View Full Version : The gear wars have started....
ChipNovaMac
03-13-2008, 19:54
Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape went on a rant today about a Ken Rockwell essay saying that the camera does not matter.
(links:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml )
IMO, in this debate Michael lost out. Ken had plenty of samples that showed that great images can be had from most any camera.
I work in a camera shop. I have a customer that had an image published in National Geographic taken with his Olympus C-8080 IIRC (their reader submitted pics). Another won in the Nikon contest years ago with a 70-300ED lens from Nikon. I had another customer that used a simple P&S digicam to do portraits of her children that would make "Pros" blush.
So I tend to agree with Ken here. MANY years ago I remember seeing an exhibit by "Pros" that were given the challenge of shooting with a Kodak Instamatic 104. They were stunning images.
I tend to look at cameras as being tools. And in some way Michael may be right about the right tools for the right job. I have a couple P&S digicams that are great when I want to travel light and easy. I have a Nikon DSLR kit that has two cameras (one converted to IR) and a assorted lenses (covering the 10.5 to 200mm range - and no, the 200mm is not the beloved by some - the 70-200/2.8VR. But the much talked about 18-200VR). This is my go-to kit when I want simple and varied focal lengths.
I do have a Leica RF kit (both film and digital); but my love there is the size and the viewfinder. To some degree I do see to my eye, the "Leica glow" in some images. But would I throw out those shots if they had been taken with my newly aqquired Olympus 35SP? Most likely not. This is my kit for when I want to be stealthy and light.
I also have another newly acquired camera, the Hasselblad 500/CM. I have shot MF in the past, and love the DOF limits of shooting with an 80mm "normal" lens. Not to mention the silkiness of grain of a 11x14 or 16x20 MF neg.
Yes, I do have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome); a hazzard of working in a camera shop. To be honest, after a trip with my M8 and G7 to SF in February I am rethinking my Nikon kit - perhaps selling off some of it. Focusing my shooting with my Leica gear.
The question becomes how many tools does one need? In looking at what I want to keep in my Nikon DSLR kit, I looked at my Reykjavik/London trip in February 2006. Because of limited time in each city, and since it was my 1st overseas trip - I had concerns about the stories I had heard about carry-on limits. So I took a Pani Lx-1, and a Nikon D50 with the 18-200VR and the 10.5mm FE lens.
As I sort through the images from that trip for an iPhoto album I am working on, I am even amazed at what I did with "so little". Two images that friends love are 13x19's from the Pani that hang on my wall. And I have to admit that there was a new freedom in walking about Reykjavik with just the Pani LX-1.
So in the end how do you all weigh in on this debate?
Its the context, stupid!
Many times statements are made that are more extreme than they are meant, to make a point when the author sees trees being obscured by forest. Or the opposite.
In textbooks even the method is used; when it is intentional you'll see "exaggerated for clarity" somewhere near the statement. When the author has lost track of reality himself and/or sees the exaggeration as obvious, there is no such disclaimer.
So obviously there is truth in both sides of the argument...
bmattock
03-13-2008, 20:30
Imagine any human endeavor that requires tools. I can't think of a single one of them that does not employ specialized tools to do specific jobs - from origami to cooking to deep-sea diving to CGI generation. Imagine the laughs you'd get if you told a designer at Industrial Light and Magic that a single-CPU pc is all he needs to generate the CGI for a movie like "The Matrix." Sure, if he has a few thousand years to wait.
Everyone who uses tools professionally, uses tools specifically made to do the job at hand well. In very few of them do its practitioners periodically throw away their tools and proclaim themselves as having been made better thereby.
At least, not that I can see.
Do cheap cameras make amazing photos? Yes. That is not the same as saying that any camera can be used to make amazing photos of any scene. The right tool for the right job. This seems so simple to me.
Al Patterson
03-13-2008, 20:32
I think Mr. Reichmann lacks a sense of humor. I liked Ken's article more than Michael's. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Ken Rockwell says, only that his article was entertaining, and the other one was a tad dry...
... I think the right tool for the job is what makes life easier for somebody earning money doing the job. For me as an pure amateur and hobby-photograph it only matters, if I like the result (or maybe my friends / photo-buddies). For sure for trained photographers, who don't do anything else than taking photos on a daily basis, any camera will do the job somehow. But since they have to rely on their tools they would be wrong adviced to limit themselves on either only P&S, RF cameras or DSLR. I think the right mixture of tools is what gives the best result.
Since my photographic interests are limit to a little documentation of my daily life, I don't need DSLRs, huge MF / LF setups or flash systems. Neither do I need a drum scanner to get some snaps ready for web-publishing. So one day, I choose lurking around with a 500 C/M mounted on tripod and the other day with a Leica and one lens. The results will differ for sure but since it is only a hobby for me, the worst thing that can happen is a set of completely boring photos.
I like using tools I like to use. :angel:
This is a never ending question that comes up all the time and I don't think we'll ever really know the actual answer.
I've always used the example when someone says, "That Camera takes great pictures" that it's the photographer that took the pictures, not the camera.
If you took a $75 set of golf clubs off the rack at Kmart and handed them to Tiger Woods, he could probably go out tomorrow and shoot 5 under par on any golf courses. He's a great golfer, doesn't matter what clubs he uses, he'd still be great.
I think it's similar with photographers, a good photographer can be handed any camera and will get the most out of that camera and use his / her knowledge to maximize the image quality they can get out of it. Whether it be a Nikon, Canon, Leica, holga or an old kodak brownie. They know photography, they know light, they know exposure, grain, DOF, etc, etc, etc, and they know how to make great photos.
Me, I'm just a weekend hacker who every once in a while shoots a great shot of his kids or wife and my friends say, "great photo" I'm a amatuer so I also find great pleasure in researching equipment, and generally just using the Leica M system. I'm never going to be a professional photographer, no matter what camera I use, so I try to get some good photos while at the same time, really enjoying the equipment as well.
Does that make any sense? I think I confused myself as I was going along..
JT
bmattock
03-13-2008, 22:19
This is a never ending question that comes up all the time and I don't think we'll ever really know the actual answer.
I've always used the example when someone says, "That Camera takes great pictures" that it's the photographer that took the pictures, not the camera.
If you took a $75 set of golf clubs off the rack at Kmart and handed them to Tiger Woods, he could probably go out tomorrow and shoot 5 under par on any golf courses. He's a great golfer, doesn't matter what clubs he uses, he'd still be great.
I think it's similar with photographers, a good photographer can be handed any camera and will get the most out of that camera and use his / her knowledge to maximize the image quality they can get out of it. Whether it be a Nikon, Canon, Leica, holga or an old kodak brownie. They know photography, they know light, they know exposure, grain, DOF, etc, etc, etc, and they know how to make great photos.
Yes.
All true. But hand a Box Brownie to a great photographer and ask him to take macro shots of a snowflake. No matter his skill, he cannot make the camera do what it cannot do. Perhaps, given his experience, he knows a way to get a reasonable facsimile - but what would the point of that be? To prove he could do it? They make specialized lenses and cameras for exactly that type of work - why not use one?
I think people keep making the same mistake - it's a semantic error, but it leads to a logic fallacy.
"A great photographer can make any camera perform well."
This is true. But it is a semantic error. It is not same as saying:
"Any camera can perform any photographic job well if used by a great photographer."
The first statement says that pros are good at what they do and make the best possible use of any tool they're given.
The second statement says that pros somehow have the ability to make a camera do something it is otherwise physically impossible to do.
A camera cannot perform beyond it's physical limits, no matter who holds it.
Personally I dont care for Ken Rockwell. I think more times then not he misses the point of a topic or is downright rude about things. I dont bother to look at his webpage anymore as I find him to be particularly offensive now, but I have seen this particular blurb before. Frankly, I dont really care about this whole "my camera is better then your so its best at everything" argument. Working pros know what they want, what they need and will have that. These arguments are best left to people who spend their time bitching about photography on forums rather then actually taking pictures. But I tend to side on Michael on this one, tools are for what they do.
Micheals argument completely, utterly, 150% missed the point. Completely. Totally. Rockwell never once claimed that he could go out and to fantastic table top stock photography with a pinhole, or any of that other nonsense. He is arguing some stupid semantic that skirts the real issue.
Ronald_H
03-14-2008, 00:54
You know, I have frequented many a forum about photography. Especially on dpreview it is almost comical that people start threads about him, saying how much they learnt from him.
Those people are either trolls or the man himself, just to gain more attention. Seeing such a thread here disappoints me. Does Ken even know what a Rangefinder IS?
mfunnell
03-14-2008, 01:23
Ken Rockwell styles himself a "man of the people" who tries to encourage those who use a P&S camera or low-end dSLR to take photos of their travels or family gatherings to not be intimidated by photographic jargon, or technical controls they don't understand and just go out and take pictures. He tries to give a little very simple advice to help such people out. When called on some of his pronouncements, he often "back-tracks" (though I don't really think it is that) and says things along the lines of "I'm not talking to photographers like you, I'm talking to the general public".
Michael Reichmann styles himself a fine-art photographer and tries to talk accurately to professional photographers, artists and "advanced amateurs" about tools and techniques to get the best out of their equipment or to select the most appropriate equipment for the task. (Oh, and his complete abandonment of film probably won't endear him much to some around here.)
