Character or Flaw?

Hi keith - good point :)

I have tried to explain in my previous post as to why the 'feel' of a product is important to it's character to @Raymond Lin but he just seems hell bent on refusing to see this and wants a discussion about performance :-(


I wasn't singling anyone out, just in general, it veered from a Top Gear thread at one point into a better era gear thread. I think character is about so much more than build quality, or price, or even the era it hails from.
 
Don't some flaws add to character?
 
Don't some flaws add to character?

Yup, in one of my earlier posts I mentioned the likes of the Helios 44 lenses, which were kit lenses for old Zenith film cameras - they were flawed, they weren't supposed to produce mad swirly bokeh, but that's precisely why so many buy them today 40 odd years later
 
I think that character in a built object shouldn't be confused with build quality (though that may come into it). Character can include flaws! I'd say that character is composed of how we perceive an object mixed with our appreciation of how it performs its functions (which might be in a quirky manner!), but will involve a measure of subjective projection too, ie some of what we talk of as character is what we might choose to see, reflected. So it's partly cultural, but subjective.

The context is that we're talking about things (objects). Character in a human being is a different matter!
 
Last edited:
Your reply which states how it feels in your hand, unless you have special ability to feel the inside of things, how do you know? How something "feels" isn't a conclusion or definition on craftsmanship.

p.s. I find it funny how you use watches as a comparison as craftsmanship because if you know more about watches, that statement is the exact PR stuff Rolex want you to believe. Would you be shocked to find out that when Quartz first appeared, it costs thousands, it was seen as luxury and better and more than automatic. It wasn't until Casio and co do what all tech do, mass produce them, scale of economy that drives the price down. People bought these in droves and automatic watches was on the verge of obsolete, to combat this, Swiss watch makers had to adjust and change their marketing from everyday watches to more luxury brand, they had to change the way the watches are perceived. 80 years ago people just have automatic watches, it wasn't a luxury item, it was just a tool to tell time, like a toaster to make toast. So with Quartz came along, they had to shift and they did. So now instead of all watches being seen as functional, only digital watches are and automatic are seen as "craftsman" built, more so than before. I bet you before you know it, a mechanic in the future will be a craftsman too when electric cars are common place but now they are just mechanics.


OMFG - that reply just shows how pointless discussing the matter with you is Raymond! If you think the plastic watch I buy in my garage after filling with fuel is far superior in terms of craftsmanship to a Rolex/Breitling etc and I have just fallen for 'marketing hype' you are seriously *********!
 
OMFG - that reply just shows how pointless discussing the matter with you is Raymond! If you think the plastic watch I buy in my garage after filling with fuel is far superior in terms of craftsmanship to a Rolex/Breitling etc and I have just fallen for 'marketing hype' you are seriously *********!

It's the truth, you should look it up.

I am not saying automatic watches are not made by craftsman but the entire shift of PR is what happened.
 
IMO build quality has nowt do with character, it's a different debate


Compare a '20s Bentley 4 1/2 litre with and without the supercharger - the unblown car is the better of the 2 but despite its flaws, the supercharged one has more character.
 
IMO build quality has nowt do with character, it's a different debate

...............I can't disagree Keith because it is your opinion but in my opinion how something feels & operates does give an 'inanimate object' character as does the appreciation of its assembly. Just as well we are all different though :)
 
Maybe character in the context of made objects could be a synonym for 'personality'. Some of that is injected into the object by the maker, the rest is a subjective response by the observer / consumer.
 
Last edited:

Then why the hell did you start the thread!!!!!!

You asked peoples opinion of what constituted character yet you are not really interested in those opinions!

Like Keith said - it is a thinly disguised attempt by you to 'slag off' Fuji and have yet another 'gear' discussion, like you always do - you get a kick out of criticising gear on this forum continually!

You have done numerous times in the past - remember your 'signature shot' thread of the confetti when you bashed the Canon 5D mk4 because of it's buffer and you had to carry two cameras to cover this, this was a major concern as you might fall over whilst walking backwards and damage your camera?

You were told numerous times by everybody the following:

(1) you had purchased the wrong camera from Canon for this
(2) what you wanted wasn't possible due to engineering limitations.

