?When and why do you choose to shoot with a lesser camera??

[daniel_iggers]

?When and why do you choose to shoot with a lesser camera??

 

What is a ?lesser? camera?

 

We all have them.

 

I own a Contarex with a 2.0/50 Planar, a Contax II with a Sonnar, a

Contax SLR with a 1.7/50 Planar, a Retina IIIc, a Bessa-R with a

Jupiter-8, an Olympus 35RC and a few other cameras that I consider

to be really super.

 

This morning I picked up my long forgotten Agfa Silette SLE, which

has a Color-Solinar lens, a coupled light meter, moving frame-lines

and no rangefinder. It is a heavy camera, but I think it is cool,

and I?m keen to try it out. Its not chopped liver, but it definitely

is ?lesser? compared to my ?A list? cameras.

 

I also just bought a Sears 35/RF compact rangefinder, with a 2.8/40

Ricoh lens and both shutter priority and fully manual features. (It

apparently is a version of the Ricoh 500G.) It is tiny, black and

cool looking. The lens is supposedly good, but not as sharp or

contrasty as a Konica C35 or various other small rangefinder cameras.

 

I?ll mention one more: I have a Ricoh 500 rangefinder from the late

1950s, that I?ve never used. It looks very cool and has the advance

lever on the bottom. Karen Nakamura on her fine ?photoethnography?

website has a write-up of hers. She mentions that she really likes

to use it, but she also says that the 2.8/45 lens is typical of

consumer grade cameras of that era, and lacking in contrast.

 

I?m keen to try out the Agfa and the Sears, even though the Agfa has

no rangefinder, and the Sears / Ricoh is no Olympus 35RC.

 

Maybe the motivation for shooting with a lesser camera is part

curiosity (?what?ll this one do??) and partly a desire to ?do more

with less? (?See what I did with that modest instrument and my great

talent??) and demonstrate that ?it?s the photographer, not the

camera? that is important.

 

I hope to report some results in due course.

[daniel_iggers]

I'm not sure why my quotation marks show up as question marks.

[sliu]

Each camera has its own personality. To me, it is not for "it's the photographer, not

the camera" or "do more with less" arguments but the matching of subject matter

and shooting style.

 

I don't think my Holga is a "lesser" camera and I take it as seriously as my Rolleiflex

and Nikon F. It depends on subject matter and shooting style. For example, this

series would be very hard to achieve with my other cameras:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Czvo

[sliu]

For the curiosity part, it is very interesting and challenging to shoot an unknown

camera. It is like talking to a stranger, after a few minutes of conversation, you start

to get the idea about his personality. That is why I like shoot with so many different

cameras.

[ben conover]

Hi, I am a beginner.

 

I use two Fuji 69's, they are excellent. I also have a Rolleicord on the way here. I bought a Mamiya NC1000s and two primes for $40, it is black and looks cool. It is very small and functional. I also bought a Mamiya DTL1000 with 50mm and 400mm lenses, for $70.

 

The reason I want to use the 'lesser' old Mamiya slr's is to see how the lenses are, I hope the 400mm lens gives a good result. Of course, I could invest a heap of money and go for the top gear, but I already have that in my Fuji 69's. So, yes I do like to use old beaters even if they are in mint condition and otherwise better than anything available today.

 

I think I will try to stick with my Fuji 69's and just go for it.

The lesser cameras and lenses are fine, but really I should try to keep focused on quality.

 

Cheers.

[claudia__]

I agree that each camera, particularly the oldie moldies with simple lenses have a personality or way of seeing that is different from the standard look one gets with a sophisticated lens designed to produce a sharp image. I take my British made Ensign Ful-Vue everywhere I take my Leica. Not a lesser camera imho, just different.

<p>

<a href="http://www.sfbaysailingpix.com/Blackie.htm">photos here</a></p>

[conrad_hoffman]

As a goofy example, I find my Signet35 is far less threatening to people, than a big black Nikon F3HP. It gives me more natural expressions because they don't take it so seriously. So is it a lesser camera, or a better one.

