Character or Flaw?

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

I am Groot
Messages
10,032
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I got thinking today when making a post in the Nikon mirrorless thread.

At what point does something crap becomes having character?

I would agree with a lot of people that the Fuji X-Pro 1 has character, it feels good in the hand, it looks cool, full of character but in actual use, its crap. AF is crap, battery life is crap, EVF is crap, there are a lot better cameras out there at the time when it came out and a lot better cameras now.

So it hit me, I think when people describe when something has character, they are not really thinking of them, or using them in a stressed, high pressure scenario, most of the time for a paid scenario. The character they are looking for, are tolerated in a leisure, take your time scenario.

A Canon 5D people say has character, give me a 5D and a 5D4 for a wedding, I'd pick the less character 5D4. For kicks I might shoot the 5D for a day.

So I then realise this character thing, be it bodies, or even old lenses, they are just shortcomings, they are flaws, a bit like all the scratches in a film negative, you don't want that in your print….or is it character? or just a mistake.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I think by definition character is when the it is at least partially advantageous or desirable and predictable. Flaw is entirely negative. It could be highly subjective in some cases.

For example an old crappy lens has a character because in certain very limited circumstance it produces a very special and unique bokeh, which happens to be just what the artist wanted to achieve intentionally and on purpose.

I am sure you could say Canon 85mm f/1.2 II L has a character, and it is a very positive combination of traits except only AF speed.

I can't see defective AF being classed as character on the other hand.

The only way I would think of 5D or whatever camera character would be mostly related to the output files traits - the colour palette, accuracy, dynamic range, noise - the predictable elements. I could easily tell apart 5D and 12MP APS-C shot immediately. Maybe Xpro1 creates special files? I don't know, I haven't seen many to start with.
 
The xpro1 definitely had something, it was the older Xtrans sensor, and the results were very different to the more clinical updated versions found in the XT1, 2, pro2 etc - you will see many talk about a 'film-esque' quality to the images produced by the pro1, and i would agree. I also agree with your cons for it, it was slow, awkward, had a crap evf and AF was horrible by today's standards. But many pro1 users continue to use it today and still love it regardless. It's got ... something! and I guess that something could be called 'character'

I find this with 'some' old vintage lenses, they have something unique about them, whether it's how they reproduce colours, or swirl the bokeh, or they might have horrific flare issue that can be manipulated artistically. They were flaws when the lenses were new on the scene, but in the era of the hipster, they are very attractive. Some, certainly not all, I've had some straight up stinkers that just had nothing likeable about them, because they lacked ... character.

Can't think of many , if any, up to the minute lenses that have much of this, because they're all so clinical or perfected, when there is a flaw it is just that, like bad vignetting - really old lenses oft get away with this because again, they have this film-like feel and it just works. I've had a few £50 lenses that I much prefered to £500+ ones. There has to be something to it. Take the old Russian Helios 44, a 58mm F2 prime that was nothing more than a kit lens for Zenith film cameras when it hit the scene. The earlier versions - The 44M and 44-2 in particular, were 'flawed' - they never meant them to have this mad swirly bokeh effect, so they updated the lens 7 times! later versions being a lot sharper but that swirly bokeh was almost gone. The M and 2 are still by far the most popular on the used market today.
 
Last edited:
I prefer film to digital images because they have 'Character'.

TBH the more I look at digital photographs the more I despise 'the look' they have. (Much like the sound from a vinyl LP on a good turntable with a valve amp has so much more warmth and 'creaminess' compared to any digital medium).

Thankfully everybody has different likes and dislikes but you must also remember @Raymond Lin; the majority of photographers take pictures for a hobby and don't really need most of what's in a modern camera body - we just think we do because the Companies marketing men are quite good at what they do!

Going back to your Fuji example, I can liken this to working on a lathe - I have the use of a gorgeous Myford super 7 that has fully manual controls - when I use it it makes me smile but doesn't produce as accurate a cut as a CNC lathe which is no fun to use. For us hobbyist there is also some pleasure in using the camera as well as the results it gives.
 
Last edited:
When I mentioned character in the Nikon thread o was mainly referring to the 85mm f1.2 lii and in particular the bokeh. You have that lens so perhaps you can answer your own question here.
 
