back alley
IMAGES
So, Joe... does that mean you take better pictures with the RD1, ZM, or G1?
can't say really.
i feel differently when using the different cameras though.
i much prefer the feel the zi to any leica body i have owned.
i prefer the bessa bodies, including the rd1 to the zi.
and the g1 is the most relaxing and fun of the bunch but i don't feel serious when using it so i assume it impacts the type of image i make.
the combination of the bessa body and being digital makes me want to shoot more.
the zeiss lenses put a smile on my face...i like the 'crisp' images they produce, their feel in my hand etc. they are now my brand of choice. if only i could afford the 15 zm.
kxl
Social Documentary
I don't agree with the concept that a film body is just a light-tight box.
While there are factors that are more user-related, such as brightness of VF, contrast of RF patch, body's heft to keep it steady, frameline accuracy for "more accurate" composition, etc..., there are other factors that potentially impact the impage itself directly, such as slowest/fastest shutter speed and metering.
The body is really part of the whole solution -- you, body, lens, film -- and part of the whole process: compose, expose, post.
While there are factors that are more user-related, such as brightness of VF, contrast of RF patch, body's heft to keep it steady, frameline accuracy for "more accurate" composition, etc..., there are other factors that potentially impact the impage itself directly, such as slowest/fastest shutter speed and metering.
The body is really part of the whole solution -- you, body, lens, film -- and part of the whole process: compose, expose, post.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Those are terrific! Some of 'em anyway.
The camera body is the thing you have to carry around all day. You better love it. So far there are two camera bodies I am 100% satisfied with: the M2 and the Pentax LX. Every other camera I've got bugs me just a little. I have very high hopes for the pentax K-7 coming out this summer...it appears as close to a digital LX as they're likely to make. Fingers crossed.
When you feel good, when the tools melt away, then you take good pictures. So it's great to find a keeper.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
As a carpenter, I'd respond to your "...tools..." remark by saying that good tools are a joy to use, but they rarely make my work turn out any better. I still need to know how to use the tools correctly and have the skills to bring the work to the level of 'art'.
ferider
Veteran
As a carpenter, I'd respond to your "...tools..." remark by saying that good tools are a joy to use, but they rarely make my work turn out any better. I still need to know how to use the tools correctly and have the skills to bring the work to the level of 'art'.
But a bad tool can screw up your job tremendously ...
PMCC
Late adopter.
"Having secured a light-tight camera and suitable lens, there is no more important quality than ease in mechanical working. The adjustments ought to be so simple that an operator may be able to bring it from his satchel and get it in order for making an exposure without a conscious thought. Each worker will have his own idea as to which style of camera comes nearest to perfection in this respect, and having made his choice he should study to become so intimate with it that it will become a second nature with his hands to prepare the camera while his mind and eyes are fully occupied with the subject before him."
-- J. Craig Annan, as quoted by Stieglitz in "The Hand Camera -- Its Present Importance," The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1897
-- J. Craig Annan, as quoted by Stieglitz in "The Hand Camera -- Its Present Importance," The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1897
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
As a carpenter, I'd respond to your "...tools..." remark by saying that good tools are a joy to use, but they rarely make my work turn out any better. I still need to know how to use the tools correctly and have the skills to bring the work to the level of 'art'.
I was a carver, turner, and furniture-maker for 20 years... and my tools never finished a carving for me while I was having a good night's sleep. But I can tell you that the difference between a mediocre set of tools and high-quality tools was a good night's sleep. If you are constantly fighting and second-guessing your tools your work will suffer and your creativity will be squashed.
The camera body has a direct effective images, it stores and transports the film. The best lens and finest grain film is rendered useless if the camera body is unable to control exposure and focus properly, etc and etc. Thankfully, because of the general high-level of quality of camera bodies we tend to take these technical details for granted.
PMCC
Late adopter.
Where I end up: it's not *all* about the camera. On the other hand, try making a photo without one.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
As a carpenter, I'd respond to your "...tools..." remark by saying that good tools are a joy to use, but they rarely make my work turn out any better. I still need to know how to use the tools correctly and have the skills to bring the work to the level of 'art'.
For me, good tools definitely lead to more good work. A good artist can make good art without the best tools, but creativity really flows for me when everything is running the way I like it.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Question is... what's a bad tool?
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Peter,
Good to hear from you!
So...could Mr. Annan do this with a Bessa R as well as a Leica MP?
Jamie
Good to hear from you!
So...could Mr. Annan do this with a Bessa R as well as a Leica MP?
Jamie
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
You mean like using an oatmeal box with a pinhole in it?
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Question is... what's a bad tool?
One that gets in the way... a dull chisel, paint brush with loose bristles, an awkward camera, buggy software, ill-fitting shoes...
ferider
Veteran
Question is... what's a bad tool?
One that makes getting the desired outcome difficult or impossible, costing you in the process.
