Character or Flaw?

[snerkler]

When does this “character” actually appears?


When something is current, people don’t tend to associate the word character with it.

I disagree. As per my post above I've had both cars and bikes that had character, and were brand new at the time. The XPro 1 was new when people were talking about it having character. Old is not to be confused with character.

 

[Raymond Lin]

i think character is easy to simplify. if you own it has "character" if someone else owns it its "crap"

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"

Lol that I think is the elephant in the room.

 

[snerkler]

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.

So a so called inanimate object has never invoked and emotion or excitement? Even noises can have character, take a chevy V8 for example, the noise from that has far more character than a straight 4 cylinder. A boxer 4 cylinder also has far more character than a straight 4. For me things like this are not just tools, they invoke an excitement or a passion. YMMV.

 

[SFTPhotography]

So a so called inanimate object has never invoked and emotion or excitement? Even noises can have character, take a chevy V8 for example, the noise from that has far more character than a straight 4 cylinder. A boxer 4 cylinder also has far more character than a straight 4. For me things like this are not just tools, they invoke an excitement or a passion. YMMV.

I do take the point - but it's your reaction to that sound - the engine in itself doesn't have character - it's just a selection of moving parts - you might have an emotional response to that sound but many non car folk don't. Also you hear that sound when you drive it so you feel the acceleration, motion as the revs rise and fall as you control the car.

I doubt if you played a CD of a V8 engine revving and dropping you'd listen to it long because it's not linked to the experience of actually driving. I do like driving so I do enjoy a large engine not just for the sound, but the way the power is delivered

With respect to camera's - it is the picture that comes off the camera - and that comes mainly from the photographers vision, composotion, use of the camera and subsequent developing/processing.

 

[Cagey75]

With respect to camera's - it is the picture that comes off the camera - and that comes mainly from the photographers vision, composotion, use of the camera and subsequent developing/processing.

This is true, but some cameras have that 'character' in the output. Why do so many agree that the likes of the xpro1 has this character? It's not just by coincidence. There's a look and feel about the images it produces that differentiates it even from other Fuji cameras. Therefore it's that sensor that holds the character, not the camera body - I hated holding that thing, but loved the end results.

 

[SFTPhotography]

This is true, but some cameras have that 'character' in the output. Why do so many agree that the likes of the xpro1 has this character? It's not just by coincidence. There's a look and feel about the images it produces that differentiates it even from other Fuji cameras. Therefore it's that sensor that holds the character, not the camera body - I hated holding that thing, but loved the end results.

True - it is maybe just the use of the word "character" that jarrs with me as I associate that word with living things, people, animals etc as opposed to cameras and indeed cars.

 

[FruitFlakes]

“The material object of observation, the bicycle or rotisserie, can’t be right or wrong. Molecules are molecules. They don’t have any ethical codes to follow except those people give them. The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn’t any other test. If the machine produces tranquillity it’s right. If it disturbs you it’s wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed. The test of the machine’s always your own mind. There isn’t any other test.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Just read this book and the above quote stood out to me, especially given the thread's topic. How much of an object's character is inherent or do we project some of our own values to it, so what we perceive as character within an object is simply a reflection of the values that we prioritise? Especially in the context of the book, where there's emphasis on the care a craftsman puts into their work results in the finished object possessing qualities that we subconsciously recognise.

 

[snerkler]

I do take the point - but it's your reaction to that sound - the engine in itself doesn't have character - it's just a selection of moving parts - you might have an emotional response to that sound but many non car folk don't. Also you hear that sound when you drive it so you feel the acceleration, motion as the revs rise and fall as you control the car.

I doubt if you played a CD of a V8 engine revving and dropping you'd listen to it long because it's not linked to the experience of actually driving. I do like driving so I do enjoy a large engine not just for the sound, but the way the power is delivered

With respect to camera's - it is the picture that comes off the camera - and that comes mainly from the photographers vision, composotion, use of the camera and subsequent developing/processing.

