So much of the stuff we write and discuss about photography just doesn't matter. At all. It's immaterial to making fun photographs.

Back in 2019 B and I took a little vacation trip to Montreal, Canada. Like most photographers who I know I hemmed and hawed about which camera or cameras and which lenses to take along with me. In the end I opted to grab the latest one to come through the office. It was a "retro-esque" choice but one that worked for me. I shot hundreds and hundreds of "holiday snaps" with a traditional DSLR camera and, mostly, with a 50mm f1.4 lens. The images look a little different to me than more recent photos I took in Montreal late last Fall. On the later trip I was using the Leica M240 and the Leica Q2. But really, the quality of the images is more or less interchangeable because the reason to create these photos was to capture a feeling of the time and the space, not to participate in a contest aimed at showing off the incremental improvements in camera technology.

The camera I chose to take with me in 2019 was the Pentax K1. It's a 36 megapixel, full frame camera. It's actually newer, in camera years, than the Leica M240 that I used three years later. But the 50mm f1.4 Pentax lens I mostly used was probably ten or so years older than the camera itself. All of them; everything I took on both trips, worked well. If the threshold for success was set at an arbitrary number like 75% then both gaggles of gear delivered results at 90%. And neither set was feature competitive with any number of current cameras. But that lack of inspirational newness was hardly an impediment to the enjoyment of real world picture taking. 

As photographers we have an odd relationship with our gear. There is a big percentage of photographers over 50 who've largely given up on actually taking photographs on a regular or routine basis and now occupy their time going through the "compost heap" of photo gear history bemoaning the passing of "the good old days." The idea being that so much of the legendary gear from the film days, and the now disappearing darkrooms, the fiber based, black and white prints, etc. represents some golden age of photography which is passing and must be memorialized or mourned. The pride of having mastered lots of processes and techniques that are now mostly irrelevant is palpable. And the mourners can be seen writing about magic black and white film developer recipes and reciprocity failure charts or the stability of 1950's Linhof tripods. 

This is offset by an opposite group who seem to worship at the altar of The Absolute Latest Technology in Cameras. While they would have salivated if they'd gotten their hands on a camera that could deliver what a Pentax K1 or a Leica M240 does back at the turn of the century, or even more recently, they dismiss anything which has been at all superseded by a newer model or a new trend in camera and lens design. Their metrics are: highest sharpness, lowest noise, highest ISO, fastest frame rate and most megapixels. And they'll gladly trade-in or mothball any camera that doesn't measure up. No matter how much they loved the camera being replaced --- at least when it first arrived. Dangle a Nikon Z9 in front of them and they'll look for a scalpel with which disgorge and sell their own kidney in order to purchase. Tell a Sony fan that an A9iii is overkill and get ready for an aggressive debate. And the Mark Two version of that 85mm lens? It's a MUST HAVE. Just gotta ditch the Mark One first...

I suggest that there is a middle ground. And that might be to have cameras that exceed your most stringent use case while being practical to own and shoot with. Cameras that match tech value with pleasurable handling and competent files. For some that might mean returning to and re-appreciating a whole geological strata of cameras that date back to the introduction of the first good, full frame CMOS sensors. Say, around 2010. Some might even develop an appreciation for the family of full frame cameras which featured (for a very short span) actual full frame CCD sensors. How retro!

I was asked recently why I was buying "old technology" like the Leica M240 cameras or the older generation Leica SL cameras. I stand by the premise that there is a parabola for all manufacturing. In the early days of digital engineers labored hard to make the cameras as good as they could be. At some point the quality of the camera build and the features, in combination, hit the top of the parabolic curve. The zenith. Then the game becomes figuring out how to keep the prices as high as possible while eliminating both features and build quality until the camera makers come up with a sellable product that might be less....robust....or personable....but still sellable, through the miracle of incremental performance increases (via faster chips) and enhanced marketing. 

For my taste the sensor performance, battery endurance and general robustness of the Leicas I've chosen are at what I perceive as the zenith of the combination of given the targets I want to hit. Spending more buys me less. Why spend $9000 on a camera when a used camera at $2500 gives me more joy? And having used the 47 megapixel SL2 and Q2 cameras for years now I have to ask: does anyone really need more than 24 megapixels? Really?

I love the cameras we were offered by makers ten years ago ( or more ). There are iconic camera models in each manufacturer's recent histories. The Nikon D700 (and by extension, the Nikon D750 and 780). The Canon 5Dmk3. The Fuji X-Pro2 and 3. The Sony a850 and a900. And the Panasonic S1. And, of course, the Pentax K-1. All are good cameras and most will provide files that are so close to the quality provided by the latest gear that the differences are invisible to most. 

I guess the best way to approach most advances in technology is to wait until you have an absolute need for some sort of performance enhancement before dropping the cash. Shaky hands? Yes, you need some sort of image stabilization. Gotta 24 megapixel sensor but now crave a 32 megapixel sensor? Hmmmm. No sure about that. Just as I can't imagine that Leica Q2 users, for example, will really benefit materially by upgrading to the new Q3. A bit more resolution, sure. But a big jump up in quality? Not very likely. Same with moving from a Sony A7R3 to an A7R4. Minimal benefits accrue. Post purchase disappointment awaits. 

Buy whatever camera you like. But let's use them occasionally instead of just writing or reading about them. I like it best when writers and vloggers show examples of what they are discussing... Real examples, not marketing collateral.

I don't want to read rumors of what might be coming down the pike. Really don't need ten stops of image stabilization. Don't need automatic hue bracketing. And from the nostalgia camp  I don't want to read yet another article about the radioactive glass elements used in some historically "great" lens. Don't need to know about what kind of flashbulbs Weegee used. No more sad stories about the loss of one's favorite black and white printing paper. Spare me emotional remembrances of natty print washers from the golden years. Or gushing paeans to the sensual glow of sodium vapor safelights. Save me having to hear about what features you'd change in the next generation of spiffy camera bodies. And why you think they are critical.

I'm fresh off a deep dive through the archives from the past 40 years. All the stuff works great. It's all in how you use it. That's the secret sauce. Some of my favorite shots are from a Canonet camera from 48 years ago. The technology is less important than we ever expected.