Like a cheap wrench that renders a screw head unusable when you are trying to change a head gasket. Or a lens spanner with a tip breaking off and scratching a rear lens element in the process. Or a rear bike chain that breaks at 80 m/h on the freeway, eating through the chain cover, in the middle of no-where. Or a salt shaker where the head comes off when you use it. Etc. I picked realistic examples
Cheers,
Roland.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
<SNIP> However I find it a bit annoying when a photographer goes to the trouble of specifying what camera they used, but not what lens or film.
Don't the lens and film choices make far greater impact on image character than the camera? Does camera body choice make much difference? For example, does it really matter much whether I use my Noctilux (I should be so lucky
Jamie: I am probably in the minority here but I never include any details about equipment because I frequently just do not know (nor care). I always carry notebooks and take many notes but they are about the subject and never include any equipment details.
I can never tell you what lens I used or even the body unless it was '02 to '06 when I shot either with a ContaxG or a Mamiya 7. After that I could have also been a ZI rf or a CLE. And any one of 5-6 lenses. I can tell you anything b&w was shot on Neopan 400 since that is the only film I use. I never have a clue about aperture or shutter unless it was in the last few weeks and I happen to remember.
So I am obviously one of those who believes it makes very little difference.
Twigs
Absolut Newbie
does camera body choice matter?
It does not.
A camera is a light tight box that holds, transports, and exposes the film. Given these technologies were pretty much perfected long ago (ie. light tight-ness, film flatness, shutter speeds accuracy), the technical aspect of the camera body is far less important than the photographer's vision, skills, lens/film choice, etc... In this aspect, I don't think there is a difference between a Leica, a Bessa, or a Nikon F.
It does.
When you have a camera in your hands that makes you feel comfortable, it makes a world of difference. I prefer a RF over a SLR because it balances better in my hands. I prefer a TLR over a RF because I see in squares. Between RF bodies I find them very similar and I don't feel it makes a tremendous difference should I pick up a Canonet, a Bessa, or a Leica.
It does not.
A camera is a light tight box that holds, transports, and exposes the film. Given these technologies were pretty much perfected long ago (ie. light tight-ness, film flatness, shutter speeds accuracy), the technical aspect of the camera body is far less important than the photographer's vision, skills, lens/film choice, etc... In this aspect, I don't think there is a difference between a Leica, a Bessa, or a Nikon F.
It does.
When you have a camera in your hands that makes you feel comfortable, it makes a world of difference. I prefer a RF over a SLR because it balances better in my hands. I prefer a TLR over a RF because I see in squares. Between RF bodies I find them very similar and I don't feel it makes a tremendous difference should I pick up a Canonet, a Bessa, or a Leica.
Chris101
summicronia
I enjoy taking pictures with nice cameras more than I do with crummy ones. However some of my best work has been done with poor quality cameras. Go fig.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I think the consensus seems to be that (1) its a joy to hold and use nice equipment, and (2) well-adjusted nice camera bodies, be it a Zeiss, Bessa, Leica, whatever, have the same effect on how well the photons hit the film.
Good night all and thanks for the thoughts... fun stuff! And Twigs... great avatar!!
Good night all and thanks for the thoughts... fun stuff! And Twigs... great avatar!!
WDPictures
Established
I would also say that both situation and convenience play a role. A pinhole camera is nice and light to carry around, even a 4x5 pinhole. Although it might be good for architecture shots, for example, it may not be the best choice for your typical street shooter. Plus its not so convenient to carry around all those 4x5 film holders either. Digital sure is convenient and seems to be pretty popular...
Regarding the wish to share the "lens used..." this is just not the level of data management that I want to record even though I often use the same lens for an entire roll of film. Hmmm this is also more convenient with digital... Oh well, I still dig the film stuff.
Regarding the wish to share the "lens used..." this is just not the level of data management that I want to record even though I often use the same lens for an entire roll of film. Hmmm this is also more convenient with digital... Oh well, I still dig the film stuff.
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
I think I can speak from the point of view as both a photographer, and a designer: not like the general public's idea of drawing pretty pictures, or caring about appearance only, but one who was into ergonomics (not merely anthropometry) and especially cognitive ergonomics.
Getting back to the original question, it is essentially this: does the choice of camera affect the resultant photograph?
Previous posters stated that some cameras might be technically better than others, as in having the film held flatter, etc. However, this is not a valid variable in the context of our investigation. Another aspect is the issue regarding the inherent design and function of the camera, which of course have an effect. For instance, for action photography requiring high-speed shutter, a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/100s will not get you very far. If you want to do raid sequence photography, a camera requiring red-window winding would not be good either. If you want to do wildlife photography requiring a very long lens, a camera without interchangeable lens would not help as well.
What we need to see is that, with all things being equal, the choice of camera indeed has an effect on the photograph, by affecting the photographer, in terms of his thinking process in both conscious and subconscious terms.
First of all, the camera is a tool which enables the photographer to capture the image, but at the same time the control of the camera is also an interface between the actual functioning of the camera as a machine, and the photographer's vision.
