being able to use ( and get excellent results from ) a 50mm f1.8 lens costing less than £40 !
As well as a collection of film lenses, I also like the Pentax 16-45mm and the very cheap Pentax 50-200mm zoom.
Plus the excellent SIGMA 50mm f2 Macro.
But for everyday use ( weight and bulk are very relevant when you like to carry a camera around every day and travel on foot or public transport ), I'm now using a NIKON D60. Light and small - but a little tougher than I assumed as a recent drop confirmed. It also features a dust removal system which seems to work very well.
The perfect partner for this body has proved to be
the Nikon 35mm f1.8G. Equally compact and light, but used carefully ( eg always using the lens hood as this lens has a propensity to flare ) it's as good as any lens I've ever owned. The one exception probably being the f1.7 Voigtlander Ultron for my long-neglected Bessa rangefinder.
Most manufacturers are now caught up in the great Pixel Race. This means that consumers now think that anything less than 12mp must be rubbish. To anyone buying into this myth I'd advise them to look at D100 user groups on Flickr, for example - proof that a good 6mp camera used carefully will produce great images.
I've had large exhibition prints made from 6mp files without any visible 'jaggies'.
So, I do daydream like everyone else - but have learned to differentiate 'need' from 'want'.
I wish I'd learned that lesson 40 years ago - I might have some money now :-)
For me it has to be the image.
But, like most of us, I still avidly read the photo press and study the tests of equipment that I just instinctively know won't make my pictures 'better'.
Sure, they may be a bit clearer, or sharper, or enlarge comfortably to wall-size without pixellating.
And unlimited funds may, of course, make a difference to my list of 'must-haves'.
For the moment, though I'm more than happy with a couple of ( both discontinued ) mid-range DSLR's and a bag of not terribly expensive lenses.
One is the SAMSUNG GX-10. It's rugged, fairly heavy, has weather seals and an in-body anti-shake mechanism.
It also ( much joy ) will take the many great manual film cameras lenses produced by Pentax and many independent manufacturers in either the older 42mm screw mount or the current K mount fittings.
And will meter with the non-auto versions.
This is great for photographers on a budget - imagine being able to use ( and get excellent results from ) a 50mm f1.8 lens costing less than £40 !
As well as a collection of film lenses, I also like the Pentax 16-45mm and the very cheap Pentax 50-200mm zoom.
Plus the excellent SIGMA 50mm f2 Macro.
But for everyday use ( weight and bulk are very relevant when you like to carry a camera around every day and travel on foot or public transport ), I'm now using a NIKON D60. Light and small - but a little tougher than I assumed as a recent drop confirmed. It also features a dust removal system which seems to work very well.
The perfect partner for this body has proved to be
the Nikon 35mm f1.8G. Equally compact and light, but used carefully ( eg always using the lens hood as this lens has a propensity to flare ) it's as good as any lens I've ever owned. The one exception probably being the f1.7 Voigtlander Ultron for my long-neglected Bessa rangefinder.
Most manufacturers are now caught up in the great Pixel Race. This means that consumers now think that anything less than 12mp must be rubbish. To anyone buying into this myth I'd advise them to look at D100 user groups on Flickr, for example - proof that a good 6mp camera used carefully will produce great images.
I've had large exhibition prints made from 6mp files without any visible 'jaggies'.
So, I do daydream like everyone else - but have learned to differentiate 'need' from 'want'.
I wish I'd learned that lesson 40 years ago - I might have some money now :-)