Character - "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual."

When apply that to a piece of gear it's distinctive quality i.e. character can be perceived as both good and bad. x-pro1 is distinctly bad taking from your example (of course someone else may perceive it as good)

So just because something has character doesn't necessarily make it good. It could be either.
 
I tend to think of "character" in the non-animal sense as being derived from the sense of reward that we get from an item's use. A steam locomotive has more character than an electric loco. The steam loco needs more effort and skill to operate it and from that we get a sense of satisfaction, even if vicariously. It's the same with other technologies, a large format view camera has a lot more character than the latest digital offering even though the digital has loads more features and settings, it is just easier to use and therefore there is less of a sense of achievement in its use. If you want to get a job done generally you don't want a lot of "character" (this often applies to humans too) but if you want to have fun then it's character all the way.
 
In the case of lenses, I think sometimes some of the qualities that are considered to be desirable can end up making images that look too clinical and clean. Ultra sharpness all the way across the frame, nice bright corners, total refusal to show flare etc. Great in some circumstances but sometimes, there's a certain charm/warmth that is attached to less than technically perfect images. One of my favourite Fuji lenses was the 18mm f/2. It gets a hammering in most reviews but I absolutely loved it, or at least I did for shooting certain things. I would say that lens' output has character. Of course, you can use a perfect lens and add some of these defects in afterwards but that is like adding some scrathces and crackles onto digitally produced music. It might end up with a similar end result but with non of the emotional attachment in producing it. I liken this a little to kids favourite teddies often being the thread bare one that's missing an ear and a leg rather than the nice clean shiny one fresh out the Disney factory. Sometimes you end up being attached to something despite rationally knowing full well something else is 'better'.

I don't know the X-Pro 1 but I have had the original Fuji X100. That camera definitely has character. As in, it's not just an object you can ignore. You're going to have to love it a bit to put up with it's foibles. It's like being in a volatile relationship. Great highs with wonderful output vs. the times when it's seems like it's half an hour behind you and you just want to throw it out the window.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
I tend to think of "character" in the non-animal sense as being derived from the sense of reward that we get from an item's use. A steam locomotive has more character than an electric loco. The steam loco needs more effort and skill to operate it and from that we get a sense of satisfaction, even if vicariously. It's the same with other technologies, a large format view camera has a lot more character than the latest digital offering even though the digital has loads more features and settings, it is just easier to use and therefore there is less of a sense of achievement in its use. If you want to get a job done generally you don't want a lot of "character" (this often applies to humans too) but if you want to have fun then it's character all the way.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
Character is very subjective, one person's character is another person's flaw. Character is generally something that makes someone or something different and unusual, or something that has qualities that are interesting and unusual (by definition). I've had several cars and motorbikes that have definitely had character, and it's a term that I used to describe them. But ask me to try and tell you what I meant by them having character and I'm stuck. They just had something that got under your skin. For example I swapped a Subaru Impreza WRX Sti for an M3 and there's not doubt that the M3 overall was a better car. But ask me which one I'd rather take out for an hour's blast and I'd choose the Scooby. Why? The Scooby had 'character 'and was 'raw' and put a bigger smile on my face, the M3 was more clinical perfection.
 
When does this “character” actually appears?


When something is current, people don’t tend to associate the word character with it. I foresee that we will look back on DSLR with the same “character” fondness like people do with film now.


This seems to apply for everything, not just camera, it goes for all kinds of things, cars (Have you see the price of a good condition Mk1 Ford Escort?), guitars, TV, Consoles. A new generations of games comes out with next gen graphics, that moment in time you think the old console in comparison looks crap, 30 years later is vintage and you get re-release of the NES Classic and people say they have character, people even pay big dollar now rigging up an old console to a CRT TV…..which btw, commands higher price because most of them have been destroyed/replaced now. Guitars are the same, they bring out a new model every year, better tuners, better pick ups, better finish etc etc, 30 years later the “worse” one becomes more desired because it had more character. In digital delays the goal is to delay a note more, the idea is simple, but a lot of people like analogue delays because it adds “character”, digital is too clean, even though the goal is to delay the original note and nothing else.


