« Will Your Photos Outlast You? | Main | More Bad News in Print Photojournalism »

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Comments

Yep. This would be me.
"And of course I'm sure we will hear from some people who consider the very idea to be indulgent and pointless. The camera's just a tool, period, end of sentence."

Considering the "fun" factor, my M8.2 has my D800 beat all to hell.

In driving cars, fun is important to me. In using a camera as a tool to make great images, no, fun is not important to me. Ease of use and quality of output are.

Mike, I remember you wrote some time ago that you like "go-carty" cars, because they provided an improved sensory experience compared to larger, more expensive, more tightly engineered speed machines. Perhaps you like "go-carty" cameras as well?

Great minds think alike. I have literally today got rid of my remaining APS-C body, in favour of a Panasonic GX7 and GH4. The GH4 is for when I really need a faster or "heavier duty" camera, but the GX7 is the one which has given my photography a new lease of life, because it just feels "right". "Fun" works, too.

PS if anyone wants some mid-range Canon lenses, let me know!

It all depends on what you mean by "fun." If you mean "enjoyable or pleasant to use," then yes, fun is a quality I look for in a camera. By that definition the EOS 6D is one of the more enjoyable and transparent FF DSLR cameras I have ever used.

If you mean "amusing or entertaining," then no, I don't expect a camera to be fun. I get a lot more of that kind of fun from playing guitar or listening to music than using a camera.

It also depends on context. I find a medium-to-full-sized DSLR more "fun" to use when I'm shooting in the studio or on a paying gig because the controls are generally less fiddly than a small camera. A MILC is more fun to use for street and travel photography because it's smaller, lighter, and often quieter. Horses for courses, etc.

I'm a professional fine art photographer. I need equipment that is reliable, high quality and that "Just works." The idea of wanting equipment with limitations or that has 'risks' doesn't make sense to me. I pick equipment that lets me do the work I want to do without it getting in my way. That is all I care about: Good image quality, reliable, and doesn't get in my way with inconveniences. Dealing with gear that doesn't "Just Work" is not fun, its frustrating and makes it hard to work. No thanks.

Isn't it just that new things are fun? They scratch an itch that human beings have for new experiences. They may not be better than the old thing they've replaced, but they're new! - and we become fascinated by them.

Alain de Botton, the popular philosopher, wrote in The Art of Travel how, at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend in the UK, you can stand by a motorway and watch streams of cars heading from the south to destinations in the north; and simultaneously you can see equivalent streams of cars heading from those very places in the north towards the places in the south that the northbound drivers have just left. If the places in the north are so attractive, why don't the drivers who live in the north, stay there for the weekend? - and vice versa for the places in the south, of course. Because for each set of drivers, their destination is new and different, for them; and so they undertake the journey to places that are painfully familiar to other drivers.

So it is with cameras (or phones or printers or whatever) - we are attracted by the new, the different. We tell ourselves that this will make a difference! - even though experience of the last half-dozen new things that we tried tells us that it most likely won't.

The Canon 6D is a fine camera, and when equipped with suitable lenses will enable a skilled photographer to produce images pretty much the equal of any in the world. Surely the task, for someone already vested in the Canon system, is to learn how to use the 6D to produce those great images? - rather than rush off into another new system just because it's new and attractive? It's the images we create that are important, isn't it?

The analogy to cars is not quite plausible in my view.
There's a cost involved in operating a car besides the initial purchase price.
A car may be fun to drive, say like a BMW, but it may not be the most economical , not dependable. A Toyota is, therefore a Toyota is more fun to own even though it may not be the best performing car.
So there's the economic factor involved in deciding the fun factor for a car.
With cameras, the cost of operating is Nil (asides from the initial cost of course) so the fun factor can be more easily be decided by its usage and looks alone, and nothing else.
Cheers,

“Fun to use” became criterion for me as I grew tired of heavy gear and craved towards spontaneity. I shoot medium format digital because it takes me back to my grass roots, but something happened when I acquired a NEX-7 and found I could make decent prints from it. From there I experimented with the Sigma DP Merrill cameras hoping I could find middle ground, and I have. Now I am having FUN as I am traveling more for photography thanks to the technical advances in small camera design, and the know-how to work around their shortcomings.

I have two very fun cameras, My D800, which is fun because its only encumbrance is me so I get to amaze myself with its ability and my own failings which are fun too, because I do this all for the fun of it! I do have to admit that my X-Pro1 is more fun in a lot of ways, mostly because it frees me of the "SERIOUS" camera affect of the DSLR. Been shooting exclusively with SLRs for 45 years so the incredibly fun X -Pro1 with some new Fuji and ancient Nikkor lenses are completely playthings. Cars? i have always been far too practical, but mu little Volvo C30 is the most fun. Back seats down its a small station wagon and the suitable stereo lets me blast Lovin' spoonful on hot summer days or Chet Baker and Chopin on the others. Life is good! (my previous fun camera was my FM2)

While the final image is the ultimate arbitrator of the fun one can have with a particular camera, the camera itself does play a most significant role. If I couldn't have fun using it, I just wouldn't use it- least not for very long....

If I was just starting out now, there are a host of cameras that I would consider "fun," including the 6D- the most capable, affordable and least offensive looking FF DSLR on the market. Insisting on photographic tools that do not assault our overall aesthetics isn't any more crazy than when we choose a car. It should be as much of a fun "ride" all around in either case.

For almost my entire career as a photographer, I have pushed on technical limits of some sort.

Which means that at any time, with any available funding, I always the fastest/smallest/biggest-picture/best-low-light/widest/quietest camera available.

A camera like the 6D will only ever fill that role if it happens to match the price limit.

If someday I meet a camera that saturates (meets beyond the need for more) size/weight/IQ/acoustic-noise/wideview etc. that will change things.

But I've not met that camera yet...

Mike, I fully understand where you are coming from with both the RAV 4 and the 6D. I sold a Rav 4 18 months ago. I'm selling my D600 now, because I never found it fun to shoot with, although, like the 6D, it is very good to excellent image making machine.

A friend needed to sell his Fujifilm X-E1 quickly to raise cash for a trip. I bought it as a favor, intending to auction the camera on eBay. Of course I played with the thing. Then, I bought a new lens, the 27mm pancake, which now pretty much lives on the camera. Obviously, I didn't sell the Fuji. Instead, it turned into my main image making camera, relegating the much more versatile Nikon to a drawer.

Why do I use a camera with less resolution, no weather sealing (I live near Seattle where that's important), poorer low light capabilities, much slower autofocus and image processing, worse ergonomics, and less customizability? The Fujifilm is fun to shoot with. The Nikon, for all its technological advantages isn't.