[trw]

Each camera has it's own advantages. For example (my Cameras):

<ul>

<li>My Canon AE-1P is quick to use, versatile, and has fast lenses (1.4, 1.2).</li>

<li>My digital Point and Shoot is quick and easy to get the photos from, but has trouble focusing in high and low key scenes.</li>

<li>My Mamiya C220 has a large negative, is easy to use, and has a normal and a portrait lens.</li>

<li>My Mockba 5 is compact and light weight for a medium format camera, has an even larger negative than the C220, and a lens suitable for both full-length portraits (vertically), or 3/4 length portraits (horizontally)</li>

<li>My Busch Pressman D has a really big negative and perspective correcting movements.</li></ul>

[summitar]

Among my nicer cameras are Leica LTMs, a Nikon D70 and F2, Contax IIa, and various Retinas and Vitessas. Unless I have a specific objective for a particular camera, and photography is the main reason for my outing, the camera I am likely to take is a Canon A95 (digital). Reasons: instant gratification, fits very nicely into a vest pocket, no great emotional trauma if something bad happened to it, no separate light meter required, enclosed capacity for about 200 photos, and (dare I say it?) very satisfactory performance.

[dan flanders]

I usually prefer to carry a single Barnack and a 50mm Elmar, but sometimes on impulse I take along my ancient Foth Derby -- particularly if the Leica is loaded with color and I think I just might want to shoot some B&W. The Foth is simpler, but I don't consider it any lesser than the Leica -- if I wanted a lesser camera I would take the Contax or one of its clones. Now I don't want to get into a flame war with Contax lovers, but this is is a case of more is less. I've never counted the parts that can go wrong in a Contax but I know from experience that there are many more than in a Leica. I suppose it is just a matter of "chacun a' son gout"!

[don_mckeith]

When?- most of the time

 

Why? I like to think it's a visual thingy- it could also be some kind of mental ilness. :>)

[bacsa]

A "lesser camera" I think I would define as one that can be easier replaced. And, for me, a camera is easier or harder replaceable depending on its price, rarity on the market and existence or absence of any special bonds betaeen me and the respective camera.

 

I shoot with a "lesser camera" defined above, when the conditions are more risky and the "lesser camera" is good enough for the goal. E.g., if 35mm negative and normal lens is enough but i'm on the beach between twenty volleyballing friend, i tend to use one of my yashica GSN's. Last time it got really sandy(?) but a cleaning put him back in shape.

 

It does not mean that I only use these "lesser cameras" when the conditions are rough. I also enjoy using them in 'normal' conditions.

[bacsa]

By the way, if cameras could talk, i'd love to ask them "When and why do you choose to use a lesser photographer(like me)?". It takes blood and guts to be this way, but i'm still just a cliche. ;)

[mdcarma]

I'm a "lesser" photographer. I'm still learning to shoot to the full potential of my Instamatic 44.

[mskovacs]

Yes - many of these cameras are better than we are!

[james_lai]

Daniel, you must have used a word processor to type your post. Your word processing software has the automatic replace function turned on to convert the standard quotation marks to the "66" and "99" marks, which will not display correctly on p.net. You could either turn off the automatic replace function or use a simple text editor instead.

[vivek iyer]

To me every camera is pretty much the same. It is the lens that I care about much. If I own a Contarex/50/2 Planar, I really do not think that I will ever touch anything else with a tessar or a triplet sticking in front of it.

[andre_reinders]

After some pondering I couldn't really classify all my cameras using the 'lesser' designation - rather I have 2 groups of cameras - IMHO. (Although they all have the ability to take great photos, depending on the user)

 

I have 5 cameras now:

 

'Lesser': Olympus D-490 point and shoot digital (2001), Olympus Stylus Zoom 140 film (1998)

 

'Greater': Canon Elan 7N (2004), Nikon Nikkormat FT-2 (1975-ish), Mamiyaflex C2 TLR (1958-ish).

 

I use the 'lesser' ones for simply recording the moment, the 'greater' ones for 'trying' to create a photograph.

 

As far as choosing between the 'greater' ones - I believe the Canon Elan 7N is less risky due to the automation. I still need to build confidence in my skills, and become more comfortable with the 'older' cameras. The Nikkormat and the Mamiyaflex are more fun to use - but because of the manual control - they won't save me from my errors. Like forgetting to index the lens to the body of the Nikkormat, or trying to remember if I need to advance the film on the Mamiyaflex. (Mind you, the Elan 7N has 3 metering modes which can mess up the photo if you expect one and the camera is set to the other...) I know it is sad to say, but if I want to make sure I get the shot- out comes the Elan 7N. If I am more interested in learning and having fun....I choose the older cameras. Also I enjoy the looks I get when I have the TLR....for those days where I feel I am not getting enough attention ;)

[battra92]

Hmm, good question. What makes me wake up and say, "Today is a Holga Day?" Well, to be honest I don't say that much anymore as the Holga's novelty has sort of worn off. So now it's down to the regulars.

