HuhYashica
Established
Ever since I started doing photography I always had this thought in my mind that "if you have a great camera, you'll have great pictures" and honestly that thought messed me up and is still messing me up. Right now I have a Zorki 4K as my main because I'm a student and at the moment it was all I could afford. At the time I was super excited to get the camera as for anyone who buys a new camera well new anything, and as time goes on I constantly had the urge to go on EBay, Keh, and the classifieds to find a new camera not because I needed one but because my camera was a copy and I felt it wasn't good enough for the big boys. I'm not saying I don't love my Zorki I'll keep it for as long as I could. But back to my question does having a Leica, Zorki, or Contax... Really matter? I want to hear what you guys have the say, I know this question may a bit silly to some and I'm sorry, I'm just a kid wanting to be a photographer when he grows up and this thought is ruining everything. :bang:
-RobertJ
-RobertJ
dotur
od karnevala
I wouldn't call Zorki 4K a copy. Copy of what? There is no similar Leica. It is a perfectly usable classic camera, capable of best results. There are, of course, more reliable and more expensive cameras. Some of them are greater pleasure to use, and that's all.
johnnyrod
More cameras than shots
Never heard a bad word about a Zorki.
As I said to my brother in law the other day, there are guys on this forum taking better pictures with pre-war cameras than I'll ever manage. Provided your camera gives an acceptable level of technical output i.e. sharp enough, contrasty enough, however you want your pictures to look, then your camera is good enough. As long as you gel with it - ergonmics or just "feel" - then why not. To prove a point, there is a blog called the Tight Fisted Photographer where the guy takes great pictures with 0.50GBP (50 pence) XA2 using film that's 1GBP a roll.
As I said to my brother in law the other day, there are guys on this forum taking better pictures with pre-war cameras than I'll ever manage. Provided your camera gives an acceptable level of technical output i.e. sharp enough, contrasty enough, however you want your pictures to look, then your camera is good enough. As long as you gel with it - ergonmics or just "feel" - then why not. To prove a point, there is a blog called the Tight Fisted Photographer where the guy takes great pictures with 0.50GBP (50 pence) XA2 using film that's 1GBP a roll.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes and no. Yes, in that you'll probably take more and better pictures with a camera you're happy using. No, in that different people are happy with different cameras. Zorkiis are OK, and a good Jupiter-8 isn't a bad lens. They're above the "quality plateau" where the photographer's skill matters more than the camera, but they won't necessarily suit everyone.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
konicaman
konicaman
The Zorki is a fine and capable camera. As long as you are not doing wildlife or astro photography you should be fine. Stay cool and go out in the world and use that Zorki!
Have fun!
Have fun!
telenous
Well-known
In a crucial sense it doesn't matter but in another one perhaps it does. It doesn't because nobody is going to ask you the provenance of a good photograph. That is, unless you find yourself among camera enthusiasts where camera gear is important. (Not a bad thing in itself, mind you. If it were, after all, we'd all be bad people here.
) On the other hand, a better camera, whichever that may be, is a camera that may facilitate the act of making a particular kind of photograph you want to make. It may also be a camera that gives pleasure in using it, so you find yourself wanting to go out and using it instead of doing your washing or other errands for the house. Another weird thing: Certain brands (I am thinking primarily Leica and Rollei, perhaps Nikon or Contax or Hasselblad too) have a long and vaunted past, so sometimes using one of their cameras gives a sense of "entitlement" in the picture-making process. Difficult to explain, but I think it's there. So, that's the long and short of it as I see it. From reading your posts I get the sense you feel kind of shortchanged by your Zorki. I think you aren't, in a strict sense, because the implication between great camera -> great photos, doesn't hold necessarily. Personally I think the addition of a contemporary optic like a Voigtlander 35/1.7 would serve you well. But do I also understand your pining after a " better" camera? I'd be lying if I said I didn't.
.
lawrence
Veteran
Think about the work of the great photographers who used 35mm cameras -- Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Robert Frank, William Klein and so on -- and then consider that a Zorki would have been pretty much state of the art for them. Perhaps this will answer your question.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Alkis has given you a very good reply in my opinion, as has Roger, in so far as different photographic applications may be better served using certain cameras or types of cameras. However, if you are starting out in photography it may be worth bearing in mind the positives that the restrictions you may encounter with your current camera and lens may actually benefit you. You're forced to think creatively all the time to make the most of any limitations you have, or feel you have.
Of course the time may come when you feel the need to try a more 'professional' manufacturer, more extensive kit or a different type of camera altogether. Only you can really know if and when this time comes.
I fully understand the desire. When I was at college using my father's old Minolta bodies and I'd see better off students using Nikons I had much the same lust and feelings. The truth was the Minolta had far more ability than I had talent or experience at the time. Essentially, don't rush, don't panic and just enjoy concentrating on what interests you enough to point a camera at 'it' in the first place.
