Do You Keep a Camera or Lens for the Feel of It?

[Tronhard]

There have been a couple of cameras that have long since been bypassed by technology.  The first of these was the EOS 60D, of which I had 3 examples and I just loved the feel of the body, layout of the controls and the balance in my hands.  I kept them longer than I probably should have, but instead retained the 80D, for the same reasons, even after selling the 90D, which I never quite warmed to - the rear control wheel was smaller and harder to turn, and TBH I just felt like 32MP was too much for the sensor size.   I still have the 80D, and use it primarily with the EF-S 18-135 IS USM, another piece of kit that I like for the feel - and it's a good optic.   

The other body that seems to have hung around in my kit is the 5DsR, which I like for its sensor capacity, cancelled AA filter and just the sound of the shutter is awesome.  Along with that the brilliant EF 70-300L lens - in part because of the time when I was using it, but also the balance and it IS a great optic.  I use it on my MILCs via the EF-RF adapter and it does a sterling job.

So, technical specs aside, do you have gear that somehow hangs around because you just LIKE the nature of it? 

[Tronhard]

There is a lot of truth in that.  The creative act uses devices that can develop a significance well past their pure utilitarian level.  I remember my father doing woodwork with an ancient hand drill and plane when there were more efficient tools available.  He said he just loved the fell of them in his hands, much as we have both expressed.
While on one level one cannot deny that there is more sophisticated technology out there that technically performs at a higher level, for some things that is not the point.  Such things take us back to a place and time in our lives that add resonance and intrinsic value to elevate these object to more than utilitarian devices.

My 60D cameras (I had three) were very much in that realm.   I used these on a five week photoshoot with a dear friend who shared the joy of photography in some of Canada's most spectacular scenery and with its most iconic and wonderful wildlife.    It was a very hard decision to let them go, but as I explained in an earlier post, I had to make tough decisions.  And seeing them now reminded me that they are dying of cancer right now, something that pains me greatly.  I compromised by keeping one of my two 80D's.
My most beloved cameras are not Canons, as I wrote about in the post I made in response to Normandel's aggressive defense of their choices.  But it bears a repeated link:
How I Fell in Love with the Nikon Df, and In Praise of Shadows 

[kriscowling]

..."While on one level one cannot deny that there is more sophisticated technology out there that technically performs at a higher level, for some things that is not the point."...

This sentence of yours sums it up completely for me, Trevor!  Thanks!

[Tronhard]

Actually Kris, that was always my point.  This is not meant to turn into a hate fest for those who keep older gear vs those who buy new stuff and I am disappointed in Normandel for twisting it in that direction.  People engage in photography for a myriad of reasons and circumstances that have impacts on what they keep and what they don't.

I live in both the utilitarian and nostalgic worlds.  On one hand I shoot for people who expect top-notch results in situations that demand the latest technology and higher resolutions of both body and lens.  I also get that gear to support people who come to this site seeking support and advice - for me, that is a means to give back.  And yes, I love the new tech for itself. 

However, that does not negate my love of old gear.   The challenge, as a retiree, is affording to keep equipment when my income is now limited and I have to consider the issues of what happens when I pass on.  I don't want to leave a huge amount of gear for my family to dispose of.  So, things had to go, but I made the choices with great care and consideration and made sure the gear went to good homes where it would be respected. 

I have also given a fair bit away to young folks who are learning and can't afford any gear at all - there is a charity here in Auckland for precisely that.  I provide the gear and the education so they can be creatives too.  I think that is an honourable end for my relationship with my legacy equipment.  But, as I have said, there are some items that are not considered in practical terms, they are the touchstones of my photographic career and times of my life and they remain with me.

[normadel]

Lighten up, Tronhard.

[Tronhard]

I responded in kind.  If you were making a joke you expressed it poorly, your tone was aggressive and twisted my words, and went on a rant.  Don't expect that to go unanswered.

BTW, my signature indicates my name is Trevor so you can address me as a person.  I am not sure if you are a Norman or a Norma or something completely different, but it adds a small level of respect to an interchange to be able to call someone by name rather than an anonymous tag.

[Tronhard]

I feel no shame at all, actually, and considering I have just started the thread extolling the virtue of keeping older gear, I am surprised by your post. 🤔  🙂  

I never suggested that a 60D or 5DsR (which, BTW, I still own) don't work any more, those are your interpretation and your words, not mine.  I think it is fine for you to make a choice to stick to these older cameras exclusively, I wish you well with that.

If those familiar with my posts will be aware that I shoot quite a bit with older model cameras to make exactly the point that photography is more about technique than technology, and even use cameras I deliberately purchased for their age - specifically the D30 (2000) and D60 (2002) - and I still have, and occasionally shoot with an original G1 and a Canon 400D (Rebel Xti).  
Dimly-lit pump house D30, EF 17-40L@17mm, f/5.6, 1/8sec, ISO-400, and:
Many a Good Tune Played on an Old Fiddle - Canon Community

They, and my other DSLRs took absolutely fine photos' still perform to spec, and were so lovingly cared for they were described by the store that sold them on behalf as 'pristine'.   When I did so, the lot consisted of 15 bodies alone, and if you care to check my profile that is where you will find my gear list as it is still far too long to put on as a signature.  Having just gone through the process of selling a dead friend's gear for his widow, it was a process I didn't want to leave to my family, who know nothing about photography and I could use the funds to support my own life - these bodies and the lenses I sold returned over $22k to me to invest in my retirement.

