Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Lens Snobbery
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, but photography certainly doesn't corner the market on 'gear snobbery'. I've been into audio equipment for more decades than I care to remember, but the gear snobbery was just as bad then as lens snobbery is now. It was so bad, I had an ex-good friend who 'dumped' me because I wouldn't come to my senses. True story. Although it was a strange thing for him to say, considering I let my 'senses', or rather just one, determine what sounded best to me, instead of reading in a magazine which one was best.

So, now I'm using manual focus lenses on a modern DSLR. I've noticed head-shaking and smirking along with plenty of puzzled, quizzical looks (yeah, some "pity", too!), but I couldn't care less. I long ago learned to ignore the ignorant.

Most recently, I was at a reunion with my wife. One of her ex-classmates kept staring at my camera (Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 25-50/4). Finally, he asked,"What kind of lens is that?"

After telling him, he frowned, and asked the question, "But, why?"

That's the question I've heard asked about my tube audio gear for over 30 years, and I stopped answering 20 years ago. Use what you like.

Besides, camera equipment doesn't take photographs, that's the photographer's job. Even with modern exposure metering and autofocus, unless they learn about art, composition, color, etc, all that expensive gear will do for them is to ensure their crappy photos are decently exposed and pretty much in focus. Hell, a $100 point-and-shoot will do that.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LOL @arninetyes - I know what you are saying re. audio. There's some serious religion going on in that space. I found the antidote building my own, and going vintage. Screw em if they charge too much to be cool Smile

What I learned from building my own audio gear: there's a lot of marketing going on that's convincing. What I learned from trying out low priced photo gear: while there's a lot of marketing that's convincing, and much photo gear has at least some redeeming value, good gear is good gear, regardless of age.

I don't really give a damn about folks who insist on dumping megabucks on the latest and greatest. I like my HiFi to be (for the main components) to be of a similar age as a woman I'd marry, and I like my photo gear to be the age my grandparents married... OK and for digital bodies, I have to make an exception.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know how they do things nowadays, but back when you could buy a Yashica Mat 124G new, Brooks Institute of Photography used to require that their beginning photography students buy one and this was the only camera they got to use for quite a while. As Arninetyes mentions, the benefit from this is it forces the shooter to think about the basics, especially composition. I've seen some absolutely wonderful photos taken by people with the gift of a "good eye" using a cheapo point & shoot camera. To me, this is the "learn to walk before you run" aspect of the skill -- which applies to any skill really -- and one that too many people attempt to circumvent, perhaps feeling that their many thousands of dollars worth of gear somehow renders the necessary tedium unnecessary.

Right enough about snobbery. It exists just about anywhere an opinion can be formed, either pro or con, about something. Anybody around where I live who rides a motorcycle that isn't a Harley-Davidson can tell you lots about Harley biker snobbery. They even have a favorite expression, which has always struck me as a non sequitur: "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand." To me, it indicates a matter of confusion on their part, meaning that they are incapable of explaining what is so special about the Harley-Davidson experience, so they've come up with a non-sensical expression to brush off the questions.

This snobbery also exists in a big way among guitarists, but there are different schools of loyalty there. With electrics, it breaks down pretty much to the Strat crowd and the Les Paul crowd or perhaps in broader terms, the Fender vs. Gibson crowds. Everything else is just something else. And like the audiophiles, there's also a die-hard all-tube contingent among guitarists who claim that no amount of sophisticated modeling technology can substitute adequately for the real thing. Not inclined to disagree. To this day, one of the sweetest amps I've ever played through was an all-tube Marshall Super Lead.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Anybody around where I live who rides a motorcycle that isn't a Harley-Davidson can tell you lots about Harley biker snobbery. They even have a favorite expression, which has always struck me as a non sequitur: "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand." To me, it indicates a matter of confusion on their part, meaning that they are incapable of explaining what is so special about the Harley-Davidson experience, so they've come up with a non-sensical expression to brush off the questions.

ROFL! Oh, yes! Harleyreligion! Many years ago, I was out for a ride on a beautiful spring day. I pulled off at a store to pick up some water. Walking back to my bike, I passed a Harley-rider who was headed into the store. He left his biker-chick to mind his Harley, which was parked next to my bike. I started putting my gear on, and this female drawls out an unsolicited comment: "BMW, wants to be a Harley when it grows up."

I turned to her, and I just couldn't stop myself...."I hope to God it never grows up." Her jaw dropped open, and she was stunned speechless. I guess it never occurred to her that someone might not want a Harley. As I pulled away, she was still staring, mouth agape.

I have nothing against Harleys, I only object to condescending attitudes and smug superiority simply because they bought a certain brand. Sorry. I may have brand preferences, but they are preferences, not religious dictates.