Personally, I find Rokwell's schtick gets old very quickly and I don't much care for his over-saturated, over-smoothed, over-sharpened style of photograph. But, then, I'm not really his audience. I like some of Reichmann's photos, am less keen on others - and have found some of his articles, tutorials etc. rather useful.
But I do think they are talking past each other, to different audiences about different things for different purposes.
That's an "argument" that is guaranteed to generate more heat than light. And I rather think Reichmann is using Rockwell as a whipping-boy for attitudes he doesn't (or doesn't "really") hold - but which are often quoted out of context by various internet yammerheads. I can recall Chris Weeks doing the same thing, only with more profanity and hilarity. I don't much care for Rockwell, but he means well (I think) and probably doesn't deserve some of the kicking-around he gets from time-to-time on the 'net.
...Mike
I thoroughly enjoy Ken Rockwell's website and while I don't share his taste in photographic subjects, I've never found anything to dispute in his technical reviews. As for his 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter' (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) article, what he is actually saying is that expensive equipment won't improve the quality of your photography if you don't have the knowledge, talent, eye or whatever it is that is required to take good photographs. Reichmann's article misses the point completely: yes, a surgeon does need specialised tools to perform an operation, but putting the same tools in the hands of a chimpanzee won't make it into a surgeon.
Rockwell is a breath of fresh air IMHO. Too many of us get caught up in the whole 'what's the best Leica lens to take B&W portraits using diffuse window light only?' discussions.
NickTrop
03-14-2008, 02:09
The bulk of camera gear is very good. "The best" buys only incremental gains, not visible to the naked eye in the print. MTF graphs that show on curve slightly higher than another at working apertures are not worth paying for. Where there are obvious gains is in format (in the film world), not the lens. You will struggle to identify a photo taken with a Jupiter 8 and a 'Cron. You will not struggle to see the difference between any 35mm and anything shot MF. It's the image captured, not the means on which it was captured, with one exception. Black and white film. For people photography - generally, it is more evokative than color. If you shoot people, MF, with black and white, and make a larger print, what would have been a mundane "snap" you give a second of attention to, becomes "something else". A little window to a moment in the past, charged with emotion.
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
|
sebastel
03-14-2008, 02:13
this is a very nice example, that i'd like to extend a little:
If you took a $75 set of golf clubs off the rack at Kmart and handed them to Tiger Woods, he could probably go out tomorrow and shoot 5 under par on any golf courses. He's a great golfer, doesn't matter what clubs he uses, he'd still be great.
now, for a second experiment.
provide several sets of golf clubs, let's say ...
- the fabulous 75$ Kmart set,
- some halfway quality stuff,
- some pro rank stuff,
- and tiger wood's own set.
then, ask mr. woods, which set he's going to choose.
what will be his choice?
and what will it mean to me (who, admittedly, has no interest in golf at all)?
cheers, and a have nice weekend.
go play! whether golf, or picturetaking, i don't mind ...
infrequent
03-14-2008, 02:18
its easy to ignore ken rockwell once you realise that he provides opinions / reviews about products that he has not even remotely used.
Hm, have you ever heard about a picture of a lioness nurturing her cups in the wild taken with a rangefinder and normal lens the photographer developed himself after getting away alive?
Edit: I don't get Ken Rockwell, is 1/500th flash sync important or not? Or was it important when Nikon had it and isn't when Nikon hasn't?
While I agree that the camera matters little in the hands of a true artist, there is all that post-processing stuff that goes on. I have always found that equipment does matter, in one sense. I like my gear, I like the different personalities of the cameras and the lenses. Using these objects makes me feel good, and it’s fun. It’s weird to say but the pictures are only one aspect of the whole relaxing process. I always have to step back from the forums when I read too much and begin to wonder if my lens is sharp enough, since it really doesn’t matter, and I miss focus the dang thing 1 out 3 times… I’m thinking of starting my own grading system, it’ll work on the neatness scale. Right now my Nikkormat Ftn is at about a 7, maybe an eight. My F3 is 6, while my M2 (still in the mail) is about an 8. They all take pictures.
literiter
03-14-2008, 02:46
I like what both writers have to say. What Mr. Reichman has to say helps me justify all my camera goodies but Mr. Rockwell has a point. The photographer takes the picture.
its easy to ignore ken rockwell once you realise that he provides opions / reviews about products that he has not even remotely used.
Ken Rockwell isn't the kind of guy to keep his opinions to himself, but I can't recall him actually 'reviewing' anything which he hasn't used. On the other hand, he doesn't rely on advertising revenue from the big manufacturers to keep his site going, nor does he seem to accept loaned gear from manufacturers. If I was in the market for DSLR gear, his would be the first site I would go to for reviews.
You can try to take the best possible picture with what you have or you can try to get the tool to take the picture you want to take.
I.E. candle lit scene in a restaurant would be impossible with ISO100 film and a f4 lens, and a beach scene in bright daylight won't work with ISO1600 and max 1/500th shutter speed.
On the other hand, with slow film and lens you can wait for better lighting in the restaurant and with fast film and slow shutter you can wait for a thunderstorm at the beach :-)
mfunnell
03-14-2008, 03:11
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.I agree, to a point.
My first caveat is that in the world of consumer SLRs (digital or film) there's a substantial difference between cheap consumer zooms and more "top-end" lenses (or even cheap primes). Its easy to forget that by that standard, pretty much all RF lenses are very good.
My second caveat is that cameras matter more in the digital world. With film its same format, same film. Top and bottom end cameras all share the same sensor technology. Not so in the digital world, and this can matter.
...Mike
infrequent
03-14-2008, 03:15
@adeoh - if interested in nikon digital gear, i would suggest bythom. i am sure there is someone for canon gear but i don't really follow their stuff.
Why don't we post a poll?
Simple:
1.Gear matter
2.Gear does not matter
I dunno how to do it... sorry.
Rob.
The only purpose a tool has it to make a particular task easier to perform than it would be without the use of that tool.
As a poor student, I once replaced the clutch in my car using the car's jack and blocks of wood to lower the transaxle. It worked, but I wouldn't want to go into business as a transmission shop using that method.
The point of Ken's article, I think, is that it's too easy to become obsessed with the tool itself. Find a tool that "gets out of your way" and get on with the task. All this obsessing about the 'special' qualities of this tool v. that can become a real distraction.
That’s what I understood the point to be, get something that is “good enough” and use it rather than waste time finding “the best there is” because the no one can tell the difference in the real world.
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.
Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.
When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
bmattock
03-14-2008, 05:16
The bulk of camera gear is very good. "The best" buys only incremental gains, not visible to the naked eye in the print. MTF graphs that show on curve slightly higher than another at working apertures are not worth paying for. Where there are obvious gains is in format (in the film world), not the lens. You will struggle to identify a photo taken with a Jupiter 8 and a 'Cron. You will not struggle to see the difference between any 35mm and anything shot MF. It's the image captured, not the means on which it was captured, with one exception. Black and white film. For people photography - generally, it is more evokative than color. If you shoot people, MF, with black and white, and make a larger print, what would have been a mundane "snap" you give a second of attention to, becomes "something else". A little window to a moment in the past, charged with emotion.
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
|
I agree to a point. I do agree that most lenses are very good, and that the difference between 'very good' and 'excellent' is miniscule.
I would argue that there is a time and a place for that miniscule difference.
I don't own any of the 'excellent' versions of certain lenses. No Canon L glass, no long 'white' telephoto lenses, etc. I wish.
Nor do I pine after them and sigh and say I can't possibly shoot as well as they do, I don't have the gear those guys have. I will make do with one or two rungs down the ladder, and I'll do just fine.
But the uber-expensive lenses do offer that tiny bit more. Less CA, for example, at the extreme end. A slightly faster f-stop at full zoom. These things can (and do) matter to professionals who need that 'little bit extra'. I suppose that is why you never see anyone bucking the trend at a sporting event - all the photogs are shooting more-or-less the exact same kit. They're not into showing off to each other - these are the tools of their trade and they need them.
Can I produce photos that are 95% as good as theirs? I think so, at least technically speaking. Whether I have the ability is another question, but yes, I think a cheap lens that is merely 'very good' would give me most of what they have. So I aim a couple rungs down, save the money, and I'm generally happy with the results I get.
But I recognize that if I wanted to pony up thousands of dollars more, there is 'more' quality to be had.
Such lenses also tend to be better made - and to come with a lot of personal love and attention from their manufacturer, who recognizes that when a famous sports photographer who uses their gear has a problem, it is THEIR problem too. They won't jump to attention when I mention that my $125 zoom isn't all it ought to be.
So I accept that there are reasons for the uber-uber-expensive lenses and such. Perhaps not for you and I. But the tiny differences in quality they represent mean something to someone, and if they are willing to pay the cost, they may as well have the best tools.
Personally, I like Snap-On tools. But I own Craftsman. 95% of the quality, maybe 10% of the cost. I'm very OK with that.
Besides, I love a bargain. When I can try a $5 Sears zoom that I bought on eBay, and discover to my delight that it is quite sharp and very well-made, I'm thrilled. But no, it still is not going to be the same as Canon L glass side-by-side.
bmattock
03-14-2008, 05:18
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.
Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.
