Equipment reviews

[jmarcus]

Do you ever feel that all this talk about equipment is just crap, that as long as you have reasonable good optics and body, its is the person who makes the great picture?

I know people are bummed about the M8 but its not a Leica film camera. Film got much better over the years, as will digital. In the end don't great photographers make great photos regardless of the equipment?

sometimes I get tired of all this camera bashing.

</endRant>

[akptc]

With the same question in mind I visited this website (http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=2060&subSubSection=1637365&language=EN) and discovered tons of stunning images, many of them taken with what I considered rather average lenses. I have to say it made me think hard about investing any more in gear vs. investing more time in polishing my skills...

[photogdave]

With the same question in mind I visited this website (http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=2060&subSubSection=1637365&language=EN) and discovered tons of stunning images, many of them taken with what I considered rather average lenses. I have to say it made me think hard about investing any more in gear vs. investing more time in polishing my skills...
Definitely some nice images but I'm a little suspicious of some of the macro-looking shots that say they are taken with the 18-250mm. That lens doesn't seem to have any macro capabilities.
I do agree with the spirit of the thread though. Some of my best (and even award-winning) shots were taken with cheap third-party lenses on a used Nikon SLR.

[anoldsock]

Do you ever feel that all this talk about equipment is just crap, that as long as you have reasonable good optics and body, its is the person who makes the great picture?

I know people are bummed about the M8 but its not a Leica film camera. Film got much better over the years, as will digital. In the end don't great photographers make great photos regardless of the equipment?

sometimes I get tired of all this camera bashing.

</endRant>

Yes!!! Definately, yes.

[Chris101]

Yes within reason. Some cameras/lenses excel at certain types of photos, so the equipment does matter. For example if I were to go birding, I would not take a 35mm lens on a Leica. On the other hand, many gearaholics would sneer at my D100 with a 180mm and Kenko teleconverter, but it does pretty well.

But I know what you mean. The internet has spawned the bad idea that only the latest/most expensive gear will do.

[Roger Hicks]

Yes and no. Obviously, reviewing gear is part of my living, and I think that people do want to know how new gear behaves.

Lately, though, I've spent less and less time on the minutiae of how a lens behaves when shooting test targets and more on how it handles, how bulky it is, what it is/is not suitable for (as compared with the competition), etc. -- the sort of answers you'd want if you asked a knowledgeable friend, with experience of a wide range of lenses, "What's it like?"

On the other hand, I have again and again stated my firm belief in a 'quality plateau' above which the skill of the photographer makes more difference than the quality of the camera or lens. Up to a certain point, a better lens -- a Summicron instead of a Summar, let's say -- will give you better pictures in the conventional sense.

Above the point, it doesn't usually matter much: what you are buying is often 'signature' or 'magic', a lens that particularly suits you and the pictures you take.

The reason for emphasising 'in the conventional sense' above is that almost any lens, no matter how awful in conventional terms, can be used to create good pictures if you work with its limitations, exploiting those limitations, rather than trying to take pictures to which it is not suited. A lens with lousy distortion is not much good for architecture, but it might be perfect for portraits...

The picture on the home page of our website was taken with a 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 macro, and if you go from there to the Photo School, the first pic there was taken with a 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar. Not 'glamour bottles'.

And as my wife Frances Schultz said, "When I'm not with the lens I love, I love the lens I'm with."

Cheers,

Roger

[ClaremontPhoto]

I agree entire with the original poster.

Just yesterday I published an interview with a photographer at

http://news.my-expressions.com/archives/7_36404728/293384

and discovered that he often uses a Vivitar Slim Wide (35mm film, 22mm lens), about £5 at eBay.

His photos are stylish and he doesn't spend a lot on 'gear'.

[Spider67]

It has become very hard to find a really bad lens! I agree that reviews of gear should be about what will work within certain limits. It's interesting that it has become hard to find a really bad lens whose weaknesses are evident.
Cameras and lenses from Leica, Canon or Nikon have a good reputation...So if your equipment is from L/C/N and your photos still suck well then the equipment is no exuse.
"85 mm is the portraitlens!" or "a basic SLR equpiment has to contain 50mm, 35mm and 135mm!" and the firm belief of many (me included) in this evangelism like statements wasted much money. Many of those reviwes or recommendationw ere written by guys sponsored by manufaturers.

[Roger Hicks]

It has become very hard to find a really bad lens! I agree that reviews of gear should be about what will work within certain limits. It's interesting that it has become hard to find a really bad lens whose weaknesses are evident.
Cameras and lenses from Leica, Canon or Nikon have a good reputation...So if your equipment is from L/C/N and your photos still suck well then the equipment is no exuse.
"85 mm is the portraitlens!" or "a basic SLR equpiment has to contain 50mm, 35mm and 135mm!" and the firm belief of many (me included) in this evangelism like statements wasted much money. Many of those reviwes or recommendationw ere written by guys sponsored by manufaturers.

