In It For Love

Darlene wrote, a few days ago: Regarding your sports stories on a predominantly photography blog, let me level with you—some of the photo stuff bores me to tears. I mean, how many times can you read about gear or techniques that were probably chiseled into cave walls by our ancestors? Reading about gear and beginner techniques feels like watching paint dry if you've been in photography for ages or if it was your profession. I don’t mind the other topics, but can we get more imagery? And not just your photos—though they’re lovely—how about showcasing more of your readers' work? Those posts are always enjoyable to read and view, and they stay very well in the context of a photography blog.

I know most of your audience is male, and they may enjoy gear reviews, male hygiene talks (razors anyone? How about Kotex?), sports, etc., but trust me, more women are reading than you think. We’re just generally in the back, quiet and unnoticed—except for me because my background turned me into this delightful commentator.

Made me laugh. Darlene is a friend. "Some of the photo stuff bores me to tears" was not what I expected to be criticized for in a comment that begins "regarding your sports stories...," but there ya go, you never know.

And hey, Darr, some people in the double-edge (DE) razor community are women. They prefer them for shaving their legs. The buyer of one of my DE razors recently was a woman.

And then, a couple of days later, Sergio Bartelsman wrote:

Nowadays I find camera gear the least interesting topic about photography. I use Fujis because it is what I have. I can't care less about brands. If it feels good in hand, and takes the picture in the precise instant you press the shutter, that is all I ask for. There is no longer any big practical difference other than price and Veblen vanity. The days when you could spot any perceivable difference between Leicas and whatever other brand are over.

I can write all I want to about how camera companies like Canon are adjusting to changed circumstances, but what about how I'm adjusting to changed circumstances? I still assume people like reading about gear. Is it time to adjust to changing times? The above are only two data points, but whaddaya think? Is the siren song of camera gear gone? Or going?

Eight lions
I will admit that for me, the combination of high prices, technical sufficiency, and, especially, the fact that increases in capability don't reward me with obvious visual improvements in the result, are making my former happy camera obsessiveness...soften. To give you an example, I've had a loaner Leica Monochrome here for two years (no, the owner is in no hurry to have it back) and haven't been motivated to try it. Granted, part of the reason is superstition. I bought my Sigma FP and had it converted to a B&W sensor, and if the Leica is "better" I don't want to know. I'm afraid it might nag at my mind. I don't need the discouragement. But actually the inescapable conclusion is that I'm just not that interested. He also loaned me an incredibly expensive Leica lens that I once gushed about, in writing, as being the best lens money could buy. In days of old, wild horses, a squadron of Centurions, and eight lions could not have prevented me from enthusiastically running that lens through its paces. I would have had a lot of energy for that at one time. But now, when you can oversharpen any picture with the touch of a button or by dragging a slider, sharpness in a lens...isn't as exciting as it once was, let's put it that way. The lens is not the determinant of the look of the picture nearly as much as it used to be thirty and forty years ago.

As I asked many years ago, when was the last time you looked at any newish picture and thought, "too bad they didn't use a better lens"?

Also, even if the Leica M9 Monochrome is "better," I don't really care. The Sigma FP-m is good enough for me and then some. What I really need is to get out looking for pictures more often. (And stop driving past opportunities.)

Even if times really are changing, and people just aren't interested in new cameras and better specs as much as they used to be, it doesn't really matter that much. Here's the thing: dedicated photographers are outsiders. I've always looked at us that way. We're not attached to the industry; we're not affected by fashions. We're not driven by mass taste. We go our own way. We do our own thing.

Mayflies and cicadas
If you have the patience for one more, here's a great recent comment, this one from Geoff Wittig (whom I would dearly love to visit—I should talk to him about that). I've edited this very lightly.