This even goes as far as faces, when you design a character, you don’t make the face perfectly symmetrical, with perfect skin, it looks fake. You add in flaws, you blemish the skin a little, you make one eye a mm or 2 higher on one side, you put in a mole etc.


The more I think of it, the more I think chasing this perfect looking photo game are for mugs if deep down we don’t want perfection.
 
Last edited:
I never got this "character" thing be it cars, cameras or other equipment. They are inanimate objects - tools to do a job and that is all. Maybe that is why I drive a Lexus and use a Nikon Digital camera, rather than drive an old Alfa Romeo and use an old 35mm film camera. With camera's - it is the end result ie the picture that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
SFTPhotography said:
I never got this "character" thing be it cars, cameras or other equipment. They are inanimate objects - tools to do a job and that is all.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Old cars break down a lot, that's not character its just crap. Film cameras are bettered by even phones these days :D

The best car I ever owned was a Lexus GS300SE - 77,000 miles in 3 yrs of just working perfectly ALL the time. Top Gear always slated them for lack of character, yet some of my mates' characterful similar spec BMWs Mercs and especially Audis all broke down in the time I had that Lexus; one BMW X5 was so 'characterful' his wife refused to drive it lol

Old, in anything, is just old and usually worse than new - take Stonehenge for instance, the Shard is far more useful and impressive and I have no idea why anyone would bother to look at some 5000 year old stone erection over the newer London skyline :D

Dave
 
In terms of electronics ... I always think of "character" as meaning something which isn't perfect and even has some flaws, but is a pleasure to use / listen to / look at.

Its the difference (to my mind) between photography as a science and photography as an art.
 
As the saying goes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”

And there is no accounting for taste so the only way you can resolve the question is if you can define ‘character’ and ‘flaw’ and assess against that.

Of course, people will then disagree about your definitions...
 
I think it's maybe worthwhile separating character into a few different things...

Looking at something like Fuji v Sony camera bodies I supposed many would say that they have very different characters with Fuji perhaps being the more obviously and overtly characterful with tactility and retro styling and old time aperture, shutter and ISO dials. There's that :D

With regard to lenses the character is maybe two fold, as per the Fuji camera there's tactility and character in the build, use and handling but lens character is also visible in photograph and to be honest it's this character that interests me more than having a few retro dials on the camera.

Looking at the older lenses I have they're often and pretty obviously nowhere near technically as good as the more modern lenses I have but they certainly give a different look particularly at the wider apertures. As some may know I have multiple 35 and 50mm lenses and although this baffles some it makes sense to me as they all give a slightly different look, as do my modern Voigtlander lenses.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that lens character is a flaw as some lenses, even modern ones, are specifically designed to give a look by companies that know what they're doing and are capable of making lenses that are technically very good as in neutral looking and sharp across the frame. So there is choice and art in the mix as well as technical expertise.

Raymond Lin said:
So it hit me, I think when people describe when something has character, they are not really thinking of them, or using them in a stressed, high pressure scenario, most of the time for a paid scenario. The character they are looking for, are tolerated in a leisure, take your time scenario.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I completely agree with you here Ray but for high pressure work you're probably right as you wont want to be messing about with MF too much in a high pressure situation but for paid work when there's more time the distinctive look you can get from something with character could be a plus.

As someone who shoots wedding and often does so with the lens wide open I'd have thought that you'd be able to see that the look you get could well be a USP :D Not that you'd want to try and shoot a wedding with a Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 but that lens is one of my favourites for the way portraits can look, there's character in the bokeh, the way the depth and light falls away and the transitions in the picture. That's just one example, for another picture I may prefer my Rokkor 50mm f1.7 MD or my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

There's even character in something like the Sony 55mm f1.8. That's an excellent lens and in every measurable way it just crushes the Rokkor 50mm f1.2 for technical quality. Some would say it's overly clinical and lacking character but I wouldn't, it just has a different character and maybe suits a different use and subject.
 
