Avotius
Some guy
Recently I scratched head about what kind of cameras they use when climbing to high peaks this days, having choice of both mechanical and digital cameras. Can they charge there digital cameras, I'm not sure there are electricity generators. Do digital cameras survive rough conditions?
Do anyone can shed light on this? I'd take small film camera, either fully mechanical (mind the weight) or yet better plastic P&S, running on small lithium battery - reduced weight, runs for years. Oh, need a sherpa to carry film
P.S. I wonder if Pentax K2 were somehow related to climbing (peak K2) ?
I can help here. I occasionally make trips into the Sichuan grasslands which is a very harsh place environmentally. See this thread I did a while ago!
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=467632#post467632
g12
Too much stuff
Heh, it was me who caused a fuss in the first place.
I worry that there are too many people (I'll avoid using the term photographers) who would first ask "what sort of camera was that?", not "where was that taken?" or "who's that guy?" or "what's he doing there?".
The analogies with sport are a little off, I'm sure most high-level sportsmen put 'gear' into one of two categories, 'useful' and 'not useful'. Idiots who hack 92 shots over 18 holes every weekend discuss (at great, tedious length) drivers and wedges and long-handle putters and balata balls and whot-not, and anyone playing off an 8 handicap listens to these fools and feels a mixture of pity (and loathing if it gets in their way).
The technology hasn't helped, there are people who should really be on computing forums, or wasting there time listening to those awful 'gear' podcasts, who have decided that they really need an M8 because it's expensive and have not only spent the $5k on one but every living second since complaining that it doesn't have 'live view' or a full-frame sensor.
Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll end by saying that, of course, it's fine to ask what equipment was used for something, as long as your reasons are sensible. Did the guy ask because 1) he wanted opinions on cameras that could withstand harsh conditions then great, 2) he has a genuine interest in the engineering of photographic equipment or 3) he thought that if he got one his pictures wouldn't suck quite as much? It's usually 3...
Ramble over.
I worry that there are too many people (I'll avoid using the term photographers) who would first ask "what sort of camera was that?", not "where was that taken?" or "who's that guy?" or "what's he doing there?".
The analogies with sport are a little off, I'm sure most high-level sportsmen put 'gear' into one of two categories, 'useful' and 'not useful'. Idiots who hack 92 shots over 18 holes every weekend discuss (at great, tedious length) drivers and wedges and long-handle putters and balata balls and whot-not, and anyone playing off an 8 handicap listens to these fools and feels a mixture of pity (and loathing if it gets in their way).
The technology hasn't helped, there are people who should really be on computing forums, or wasting there time listening to those awful 'gear' podcasts, who have decided that they really need an M8 because it's expensive and have not only spent the $5k on one but every living second since complaining that it doesn't have 'live view' or a full-frame sensor.
Anyway, I'm rambling, so I'll end by saying that, of course, it's fine to ask what equipment was used for something, as long as your reasons are sensible. Did the guy ask because 1) he wanted opinions on cameras that could withstand harsh conditions then great, 2) he has a genuine interest in the engineering of photographic equipment or 3) he thought that if he got one his pictures wouldn't suck quite as much? It's usually 3...
Ramble over.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Depends on who's asking.
Other photographers, fine: polite conversation and idle interest.
Non-photographers (or really bad would-be photographers) who assume that it's the camera, not you, that takes the picture: not so good.
Also, a small, light, fold-flat camera with high quality lens (Retina) makes a lot of sense when you're climbing mountains. So yes, it was a far better bet than (let's say) a Contax.
Tashi delek,
Roger
Other photographers, fine: polite conversation and idle interest.
Non-photographers (or really bad would-be photographers) who assume that it's the camera, not you, that takes the picture: not so good.
Also, a small, light, fold-flat camera with high quality lens (Retina) makes a lot of sense when you're climbing mountains. So yes, it was a far better bet than (let's say) a Contax.