Of course the time may come when you feel the need to try a more 'professional' manufacturer, more extensive kit or a different type of camera altogether. Only you can really know if and when this time comes.
I fully understand the desire. When I was at college using my father's old Minolta bodies and I'd see better off students using Nikons I had much the same lust and feelings. The truth was the Minolta had far more ability than I had talent or experience at the time. Essentially, don't rush, don't panic and just enjoy concentrating on what interests you enough to point a camera at 'it' in the first place.
waileong
Well-known
Yes it does
Yes it does
Yes it does. Though not in the way you think.
A camera can be too big, too small, too heavy, too light, not rugged enough, have lousy ergonomics, frustrate you, please you, have the right features, have the wrong features, etc. etc.
Just like you wouldn't wear a tuxedo to the beach, you also wouldn't use a compact camera when the job (eg sports) requires a fast DSLR. Just one example.
Great cameras don't make great pictures. But they can help you. Or hinder you from making great pictures.
Yes it does
Yes it does. Though not in the way you think.
A camera can be too big, too small, too heavy, too light, not rugged enough, have lousy ergonomics, frustrate you, please you, have the right features, have the wrong features, etc. etc.
Just like you wouldn't wear a tuxedo to the beach, you also wouldn't use a compact camera when the job (eg sports) requires a fast DSLR. Just one example.
Great cameras don't make great pictures. But they can help you. Or hinder you from making great pictures.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Dear HuhYashica,
have a look in the thread with pictures from pre-war Leitz glass. The pictures that Erik van Straten and David Hel share in that thread were made with cameras that are similar in simplicity to yours. Your Jupiter lens (if you've obtained a good one) can be as capable as the old uncoated Elmars they shoot with.
Their pictures as brilliant, no other word for it.
It all starts with 'truly, photographically seeing' whats in front of you. Distance, composition, choose the moment, all that. Then there's choosing film, developer, post-process, presentation in print vs internet.
Those are the choices that can lead to great photos, can make a photographer stand out, and the parts of the process to have just as much fun and satisfaction from as from a camera!
Good luck and enjoy your shooting!
EDIT: And if you've shot your avatar with that Zorki, I'd say you are doing pretty well already
have a look in the thread with pictures from pre-war Leitz glass. The pictures that Erik van Straten and David Hel share in that thread were made with cameras that are similar in simplicity to yours. Your Jupiter lens (if you've obtained a good one) can be as capable as the old uncoated Elmars they shoot with.
Their pictures as brilliant, no other word for it.
It all starts with 'truly, photographically seeing' whats in front of you. Distance, composition, choose the moment, all that. Then there's choosing film, developer, post-process, presentation in print vs internet.
Those are the choices that can lead to great photos, can make a photographer stand out, and the parts of the process to have just as much fun and satisfaction from as from a camera!
Good luck and enjoy your shooting!
EDIT: And if you've shot your avatar with that Zorki, I'd say you are doing pretty well already
Last edited:
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
And I started with FED-2. And honestly, it matters a lot to me. I just can't handle Zorki 4. I could barely see numbers and dial is terrible itself. Plus, camera is not something I want to keep in my hands and possession. It is far from be elegant.
"Contax" is so weird.
It is like writing by left hand if you are right handed.
Analog film cameras are tools. And as far as I know it is matter which tool is in your hands. If you work a lot with it.
I go for hours on the street to take couple of rolls on film and I do it regularly for years. Camera matters a lot. Contax is useless, Zorki 4 is next to it, FED-2 is more less. But nothing beats Leica M camera.
But of course you could go out on the beach with Holga and take picture of long legged Olga. Everyone will tell you how nice picture is.
Cheers, Ko.
"Contax" is so weird.
It is like writing by left hand if you are right handed.
Analog film cameras are tools. And as far as I know it is matter which tool is in your hands. If you work a lot with it.
I go for hours on the street to take couple of rolls on film and I do it regularly for years. Camera matters a lot. Contax is useless, Zorki 4 is next to it, FED-2 is more less. But nothing beats Leica M camera.
But of course you could go out on the beach with Holga and take picture of long legged Olga. Everyone will tell you how nice picture is.
Cheers, Ko.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Sure it matters. What Roger said. If you don't like the camera, you won't shoot it. No clicks, no pics.
Buy gear you truly like. That is not as easy as it sounds, what with others' opinions feeding the dog of dissatisfaction.
Of which proof we have this thread ...
Buy gear you truly like. That is not as easy as it sounds, what with others' opinions feeding the dog of dissatisfaction.
Of which proof we have this thread ...
