My Stereotyped Version of ‘Your Camera Tells Who You Are’

Eagle Omomuro

New Member
I watched some youtubers talk about the idea that ‘your camera tells who you are,’ and I actually think it makes sense. On the surface, choosing a camera might seem like a rational decision. But deep down, I believe there’s always a psychological reason behind every choice we make.

I want to talk about my version of ‘your camera tells who you are’. And let’s keep it limited to DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. OF COURSE I'M BIASED because of my own experience with cameras and people. So don't take it seriously if you feel offended.

Sony

From what I’ve seen, a large number of Sony users are trendy. They look young and fashionable, and many of those seemed too wealthy and too confident for their age, and that sometimes made me a bit jealous. They never want to miss a single megapixel, and they’re always eager to upgrade to the newest version. It often feels like they got a Sony just because they followed the vibe and they could afford it. I know it's biased to say so, but I rarely see them as real photographers from a traditional still-image perspective. And I often judged them like 'your photo looks good but... you are shooting fully automatic?' But surprisingly, many of them are also at the frontier of creative video production, an area that’s too new, too complex, and honestly too challenging for me to even give it a go. And when there’s no one watching, I have to admit that I might just be too outdated compared with them.

Canon

Many Canon users I knew were real photographers. I mean, those who actually earn a living by taking photos, those who serve the photography business world (weddings, events, babies, families... everything). They are the opposite of the geeky vibe of Sony users. That doesn’t mean they don’t want the newest tech or features. It simply means they don’t over-concern about those tech-heavy numbers on paper or the good or bad words from others. What they care about is business opportunities and production efficiency. A camera for them is just like a pen for a clerk or tongs for a chef, an essential tool. It works. And that's enough. They chose Canon because it’s everywhere in the industry, and they can take advantage of shared knowledge and a huge range of accessories. That means higher efficiency and lower cost.

Nikon

Nikon photographers, or at least many of whom I often saw during my career in photojournalism, are also real photographers who live on taking photos. But they’re quite different from Canon users. They do give a crap about what camera they’re using. I’ve heard some Canon shooters joke that Canon users spend more time on photography while Nikon users spend more time on cameras. Maybe it’s not entirely wrong. I quote that with a smile because I’ve met plenty. Some Nikon fans seem to believe that the professionalism of a photographer comes from the professionalism of a camera. And Nikon always has something to be proud of, like how tough it’s built or how unbelievably reliable the autofocus is. It feels like the camera is ready for a battlefield and what it produces will win the Pulitzer Prize. The loyalty is so strong that some of Nikon fans would rather hear people criticize their photos than their cameras. And guess what? I really respect that (cuz I am partially a Nikon fan too!).

Fujifilm

Fujifilm photographers (like me) probably believe this ‘the professionalism of a photographer comes from the professionalism of a camera’ crap too, but in a different way. The professionalism we talk about is attitude. It’s about how seriously we handle exposure and tone, and how Fujifilm really knows our needs and gives us just the right tools (manual exposure hard dials and film sims) to do so. We see ourselves as real photographers because we’re not making products, we’re making something with a soul. And before that, we want our camera to look like it has a soul too. We even dress up our words, such as classic, cult, culture, to make our choice sound more poetic than what it probably is. Unfortunately, many of those I know in the Fujifilm circle, including myself, aren’t really living on photography. We know the market doesn’t often appreciate or pay for the kind of ‘soul-rich’ work we try to make. We just pretend that we don’t care.

Minolta & Sigma

Putting Minolta and Sigma photographers in the same place might sound strange, but they share a surprising number of similarities. Most Minolta and Sigma (the Foveon era) users I’ve met have an awakened mindset. They believe they’ve already found what’s right for them and feel no need to convince others. They quietly live by the idea that 'the truth is rarely popular'. They’re fully aware of their cameras’ flaws, and they know neither Minolta nor Sigma will ever return to fix them, yet they’ve learned not to care. What they truly value, whether it’s the oil-paint-like bokeh or the true-film-like color, can only come from the brand they love. And that’s enough. These photographers embody the philosophy of 'letting go to receive'. They accept that their cameras limit them in some ways, especially in following new trends, but they also know their cameras give them something they see as a gift. Maybe that’s why they carry the same philosophy into other parts of life. Sounds too good? Yes I’m biased. Cuz I’m a Minolta user too.

Leica

As one who can never afford a Leica, let's sing a song:
Money money money...
Must be funny...
In a rich man's world!!
 
I've never owned a DSLR but I've shot Canon since I acquired my Ftb in 1977. After that it was an A-1 then the 1984 Olympic Edition F1-n. I wrote a post for 35mmc about that camera. I was gifted a Contax G2 in 2008 and it has been great to shoot with. I knew all the talk when I purchased the Canon in 1984. I wasn't a journalist looking for a pulitzer and the Nikon group just seemed a little too upity for my taste. I'm not disappointed with my decision even after 41 years of ownership. Here's my tribute from 35mmc: https://www.35mmc.com/29/09/2024/5-frames-40-years-1-camera/
1985-Skyline in snow_Dusk 2_DF1080px.jpg I'm approaching 50 years (2028) of documenting Dallas. This was 1985 and shot with the F1-n.
 
This made me chuckle, Eagle. Not least because it echoes a lot of my views.
I too am biased towards Minolta, at least as far as 35mm is concerned. Apart from a few dalliances I've been using them since the mid seventies.
 
In the film only days it was Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad. (Leica was all about looks ... I tried using it assignments, but was too limiting and slow compared to Nikon.)

With DSLR's I started with Canon (20D) and ended up with 5D's and 1D's. I liked Canon, especially the 1D's. I played with Olympus and Panasonic briefly. Been shooting Fuji since the XPro-1. I saw the XPro-1 in a camera store and bought it without knowing anything about the camera. I just shout it was soooo beautiful ... I couldn't leave it in the store. The fact thatFuji produce one helluva an image and that all pertinent controls were surface mounted was the cherry.

I always thought of Fuji as more of a lens company than a camera company ... and Fuji X lenses series is, at a minimum, equally as sharp as my 'L' lenses.
 
Never owned Fuji or Minolta. My first SLR was a Canon FTb. My most recent purchase was a 17 y.o. Nikon D700 (photos elsewhere on this forum from the other day. At this point in life I have about 15 cameras - a mix of digital and film).
 
Back
Top