Part of the difference may have to do with weight. I suspect that my opinion would have been different a few decades ago when lugging heavy packs up mountains was a matter of pride for me. There may be a bit of nostalgia thrown in, too. The Fuji does remind me of the cameras I learned to shoot with. Part of it may have to do with the unobtrusive look of the Fuji with a pancake lens. People are not intimidated by it as they are with the Nikon sporting a 24-70. I'll flip a coin when it comes to image quality. Those extra Nikon pixels are nice but not necessary for what I do. The Fuji has a distinctive rendering that looks, to me, more like film. Bottom line, though, I just find the Fuji to be more fun to shoot with.

Modern Japanese DSLR's are the equivalent of most modern Japanese cars. Yeah, there are the 1DX/Nissan GT-R's available, but 99% of what's being sold are the Toyota Camry's and Honda Accords.

I drive a Honda Accord. It's a nice car. Fits the kids well. Safe. I can even control the stereo on the steering wheel, which I think is pretty neat. But all the marketing in the world can't turn that four banger into a Corvette. It's got a friggin' button on the dash in the shape of a plant for when you want to be "eco-friendly", for God's sake! How boring is that?? It's pretty reliable though.

I wouldn't throw my kids in the back of a TR-6 with no seat belts, just like I wouldn't shoot someone's wedding with an X-T1. I'm sure you CAN do either, but sometimes rational, safe thinking wins out in the end. I'm not sure if this is always a good thing, but such is life.

Ahhh ... a timely topic that hits home !

I own a Nikon D7000. It's like a Ford F-150. It's very competent. I shoot with a 70-200/2.8 and track moving subjects in low light; I freeze them with fast shutter speeds and let the ISO wander as needed. I can change settings without taking my eye from the viewfinder. But it's boring and it takes up too much room in the garage.

I primarily shoot the 70-200 or one of two f/1.8 primes. My 16-85 sees virtually no use since I got my RX100. The RX100 is fun ! It's with me a lot, it fits in my pocket, but it goes a bit beyond that. I carried my D7000 and my RX100 to Boston with me a few weeks ago. I split up my shooting ... some with each camera, and I used the 16-85 as well as 85/1.8. And the RX100 was just more fun. I whittled down my photos and my keepers matched my initial shooting - close to 50% with each.

What made the RX100 fun ? Well ... live view, for one thing. The level gauge for those cityscapes. The solid build (even the D7000 and modern lenses feel plasticky to me). The silence of the thing !

So I started thinking about picking up something else to make travel photography more fun. I like the specs on the RX10 and found it well built when I tried it a year ago, but I suspect the power zoom feature would sap the fun right out of it. I know the X100s would be fun. (The Fuji X series in general). I'm not sold on the A6000 ... I've only tried it once and found it a little cheap feeling. The EVF isn't up to the better EVFs out there, and Sony, in its infinite propensity to do dumb things, removed the level gauge. From a live view camera. (I know, plenty of you can shoot straight without it, but I thought on-screen displays were part of the argument for mirrorless). I'm also thinking that the NEX-6, available at nice discounts, could be fun, but it still has the old not-fun-at-all NEX menu and lacks Auto ISO in M, so I'm not sure there, either.

Something about compact mirrorless, especially when well built, does seem more fun to me. Just like my 70's era compact rangefinders always seemed more fun than my SLRs. Maybe because I shoot so little from a tripod any more. (A DSLR still seems right on a tripod).

Also, when out & about, I find myself shooting video clips when armed with a camera like the RX100; something I don't bother doing with a DSLR.

Do tell us what interesting car you got to replace the Rav. I have the same reaction to the Subaru Forester that resides in my driveway.

Oh, your Miata may be "close to the most impractical car you can buy", but my Lotus Elise, well..... And either serves very well to make the "boring" car seem even more boring I think.

This may be one of those issues that you could use to divide the population into two groups that will never quite see eye to eye with each other. One group cares quite a bit about the excitement of the gizmo, while the other group cares little about that and mostly about what the gizmo does.

This is not a binary split, perhaps, but more of a spectrum along which individuals might be placed. For example, I like a fine piece of equipment, but I'd only buy it for the product I can produce with it — things like photographs. If a 6D works to make the photographs I want to make, I'll take one. A "fun" Leica? Not for me, thanks. (I do have one of the camera systems on your fun list... but mostly because — you can see it coming — it lets me make the photographs that I want to make.)

Slightly off-topic but in respect of Dave Jenkins' comment, I'm currently* of the view that the more focal range the lenses I have with me can cover, the fewer photos I take. Option paralysis I think.


*"Currently" meaning that I might have changed my mind by this time next week.

I so agree with Dave Jenkins, and so disagree with Gordon Cahill. Photography and the ability to have something in my hands that just works without getting in the way through its limitations is my aim. I don't have the 6D, but still use the 5D II, which is just a little slower and a little heavier. When I am serious about working quickly and intuitively and very concerned about the result, nothing I have tried compares. I have a Fuji 100S, and while it is ok if I don't want to be burdened by weight and especially if I want to be discrete, I just can't work with it so reliably as with the Canon. There is always that slight hiatus from sleep that is often enough to miss a shot - why would I want such a limitation? - there is the fact that I cannot quickly change ISO and so have to rely on auto ISO, which never works out as I want it, and most irritating of all, I cannot separate focus from exposure and remain in autofocus mode.

There are many other things the Canon just does better too. I've tried a Sony A7 - an ergonomic disaster - and an EM 1, and although that is nicely built and fast the image quality is just not there. The only competition to the Canon from my perspective, and mostly because it is fast and light is the Leica M240, but now I have been spoiled by IS and by good zooms to want to go back exclusively to Leica. VIve la Conon 6D!

I have two digital interchangeable-lens cameras: a Nikon D7000 DSLR, and a Nikon V1 compact "mirrorless" camera. The D7000 isn't exactly a "fun" camera to use, but it usually gets me the photos I want. The V1 is small, quirky, and "fun" to use compared to the D7000, and produces better video footage. But the best stills it can produce are no match for the best results I can get out of the D7000.

Yesterday I was photographing birds, and my best camera/lens combination for that was my D7000. Today I was taking photos and video footage of my daughter at an indoor climbing facility with my V1. Ultimately I use the camera that best fits the task at hand. I guess "fun" is a quality I like in a camera. An intuitive user interface and consistently-good results, however, are ultimately more important.

If you're ever light on content, or pressed for time (that never happens at TOP), you could just open the comments section up to the question of "what camera (brand) is equivalent to what car (brand)?"

(BTW, I imagine a used Golf GTI with the Wisconsin vanity plates "TOPCAR" and a sticker that says "My other car is the internet.")