Forgive me for putting 'sponsored' in bold. but 'bribed' would be a better word.

You might find the attached amusing (from someone who used Leicas for 30 years before getting even a press discount, let alone a freebie).

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/freebies.html

Cheers,

Roger

[kuvvy]

I must admit I too get a little fed up of camera bashing and 'my camera/lens/flash/bag etc is better than yours' type of arguments. I think that good pictures can be made with any camera as long as they're used within their limits. I joined RFF when I saw some of the excellent shots here that to my surprise had been taken on cheap Russian cameras or lenses.

My own problem is can you have too much gear. Although I don't really have a lot compared to many here. I have a handful of compacts from the Vivitar Ultra wide mentioned above (3 in fact) through to a Nikon D80 with a couple of RFs inbetween. It's always difficult to decide what to use as all give good results.

[jmarcus]

Thanks for all the replies.

I'm glad everyone got the spirit of my post. Just want to make it clear I don't have a problem with professional reviews of equipment, but more how we can get so obsessed with the ultimate equipment.

I think Ralph Gibson once said something to the degree of you only need one lens (50mm) for the first few years.

Thanks all!

James

[jmarcus]

Roger Hicks
And as my wife Frances Schultz said, "When I'm not with the lens I love, I love the lens I'm with."

This is great!

[CK Dexter Haven]

akptc -
Try www.altphotos.com, also. Lots of brilliant stuff, shot with cameras/lenses that would be sneered at by most gearhounds. They have 18 year old kids from Poland and Russia, shooting with 35mm Zenits, and getting far better results than guys here, with M8s and Noctiluxes....

I bought a book by a 'fashion' photographer named Tim Walker. I thought i recognized from the character of the images that he was shooting with a Pentax 67. I did some 'net research' and found he uses a Pentax 35mm camera and Reala. Not exactly "high end" stuff, and the results are beautiful. Peter Lindbergh and Ellen von Unwerth built their careers with a Nikkor 50mm lens. $300. I guess i eventually grew tired of reading diatribes and pontifications by (insert cliché here) 'dentists' about why they NEED a two thousand dollar aspherical lens to take "sharp" pictures of bark and blurry pictures of the homeless.

I used to be in pursuit of the "ultimate" gear pieces. Now, i'm just looking for the 'right' pieces. I used to have Leica M7s. I had both 35-ASPH lenses (twice!). The 50-ASPH. I've sold them all, and i'm happier with an Ikon and a Nokton (and a 50 Summicron). I'm also (nearly) in love with a newly acquired Nikon F80 and el-cheapo, plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8. I got the F80 for $61, like new. It's like a miniature f100. And, it sounds divine — the best shutter/motordrive combo i've ever heard.

I've reached a point, only recently, where i can afford anything i want, but now that i can, i don't want anything more. That's either a sign of maturity or exhaustion....

Of course, that doesn't mean i won't buy/sell/trade any further. But, i don't think i'm "chasing the magic bullet" anymore.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[Roger Hicks]

I used to be in pursuit of the "ultimate" gear pieces. Now, I'm just looking for the 'right' pieces.

Brilliant!

Cheers,

R.

[kalokeri]

Just yesterday I published an interview with a photographer at

http://news.my-expressions.com/archives/7_36404728/293384

and discovered that he often uses a Vivitar Slim Wide (35mm film, 22mm lens), about £5 at eBay.

His photos are stylish and he doesn't spend a lot on 'gear'.


Thanks for the link, Jon. Very interesting.

Back to topic: I admit I like camera and lens reviews, maybe I am what we call "gearhead". On a higher level of consciousness I know that it takes just one camera and one lens to take (great) pictures. Maybe I will stay on that cloud some day. Untill then I like to read other people writing about cameras and lenses as well as cars and girls - isn´t that what life is said to be?

Thomas

[feenej]

We have the best of both worlds. Spend a lot if you have the money, but you can still get great optics if you don't. Nobody needs to feel bad about either aproach.

[tom_uk]

Of course, we ought to remember that while it might be difficult to distinguish between two images taken with different lenses in the case of small images displayed on a computer monitor, an enlargement to, say, 20" x 30" might tell a different story.

[Roger Hicks]

Of course, we ought to remember that while it might be difficult to distinguish between two images taken with different lenses in the case of small images displayed on a computer monitor, an enlargement to, say, 20" x 30" might tell a different story.
Dear Tom,

Very true, but equally, there are quite a lot of pictures that simply do not rely on technical quality.

I'd go so far as to say that if you notice the technical quality before the content, it's probably not a very good picture anyway.

That's not to deny the value or existence of technical quality. An ideal picture demonstrates perfect technique (for the subject) as well as being aesthetically pleasing. Even so, I'd prefer artistically excellent but technically less-than-perfect pictures over pictures that are technically perfect and nothing else, every time.