I think maybe we just see things differently tbh. Yes I can just listen to the sound of an engine and get a thrill from it, and yes I can listen to an engine and say it has character. To me it's the whole package and you can't separate the "moving parts" from the sound as it's those moving parts and the specific firing patterns that create the sound. But this is just one example of course.

However, back on to topic, whether a camera has character I'm not so sure. I can enjoy using one camera more than another but I wouldn't personally call that character. However, some camera/lens combos can produce images that have a certain character so in that regard I guess you could say the camera/lens has character. But herein lies the issue with character. Not everyone will necessarily 'see it', and as you point out which part of it actually has character is up for debate

 

[justpix]

Hi, above I said, I was going to show some examples of lenses,to get away from cars (which I like, and I would like to thank the owners for sharing their personal experiences ... ---)

But, back to lenses. The Leitz Elmar 4/90 M mount from 1956 might be called a character lens. Beautifully made, endearing German quality engineering from the 50s...


On the Leica M9, f 4:

f 8:

f 4:

f 8:

f 4:



Overall, open, this lens has a creamy/dreamy/hazy character, which might be used for portraits with a vintage look ... ---

 

[Mr Badger]

Some lens designs do have a distinct character (or properties if you don't like the 'C' word), for instance the 80mm Yashikor triplet lens on this 1964 Yashica 635 TLR camera gives a rather distinctive swirly bokeh when wide open, which can be used for effect to suit the subject... time tunnel portal anyone?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

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.

They are inanimate objects but that doesn't mean you can't gain pleasure from using them! Cars for instance; you say the Lexus is the best car you have had because it gets you from A to B reliably, maybe that is all you want from your car but I certainly want more and I have to say the Lexus is an extremely good choice as an A to B car but it possibly the most boring un-involved driving experience I have ever had! Some people enjoy the experience of actually driving and what the car (tool) can feed back to them.

Likewise with photography - to some it is the end result that gives them pleasure but to others it is also the capturing of the image that gives pleasure. Using the camera and having to work it's controls to get the best from it can give immense satisfaction - let's face it, most digital cameras these day's give respectable results when used as a point and shoot; there is no 'crafting' at the image taking point of the photograph.

Film cameras are bettered by even phones these days

Old, in anything, is just old and usually worse than new

Dave

That depends what you call 'bettered'. You surely can see a difference between a digital image and a film image? The film image to me will always give the better 'image' than a digital one, so the phone camera is no where near as good as the film camera and no digital camera can match the film look in it's entirety.

Old anything is not always worse than new - as previously mentioned a vinyl record on a decent turntable played through a valve amplifier has a far better sound in every respect than anything digitally recorded played through modern electronics.

 

[LeeRatters]

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.

Daily Ford Focus - Comfortable, quiet, stereo, heated windscreen/mirrors, electric windows, air con, intermittent wipers, working fuel guage! trip computer, reversing lights, bright headlights! brake servo, centre console, door storage pockets....
Occasional Weekend Mk1 Escort - None of the above

One is easy to drive. The other is fun to drive.

i think character is easy to simplify. if you own it has "character" if someone else owns it its "crap"

 

[SFTPhotography]

They are inanimate objects but that doesn't mean you can't gain pleasure from using them! Cars for instance; you say the Lexus is the best car you have had because it gets you from A to B reliably, maybe that is all you want from your car but I certainly want more and I have to say the Lexus is an extremely good choice as an A to B car but it possibly the most boring un-involved driving experience I have ever had! Some people enjoy the experience of actually driving and what the car (tool) can feed back to them..

Actually as a steer it's better than a Mercedes (and I've sampled the lot from 55amg's to 4pot C classes). If you want uninvolved try an Audi S6.

Likewise with photography - to some it is the end result that gives them pleasure but to others it is also the capturing of the image that gives pleasure. Using the camera and having to work it's controls to get the best from it can give immense satisfaction - let's face most digital cameras these day's give respectable results when used as a point and shoot; there is no 'crafting' at the imaging taking point of the photograph.


.

You compose, focus, expose. That is the basics. Exposure you control 2 things, maybe 3 if you use a digital camera so you can control the ISO, the aperture and shutter being the other too. A large format camera has shift movements too I guess so 4. The compose and framing is the key, and in the case of landscapes the conditions and when you shoot.