When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
I think I agree with you, but I would argue that what you and I see as 'insignificant' is actually significant to the very few who claim professional status and use that gear as part of their jobs. I am thinking particularly of sports photogs and ultra-high-end lenses. I suspect they need every last ounce of quality that can be wrung from their lenses.
A lot of wealthy people who don't need that tiny amount of quality increase buy them too, of course...
Let's look at that in anoter way. Lets imagine 99% of your audience will not notice the difference on a small print between a $5000 and $150 and 1% will see it. If your audience is the 99% (family/friends), than Ken is right, get the $150 gear. If your audience is the 1% remaining (ad agency/RFF members) than you probably are right going for the $5000 gear. And if you are yourself part of the 1%, than it is a no brainer.
But then Bill, you don't really think that Rockwell's piece was addressed to pros, right?
And Reichmann's article looks like cliche answer to cliche statement. One gets to hear "right tool for the job" at least as often as "camera doesn't matter". And arguably, it is easier to indulge to uncontrolled tool acquisition than uncontrolled asceticism :)
ZebGoesZeiss
03-14-2008, 05:30
This one is easy: I agree with whoever is opposing Ken Rockwell. Don't even have to check what either of them wrote. Easy.
nextreme
03-14-2008, 05:32
I haven't read the articles yet, but I don't value Michael R.'s opinion at all. He seems to be the sort of guy that is soooo gratefull we are now in the digital age, and shooting film is for dinosaurs and so glad don't have to put up with that. I got this impression from the Oscar Peterson interview, btw. I just find that totally ridiculous, makes you wonder why that person got into photography in the first place, since film is such a drag ! Anyways, the point of my post is not to go off topic into a film vs. digital debate (I use both and enjoy both), it's just the explanation of why I don't value his opinion.
This one is easy: I agree with whoever is opposing Ken Rockwell. Don't even have to check what either of them wrote. Easy.
Sounds like you must have been raised in Cuba .... :)
I am thinking particularly of sports photogs and ultra-high-end lenses. I suspect they need every last ounce of quality that can be wrung from their lenses.
Yes, everything has to be taken in the context of the right tool for the job.
The point of the whole "gear does not matter" argument is aimed at those who obsess over very picky hardware issues or assume that expensive gear will make a great photographer.
I think we've all lost count of the "which is better, the 35mm f1.8 lumacrux or the 32mm f1.9 fnordaron?" threads that appear here and on the other boards.
Quite a few people just don't seem to "get it" that concentrating on things like composition and technique will improve one's photos far more than the Latest And Greatest DSLR will!
williams473
03-14-2008, 05:44
I think to even call either "article" an "article" gives them both too much credit. They're just basically posts on the net, so niether guy is terribly credible. Any guy that points to his self proclaimed "great" work with a digital point and shoot gets me suspicious, not because he used a point and shoot, but because he is so sure the images are "great." And any guy who can't make his point without swearing in the text isn't a very good writer.
By the way, since we are endlessly debating it I'll throw in my unimportant vote - gear does matter, but moreso for a pro than an amateur. And moreso for the craft of photography than the art of photography.
"The cliche online is that there's nothing wrong with an older digital camera since it still takes pictures the same as it did the day it was new, and just because something better comes along is no reason for it to become obsolete. Ya right! Tell it to the judge. No pro is going to show up on a shoot with gear that's two generations behind the competition, and few except the most skint amateurs are happy to sit on the sidelines while better tools become available."
picked from there: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml
The guy is a moron, Hands down, period, bar-none!!
Sounds like you must have been raised in Cuba .... :)
Funny I was going to say Miami, :)
now what are the chances of that……..
dave lackey
03-14-2008, 05:46
About freakin' time someone stepped up to bat...
Funny I was going to say Miami, :)
now what are the chances that……..
How about Washington?
How about Washington?
:eek: give that man a cigar
bmattock
03-14-2008, 06:24
But then Bill, you don't really think that Rockwell's piece was addressed to pros, right?
And Reichmann's article looks like cliche answer to cliche statement. One gets to hear "right tool for the job" at least as often as "camera doesn't matter". And arguably, it is easier to indulge to uncontrolled tool acquisition than uncontrolled asceticism :)
Well, that's what I was saying. People read:
"A great photographer can get great photos from any camera."
And they THINK it means:
"Therefore any camera is as good as any other."
They put the 'therefore' in where it does not belong.
The first statement is true - it does not mean that the second one is, but that tends to be what people THINK it means. In this case, that's what Reichmann thought Rockwell meant. I think.
bmattock
03-14-2008, 06:35
Yes, everything has to be taken in the context of the right tool for the job.
Yes, I agree.
The point of the whole "gear does not matter" argument is aimed at those who obsess over very picky hardware issues or assume that expensive gear will make a great photographer.
If we make that qualification, then yes, I agree with that too.
I think we've all lost count of the "which is better, the 35mm f1.8 lumacrux or the 32mm f1.9 fnordaron?" threads that appear here and on the other boards.
Yes - many are the people who believe that there is a magic bullet out there somewhere. In golf, fishing, bowling (yes, believe it or not), photography, you name it.
I used to belong to the Goldsboro Area Photography Club when I was living at home in NC. We had some ladies in that club who used p-n-s film and digital cameras and the images they turned out were flat-out amazing. By encouraging them to enter contests and so on, some of them got national recognition. Yeah, they were still doing it with inexpensive consumer point-n-shoots and their photos were hanging on gallery walls. So no one has to convince me that if you have 'the eye' you can do great work with your basic competent camera.
Quite a few people just don't seem to "get it" that concentrating on things like composition and technique will improve one's photos far more than the Latest And Greatest DSLR will!
Unfortunately, no amount of preaching, teaching, or forum discussions will ever change those people's minds. And if they've got the money to spend on that kind of stuff, it doesn't hurt anyone, even if it doesn't make their photography even one whit better. So let 'em obsess over their gear. Somebody has to buy that stuff, and someday maybe it will be on the used market cheap enough that I can snarfle some of it up.
Again, the basic statement is true:
"A great photographer can get great photographs from any camera."
But not only do people insert a 'therefore' and take it too far to mean:
"Therefore, every camera is as good as any other."
But they also take it too far the other way and read it to mean:
"Therefore, divest yourself of all your camera kit except for the extreme basics, and loathe anyone who dares to own two lenses."
Neither extrapolation is correct, in my opinion.
Often when talking about street photography you hear this "you can´t shoot with big slr´s because of the size of the camera and because of the loudness of the shutter" -statement... Well, yeah, I have been testing this because in the next summer I will be shooting professional work with those big digi-slr's so I want to know how to operate my camera 100% in that time...Just the same kind of street images with people as always before ( I don´t ask permission for 95% of the time) ...
No problems at all...to me and my style it really does not matter which kind of camera I use as long as I know how to use it...
Man taking a leak in front of a big mall. Focal lenght about 24mm in 35mm. I took maybe 8 frames.
I like using tools I like to use. :angel:
I'm with Doug. The path is as important as a the goal.
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too :)
bmattock
03-14-2008, 07:15
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too :)
At the same time? :eek:
If I have to .. damn hybrids :D
tbarker13
03-14-2008, 07:51
I think for a lot of people, the gear itself is part of the hobby. I've had so much fun this past year learning about all the different lens options that are out there. Before I found this forum, I pretty much lived under the impression that I had to use leica lenses on my leica M bodies.
So I've been having a blast buying and selling lenses, trying out different combinations, old lenses, new lenses. I've used Leica, Konica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and voitglander.
Has any of this made me a better photographer? Of course not. But I have become a lot more knowledgable about photography along the way.
I'd love it if I could spend 8 hours a day taking photographs. My employer, however, doesnt' pay me to do that. (I write the stories that go with the photos) But this interest in lenses, etc. gives me something fun to do, when I can't be out shooting.
bmattock
03-14-2008, 08:06
I think for a lot of people, the gear itself is part of the hobby. I've had so much fun this past year learning about all the different lens options that are out there. Before I found this forum, I pretty much lived under the impression that I had to use leica lenses on my leica M bodies.
So I've been having a blast buying and selling lenses, trying out different combinations, old lenses, new lenses. I've used Leica, Konica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and voitglander.
Has any of this made me a better photographer? Of course not. But I have become a lot more knowledgable about photography along the way.
Hear, hear!
This is an unusual age we live in. Never before have we had access, at fire-sale prices, to such an embarrassment of riches in terms of camera equipment. Lenses that were the pinnacle of quality are still very, very, good, even by today's standards - and the market is fairly flooded with them.
So it is that without being a reviewer for a mighty magazine, we can purchase, for very little money, the best of the best of yesterday's gear and actually compare it for ourselves. Our fathers and grandfathers would have had to rely upon second-hand information from trusted sources to know if a Nikon lens was indeed sharper than the equivalent Canon, or vice-versa. Now we can buy both and see for ourselves.
I'd love it if I could spend 8 hours a day taking photographs. My employer, however, doesnt' pay me to do that. (I write the stories that go with the photos) But this interest in lenses, etc. gives me something fun to do, when I can't be out shooting.
I think it is also fairly said that there are:
1) Photographers who use cameras and lenses as tools.
2) Collectors who enjoy collecting for collecting's sake.
3) Gear-fondlers who just enjoy owning high-quality kit.