Cheers,

Roger

[back alley]

it's never been about a magic bullet for me (well, maybe when i was really young) but more about the experience of playing with different gear and seeing what i could do with it.

i like reviews cause i can see what another person thinks of the gear but i usually decide on what do buy or sell based on my own desires.

joe

[peripatetic]

There are two separate but related hobbies.

One is cameras, the other making images. It is possible to gain great enjoyment from either or indeed both, but being an expert in one area is not necessarily an indication of ability or even interest in the other.

Men obviously are more prone to gear-headedness, and show me an image maker who cares nothing about equipment and I'll happily give decent odds on it being a woman.

Of course everyone nowadays has a camera or five, and most people are not very good at making interesting images and don't know much about gear either.

I happen to enjoy both aspects of photography, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[ClaremontPhoto]

I agree with you peripatetic.

When I'm at my 'day job' over at Expressions (http://my-expressions.com/) I see any number of great photos every day.

The majority of members there are female, and they never talk about 'gear' at all.

It just doesn't figure into their image-making.

I went there expecting a male dominated membership talking about effective base length and so on. Instead I found a female dominated membership who are into their photos much more than their Canon or Nikon.

[JeffGreene]

Given the theme discussed:

An amateur photographer was invited to dinner with friends, and he took along a few pictures to show to them. The hostess looked at the photos and commented, "These are very good! You must have a good camera."

The photographer didn't make any comment, but as he was leaving to go home, he said, "That was a really delicious meal! You must have some very good pots."

[Benjamin Marks]

I used to believe as the OP stated. I still believe that it is more important to be able to see (an interpretive process) as opposed to look (a physical act). And I still believe that a photographer with a great eye can produce an interesting image with whatever is at hand. But others have argued with me about this, with powerful and persuasive force, that the brand of brush does matter to the final finished painting, just as the differences between lenses really do matter. I still believe that just having a great lens does not make you a great photographer. And what do you know? I have a drawer full of great glass and a hard-drive full of mediocre images to prove this. And then there are the keepers . . . On the other hand, a fine tool is a joy to hold.

BTW: Although the joke about the cook is a good one, in reality, it does help to have good pots. Good knives doesn't hurt either, and makes the cooking process muuuuch more enjoyable.

[peripatetic]

Edit, never mind Benjamin beat me to the punch...

[Roger Hicks]

Although the joke about the cook is a good one, in reality, it does help to have good pots. Good knives doesn't hurt either, and makes the cooking process muuuuch more enjoyable.
Dear Benjamin,

Absolutely!

And my own view -- which you have just clarified (thank you very much) -- is that if you really care about any activity, you buy the best tools you can afford in order to carry out that activity. A walker buys good walking boots; a cook buys good pots and knives; a photographer buys good cameras and lenses. Using good tools, to do something you enjoy, is much more pleasurable.

The big problem is getting rid of childish ideas of The Best -- What's The Best Camera? What's The Best range of kitchen knives? -- and recognizing that above a certain level, The Best is personal. Anyone who says that Canon is The Best is a fool. Likewise anyone who says Leica is The Best. Or Alpa or Linhof or Gandolfi or Nikon.

Someone who says, "I use ________ because I enjoy using it" is realistic, buit he is an idiot who says, "An XYZ DSLR will do all that an M8 will." Maybe for you, chum, but not for me, because it's a different camera and I won't enjoy using it as much. The _________ camera might be a $10,000 Alpa or a $100 Exakta: the point is that you're happy using it, and that it doesn't limit your vision, but complements it.

Good pictures are a bonus on top. But you'll get better pictures using the cameras you enjoy.

Cheers,

Roger

[BillP]

Ah, this is a heartwarming thread. Many of the views expressed equate to my own.

Photography is a journey, after all. I started out as a child, not knowing good from bad. As an adolescent, I had the longest lens I could afford, and the widest. But they were cheap, and nasty. As a young man, I had a shiny, flashy, do everything SLR with fast, state of the art, zooms. As a mature man I had a new Leica and fine lenses - image quality was everything to me. Now, as a man in middle age, I still have Leicas, but mostly they are old - older than me. They are mine because they please me, in use, and in the delivery of fine results. They are not the most expensive, the most novel, nor the most advanced, but they are mine, and they suit me.

Regards,

Bill

[merlin]

... I think Ralph Gibson once said something to the degree of you only need one lens (50mm) for the first few years.

........ Or your last few, in my case.

Good post James, it does all get down to your 'eye'. All the rest is fluff, maybe important fluff, but fluff nevertheless.

Bruce

[oftheherd]

I managed to take some nice photos with a Yashikor 135mm and 28mm when those were the only two extra lenses I had. They would flare at the mere mention of light, but I got pretty good after a while at using flare creatively when it couldn't be avoided. When I finally got hold of a pair of Fujinons to replace them I was disappointed a few times when I "saw" photos with flare and couldn't take them. :D :D :D

Those fujinons and the EBC just would not flare. But there were things I liked about the Fujinons for sure. And used them over the Yashikors unless I had a compelling reason to do so.