Why we own cameras, and why it matters

[AshleyMC]

. . .

In contrast, the digital photography forums were (and remain) positively tribal. It's ridiculous.

Ridiculous, indeed.

Over the decades, I have used various film and digital cameras, the latter incorporating different sensor formats (and lens mounts) and sold by different manufacturers.

I visit forums, but consider none of them, nor none of my cameras and lenses, to be some kind of badge that affirms my illusory and fleeting existence.

I believe sympathy and tolerance come from proper exposure — pun intended. There is no sacred cow.

PS. I miss the Waterloo-Kitchener area. Haven’t been back after getting my MMath in 1982 and going to CMU for my PhD.

 

[Rob de Loe]

PS. I miss the Waterloo-Kitchener area. Haven’t been back after getting my MMath in 1982 and going to CMU for my PhD.

You would not recognize it! The transformation is incredible. Waterloo the city has transformed from a tired small town to something much more urban and interesting, and UW has grown by leaps and bounds. Math is currently constructing yet another building -- and we're up to seven buildings for Engineering. Even my little Environment faculty has three(ish) buildings. A good light rail system has been a huge boon for K-W.

The one thing you will recognize is the Grad House, which is almost unchanged (although they still don't welcome undergrads!)

 

[JimKasson]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

 

[rbf]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

Indeed. That's why I don't spend any time in those forums. I avoid commenting on stories too because the comment section gets tribal very quickly.

FredMiranda, the first forum in which I was a member, is the same. However, the "Alternative" forum was generally a nice mashup of oddballs. I wasn't happy when it became the "Leica and alternative" forum because now it's basically the Leica forum.

It may not have just been the subforums alone but they probably played a part. there was a lot of money flowing out of and into different corporations at the time with the digital camera P&S boom and film meltdown. I've been at or heard of corporations where sales and marketing did not always behave themselves. At times at different forums I've felt there were certain types of people more interested in what other people bought than anything else. These subforums would have made for especially valuable target audiences. I think there were a number of factors.

 

[Macro guy]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

 

[Rob de Loe]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

 

[JimKasson]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Love it.

 

[Macro guy]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

 

[JimKasson]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

 

[MyReality]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

Why do we need to discuss these things?

Can't we should look at the photos of Bert Stern, Arnold Neuman, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus and others. Don't they tell everything about Hasselblad? :-D

Fuji has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[JimKasson]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

Why do we need to discuss these things?

Can't we should look at the photos of Bert Stern, Arnold Neuman, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus and others. Don't they tell everything about Hasselblad? :-D

I thought Diane Arbus used a Rollei.

Fuji has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[Macro guy]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

Why do we need to discuss these things?

Can't we should look at the photos of Bert Stern, Arnold Neuman, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus and others. Don't they tell everything about Hasselblad? :-D

I thought Diane Arbus used a Rollei.

I think she used a Mamiya TLR

 

[MyReality]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

Why do we need to discuss these things?

Can't we should look at the photos of Bert Stern, Arnold Neuman, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus and others. Don't they tell everything about Hasselblad? :-D

I thought Diane Arbus used a Rollei.

I think she used a Mamiya TLR

From another source than my first post:

"She sometimes used a twin-lens Rolleiflex Automat MX and a 35mm Nikon F, but her favorite camera was a Mamiya C22".

This sounds like a fairly reliable source. It lists 4 cameras:

Diane Arbus & Classic Cameras - Classic Manual Film Cameras - Photo.net

 

[DavidMillier]

Painters don't wax on generally about paint, brushes, supports, stretchers, & etc. We have ones we like, for sure! And there's a range of quality in these supplies. But I've never heard painters, draftspeople, or printmakers get into the sorts of rather heated discussions that photographers do. You shrug and move on.

Sculptors can get into it sometimes, but it's also a different vibe from photographers and never as heated.

It's always been a bit curious to me, but starting to get rather tiresome. Photography seems to have a more constricted view of things, and so a lot of accompanying heresies.

I made that exact point once using painters as a reference, and was immediately pounced on by someone whose wife was a painter. Painters did argue about brushes and tools too, I was told in no uncertain terms.

Nonetheless, I still think you're right in your point. There's just less to argue about, or perhaps it's just less interesting to argue about it because the equipment differences don't make as much difference.

Plus many of the categories that Jim identifies, which I think are relevant to photography, don't exist in painting. Are there collectors of brushes who would participate in a painting forum? I can't see that.