4) Tinkerers and comparators who just can't stop fiddling with their gear, constantly searching for that tiny incremental increase in resolving power of a lens, or fine grain in a film, and so on.
And some of us take bits from each of the 4 categories. I know I do.
On a personal note in line with the above - in my opinion, one cannot realize how differently-made today's cameras are without owning and using a classic SLR or high-end rangefinder from about the mid 1960's. The mechanical precision, the amazing balance, the ergonomics that could be achieved without the use of trigger grips and rubberized components - just steel and brass and glass - amazing. It might not make you a better photographer - but dang, you sure feel like one, stalking around with a silver Nikon or Canon SLR in your hand. It's something people should try, at least once.
antiquark
03-14-2008, 08:37
It's funny, I agree with both sides of the argument. In fact, I've experienced both viewpoints simultaneously...
On flickr, I occasionally see a picture that makes me say "wow, what a great pic!" But I'm looking at the medium size pic. So I click to see a larger version, and it turns out that it's a cellphone pic... there is no larger version! (which is a big disappointment).
So, Rockwell is right that even a crappy camera can make interesting pics, and the other guy is right that a level of technical performance is needed for picture quality.
photomoof
03-14-2008, 09:01
Is everyone sure these guys are "arguing?"
bmattock
03-14-2008, 09:05
Is everyone sure these guys are "arguing?"
Possibly it is getting hit on the head lessons (obscure Monty Python reference).
The irony of Ken Rockwell's site (which, as I mentioned before, I think is great) is that although he espouses his 'anti-gearhead' attitude, I'd suspect that 99% of the people who visit the site are looking for gear-related information; and that's what his site does best. I certainly found out about it when I was looking to buy a DSLR. The fact is that he knows his stuff, and he is honest and realistic in his appraisals of the quality of modern photographic equipment.
I really don't understand why he raises peoples' hackles so much. He's opinionated but the best journalists and bloggers generally are.
Let me settle this argument once and for all.
The gear does matter:
1- I cannot shoot a concert with a P&S or a pinhole camera, and even if i did its not going to be blown up and hang in a gallery.
2- I cannot shoot Anacondas in Amazon jungle with a camera which is not waterproof and able to work under extreme conditions.
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
4- I cannot photograph architecture 'properly' without a tilt-shift lens or a view camera.
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
5- I cannot shoot weddings, models and food for grocery shop flyers without using a P&S and expect my clients to be happy.
Ken Rockwell is an egoistical hack and Michael Reichmann is an old professional with a passion for photography and the genuine desire to help others... Rockwell talks to the weekend shooter with his P&S or DSLR and Reichmann talks to professionals and serious amateurs.
I agree that Reichmann’s article came across as a rant, but I can't blame him because Ken Rockwell does that to people. :)
Btw, Reichmann is my local Torontonian.
Let me settle this argument once and for all.
The gear does matter:
1- I cannot shoot a concert with a P&S or a pinhole camera, and even if i did its not going to be blown up and hang in a gallery.
2- I cannot shoot Anacondas in Amazon jungle with a camera which is not waterproof and able to work under extreme conditions.
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
4- I cannot photograph architecture 'properly' without a tilt-shift lens or a view camera.
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
5- I cannot shoot weddings, models and food for grocery shop flyers without using a P&S and expect my clients to be happy.
Errrr... in all these cases I would say 'oh yes you can'. Using the 'proper' equipment would make it easier to get satisfactory images but none of these things are an impossibility for someone with a good grasp of technique.
Let me settle this argument once and for all.
The gear does matter:
1- I cannot shoot a concert with a P&S or a pinhole camera, and even if i did its not going to be blown up and hang in a gallery.
2- I cannot shoot Anacondas in Amazon jungle with a camera which is not waterproof and able to work under extreme conditions.
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
4- I cannot photograph architecture 'properly' without a tilt-shift lens or a view camera.
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
5- I cannot shoot weddings, models and food for grocery shop flyers without using a P&S and expect my clients to be happy.
Ken Rockwell is an egoistical hack and Michael Reichmann is an old professional with a passion for photography and the genuine desire to help others... Rockwell talks to the weekend shooter with his P&S or DSLR and Reichmann talks to professionals and serious amateurs.
I agree that Reichmann’s article came across as a rant, but I can't blame him because Ken Rockwell does that to people. :)
Btw, Reichmann is my local Torontonian.
too much negativity man, those negative waves so early in the morning ………try to focus on what you can do, ya’ll be surprised how much brighter the world looks
bmattock
03-14-2008, 10:18
[FONT=Verdana]Let me settle this argument once and for all.
The gear does matter:
I agree, but just to be the fly in the ointment...
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
In 2003, Magnum photographer Alex Majoli shot some big stories for Newsweek magazine.
He spent a month in China shooting documentary images of daily life. He was in Congo for two weeks and Iraq for almost two months. In those two places he was shooting war.
Majoli's images for all three stories drew rave notices, and they earned him some of photojournalism's most prestigious awards in 2004, including the U.S. National Press Photographers Association's Best of Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S. Overseas Press Club's Feature Photography Award.
It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big, fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
photomoof
03-14-2008, 10:32
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/mag/040809_Issue/040731_Dreams2ndArt_hu.hmedium.jpg
Newsweek cover, pinhole camera
ChipNovaMac
03-14-2008, 10:33
Wow, I never expected the depth of responses so far....
Will post some comments to what has been posted so far....
Micheals argument completely, utterly, 150% missed the point. Completely. Totally. Rockwell never once claimed that he could go out and to fantastic table top stock photography with a pinhole, or any of that other nonsense. He is arguing some stupid semantic that skirts the real issue.
You are right on on my take between the two posts.
I thoroughly enjoy Ken Rockwell's website and while I don't share his taste in photographic subjects, I've never found anything to dispute in his technical reviews.
<snip>
Rockwell is a breath of fresh air IMHO. Too many of us get caught up in the whole 'what's the best Leica lens to take B&W portraits using diffuse window light only?' discussions.
I find it interesting that Ken has "reviews" on gear. Maybe this is a new direction for him. Focusing more on the craft then the gear.
Ken Rockwell isn't the kind of guy to keep his opinions to himself, but I can't recall him actually 'reviewing' anything which he hasn't used. On the other hand, he doesn't rely on advertising revenue from the big manufacturers to keep his site going, nor does he seem to accept loaned gear from manufacturers. If I was in the market for DSLR gear, his would be the first site I would go to for reviews.
Both Michael and Ken have models to generate income from their websites. My take is that Michael would be the one to go to for his workshops.
But then Bill, you don't really think that Rockwell's piece was addressed to pros, right?
And Reichmann's article looks like cliche answer to cliche statement. One gets to hear "right tool for the job" at least as often as "camera doesn't matter". And arguably, it is easier to indulge to uncontrolled tool acquisition than uncontrolled asceticism :)
You hit it on the head in my reading of Michael's comments.
Quite a few people just don't seem to "get it" that concentrating on things like composition and technique will improve one's photos far more than the Latest And Greatest DSLR will!
Amen, that is the point I am am at as I try to "gear down"...
The irony of Ken Rockwell's site (which, as I mentioned before, I think is great) is that although he espouses his 'anti-gearhead' attitude, I'd suspect that 99% of the people who visit the site are looking for gear-related information; and that's what his site does best. I certainly found out about it when I was looking to buy a DSLR. The fact is that he knows his stuff, and he is honest and realistic in his appraisals of the quality of modern photographic equipment.
I really don't understand why he raises peoples' hackles so much. He's opinionated but the best journalists and bloggers generally are.
I was taken aback by Ken's recent post given the bent of his website.
Like I mentioned I have a Nikon kit. I am really looking at cutting it down after reviewing my images from REK/LON from 2006. In that trip I used only a 18-200VR and and the 10.5mm FE - along with a Pani LX-1.
I think we should play with the toys that make us happy. My take on Rockwell overall is that he espouses the not unique view that there is a point of diminishing returns, when equipment is good enough for most photographers. Beyond that, it really makes no difference what you shoot with, other than the joy of the toy.
This isn't much different than in most hobbies. I have silly expensive bait casting fishing reels that have never really caught more fish than much cheaper ones.
Totally agree, thats the good thing about photography as hobby vs photography as work. I totally don't need film, my D200 takes better pictures then I can produce with my film bodies, BUT I just love shooting with them. People sometimes forget to have fun. One thing though, I relly do wish expesive reels would help me catch fish, with fishing you get to eat something, you can't eat pictures, well they wouldn't taste good at least.
williams473
03-14-2008, 10:42
Good point Bill - that article says it all - thanks for the link.
In the article we should notice that Majoli points out what a "nice file" the digital P&S camera makes. So is he really shooting with "unprofessional" gear? The camera has a nice sharp lens and obviously he works well with it, so perhaps this opens up some discussion as to the perceptions we have of what is and is not pro gear.
Gabriel M.A.
03-14-2008, 10:45
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too :)
You'll never hear a pickup truck lover say that motorcycles and good cooking knives are the "best tools for the job", or could ever carry that deer off to the jerky-making hut.
And you'll never hear a good cook claim that a pickup truck is the best thing for cooking a great deer a l'orange, non non!
Universes indeed are defined by the void and dark matter contained within them.
:o
williams473
03-14-2008, 10:50
One thing though, I relly do wish expesive reels would help me catch fish, with fishing you get to eat something, you can't eat pictures, well they wouldn't taste good at least.
