Hsg
who dares wins
Thanks. With a cheap camera its easy to take risks and go out during a thunderstorm.
are your best bictures taken with your best camera?
- Thread starter robert blu
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 5K
Thanks. With a cheap camera its easy to take risks and go out during a thunderstorm.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I like to keep a good but not too expensive camera in my chest pocket.
The best photos are made with the camera you have with you.
Chris
The best photos are made with the camera you have with you.
Chris
Baby of Macon
Well-known
Very good question Robert. My best camera is my eye/brain. The rest of the stuff is just a way of preserving the image and turning it into a form whereby it can be shared.
- Local time
- 6:44 AM
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,289
Would like to recommend that you add the following to the end......
and use.
I'd have to say, over the past 15 years, no, my best stuff was not taken with my best camera. But a lot depends upon how you define best. I'm thinking that best in this case is more along the lines of most expensive. I didn't carry my best often enough to be in a position to do much.
I like the idea of the Nikon D40 and not being afraid to go out into the elements and shoot. Like I suggested, it needs to be with you and you need to feel free to use it. That's why I love my iPhone5, not even close to my best, but I've learned it well enough to do what I want most of the time.
B2 (;->
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Doesn't work that way for me, unless you would allow me to have seven best camera's... 😀
Super Ikonta B, 2 Rolleiflexes, 2 Nikon DSLRs, Horseman 842, Hasselblad 501CM, Graflex 4x5 Speed Graphic all gave me keepers that either paid bills or will be part in an exhibition.
Gotta say I do get my best stuff from Medium Format or bigger, or digital.
Super Ikonta B, 2 Rolleiflexes, 2 Nikon DSLRs, Horseman 842, Hasselblad 501CM, Graflex 4x5 Speed Graphic all gave me keepers that either paid bills or will be part in an exhibition.
Gotta say I do get my best stuff from Medium Format or bigger, or digital.
KM-25
Well-known
Vics
Veteran
I found myself in Normandy a few years back with my Rolleiflex, and I just wasn't comfortable. I then bought an old Canon P&S at a boot sale for $3.00.
Normandy churchyard by Vic Stewart, on Flickr
Clarbec our back yard by Vic Stewart, on Flickr
Deauville by Vic Stewart, on Flickr
Normandy churchyard by Vic Stewart, on FlickrClarbec our back yard by Vic Stewart, on FlickrDeauville by Vic Stewart, on Flickr
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Ofter your "best camera" might be the one you're most comfortable with so image making can be more seamless. That said I find I take equal keepers with some real crap often times.
icebear
Veteran
The best camera is the the one that you have with you and that allows you to capture the decisive moment w/o getting in the way. I think most of the pictures that I am really satisfied with, I have taken with the MM. It inspries me to get out there and capture the light.
Fadedsun
Established
I agree with this. Some of my favorite photos are ones taken with various cameras. The cameras I own are a Canon A1, a Leica IIIC and for digital, an iphone 6. All 3 of these cameras (one not a dedicated camera, obviously) have allowed me to take some of my favorite photos. Many would argue that none of these are the "best" camera.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have binders full of negs and there is no way I can recall which camera or lens I used. Maybe I should have stuck to one if that matters at all. Do people make such notations, i.e., location, date, camera, lens, film, developer, etc.?
codester80
A Touch of Light
Interesting thread and timely for me. I just finished developing a roll of film from my Muji II. This is what I captured with it.
I took this while on the ferry home one evening. I would never have gotten this image using my "best" camera because I didn't have it with me at the time. This is one of the better photographs I've taken this year.
I took this while on the ferry home one evening. I would never have gotten this image using my "best" camera because I didn't have it with me at the time. This is one of the better photographs I've taken this year.
Vics
Veteran
I never have made notes, often to my dismay. Now I've been through so many combinations, that after 47 years of this, I see now that it just doesn't matter what camera I use. All my pictures look about like those from the three-dollar p&s I posted above, for better or worse.
Richard G
Veteran
Some very thoughtful contributions. In a word, yes. But as many have said, it is about intention. With my really pretty crummy Leica II and hazy collapsible Elmar I have had some wonderful shots, but I was heavily engaged to do so. On the other hand one of my best of the last year was taken on the fly on a tight deadline running an errand for my wife where the virtue of the Leica II was that it could whipped off the table to the car without it being noticed. Some of my best shots are made under such pressure.
A leisurely exploration usually works well for me too, and after an initial period of some crummy shots with my only brand new serious cameras, the two digital Leicas, where the star status of the machine spooked me off my game, I have put them to reasonably good use.
For those of us who say no, and find that a number of different cameras will give just as many good shots, there is again an ascertainment bias: the mere fact that you will take up a few different cameras and still use them seriously, means that you won't notice the dominant effect of the 'good' camera.