It's clear to me that we're in the sad twilight of the era of photography as a serious hobby. It's rapidly heading for the same category as ham radio or model railroading: a quirky, shrinking tiny niche, regarded (if at all) with a flicker of tolerant amusement by the masses. I derived immense satisfaction and not a little joy from several decades spent honing my technical skills, learning how to use finicky gear, and teasing the best possible result from large format inkjets, all in service to a goal. That goal was creating the best possible photographic print. I still love a beautiful print, but it has become a niche skill. To the broader culture, photography now means billions of technically competent snapshots captured by increasingly sophisticated smart-phone cameras flooding the Internet every single day, each with the impact and lifespan of a just-hatched Mayfly or cicada. Briefly seen then promptly forgotten. I recall reading Brooks Jensen's prescient comment about this perhaps 20 years ago, when he predicted precisely this situation: a minute-by-minute firehose of images where each was rendered invisible by the colossal volume. And yet, I can't help myself. I still derive some genuine joy from a perfect print of a quietly beautiful morning on the river, made with my own hands.

There it is in a nutshell. We do what we do. Sometimes the public looks on admiringly, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes the practitioners up near the ceiling have status and prestige, sometimes not so much; sometimes hordes of people get excited by the equipment and want to participate by buying and posing, sometimes they collectively shrug their shoulders and say meh. Meanwhile, the people who are in it for "genuine joy" and the rewards of the results keep soldiering on. They can't help themselves. They love it.

Another thing that's interesting is that photography is unlikely to prove to be a generational phenomenon. Younger people aren't showing any diminished interest in photography—quite the opposite in fact—they just won't be practicing it in the way us older enthusiasts accepted as normal when we were young. But then, we practiced it differently than our grandfathers and grandmothers did, and they practiced it differently than their grandfathers and grandmothers did. You can argue that the cultural centrality of music from halfway through the '50s to the end of the '70s was a generational phenomenon; and Harley-Davidsons are generational (Harley is going downhill, with its biggest competition being used Harleys); and just the other day I got "insulted" in a thread on YouTube by a guy who accused me of having a "guitar collection," which I took to be a lightly coded way of saying "boomer," which in turn is a euphemism for those who are old and in the way—that is, entitled but no longer entitled to be entitled. Model railroading is definitely generational, and I know a little about that because I used to work for Model Railroader magazine. The peak demographic is males who were 11 years old in 1950, when an "electric train" was the No. 1 Christmas gift for boys. That cohort is aging out (sadly! Model railroaders are fine folks, with a few exceptions). Photography never ages out, any more than eating, communicating, or traveling will.

The last 30 years have been a roller-coaster ride. But a roller coaster isn't actually a journey. "Real" photographers* aren't in it for cheap thrills. Photographers who go their own way and do their own thing just need what they need to do their work, and if they don't have it, they'll find it, or make it, or see the creative possibilities in whatever is available. And, really, it's always been that way, for the great majority of good and even great photographers. It's like that alternate or etymological definition of "amateur": in it for love.

Mike

*I mean "enthusiast photographer," "dedicated" or "devoted" hobbyist photographer, or "advanced amateur" photographers (which can also include pros, if they also do personal work and use it as an avocation). I used to define that as being someone for whom photography was in their top three avocational interests consistently over time. I don't think most people have time or energy for more than three big, deep interests outside of work, family, and vocation. God knows I've been on many, many "excursions" over the years of my life; currently I am engrossed with the subject of curved manual treadmills, thanks to an email from a reader that I can't even find now. But that will pass. The three I always come back to again and again are photography (and art), writing and books, and home music listening. Not perhaps the greatest list, but that's the list.

P.S. The other issue Darlene raised was more pictures on the website. That deserves a post of its own, though.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Peter (partial comment): "As a lifelong photographer—I’ve worked for studios, publications, and freelance, earning quite a few bucks along the way—at each fork in the road, I have chosen not to go pro and have stayed a committed amateur. Still, the gear itself is important. It is hard to love my contoured partially polycarbonate Canon R6, but I am gaga over the images I get from it. Appreciation of the technology is part of my passion."

Alex Buisse: "I must say that, as a professional photographer, I take what I can only describe as perverse pleasure in taking barely competent product pictures. It feels wonderful to be allowed to not try to be getting great images, just this one time...."

