As bling generally refers to something attention-grabbing, usually shiny, pointless and tacky, I recokon the new "white" limited edition Leica M8.2 fits the bill perfectly. I'm not taking a pop at the camera as it produces superb results. However, it beggars belief that Leica should want to put out a brilliant white metal body, covered in white leather which, with a chrome 28mm / f2.8 elmarit will retail in the UK at £5,990 ($9,600 US)
If I had to vote for a strictly analogue camera, I'd go for the gold-plated Hasselblad I saw in a camera shop in London. Awesome camera but it might as well have a six foot neon sign attached which flashes a sign saying "the owner of this camera is a total arse" as I could not imagine ever wanting to own such an overt piece of tastelessness.
@dougjgreen: a camera like your Tachihara in natural wood and copper is not BLING: it is just beautifull, like more wooden camera's....
I love them, had a Wista and now I have a Shen Hao and a full plate tailbaord, the last one to be restored.
An early Fed with green mold growing at the edges of the fake leather covering, --- and/or --- the shrunken heads of 10 of the most obnoxious camera collectors who believe that great cameras are best collecting dust locked away instead of in the hands of those who can create something wonderful with them.
All those gold edition cameras such as Nikons and Leicas look pretty bling to me. With their golden matching lenses they're just too ugly and ridiculous... but if one wants to show off and attract the crowd's attention (and the real photographers' giggles), then they're just the right choice.
Would a sensible photographer ever take a picture with these?