I then showed you that you would still have to carry two cameras even if what you wanted was possible!

@Raymond Lin - why do you get a kick out of criticising gear on these forums? Some people have worked really hard and are very happy with the purchases they have made, they don't want to read your drivel criticising it because it doesn't do the quirky things yuo want!
 
Last edited:
Compare a '20s Bentley 4 1/2 litre with and without the supercharger - the unblown car is the better of the 2 but despite its flaws, the supercharged one has more character.

I know nothing about cars so I'll just have to take your word for that :D
 
Then why the hell did you start the thread!!!!!!

You asked peoples opinion of what constituted character yet you are not really interested in those opinions!

Like Keith said - it is a thinly disguised attempt by you to 'slag off' Fuji and have yet another 'gear' discussion, like you always do - you get a kick out of criticising gear on this forum continually!

Like you have done numerous times in the past - remember your 'signature shot' thread of the confetti when you bashed the Canon 5D mk4 because of it's buffer and you had to carry two cameras to cover this, this was a major concern as you might fall over whilst walking backwards and damage your camera?

You were told numerous times by everybody the following:

(1) you had purchased the wrong camera from Canon for this
(2) what you wanted wasn't possible due to engineering limitations.

I then showed you that you would still have to carry two cameras even if what you wanted was possible!

@Raymond Lin - why do you get a kick out of criticising gear on these forums? Some people have worked really hard and are very happy with the purchases they have made, they don't want to read your drivel criticising it because it doesn't do the quirky things you want!

You sound irate, calm down and easy on the exclamation mark Fraser.

I am talking about what you want to talk about at any specific point. Build quality? we can talk about build quality. I don't get a kick out of it but I can't help myself replying when people make a sweeping statement like "they used to make it better 50 years ago".

I don't slag off Fuji, I still have 2 Fuji, in fact I question my sanity why I am keeping the X-Pro 1 because I hate using it but it is also the 1 Fuji camera I can't bring myself to sell because I do think it has character. (this is nothing to do with build quality) It's shortcomings are facts and shared by many, it's AF is crap, it's battery is dire, it's too thin to hold comfortably but I do have a more emotional attachment to it than even my Canon 5D2/3/4, I'd sell those when the time comes/came. The X-Pro 1 actually sits permanently on my desk.

If you want to go back to the 5D buffer thread….we could…do really want to do that? knowing what I will end up posting? You REALLY want to go down that rabbit hole again? lol Don't say I didn't warn you.
 
Last edited:
To some extent this is true Nik, modern plastics are strong but also cheap and they feel cheap. Build quality to me is the craftsmanship - modern plastics are moulded and have little machining - it is the skill of the craftsmanship that defines build quality to me.

A plastic £10 Quartz watch keeps better time than a Swiss auto Rolex and can stand more abuse but the craftsmanship (build quality) between them is worlds apart
very true but in some things (for me mobile and digi camera)id take strong plastics any day of the week. as they work better, are stronger and have less potential weak spots.
that said ive got multiple slrs-including a nikon f3 and I used to make commission build furniture and cutlery by hand for a living so I know about workmanship I like to think
 
Purely by coincidence I've just seen this quote: “The secret of photography is, the camera takes on the character and personality of the handler” Walker Evans. So another interesting take on the topic there.
 
Your reply which states how it feels in your hand, unless you have special ability to feel the inside of things, how do you know? How something "feels" isn't a conclusion or definition on craftsmanship.

p.s. I find it funny how you use watches as a comparison as craftsmanship because if you know more about watches, that statement is the exact PR stuff Rolex want you to believe. Would you be shocked to find out that when Quartz first appeared, it costs thousands, it was seen as luxury and better and more than automatic. It wasn't until Casio and co do what all tech do, mass produce them, scale of economy that drives the price down. People bought these in droves and automatic watches was on the verge of obsolete, to combat this, Swiss watch makers had to adjust and change their marketing from everyday watches to more luxury brand, they had to change the way the watches are perceived. 80 years ago people just have automatic watches, it wasn't a luxury item, it was just a tool to tell time, like a toaster to make toast. So with Quartz came along, they had to shift and they did. So now instead of all watches being seen as functional, only digital watches are and automatic are seen as "craftsman" built, more so than before. I bet you before you know it, a mechanic in the future will be a craftsman too when electric cars are common place but now they are just mechanics.
Watches were a luxury item long before they became an everyday ‘tool’ and the luxury side of it has always ran alongside. Luxury watch manufacturers have benefited from the boom in the mid 1990’s when people suddenly had more free income. Thanks to such things as mobile phones and other tech watches are no longer needed as a ‘useful tool’ and have gone back to being a luxury item again for a lot of people. Watch manufacturers have exploited these trends with their marketing rather than the marketing changing the trend.
 
