maxmadco
Well-known
In my opinion it does not matter what camera you use but many including myself get caught up in the love of cameras that you can spend more time looking or trying equipment when you should just be taking pictures and getting the experience.
froyd
Veteran
If the proof is in the pudding, then yes, the camera makes a difference. Looking over the course of 30 years of photography, I consistently take better pictures with my Nikon F4 and Leica M4 than I do with any of the cameras that I had before, as well as the cameras that I still own and use regularly, the Rolleiflex and the Contax G. Both the Rollei and the Contax are excellent cameras but my results with them are just not as good (on average) as they are with the Leica and the Nikon.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Camera don't matter at the level that they are all capable of taking pictures. But beyond that, they do matter.
First, photography is largely about aesthetic vision and subject engagement. Getting hung up on dogmatic learning of exposure estimation and use of a manual camera does not automatically add anything; in fact, it increases the risks of failing to get your shot. And the skills that you learn to control an all-mechanical, meterless camera - that can take years of practice and thousands in materials to master - have limited application to digital cameras. There is no Sunny 16 rule in digital. I think a lot of people who are hung up on "simplicity" and "control" are exhibiting just as much as an overemphasis on the machine as the people that run for whatever Sony has just come out. The highest and best use of your time to learn technical skills is to learn where your camera's autoexposure fails (or you want to deviate from it) and to compensate.
Second, there is no comparing leisure-class shooters like HCB, who operated in an environment where cameras were novelties, where he was a familiar face, and where people did not get paranoid about photographers, to most situations a beginner would encounter today. You don't have time to putter around with thinking through the correct exposure or turning dials. A lot of times, you just have to take the shot.
Finally, all of the "masters," it seemed, dumped Contax RFs and screwmount Leicas as soon as the M3 and SLRs came out. Using the same equipment they did in 1936 does not make for a magic talisman, nor does it reflect the reality that they too, wanted to find a camera that worked well and exhibited the cardinal virtue of a camera: not getting too much in the way. Yes, if you want a particular aesthetic, you can use old lenses.
Dante
First, photography is largely about aesthetic vision and subject engagement. Getting hung up on dogmatic learning of exposure estimation and use of a manual camera does not automatically add anything; in fact, it increases the risks of failing to get your shot. And the skills that you learn to control an all-mechanical, meterless camera - that can take years of practice and thousands in materials to master - have limited application to digital cameras. There is no Sunny 16 rule in digital. I think a lot of people who are hung up on "simplicity" and "control" are exhibiting just as much as an overemphasis on the machine as the people that run for whatever Sony has just come out. The highest and best use of your time to learn technical skills is to learn where your camera's autoexposure fails (or you want to deviate from it) and to compensate.
Second, there is no comparing leisure-class shooters like HCB, who operated in an environment where cameras were novelties, where he was a familiar face, and where people did not get paranoid about photographers, to most situations a beginner would encounter today. You don't have time to putter around with thinking through the correct exposure or turning dials. A lot of times, you just have to take the shot.
Finally, all of the "masters," it seemed, dumped Contax RFs and screwmount Leicas as soon as the M3 and SLRs came out. Using the same equipment they did in 1936 does not make for a magic talisman, nor does it reflect the reality that they too, wanted to find a camera that worked well and exhibited the cardinal virtue of a camera: not getting too much in the way. Yes, if you want a particular aesthetic, you can use old lenses.
Dante
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Yes, just this.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
As an Epson R-D1 lover, I sympathize but also keep in mind that the moment the USSR perished, ex-USSR consumers ran away from the Russian brands as fast as they could (afford), and all of the USSR camera makers collapsed. The Lomo hype was generated, not by photo enthusiasts but by MBA types who saw a chance to buy low and sell high.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. Most good mechanics will use Snap-On, Facom, Craftsman, old King Dick, etc., if they can possibly afford it. They're easier to use and will last longer. But a lot of photographers know nothing at all about mechanics' tools; and, one sometimes suspects, very little about photographic tools either.
For a tool you're not going to use often, or hard, just about anything will do except (usually Chinese) putty-metal: cheap sockets can crack or burst the first time you use them, and cheap screwdrivers round or (if over-hardened) shatter. The analogy with cameras generally indicates a grievous lack of knowledge about mechanics' tools. A Zorkii-4K (the best in the Zorkii line up, for my money) is a lot better than the sort of putty-metal cheap tools that are bought by the gullible and ignorant.