As I kid I remember fishing off a dock one day with a piece of kite string tied to a stick with some bread on a hook, and catching a bunch of bluegill, one after another, while this older guy next to me caught nothing for over an hour with his expensive baitcasting reel and rod setup. Not that I was the better fisherman, but for sure, his expensive gear wasn't helping him, or maybe he wasn't using it to its full potential. The same can be true of photography.
photogdave
03-14-2008, 10:50
A comment on tools:
Sometimes you HAVE to pay the big bucks to get the right lens to get the right look. When I was young sports photographers starting out I had a cheap Tamron 70-210mm f4-5.6 zoom. It cost $200. Even though it was sharp enough for newspaper work I was never happy with the results. Even when I caught peak moments of action and the strained expressions on the athletes' faces were clear, the photos never popped. I still didn't know enough about photography to realize that my subjects were blending into the background because I was shooting at f5.6 and the shooters at the bigger papers had better shots simply because they could afford f2.8 lenses. They weren't necessarily better photographers, they just had the better or proper tool. There is no cheap and cheerful 70-200 2.8, you either spend about a grand to get one or you live with the limitations of a slow lens.
A comment on Rockwell:
I think he does his website to amuse himself and the more people take him seriously, the more he gets off on it! He is always contradicting himself. "Your lens doesn't matter - oh but NEVER use a Sigma lens," or "The 5D and D3 are better because they have bigger sensors and give you more information - oh but don't bother shooting RAW because you don't need those big files."
(Paraphrases, not direct quotes!)
A comment on Reichmann:
I think he went a little overboard on this one. Sometimes he seems to get angry and write a weird essay like this to blow off steam. Maybe he's a little stressed out. However the Luminous Landscape is one of the BEST resources of photographic information on the web and certainly deserves support and respect.
Final comment:
Reichmann uses rangefinders. Rockwell thinks a manual focus only digital camera is "stupid".
photomoof
03-14-2008, 10:51
You'll never hear a pickup truck lover say that motorcycles and good cooking knives are the "best tools for the job", or could ever carry that deer off to the jerky-making hut.
And you'll never hear a good cook claim that a pickup truck is the best thing for cooking a great deer a l'orange, non non!
Universes indeed are defined by the void and dark matter contained within them.
:o
Spoken like a man who does not cook his fresh-killed meat on his manifold.
Oh dear god.. not another "tastes great!!!" / "less filling !!!" debate.
Like the game "global thermonuclear war" the only way to "win" is not to play :D
That said, (and I keep saying this over and over and over etc.) go out with the RF or P&S and try to capture the face of a quarterback at a football game when you're on the sidelines at the other end of the field.
Also.. try being "quiet" and "unobtrusive" at a funeral using a current pro DSLR (D3, 1Ds, etc.) (if that's your thing that is.. :D).
Tools DO matter - it's that simple - as long as you're choosing the right one for the job you intend on doing the rest can then be left up to the photographer..
Sheesh!!!
Dave
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
... and from the cited page:
But in fact, Majoli shot every frame with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
A recent exchange between me and another on a local board, most relevant to this thread, occurred shortly after I posted the "Alphabet City" walk-through on the blog. It went kinda like this:
He: Nice photos.
Me: Thanks {blush} :)
He: What kind of a camera did you use?
Me: Olympus Stylus Zoom P&S.
He: If I knew that was all you had, I would have loaned you my (some kind of DSLR type thing) ...
Obviously he didn't "get it". :)
I didn't go on telling him that I did have other cameras but chose to use that one for this shoot.
Interesting thread ... I do think quite a bit of it has to do with the opinions of the personalities of those having the original "argument", however. :)
Gabriel M.A.
03-14-2008, 10:54
Spoken like a man who does not cook his fresh-killed meat on his manifold.
I like my manifolds clean ;)
Now, when it comes to the grill...
bmattock
03-14-2008, 10:55
Good point Bill - that article says it all - thanks for the link.
In the article we should notice that Majoli points out what a "nice file" the digital P&S camera makes. So is he really shooting with "unprofessional" gear? The camera has a nice sharp lens and obviously he works well with it, so perhaps this opens up some discussion as to the perceptions we have of what is and is not pro gear.
I originally saw that link right here, so that's how I remember it to pass it along - thank whomever originally posted it here, long ago!
I think Majoli did a very smart thing - he did a dispassionate needs assessment (as we in IT call it) and did not leave anything off the table, regardless of status as 'pro' or 'amateur' status gear.
At the airshow I went to last summer, I took a cheap point-n-shoot for static displays. I did not have any need to top-end kit for that. Deep DoF was no problem. I just needed wide angle and bright colors, and my Kodak el cheapo digicam gave me that. For the planes in the air - the dSLR was a better choice, obviously.
[FONT=Verdana]
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
Maybe you should use Canon 1-series instead, those you can use in street work. If you don't believe, check out my recent blog images from my signature.
Gabriel M.A.
03-14-2008, 11:00
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too
<snip & paste>
If I have to .. damn hybrids :D
Well, all I have to say is, that's a classy way of running with scissors.
So: paper scissors, hair scissors, or hydraulic scissors?
Which is the best pair?
photomoof
03-14-2008, 11:01
That said, (and I keep saying this over and over and over etc.) go out with the RF or P&S and try to capture the face of a quarterback at a football game when you're on the sidelines at the other end of the field.
pre-telephotos? enlargements
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/pkg/ncf/100/top_plays_46.jpg
"Army led 6-0 in the third quarter when Notre Dame's Jack Chevigny scored on a short burst. "There's one for the Gipper!" Chevigny cried. A legend was born. Notre Dame 12, Army 6"
shadowfox
03-14-2008, 11:03
Funny that...
Choosing a gear is like courtship, all rosy, and all that anticipation.
Buying a gear is like wedding and honeymoon, all excitement, and all that rush.
Using a gear is like marriage, you get out of it what you put in it.
:D
CameraQuest
03-14-2008, 11:09
A pic taken by a young boy (4 or 5) with his digital camera -- not kidding -- made the cover shot of the Los Angeles Times newspaper about 4 months ago.
Why?
The boy photographed a rare endangered condor (the largest bird in North America) in a tree in the outskirts of Los Angeles.
Stephen
Well, all I have to say is, that's a classy way of running with scissors.
So: paper scissors, hair scissors, or hydraulic scissors?
Which is the best pair?
Hmm. For hybrids in the carpool lane ? Ever seen the Roman charriot race in the Collosseum in "Ben Hur" ? ... These are the kind of scissors I would like to have :D
pre-telephotos? enlargements
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/pkg/ncf/100/top_plays_46.jpg
"Army led 6-0 in the third quarter when Notre Dame's Jack Chevigny scored on a short burst. "There's one for the Gipper!" Chevigny cried. A legend was born. Notre Dame 12, Army 6"
ya.. that's awesome.. you can really make out the faces clear as day.
This is present day stuff we're talking about - if we were back in the age of "pre telephotos" then sure.. we use what we have - we're no longer "there".. so why try to go back????
Dave
photogdave
03-14-2008, 11:36
Update: Rockwell has turned this into a nationalistic pissing match because Reichmann is Canadian.
Yes Ken, I know the U.S. has done all the important things in modern history and the rest of us should be thanking Allmighty God, who smiles favorably upon your great land, that you were here to bring us out of the dark ages. Your patriotism is duly noted! :rolleyes:
Gabriel M.A.
03-14-2008, 11:38
"Army led 6-0 in the third quarter when Notre Dame's Jack Chevigny scored on a short burst. "There's one for the Gipper!" Chevigny cried. A legend was born. Notre Dame 12, Army 6"
Wait, Ronnie played american football w/Notre Dame? :eek:
Gabriel M.A.
03-14-2008, 11:39
Hmm. For hybrids in the carpool lane ? Ever seen the Roman charriot race in the Collosseum in "Ben Hur" ? ... These are the kind of scissors I would like to have :D
Ah. They don't make them like they used to, anymore, do they? ;)
Al Patterson
03-14-2008, 12:29
Of course gear matters.
I do a lot a railroad photography. When we have a photo runby where the train backs up around a curve, you want an SLR with a zoom, as you don't have time to change lenses. Sure I could pick my best lens and get a "better" shot, but I might miss two or three I can only get with a zoom.
And I wouldn't use my A-1 and a 70-210 zoom to shoot street shots.
... we're no longer "there".. so why try to go back????
Dave, are you kidding? That seems to be the very PURPOSE of this forum sometimes! :D
Joe Brugger
03-14-2008, 13:07
Here's the poll. Delegates elected before I say so don't count, maybe.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56103
ChipNovaMac
03-14-2008, 13:16
Totally agree, thats the good thing about photography as hobby vs photography as work. I totally don't need film, my D200 takes better pictures then I can produce with my film bodies, BUT I just love shooting with them. People sometimes forget to have fun. One thing though, I relly do wish expesive reels would help me catch fish, with fishing you get to eat something, you can't eat pictures, well they wouldn't taste good at least.
Having fun is where it is at. Just look at my list of gear.
But working in a camera shop I get it everyday of folks that come in that are looking to buy a 40D/D200 or a 5D/D3 - all because they want to have pictures that look as good as the "Pros". I then show them promo 24x36 prints from Nikon and Olympus with "entry" level DSLR's - and the comment I get is "well those we taken by professional photographers" - they weren't, they were done by reps around the country that are not photographers.
