View Full Version : importance of "the feel"
You know how some people are just good with their hands? They have an underlying understanding of the physics of what they are doing: hammering a nail in straight, beautiful handwriting, skillful drawing, etc. It is like there is a knowledge IN THEIR HANDS. Other folks are more clutsy and less coordinated.
My theory is that those people with greater sensitivity in their hands can be more discerning and more appreciative of fine tools,
like a Leica for instance. (or those other vintage cameras [Contax, Canon P, Nikon RF, etc.]made back in the years when stuff was made as well as possible, rather than as cost-effectively as possible.)
If you try to explain the importance of "the feel" of a camera to some people, they just don't/can't get it, yet for those who have this "tactile intelligence" it is something important.
This tactile sensitivity has nothing to do by the way, with how good a photographer one is. Having a "good eye" for composition is distinct from this tactile intelligence yet it is a similar concept. Both would be difficult to teach if the ability is not there inately.
Any comments?
back alley
08-20-2005, 19:09
i never thought about it like that frank.
i do know that some things fit 'better' in my hands than do others.
i used to shoot a canon f1. it fit better than the nikon f2 i also had.
the canon t90 fit the best, like it was made for me.
my leica m4-p fit nice but didn't feel like the canon p does.
the canon p with an (angular) m-grip from photoequip is the ultimate for me in rf cameras.
ultimately, for me, it's not only the 'quality' of the gear but the feel.
joe
That's an interesting line of thought, Frank, and it has a parallel in musical instruments. When I hold a really fine acoustic guitar in my hands, my hands respond to the 'feel' of the instrument, even though I may not produce music that's any better. I find good cameras are like that too and it's probably why many of us prefer older, metal cameras over modern polycarbonate ones even though the new ones are often excellent tools.
Gene
I think you have your theory around the wrong way....
People who are "discerning and more appreciative of fine tools" are likely to have "greater sensitivity in their hands" as a result of practice, practice and practice. If a person has a genuine interest in things mechanical (be it using an old range finder camera or rebuilding a V8) they will quickly learn how to use the tools they require for the job and will acquire that sense of touch you talk of as they gain more and more experience. Not the other way around.
I can understand it... when you pick something up, close your eyes and just let your hand "absorb" the feel and smoothness of how it works. Borderline "tactile porno", my Leica IIIa + Summar pretty well does that for me... :D
I also have other cameras that aren't as "smooth", but have that lovely heft/action. My 350D + 28-70/2.8 is like that... shot almost 700 pics for our company picnic/family_fun_day. The Kiev's also have that amazing "you can feel it working" quality about them too.
ps. the tactile difference btwn the 350D & 300D is night and day.
akalai, I agree there's an element of experience, but that may just bring a natural appreciation of a particular kind out of dormancy. One may not even think about this in connection with photography even if you know this about yourself with regard to something seemingly entirely different, like driving a responsive car.
I have been saying something similar to this for a while. I think that after you reach a certain level of accomplishment in whatever field, most people develop an appreciation for quality tools of the trade. In the beginning it can be dfficult to feel the difference and understand the benefits of quality equipment.
As far as cameras go there is always the argument that it is the photographer that takes the photos and any camera will do. While I agree with this in principle, In practice, the ergonomics and feel of a camera makes my photographic experience much more enjoyable. It stimulates my creativity when my camera stays out of my way. This is a very subjective thing. Each person has their idea of the perfect camera. For many, ergonomics and feel are not that important.
Quietness, smoothess and placement of controls are very important to me. Small size is also one of my must haves. There are some great film cameras that either fit this description or come close. While I love the immediacy of digital, I have yet to find a digital that is as satisfying as the best film cameras.
Digitals are very "viewfinder challenged". I don't know why camera companies have abandoned those of us that enjoy large, bright and precise viewfinders. Some of the more expensive digitals ($3000 or more) are more acceptable, but even there I don't see anybody trying to put out a truly exceptional viewfinder. Maybe the DM will start a new trend.
