Equipment reviews

[ClaremontPhoto]

I agree with you peripatetic.

When I'm at my 'day job' over at Expressions I see any number of great photos every day.

The majority of members there are female, and they never talk about 'gear' at all.

It just doesn't figure into their image-making.

I went there expecting a male dominated membership talking about effective base length and so on. Instead I found a female dominated membership who are into their photos much more than their Canon or Nikon.

 

[JeffGreene]

Given the theme discussed:

An amateur photographer was invited to dinner with friends, and he took along a few pictures to show to them. The hostess looked at the photos and commented, "These are very good! You must have a good camera."

The photographer didn't make any comment, but as he was leaving to go home, he said, "That was a really delicious meal! You must have some very good pots."

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I used to believe as the OP stated. I still believe that it is more important to be able to see (an interpretive process) as opposed to look (a physical act). And I still believe that a photographer with a great eye can produce an interesting image with whatever is at hand. But others have argued with me about this, with powerful and persuasive force, that the brand of brush does matter to the final finished painting, just as the differences between lenses really do matter. I still believe that just having a great lens does not make you a great photographer. And what do you know? I have a drawer full of great glass and a hard-drive full of mediocre images to prove this. And then there are the keepers . . . On the other hand, a fine tool is a joy to hold.

BTW: Although the joke about the cook is a good one, in reality, it does help to have good pots. Good knives doesn't hurt either, and makes the cooking process muuuuch more enjoyable.

 

[peripatetic]

Edit, never mind Benjamin beat me to the punch...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Although the joke about the cook is a good one, in reality, it does help to have good pots. Good knives doesn't hurt either, and makes the cooking process muuuuch more enjoyable.

Dear Benjamin,

Absolutely!

And my own view -- which you have just clarified (thank you very much) -- is that if you really care about any activity, you buy the best tools you can afford in order to carry out that activity. A walker buys good walking boots; a cook buys good pots and knives; a photographer buys good cameras and lenses. Using good tools, to do something you enjoy, is much more pleasurable.

The big problem is getting rid of childish ideas of The Best -- What's The Best Camera? What's The Best range of kitchen knives? -- and recognizing that above a certain level, The Best is personal. Anyone who says that Canon is The Best is a fool. Likewise anyone who says Leica is The Best. Or Alpa or Linhof or Gandolfi or Nikon.

Someone who says, "I use ________ because I enjoy using it" is realistic, buit he is an idiot who says, "An XYZ DSLR will do all that an M8 will." Maybe for you, chum, but not for me, because it's a different camera and I won't enjoy using it as much. The _________ camera might be a $10,000 Alpa or a $100 Exakta: the point is that you're happy using it, and that it doesn't limit your vision, but complements it.

Good pictures are a bonus on top. But you'll get better pictures using the cameras you enjoy.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BillP]

Ah, this is a heartwarming thread. Many of the views expressed equate to my own.

Photography is a journey, after all. I started out as a child, not knowing good from bad. As an adolescent, I had the longest lens I could afford, and the widest. But they were cheap, and nasty. As a young man, I had a shiny, flashy, do everything SLR with fast, state of the art, zooms. As a mature man I had a new Leica and fine lenses - image quality was everything to me. Now, as a man in middle age, I still have Leicas, but mostly they are old - older than me. They are mine because they please me, in use, and in the delivery of fine results. They are not the most expensive, the most novel, nor the most advanced, but they are mine, and they suit me.

Regards,

Bill

 

[merlin]

... I think Ralph Gibson once said something to the degree of you only need one lens (50mm) for the first few years.

........ Or your last few, in my case.

Good post James, it does all get down to your 'eye'. All the rest is fluff, maybe important fluff, but fluff nevertheless.

Bruce

 

[oftheherd]

I managed to take some nice photos with a Yashikor 135mm and 28mm when those were the only two extra lenses I had. They would flare at the mere mention of light, but I got pretty good after a while at using flare creatively when it couldn't be avoided. When I finally got hold of a pair of Fujinons to replace them I was disappointed a few times when I "saw" photos with flare and couldn't take them. 😀 😀 😀

Those fujinons and the EBC just would not flare. But there were things I liked about the Fujinons for sure. And used them over the Yashikors unless I had a compelling reason to do so.