Or the comment that I love hearing is - "I want to do wedding photography, so I need a camera that "looks professional". In some ways I understand where those thoughts come from. Sort of like arriving to a wedding in a mini-van verses a limo perhaps. Both get you there, but the limo does look good.
photomoof
03-14-2008, 13:24
ya.. that's awesome.. you can really make out the faces clear as day.
This is present day stuff we're talking about - if we were back in the age of "pre telephotos" then sure.. we use what we have - we're no longer "there".. so why try to go back????
Dave
Because this is the RFF, the "back in the age of "pre telephotos" place on the web.
Besides football is a wide-angle sport.
photomoof
03-14-2008, 13:29
Wait, Ronnie played american football w/Notre Dame? :eek:
As most Americans did, including me, you are having a hard time separating Ronnie's real life, from his life in the movies.
ChipNovaMac
03-14-2008, 13:48
A comment on tools:
Sometimes you HAVE to pay the big bucks to get the right lens to get the right look. When I was young sports photographers starting out I had a cheap Tamron 70-210mm f4-5.6 zoom. It cost $200. Even though it was sharp enough for newspaper work I was never happy with the results. Even when I caught peak moments of action and the strained expressions on the athletes' faces were clear, the photos never popped. I still didn't know enough about photography to realize that my subjects were blending into the background because I was shooting at f5.6 and the shooters at the bigger papers had better shots simply because they could afford f2.8 lenses. They weren't necessarily better photographers, they just had the better or proper tool. There is no cheap and cheerful 70-200 2.8, you either spend about a grand to get one or you live with the limitations of a slow lens.
You are right on about tools. That is why I have moved back towards RF's for my photography. I love the viewfinder of RF's and using the DOF scale when needing to shoot fast.
We are among the few perhaps that can look at our images and see that a better lens might have made it even better. Ken was talking to the other 80% that can't see the difference between the stock 18-55 and the "pro" 17-50 lens.
In the end Ken was talking about the images that we admire. In galleries, seldom do we see the technical details of what was used to get the photograph. Never at a gallery have I heard anything along the lines - "this is a nice photo, but since it wasn't taken with the LieNikCan with a LZ series lens it doesn't belong here".
A comment on Rockwell:
I think he does his website to amuse himself and the more people take him seriously, the more he gets off on it! He is always contradicting himself. "Your lens doesn't matter - oh but NEVER use a Sigma lens," or "The 5D and D3 are better because they have bigger sensors and give you more information - oh but don't bother shooting RAW because you don't need those big files."
(Paraphrases, not direct quotes!)
A comment on Reichmann:
I think he went a little overboard on this one. Sometimes he seems to get angry and write a weird essay like this to blow off steam. Maybe he's a little stressed out. However the Luminous Landscape is one of the BEST resources of photographic information on the web and certainly deserves support and respect.
Final comment:
Reichmann uses rangefinders. Rockwell thinks a manual focus only digital camera is "stupid".
I gave up long ago at looking at Ken's site on a regular basis. Until Michael's comments, it had been over 6 months that I even looked at Ken's site. I found Ken's site to be very ego driven.
Michael's site is one that I check at least once a week. Normally he is straight up. But this last rant has tarnished his reputation with me. I guess those that show up on his workshops with a stock 18-55 and a 55-200 lens will find themselves ending up with gear lust.
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.
Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.
When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
How true that is; even today
:)
nextreme
03-14-2008, 20:28
What doesn't matter is Michael R's opinion.
People say gear does not matter because awards have been won by images taken with mediocre gear. Well, just think how much greater those images would have been if they were taken with Zeiss gear.;)
This is all somewhat ironic, at least for me, because it was Rockwell that actually got me into 35mm. Prior to my Olympus Trip 35, I had never shot on film. When he did that ridiculous comparison between the 5D and the Trip, I was amused and mortified. Shortly after, as fate would have it, a Trip 35 crossed my path and I remembered Rockwell so ended up spending $30 on a CLAed unit.
I've never looked back, and heck, I actually think my skills have improved since I'm taking more time to think about my shots rather than just clicking away indiscriminately. I actually feel better about posting on flickr now.
So out with digital, except for my DMC-L1, and after sampling several other film cameras, I settled comfortably with the Trip, the QL17-GIII and the Olympus OM-2n.
So maybe another way to look at this is that the right camera should be matched with the right photographer. Does that make sense? I can't explain it but I do know that certain cameras immediately "feel right" in my hands. I'm not saying I can't shoot on other cameras, but I probably wouldn't have as much fun and the satisfaction level would be different. In that sense, at least for me, gear does matter.
Zenjitsuman
03-16-2008, 16:34
In my opinion, if you are taking your film or digitals to a Pioneer or like machine at Costco or the drug store you are bringing your fancy gear to the L.C.D. of photofinishing and while it produces exceptable results you probably won't see the $3,000 lens perform better than the average lens on a medium priced camera.
I have alway felt that some courses at a local college in photography or a Nikon or like school seminar is a better use of your money than more gear you seldom use.
ChipNovaMac
03-16-2008, 18:44
its easy to ignore ken rockwell once you realise that he provides opinions / reviews about products that he has not even remotely used.
Add to that he lives off of the "referral" links to buy gear. Michael at least seems to live off his DVD's and workshops.
ChipNovaMac
03-16-2008, 18:59
Hm, have you ever heard about a picture of a lioness nurturing her cups in the wild taken with a rangefinder and normal lens the photographer developed himself after getting away alive?
Edit: I don't get Ken Rockwell, is 1/500th flash sync important or not? Or was it important when Nikon had it and isn't when Nikon hasn't?
Sort of the way I feel about Phil Askey and their reviews over on DPReview at times.
Sort of along the lines of the D300 review conclusions:
- No timed mirror lock-up function (could be automatic with self-timer)
- Non-articulating LCD (increases the usefulness of Live View considerably)
- Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor under incandescent light
The only one above that was subjective IMO was perhaps the the WB issue. But then most of us have grown accepting of the Japanese acceptance of warmer tones in incadencent light than what we prefer in the west....
The others were objective views of what we all debate every time a new camera comes out. We all seem to want more for less.
As one that sells this stuff day in and day out, the new Sony A300 and A350 SLR's offer a lot for the money. Only the Olympus E-3 comes close to what many want. But the negatives did seem more objective.
I find with Rockwell's site not so much the "Gear doesn't matter" part as being offensive, but the less verbalized "The craft doesn't matter".
- The "go out and shoot whatever, in whatever format on automatic", for me misses the point of being a photographer. Yes it is fine for taking pictures.
But you can't make someone want to be a photographer, if all they really want is to take pictures.
So what happens when you give less than great to a good photographer, is that they have the skill, and know the craft.
But skill and craft are almost the same, with one being scandinavian derived and the other (I forget, and I am digressing anyhow).
So my daughter looked at the Rockwell site and choose for her first camera the d40x, which I bought for her. I was advocating her to shoot with a rangefinder for a year (and I would pay for film and processing), and if after that year she decided she still wanted the d40x, then no problem; i would take the film camera for myself and buy her the D40X.
And she has taken some shots which make me proud...
I asked "How did you do that?"
She said, "Well this camera never does what I want it do, so I now shoot it in manual". She is in her first photo class and using a film camera by decree from the instructor, and liking it.
(And I am smiling)
In some sense Rockwell might be right in that it is more important to shoot pictures than obsess over gear, but there is a big void between taking pictures and being a photographer. For the later you need skill and knowledge of the craft, in order to bring out the most in the situation.
Yeah having a sense of composition and and eye for it - is the art side that can be developed, but often is more of an innate talent.
(The part about being a great photographer with crap gear though, is missing the point that (IMO) he should be making, which is: You can take great photo's with average gear, but you will need to learn the skill.
The go out a snap like mad puts it all in the "Chance" category. When film was time consuming and expensive, you had to first learn how to get the shots to be consistent, as well as learn how all the rest.
The best advise might be to take a class and not learn all your info from the net.
So I just held in my hands last week an Ikon, and took some shots which are yet to be developed. (Oh how I wish I had gotten it...) On the other-hand, my little lamb would likely not have been as eager to get more into photography. For tLL (the little Lamb) Rockwell might have been right, but there is lots of room for other opinions than Rockwell's.
LtLL now wants possession of an old 4x5 that I have.
tLL said the only things that scare her with the 4x5, are:
1) Not being able to chimp with the 4x5.
2) No zoom
I said in the old days when we had just come down from the trees, we chimped with a film-back called polaroid. It took a minute but the world moved slower, so it wasn't too long to wait. We also used the popular foot-zoom that God and Darwin bestowed upon is.
tLL> "what's a foot-zoom?"
Me> "you walk closer"
tLL> She laughed and looked down at her feet - "Ohhh - I'll remember that one..."
I find with Rockwell's site not so much the "Gear doesn't matter" part as being offensive, but the less verbalized "The craft doesn't matter".
- The "go out and shoot whatever, in whatever format on automatic", for me misses the point of being a photographer. Yes it is fine for taking pictures...