In Sergio Larrain's now famous letter to his nephew he advises him to get a good camera.
"First and foremost, you have to have a camera that fits you well, one that you like, because it’s about feeling comfortable with what you have in your hands: the equipment is key to any profession, and it should have nothing more than the strictly necessary features."
A leisurely exploration usually works well for me too, and after an initial period of some crummy shots with my only brand new serious cameras, the two digital Leicas, where the star status of the machine spooked me off my game, I have put them to reasonably good use.
For those of us who say no, and find that a number of different cameras will give just as many good shots, there is again an ascertainment bias: the mere fact that you will take up a few different cameras and still use them seriously, means that you won't notice the dominant effect of the 'good' camera.
In Sergio Larrain's now famous letter to his nephew he advises him to get a good camera.
"First and foremost, you have to have a camera that fits you well, one that you like, because it’s about feeling comfortable with what you have in your hands: the equipment is key to any profession, and it should have nothing more than the strictly necessary features."
W
wwkw
Guest
My best photographs are taken with my eyes. The left one happens to generally be obscured by a $6,000 viewfinder with, I'm sorry to say, not that quiet of a shutter ringing in my right ear attached to the experience after all. It's still a beautiful camera, but what does that have to do with photography?
Sid836
Well-known
I have to admit that several times my "best" cameras have inspired me on capturing a few of my "best" shots, but not all of them have been produced by my best cameras, films and lenses. Many of them have been shot with humble cameras such as my Lubitel and from them many by pure luck. There are a few shots in my collection that were shot completely unintentionally, completely by mistake one could say.
johnnyrod
More cameras than shots
thereabouts
Established
Technically, sure, the best photos are taken with my best camera.
But, as someone else upthread said, it's often the attitude which the camera inspires, that I think helps to make the best images.
This was taken with a Prod, a simple point and shoot film camera. It's one of my favourite images. But I'm not sure that I would have even thought to take it, if I had had a dSLR with me, even though everything would have been sharper. I just had a feeling that the Ilford XP2 would do nice things with the shadows and tones.
But, as someone else upthread said, it's often the attitude which the camera inspires, that I think helps to make the best images.
This was taken with a Prod, a simple point and shoot film camera. It's one of my favourite images. But I'm not sure that I would have even thought to take it, if I had had a dSLR with me, even though everything would have been sharper. I just had a feeling that the Ilford XP2 would do nice things with the shadows and tones.
sreed2006
Well-known
Some of my favorite photographs came from a Nikon Coolpix 995, a 3.2 megapixel digital, which is pretty primitive by today's standards. When it worked right, it took great pictures. It's swivel-lens design allowed a lot of creative freedom. The colors, contrast, and sharpness were all wonderful. But the 995 tended not to focus correctly a lot of the time. That led to a lot of frustration and foul language, so it was set aside for more reliable cameras.
Each time I obtain a new-to-me camera or lens, I am inspired to use it until I have created a nice photograph: a keeper. This is to justify to myself the expense of purchasing the equipment, as well as the dream (GAS) that it will make me a better photographer. I have found that keepers can be created with just about any camera and lens - though some are harder to coax into doing it than others. With a few cameras or lenses, I have never obtained a keeper.
As for keeping track of which camera and lens took which photograph, and what film development process was used: these days I keep records in the form of a diary on the computer. The diary lists the date(s), camera, lens(es), film roll number (if film), and subject(s), and how the film was processed. Occasionally, I will critique a roll and will add those notes into the diary. Also, for film, I have a numbering system for each roll, and that gets written on the plastic sleeve page that holds the negatives. The roll number can be looked up in the diary. While my system is not flawless, at least it gives me a better idea of how to get the best results. My finished negatives and both film and digital images have gotten consistently better as a result.
Each time I obtain a new-to-me camera or lens, I am inspired to use it until I have created a nice photograph: a keeper. This is to justify to myself the expense of purchasing the equipment, as well as the dream (GAS) that it will make me a better photographer. I have found that keepers can be created with just about any camera and lens - though some are harder to coax into doing it than others. With a few cameras or lenses, I have never obtained a keeper.
As for keeping track of which camera and lens took which photograph, and what film development process was used: these days I keep records in the form of a diary on the computer. The diary lists the date(s), camera, lens(es), film roll number (if film), and subject(s), and how the film was processed. Occasionally, I will critique a roll and will add those notes into the diary. Also, for film, I have a numbering system for each roll, and that gets written on the plastic sleeve page that holds the negatives. The roll number can be looked up in the diary. While my system is not flawless, at least it gives me a better idea of how to get the best results. My finished negatives and both film and digital images have gotten consistently better as a result.
Richard G
Veteran
If I've worked to get a particular image I will usually remember the lens, probably the camera, occasionally the film and sometimes the exposure.
Similar threads