Must admit that I got rid of my D800e because it was so boring. Loved the images, loved the way it felt in my hands, but alas it was the most boring camera I'd ever used. I replaced it with a 5D Mk III, and have been satisfied ever since. Pixel peepers might argue that the D800e has the better sensor and consequently better image making ability. And I would not argue that point. But I ENJOY using the 5DMk3. I can usually adjust it on the fly without too much fiddling, and can get the photo how I want it in a hurry.

And for it's companion, I spirit along the mirror-free, diminutive sibling of the 5DMk3: the EOS-M. Another fun camera which was not much of a hit in the U.S. But I like it nevertheless. It can fit in a coat pocket and makes very passable images easily. And they are available now for a fraction of their initial cost. So my current kit includes: 1 5DMkIII - 24-105 f/4, 20mm f/2.8, 100 mm Macro, 70-300mm, 1 EOS-M with 18-55 attached, an adapter for the EOS-M to use regular Canon lenses and a couple of flashes. These all fit neatly and comfortably in the Billingham bag.

More and more, I find myself grabbing my Nikon V1 as I head out the door just because it is fun. I know there are people who hate that camera with a passion. Don't care. It doesn't have industry-leading image quality because of its relatively small sensor. Don't care. It has plenty of quirks. Don't care about that, either. Apparently, its quirks match my quirks because, dammit, I just like shooting with the thing!

Thanks, I was planning to get a new RAV4. Never had one before, do you have a better alternative? a Subaru Forester maybe? non of the compact SUVs are fun to drive I guess.

So...if your choice of possessions drives your sense of excitement in life the Canon 6D is maybe not too sexy. Best short review I've seen the the 6D. Thanks, Mike.

The camera's job is not to get in the way of taking pictures.

The photographer's job is to have fun.

If the camera is doing it's job, but you're not, the problem is on your end.

I think one factor as to why mirrorless and fixed lens cameras (or in my case an SL1) are more fun for many of us is that as we get older, lugging a lot of heavy gear around isn't fun. A related factor is for travel, lugging heavy gear on a trip takes quite a bit of the enjoyment out of it.

Our last big trip was a couple years ago; a wilderness cruise in southeast Alaska. I carried a 5DIII, 24-105L and 70-300L. I'm pretty sure the guy with the Panasonic G3 and two lenses had more fun, at least until it got dunked on a hike. But of course, it wasn't that big of a monetary hit compared to what mine would have been.

The photos he took were excellent, and he had way more reach for wildlife than I did.

My daughter was ecstatic to replace her 5D with a 6D, for all the things it opened up to do with the L lenses she'd put before upgrading the body. The fun is in what she can do and depend on it to do wherever she goes, rather than any mystique about the hardware itself. And it's so light and fits her hands.

I've never got the "fun" factor of a car that needs to be in the shop several times a year, as opposed to being sure where you can go with it without some ridiculous mechanical adventure.

Aw, I liked the original post. The 6D is a good camera for me.

But at the end of the day, a camera is just that. Two expressions come to mind. Firstly, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you. Secondly, the best photographs taken in the last 50 years were taken with equipment far inferior to what you have in your bag.

At the end of the day, if you are a photographer who wishes to improve (and who among us isn't?) take more photographs. With whatever camera you have. Whether that is V
Canon Nikon Sony Praktica Ricoh, or whatever. Buy more gear if that is what you want to do, but discussion of the merits and demerits of any particular camera model is going to get you nowhere if your ambition is improved photographs.

But do enjoy what you do. Obviously.

I guess that all us photographers are in one way or the other working against the limits of our craft - trying to (over)compensate the truthfulness of the mechanical process in order to find the niche wherein to put our soul. And so the most practical things don't excite - *because* they are just practical. There's simply no mystery in them any more.

But if there's friction, there's something to work with, something to overcome, something to make use for our own expression. Maybe a bit like that white wall which would be invisible without the crack, without the flaw in the paint, without that fly having decided to commit suicide in its immaculate surface.

The good thing is that every photographer has her/his own sensitive spot. This guarantees the survival of a whole industry...
And still, when the speeding of the pulse caused by an exciting (new) camera subsides, our eye can win and suddenly we may be able to create, using the viewfinder for a viewfinders sake as a framing device, work around sensor flaws in postprocessing, struggle with printer and paper and come out as winners finally with an image that shows not many traces of the ethereal qualities of the devices involved - hopefully a working image.

Just my 0.03€

I get it. Just the the other day I told someone that a Canon DSLR is about as exciting as a Honda Civic (with similar styling cues if you think about it). But my "fun" is when the 6D's photos come up in Lightroom with great clarity and color, already geotagged. I just did a few years of Leica M3/M7 film cameras thinking I needed the fun or cool factor. Turns out, for me, film and scanning and low ISO were serious impediments that did not make up for the fun factor. Is the goal to have fun shooting images or to make good images?

I know what you mean Mike, as an owner of a Prius....
But since cars for me (in this stage of my life) only need to be reliable, practical and cheap, I love that car.
In photography, as a (boring?) Nikon SLR owner, I just love my almost 20 year old push-pull Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED zoom. Slow auto-focus, old-fashioned zoom system, heavy, no VR, probably also not the sharpest you can get, but the images have the 'wow' factor. And the fact that everything still works as it should after all those years makes it a special lens for me.....

cheers, Frank

Maybe some cameras take away the pressure to conform, the pressure to produce equal to far too many examples freely available and remind us of (possibly flawed) memories of days gone by.
Plus, chance is good.

Well, well... an entry about fun in photography. Just a few days after I found the most fun film roll in the world, the Ferrania Solaris 100! Is this a coincidence, or what?
Let me state that I get bored by even looking at DSLR's (let alone trying them). Great tools they may be, but they most certainly aren't fun. They're just too utilitarian. In that way I fully agree with Gordon Cahill.
What is 'fun'? It's wanting to take the camera, go out and enjoy photographing to the greatest extent possible, but it's also about overcoming my own limitations and, of course, those of the camera. I used to shoot digital, but eventually film prevailed. Now I shoot film about 99% of the time. Why? You guessed it - shooting film is more fun! There's something unique about using a film camera. In my country, back in the days of film, we used to call the camera "máquina fotográfica". That's, literally, "photographic machine". And that's the fun of it: we're holding a little machine that makes photographs, not a small computer that takes image files. A high-precision machine, lavishly put together, rather than a bulk of plastic mass-produced in China or Thailand that will last five years at best. Now we don't say "máquina fotográfica" anymore. It makes no sense for digital cameras.
As I mentioned in the first paragraph, I've exposed a roll of Ferrania Solaris 100 recently. I bought it because it was cheap and I wanted to make some experiences, so I didn't want to waste too much on a colour film roll in case the experiments weren't successful. To my surprise the pictures turned out to have the most glorious colours I had ever got from film: rich, saturated colours, yet accurate in tonality and devoid of the chromatic deviations I usually get with Kodak Portra and Ektar. The pictures are fun to look at because of those alluring colours. Discovering this roll made the photographic experience exhilarating. (Yes, I know all about your preference for 'quiet colors', but you'll have to excuse me this time...) I didn't have very high expectations about it, but this humble little roll blew my mind, to the extent that I haven't been feeling any urge to get bach to black and white. (Let alone to digital.) It brought me more fun than anything I've ever tried in photography to this day. That's my concept of fun.