But I believe it likes cats, so it can't be all bad! ;)

dr-evil-austin-powers-477_bokvcn.jpg


:ROFLMAO:
 
I’m sure you can tell we’re impressed with the Canon 35mm f/1.4 Mk II. The weather resistance appears better than most weather resistant lenses. (As always, I’ll add that weather resistance still means water damage voids the warranty.) The mechanical construction is beyond impressive. This lens is massively over-engineered compared to any other prime we’ve ever disassembled. It’s built like a tank where it counts; on the inside. Moving parts are huge and robust. Six big screws are used in locations where 3 smalls screws are common in other lenses. Heavy roller bearings move the focusing group, it doesn’t slide on little nylon collars.

It’s also designed thoughtfully and logically. Things that will inevitably get damaged on any lens, like the front element and filter ring, are designed to be replaced easily. There are some things inside, particularly with the tensioning screws and springs, that I’m not certain I understand the purpose of, but I am certain there is a purpose. If I had to summarize the mechanical design of this lens, I would say simply that no expense was spared, no corner was cut

It probably was a big surprise to find a modern lens built on the inside the same as top quality lenses were built a few decades ago - I agree.

Just proves the point that a fair percentage of modern 'high end' glass isn't constructed that well - thanks for helping my reasoning Raymond :)

(It usually takes an engineer to appreciate engineering).
 
It probably was a big surprise to find a modern lens built on the inside the same as top quality lenses were built a few decades ago - I agree.

Just proves the point that a fair percentage of modern 'high end' glass isn't constructed that well - thanks for helping my reasoning Raymond :)

(It usually takes an engineer to appreciate engineering).

Where does it say that? And where does it say old lenses are built better?

It merely says the 35L mk2 is built better than the rest.
 
Here's 2 lenses I use atm, one is an old FD Canon that is really nicely built [It's actually only a 50mm just extended to it's full macro position here and also on an FD to M43 adapter] , has kept it's sturdiness over the decades, and would smash the hell out of the modern Pana-Leica if they were to somehow fight! or bang into one another somehow ... anyway - In this case the PL15mm has more 'character' because the images it outputs are tasty, they made me re-think my urge to move on from M43, it's so sharp and contrasty and has .... character! not in the build or look or feel of the lens, but in what it produces. Very little PP ever needed with this one, where I have to bump the bejaysis out of the files produced using the old Canon. In this case older and better built doesn't cut it.

IMG_20180725_144420.jpg PL15.jpg
 
Last edited:
Where does it say that? And where does it say old lenses are built better?

It merely says the 35L mk2 is built better than the rest.

Yet again Raymondo you have put another hole in your foot where you have shot through it :)

You originally posted that quote to argue the fact that newer lenses were built as well/better than older lenses when, as you quite rightly say, all it does say is that it is built better than most modern lenses and makes NO reference to older lenses from a few decades ago - you can't have it both ways :p



Whilst certain plastics are stronger on a weight for weight basis when new the biggest consideration usually is they are much easier to manufacture and hence cheaper. Plastics also degrade much quicker than suitable metal parts; hence plastic gears regularly fail as they get older. They certainly don't feel anywhere near as nice in use either.

In the digital age the 'turnover' of equipment is so much faster as people have to have the very latest, so much so that manufacturers do not have to consider the life expectancy of equipment nearly as much as they used to.
 