So in my world the character comes from the conditions, scene, composition and processing.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Actually as a steer it's better than a Mercedes (and I've sampled the lot from 55amg's to 4pot C classes). If you want uninvolved try an Audi S6.



You compose, focus, expose. That is the basics. Exposure you control 2 things, maybe 3 if you use a digital camera so you can control the ISO, the aperture and shutter being the other too. A large format camera has shift movements too I guess so 4. The compose and framing is the key, and in the case of landscapes the conditions and when you shoot.

............maybe you do but the taking part for me is; How does the camera feel in my hands, how do the controls operate (do they feel like precisely engineered components), what is the view like through the camera, what's the focusing screen like, what does the focus action on the lens feel like - is it nicely weighted and damped? like wise the aperture control and readouts of the settings all make a difference to me.

These are just a few examples of how the tool can feel different; its not just compose, focus, expose - it is how it feels to do each of those three things.

 

[SFTPhotography]

............maybe you do but the taking part for me is; How does the camera feel in my hands, how do the controls operate (do they feel like precisely engineered components), what is the view like through the camera, what's the focusing screen like, what does the focus action on the lens feel like - is it nicely weighted and damped? like wise the aperture control and readouts of the settings all make a difference to me.

These are just a few examples of how the tool can feel different; its not just compose, focus, expose - it is how it feels to do each of those three things.

I’m a more end of result kind of guy and use the equipment I use almost without thinking as I’m so used to the controls etc. I want to be focusing on the landscape and exposure not how the controls differ between one and another. Hence I buy cameras from the same maker as they’re laid out the same.

I’m a landscape photographer first and foremost and I chose equipment based on ability, build quality and yes how it finds in the hand (big SLRs as opposed to small cameras work for me)

I do tend to buy the higher end stuff (1.4 primes, 2.8 zooms) so it’s all reasonably quality with nice precise controls - I don’t see that as character and I’d expect something expensive to be good and well made.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I’m a more end of result kind of guy and use the equipment I use almost without thinking as I’m so used to the controls etc. I want to be focusing on the landscape and exposure not how the controls differ between one and another. Hence I buy cameras from the same maker as they’re laid out the same.

I’m a landscape photographer first and foremost and I chose equipment based on ability, build quality and yes how it finds in the hand (big SLRs as opposed to small cameras work for me)

I do tend to buy the higher end stuff (1.4 primes, 2.8 zooms) so it’s all reasonably quality with nice precise controls - I don’t see that as character and I’d expect something expensive to be good and well made.

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

 

[justpix]

Hi, handling is very much part of the character of a camera. We all have haptic memories and haptic preferences ... I like the compactness and precision feel of a Leica.

Other cameras I can (and do) live with, like Sony and Nikon.

Ergonomically I am robust, having worked with DOS 2.1., IBM 3270 screens, (and driven cars with unsynchronized gearboxes).

Handling preferences are very much a matter of taste, and as they used to say de gustibus non est disputandum ... ---

 

[simon ess]

On this subject I have come to the conclusion that we are, spiritually, either germanic or latin.

 

[Raymond Lin]

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

What? Sorry I call BS, please provide specific examples.

You comparing a 1Dx mk2 to a old 1D?

One is basically a mini computer with a billion more transistors, more screens, more everything vs a light box with a winder on steroids. There’s really not much to go wrong in film cameras some of the older manual ones don’t even need batteries!

Or are you talking about the 35L mk2 vs old manual 35mm lenses? Have you seen the tear down on the mk2? How they talk about it’s over engineered like no lens they’ve ever seen for a prime this small?

Just because a lens has a metal barrel doesn’t mean it’s well built inside.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

@SFTPhotography - just read my last replies to you and it sounds like I'm 'having a go'. I'm not; your needs from photography are different to mine (assume you are proffesional?) You make money from selling your images so the end result is vital to you, photography is a hobby to me so the end result isn't as important but the enjoyment I get from the hobby is and using the tool is a big part of that.