DG Phototraining said:
:agree:

Old cars break down a lot, that's not character its just crap. Film cameras are bettered by even phones these days :D

The best car I ever owned was a Lexus GS300SE - 77,000 miles in 3 yrs of just working perfectly ALL the time. Top Gear always slated them for lack of character, yet some of my mates' characterful similar spec BMWs Mercs and especially Audis all broke down in the time I had that Lexus; one BMW X5 was so 'characterful' his wife refused to drive it lol

Old, in anything, is just old and usually worse than new - take Stonehenge for instance, the Shard is far more useful and impressive and I have no idea why anyone would bother to look at some 5000 year old stone erection over the newer London skyline :D

Dave
Click to expand...

I've had plenty "characterful" mercedes. Toyota all the way for me. Random warning lights, failing to proceed, leaks, creaks, noises, complete breakdown is not something I want in a car - particularly at 2am in Southern France.

My GS250 - well it works and it does the nice stuff better than any Mercedes and the reliability stuff well, so far perfectly. A bit like my Nikon Cameras and Nikkor lenses. My characterful Ziess was a mess in the corners and only sharp in the middle. I'll take a pass. I like to have faith in my stuff knowing it works so I can use it without worry of drama.
 
DG Phototraining said:
:agree:

Old cars break down a lot, that's not character its just crap. Film cameras are bettered by even phones these days :D

The best car I ever owned was a Lexus GS300SE - 77,000 miles in 3 yrs of just working perfectly ALL the time. Top Gear always slated them for lack of character, yet some of my mates' characterful similar spec BMWs Mercs and especially Audis all broke down in the time I had that Lexus; one BMW X5 was so 'characterful' his wife refused to drive it lol

Old, in anything, is just old and usually worse than new - take Stonehenge for instance, the Shard is far more useful and impressive and I have no idea why anyone would bother to look at some 5000 year old stone erection over the newer London skyline :D

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm not sure many people would equate a modern BMW, Audi or Merc being the characterful options! None of them are exactly likely to stir the soul.

In fact in car terms, I don't think something has to break down a lot to have character, it just needs to be something that's a bit different to the norm, not the default choice. For example an old V5 Golf would be far more interesting than the equivalent GTi at the time. It would be no faster and drink more fuel but would be much more interesting. I used to love my old Elise. Many things about it were utter crap, it let water in, in deafened you, it was cold in winter and hot in summer and you fell in and out of it. When someone drove into it, I drove around in a Cayman for a week or two while it was being repaired. The Porsche was better in almost every single way but I couldn't wait to get my Elise back.

Maybe I'm just a nostalgic fool :)

A glass of your finest, newest whisky please barman!
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I'm not sure many people would equate a modern BMW, Audi or Merc being the characterful options! None of them are exactly likely to stir the soul.

In fact in car terms, I don't think something has to break down a lot to have character, it just needs to be something that's a bit different to the norm, not the default choice. For example an old V5 Golf would be far more interesting than the equivalent GTi at the time. It would be no faster and drink more fuel but would be much more interesting. I used to love my old Elise. Many things about it were utter crap, it let water in, in deafened you, it was cold in winter and hot in summer and you fell in and out of it. When someone drove into it, I drove around in a Cayman for a week or two while it was being repaired. The Porsche was better in almost every single way but I couldn't wait to get my Elise back.

Maybe I'm just a nostalgic fool :)

A glass of your finest, newest whisky please barman!
Click to expand...

LOL. Elise now uses Toyota engines so more reliable than any Porsche. In fact if you want a sports car that will just work and give you years of hassle free driving pleasure I reckon an Evora is probably the way to go. German cars are hillariously unreliable and one of the benefits of Brexit will hopefully be having less of them on our roads.
 
Last edited:
Hi, this character thing is very complex and many-sided. Taking the car analogy, my Leica M9 is like a Mercedes G or Land Rover defender, having lots of character. I like the rendering and the handling, having used Leica since 1988.

The lenses, too, have character, the question being, however, whether this character can be consistently expressed and can be appreciated by viewers.

There is character, and practicality. - Which is why I also have a SONY A7R2 and a Nikon D800 (for cars in motion).

I am a hobby photographer. A professional would not use a collection of equipment like I do. He/she uses one supplier, and can handle the equipment blind-folded.