Most digitals try to incorporate way too many features and become cluttered and distracting. I would love to see a fixed lens digital rangefinder along the lines of the Olympus 35RC, 35SP or Minolta 7SII. The viewfinders of these cameras are not superb but they are quite acceptable and are much better than most digital finders. A good, sharp fixed lens and for digital, a large bright LCD and large noise free sensor is a must. Just keep the menus to a minimum and put the aperture on the lens with a shutter dial on the top of the camera. Keep the automation to a minimum. The last thing is that it will be reasonably affordable (under $1500).
Heck, I might even settle for an affordable digital with AF that has framelines, large LCD, manual controls, low noise at high ISO and a superb lens. But I would prefer a rangefinder. Maybe someday.
Anyway, I have gone rather long and have ranted enough. Have a wonderful day.
Byuphoto
08-20-2005, 21:34
I understand this precisely. It is hard to explain to most people. I bought a new H-D softtail with the twin cam 88 engine. Road it 6 months and sold it. just did not feel like my old '77. Samr thing with my truck, a new dodge and I would rather drive my old '73 bronco. I still love the feel of a real Zippo. I bought into the plastic era of cameras for awhile but they just don't feel like an F-1 or a ME Super. The same with rangefinders. I much prefer their feel over the new auto focus P&S. I know If i ever hold a P my life will not be the same.
Todd.Hanz
08-20-2005, 22:18
Have you ever held a finely crafted hunting knife, or felt the balance of a fine over and under shotgun? You can close you eyes and these things seem to fit your hand and feel right, (the friction of the wheel against the flint on a zippo feels absolutley perfect :) ). I love the way my favorite cigar feels, hand rolled and packed right, the aroma.....
To me this is the way an "M" body feels in the hand, a true craftsman uses the tools that feel right in his hands and satisfy the tactile need, it's all about the journey isn't it!
Todd
I've been living in the Leica world for some months now, and one of the surprising things about the subculture, I think, is that many people on forums and articles keep going on about the optical qualitites of the Leica. To me, optics are really secondary in explaining the allure of the M Leicas.
Haptics, ergonomics, sound level, "feel", size, mechanical quality, small shutter lag. All these things are important in explaining why I like the Leica. Sometimes, Leica nuts instead rave on and on about the lenses.
Sure, I like the sharpness and bokeh of my Summicron 50 and I would love to get my hands on some of the new lens goodies coming out of Solms. The Leica optics are good. Really good. But can not be the sole reason why many photographers have been using M Leicas all the time. If sharpness is the thing, just go with a camera with a larger format negative. A 6x9 camera of moderate cost will produce very sharp pics. Film size is very important when it comes to sharpness and tonality. Therefore, it seems a bit strange that some Leica writers on the net goes on and on about Leica optics and sharpness, when a used Mamiya or whatever will produce very sharp pics.
Haptics and optics.
darkkavenger
08-21-2005, 02:37
I think I understand your words, this feeling happened to me when I first took my Kiev-II in my hands... I never felt anything such as this before... everything as it has to be, smooth and perfectly adapted for me.
Yes I'm a poor young guy :) Contaxes will be for later..
back alley
08-21-2005, 05:32
a new word for me...
hapˇtics [ háptiks ]
noun
Definitions:
tactile sensation applied to computer applications: the science of applying tactile sensation to computer applications in order to enable users to receive feedback in the form of felt sensations. Haptics technology is used to train hand-eye coordination in tasks such as keyhole surgery and spaceship maneuvers. ( takes a singular or plural verb )
Wilt, I agree with you. I'd rather use a Leica M body with a C/V (or good FSU) lens, than a Bessa body with Leica glass. It would feel much more satisfying, and if ultimate sharpness and tonality is paramount, then yes, switch to MF!
Darkavenger: that early Kiev II is still a lot like a Contax. The later Kievs deviate significantly from that feel.
SolaresLarrave
08-21-2005, 07:15
Quite an interesting concept, Frank... The idea that there is some kind of tactile intelligence (whether from experience or helping form experience) might explain the ability some people have to use their hands.
I like to think I'm good handling small objects. When I was younger, I really liked assembling plastic model kits: everything, from painting parts to putting it together, was part of a real fun process that allowed me to think on other things, while letting my hands go on "automatic pilot." Apparently I never lost the skill, as my wife believes I may have been a good watch repairman in a former life.
From this concept to the idea of the "feel" of a tool there's only one logical step... and in this I agree too, Frank: nothing beats the feel of a fine tool (a Leica with CV glass over a Bessa with Leica glass, for instance).