What I am saying is that time and the market had moved on: you can't buy a new or refurb 60D, or even get support for it here in NZ - like it or not, things have changed and, with a huge collection of gear and, after a heart attack, I did not want to leave that as a mess for my niece to sort out when I die, so I started cleaning house - and it was an agonizing series of decisions.  It was better to sell it than let it get to the point it had no value at all.  However, given the move by Canon away from DSLRs, I needed to make choices as I generally downsized.

The gear has to be considered in the context of what, how and for what purpose one is photographing. As a wildlife shooter I have seen the benefit of a whole new range of lenses that demand a change in bodies from DSLRs to MILCs to gain serious benefits in performance, and I'm fine with that. In the end, a camera is a tool and one needs the right tool for the job.  In other contexts from wildlife, while I am retired, I still shoot as a volunteer for clients, particularly a local university to which I have strong ties, and their needs and expectations are for commercial-quality work.

So, I respect your stout defense of the gear, and I am happy for you.  But you are not me, or I suspect most photographers, which is why there is an actual camera market. 

Perhaps you would care to consider the following essay I wrote on my most beloved camera, which is not a Canon: I am sharing it from my MS OneDrive: 
How I Fell in Love with the Nikon Df, and In Praise of Shadows. 

[Tronhard]

Perhaps we can get back to the point of the thread, which is to celebrate specific equipment that you particularly love, outside of its modernity.

I shot with film for about 20 years - transparencies, because that was generally what was expected for selling images.  I still have one example of each and have shot some film through them not long ago.  The burning of my years of work when my car was stolen while moving led me to go to digital for the ability to back up my images and I experimented with the Canon G1, a 'compact' camera that had a small CCD sensor but shot in RAW or JPG, which was quite unusual at the time.  It had all the controls for M, Av, Tv and Auto and was a good introduction to the digital world.  I have kept that one for it's role in doing so, and have still shot with it.
My G1 Kit PS G1, 7mm, f/8, 1/320sec, ISO-100
My first DSLR was actually the EOS 400D (Rebel Xti) along with the 18-55 and 75-300 kit lenses.  I soon upgraded the latter to the EF 70-300 and learnt the new world of DSLRs.  Again, I still have that camera, as new in its box with all the books and cables - I even have the receipt!   These were taken with it as I was getting to know it.
400D 75-300@120mm, f/8, 8sec, ISO-100 400D, EF100-400@170mm, f/5.6, 1/30sec, ISO-100
The EOS 5DIII and EOS 60D's were my next step up as I got into more serious photography, along with some L glass - 17-40L, 24-104L, 70-300L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS USM MkII and so the collection grew...  I still have many of these L lenses, and shoot them on my remaining DSLRs and via the adapter on my MILC.   The last DSLRs were the 5DsR, 5DIV, 80D and 90D.  As I said, I kept the 5DsR and 80D for their tactile feel and some other hard-to-quantify quality - and I wanted to keep a foothold in the DSLR world.  I have already expressed in my article my love of the Nikon Df and it's unique characteristics - I wish Canon would make a similar camera body.

[Far-Out-Dude]

Here is the old Ratina cKodak Retina IIICKodak Retina IIIC That shutter is what made is special in it's day, I do belive it was the first. I THINK it was called a leaf shutter, I hope somebody will politely correct me if I am mistakenRoll Film and the editing software of the day.

[MarkTwo]

I have  this really old Minolta Dimage 7i that  I just cánt get rid of..
It holds and handles so nicely.  The colours are - nostalgic. 
I still use it from time to time to make photos of stuff I put on ebay  because the images    stick out so nicely ^^ and it can do macro pretty well. 

I bought a Canon 650D in the year before my son was born and kept it until recently even though I moved to an M6 Mk2 for some years already.   I thought to keep it for my son to try his hand at photography in future but  instead I gave it to someone who has helped us a lot these past few years and  got him a little compact that is more in his scale  with a control ring around the lens for manual focus or aperture etc  for his 11th birthday ^^

All these cameras - no matter how old -  still have usefullness ^^

[Tronhard]

That is a great story.   I think it is laudable to hand on gear that one no longer uses to those who can make use of it. I sold half my disposable gear and gave away the rest to a charity for kids who cannot afford a camera but wanted to start to learn photography - it felt really good to do so.

"All these cameras - no matter how old -  still have usefulness"  I absolutely agree with that.  At the extreme end of that, on a course on the history of photography, beside me was a chap who shoots Daguerreotypes - the first commercially practical recording medium that dates back to the late 1830's!   His photographs were stunning.

When I wrote that some cameras had "long since been bypassed by technology",  I was correct - it has moved on, in that purely technical context, but I never, ever said or implied that they don't have use - far from it.  I would have hoped that my use of 40+ year old film and 24+ year old digital cameras would have demonstrated that.  Yet, there seems to have arisen an interpretation that demands a defensive dialogue.   

Since I didn't say or imply that they were useless, I can only assume I have released a dam of frustration from those who have been subject to that opinion.  I write often about the value of older systems - my attitude is that if they produced an acceptable result for the user's purpose, unless the condition of the gear, or the needs of the user have changed, then they will still render that same service.  I have said, ad nauseam, that photography is more about technique than technology, and if anyone reads my signature that ethic is reinforced.

Love it or hate it, that is my position.