It doesn't matter to the world what camera you use... well, except for camera geeks. However, it matters to you. I'm a firm believer in that if you are comfortable using your camera, and enjoy using it, you'll most likely make better photos with it.
filmdood
-
It is not the box it is the eye. A Cadillac won't get you to town any faster than a Chevrolet, there being speed limits and all. As for "not liking" a camera, I was not that crazy about my Leica 3f I owned in the late 50s and early 60s but I shot a lot of photos with it. I liked my M2r a whole lot but did not take a lot more photos just because I was in love with the camera. Do you ask you auto mechanic what brand of tools he uses?
No, but I'm sure he/she has a preference.
RichC
Well-known
What and how you photograph - your "vision" - come first. A good photographer will be able to use any camera - from a cheap disposable film camera to a high-end digital back - to take successful pictures.
But - agreeing with previous posters - there will be a camera that suits your vision and personality. Using the "wrong" camera won't make your photographs worse (though perhaps different from your usual images), provided you take account of its strengths and weaknesses and ensure your pictures play to these - but you may find the wrong tool a frustrating and limiting experience!
But - agreeing with previous posters - there will be a camera that suits your vision and personality. Using the "wrong" camera won't make your photographs worse (though perhaps different from your usual images), provided you take account of its strengths and weaknesses and ensure your pictures play to these - but you may find the wrong tool a frustrating and limiting experience!
wakarimasen
Well-known
I think the name of the camera is most often misinterpreted as a gateway to better images. The most important thing - as others have already said - is that you are comfortable to use the camera, and it fits with what you are intending to photograph. For example:
In the end, it comes down to what you want to photograph, which camera is most appropriate for that subject, and what you can afford. I think a lot of people - if faced with photographs of a scene taken with an M2 and a Zorki - would be hard-pushed to say that one was significantly better than the other: if both were in an equivalent working condition.
If you can manage to concentrate on the cameras' output, rather than the name on the front - at least for one year - I think it will pay dividends on the long term.
Good luck in your decision making: from someone that has definitely followed the other 'look it's a shiny new camera' route... :bang:
- is a Leica better than a Zorki? Not for someone who can afford the latter, but not the former!
- Is a Zorki better than an Olympus 35RC? Perhaps - if the user wants to try lenses of different focal length.
- Is a Zorki better than a Canon 1D Mark III? Perhaps not - especially if the user want to use high frame rates, to capture fast-moving action.
- is a Leica better than a Zorki? Perhaps - if the latter is unreliable, meaning that shutter speeds are erratic, and the shutter is capping etc.
In the end, it comes down to what you want to photograph, which camera is most appropriate for that subject, and what you can afford. I think a lot of people - if faced with photographs of a scene taken with an M2 and a Zorki - would be hard-pushed to say that one was significantly better than the other: if both were in an equivalent working condition.
If you can manage to concentrate on the cameras' output, rather than the name on the front - at least for one year - I think it will pay dividends on the long term.
Good luck in your decision making: from someone that has definitely followed the other 'look it's a shiny new camera' route... :bang:
dee
Well-known
Of course , at first , a Zorki 4 is an excellent camera .
It is also perfect to learn the basics of the aperture/shutter speed equation plus the use of a separate light meter which displays all the possible combinations .
It's all too easy to to wish for a better camera , however , it may be 'worth' seeking out a cheap mechanical SLR just to check out the differences - the meter won't work , so no difference there .
I chased various DSLRs and now prefer an all too basic , much dismissed , Sony A390 - because it's simple and takes a 1980s Minolta 35-70 - it cost me £100 , so not too great an outlay .
it simply suits ME in respect of handling and the colour rendition .
It would not teach too much about photography though because the shutter/aperture controls tend to be computerised .
dee
It is also perfect to learn the basics of the aperture/shutter speed equation plus the use of a separate light meter which displays all the possible combinations .
It's all too easy to to wish for a better camera , however , it may be 'worth' seeking out a cheap mechanical SLR just to check out the differences - the meter won't work , so no difference there .
I chased various DSLRs and now prefer an all too basic , much dismissed , Sony A390 - because it's simple and takes a 1980s Minolta 35-70 - it cost me £100 , so not too great an outlay .
it simply suits ME in respect of handling and the colour rendition .
It would not teach too much about photography though because the shutter/aperture controls tend to be computerised .
dee
Fadedsun
Established
After looking through Szarkowski's book "Looking At Photographs" the other day, my answer would be "no, it doesn't matter." There were a lot of wonderful and interesting photographs taken with some of the earliest cameras ever made. I would agree with others that it's the person behind the camera that is most important.
aizan
Veteran
it matters much less when you're comparing it to similar cameras such as the screwmount leicas and contax ii. if you start comparing it to dissimilar cameras, then the affordances really come into play.