I forgot to mention last year I traded my FJ Cruiser for a Scion FR-S, and yes the FR-S is a helluva lot more fun to drive, but not as good as a dog wagon.

I like my E-M5 because the body + 3-4 primes weighs *less* than a full frame DSLR + one mid-range zoom. Depending on the camera it might weigh less than just the body.

If that zoom is an F2.8 then the Oly weighs a LOT less.

Replace 2 of the primes with an m4/3rds mid-range zoom, and it still weighs less.

It also fits in a smaller bag. So I find the Oly more enjoyable to carry around because my back doesn't hurt all the time. Otherwise, I don't find cameras fun. I like or dislike the pictures, but the machine is just a machine. It does what you want or it doesn't.

Hi, I'm the guy who posted yesterday about the marvelous end product from a Canon full frame DSLR. :) I never said it was a "fun" camera. I've never minded the weight of a SLR with lenses because I spent so many years taking large format pictures, and not with some light weight wooden field camera, I used a 5x7 or 8x10 Sinar P2. The camera, lenses, tripod and film holders had to weigh 50 lbs. The camera was fun to use in a way the Canon isn't. My Leicaflex SL, Contax 645 and Leica M (film) are fun cameras. Maybe because they're manual focus cameras. I really get the "fun" concept in using a certain camera.
But the thing about a Canon or Nikon DSLR is that you are using a camera that will ALWAYS get the shot. You might need to shoot with a 24mm tilt/shift lens to keep your buildings straight, or a big telephoto at a sports event and never worry about the camera's buffer filling up or the autofocus not keeping up, or need to crank up the EI to 25,000, or use the TTL flash off camera via radio control or use a gadget to catch lightning strikes, or use the camera in heavy rain. Yes, we are in a golden age of photography. For me, it's because for the first time since I started doing this seriously in 1965, I know that I will never not get the shot.
I still use the 8x10 or Leica M6 because they are fun in the way that a Canon never will be, but when I need the shot, no matter what...

For me, the Nex-7 proved to be a fun camera: somewhat flawed in certain ways, but fit my hand well, was small enough to go in a coat pocket during colder times and with a manual focus Zeiss ZM 35/2 lens the whole process of picture taking was simplified nicely, with just the right amounts of modern amenities. It felt irrational, but the explanation seems that the stuff that counts is there and I wasn't tempted to do anything exotic with it, which was mentally liberating.

........Hey Mike,
The GX7 is more fun because you can be so much more intimate
with it. It is nice to hold in your hand and for taking a look at what you want to photograph you can see so many ways and even go silent doing it....you can be stealth, sneaky, unobtrusive, and look like you
are playing with something while you are working. Too much fun!

Part of the "fun" equation is novelty. "It's different." I'm an Apple nerd through and through (I still bleed six colors), but Apple's success in the marketplace, and the attendant ubiquity of iPhones and i-devices, does make it a little less "fun." It was great back in the day when I was still using an Apple II and doing stuff my PC-using and good-naturedly condescending friends couldn't do with their PCs.

I shoot Oly, because that's what I started with in DSLRs (if Kodak had made (I know, I mean really "made") a DSLR, I might shoot Kodak). I picked the E-520 because it was affordable, had features other entry level models didn't offer, and everybody else was using Canon and Nikon. And say what you will about noisy sensors and complicated menu systems, I love shooting Oly because wherever I go everyone else is toting a Canon or a Nikon and I'm sure they're having fun and getting great photos, but it's like I have a little secret. And a lot less weight around my neck.

I'm grateful too, because I might have gone Pentax! And then where would I be? Somehow Fuji eluded me, but I'm not sorry. I love my E-520, E-410, E-30, E-PM1, E-PM2, E-M5 and E-M1.

It's a familiar feeling, "They're gonna die! Why are you using that crap?!"

Maybe Oly will fail. Everything eventually does. I don't care. Part of the fun, for me, is using something that nobody else thinks is any good.

Am I a brilliant photographer? Nope. Friends ask me to shoot their weddings, and, reluctantly, I do. Because I know what a pro could give them. But they've all been pleased. (Sorry, pros. Seriously.) I enjoy my images. Friends of mine like them and tell me they're good. My girlfriend gave me a print of one of my shots for my birthday. Took my breath away. And this from a guy who hardly knows what he's doing. (I've learned a lot along the way, but I've got a long way to go.)

But I just kind of resist going with the herd. I drive a Mitsubishi fer cryin' out loud. It does what I want, and I'm happy. I dumped Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, LinkedIn (but I'm still on Twitter - go figure). I roll my own blog in a piece of artisanal software called Tinderbox by Eastgate Systems.

I have a lot of fun, and an old girlfriend could tell you how much I abhor crowds. Sometimes, fun just means "different."

Which probably explains why I still love Nintendo.

One of the things about the X100s is that the lens doesn't stick very far out of the body. That makes it so much sexier, don't you think?

After all of the talk taking place here about the cameras, I wonder how all of them will fair once the new Canon sensor technology appears with their new full frame model this fall. I am assuming that the other companies may have similar developments in the works. I do not give a thought to the styling of modern cameras. It is a machine and all I care about is that it fits my big hands. Too small of a model is a useless thing to me. Most cameras are like toasters. It has a purpose and should do the job it is designed to do. The 6D does this, with human emotions not interfering in its job. If it could think, one thought might be: I take photos, therefore I am. At least until the battery runs dead.

I don't think I've ever considered any of my cameras "fun" to use and I currently own 12-13 plus there are several others I've used and sold. I had a Honda Shadow 500 motorcycle that was fun and a Subaru XT that was fun but I guess I'd define a fun camera as one that did what I wanted it to without fuss & bother. From that perspective the Canon 6D sounds like fun to me.

I also once owned a rav 4, and it was COOL. Now I drive a Nissan qashquai which paid for itself on the fuel saving over the rav. I use canon for the day job, 1d IV and 1dsii. On holidays in Ireland west at the moment using a DP2 merrill, and a tripod, which is obligatory with these. Despite everything and the fact that it drives me nuts, I really like the sigma. For the day job, I'll have to go for a 1Dx soon, with either zeiss otus or sigma art lenses, or actually a Leica S, with cs lenses, but the sigmas come so close they would almost work... If only capture one or Lightroom would open the files....