A professional driver, such as a taxi-driver, does not care about character, but economics. A professional racing driver has one car (and a backup) and not 10 or 20 like some collectors I meet.

So, if one appreciates character and is not forced to be maximally efficient as a professional, one should do it!

Car-wise, my character car is a Mercedes 300SE from 1990. The practical one is a Mercedes E V8 Estate. And my wife has the practical VW Passat estate. Women are always mor practical, mine using only Nikon.

(By the way, I never had reliability issues with my Mercedes cars in Germany. But they need their maintenance. Mercedes shops are good at this (and at writing bills).)
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
LOL. Elise now uses Toyota engines so more reliable than any Porsche. In fact if you want a sports car that will just work and give you years of hassle free driving pleasure I reckon an Evora is probably the way to go. German cars are hillariously unreliable and one of the benefits of Brexit will hopefully be having less of them on our roads.
Click to expand...

Yes, no, maybe. But honestly, I don't think breaking down a lot is part of the appeal of anything. I was trying to dissociate that aspect because I don't think people find that aspect endearing and in all honesty I've had boring cars that break down as well as interesting cars that don't.

There is something to be said for nostalgia though. I do think things get more interesting as they become older. They certainly don't become better (except maybe whisky!) but they do take on a certain charm. Or at least for sentimental people like me. A guy I know until recently had an early 90's Merc with almost 400,000 miles on the clock. It was broadly in one piece and relatively reliable and worth approximately 16p but I love stuff like that. Feels like it has a story to tell. Would find it far more interesting than a brand new equivalent model though I know which one I'd rather drive to the south of France in!
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
. Feels like it has a story to tell. Would find it far interesting that a brand new equivalent model though I know which one I'd rather drive to the south of France in!
Click to expand...

I'd have kittens doing that - breaking down abroad is an absolute ball ache of the highest order. Taking the risk by going in a much older car - dunno if I could as I'd worry the whole time about whether it would make it without breaking down but I do get the point and gist of your point of view.
 
justpix said:
(By the way, I never had reliability issues with my Mercedes cars in Germany. But they need their maintenance. Mercedes shops are good at this (and at writing bills).)
Click to expand...

2 out of 4 (all relatively new 2005 onwards) has had serious issues that proved a nightmare cost and time wise. I wouldn't have another myself.
 
SFTPhotography said:
2 out of 4 (all relatively new 2005 onwards) has had serious issues that proved a nightmare cost and time wise. I wouldn't have another myself.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry for that. But maybe this a question of local support quality. I have alway been satisfied (and I am not paid by Mercedes).
 
SFTPhotography said:
I'd have kittens doing that - breaking down abroad is an absolute ball ache of the highest order. Taking the risk by going in a much older car - dunno if I could as I'd worry the whole time about whether it would make it without breaking down but I do get the point and gist of your point of view.
Click to expand...

I was saying I'd rather go in the new one. Too subtle. For the exact same reason too. Just like, I'd rather use a D850 to shoot someone's wedding or event where the job just needs doing, no fuss but might still prefer to just take an old film camera out for a stroll.
 
Last edited:
But to get back to the topic of character, maybe there is a trade-off between character and practicality/efficiency.

Reliabilty of my character Merc for long-distance travel is not a topic for me nowadays. 1983 was the last time I went to Portugal by car (trouble-free Mercedes ride).

Nowadays I take a plane, take a rental locally, and get a practical car (because I am thrifty ... ). ;)
 
justpix said:
Oh, sorry for that. But maybe this a question of local support quality. I have alway been satisfied (and I am not paid by Mercedes).
Click to expand...

The service quality definitely matters to the ownership experience but the number of faults and defects and the physical reliability of some cars generally regarded as being quality products doesn't seem to be supported by the various reliability surveys.

It's interesting that that's been the case for years and yet some brands seem able to retain their quality image. I've never believed in the whole German quality mystique, there's no denying that in the eyes of many they make desirable cars but in many instances they're middling to poor in terms of actual reliability.

My Elise had a K series engine and it was no problem at all :D but I couldn't take that car out without something going twang or bang or otherwise meaning a trip to the dealership. It certainly wasn't as reliable as the Elan SE it replaced which I did over 100k miles in.