In the sense of cognitive egonomics, the photographer has to build up a mental mapping of how his manipulations of the camera controls result in the actual mechanical (here we also include electrical/electronic) function of the camera. At the same time the mechanics of the camera also needs to give him the feedback, which is part of this mapping, that it is indeed done. Say, when taking a picture,a digital camera is totally silent, but many manufacturers incorporate a simulated shutter clicking sound to their cameras, as a form of feedback, saying "a picture has been taken". In a film camera, when you wind the film, you can feel the gears moving along with the slight resistance signifying the film is actually being pulled across the film gate, and the turning of the rewind knob serves as an extra visual feedback. Or if your exposure setting will give over-exposure, the camera will tell you effectively that you need to change your setting.
If a camera is designed in such a way that such mapping is not easy to establish, or it does not give effective feedback to the photographer, both in terms of insuffient feedback or over-the-top feedback, then the design would not be efficient enough for the photographer to take pictures with both ease and control. In this context, the choice of camera does indeed affect the photograph.
Furthermore, assuming the photographer has achieved proper mapping with several cameras, the inherent characteristics of the camera would affect the creative process of the photographer. Consider this example: say if a photographer uses two very similar cameras, such as a Voigtländer Bessa R, and a Bessaflex TM, both with comparable lenses which do not work against the inherent characteristics of the cameras, such as a 50mm standard lens. He would very likely find that the differences between a CRF and SLR put him in different mindsets in his creative process.
Through the viewfinder of the Bessa R, he sees reality itself, always looking sharp as focussing is done with his own eye; the camera basically frames a rectangular slice of reality delineating the slice he would capture when he hits the shutter release button. However, through the Bessaflex finder, what he sees is a pure image formed by the lens on a surrogate film plane, where he is removed from reality itself and think more in terms of the photographic image. That is the reason why many documentary photographers continue to use rangefinder cameras such as the Leica M, for the sense of immediacy they afford, not due to the lens quality or whatever.
I hope this post is not too long and involved but in terms of ergnomics and its effects we have barely scratched the surface.
Getting back to the original question, it is essentially this: does the choice of camera affect the resultant photograph?
Previous posters stated that some cameras might be technically better than others, as in having the film held flatter, etc. However, this is not a valid variable in the context of our investigation. Another aspect is the issue regarding the inherent design and function of the camera, which of course have an effect. For instance, for action photography requiring high-speed shutter, a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/100s will not get you very far. If you want to do raid sequence photography, a camera requiring red-window winding would not be good either. If you want to do wildlife photography requiring a very long lens, a camera without interchangeable lens would not help as well.
What we need to see is that, with all things being equal, the choice of camera indeed has an effect on the photograph, by affecting the photographer, in terms of his thinking process in both conscious and subconscious terms.
First of all, the camera is a tool which enables the photographer to capture the image, but at the same time the control of the camera is also an interface between the actual functioning of the camera as a machine, and the photographer's vision.
In the sense of cognitive egonomics, the photographer has to build up a mental mapping of how his manipulations of the camera controls result in the actual mechanical (here we also include electrical/electronic) function of the camera. At the same time the mechanics of the camera also needs to give him the feedback, which is part of this mapping, that it is indeed done. Say, when taking a picture,a digital camera is totally silent, but many manufacturers incorporate a simulated shutter clicking sound to their cameras, as a form of feedback, saying "a picture has been taken". In a film camera, when you wind the film, you can feel the gears moving along with the slight resistance signifying the film is actually being pulled across the film gate, and the turning of the rewind knob serves as an extra visual feedback. Or if your exposure setting will give over-exposure, the camera will tell you effectively that you need to change your setting.
If a camera is designed in such a way that such mapping is not easy to establish, or it does not give effective feedback to the photographer, both in terms of insuffient feedback or over-the-top feedback, then the design would not be efficient enough for the photographer to take pictures with both ease and control. In this context, the choice of camera does indeed affect the photograph.
Furthermore, assuming the photographer has achieved proper mapping with several cameras, the inherent characteristics of the camera would affect the creative process of the photographer. Consider this example: say if a photographer uses two very similar cameras, such as a Voigtländer Bessa R, and a Bessaflex TM, both with comparable lenses which do not work against the inherent characteristics of the cameras, such as a 50mm standard lens. He would very likely find that the differences between a CRF and SLR put him in different mindsets in his creative process.
Through the viewfinder of the Bessa R, he sees reality itself, always looking sharp as focussing is done with his own eye; the camera basically frames a rectangular slice of reality delineating the slice he would capture when he hits the shutter release button. However, through the Bessaflex finder, what he sees is a pure image formed by the lens on a surrogate film plane, where he is removed from reality itself and think more in terms of the photographic image. That is the reason why many documentary photographers continue to use rangefinder cameras such as the Leica M, for the sense of immediacy they afford, not due to the lens quality or whatever.
I hope this post is not too long and involved but in terms of ergnomics and its effects we have barely scratched the surface.