Taking photographs is fun. The camera I use is irrelevant to the "level" of fun. That's because I'm not a professional.

I was a taxi driver for ten years. I drove the ubiquitous Ford sedan for over two million kilometres. In spite of not having driven a taxi in the last 25 years, I prefer not to drive my wife's new Ford sedan. I would rather drive my 14 year old pickup.

I think that pro photographers have the same prejudices. Why use a work camera, a tool, that does what you want, when you want it, when you could use something different, with limitations, that challenges you?

The only thing fun about my RAV 4 is when it takes me places where I can use my Fuji X-T1.

There are products designed by committee for the majority of those who cannot decide (but vote based on lack of obvious issues) and products designed by enthusiasts (eccentric egomaniacs) who prize some values over others.

If your values coincide with one of those passionate enthusiasts, you will LOVE the product, otherwise you will hate it.

Every day I miss my Alfa Romeo. There were many things about it that were annoying, but I forgot all of those when I hit a sweeping stretch of tarmac and planted my right foot into the carpet.

I now own a Fuji camera because it is fun. It is not perfect, I have to make an effort to get the best from it, but when I do (and when I do it is sublime) I feel a sense of achievement and satisfaction.

So no Mercedes, nor Miata nor Rav4, using a bicycle to get around?

Any technological invention can be boring after either a long or a short while.

Cameras, cars, stereo gear, ham radios, dgital
theatre organs whatever. Eventually even life itself for some people! So the bottom line may well be; it is your world, therefore your choice.

"If you can't stand being alone with your toys, maybe other people find you boring too."

Get with the house project, rent a pick me up truck until you've shifted house and home and then go buy a four wheel winter beater...

For me, part of the fun factor is trying to squeeze out every ounce of performance a device (car, camera, computer) has to give.

Just the other day I decided to grab an old Canon Powershot A530 from the floor of my car, where it had lain neglected under the driver's seat for about a year, to try a new wrinkle using CHDK firmware: time-lapse photography.

In the last few years I've used CHDK for exposure bracketing (for some HDR experiments - lots o' fun), to save files in CRW and DNG (ungodly slow), to zoom in video mode (not recommended - motor noise overwhelms everything). The best part? It is really cheap fun.

Told you so;) Buried somewhere in these pages is where you said you were considering a RAV. Since I'm a RAV owner I was of,the opinion that they're a great example of a vehicle designed by a committee. AKA boring, no soul, etc. my wife drives it now and I drive a 2013 Ford Focus Titanium with the handling kit. Not much oomph but corners like a go-kart. Not boring.

My photography was invigorated by getting my Olympus E-PL1 and then again when I got the 17/2.8 for it. Fun is right - and getting a lens unlike what I was used to (a standard lens guy through and through) made the difference for me. The last time I had a Canon that was this much fun was my T-90 (with a 50/1.4 SSC, natch ;)

Though I am tempted to get the 25/1.8 just so I can have those boring moments too!

I have more fun with my Pentax K1000 or my Minolta SRT102. I have been using them since the early 80s and know EXACTLY what to expect from each one of them. Both have their share of idiosyncracies, but no surprises for me.

The only digital I own that is even close is my M9...it might get there in another 20 years.

I have the Nikon analog to the Canon 6D (yes, THAT model). It is a supremely competent camera. Nikon 'gets' UI - I remember seeking a second system for video and the Sony A65 had 2 things which got it sent back the same day: 1) changing the focus point required a button push; and 2) worse, the focus point overlay was shifted vertically upwards to accommodate an inane row on the bottom "press OK to select". Which had the effect that the focus point you were selecting had been offset from reality by a row, and you would select the wrong focus point. Told me loud and clear that no photographers were harmed in the making of the camera!

Now, just because the Nikon is so darn good & transparent (and because the focus points are so centered) there's nothing to tinker once it's been optimized/set up and muscle memory kicks in. I then yearn for a more idiosyncratic camera, one that gives me face detect & satisfies the urge to tinker. Which camera would I use if my life (or an assignment) depended on it? The Nikon! However I have landed on a "second system" which I intend to churn (on the cheap/bottom feeding)precisely because I can. Ars gratia artis etc.

After churning through m43, NEX and EOS M, I have come back to the Pen fo rthe lenses and the IS - you did not mention the E-P5, but just because it has a different form factor than the OM-Ds, it's probably the more exciting camera to fly on the side. The GX7 too, but the bad JPEGs (hey it's the side outfit) kill it for me. Plus they discontinued it!


I know I have fun every time I leave the house with my X100. It's to the point that I'm really considering selling my Nikon gear to finance the purchase of another Fuji body. They are just so great to walk around with; they practically force you to make pictures.

I agree that the RAV4 is a great appliance missing a fun car soul. Now, unless I missed it, what replaced the RAV4? :)

As a serial "fun cars" owner where the mantra for the zen of driving was something like:

What's that noise?
How's the oil pressure?
How's the temperature?
Is that smoke/antifreeze/gasoline smell coming from MY car?
Were the headlights that dim an hour ago, whats the ammeter say?
I wonder if that fire extinguisher still works.
Is that noise changing or is that a new noise?
I wonder it those people in that SUV know that their driveshaft has all those plastic bags wrapped around it.
If I drive fast enough I won't get wet.
What's that noise?
Am I on fire?

I keep thinking wet plate photography seems like fun.

When I look at a camera, or anything, really, I imagine what it must have been like for the people who made it. In my imagination, the people who made the 6D were just doing their job—dutifully though not with much passion—while the people who made things like the Fuji X-T1 and Leica T were really excited about what they were doing.

Interesting, Michael; that's why I read TOP more than once a day.

Cameras to me aren't supposed to be or not be 'fun'. Cars, yes--currently I'm lusting after a Porsche Macan Turbo but still driving and enjoying my '13 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Cameras are supposed to be useful, easy to use, not frustrating. I just sold a Sony a7R, the most-highly-resolving camera I've ever owned and also the most frustrating I've ever owned. Its replacement, a used Sony a99 and some Zeiss, Minolta, and Tamron lenses, is very functional and satisfying. 'Fun'? No, but it's sure useful, and as a result, it gets used a lot.

I couldn't feel more differently about it than Mike or Gordon. There is nothing fun about a camera that frustrates and infuriates when shooting due to its shortcomings, that won't do what you need it to do when you need it done. I think that's what it comes down to for me: I have a whole lot more fun and am inspired to shoot more when the camera is straightforward, mostly intuitive and does what it promises to do -without fussing. I also prefer an optical viewfinder that lets me see the world as it is, not as it is rendered by an electronic filter. Those boring, safe DSLRs from Canon & Nikon are enjoyable because they just get out of the way. Having tried mirrorless m4/3 cameras, I cannot say that about m4/3.