David Haynes: "I find that my interest in 'gear' articles has greatly declined, although I have no objection when you publish one. I just skip over those that don't interest me. I generally find your off topic articles much more interesting and rarely skip those. I think that showcasing photos by your readers is a brilliant idea (go for it, please). I'm sure that you will receive a wide range of views on what content you should publish, and I'm also sure that you have been receiving those opinions for many years. I expect that you will continue to publish articles on a wide range of topics because you have a wide range of interests, as do most of your readers. Well done, Mike."

Wayne: "My two cents…I’ve always enjoyed your off topic posts as much if not more than your photography posts. Would also like to see more images posted, yours or others. Just saying…."

robert e (partial comment): "Maybe the question is not so much 'Should we talk about gear?' as 'How should we talk about gear?' Sure, it's always been 'to each their own' to some extent, but that doesn't explain why it used to be fun to talk about gear and now it isn't. Every incremental advance in picture quality and usability used to be relevant to many of us. But gear has evolved to the point most of us don't need more such gains, so where's the interest?"

Ed. note: These next two comments came in within an hour of each other:

"[name redacted]: "I used to avidly read this blog/site every day but now I almost have to force myself to look every few days and there have been times when I've thought I might as well delete the link and forget about it. 'The Online Photographer' seems to have lost its way. Such a shame."

Bruce Hedge: "TOP is becoming interestinger and interestinger. Thanks for a great last week or so."

John (partial comment): "[Regarding technical developments] It’s actually a relief that things are cooling down."

Sharon: "I have loved to read all my life. I come here for the excellent writing. I have little interest in gear until I have a specific need but it seems a lot of your readers do. Write about what you love. I love photography but mostly I come to follow your journey."

PaulW: "Although gear reviews are not the main reason I visit TOP, I still enjoy your take on new gear, so I hope you'll continue writing about things I'll never have the chance to try."

David Dyer-Bennet: "While they probably aren't the posts that have most frequently moved me to comment, I think actual discussion of photos (with or without specific examples) are the posts I've benefited the most from and probably also taken the most pleasure from."

Stephen S.: "I don't know if it translates to blogs, but on YouTube, where view counts are public, it's very easy to look up any YouTuber who does a mix of camera gear reviews and artistically-oriented videos, or one that started with gear reviews and then tried to switch to covering art and technique, and see that the view count of their gear reviews absolutely clobbers anything with artistic aspirations. At least on YouTube, reviews of specific gear are the only path to success and viewership in the camera/photography space."

Mike replies: Oh yes, I know all about that, believe me. I've been doing this for going on 20 years.

Comments

[Mark P Morris]

Your posts are fine. Not everyone likes everything. It is your blog, post what you want and are interested in. That interest and passion always comes thru. :)

[Jeff]

Camera/lens IQ reached sufficiency for my print needs quite a while ago (assisted by better print machines, papers, inks and PP software). Camera purchases now (seldom at near age 74) have more to do with viewing/focusing, ergonomics and handling, control interface, and sometimes other special characteristics such as weather sealing or monochromatic sensor.

I would guess that the Leica M Monochrom you have would differ more in the practical aspects I mentioned above than in IQ. (Although I seem to recall, perhaps incorrectly, that your FPmight not respond well to colored glass filtration. The Monochrom works well with filters for tonal effects.) For me, M bodies satisfy; others have different tastes.

One unique aspect of the M(9) Monochrom is that it remains the only digital M that provides a RAW-based histogram.

[Peter]

You know, I agree for the most part. It is the pictures that really matter. But as a lifelong photographer – I’ve worked for studios, publications, and freelance, earning quite a few bucks along the way – at each fork in the road, I have chosen not to go pro and have stayed a committed amateur. Still, the gear itself is important. It is hard to love my contoured partially polycarbonate R6, but I am gaga over the images I get from it. Appreciation of the technology is part of my passion. I also have a Lumix GX8, GX9, and G9. I would rather use these because they are smaller, cleaner, and, yes, handsome and impressive machines. Maybe that’s a guy thing. I like using micro 4/3rds, and it pleases me to know that Ctein doesn’t use a full frame or need 100 megapixels to create what he does. So yes, the image is supreme. But my love of photography includes a significant appreciation of the gear as well.

