If you, the reader, have been following along at home, you knew this was coming.
I really shouldn't have, but I did.
Mainly because it's well, fun.
Except for my wallet, which is on life support.
Not sure if it's going make it, poor thing.
So anyways, a couple of weeks ago, I got this:
Your typical olden days twin lens reflex camera that shoots 120 film.
As usual, I start to read up on it, and like most things camera, info is sort of vague.
The Yashicaflex is a middle of the road camera in the line, and a bit older.
Word is, it's not built as well as say, a Yashica Mat, which came later and was intended to compete in the upscale market.
The thing is, no one ever actually says specifically what it is about the camera that makes it less well made or why another model is more desirable.
So me being me, I had to find out for myself:
The D is supposed to be between the Yashicaflex and the Yashica Mat.
Lemme stop and say this first.
Okay, I didn't say it first, I actually read this on the rangefinder forum, and it's nothing you haven't heard before because it pertains to bicycles too.
I shall paraphrase: there's two kinds of snobs, one which looks down on those who don't have the best equipment, and the other is the one who gets similar results with so called inferior equipment. The latter because he/she is so sure that those who have better equipment don't know how/don't have the talent to use it.
Sort of like the newfangled carbonized bicycle dude who looks down at that funny vintage bicycle and the guy on the vintage bicycle who drops the dude on the carbonized bicycle.
Then there's forks like me who own both; a carbonized bicycle and an old steel bicycle and I'm perfectly happy riding both.
When I ride them.
Which hasn't been lately.
More on this later.
So with cameras, I'm pretty happy with both; the cheap stuff and the really good stuff.
As long as they suit my requirements.
Okay, not really.
I'll admit, there is a snob factor involved.
More on this later too.
So anyways, the Yashica D is a nice camera:
As far as being built better, I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
I expected the D to be crafted.
It is, but so is the 'Flex.
The D does have some extra stuff like dials instead of levers to set aperture and shutter.
There's also a display on top the viewing lens that shows both:
Relatively minor things you really don't need, unless you really need them.
The D also resets the film counter automatically which again is convenient but not essential.
The cameras share the same lens:
So it's not like you're getting better results with the more expensive model.
I've gone through all this because there was one internetz resource that said to sell the Flex and save up for a D or better.
I would have been perfectly happy with the Flex.
I am happier with the D.
I am not ecstatic though.
More on ecstatic later later.
I suppose the point of all this is that bigger doesn't always mean better, especially in Cameraland.
Especially if you are shooting film.
I'm guilty like everyone else of wanting the bling but bling doesn't always bring nice images.
So I suppose I'm a bit of both snobs, liking the nice stuff but believing that the work or oeuvre talks.
I am a hybrid!
Not only am I Supersonic on my carbonized bicycle, but I am a Super Camera Snob as well!
I should put that on a shirt.
Wait, you have not yet seen the lengths I am capable of going to.
Or maybe you have.
Up there in they sky!
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
What kind of camera is that hanging around his neck?
Super Camera Snob!
Super? it's not even a Leica.
So anyways, I've learned a lot of lessons in my camera acquisition journey.
Thankfully I've been spending my money and not yours.
Then again, if it was your money, I'd have learned more and have a lot more cameras.
If you know what I mean.
More on all that other stuff later.