Last edited:
Whilst certain plastics are stronger on a weight for weight basis when new the biggest consideration usually is they are much easier to manufacture and hence cheaper. Plastics also degrade much quicker than suitable metal parts; hence plastic gears regularly fail as they get older. They certainly don't feel anywhere near as nice in use either.

Hmmm. I not so sure you're right there but it all hangs on what the makers have used. Certainly there are plastic and plastic like materials that'll outlast you me and possibly everything we know whereas metal parts will eventually need servicing as the lubricant degrades and hardens and things seize up.

I think with more modern lenses one main weakness is going to be the electronics. I have working electrical and electronic items including plastic gears and other moving parts that are over 40 years old but I can keep them going because I used to fix this stuff but for others when the solder deteriorates, the connections tarnish or the film cables degrade and split the electronics will stop working. In lenses that'll mean stuff like AF and IS wont work but the lens could still be useable if it has mechanical focus and zoom, FBW and power zoom lenses may well become paper weights. Manual lenses will however probably still work in another 30 or 40 years as long as someone is willing to strip them down and clean and lubricate them.
 
Hmmm. I not so sure you're right there but it all hangs on what the makers have used. Certainly there are plastic and plastic like materials that'll outlast you me and possibly everything we know whereas metal parts will eventually need servicing as the lubricant degrades and hardens and things seize up.

I think with more modern lenses one main weakness is going to be the electronics. I have working electrical and electronic items including plastic gears and other moving parts that are over 40 years old but I can keep them going because I used to fix this stuff but for others when the solder deteriorates, the connections tarnish or the film cables degrade and split the electronics will stop working. In lenses that'll mean stuff like AF and IS wont work but the lens could still be useable if it has mechanical focus and zoom, FBW and power zoom lenses may well become paper weights. Manual lenses will however probably still work in another 30 or 40 years as long as someone is willing to strip them down and clean and lubricate them.


Certain environmental conditions cause the molecular structure of the plastic to change over time which causes the plastic to become brittle. When new, the molecular structure of plastics is extremely good, the molecules are 'well lubricated' and are able to slip past each other; this is commonly referred to as elasticity and provides good strength as well as 'shock absorption' properties, however over time certain environmental factors remove the ability of the molecules to slide past each other and cause the plastic to become brittle.

Some of these environmental factors include things like temperature and UV light amongst others.

Ever wondered why wheelie bins tend to split when the temperature is cold in winter.

Plastics do not disintegrate or 'dissolve' in the environment but their strength and resistance to stresses reduces quite quickly in comparison to most metals. Metal gears usually fail through lack of lubrication or contaminants (eg. dust) introduced into the assembly; in a camera a CLA would avoid this failure where as with a plastic gear that has a stress induced fracture obtaining the part may well be difficult in 30 years time.
 
Last edited:
Yet again Raymondo you have put another hole in your foot where you have shot through it :)

You originally posted that quote to argue the fact that newer lenses were built as well/better than older lenses when, as you quite rightly say, all it does say is that it is built better than most modern lenses and makes NO reference to older lenses from a few decades ago - you can't have it both ways :p

High end DSLR's & modern day lenses are actually sh*t build quality wise compared to high end film cameras TBH.

There is no hole and no foot. And example of hole and foot is when you call the 5D "not a professional" camera but when the Canon site called it exactly that. Remember that? :p

3DNYZhQ.png


(Well, you did bring up the 5D thread….so I am allowed to use it)

Anyway I digress.

Put it simply, you made a sweeping comment on older lenses being better built than modern high end DSLR lenses. I link you to a tear down that an example of a modern high end DSLR lens that is built like a tank, it's there in black and white in the article, they actually said "Built like a Tank".

The date and release of this lens alone proves quality lenses are still made today, it doesn't need to reference "old lenses were bad before". It simply proves you were wrong in your sweeping statement that old lenses were built better before and here is one high end DSLR lens that is "built like a tank".

Sure there are badly made modern lenses (or bad old lenses in any era) but you specifically said High End, and the 35L mk2 is undoubtably a High End 35mm, that's it. No foot, not hole. You made a sweeping statement. I linked to an article to prove you otherwise.

Unless you disagree that the 35L is not high end or you disagree of it's build quality?