Hope this helps explain

 

[Fraser Euan White]

What? Sorry I call BS, please provide specific examples.

You comparing a 1Dx mk2 to a old 1D?

One is basically a mini computer with a billion more transistors, more screens, more everything vs a light box with a winder on steroids. There’s really not much to go wrong in film cameras some of the older manual ones don’t even need batteries!

Or are you talking about the 35L mk2 vs old manual 35mm lenses? Have you seen the tear down on the mk2? How they talk about it’s over engineered like no lens they’ve ever seen for a prime this small?

Just because a lens has a metal barrel doesn’t mean it’s well built inside.

The Nikon AI & AIS lenses were the pinnacle of Nikon build quality - Likewise the Nikon F3 is widely regarded as the best built Nikon ever. My F3 and 50mm AIS lens is just so much better built than my D4 & 24-70mm F2.8 - you can instantly 'feel' the better build.

Likewise the Canon F1n was probably their best built camera body and is superior to anything they build these days in terms of engineering quality.

Look at Leica film cameras or Rolleiflex TLR's - then you see what build quality is (I'm not talking about performance here - don't mix up masses of features and performance with build quality). How many modern DSLR's will still be working in 50 years time?

 

[Raymond Lin]

The Nikon AI & AIS lenses were the pinnacle of Nikon build quality - Likewise the Nikon F3 is widely regarded as the best built Nikon ever. My F3 and 50mm AIS lens is just so much better built than my D4 & 24-70mm F2.8 - you can instantly 'feel' the better build.

Likewise the Canon F1 new was probably their best built camera body and is superior to anything they build these days in terms of engineering quality.

Look at Leica film cameras or Rolleiflex TLR's - then you see what build quality is (I'm not talking about performance here). How many modern DSLR's will still be working in 50 years time?

Shock horror simplier things lasts for years, there’s less to go wrong. I have a woodern stick that works as well now as it did 10 years ago too.

you know that latest Nikon PR thing re D850 and how they stress test them?

I doubt any of those you mention will survive that.

Remember that old Digital Rev video where they set a 7D on fire, put it in water, freeze it and then the mirror still works?

You confident any of the cameras you listed will survive that?

I doubt it.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The Nikon AI & AIS lenses were the pinnacle of Nikon build quality - Likewise the Nikon F3 is widely regarded as the best built Nikon ever. My F3 and 50mm AIS lens is just so much better built than my D4 & 24-70mm F2.8 - you can instantly 'feel' the better build.

Likewise the Canon F1 new was probably their best built camera body and is superior to anything they build these days in terms of engineering quality.

Look at Leica film cameras or Rolleiflex TLR's - then you see what build quality is (I'm not talking about performance here). How many modern DSLR's will still be working in 50 years time?

This is all actually very true but newer zooms are designed around autofocus - hence the short throw of the focus ring and lack of accurate markings.

However measure the build in a different way and a new Sigma ART or 50 1.4 will be optically in a different planet - more resolving power - sharper centre to edge, more flare resistant so in someways the build could be deemed better - it depends what you measure build by.

I bought a new 70 to 200 2.8e. Lovely thing - excellent uniform sharpness - lovely colour rendition but there is more plastic in the construction than i thought - but it’s been dropped and bashed around and still works perfectly so in terms of robustness stacks up well as my rough treatment hasn’t decentered it

 

[Raymond Lin]

This is all actually very true but newer zooms are designed around autofocus - hence the short throw of the focus ring and lack of accurate markings.

However measure the build in a different way and a new Sigma ART or 50 1.4 will be optically in a different planet - more resolving power - sharper centre to edge, more flare resistant so in someways the build could be deemed better - it depends what you measure build by.

I bought a new 70 to 200 2.8e. Lovely thing - excellent uniform sharpness - lovely colour rendition but there is more plastic in the construction than i thought - but it’s been dropped and bashed around and still works perfectly so in terms of robustness stacks up well as my rough treatment hasn’t decentered it

Zeiss Otus.

/mic drop.