[Albert Smith]

Once my digital cameras could do what my film cameras could do, about 2008 or so, I stopped caring about gear. My only full frame camera is a dinosaur Nikon D700. I never looked at any newer model and use it with my manual focus lenses taken off of my F3 when I stopped shooting film. Solely for size and weight, my other cameras are Fujifilm and again, multiple generations removed from the current crop. So no, I most likely have no interest in gear other than that it facilitates my ability to make photos. And if we are honest, the gear that most of us used a decade ago was all we needed then and today.

[John Krumm]

I agree with Darlene's suggestion that we look more at photos. Even just having something from Flickr that's interests you, or one of your readers, might be good.

As for gear, I'm kind of in the same boat, though I'm still vulnerable to a new camera that appeals. My Nikon Z7, as "old" as it is, a first generation full frame mirrorless, is still near the top of the heap for sensor quality. For my purposes, anything newer would be unneeded gravy. If they do come out with a new version (mark III) that has better focus and an improved viewfinder and perhaps slightly better ibis, I might eventually buy one of those, but without any rush, and perhaps not much excitement.

[KeithB]

Strangely enough, I think it is the internet that lets those "tiny niches" survive. It is a "force multiplier" that allows a much smaller number of practitioners keep the niche alive and thriving to some extent.

When you were the editor of the model railroading magazine, magazines and clubs were the way these niches survived. As time went on and the number of practitioners shrank, magazines folded and clubs have withered and the practitioners moved to a community online where you can have a global community and draw from the whole connected world.

I "belong" to three of those niches: Photography, Garden Scale Model Railroading and HP calculators. I keep current in all three by belonging to a small but active online community. What is interesting, is that while you get your share of trolls, in general, the internet experience is much different than what you hear about in the wide world of the internet.

[Keith]

It's YOUR blog. Blog whatever makes you happy. Readers are a fickle bunch and will come and go regardless of what you post.

I'm certainly happy with the gear I have. Well, I could wish it weighed less. There were a number of recent hikes in Newfoundland where I was musing what to carry to a waterfall I'd never seen. A few hundred meters is no big deal, I could come back for a different camera or lens. But one of them was a tough 10K round trip. I nearly didn't make it back the first time. I actually thought about how many helium balloons I might need to balance the weight of camera gear, and the answer is several hundred.

[John Camp]

What if you thought about photography as only having two subjects: nudes and news? Well, you say, that covers Edward Weston and Robert Capa, but what about...Ansel Adams, Robert Frank and Diane Arbus? In some ways, most photographers that we think of as famous were appealing to everyman's curiosity about people, places and events (news) and about sex, when sexual information was widely regulated and in some cases, outlawed. Are nudes still interesting? I don't think so. I haven't seen any compelling new nude photography. Does anyone still do it? Robert Mapplethorpe may have been the last famous culturally transgressive photographer dealing wilth sex, other than outright pornographers, and even pornography has become commonplace and boring. Hardcore advertising photography is always about bringing us news, even if only about a new medical product or service. Casual iPhoners now present us with literally millions of high quality photos of every landscape in the world, including those taken on guided trips to Antarctica where dozens of people can take photos of the same iceberg. Ansel Adam's photos (which are beautiful) were really just bringing us high quality news about parts of America most people hadn't seen, but once everybody had automobile access to Yellowstone and Yosemite, what's the "new" news? Frank and Arbus were also basically responding to human curiosity, bringing news about places and cultures and different kinds of humanity. The same thing is done by literally billions of people with iPhones. If you call up Google and click on "Images" you can get photos of anything you wish. So with contemporary photography...I mean, I know what I'm doing, and why, and assume everyone else is more-or less doing the same thing (creating *aides memoire*.) Real art? Not so much. IMHO.

