Camera love or hate is, for me, a digital age concept.
Pre-d, and once I was able to buy my first real camera (with interchangeable lens facility) I loved them all (almost - see below!). Why? They were simple enough for me to understand within five minutes of picking them up (except for the 500 Series, whose FM hinted at so many ways of jamming it that I held off loading it for a day at least!).
Along with the Nikon F came the sense of security associated with feeling that one held the best tool available to do the job. And it didn't get old and retired in five minutes. When I bought the F2 it wasn't to replace the F: it was to provide a second 135 format security option to the business. Both cameras continued to be used side by side, with no preferences felt towards either, other than that the more rounded edges of the F2 were kinder on long shoots.
The FM came in because of one factor: a slightly higher flash synch. for out-of-studio needs. Tom b remarks on the cheapness feel of the FE: compared with the F and F2, the FM was, as I've mentioned several times, the camera equivalent of a sardine can, and I have no reason to imagine the FE to have been any different. Nikon never sold those other bodies as anything but what they were: basic tools. You wanted the cream, you had to bleed for the F or F2 etc. I hated my FM and FM2 bodies, especially because I felt Nikon should have already had higher flash synch. in its flagships. But hey, Leica was worse, and didn't even let you frame accurately! I never bought any M bodies because of that, and the R6, beautiful as it was, and the only one to tempt me from Nikon in the slightest, couldn't give 100% viewing in the prism. Kiss of death in a format where every little mm of format mattered.
But the 135 format gave freedom just as long as I stayed at 50mm max. focal length. Any longer, and I might as well have swapped over to the 120 format because I required a tripod.
With 120, the best I ever had was the Hasselblad 500 series. Square, I never had to spoil the flow by going from horizontal to vertical: it was all available on every frame. My biggest camera regret ever has been trading the sytem away to go 6x7; I wish every day that I still had it. I also loved the Rollei TLR except for one thing: I couldn't put other lenses on it, and had no intention of buying either the Wide or Tele versions – might as well have a 'blad!
So much for the technical/practical. Spiritually, and boy, does photography depend on that! - I felt myself to be two, absolutely different, photographers simply by virtue of the chosen format.
Digital cameras. Only owned two: D200 and D700. They both do whatever I need, but feel too heavy (perhaps it's just that I'm a helluva lot older and physically weaker now) and not really an organic part of the creative process. I always feel uncomfortable when people rabbit on with the word 'organic', but somehow, it seems to me to fit my feeling quite accurately, at least in this context.
Dream cameras, the ones I think I'd love?
a. Hasselblad 500 Series with 6x6 digital back:
b. Nikon F2 with D700 wizardry inside. AND split-image screen!
I'n neither need nor want more.
Rob