Tashi delek,
Roger
feenej
Well-known
"You know, when i was in graduate school, my professors always had Leicas around their necks, and at that time, I had a Minolta X-700. I certainly asked them why they used these type of cameras. Do I still own a Minolta? No. M4-2, M6, M8, Fuji GSW 690, Mamiya Universal Press, Rollei TLR, Rolleiflex SLX, Pantax 645N, YES!!!!"
Hey, me too. I still have my X-700 though.
Hey, me too. I still have my X-700 though.
VictorM.
Well-known
Hillary carried a second hand Retina I, with a Tessar lens, to the top of Everest. It should be obvious that he summited because he carried that Retina. 
But, no, it is not gauche to ask about equipment. It does affect the photographs. And reporters often talked (and wrote) about typewriters in addition to booze and other important topics. Some even saved their favourite machines after they retired.
I'm sure that modern journalists talk about their stuff (cameras, computers, etc.) at least as much. Battery life alone would be an important topic.
But, no, it is not gauche to ask about equipment. It does affect the photographs. And reporters often talked (and wrote) about typewriters in addition to booze and other important topics. Some even saved their favourite machines after they retired.
I'm sure that modern journalists talk about their stuff (cameras, computers, etc.) at least as much. Battery life alone would be an important topic.
btgc
Veteran
Thank you Avotius! I've seen this thread before - remember picture-wise, but completely forgot film/digi sub-story.
I think if anyone going to peak would ask climber what equipment he used, it would be just smart. It's said - better be fool once and ask, than be smart or polite and don't ask (and end up like classmates of Avotius in this case).
g12
Too much stuff
Now one thing that does annoy me a lot is the idea that if I'm not walking around at all times like a smug, chirpy overseer with a sloppy grin that there's something wrong with my life. Some people like gettin' mad...
froyd
Veteran
I've asked....
I've asked....
I have recently asked the "what gear?" question of a user who posted a phenomenal picture. In no way was I deluded that owning the same equipment I would be able to take the same shot, or that the photographer was able to bag the great shot only because of his equipment.
However, for the little that web-viewing allows, there are detectable elements of an image that are directly related to the optics used or type of film. If those elements contribute to making the image appealing to you, then I think it's OK to ask what they are. On a tangent issue, I also do not think it's rude to ask if an image was post-processed and if so, what settings were used.
I've asked....
I have recently asked the "what gear?" question of a user who posted a phenomenal picture. In no way was I deluded that owning the same equipment I would be able to take the same shot, or that the photographer was able to bag the great shot only because of his equipment.
However, for the little that web-viewing allows, there are detectable elements of an image that are directly related to the optics used or type of film. If those elements contribute to making the image appealing to you, then I think it's OK to ask what they are. On a tangent issue, I also do not think it's rude to ask if an image was post-processed and if so, what settings were used.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
amateriat
We're all light!
Bingo. My current PowerBook is the most comfy portable I've ever used: the keyboard makes typing considerably more pleasant (the fact that it's also backlit doesn't hurt either). And let's not get started about favorite word processors for writing! (I'm sort of getting into Apple's Pages for this.)
So, really, equipment does matter, even though the end user's relationship and reverence (or lack thereof) toward that equipment will vary. The main point is not to confuse/conflate the tool with the person in charge of it.
It reminds me of the story of Burt Munroe and his seemingly cobbled-together LSR bike in the film The World's Fastest Indian. To everyone else, he was a borderline old Kiwi cat with an equally borderline (and potentially dangerous), ancient motorcycle, apparently the product of someone who doesn't give a damn about equipment. They couldn't have been more wrong. He cared as much as anyone, possibly more, because it didn't matter how fast he could go per se, but how fast he could go on that machine. Process, that was the big deal, together with the end result.
I hardly mind talking shop with anyone. Having been shooting almost entirely with RFs the past seven years, the gear conversation is generally limited to favorite film types, the pros and cons of particular WA lenses and certain Manhattan photo labs, and the very occasional debates over RF base lengths and optical formulae. (That last one can make the backs of my eyes start to itch after 20 minutes of so, but it kicks the kumquats out of the old SLR days of explaining, for only the tenth time, why I didn't need the latest 300 f/2.8 AF lens for the kind of shooting I did, or why I wasn't shooting something other than Minolta, which simply confused several of my colleagues.