 

[niko]

build quality is an odd thing-its more the view of strength/quality by consumers than the reality.
modern plastics are way stronger than the thin metals or glass used in phones for example but because glass/metal feels premium its seen as being better quality and phones are using things that break/bend more easily to make them feel better. I think the view extends into camera build as well.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

This is all actually very true but newer zooms are designed around autofocus - hence the short throw of the focus ring and lack of accurate markings.

However measure the build in a different way and a new Sigma ART or 50 1.4 will be optically in a different planet - more resolving power - sharper centre to edge, more flare resistant so in someways the build could be deemed better - it depends what you measure build by.

I bought a new 70 to 200 2.8e. Lovely thing - excellent uniform sharpness - lovely colour rendition but there is more plastic in the construction than i thought - but it’s been dropped and bashed around and still works perfectly so in terms of robustness stacks up well as my rough treatment hasn’t decentered it

Without a shadow of a doubt if the performance of a lens is judged by 'numerical' statistics the modern designs are superior and so they should be - they are designed on a computer capable of billions of calculations and polished using precision CNC machines. However the numerical statistics do not make a good image; what is pleasing to an individuals eye is far more than this and is quite often not quantifiable.

This again goes back to 'character' - focusing a modern lens involves the press of a button where as focusing a MF lens involves turning a barrel and how nice that action feels on quality lenses.

Again, performance is not the same as build quality.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Zeiss Otus.

/mic drop.

No where near as nicely constructed as the Medium Format Zeiss lenses of a few decades ago

 

[Raymond Lin]

No where near as nicely constructed as the Medium Format Zeiss lenses of a few decades ago

Are you judging them by just the outer barrel and not any of the internals?

Are you now comparing lenses from different formats?

 

[snerkler]

The Nikon AI & AIS lenses were the pinnacle of Nikon build quality - Likewise the Nikon F3 is widely regarded as the best built Nikon ever. My F3 and 50mm AIS lens is just so much better built than my D4 & 24-70mm F2.8 - you can instantly 'feel' the better build.

Likewise the Canon F1n was probably their best built camera body and is superior to anything they build these days in terms of engineering quality.

Look at Leica film cameras or Rolleiflex TLR's - then you see what build quality is (I'm not talking about performance here - don't mix up masses of features and performance with build quality). How many modern DSLR's will still be working in 50 years time?

Are newer Nikon's build quality inferior or do they just feel inferior because they're plastic and lighter? I must admit that I'm often disappointed by the newer Nikon lenses as they do feel a bit cheap, but whether this translates to poor build I don't know? I've not had a Nikon lens fail me yet tbh.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

build quality is an odd thing-its more the view of strength/quality by consumers than the reality.
modern plastics are way stronger than the thin metals or glass used in phones for example but because glass/metal feels premium its seen as being better quality and phones are using things that break/bend more easily to make them feel better. I think the view extends into camera build as well.

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

 

[Raymond Lin]

Without a shadow of a doubt if the performance of a lens is judged by 'numerical' statistics the modern designs are superior and so they should be - they are designed on a computer capable of billions of calculations and polished using precision CNC machines. However the numerical statistics do not make a good image; what is pleasing to an individuals eye is far more than this and is quite often not quantifiable.

This again goes back to 'character' - focusing a modern lens involves the press of a button where as focusing a MF lens involves turning a barrel and how nice that action feels on quality lenses.

Again, performance is not the same as build quality.

I don't think you are thinking about them in a fair way.

50 year old lenses are all manual, they are shooting film, 1 shot at a time, in the life time (50 years?) of them they might get through about 1000 rolls of film? What's that 36000 shots? I can do that in a few months. Modern auto focuses lenses do a LOT more work, a lot more stressed environment, moves a lot faster inside. You are not standing still, compose, turn slowly, shots a shot and put it away. Some photographers may just have it set to F8 and leave it there all the time. There is hardly anything to move internally, manual focus meaning nothing is moving inside and at F8 nothing needs to move. These days I am shooting F/1.2, F/1.4, the auto focus move the internal elements dozens of time in a split second than may be these old manual lenses in a week.