If you consider a painting by Cezanne, it doesn't sell anything, generally isn't about nudes (he did some nude bathers, but had no models) doesn't solve any curiosity about anything except itself, and so on. It doesn't give you any news. It's an object, independent, all on its own, take it or leave it. With a photograph, you're looking through a surface at *something.* With other forms of art, you actually looking at the subject itself. That (again IMHO) is radically different than photography.

[Robert L]

Yes, and -

Ilford is adding equipment to make MORE film. In 2024. More photographers exist, as you said, than ever - so while gear is still interesting for a lot of us - say what you will, but there is a real advantage to my ZF over my Z6 in autofocus and haptics - seeing what is coming next in the art form is also very interesting. So there's definitely room to talk about the medium itself and equipment. I love prints - but when the majority of prints were viewed at 4x6 or smaller for a few seconds, how different was that from on a screen? How do we deliver impactful images for a phone or laptop? worth digging into...

[Ben]

More pictures on the website, yes yes yes!

When’s the last time there was a “random excellence?”

Photobooks too… classic and new.

[Stan B.]

For too many years I worshipped my cameras, took very few pictures, but studied those of others. Now, I actually use my cameras, employing what I learned and spend more time admiring the results.

[TM]

Mike, please use the Leica and show us the results. If it is in some way better than the Sigma then get over it. Some of us will never have a Leica and we want you to share your experience!

[John]

First of all, photography is here to stay as an important hobby and - to a lesser extent - profession. We have always been inundated with images and people have always taken tons of snapshots. Nothing fundamental changed.

Second, I too have become less interested in technical developments. That’s partly because I do less bird photography and thus don’t need the super high speeds as much. But the main reason is that what I have is perfectly fine and the technical improvements don’t really matter. I’m only interested in a few niche products, like a Pen f II with some of the modern internals.

It’s actually a relief that things are cooling down.

[Sean]

To attract and keep hold of people interested in the craft, you have to talk about gear, but unless it's all about the process, that gear has to lead somewhere. The late Michael Reichmann’s From Camera to Print seems so long ago. I bought an Eizo monitor, a calibrator and a large format printer from Epson, and I spent many hours trying to learn from Michael’s guide. I went through a similar experience with David Hobby’s Strobist blog and video tutorials. I still have all the gear; the only thing I lack now is enthusiasm. All my gear, from light stands to lenses, colour checker to calibrator, are all but museum pieces to another era. I don’t have your wealth of knowledge and history with photography, so my stepping back is no great loss, but I am just one of many, and I think we outnumber those who Canon et el. hoped would replace us. My wife often used to ask me to leave my 15lb camera bag at home when we went exploring new places — “You forget about me”. Now she reminds me to bring my phone

If companies like Apple and Samsung keep taking bites out of classical photography’s lunch, classical photography may go from niche to nibble.

[Dillan]

The only time I've ever said something like, "too bad he didn't use a better lens" is when I was looking at my own photos.

[Bruce Bordner]

We're just people who want to say "Hey; look at that!". I just want to snap an instant out of reality to look at it in detail. You know that it will never look exactly like this again, and no one else saw it... Shoot already and show it! Timing is everything. A perfect example is the shot of the Olympic surfer hanging in the air.
The differentiator in photographers is intentionality: how much you care about taking and presenting a good "photo". Good equipment helps but that's hardly the start; we're essentially now doing all the developing, editing, and printing ourselves. So the question is basically how hard are you willing to work?
For your blog - assuming that "we" still have some interest in improving our techniques, you should have a constant audience. Equipment may be less of a concern, but someone is out there trying to get better. I've done this for over 50 years and I'm still trying to get it right. No one has offered me money yet..............

[Dogman]

You write well and I enjoy it. Subject matter is secondary. I wasn't interested in geology until I read John McPhee but he made it interesting.