Before you quote me, note that I am not saying old lenses were not made well, or am I saying all modern lenses are built like the 35L. I simply disagree with your sweeping comment that older high end DSLR lenses and cameras were made better than they do now.

Because you don't seem to take into account how they were used then, how they are used now, the tech, the features, i mean look at the D850. Are you really sticking to your comment that High End cameras are not made like they used to? Or are you calling the D850 "not high end" ?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...n-shows-off-its-weather-and-toughness-testing

 
Last edited:
There is no hole and no foot. And example of hole and foot is when you call the 5D "not a professional" camera but when the Canon site called it exactly that. Remember that? :p

3DNYZhQ.png


(Well, you did bring up the 5D thread….so I am allowed to use it)

Anyway I digress.

Put it simply, you made a sweeping comment on older lenses being better built than modern high end DSLR lenses. I link you to a tear down that an example of a modern high end DSLR lens that is built like a tank, it's there in black and white in the article, they actually said "Built like a Tank".

The date and release of this lens alone proves quality lenses are still made today, it doesn't need to reference "old lenses were bad before". It simply proves you were wrong in your sweeping statement that old lenses were built better before and here is one high end DSLR lens that is "built like a tank".

Sure there are badly made modern lenses (or bad old lenses in any era) but you specifically said High End, and the 35L mk2 is undoubtably a High End 35mm, that's it. No foot, not hole. You made a sweeping statement. I linked to an article to prove you otherwise.

Unless you disagree that the 35L is not high end or you disagree of it's build quality?

Before you quote me, note that I am not saying old lenses were not made well, or am I saying all modern lenses are built like the 35L. I simply disagree with your sweeping comment that older high end DSLR lenses and cameras were made better than they do now.

Because you don't seem to take into account how they were used then, how they are used now, the tech, the features, i mean look at the D850. Are you really sticking to your comment that High End cameras are not made like they used to? Or are you calling the D850 "not high end" ?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...n-shows-off-its-weather-and-toughness-testing


............just post a link to the original thread Raymond.............then if people are bored they can read the page after page of nonsensical drivel about your signature shot rather than a massive screen shot here on a thread where you wanted peoples opinion on character of cameras (..........but really just wanted a pop at Fuji).

P.S. It may have 'nice build quality' in someones opinion compared to today's lenses but by the sheer fact it has a plastic barrel makes it crap compared to an older Zeiss build - IMO.

Go and re-load your gun Raymond - you have more holes to shoot :)
 
Last edited:
............just post a link to the original thread Raymond.............then if people are bored they can read the page after page of nonsensical drivel about your signature shot rather than a massive screen shot here on a thread where you wanted peoples opinion on character of cameras (..........but really just wanted a pop at Fuji).

P.S. It may have 'nice build quality' in someones opinion compared to today's lenses but by the sheer fact it has a plastic barrel makes it crap compared to an older Zeiss build - IMO.

Sure, if you think beauty is only skin deep at the barrel and that is how you purely judge build quality. I personally like to look deeper than that. Having a metal barrel doesn't automatically makes it good does it?

To avoid cluttering up the thread even more I've put the following in spoilers

And stop accusing me bashing Fuji, unless you think what I said are lies? You want me to bash Canon? Well you can read the 5D thread again. You want me to bash Sony? I think their body are too short and need a grip, I think they still need work on their colour science, I think their flash system needs a LOT of work, I think their pro level support needs work, I think the menus are crap and the lens line up still have holes.

How's that? :p

I am curious, why are you seemingly upset I mentioned Fuji anyway? Do you shoot Fuji? Is that why? I have in my possession 2 Olympus camera, 2 Fuji cameras, 2 Canon and a Sony. I will tell you the truth on any one of them.

I already told you I would sell my 5D before I sell the Fuji, how you translate that into bashing I'd never know. I mean look at it, it looks amazing. But like I said, I look beyond skin deep.

FbGcADu.jpg


p.s. my signature shot is this one, if we are being factual, these shots has nothing to do with the buffer.

wpxo4b9.jpg


NC4Xtj8.jpg


doOm6H8.jpg
p.p.s can we can back on topic now that I've debunked your generalisation that older lenses are made better than modern high end ones?
 