I think you're completely misunderstanding what Rockwell says. If you actually read it, you will see that learning the craft of photography - both film and digital - is what his site is all about. Rockwell shoots most of his 'personal' photography on a 5X4 camera: the 35mm/digital reviews are what he does to fund himself. The whole point of the 'Cameras don't matter' article is that technique and 'eye' are what is really important, rather than having the latest camera.
I think you're completely misunderstanding what Rockwell says. If you actually read it, you will see that learning the craft of photography - both film and digital - is what his site is all about. Rockwell shoots most of his 'personal' photography on a 5X4 camera: the 35mm/digital reviews are what he does to fund himself. The whole point of the 'Cameras don't matter' article is that technique and 'eye' are what is really important, rather than having the latest camera.
I don't know I read it different.
The one thing that comes to mind is his statement that Imagination is the root word of image.
Surely it is the other way around!
Statements like that I find irritate me, and I gave up.
I don't know how he fund himself, but his paypal donation is one way.
Personally I found little value in reading his blogs, and so out of respect (mostly to myself) I don't.
Ara Ghajanian
03-20-2008, 09:37
I agree on all points with Ken Rockwell. Photos haven't improved over the years because of "better" equipment. They've gotten more convenient, but if anything the image quality has gotten worse. How can you compare the image quality of a digital camera to a 8x10 negative? Yes, it's much easier and convenient to get a shot with a DSLR than having to set up a view camera, but people need to figure out which one works best for them, not which one is better over the other.
There should be a new art form created called "equipment testing". All these people can sit around in a circle and masturbate (figuratively) over each others' gear. These are the same people who MUST list exactly what pieces of equipment are used to make each of their photos as if the equipment is giving them credibility. If anything, you shouldn't list your gear and technique because you're just giving away the secrets you've worked so hard to develop.
I think I finally got over that mountain Ken is speaking of. I made the mistake of thinking that buying an M8 would make me take more and better photos. All the photos I took with the M8 looked like all my other photos (which I'm very happy with). All it afforded me was the convenience to post images quicker than with film. So I'm selling it because that $5000 can be better spent on other things.
Just remember what they say in the recording industry: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on a 4-track analog deck with no automation. Do you think the Beatles could have written better music if they were in a state-of-the-art digital studio? Maybe. I doubt it though, listen to anything Paul has done in the last 20 years. Hahahaha
Ara
photogdave
03-20-2008, 09:55
I agree on all points with Ken Rockwell. Photos haven't improved over the years because of "better" equipment. They've gotten more convenient, but if anything the image quality has gotten worse. How can you compare the image quality of a digital camera to a 8x10 negative? Yes, it's much easier and convenient to get a shot with a DSLR than having to set up a view camera, but people need to figure out which one works best for them, not which one is better over the other.
There should be a new art form created called "equipment testing". All these people can sit around in a circle and masturbate (figuratively) over each others' gear. These are the same people who MUST list exactly what pieces of equipment are used to make each of their photos as if the equipment is giving them credibility. If anything, you shouldn't list your gear and technique because you're just giving away the secrets you've worked so hard to develop.
I think I finally got over that mountain Ken is speaking of. I made the mistake of thinking that buying an M8 would make me take more and better photos. All the photos I took with the M8 looked like all my other photos (which I'm very happy with). All it afforded me was the convenience to post images quicker than with film. So I'm selling it because that $5000 can be better spent on other things.
Just remember what they say in the recording industry: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on a 4-track analog deck with no automation. Do you think the Beatles could have written better music if they were in a state-of-the-art digital studio? Maybe. I doubt it though, listen to anything Paul has done in the last 20 years. Hahahaha
Ara
But IF the Beatles did record Sgt. Pepper now it would certainly SOUND better.
I do list the gear I use for the shots I post. Not to show off what I have (no one is really impressed about my lineup of Voigtlander lenses), but because people seem interested to know and it's no skin off my nose to share that info.
We have the A550, with about 5K photos on it, great camera, and yes, it does take great photos, even 20"x30" posters. The only advantage I would see in a 5D would be interchangeable lenses for tele, and if one were an action photographer I'd guess they could fire off a lot of shots quickly. The 5D's FF would also allow for wider than the A550's 35mm equiv', and the A550 gets noisy above 200 or so ISO, where maybe the 5D could do better in low light than the A550.
mikeb380
03-20-2008, 22:39
I agree, to a point.
My first caveat is that in the world of consumer SLRs (digital or film) there's a substantial difference between cheap consumer zooms and more "top-end" lenses (or even cheap primes). Its easy to forget that by that standard, pretty much all RF lenses are very good.
My second caveat is that cameras matter more in the digital world. With film its same format, same film. Top and bottom end cameras all share the same sensor technology. Not so in the digital world, and this can matter.
...Mike
Mike, I disagree with that statement. A Pop Photo photog/writer did an article on what difference do MP mean. He stated that it is really meaningless due to technical features of the various sensors. He showed why a Canon Snappy at 4mp might have better resolution than a 10mp Nikon. (No I'm not starting a flame war, that is the only caeras I could think of at the moment) What he was saying is that a manufactuer could claim a certain camera was 10mp and the res it was getting was very low while the P&S had better res with a lower claimed MP. Talking about tools, it all comes down to the tools you use to measure a certain spec and how you translate it.
I just gave my son in law my EOS 300D and got a 350D. That was a jump of about 2MP and yet when I blow up photos from the two of them, I cannot see any difference. People make too much of MP and not enough on how to use the tools. If you are a lousy craftsman it doesn't matter how good a lathe and cutting tools you have, You'll end with just as lousy results as a cheapo lathe.
I think you guys are trying to pick the flys**t out of the pepper. No, you cannot take a P&S with a fixed lens and shoot a subject from 300 yards. You need a camera with a tele or a zoom. Once having arrived at that conclusion, it really doesn't matter whether you use a FED 3 camera with a Jupiter 250 MM lens or a Leica M7 with a CZJ lens. Using the same film and techniques your photos will be the same, I've helped prove it using a Topcon and my friend using a Leica M3 and shooting the same subject at the same time. After processing and printing 11X14s from both our manager couldn't tell which camera did which photo. In fact when he shuffled them and handed them back, we couldn't either.
Yes, you have to have a tool suitable for the job, but you don't need the most expensive available. The manufacturers just found a bunch of suckers they could convince they needed "the best" 'Tis to laugh as someone or t'other once said. L glass? Why? do you really think it will make you a better photographer? I think not.
Now you can all flame me or some of you can. :D
Michael d' Angel
Michael Reichmann doesn't have a single point for as long as he's illustrating his article with puketures that could have been taken with a point and shoot..
wlewisiii
03-21-2008, 00:31
LtLL now wants possession of an old 4x5 that I have.
tLL said the only things that scare her with the 4x5, are:
1) Not being able to chimp with the 4x5.
2) No zoom
I said in the old days when we had just come down from the trees, we chimped with a film-back called polaroid. It took a minute but the world moved slower, so it wasn't too long to wait. We also used the popular foot-zoom that God and Darwin bestowed upon is.
tLL> "what's a foot-zoom?"
Me> "you walk closer"
tLL> She laughed and looked down at her feet - "Ohhh - I'll remember that one..."
This is a wonderful distillation of everything that needs to be in a Photo 101 class these days.
One other point - you can too chimp easily on a 4x5 sans polariod. It's just that you have to move your head around rather than the ground glass...
More seriously, that Lady needs a Speed Graphic, an Ektar 127/4.7 with a working RF & some GE #22's... :eek: :bang: ;)
To the OP: Count me with bill & dmr.
William
mfunnell
03-21-2008, 00:47
I agree, to a point.
My first caveat is that in the world of consumer SLRs (digital or film) there's a substantial difference between cheap consumer zooms and more "top-end" lenses (or even cheap primes). Its easy to forget that by that standard, pretty much all RF lenses are very good.
My second caveat is that cameras matter more in the digital world. With film its same format, same film. Top and bottom end cameras all share the same sensor technology. Not so in the digital world, and this can matter.
...Mike
Mike, I disagree with that statement.Um, I think I made two of 'em - but I guess you disagree with both.A Pop Photo photog/writer did an article on what difference do MP mean. [...] I just gave my son in law my EOS 300D and got a 350D. That was a jump of about 2MP and yet when I blow up photos from the two of them, I cannot see any difference. [...] Hmmm... I would have thought my 2nd statement was far the less problematic. If I shoot Fuji NPH in my Olympus P&S, my Canon SLR or Leica M3 its still NPH, and so the sensor is the same (within batch-to-batch tolerances from Fujifilm) no matter the camera. If I shoot 3 different digital cameras from three different manufacturers I'm likely shooting three different sensors and imaging engines. How important these differences are depends on a whole raft of factors. Nonetheless, there are differences, whereas NPH is NPH is NPH. I'm not quite sure how you can disagree with that. If, as you say, you do then I'll remain confused and just leave it at that.
I think you guys are trying to pick the flys**t out of the pepper. No, you cannot take a P&S with a fixed lens and shoot a subject from 300 yards. You need a camera with a tele or a zoom.I have a digi "superzoom" with a non-interchangable lens that can do that. Sometimes with good results, other times not.
Once having arrived at that conclusion, it really doesn't matter whether you use a FED 3 camera with a Jupiter 250 MM lens or a Leica M7 with a CZJ lens.You're better than I am if you can accurately focus a 250mm lens on an RF camera.