I own a bunch of Nikon and Fuji gear and I really have no interest in the new stuff coming out. We lived through the years when there were constant improvements in camera features. We moved from manual cameras to shutter/aperture priority, program autoexposure, autofocus, digital, etc. We are now at that plateau--actually the peak--of photographic evolution. Nothing is really making pictures better than the camera or lens it replaces. And now that we are there, so what? Photography is devalued and at the saturation point. Documentary photography is no longer trusted as being honest and "art" photography is evolving into multi-media projects and trendy books, mostly over designed with unclear concepts.

I was told last week at the supermarket where I've shopped for almost 50 years that company policy forbids my taking pictures in the store. That despite my seeing customers using their cell phone cameras frequently in that store. I concluded it was not the taking of pictures that was forbidden but the use of "real" cameras. My X-Pro with an adapted Zeiss manual focus lens looks too imposing, I guess. Not only is photography over saturated and undervalued, it's a threat.

Despite all this negativity, I still intend to continue taking pictures. I just don't pay much attention to photography websites or gear reviews anymore. I do enjoy seeing good pictures and there are a few people I follow on Flickr and a couple of forums. I avoid social media like the plague that it is on humanity. Call me an anti-social humanist if you will.

So, Mike, write what you wanna and I'll probably read it. You're the one source of a camera or lens review I actually would read. But it doesn't have to be. Anything might be interesting.

[David Brown]

Bravo. The last paragraph (not the *footnote) really sums it up, and is one of more significant paragraphs you have written recently. IMHO

[Bryan Geyer]

Photography gear encompasses a lot more than camera bodies! For those of us that always use tripods in the pursuit of nature and wildlife (mostly birds) subjects, and do closeups of small, animate creatures, it's all of the other hardware that's of critical interest. Tripods-monopods-the multitude of different tripod heads-flashes and ring strobes-lighting accessories-radio remote control-bags and backpacks-support accessories-focusing stages, sensor cleaning aids, et al. There's a wide assortment of photography equipment that's rarely discussed on TOP.

[darlene]

I guess the only thing more unpredictable than sports stories is the reaction to "boring" photo stuff. As for the DE razor community, I'm not surprised! Women shaving their legs with a DE razor? That's a power move. Maybe there's a photo series in there: "Women with DE Razors: Shaving with Style and Precision." Funny enough, I used to use my ex-hubby's razor, and I'll bet it was a DE because it left my legs so soft and glided through the shaving cream like butter.

I love photography; it's my lifestyle, and I'm never bored with it. I just won't read technical articles about stuff I already know and practice or gear that doesn’t interest me. A lot of my cameras are from the pre-digital era or film cameras made up until around 2015. The latest and greatest the market wants us to buy doesn't work for me. Although when I was ready to ditch the DSLR, it was through your blog I decided to give Fujifilm a try, and that was ten years ago. I have a nice Fuji APS-C kit and need nothing else along that format. I upgraded to the X-Pro3 body for the movable screen for digitizing film. If the screen was originally movable, I wouldn't have made the upgrade.

But since I am primarily a medium-format shooter, I am slowly transitioning to a three-lens Hasselblad kit after shooting with one lens and the 907x 50c for a couple of years. They finally made a wide-angle small enough and ‘good enough’ in my price range; I was just waiting for it.

I never meant to criticize, so please know I will work on doing better. When someone asks for my opinion, I need to learn to be more sensitive to their side. I have always been an “I lay my cards on the table” kind of lady. Some folks appreciate it, some folks not so much.

Your comment on generational photography struck a chord with me. I talked about my Gramps, who had a huge influence on me. Besides being a painter of seascapes and landscapes, he shot with a Rolleiflex. I was twelve when he passed, and I never got the chance to look through his camera, but I do have some of his film negatives. My most prized photograph ever is one I will share here. It's of my mother at around age 9 or 10 years old. I don't know exactly, as she passed away long before I discovered it, but she was born in 1930 for the Rolleiflex camera buffs, and the negative is medium format. There was so much for me to embrace in this photo that all I can say is, as photographers, we never know when or how our work may touch another. If Gramps had shot digitally back then, I may never have been given the opportunity to see my mother as a child and all the other beautiful feelings and awareness I have been gifted through the photo.