I shoot with Nikon D7100 and, following your car/camera theme, I drive a well-used, six year-old, four door Volvo sedan - a practical car that safely, reliably gets you from point A to point B in comfort, luxury and without fussing. Boring? For you, maybe. I am happy with my choices - I think what some might consider "fun" would annoy the hell out of me. But each to his own - in the US we are lucky that there are choices for nearly every taste and every budget (in cars and in cameras) and in the end that's what really makes it all fun.

In reply to Tom Burke's question: "Isn't it just that new things are fun?" I would say no, not necessarily.

New gear always has that fun factor associated with novelty. It's when the novelty wears off that you find out what kind of camera/car/whatever you have. Some cars beg to be taken out and driven. Some cameras beg to be shot. Unfortunately, the most fun models aren't always the most practical. Some people end up tailoring their photography to shoot what's able to be shot well with a (Leica & prime, whatever) while others use the fun camera when appropriate, and the workhorse when needed.

My 70s rangefinders and my Rolleiflex TLR were far more fun than most all of the film SLRs I ever used. Of the AF SLRs I owned, one stood out above the others, for some combination of solid (but compact) build, 100% viewfinder, satisfying mirror/shutter (like the satisfying sound of a solid car door shutting), efficiently minimal controls, lack of extraneous features. I had another, newer model with more features that was better suited to handheld photography, but the other one remained a favorite.

In the digital era, I've yet to use a truly "fun" DSLR. My first decent digicam was the Sony F717 and that was a gem until it was eclipsed in terms of responsiveness and IQ by my first DSLR. And my Sony RX100 has remained fun for a year now. The novelty of my NEX-5 wore off very rapidly and it quickly became one of the least fun cameras I've used (oddly, with some fun aspects).

So for me, anyway, fun has little to do with novelty; new is fun so long as its new, but a camera that begs to be taken out and used is something a little more rare.

Personally I hate my EM-5 and I love my EM-5, I hate it any time I have to change a setting, and love it anytime I see the end results. I would love a comprehensive system update with enhanced ergonomics in mind. But I know that won't be the case. I also know this will be the same with every camera I buy until I'm sane enough to buy and M6 with a 35mm and a few rols of Adox film. But hey, that point may never come.

Greets, Ed.

I guess I find the idea that a person is going to go out and take photos because the camera itself is inspiring, as in these lines from your excerpt, just a little bit odd -

Canon and Nikon will always do well because they're safe bets. Nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing there that inspires me to go out and shoot.

I think the subject should be the inspiration, not the camera, which is just a tool after all.

Having fun right at this moment, holding a tlr closeup lens over the lens of a vintage chopped up polaroid. Haven't had so much fun for ages.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lazyaussie/14722264695/

As a 6D owner, I'm fascinated by the discussion that my 'boring' camera has generated. I'm baffled by the assertion that I might be inspired to pick up my camera and start snapping away simply because the *camera* is fun to use. Or, that one camera might improve my photography because it's somehow infused with more "fun." It gets the job done, or it doesn't, right? Maybe I need to try more cameras. More likely I'm in the "camera's just a tool" camp.

FWIW, I also drive a boring car. Ford Escape SUV, base model, silver, standard transmission even. It gets me where I'm going, has decent gas mileage, and I don't care what kind of mess the kids make.

Cameras and cars - two things that don;t have to be fun to use, but man, does it make life better when they are. I just got a 2007 Volvo XC90 - which is either even more boring than a minivan, or just silly. Don't care - It makes me smile. I've got an X100s and a D600 - and yeah, most times, the X100s is a smile generation machine. The D600 takes effort now, in a way the smaller cameras don't.

For many of us, photography is a hobby we're compelled to follow - when passion is driving you, shouldn't you be passionate about the tools, too?

I certainly didn't mean to insult anybody, or their gear. Hopefully it's understood that that's my personal opinion. I don't expect others to agree. I'm really into fun cameras. I could write 5000 words on the topic.

For me the process of taking a photo is the best bit. Selecting cameras and lenses, packing bags, the trip to the location, setup, waiting with a cup of coffee for the light, and the shot. It's cool if people just want to see the end result on their screen and a camera that gets out of the way. That's just not me. I like a camera that makes me think, probably because I can be a lazy photographer if the camera thinks for me. I like tactile things as well. I like rangefinders although they're mostly impractical for my work. (Somehow I still managed to pack a Leica for today's commercial shoot, just in case.)

As a working photographer I get asked, a lot, by my friends, what camera to buy. Lots of them buy DSLRs. Some of those sit in a closet, even though "they take a great photo". My usual response is that most modern cameras camn take great photos and the one to choose is the one you want the most, even if something else seems more sensible.

Some of us like photographs. Some of us like cameras. Some of us like photography. I like all three.

That doen't make me right, though.

Gordon

I may be a bit of an outlier here, but digital never appeared fun to me. And now, as I am doing the Leica year that you have inspired me to do, the photos just get better and better. Which is both fun and utilitarian.

So what happened the Mercedes ?

[That's been gone for a long time now. Two cars ago. Ended up not really liking it, although I enjoyed the experience and am glad I got it out of my system. Didn't hold its value well at all, either--lost $10k in 2 1/2 years, and that was after buying used.

Also, people think you're rich if you drive a Mercedes--even if you paid less for it than they paid for their SUV or pickup truck. That can be a disadvantage. --Mike]

I use an E-M1, for me it is a great camera that make me take excellent pictures - and I find it is a great fun to use too. So I understand the "fun factor". But I don't get the "it is boring because it has no risk involved" thing. My camera is a tool to take shots, I think that discovering that you have to discard some of them because the camera behaved oddly would be VERY disappointing at least...

Well I have a 5D3 and an EM-5. Yes, I guess the EM-5 is more 'fun' than the 5D. And by that I mean it let's me take pictures in a different way (thanks to the tilting screen), it feels great, and as a long time DSLR user, I get a kick out of getting high quality images out of a tiny package.

But when things get serious (ie. I'm getting paid) I prefer to use the 5D. Yes, its a more capable camera, but more to the point, its 'transparent'. By that I mean when I use my EM-5, I'm thinking about the camera and all its goodness. With the 5D I ignore the camera and am fully focused on the picture. It just gets on with it and is rock solid.

Colin

A RAV4 can be plenty fun.
First trick is to learn hill descent on the twisties: you throw it from the top, leave it to balance idling against engine-braking in a low gear and pick up the pieces at the bottom.
You can start on wet grass without breaking a blade, because of the weight and diff-lock, where a supposedly light-weight sportscar will just mire itself inches deep in mud.
You can pass snowploughs abandoned in 3' drifts by the roadside as you glide merrily on on winter's nights.