Using the same film and techniques your photos will be the same, I've helped prove it using a Topcon and my friend using a Leica M3 and shooting the same subject at the same time. After processing and printing 11X14s from both our manager couldn't tell which camera did which photo. In fact when he shuffled them and handed them back, we couldn't either.(my emphasis)
Using two different digital cameras you might or might not get indistinguishable results, depending on camera and conditions. Using the same film means your sensor was the same in the above test, which you can't generally do with different digital cameras.
Yes, you have to have a tool suitable for the job, but you don't need the most expensive available.No you don't. But I can tell, same focal length and aperture, that my EF 50mm f1.8 (a very inexpensive lens) takes a technically better shot than my kit EF-S 18-55 lens. Even on a 6x4. Move up to a better zoom (eg. my father's Sigma 17-70) and that's not so, or at least not so much. A certain minimum level of technical quality is needed. My first statement re cheap consumer zooms was intended to say such lenses often aren't good enough to meet that minimal level (though no doubt some are).
The manufacturers just found a bunch of suckers they could convince they needed "the best" 'Tis to laugh as someone or t'other once said. L glass? Why? do you really think it will make you a better photographer?No. And I never said such a thing.
I think not.
Now you can all flame me or some of you can. :D
Michael d' AngelHappy to oblige. :D
...Mike
mikeb380
03-23-2008, 20:06
;781159]Um, I think I made two of 'em - but I guess you disagree with both.Hmmm... I would have thought my 2nd statement was far the less problematic. If I shoot Fuji NPH in my Olympus P&S, my Canon SLR or Leica M3 its still NPH, and so the sensor is the same (within batch-to-batch tolerances from Fujifilm) no matter the camera. If I shoot 3 different digital cameras from three different manufacturers I'm likely shooting three different sensors and imaging engines. How important these differences are depends on a whole raft of factors. Nonetheless, there are differences, whereas NPH is NPH is NPH. I'm not quite sure how you can disagree with that. If, as you say, you do then I'll remain confused and just leave it at that.
I have a digi "superzoom" with a non-interchangable lens that can do that. Sometimes with good results, other times not.
Mike, seems as though you are contradicting yourself there.You state that cameras shooting NPH all have the same sensor and thus no difference in quality. Then you say that the lens makes a big difference. you can't have it both ways.
; You're better than I am if you can accurately focus a 250mm lens on an RF camera.
I was using a reflex viewer for that. :eek: Actually, you're correct, I misspoke on the focal length, it should have been 50mm. My tpying sux :o
[quote=mfunnell; SNIP
No you don't. But I can tell, same focal length and aperture, that my EF 50mm f1.8 (a very inexpensive lens) takes a technically better shot than my kit EF-S 18-55 lens. Even on a 6x4. Move up to a better zoom (eg. my father's Sigma 17-70) and that's not so, or at least not so much. A certain minimum level of technical quality is needed. My first statement re cheap consumer zooms was intended to say such lenses often aren't good enough to meet that minimal level (though no doubt some are).
No. And I never said such a thing. [/QUOTE]
Mike, funny thing is that a member of our camera club entered last year's Canon National Parks contest and won first prize nationally. He used the EF 18-55 to get the photo. I know some of the people in that contest had to be using "better" i.e. more expensive lenses. Yes, you can get a cheap lens which stinks, but you can also get an expensive lens which doesn't do such a hot job either.. Actually, though I agree with you on the kit lens, I got rid of mine because I thought it was junky. Bart loves his.
As I said, my friend and I compared leica and topcon cameras and theoretically the leica should have been better as it was shooting much more expensive glass. It just wasn't there in the blow ups we did from the film. Now, from what I gather you are stating is that two cameras shooting NPH would get the same results regardless of Camera make and cost? Just because NPH is NPH is NPH? If you believe that, why buy an expensive camera? Is the FED really as good as the LEICA if they both shoot the same film? In terms of photo quality I mean. Basically, that is what I'm saying, you don't need expensive L glass to get good photos. Especially if all you do is post your photos on the web.
Anyhoo, everyone will believe what ever he wants to believe regarding the relevance of equipment cost and photo quality. I personally haven't seen any equivalency.
Peace
Michael :bang:
I'm looking to get a used Nikon D200 as I'm getting more studio type work. I've tried using a Leica in a studio and it's just... not right.
I agree any camera can be used to do most jobs. But there's something to be said about the way people work and the right tool for the job.
skibeerr
03-25-2008, 05:27
As a professional cook/ butcher I use three basic knives, all my amateur friends have an extensive set of expensive knives and can talk for hours about them.
For the moment I own about 7 cameras and I know that my images are not that good but I can talk for hours about them.
!!NO SMILY!!
Gabriel M.A.
03-25-2008, 08:42
But IF the Beatles did record Sgt. Pepper now it would certainly SOUND better.
Would it? There are certain things that are just fine the way they were intended to be. Some recordings --I'm talking beyond The Beatles now-- which used an intentionally-mistuned (or "targeted tuned") piano just wouldn't be as great with a perfect-pitch instrument.
Everything isn't absolute, yet nothing is not absolute. Absolutes are absolutely self-defeating.
And that is the Absolute Truth :D
Or not. I'm confused. No I'm not. I think.
I once spent an evening with Brett Weston, and to quote something that he said to me, "photography is a visual medium. The less we speak about it, the better. Let's just make images."
Russ
I've seen people with little ability waste and damage good tools and I've seen people who 'get it' produce great results by modifying, coaxing and using tools to their limit.
I think the statement should be "the camera isn't the most important........."
mfunnell
04-01-2008, 05:15
Mike, seems as though you are contradicting yourself there.You state that cameras shooting NPH all have the same sensor and thus no difference in quality. Then you say that the lens makes a big difference. you can't have it both ways.Sorry for the late reply (I've been away) and for flogging a long-dead horse. We were, as I recall, discussing which factors were more, or less, important in determining overall image quality. I suggested that:
(1) Because different digital cameras of the same format (eg. APS-C) use different (and non-interchangable) sensors, choice of digital camera makes more difference than choice of film camera. All 35mm film cameras can be loaded with Velvia. Only Canon cameras have Canon sensors. Even when the same (say, Sony) sensor is used, different support electronics ("imaging engines") are often used. So the choice of a Canon vs Nikon digital SLR will make more difference to final image quality than choice of Canon vs Nikon film SLRs. I can load Delta 400 in both film cameras but cannot load a Canon sensor in my Nikon digital SLR. If I want and like the look of Canon sensors then I must buy a Canon digital SLR. If I like Porta 800 I can load it in whatever film camera I like. Choice of camera makes a difference for digital while choice of camera makes less difference for film. Because I can use the same film in different cameras but must use different electronics in different digital cameras. However, I doubt I've made myself clear . If you disagree then let's just say I'm wrong. Different sensors produce the same results, while the same film magically changes itself based on the camera its used in. Or whatever.
(2) I agreed with an earlier poster that often the lens used makes less difference than people think. However, I raised the caveat that most rangefinder lenses are pretty good but often cheap SLR zooms are not. Hence "buying a better lens" might gain you more, as improving from "not good to good" rather than "good to better" produces a more obvious difference.
You disagree with this as well. Fine. I see this as more problematic than my first statement. But I don't see how this contradicts my first statement at all. I certainly don't see how it is "having things both ways". Choice of camera and choice of lens both have some influence on the final image. As do choice of format, print size, post-processing and all the other factors being discussed. I think choice of camera matters more when that results in a different sensor, and I think choice of lens matters more when the quality of one lens is fairly low.
I don't really know what you think.
You appear to be saying that two 35mm film cameras loaded with the same film produce results which are quite unalike, while two digital cameras with very different sensors take photos with few differences. Me, I can't see much difference between Provia shot in an EOS 30V and Provia shot in a Nikon F601 (both with 50mm lenses, both I've used recently). I can see obvious differences between my 30D and my friend's D70 (mostly in amount of and "look" of noise at mid-to-high ISO sensitivity). You maintain they are less different than the aforementioned film shots. Or seem to, though I can't really think you do.
You seem to think the difference in quality between, say, a Canon LTM 50/f1.8 and an M-Hexanon 50/f2 is large (I think they produce a different signature but are of similar-enough quality) while a kit zoom and a Canon L prime are of equivalent quality (I think their kit zooms can be adequate-to-good when stopped down and used within their limits, but that almost any prime will do as well or better, and have wider limits). This is more a matter of personal taste and opinion, but I still wonder if you believe what you seem to be saying.
...Mike
the fact that you are holding a pencil doesnt make you an artist!
...no matter how sharp and what colour the pencil is :)
edrodgers731
04-11-2008, 08:32
I liked Michael's article more than Ken's. It's definitely true that better equipment will not make you a better photographer.
HOWEVER: Better equipment will improve image quality, or shape image quality in ways that a cell phone camera or a holga can't. With a cell phone, a photographer limits their expression a great deal.
So, if you are already a great photographer, better equipment will open up your potential. If you are limited by your gear, then you need to upgrade until you are no longer limited.
I love my tools, and for me, better tools means better expression.
So to anyone that says cameras don't matter, I say bah.
To anyone that says that cameras take good pictures, I say bah.
You can't win at Nascar with a honda civic, I don't care who you are. That's a poor tool choice. It matters.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.