I guess we can now assume that we all have different degrees of tactile intelligence. Just photographers are among the ones who have it at a larger degree, like musicians. After all, don't we "play" our instruments while shooting on the field? :)
darkkavenger
08-21-2005, 07:21
Frank : I spend my days looking at it, touching it, how nicely made it is and how well it fits in my hands, I carry it at work with me, I look at it on my desk and I even bring it with me for lunch... After some investigations and thanks to Roman links, I figured out it is a Kiev-IIa with the flash sync socket. Now my dream is to get a Zeiss-Ikon pre-war Contax, and in the new cameras I want to get the newest Zeiss-Ikon system. I've had a Leica-IIIf in hands, yet I prefer the Contax feel. Wonderful jewelry!
I think I'm getting soon a membership in the Zeiss Historica Society... Contax makes my mind spinnnnnnnnnnn! :D
Brian Sweeney
08-21-2005, 07:25
I guess I'm more BORG in nature when using cameras. Very few cameras that I don't like. I try to adapt and assimilate them into the collective. Their positive features add to the picture taking capability of the hive, and their negatives are noted to safeguard them against use in less than optimal circumstances.
Scary, isn't it...
I guess I'm more BORG in nature when using cameras.
Bear with the old guy for a moment. What is BORG?
Gene
back alley
08-21-2005, 08:16
not a star trek fan gene?
joe
back alley
08-21-2005, 08:18
borg here (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/aliens/article/70558.html)
joe
Does, "Resistance is futile," ring any bells?
Brian Sweeney
08-21-2005, 08:23
Yup, every time I walk into a camera show it is "Resistance is Futile. You shall be assimilated. Your Technology will be added to my camera collection."
I do weird things sometimes. I have a photograph somewhere that I took of the TV during a Star Trek program where Captain Picard becomes (temporarily) assimilated. His whole head fills the screen and has those mechanical implants all over it, including a red lazer on one side. I thought it was cool.
darkkavenger
08-21-2005, 08:31
There are some cameras that just won't do it for me. I bought a FED-5B, I don't like the construction at all. It has an appalling cheap feeling, compared to his elder brother the FED-3 type b. The metal texture, the serial number and fed logo embossing, this plastic patch on the front, the parts on the top of the camera, all unites to give a displeasant feeling, and it seems that the camera design was made reluctantly, as if to discourage the user from getting it.
Adaptation, yes... but there are limits :D
Hmmm. I know "Resistance is useless" -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I saw some of the original StarTrek series but not the sequel. I'm more inclined to watch Doctor Who (Tom Baker, of course)...
Gene
Brian Sweeney
08-21-2005, 10:46
I wish I had a Sonic Spanner for getting some of those stuck retaining rings undone.
I just received a Kiev 4a in the mail today in trade for a Lordomat RF camera with David. I must say that the "feel" of this early Kiev (1959 according to serial number) is much more like the feel of my Contax IIa, than the later Kiev 4am that I traded with Gene for an external finder.
Has anyone sent a camera to Oleg for CLA that can tell me about their experience good/bad, please? This Kiev "feels" like it would be worthwhile to do that.
Well, I have not sent a Kiev there yet, but Oleg did CLA a Zorki 6 and a FED 2 for me, and both feel smooth as butter (if Denis reads this, he might give you his impression, since I showed him my Z 6 on my visit).
Roman
Does, "Resistance is futile," ring any bells?
"All your base are belong to mine!" :)
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
canonetc
09-01-2005, 16:30
It is important to feel comfortable with the camera I'm using. Sometimes that takes time, sometimes it does not. The "feel" I enjoy about classic cameras and rangefinders is the "thought" behind them; simple, mechanical and I have to use my mind. I am using technology, not letting technology use me. I am doing something with my hands (which extends into processing film and printing). I think doing something with my hands is an integral part of being human. More of the "feel" for me is the relationship that develops with light, dark, visual awareness and creativity. I get that far more from film/RF cameras than from digital. EVen though, yes, digital is just "another tool", I dislike the slight distance it puts between me and the hands-on creative process. Pushing a button just doesn't match burning, dodging and watching the image materialize in developer.