Maybe the problem is your choice of road.

Analogy, you said...

Fun is an important aspect to shooting for me. As I describe here
http://worldphoto.org/news-and-events/wpo-news/collection-photographer-interview-peter-brian-schafer-1/

for me the most fun of all to be had is with film. There are discoveries and surprises at every step of the process. If you want to control and verify that you have successfully controlled each step, then I can see how my sense of fun might be your sense of anxiety.

And I love the power of Photoshop to adjust color balance and contrast and saturation, not to mention fix dust specks on scans -- I can't imagine doing all that in an analog way. So I appreciate the power of digital technology, just not in the original capture of an image.

I've had a Panasonic G3 and an Olympus OMD 10 in the new mirrorless camera realm. Their big advantage is size. My old, mid range Nikon D7000 absolutely hammers either of them as far as ergonomics and quality feel go. Also the D7000 is long in the tooth, but crop sensor MILCs are just now catching up to it as far as image quality goes. I use the MILCs because they're small and convenient to tote, but I am under no illusion as to which is the more satisfying and overall better camera to actually use.

I'm with everyone who basically says "fun is fun, but I'll go with practical and dependable." Not that "fun" cars aren't dependable these days ...

I'm on my second Honda CR-V. I only traded in the '04 because the A/C went fritz at 168K miles and I just decided I'd like a newer one. So I got an '09 (again in "boring" white, of course) last summer, and have not regretted it. The gas mileage improved, as has the sense of smooth operation and overall handling.

I have never driven a RAV-4, probably because Hondas have always pleased me. Like Brian Chambers, it gets me where I need to go in comfort but with durability. Well, it sips much less gas than a Pilot and I don't seem to need the extra room or towing capacity.

It's no surprise I still shoot OMs and 4x5, eh?

But that's what love is, isn't it? To always be fascinated, enthralled, surprised?

There's nothing surprising about a good SLR, it is at the end of its evolutionary tree. Sure we make refinements, but the picture taking experience stays the same.

Mirrorless cameras however, not so. Manufacturers all have a different take on form and function. Even though they all are essentially the same thing, they are all sufficiently different to pique my interest.

I've got more cameras than you can shake a stick at, and I'm perfectly happy with my M-E, but I still want just one more.

Pak

I think the most fun camera I have used in a long time is a $0.99 Polaroid 250 pack film camera I picked up. Once I sorted out the light meter (it was 2 stops off) I've been having a great time photographing with this camera. I stocked up on now discontinued Fuji FP-3000B peel apart B&W film, and have been parsing it out to last me the summer. As an experiment I photographed the same subject with a digital camera, and the Polaroid 250. The results? The Medium is (at least part of) the Message.
images here if curious
http://www.oboylephoto.com/blog/2014/07/hoosic-canal-adams/

As a hobbyist photographer, I prefer to have fun taking photos with boring cameras, than taking boring photos with fun cameras.

I think "fun" is not the correct term, should be "novelty", and this wears off pretty quickly.

And to say that Canon and Nikon are not innovators in technology terms today, is just being obtuse. The truth is, cameras like the EM1 or XT1 are only now catching up to the AF or drive capabilities of the so-called "boring" DSLRs...

Fun shooting sports = SLR, big fat honking f2.8 telephoto lenses, 5-9 fps clack clack clack goes the mirror, and maybe a monopod to hold the whole thing up.

Fun walking around = m4/3, compact or iPhone, whatever little prime happens to work, and the soft single click of the shutter.

Fun is where you find it.

Golly, I didn't realize the Merc was that long ago - time flies.
How's the Rivindell now, Mike? Does it get much love?

[Never had a Rivendell, just some good posts from Grant. Mine's a Cannondale that I still like because it actually fits me; handlebars from Grant. --Mike]

I'm not so sure we are in the golden age of photography, but definitely it is the golden age of cameras. There are so many choices, almost all of them very good, and now we have become spoiled and try to find flaws in them, to the extent that many of them are imaginary.

For me, the Oly EM-1 is vastly more fun to use than my erstwhile Hasselblad MFD kit. The Oly EPL-5 is vastly more fun to use than my Nikon D800. The Nikon D800 is vastly more fun than the Hassey kit ever was. So there.

Hahahaha. My car is a 2007 Honda Pilot and my main camera is a 6D. I must be getting very old. I agree. The most unsexy car I've ever owned has been this Pilot. The 6D while not bleeding edge is a damn good camera that produces the best IQ photos I've ever produced. The Honda has been the most comfortable set of wheels I've ever owned. If I was 30, I'd be driving a TT convertible and my camera would be .... guess what? A 6D.

Just so everyone will know where I'm coming from (strictly utilitarian), I drive a white, 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan with 219,000 miles on the odometer. In the six and a half years since I inherited it from my wife, I have spent less than $500 on repairs. It just goes. It's the best car I've ever owned. (And yes, I've also gone through the Mercedes phase -- six years of it.)

My Dodge is anonymous, ubiquitous, reliable, and comfortable, cruises smoothly at 80 mph, gets decent gas mileage, and has plenty of room for an air mattress in the back, along with other assorted gear for extended photo trips. It just does everything right, with no fuss, muss, or bother -- just like my Canon 6D. To me, those are exciting qualities.

For real driving fun, I'll take a motorcycle, although I don't currently own one. For photography as a fun process, as Gordon describes, I shoot Fujichrome 100 in a Minolta Autocord TLR.

So, Mike, exactly what are you driving these days?

For fun, I keep a pinhole camera in my MINI Cooper.

Basically, what Gordon said above.

For me the experience of using a camera is inextricable from what I'm trying to accomplish with it. For example, last year I snagged a beautifully restored Polaroid 110B camera seamlessly converted for pack-style film. As a perennial fan of (chemical) instant photography I find it extremely fun to use for creative recreation. It's such a...thing rather than just a device!

But it's not fun to use when precise and predictable results are required. In fact, in such a situation it's a downright aggravating distraction. (Can you tell that I tried?) So while the contraptive Polaroid 110B begs me to take pictures it's not always "fun" to use.

So, for me, a camera is only fun to use when it's suitable for the imaging task. But to that end I'm increasingly faced with a conundrum: There are a minority of tasks for which my Sony RX100, with its 20Mp 1-inch sensor is not "suitable". It can go nearly anywhere, produce excellent images, and is often the "funner" choice. But, gee, I don't always want to look like a photo weenie. Guys will kick sand in my face on the beach! Hmmm, maybe I'll have some t-shirts screened featuring an image of the RX100 captioned as "Shhhh! Do Not Disturb. Having FUN!"