Cheers,
R.
uhoh7
Veteran
Of course it matters what camera you use. But it may not matter enough to worry about it. 
I try to give myself the best options I can, lenses and bodies. But there are limits.
I could take some very nice pictures with the Leica S 007.
Unfortunately I won't be doing that
I try to give myself the best options I can, lenses and bodies. But there are limits.
I could take some very nice pictures with the Leica S 007.
Unfortunately I won't be doing that
Kent
Finally at home...
Exactly my thoughts!
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
You only need a camera that is reliable and suits the way you want to work. Brands are unimportant. A few years ago, there was a site called altphoto - sorta like Flickr - that featured lots of amateurs worldwide shooting cameras many would consider 'cheap/rubbish/obsolete/etc.' But those images were usually better than the ones made by hordes of Leica/Contax/hassy shooters.
The qualification, though, is that the gear has to be capable of a specific result, if a specific result is the objective. No use trying to shoot ultra sharp large format portraits like Martin Schoeller with a holga. Or, modern-era formula one shots with a Leica M, for that matter.
Great photography can be accomplished with anything. specifit things probably need to be done with specific tools. But you can get the same results with a Hasselblad, rolleiflex, yashica mat, Bronica, or Kiev, for example. A new Leica MP or a 30 year old, $50 Pentax. The differences in 'quality' are only going to be known if you make direct comparisons between the same shots with competing gear. But that's not what photography is about.
If you have a 'voice,' use whatever expresses it with the most truth. If you don't yet, just shoot and maybe a voice will emerge. And don't expect to need the 'best' camera immediately. Most people start with training wheels and then move up/down/around after experience (or GAS) dictates the necessity or want.
The qualification, though, is that the gear has to be capable of a specific result, if a specific result is the objective. No use trying to shoot ultra sharp large format portraits like Martin Schoeller with a holga. Or, modern-era formula one shots with a Leica M, for that matter.
Great photography can be accomplished with anything. specifit things probably need to be done with specific tools. But you can get the same results with a Hasselblad, rolleiflex, yashica mat, Bronica, or Kiev, for example. A new Leica MP or a 30 year old, $50 Pentax. The differences in 'quality' are only going to be known if you make direct comparisons between the same shots with competing gear. But that's not what photography is about.
If you have a 'voice,' use whatever expresses it with the most truth. If you don't yet, just shoot and maybe a voice will emerge. And don't expect to need the 'best' camera immediately. Most people start with training wheels and then move up/down/around after experience (or GAS) dictates the necessity or want.
f16sunshine
Moderator
It only matters if it's the wrong one.
The recent thread that involved an RFFer who was disappointed to have his M and 35mm at a park trying to capture a bear in a tree.
Having only b&w film when color is the feature of a subject... That sort of thing.
The recent thread that involved an RFFer who was disappointed to have his M and 35mm at a park trying to capture a bear in a tree.
Having only b&w film when color is the feature of a subject... That sort of thing.
DougFord
on the good foot
Beg, borrow or steal the camera that you think will give you better images than the one you own.
uhoh7
Veteran
I think if you are shooting film, it's whatever body can support the lens/lenses you like.
HCB mostly only shot at 50, and many here shoot 35 almost always. I like the varied looks and capabilities of different lenses.
So for me on film, an M body would probably give me the wides access to my favorites, with perhaps a Nikon SLR in the closet for long lenses.
But there are many views.
HCB mostly only shot at 50, and many here shoot 35 almost always. I like the varied looks and capabilities of different lenses.
So for me on film, an M body would probably give me the wides access to my favorites, with perhaps a Nikon SLR in the closet for long lenses.
But there are many views.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Ah, that's the early stages of gear acquisition syndrome, i.e. GAS.
Lots of kids around here have it, be they 17 or 70. And you're right, it often distracts from photography.
The camera matters only in as much as its operation doesn't get in the way of taking the pictures that you want to take.
For me, I'd probably take a nice Zorki 4 w/ a Jupiter 8 over a Leica III w/ a collapsible Summicron because I wear spectacles and the Zorki would loads easier. Though I'd take a Bessa R2A, R2M or Leica M2 over both of those. And I'd take a Zeiss Ikon over a Leica M7 as its finder is even friendlier for me.
If possible, handle the cameras that you think might suit you better. Or at least get them from someplace that has a return policy.
Meanwhile, avoid camera ads when possible and focus on what you like about the photographs that you like. Next, try to recreate the really good ones and then improve on them.