And Michael, keep writing whatever inspires you to do so. You are by far one of my favorite all-time authors. I just won’t read about razors and such. It's not you; it’s me, and my brain's visual storytelling has a short circuit that leans towards prissiness.

[Dave]

Mike,

Digital cameras have become so very capable that there are really few new features to report. The last two cameras of note would be the Pentax K3 III Monochrome (as the affordable B&W camera) and the Pentax 17 (which only Pentax would have introduced, as far as makers of reasonably priced cameras are concerned). Of course, there are the mirrorless cameras, but I'll take a real viewfinder rather than a video screen that burns up batteries.

I may not represent the average camera user because my digital SLR is my first camera which had an "on" switch. The white balance settings are nice to have, rather than changing filters every time the outdoor conditions don't match, um, the expectation of the sensor??

The only other feature I really appreciate is the automatic timestamp of each photo.

Anyhow, using electronic means to add a new feature is never going to be as "cool" as a clever mechanical solution.

[Gunther]

The issue here is more like “why something (a hobby ,a cultural phenomenon, a scientific endeavor, to name a few) that doesn’t develop and grow at an excepted pace, gets quickly discarded and described in negative terms.

In these days everything happens in a hurry or at a sustained speed. To prove the validity and certainty of its protagonists. No time to question the last thing because the next one is already there.

And so there is no understanding or interest left for the people (like us) to whom the journey is as important as the goal. And to whom slowing down means to enjoy more.

The problem linked to that, is that the industries associated to these “ niche” markets (like Hasselblad, Harley) were made to believe by smart marketing people that they could outgrow their historical markets.

They kept growing as long as general economy grew but then it stopped. Example : why does Harley Davidson needs 10 dealers in Belgium ? They got a long very well with 1 for 30 years.

Is it a loss to the Harley drivers the they have to “shrink”a little now? To the Harley shareholders for sure.

Thank you for your enjoyable articles.

[louis mccullagh]

Maybe readers can suggest sites which will regularly help satiate our desire to quality photographs.
Here is one: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/photography

[Bob Johnston]

I agree with Darlene that more pictures would be a nice thing but it is your writing which is the main attraction of your blog Mike.

Of course, the art of photography is most important, but because that art uses technology for its tools, gear will always be interesting.

You cannot please all the people all of the time.I admit that sport doesn't interest me much but I recognise that there are readers who appreciate it. Keep the variety going.

[Terry Letton]

Ya I pretty much read everything you post, even the stuff I’m not interested in. But reading (and photography) are the things I like to do. I change cameras very seldom, so I have found it a good investment of my time to read a moderate amount of gear articles to stay abreast of where technology is going so I don’t need to do huge amounts of research to purchase a new camera when the time comes.

[Jens]

I studied painting back in the 70s and I have always loved to draw and paint.
When I started photographing in 2004 I was surprised by the way photographers talked and discussed cameras and lenses. Like it was the gear that made the art and not the person behind the camera.

At that time I knew nothing about photography and gear but I came to realize that gear talk and knowledge about lenses etc is a big part of being a photographer.

It is a little bit like when I was a teenager and was obsessed with raceboats and outboard motors - I love the gear side of photography.

A lot have happened in the last 20 years with cameras and I does not need any more megapixels or more fps but I still get inspired learning about new technics and ways to make pictures.

I have learned a lot reading your blog and I think that you are a good writer and teacher.

[Jeff]

Btw, Leica calls it a Monochrom (no ‘e’).

[Mark Sampson]

That last paragraph about the roller-coaster ride is just great writing; easily equal to anything I've read in the last year at least. That kind of wisdom is what makes your blog special, and why I'll read your work as long as you publish it.