I have some bad news about gear...

S

SciAggie

Well-known
Local time
6:05 PM
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
541
Location
Texas
View My Gallery
I was looking through my gallery a moment ago. The two most viewed images I have were taken with gear that would not impress anyone.

One image was shot with a scale focus Nikonos III. The other was shot with a Nikon P7000 P&S.

It just goes to show it's not ALL about the gear. Please don't flame me; I love my rangefinders (and my evil DSLR). I just thought there was irony in the fact that my two most viewed images were made with rather nondescript (and inexpensive) equipment.
 
Don't knock the Nikonos. I have one and think the 35mm f2.5 is a fine lens. Someone here said it is the same as the ltm Nikkor 35mm f2.5 which is also a fine lens. Nikonos is a great bad weather camera and Roger would tell you that they are also very tough. Joe
 
I just realised today that a lot of my "best" photos come from a Fed 5. Strange, considering I've always considered it the bulky workhorse of my camera shelf.

I think sometimes it's more about what you have with you at the right time than anything. Of course, having the right gear for the right job is what you're looking for, but sometimes you'll find that perfect shot, that one that will make you a fortune/look great on your wall/make the front page/whatever - and you'll only be carrying a Holga. And it just won't matter.

Of course, maybe that's your shtick...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm
 
Livesteamer said:
Don't knock the Nikonos. I have one and think the 35mm f2.5 is a fine lens. Someone here said it is the same as the ltm Nikkor 35mm f2.5 which is also a fine lens. Nikonos is a great bad weather camera and Roger would tell you that they are also very tough. Joe
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to disrespect the Nikonos. I really have a lot of respect for it. The picture in question was taken on a rainy day.
 
Coldkennels said:
I just realised today that a lot of my "best" photos come from a Fed 5. Strange, considering I've always considered it the bulky workhorse of my camera shelf.

I think sometimes it's more about what you have with you at the right time than anything. Of course, having the right gear for the right job is what you're looking for, but sometimes you'll find that perfect shot, that one that will make you a fortune/look great on your wall/make the front page/whatever - and you'll only be carrying a Holga. And it just won't matter.

Of course, maybe that's your shtick...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm
Click to expand...

That is my very point. Well said.
 
I totally agree. In fact, I sold all of my high priced Leica/Hasselblad/Rolleiflex gear because I found some inexpensive cameras that deliver nearly the same quality of photos (in the Retina's case, even better) for very little money. On my wall right now are some shots from a Leica Summicron, a Konica C-35, a Canon AE-1 w/ 50 1.8, and a Nikon 6006 w/ a cheap plastic 35 80 zoom. Yes, the Leica image is pretty dang sharp, but the others look fine too, and what is important is the subject matter of the photos, not the lens sharpness.
 
As Edward Steichen said, "the best photographer is not as good as the simplest camera".

The common logic nowadays is that the more expensive the camera and lens, the better the resulting images will be. This is far from true, but don't tell this to the marketers at Leica, Nikon, etc. People may wake up and decide that it's their technique which needs improvement, and not their gear. And, 99% of the time, this would be correct.
 
I really don't understand all the gear agony and I mean that both ways. Both the gear doesn't matter camp or the agonizing over and comparing the most minute details camp.

Use what you like and what makes you happy. No need to over think any of it.
 
Of my top 10 photos according to flickr -

D70s (3)
Leica III w/Summar (1)
Leica IIIc w/Summar (1)
Olympus 35SP (1)
Bronica SQA (1)
Rolleicord (1)
Zenobia (1)
Yashica Lynx 14 (1)

Of this cameras, the D70s is my least used these days as I enjoy shooting film more. The III was felled by the IIIc due to the rangefinder / composition window difference. The Rolleicord was adopted by my wife when I switched to the Autocord. The Zenobia was replaced by a 6x6 camera with coupled rangefinder focus.... etc. Most of these cameras have either moved on or are on hold for friends.

I didn't change gear because of image quality or capability for the most part but due to ergonomic preferences, a preference for 6x6, smaller gear, cutting out redundant gear, etc. And yes, occasionally because I didn't like how a lens rendered because it didn't produce the look I preferred.

Granted, according to flickr, I should focus on taking pictures of young attractive women so I don't take popularity there all that seriously. I'm much more interested in what I think of my photos. 😉
 
Why does this topic come up everyday?

I can use the cheapest P&S to take a picture of a beautiful naked woman and get a hell lot more views than other stuff I've taken pictures of.

Just so it happened that you took the most interesting pictures with cheaper gear does not invalidate the values of high end gears.
 
My most viewed images are hands down pictures of some of my very pretty Ukrainian teachers I work with in Ukraine, most of which are taken on a P&S 35mm, and some on a Fuji digital.
 
Good photographs have no relation at all with expensive gear...

The reason for expensive gear is not top/tripod IQ, but durability... But this can fail too...

And even beyond final IQ being the same practically in both cases, less durable gear can produce visual compositions as good as more durable gear... Or better, if the tool is better for a given situation... No tool is the best for all situations.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Araakii said:
Why does this topic come up everyday?

I can use the cheapest P&S to take a picture of a beautiful naked woman and get a hell lot more views than other stuff I've taken pictures of.

Just so it happened that you took the most interesting pictures with cheaper gear does not invalidate the values of high end gears.
Click to expand...

Easy now... I love my high end gear and appreciate its value.

I was just making an observation. I was not making any implied judgement.
 
Photo taken with an M3 and Jupiter 50/2. Lens cost $50.

5452112150_eb9df26869_z.jpg
 
Some of my best photos have been taken with a Leica MP and 24 Summilux...

But a broken Goertz folder (circa 1918) taped up with black electrical tape to lightproof it produced one of my best ever landscapes.

Conclusion? None.

However, I know I will consistently be able to take better pictures with cameras I can use easily and confidently. Sometimes they are expensive and sometimes not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
675
spatumba
spatumba
A
Burning Kodachrome slides and erasing history
Replies
8
Views
521
Dogman
Dogman
A
We may have left the golden age of secondhand gear
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
6K
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
B
17"x22" Ink Jet Prints vs. Original Max Resolution Digital Files
Replies
6
Views
231
boojum
boojum
peterm1
A night time walk with a Leica Summarit 50mm f1.5
Replies
1
Views
253
Richard G
Richard G
Back
Top Bottom