Stand on the shoulders of giants.
Lots of kids around here have it, be they 17 or 70. And you're right, it often distracts from photography.
The camera matters only in as much as its operation doesn't get in the way of taking the pictures that you want to take.
For me, I'd probably take a nice Zorki 4 w/ a Jupiter 8 over a Leica III w/ a collapsible Summicron because I wear spectacles and the Zorki would loads easier. Though I'd take a Bessa R2A, R2M or Leica M2 over both of those. And I'd take a Zeiss Ikon over a Leica M7 as its finder is even friendlier for me.
If possible, handle the cameras that you think might suit you better. Or at least get them from someplace that has a return policy.
Meanwhile, avoid camera ads when possible and focus on what you like about the photographs that you like. Next, try to recreate the really good ones and then improve on them.
Stand on the shoulders of giants.
farlymac
PF McFarland
There is no right camera, except the one you think it is. Lens quality may dictate what camera you want to use more than anything, unless they can be used on different mounts (like Tamron Adaptall-2).
But to take a fine 35mm camera to the beach, and then wonder why it won't work anymore full of sand should give you a hint that maybe a ruggedized digital model would have been better to use.
Situational matters can mean you use one camera over another, but still, it all depends on the skill of the photographer to get the best photo with what they are using. There are too many other variables involved to just think a particular camera will capture great photos.
PF
But to take a fine 35mm camera to the beach, and then wonder why it won't work anymore full of sand should give you a hint that maybe a ruggedized digital model would have been better to use.
Situational matters can mean you use one camera over another, but still, it all depends on the skill of the photographer to get the best photo with what they are using. There are too many other variables involved to just think a particular camera will capture great photos.
PF
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Does it matter which violin Hilary Hahn plays? O f course. There is a reason why she uses a Vuillaume; a reason why Sarah Chang plays a Guarneri Del Gesu; and a reason why Perlman has a Stradivarius. And the best camera, like the best violin, is whichever one is right for the artist who uses it. One camera is an extension of one's own eye and hand, while another is not.
Georgiy Romanov
stray cat
I start my journey with soviet cameras. More than one year walking with Zorki 4 + Jupiter 12 only. Do I take great pictures? Hell yeah! I made a book from those photographs. Do I love soviet cameras? NO! They terrible in ergonomics. Sell my all DSLR stuff to buy one film Leica.
Mcary
Well-known
Yes having a great camera can/may help to create/capture great photographs but not as much as practice, education and knowledge.
The way I see you have two simple choices; one spend the next few years mobbing around telling yourself if only I had this or that camera or two spend the next few years practicing and growing as a photographer a then yes when you can afford it get that great camera.
The way I see you have two simple choices; one spend the next few years mobbing around telling yourself if only I had this or that camera or two spend the next few years practicing and growing as a photographer a then yes when you can afford it get that great camera.
Lss
Well-known
The camera matters.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If it didn't matter, why would there be different kinds of cameras? Pure consumerism? Hardly.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
lynnb
Veteran
Robert, a camera is a hand tool for making pictures, the tool that fits most comfortably in your hand for your way of working, and which supports the lenses and format you want to work with, will be the right tool for you.
Many photographers own a couple of tools, each best suited to a particular purpose. But while you're learning, best to keep it simple, so the camera becomes intuitive and you can concentrate on making the image. If your Zorki feels comfortable in your hand and the viewfinder works for you, and the lenses you need are available and affordable, no need to consider others.
I'd only change mounts if the camera wasn't reliable or the ergonomics didn't work for me or the lenses I wanted weren't available or were beyond my budget.
Concentrate on making pictures for now. When you have more experience, you might have a better idea of what will suit you as you grow as a photographer. For instance, you might find what really interests you and suits your style is medium or large format.
Enjoy your Zorki. Make lots of pictures, and enjoy!
Many photographers own a couple of tools, each best suited to a particular purpose. But while you're learning, best to keep it simple, so the camera becomes intuitive and you can concentrate on making the image. If your Zorki feels comfortable in your hand and the viewfinder works for you, and the lenses you need are available and affordable, no need to consider others.
I'd only change mounts if the camera wasn't reliable or the ergonomics didn't work for me or the lenses I wanted weren't available or were beyond my budget.
Concentrate on making pictures for now. When you have more experience, you might have a better idea of what will suit you as you grow as a photographer. For instance, you might find what really interests you and suits your style is medium or large format.
Enjoy your Zorki. Make lots of pictures, and enjoy!