)- Barrett
Last edited:
newspaperguy
Well-known
Maybe I mis-read the original querie... Hey, it could happen...
But my thought was, why not?
Perhaps by asking you can learn from the mistakes
that we've all made in some of our equipment choices.
But my thought was, why not?
Perhaps by asking you can learn from the mistakes
that we've all made in some of our equipment choices.
amateriat
We're all light!
Hey, I've made a few doozies in my years. I had to ask questions at some point.
- Barrett
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
One of the best writers in Holland could only write with his old fountain pen.
Loads of writers sworn by their particular Remington.
Lately I heard an interview with a writer who can only write with his particular brand and make of keyboard.
For me it is not so strange to mention which technigu one used to make a photograph. It is also mentioned in most museums. Like "Nachtwacht by Rembrandt, oil paint on canvas"
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
robklurfield
eclipse
I have a beard nearly as long and half as white as Santa Claus, so even when I'm smiling my mouth is obscured. And, although I may be a happy idiot most of the time, I do not walk down the street with anything resembling a chirpy grin! So, I have to resort to these:. Getting mad can be fun and cathartic. So, there!
. Getting mad can be fun and cathartic. So, there!Now one thing that does annoy me a lot is the idea that if I'm not walking around at all times like a smug, chirpy overseer with a sloppy grin that there's something wrong with my life. Some people like gettin' mad...
GlennB
Member
I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years, and so I've heard the "what camera/lens" question a lot when I'm out doing my job. Many of you have posted insightful thoughts on the question. When asked while shooting, I usually just answer politely. When someone asks about a photo I shot some years ago, I might not even remember which lens I used, but It doesn't make me feel insulted .
As to the typewriter argument, I would have to say that if we all read works that were directly from the author's typewriter instead of printed on a press by a publisher, then we MIGHT wonder what kind of typewriter he/she used. Then there are those folks who are into type fonts, like graphic/layout artist, or publishers. Just look at most any book nowadays and somewhere you'll find a page where it states what font was used to print the book.
For photographs & the 'equipment that was used' question, I would rather liken it more to guitar music. Guitar heads realize that often what type/brand of guitar (or pickups, amps, etc)was used is responsible for the tone or flavor of the sounds produced. However most folks know that they're not going to be the next Jimi Hendrix just because they buy a Fender Stratocaster !
Our choice of camera, lens, f-stops, film, developer, etc, can flavor or create a mood to our images. But for the really great photographers, its their "eye" that makes the difference I think.
Just my (long-winded) 2 cents.
As to the typewriter argument, I would have to say that if we all read works that were directly from the author's typewriter instead of printed on a press by a publisher, then we MIGHT wonder what kind of typewriter he/she used. Then there are those folks who are into type fonts, like graphic/layout artist, or publishers. Just look at most any book nowadays and somewhere you'll find a page where it states what font was used to print the book.
For photographs & the 'equipment that was used' question, I would rather liken it more to guitar music. Guitar heads realize that often what type/brand of guitar (or pickups, amps, etc)was used is responsible for the tone or flavor of the sounds produced. However most folks know that they're not going to be the next Jimi Hendrix just because they buy a Fender Stratocaster !
Our choice of camera, lens, f-stops, film, developer, etc, can flavor or create a mood to our images. But for the really great photographers, its their "eye" that makes the difference I think.
Just my (long-winded) 2 cents.
Fedia
-
You know guys, the equipment topic among real photographers sometimes is sensitive indeed, because most beginning photographers and general population don't really understand the medium of photography, its essence. Not long time ago, I had a chat with photography student at fine arts academy and after a long debate about, very popular these days, the easiest and uninteresting approach chosen by young photo artists, she suddenly mentioned about mediums superior to photography and that photography in her life was just for the time being. Very sad. Talking about general population, so many people who understand about photography nothing, think that taking good pictures is quite easy and photography starts at the point when you get a sharp, properly exposed image. From the first sight of unaware person everybody can buy a camera and become a "photographer". However, art mediums such as painting, drawing, video to those people seem too messy and unreachable and at the same time more respectable. I think, questions on public forums about equipment such as: "what camera is better", "what lens is sharper"... is a stage of beginning or very young photographer. Some "photographers" stay at this stage very long . While real photographers already have the best cameras and lenses for the job they do, or they know that camera and sharpness of the lens have nothing with real photography.