And, in case someone is wondering: Yes. Almost all my gear is Nikon. Is that because I think Nikon-is-absolute-best-and-I-wouldn't-be-caught-dead-with-anything-else? Nope. In the early 90s, when I finally switched from M42 mount, I wanted to build a new system around one brand, for simplicity, and I wanted to be able to get great value buying older, excellent lenses for a small fraction of what new lenses cost. Canon was out, since they'd just made all older lenses obsolete; it was between Pentax and Nikon. I don't really remember why I chose Nikon.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
I don't really remember why I chose Nikon.


We won't ask why, because we wouldn't understand anyway. Wink
Great anecdotes btw. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Arninetyes wrote:
I don't really remember why I chose Nikon.


We won't ask why, because we wouldn't understand anyway. Wink


Hah! Laughing

Well, I suspect that it is much easier to find used or new Nikkors of certain excellent designs than it is to find the equivalent in Pentax mount.

I switched to Nikon in 1989 from Canon FD for exactly the same reason that Arninetyes did, and I chose Nikon not just for its backward compatibility but because of its superior lens offerings. Funny thing happened with me though -- I built up a really nice manual focus Nikon outfit, with an F3 and F2A, both motorized, and probably a dozen Nikkor primes ranging from 20mm to 400mm. But shortly after this, I decided my wife needed an easy-to-use camera, and came across a great deal on a lightly used EOS Rebel with kit lens, so I bought it for her. And one thing leads to another, and I've added to the outfit over the years, such that by the time it's time for me to think about buying a DSLR, I already have several EF lenses and a good Canon flash, so it was a foregone conclusion that I would buy Canon. It was only after I bought my EOS DSLR that I found out I could use my Nikkors with an adapter, so that, to me, really was the best of both worlds, and here I am, back using Canon.

But it didn't stop there. For over 20 years, I've missed my old FD gear, so this past year, I've been buying back into the system. I now have three FD bodies and probably close to a dozen lenses, and I really have sort of a feeling of satisfaction that I'm able to use all my favorites once again.

Okay, so now to really hijack the thread, I gotta ask Arninetyes about your BMW -- what model? Do you still ride?

I own two BMWs -- both old airheads: a '76 R90/6 and an '88 R100RS. Two entirely different machines, and I love 'em both. And my R90's so growed up, it's old enough to be that Harley's grandpappy.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Okay, so now to really hijack the thread, I gotta ask Arninetyes about your BMW -- what model? Do you still ride?


Heh! No problem. I'll try to keep it as on-subject as possible, which won't last for long.

I've had 20 to 25 motorcycles, only two of them were BMWs. The snotty biker-chick was trying to put down my R90S. Here's a picture of it...sort of. Well, it IS a picture, but it's actually a picture OF a picture. The picture of the bike was taken about 1980. I used my Yashica TL Electro with its standard 50mm f/1.9. I don't remember what film I used, but I remember that f/16 almost gave me sufficient depth of field. I worked in a photo studio at the time, so I developed and printed it there. The print is about 30 years old--you can see a couple of scratches it picked up in 30 years.

The motorcycle, my first (and best) BMW, was an R90S. Had to sell it when I got desperate to finish college. This bike taught me long distance travel by motorcycle doesn't have to be painful. By the way, the Yashica lived in the tank bag on this bike. It went everywhere with me, even almost over a waterfall, but that's another story.

I finally framed the print (about 3 months ago) and hung it in my office. Since it is matted, has foam backing board and dust cover, I really didn't want to disassemble it to scan. Hence, the second picture. Used my D700 and my Nikkor 105/2.5 with a pair of daylight fluorescent lamps. Flashes are awkward with glass-covered pictures.

Hence, a picture, of a picture, of my old motorcycle. I still have two bikes: a Honda FT500 single, and, coincidentally, a 1988 R100RS. Do I still ride? Well, I haven't ridden in a few years. It seems quite a few things conspired at the same time. I tore a knee ligament in a flat-track motorcycle class. I decided it was time to install those big valve heads, European high compression pistons, etc. while convalescing. But, when I got the rods off, discovered shreds of aluminum in one rod bearing. Sorry. I didn't take pictures of it. Then, short of money for low end rebuild, studied for a new license, lost a job, became self-employed, etc, etc. Right now, I'm too busy fixing up the house--I'll get back to the BMW after the kitchen renovation.



PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How interesting. We both own '88 RSes. It's so easy to get back to a motorcycle project right after finishing another -- and yet never manage to get back to it . . . which is just one reason why I have 7 bikes in my garage, most if which aren't running.

A couple of shots of mine, a recent shot of the R90 followed by an older shot of the R100. The RS looks funny without its bags.





PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
. . . which is just one reason why I have 7 bikes in my garage, most if which aren't running.


That's pretty amusing, especially since I once had 7 bikes at one time. As I recall, they all ran, but all needed work. And, they all needed work, because one of the seven was a Norton.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay, now this is getting really interesting. One of my seven is a '74 Commando. It was running when I decided to update the switchgear and front brakes and have the rear wheel relaced to an 18" -- a project that got stalled out about halfway through. <sigh> I don't suppose you owned any Yamaha XS650s did you? Cool


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I can chip into this motorcycle memory-fest...
I too had a BMW - in about 1987-89. It was a ten year old R80RT, ex-police, which I installed R100 pistons, barrels, heads and carbs on. After the conversion, still on R80 gearing, that thing could pull stumps out of the ground. The RT fairing was one of, scratch that, the best fairing I've ever sat behind for long distance work. 50mpg as an average of fast and town work was normally attainable, largely due to the fairing.
Now; I have a brace of Suzuki GS850s, both of which have sky-high mileages on them, one has 230,000miles+ and still on its original rear drive. One thing that BMW never got right was the rear drive - wonky bearings, worn splines, never happened with the Suzukis.
Oh, and an XS650 Special - it's a relatively recent addition, with copious oil leaks and a mean pipe. Must get around to fixing it, as I always did like them and this one is basically sound enough.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think many people (including myself) in 70s-80s choose Nikon as their first reflex camera because it was the most affordable of the top level professional/high level amateur systems - which in those days, at least here in Italy, were perceived to be the "fab four": Leica-Contax-Nikon-Olympus.
Canon, Minolta and Pentax have always been perceived here (maybe it was different elsewhere) as one step lower, something like "average-good amateur".
Today, with all manual stuff available used and much depriced, everything changed, and many people (like myself) could finally afford to enter into "dream systems" like Contax or Leica.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Okay, now this is getting really interesting. One of my seven is a '74 Commando. It was running when I decided to update the switchgear and front brakes and have the rear wheel relaced to an 18" -- a project that got stalled out about halfway through. <sigh> I don't suppose you owned any Yamaha XS650s did you? Cool

Uh, no. But I have an FT500 Honda in the garage right now...does that count?

By the way, my Norton was a 1972 Commando Fastback with the "Combat" engine. Somewhere, I have photos of it. When I find them, I'll post one or two.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
If I can chip into this motorcycle memory-fest...
I too had a BMW - in about 1987-89. It was a ten year old R80RT, ex-police, which I installed R100 pistons, barrels, heads and carbs on. After the conversion, still on R80 gearing, that thing could pull stumps out of the ground. The RT fairing was one of, scratch that, the best fairing I've ever sat behind for long distance work. 50mpg as an average of fast and town work was normally attainable, largely due to the fairing.
Now; I have a brace of Suzuki GS850s, both of which have sky-high mileages on them, one has 230,000miles+ and still on its original rear drive. One thing that BMW never got right was the rear drive - wonky bearings, worn splines, never happened with the Suzukis.
Oh, and an XS650 Special - it's a relatively recent addition, with copious oil leaks and a mean pipe. Must get around to fixing it, as I always did like them and this one is basically sound enough.

Hmm. I never had any problem with a BMW rear drive. The '88 RS, however, wore out its timing chain in only 40k miles--too soon, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, then there's the aluminum chips in the rod bearing....


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think many people (including myself) in 70s-80s choose Nikon as their first reflex camera because it was the most affordable of the top level professional/high level amateur systems - which in those days, at least here in Italy, were perceived to be the "fab four": Leica-Contax-Nikon-Olympus.
Canon, Minolta and Pentax have always been perceived here (maybe it was different elsewhere) as one step lower, something like "average-good amateur".
Today, with all manual stuff available used and much depriced, everything changed, and many people (like myself) could finally afford to enter into "dream systems" like Contax or Leica.

I considered Leica, but decided "no" because, even well-used, most Leica gear at that time was still astronomical. Let's face it, most Nikon gear was very high then, too. But, older Nikon stuff seems fairly cheap now. I've gotten some amazing deals on lenses, ones that were stupidly expensive a few years ago.

I still toy with the idea of Leica, but it won't happen. If I spend money on different gear, it won't be to change brands (or add), but to step into large format. I've shot medium format, although I've never owned any equipment, but what I really want is a view camera. I played with one several years ago, and what you can do with focus, depth of field, perspective, etc., is amazing.

Some day. But right now, I'm still setting up to do photomicrography. I've been looking for a more affordable, but still high quality, camera/microscope adapter. The Nikon adapter is great, as it's designed to work with their DSLRs. It even has a CPU. But, it costs almost $600, and I haven't seen any used ones.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5