There are comments above that say essentially this, but here's how I feel: when I use a camera that gets out of my way, that's essentially transparent, then I'm having fun. Every annoyance, every bit that brings me back to thinking about the camera and not the picture, detracts from the fun.

So far, the Nikon D700 was the most fun camera I ever owned. If the D800 had a faster framerate, it might be #1.

I sure like the looks of the gx7. I just wish it didn't cost a thousand dollars (without a lens!). Everything costs a thousand dollars, or more. Maybe I will wait until it's a generation old and buy a used one. I sure do like the look of it.

"Cameras are tools" is not at all in conflict with "That's a good looking camera" or "That's a fun camera to shoot with." They are just speaking from different perspectives.

I didn't buy a Honda that I test drove in 2003 because I found it utterly competent and boring. I'm sure it was also incredibly reliable. I bought a Land Rover Freelander because it was amusing to me. It cost a fortune to keep it in fuel and fettle, but it was fun to drive. Eh? Sometimes, purchase decisions are not made on simple, rational bases.

What's a fun camera? Something that excites me to pick it up and go make photographs. That applies to my Polaroid Spectras, SX-70s, the Olympus E-M1 and E-1, the Leica CL and the Leica R8 I just acquired. At least ... there are others. The iPhone 4S is fun to shoot with too.

Although I hand it to the Polaroids over all the others for fun to shoot with respect to the people I'm taking photos of ... There's something about the instant manufacture of a print that can be handed around the table that makes a Polaroid something just a little more special and fun than even a digital camera.

My most fun camera - if I define it as the one I most enjoy picking up and shooting with and which brings a smile to the face almost every time I do that, is my Olympus E-1 digital dinosaur. The GX7 runs it a close second - it's discrete, gets out of the way, has great handling and allows me to do all kinds of stuff the E-1 is incapable of. I am happy to have sold all my APSC dSLR stuff which was not really much fun at all regardless of how good it was.

Must trade in my boring VW Polo for the MGB GT I keep on promising myself - Owned one years ago and it'd be just the job for the kind of driving I do now (ie, not very much!).

Is "fun" important? Damn straight it is! After a decade of pro motorsports photojournalism, the thought of picking up my Canon 1D MkII N and all that big, honkin', white Canon pro glass was the not of my idea of fun. I was jaded, I was uninspired, and I was *tired*.

Getting my Fuji X-Pro1 and later my X-T1 has reignited a passion and love for photography that I thought was gone. And the reason is they are fun to shoot with.

Photography should be about fun, shouldn't it?

I agree with Dave Jenkins' featured comment, in particular: " I love cameras, but I love photography more, and everything I want my camera to do, the 6D does quietly, precisely, and extremely well." The 6D is brilliant because it gets out of the way — it doesn't take away any of the fun of photography.

Is it a "safe bet" with "no risk involved" as Gordon Cahill claims? Not at all. There is plenty of risk with any camera including the 6D. The chief risk is making a bad or boring photo. The challenge to make a good photo is always there, no matter which camera one uses. Meeting that challenge is where the fun is.

While I appreciate various camera designs, my camera doesn't need to inspire me to go out and shoot. Do painters rely on their brushes and tubes of paint for inspiration? There is plenty of inspiration in the world and in photography itself.

I love boring cameras. All those “fun“ cameras just get in the way of picture taking. Seems like every time I try one of the “fun“ cameras my pictures suffer. Gimme my boring old Canon & Olympus SLRs any time. And, hell, I like boring automobiles too. As long as they get me where I wanna go.

I´m just a boring guy.

I find my Olympus XA compels me to use it, more than any other camera I've owned ever has. Doesn't hurt that it fits in a pocket alongside my cell phone...

I'm still on the fence about the recently purchased Pentax 645. A competent exposer of 120 film for sure, but I'm not certain I'm connecting with it yet. It does just get out of my way and let me shoot without fuss, which does help. But our Toyota Camry did much the same thing in the automotive sense and was deathly dull and boring.

Fun is subjective and is more than about the aesthetics. Try taking BIF pictures with a GX-7 or a Leica, or try crossing a stream on mazda miata. The only way these could be fun would be for someone watching the feat.

The fun is not in the machine, but what we like to do with it. If the machine helps us do that (go fast, do a high-G turn, shoot B&W) then we associate the machine with fun, as if machine itself is fun.

Take the most fun camera you can imagine, and try taking pictures of your wall with it. How much fun would that be?

I just mounted a Lomography/Zenit Petzval lens on my D800E and have been shooting with it for the last few days. Is a lens designed in 1840 and with severe optical deficiencies by today's standards suitable for a camera with arguably one of the most high precision sensors available in a dSLR today? Yes, an unequivocal yes. Is my D800E boring? Hell no. Its personality changes every time I mount a different lens, and there's a lot of F mount glass out there. What's not to like?

As for photography and all other endeavors in life. if you can't be with the one you may think you love, find ways to love the one you are with.

I also have this observation for a "fun" and "funner" duo, the RX100 Mkiii and GM1. The RX100 is does everything, the lens retracts, it's a large aparture zoom, big camera IQ, an EVF for when you can't see the LCD, takes selfies, er... helps frame group shots, and even an app store. But often I just want to take the GM1, you can put fancy primes on it, ones with aperture rings that go "click click click", distance scales that RETRACT, and lenses generally have their own little quirks. Ok, fine, no selfies, no EVF, no apps, and one focal length at time, but ... fun!

MY vote for the Ricoh GR.Picked up one before a trip to Turkey in April, and used it for a lot of the photos. Has replaced by iPhone5 as my carry along camera. The SnapFocus really adds to the simplicity and fun of taking photos.

My daughters Fiat 500 is fun to drive. Silly easy to park and surprisingly nippy for a 1200cc, astonishingly low petrol consumption! My BMW 325ti sport manual is fun to drive when the road is smooth and there is no traffic (as in jams)
But for my two week photographic holiday to Namibia, leaving this Saturday, our newish Volvo xc70 diesel is the 'bomb', as my son would say...smooth effortless driving and acceleration, heated seats for the cold Namibian mornings, kick ass sound system for those long long long stretches, 4x4 to keep us planted on the gravel roads,( we are going to drive more than 4000km's of which at least 600km will be gravel), lots of packing space for the camping gear, tripods & cameras and being diesel we should save a bit on the fuel bill. What we want is dependable and safe...
Reminds me of my 6D! And it's all going to be fun!

Hi Mike, I have 6D's and a RAV4. The RAV4 takes me to work where I make money with the 6D's. Then I spend my earnings on gear like the Fuji X System. Then I have fun.

The comments to this entry are closed.