Plus all these new professional lenses are weather sealed.

Build quality is more than what it feels in your hand, sitting around taking the 50,000 shots over 50 years really is better build than 150,000 photos and still going strong after 3 years?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Are you judging them by just the outer barrel and not any of the internals?

Are you now comparing lenses from different formats?

No Raymond.............I'm comparing 'build quality' NOT performance which you seem to be getting confused over! I have said the performance of the new is superior in numerical/design terms but not the craftsmanship of construction!

 

[Raymond Lin]

No Raymond.............I'm comparing 'build quality' NOT performance which you seem to be getting confused over! I have said the performance of the new is superior in numerical/design terms but not the craftsmanship of construction!

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

This post suggest you care more how it feel in your hand, aka the outer barrel than what's inside.

Read this and you might appreciate some real engineering. Beauty isn't just skin deep.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

I'll save you some time and quote the conclusion.

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.

Sometimes things are expensive because they’re worth it. Sometimes they’re heavy because they’re so solidly constructed. This is one of those times.

You probably hate it though because it has a plastic barrel.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I don't think you are thinking about them in a fair way.

50 year old lenses are all manual, they are shooting film, 1 shot at a time, in the life time (50 years?) of them they might get through about 1000 rolls of film? What's that 36000 shots? I can do that in a few months. Modern auto focuses lenses do a LOT more work, a lot more stressed environment, moves a lot faster inside. You are not standing still, compose, turn slowly, shots a shot and put it away. Some photographers may just have it set to F8 and leave it there all the time. There is hardly anything to move internally, manual focus meaning nothing is moving inside and at F8 nothing needs to move. These days I am shooting F/1.2, F/1.4, the auto focus move the internal elements dozens of time in a split second than may be these old manual lenses in a week.

Plus all these new professional lenses are weather sealed.

Build quality is more than what it feels in your hand, sitting around taking the 50,000 shots over 50 years really is better build than 150,000 photos and still going strong after 3 years?

See my previous reply:

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

 

[Raymond Lin]

See my previous reply:

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.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

This post suggest you care more how it feel in your hand, aka the outer barrel than what's inside.

Read this and you might appreciate some real engineering. Beauty isn't just skin deep.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

I'll save you some time and quote the conclusion.



You probably hate it though because it has a plastic barrel.

I should have learn't from past discussions with you Raymond!

Yet again you are on about lens design - we would still be living in caves if we didn't advance in design and improved materials over the years!

I'm on about the craftsmanship in a product and the discussion is about 'character' so how it feels in the hand is vitally important - if you prefer the 'feel' of plastics then so be it but I appreciated the 'skill' in construction working with materials that weren't just moulded; This is what I refer to as the appreciation of build quality.

Going back to cars - a fuel injection system is far superior in performance to a carburettor but the ingenuity and mechanical engineering of the carburettor is far more skilled and characterful.

 

[Cagey75]

I thought this was about character, turns out it's just another gear thread, oh well.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I thought this was about character, turns out it's just another gear thread, oh well.

Hi keith - good point

I have tried to explain in my previous post as to why the 'feel' of a product and an appreciation of it's craftsmanship 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 :-(

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Some wonderfully characterful replies to the op

 

[Raymond Lin]

I should have learn't from past discussions with you Raymond!

Yet again you are on about lens design - we would still be living in caves if we didn't advance in design and improved materials over the years!

I'm on about the craftsmanship in a product and the discussion is about 'character' so how it feels in the hand is vitally important - if you prefer the 'feel' of plastics then so be it but I appreciated the 'skill' in construction working with materials that weren't just moulded is what I refer to as the appreciation of build quality.

Going back to cars - a fuel injection system is far superior in performance to a carburettor but the ingenuity and mechanical engineering of the carburettor is far more skilled and characterful.

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

I am talking about exactly what you are talking about. Build quality. (unless you think build quality is only skin deep)

So now you are talking about just how it feels in the hand and only how it feels with character?

Which one is it? I am confused.

Could you pick a goal post and stick to it please?