Two of my uncles who rarely saw one another, when they did occasionally meet would boast non-stop to one another about the superiority of the particular make and model of perfectly ordinary family car they drove at the time.

It seems to be a man thing, probably with its roots in the psychology of reputation and pecking order in society. Anything mechanical in particular seems to bring out this behaviour, which ultimately ends up arguing about brand names. Presumably this is a proxy for arguing about one's impeccably sophisticated taste and judgement and possession of the financial means to support it; once again cementing a reputation, influence, pecking order, thing. Social animals and their hierarchies.

Something like that.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

Of course they did. Phil Askey knew perfectly well that tribalism inflamed rapid posting and increased traffic. It's a good strategy if you want to drive traffic.

Mike Johnston has pointed this out: talk about the history of photography, the life and works of particular photographers, photographic genres, photographic subjects, photographic techniques and so on, and a blog gets a certain amount of traffic. Talk about whether one model of camera is better than another model and your blog gets inundated with 10x as much traffic.

The art and practice of photography is a steady niche but gear wars is where the money is to be made..

 

[DavidMillier]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

There's no shortage of irate dispute on the m43 forum as to whether Oly or Panny rules. And the eternal debate that m43 really is just as good as FF.

 

[DavidMillier]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

One of the interesting characteristics of this forum is that while the other forums are usually boasting that their particular brand/format is the best, this forum often questions the merits of its own brands/formats. This is a good thing in my book. Brings a sense of reality to the situation.

 

[DavidMillier]

DPReview normalized tribalism by splitting the forums into brand specific chat rooms.

But that doesn't apply to this forum. And I think that's a good thing.

It's one of the few that isn't and it maintains some sanity. Now that digital cameras have matured, and there isn't a whole lot of practical differences among cameras, the brand specific forums will run out of things to talk about. But not us! We can always regain our footing at the circle of confusion .

I, for one, am ready to debate whether Hasselblad or Fuji cameras have the most intense, organic luminosity!

Let's not forget the MF look and a 3D pop.

And character, depth, mojo, painterly, and glow.

Why do we need to discuss these things?

Can't we should look at the photos of Bert Stern, Arnold Neuman, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus and others. Don't they tell everything about Hasselblad? :-D

I thought Diane Arbus used a Rollei.

I think she used a Mamiya TLR

Nah, I'm sure she used a Centon.

 

[DavidMillier]

Painters don't wax on generally about paint, brushes, supports, stretchers, & etc. We have ones we like, for sure! And there's a range of quality in these supplies. But I've never heard painters, draftspeople, or printmakers get into the sorts of rather heated discussions that photographers do. You shrug and move on.

Sculptors can get into it sometimes, but it's also a different vibe from photographers and never as heated.

It's always been a bit curious to me, but starting to get rather tiresome. Photography seems to have a more constricted view of things, and so a lot of accompanying heresies.

Tex,

While there have always been adherents of particular brands, I can never remember during the "film days" (in my case mid-50s to early 2000s) any brand fervor or acrimony such as seemed to happen with digital from the very start.

Some people were known as "Nikon users" some "Canon." We all just went out and came back with our shots.

Only Nikon and Canon themselves touted one feature over another.

No one cared what brand of MF someone was using.

Hasselblad was always high-profile, but otherwise, it just didn't make a bit of difference to anyone.

A photographer was known for his or her images. Period.

There was always mild curiosity about the working methods everyone used, but it never went any further.

The "camera wars," when I became aware of the phenomenon in the mid-2000s, really confused me and made me feel quite sad.

My recollection, from the mid-70s onward, is different. The hobbyist photo magazines and then the early web discussion boards had plenty of brand-partisan stuff and tempest-in-a-teapot disputation over nuances of technical approaches in the field or the darkroom.

On-line social media have certainly served as an intensifier, upping the amplitude on everything. But this is true across the board, not unique to photography.

The hobbyist magazines certainly contained enough brand ads.

But the articles stressed technique, methods, processes. Not equipment brands.

"Get 4x5 results from 35mm Tri-X!," was a popular theme. There were lots of portfolio exhibits.

Back then the percentage who were pros was the majority of the market. Except Hasselblad which historically has been 2:1, Hobbyistro. (67% of Hasselblad sales are to hobbyists.) Today hobbyists vs pros is probably 9:1.

No shortage of fisticuffs over developers. Oh, the Rodinal supporters...