Last edited:
Sure, if you think beauty is only skin deep at the barrel and that is how you purely judge build quality. I personally like to look deeper than that.

And stop accusing me bashing Fuji, unless you think what I said are lies? You want me to bash Canon? Well you can read the 5D thread again. You want me to bash Sony? I think their body are too short and need a grip, I think they still need work on their colour science, I think their flash system needs a LOT of work, I think their pro level support needs work, I think the menus are crap and the lens line up still have holes.

How's that? :p

BANG!....................blimey Raymond you've gone and shot yourself again. be careful mate your feet will be blown off at this rate!

Like I said.............you just come here frequently to rant about equipment and this thread is no different - you really aren't interested in what people's opinion on 'character' are!

I try to only use cameras that I get pleasure from using but occasionally use a digital camera with its cheap plastic controls and wobbly lenses :) Its a bit like a posh point & shoot TBH
 
Last edited:
BANG!....................blimey Raymond you've gone and shot yourself again. be careful mate your feet will be blown off at this rate!

Like I said.............you just come here frequently to rant about equipment and this thread is no different - you really aren't interested in what people's opinion on character are!

What is all this about shooting? You don't like facts?

You made a generalisation that is false and I proved you otherwise, end of the matter.

Please move on.

If you want to talk about character, talk about character, don't make sweeping generation on build quality of high end lenses are worse these days. That is nothing to do with character, that's just bashing modern lenses and cameras.
 
Last edited:
What is all this about shooting? You don't like facts?

You made a generalisation that is false and I proved you otherwise, end of the matter.

Several posts ago I told you that you hadn't proved anything like that:

You originally posted that quote to argue the fact that newer lenses were built as well/better than older lenses when, as you quite rightly say, all it does say is that it is built better than most modern lenses and makes NO reference to older lenses from a few decades ago - you can't have it both ways :p

Now stop going round in circles Raymond - you will get dizzy and we run the risk of you shooting someone else rather than just your own feet :eek:

.............and don't pretend you are interested in others opinions you just want to have your usual 'gear whinge' :(
 
You know how people bash Sony and its colour science, at what point does that become a character?

Because I can tell you in a processing level, it is harder to get a Sony file to look as nice as a Canon. That's just a technical level, a time consuming level. Does the strange colour science from Sony become a Character? or is it a flaw?

Because i can tell you from a work level, that is a flaw, it isn't character, I want skin tone to look nice, Canon colour science make skin look nicer, when it looks less nice, that's a flaw. But do you see that as character and why?
 
You know how people bash Sony and its colour science, at what point does that become a character?

Because I can tell you in a processing level, it is harder to get a Sony file to look as nice as a Canon. That's just a technical level, a time consuming level. Does the strange colour science from Sony become a Character? or is it a flaw?

Because i can tell you from a work level, that is a flaw, it isn't character, I want skin tone to look nice, Canon colour science make skin look nicer, when it looks less nice, that's a flaw. But do you see that as character and why?


FFS Raymond you really are going to run out of bullets! Please read your last post again - it is purely a 'gear whinge'.

Stop buying kit then moaning on here about it :sleep:
 
Or we can talk about the 85L, specifically the rear element.

6VMFnGr.jpg


See how the contact protrudes into the rear element? It's effect on bokeh balls can be seen here, see how it is sliced off on one edge? That is pretty unique to the 85L, now is that a flaw or a character? because I personally don't think a sliced off bokeh ball is something people would ever ask for. They want round circles right?

3wwnhEl.jpg


FhCczrj.jpg
 
Last edited:
FFS Raymond you really are going to run out of bullets! Please read your last post again - it is purely a 'gear whinge'.

Stop buying kit then moaning on here about it :sleep:

You want me to talk about character, I asked you a question…it isn't even about Fuji, whats your take on it? is it flaw or character? There are no wrong answers. It's just your opinion.
 
There are no wrong answers. It's just your opinion.

Hooorah; the ammunition dump has run dry!

For the last however many pages I have kept stating IMO (In my opinion) that X has better build quality/feel than Y but you have kept telling me I am wrong; now you at last concede this :)

Off to bed now :)
 
Back
Top