 

If it's something really important or I want/need to use various filters I take my N75.

 

I take out the other classics for specific purposes. For example, this weekend there will be some fireworks at a local fair so I'll bring the Argoflex loaded with ISO 50 Agfa slide film. However for the fair itself, I'll probably use the Yashica 44 or maybe my Instamatic 104. Why? To be different I guess. That and my main unit is generally too large so one of my classics is better since I don't want to lug everything around. ;)

[andrea_ingram]

I use my 'lesser' camera [Minolta x7000] when i can't really be bothered working for an image. My better Houghton & Butcher box's amd the folders need thought annnd some skill in their use to get a good image out.

[mike_elek]

Dan, funny you should mention that. I just loaded up my Ikonette with some ASA200 film. I think it's refreshing to try a simpler camera once in a while.

[nicolas_douez]

A need of a return trip to the basics must be the reason.

 

Also, a need of a return trip to the time we were young men, with a few $ in our empty pockets, a basic camera, and the whole life in front of us.

 

Now that we have a bit more $$, (many) more cameras, we are not so young any longer, and the whole life is... behind us. No ?

 

Using a lesser camera can fully be compared with tasting "la madeleine de Proust" IMO.

[dan_fromm1]

Greatest: 2x3 Pacemaker Speed and Century Graphics. Beaulieu 4008ZM2 with 6-66/1.8, 5008S-MS with 6-70/1.4.

 

Greater: Nikon FM2N, Canon AZ814E, AZ814LS.

 

Great: Nikon FG, Nikkormat ELW. Eumig Nautica. Canon 310XL. Canon AF35ML.

 

Less: Ensign Selfix 820.

 

Lesser: Ensign Selfix 12-20, Yashica Elctro 35 GSN

 

Least: broken Retina Ib, Retina IB. Konica Auto S 2 in unknown condition, lens wobbles more than I like.

 

The Nikons have their place, can do things that are impossible with the Graphics.

 

The Nautica is a very specialised camera, great for ultrawide shots at 18 FPS, submersible to 130'.

 

The AZ814LS is retired in favor of the AZ814E as backup to the Beaulieus. But I still have the -LS' Ikelite housing, and it is still quite usable.

 

The 310XL shoots better than the Beaulieus within its limits. Its lens is astounding.

 

The Beaulieus do nearly everything much better than well enough.

 

The AF35ML is a pretty good walking around camera.

 

The ones of the less, lesser, and least that function normally are all pretty despicable and I don't use them. I have better.

 

Basically, I try to use the best camera/lens combination I own for the task at hand. I can't see handicapping myself with a tool that's hard to use or uncontrollable or just plain can't do what I need it to. And I try not to accumulate cameras that are essentially more of the same. The Auto S 2 was a $5 blunder of that type even though it is more controllable than the GSN.

[charles_stobbs3]

Over the years I tend to use a camera that is makes sense to carry for the 7 hours a day when I am not taking pictures and the 20 3 minute picture when I am taking poictures. Thus my Retina IIa has been my favorite camera although I own a Leica M. Many of my pictures have been taken on hiking and skiing trips or on vacation trips in the US and Europe where a light folding camera is more resistant to the knocks and bumps that (my) skiing and hiking entails. So the definition of a "lesser camera" depends on the user.

[peter_evans4]

<p>Yes, all my cameras are better than I am.</p><p><p>Dan Fromm:

<em>Less: Ensign Selfix 820. . . . The ones of the less, lesser, and

least that function normally are all pretty despicable and I don't use

them. I have better.</em></p><p>I'm very surprised to read that. I'd only

read neutral, good or excellent things about the Ensign Selfix/Autorange

820. I've had no great urge to buy one (I must wait till tomorrow for

the results of the first film with my second Iskra) but I did have the

names jotted down somewhere in my cranium as worth looking out for in a

charity shop (fat chance!). What's the straight dope on these big

Ensigns?</p>