. While real photographers already have the best cameras and lenses for the job they do, or they know that camera and sharpness of the lens have nothing with real photography.
Spider67
Well-known
It's OK to ask....as long as it's not an entry to a long winding monologue about ones own gear.
The most obnoxious guy who asked me did not do it directly but sneaked in by pretending that he wanted to see my photos I had printed out. He ignored the BW and commented the colour shots by describinh how his camera would have rendered it (yes he was using digital).
On the other hand that man was very inventive: Talking about ones own gear and the picture it could made without both of them at hand deserves merit.
The most obnoxious guy who asked me did not do it directly but sneaked in by pretending that he wanted to see my photos I had printed out. He ignored the BW and commented the colour shots by describinh how his camera would have rendered it (yes he was using digital).
On the other hand that man was very inventive: Talking about ones own gear and the picture it could made without both of them at hand deserves merit.
robklurfield
eclipse
Maybe a key question is "how did or didn't that gear enable you to put down on film (or digi) what you saw in your mind's eye before you clicked?"
Drewus
Established
Not everyone is into photography and gear, so I don't expect people on the street, or even friends, to know what i'm using or even how to ask about it.
If someone tells me that a camera takes great photo's, I don't go on a rant about how it comes down to the photographer and not the camera. Because really, they don't care and why should they?
Sometimes it's better to just let people have their fun. They aren't hurting anyone, and i'm sure you could ask just as many stupid questions about something that they are interested in which you have no clue about.
As for people specifically asking about gear, i'm more than happy to tell them what i'm using, or what someone else used. I really don't see what the big deal is. If anything it shows that you're more hung up on gear than they are.
Also, sometimes people just ask about your gear because they think it's interesting and like the aesthetics of it. Not because they think it specifically takes great photos. Personally I love the old Leica's due to how mechanical and simply functional they look.
If someone tells me that a camera takes great photo's, I don't go on a rant about how it comes down to the photographer and not the camera. Because really, they don't care and why should they?
Sometimes it's better to just let people have their fun. They aren't hurting anyone, and i'm sure you could ask just as many stupid questions about something that they are interested in which you have no clue about.
As for people specifically asking about gear, i'm more than happy to tell them what i'm using, or what someone else used. I really don't see what the big deal is. If anything it shows that you're more hung up on gear than they are.
Also, sometimes people just ask about your gear because they think it's interesting and like the aesthetics of it. Not because they think it specifically takes great photos. Personally I love the old Leica's due to how mechanical and simply functional they look.
Last edited:
kipkeston
Well-known
You know guys, the equipment topic among real photographers sometimes is sensitive indeed, because most beginning photographers and general population don't really understand the medium of photography, its essence. Not long time ago, I had a chat with photography student at fine arts academy and after a long debate about, very popular these days, the easiest and uninteresting approach chosen by young photo artists, she suddenly mentioned about mediums superior to photography and that photography in her life was just for the time being. Very sad. Talking about general population, so many people who understand about photography nothing, think that taking good pictures is quite easy and photography starts at the point when you get a sharp, properly exposed image. From the first sight of unaware person everybody can buy a camera and become a "photographer". However, art mediums such as painting, drawing, video to those people seem too messy and unreachable and at the same time more respectable. I think, questions on public forums about equipment such as: "what camera is better", "what lens is sharper"... is a stage of beginning or very young photographer. Some "photographers" stay at this stage very long
I like this a lot!
I have to agree people generally are not able to isolate how a photo looks from its content and form. I think learning to separate the two is a pretty critical step towards getting better.