Also, I do think klutzes can appreciate Leicas. If they can get the "feel" of photography, no matter what kind of camera they are using, then the rest will come naturally. I've found that trying every kind of camera format I can get my hands on has helped my "feel" of photography even more. Great thread and very thought provoking.
cheers,
Chris
canonetc
Honu-Hugger
09-01-2005, 17:38
The level of quality that comes from the associated "feel" has always influenced the cameras that I appreciate. It is one of the beautiful things about a Kinoptik lens, for instance: not just world class optical quality but housed in a finely machined barrel of blued steel and silky smooth operation -- built to last many lifetimes.
I agree with Wilt. There is a connection between the "feel" of the 'product (be it a camera, pen, whatever) that generates a response that is not felt with lesser products. It's probably akin to having something good to eat vs having something to eat. One needs to appreciate the difference and let that difference transform you.
Simplicity and balance. A tool should be designed to do a single job, it should be well balanced and free from any design element that is not useful to the task it was designed to do. Tools that conform to those two simple rules will almost demand that you them.
I'm getting a really good "feel" from my 1959 Kiev 4a. The M6 is still the pure workhorse picture-taking machine, followed by the M2 and M3, but the Kiev is still very nice. I hate to have to admit this, but the shutter sound of the Kiev is "better" than the 1961 Contax IIa. The Contax is going for a CLA soon though.
Frank : I spend my days looking at it, touching it, how nicely made it is and how well it fits in my hands, I carry it at work with me, I look at it on my desk and I even bring it with me for lunch...
I hear you man :) Pretty much the same feeling I have to my Kiev 4A: it is right here on my desk, and I pat it every half an hour. When I take it in my hands, it sets me into hunting mood, making me perceptive of the environment and my finger begs to push the shutter release. I believe it greatly influenced my shooting style, I didn't have such a feel with other cameras. It is of 1976 vintage but it feels pretty smooth and comfy after a CLA and with new leather covering, although admittedly I never held a real Contax II.
darkkavenger
09-05-2005, 02:52
Ah well well! I recently got a Jupiter-11 4/135 for my Kiev-2A and it looks absolutely wonderful... It's such a classy camera and a solid shooter... I think I can't live without it now!
Though my Pentacon Six has gotten a new impulse since I fitted it with a MC Sonnar 2.8/180 from Carl Zeiss Jena!
I have spotted a pre-war Contax-II (apparently from 1942, but I'm not sure) and if all goes well it will be in my hands next month! :D
Yeah, the 4/135 is on my list too. Think I actually even have a good use for a 135mm rangefinder lens :)
wyk_penguin
09-05-2005, 03:36
I think you have your theory around the wrong way....
People who are "discerning and more appreciative of fine tools" are likely to have "greater sensitivity in their hands" as a result of practice, practice and practice. If a person has a genuine interest in things mechanical (be it using an old range finder camera or rebuilding a V8) they will quickly learn how to use the tools they require for the job and will acquire that sense of touch you talk of as they gain more and more experience. Not the other way around.
As the Jesuits preech, "start early enough and the possibilities are endless"
For me, the feel is part accquired and part in-born. Some cameras work nicely and just holding them in your hand makes you want to use them; but some get nicer and nicer as you come to know them.
This tactile sensitivity has nothing to do by the way, with how good a photographer one is. Having a "good eye" for composition is distinct from this tactile intelligence yet it is a similar concept. Both would be difficult to teach if the ability is not there inately.
Any comments?
I think u r right, i know people with great vision, they could have been greta photographers, they just don't get along well with the tool, they re not comfortable with it...
Also in other domains, for ex. my mom can't get along will with machines whatever it is, she just uses televisions, but she constantly need help, she's no good with cell phones, merely uses cassettes and radio, also can't get alogn with computers and never carries a camera...Doesn't even try to tighten a screw.
I -on the contrary- am obssessed with machines, anything and everything, i'm very curious dealing with machines, and i always like to work with my ahnds, in the lab at college i'm the quickest dealing with tools, putting everything along with what is suitable for ...
Yes i think that the tactile intelligence is something that cannot be ignored...What i love most about my feds, their total manual nature, it delights me to carry it and shoot even when there's no film inside...
Cheers.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.