PS.
Just in case people are put off buying an Elise. My main problem with the car was that in some conditions it was either completely or just about undriveable and in others it was a challenge :D For example my car was an early one and it had the aluminium and ceramic brakes which I think they later moved away from. Anyway, in the wet the brakes just went on holiday, I remember getting into the car in the rain and having no brakes at all while getting out of the car park at work and that was just not practical as I wanted a car I could drive most of the year not just on sunny days when the road conditions were just right.
 
Last edited:
Snip:
justpix said:
Nowadays I take a plane, take a rental locally, and get a practical car (because I am thrifty ... ). ;)
Click to expand...

The thought that always amuses me is that the plane people fly off on holiday in is probably around 20 years old, if the taxi driver arrived to take them to the airport in a car that old they'd probably refuse to get in it! :D
 
Mr Badger said:
Ah yes, Lexus, I believe Alan Partridge speaks very highly of them. ;)
Click to expand...
Hi, Lexus Cars are extremely high quality. In 1990, when Toyota brought out the Lexus LS400, Mercedes was stunned. They redevelopped the then S-Class W140. I knew this from a friend in senior Mercedes management.

Lexus is the car industry world quality standard. - Why do I not own one? The next dealer is 30 miles from where I live.

And here comes practicality again ... ;)
 
i think character is easy to simplify. if you own it has "character" if someone else owns it its "crap" :D:D

I reckon we use the "character" term to justify keeping something that's just "crap" but we can't admit it or throw/get rid of it.

me..."my clio has character" :)

everyone else - "scrap it not worth £100" :eek:
 
justpix said:
Hi, Lexus Cars are extremely high quality. In 1990, when Toyota brought out the Lexus LS400, Mercedes was stunned. They redevelopped the then S-Class W140. I knew this from a friend in senior Mercedes management.

Lexus is the car industry world quality standard. - Why do I not own one? The next dealer is 30 miles from where I live.

And here comes practicality again ... ;)
Click to expand...

Trust me - they are fantastic cars and the dealers bend over backwards to help you in a way I have not experienced anywhere else. I have one and the nearest dealer is 30 miles away - I can service it a Toyota dealer just down the road and maintain the warranty. It drives better than my Mercedes, rides better, is quieter but more fun to drive on the twisties, is clearly made better as is actually just nicer. Never mind the fact it will work and give me reliable motoring for years to come.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Trust me - they are fantastic cars and the dealers bend over backwards to help you in a way I have not experienced anywhere else. I have one and the nearest dealer is 30 miles away - I can service it a Toyota dealer just down the road and maintain the warranty.
Click to expand...
Oh, I will check if this is possible here in Germany, too. - Actually, longer term I plan to have just one car - and I have the Lexus RX 450 h in mind... ---

What I have learned from this: next time I choose more neutral ground, talk about Swedish cars like Saab ... :)
 
justpix said:
talk about Swedish cars like Saab
Click to expand...
I had four of them from around 1998 onwards until recently, in total I covered somewhere in the region of 700,000 miles in them, possibly even more than that (I was regularly doing more than 60k miles a year for many years!) ... quirky cars for sure, but immense fun to drive. Very, very comfortable too - oh and certainly in may case very reliable as well!

As for character of photographic equipment (vain attempt at getting back on topic ...) - I've never really thought of it tbh, about the only thing I may apply that to is lenses, and then I'm only interested in how they render or work (depending on usage).
 
PaulButler said:
I had four of them from around 1998 onwards until recently, in total I covered somewhere in the region of 700,000 miles in them, possibly even more than that (I was regularly doing more than 60k miles a year for many years!) ... quirky cars for sure, but immense fun to drive. Very, very comfortable too - oh and certainly in may case very reliable as well!

.
Click to expand...

Sweedish cars tend to be comfortable. I had a Volvo S80 - in many ways it had the measure of the german makes equivilent except it wasn't as nimble to drive but the seats and interior build were more robust with less rattles etc. It's gearbox went bang but until that it didn't miss a beat and I'd have another Volvo in a heart beat if I couldn't afford a Lexus again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top