No, No, No! Your Gear is ALL Wrong!

[seany65]

The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE. - Ernst Haas

I couldn't agree more.

Really? So how come no astrophotographer ever said:

"I think I'll stick with my 1920's box camera for all my astro shots."?

How come no marine photographer ever said:

"I'll stick with my 1930's folder for all my underwater shots."?

etc.

The camera has to have the facilities needed to get the shot you see, and
the photographer has to be able to see the shots they want, but also see the shots the camera can produce and if necessary balance them.

 

[Contarama]

Haas was a great photographer amongst greats and a remarkable human being. Myself, well I would probably think about what he says instead of arguing with him.

 

[objectowcer]

Really? So how come no astrophotographer ever said:

"I think I'll stick with my 1920's box camera for all my astro shots."?

How come no marine photographer ever said:

"I'll stick with my 1930's folder for all my underwater shots."?

etc.

The camera has to have the facilities needed to get the shot you see, and
the photographer has to be able to see the shots they want, but also see the shots the camera can produce and if necessary balance them.

"The best camera is the one you have with you."

Oh yeah? What if that camera is BROKEN?

 

[CMur12]

The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE. - Ernst Haas

I couldn't agree more.

Well, Ernst Haas didn't use a Holga.

Mr Haas clearly chose his equipment carefully to suit his needs. I know that at one point, anyway, he was using Leica SLRs and lenses.

Of course the camera bears only secondary responsibility for a good image, but a good photographer needs equipment well chosen to meet her/his needs.

- Murray

 

[Archlich]

I don't think a 3 lbs automated SLR would produce exactly the same photo as a 4 oz P&S with the same focal length.

The heavier your camera, the "heavier" you photo tends to be. Not necessarily a bad thing - that's just one of the many differences the camera could make.

The virtue of difference is being different. Not better. Nothing could be "better".

 

[Steve M.]

"The heavier your camera, the "heavier" you photo tends to be"

That certainly is one of the more interesting theories I've heard. It defies physics, but what the heck. Whatever film you have in your camera, trust me on this, has no idea what that camera weighs.

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference".

That's just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Ever try to make portraits with a crappy point and shoot camera? Or cover a fast moving sporting event with a box camera? Try street shooting with a LF camera some time. Photographers are like artists, they often say really stupid things. Just look at their images, and don't pay any attention to what comes out of their mouths.

As for nothing being better, a night w/ your sweetie is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. A Leica is better than a Holga. Tri-X in D76 is better than, well, just about anything on earth, and a Ferrari is better than a Vega. You get the picture. I could write more, but it would be better if I go to bed :-]

 

[David Hughes]

...A Leica is better than a Holga. Tri-X in D76 is better than, well, just about anything on earth, and a Ferrari is better than a Vega. You get the picture. I could write more, but it would be better if I go to bed :-]

Hmmm, I'm wondering what's fastest; a Ferrari going at 20mph past a radar speed trap or a Vega at 20mph going past a radar speed trap?

I asked that because a lot of aggro would follow to point out that the Ferrari is fastest at 20mph.

And I often wonder who goes into a car saleroom and has that choice. The trouble is that a lot of people think only extremes count but how they print their B&W film without any shades of grey escapes me...

As has been pointed out, a lot of "insanely crappy" pictures are taken and for 99% of the camera users in the world an adequate camera would be sufficient; especially since they'll only get 4" x 6" prints done and so won't notice anything wrong.

OTOH, this is a forum and so we should all endeavour to sell them a limited edition with a full set of lenses and flashes and nothing slower than f/1.2, shouldn't we?

Regards, David

 

[robert blu]

The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE. - Ernst Haas

I couldn't agree more.

Me too.
Learning to SEE requires dedication and time.
Buying a camera with higher specs requires money.

robert

 

[Archiver]

Wow, this thread is still going.

Eight years ago, I went to Japan with my brand spanking new Leica M9 and GRD III, leaving my year-old Canon 5D Mark II at home. The photos I took were some of the best I'd ever taken in my life, with the Zeiss 21, Voigtlander 35/1.4, Summicron 50 and Summarit 75.

Having said that, I'm looking at my Japan photos now, and thinking that I may have been able to take more varied photos, in terms of focal length, had I taken the 5D II and the 24-105L and 35L like I'd originally anticipated. And I'd have video that would have been leaps and bounds ahead of anything I took with my compact cameras.

I still have the 5D Mark II, so it costs me nothing to pick it up again. The 24-105L, 16-35L, 35L and 70-200 f4L are still in my collection, so no extra money is needed for that, either. The sensor specs are unfortunately under what is available now, but it's still a 21mp full frame sensor, and the best Canon had to offer at that time. Last year I played with processing some old Canon raws and was very pleasantly surprised with what I can do now, compared with my post skills back then.

So, I don't even have to spend money to have a full frame DSLR with a bunch of lenses. ;-)

 

[Roger Hicks]

. .. I may have been able to take more varied photos, in terms of focal length, had I taken the 5D II and the 24-105L and 35L like I'd originally anticipated. . . .

Does access to a wider range of focal lengths necessarily make for better pictures, though? Is there any correlation between "more varied photos, in terms of focal length" and "better pictures"?

Cheers,

R.

 

[dmr]

As has been pointed out, a lot of "insanely crappy" pictures are taken ...

And it seems like the "industry" is more than happy to help people take insanely crappy photos ... stuff like pre-exposed hearts on film ...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Me too.
Learning to SEE requires dedication and time.
Buying a camera with higher specs requires money.

robert

Well said.

 

[leicapixie]

The majority of folks even here do NOT print.
The whole concept of bigger and more pixels a waste of time!
And Money.
Seeing cannot be taught, one either sees or one does not.
I taught photography and it was mostly very sad, as regards visualizing.
Photographers in the past with so called "primitive" equipment did great photographs.
Technology cannot match seeing..

 

[mpaniagua]

Does access to a wider range of focal lengths necessarily make for better pictures, though? Is there any correlation between "more varied photos, in terms of focal length" and "better pictures"?

Cheers,

R.

Hello Roger

I suppose that would be helpful to better express the image you have in mind. More tools means more ways to express. Same as when talking and expressing ideas, when you have an ample vocabulary, you get better chances to better express your ideas.

On the other hand, if you don't have any ideas, they just make some cumbersome luggage 🙂

Regards
Marcelo

 

[David Hughes]

And it seems like the "industry" is more than happy to help people take insanely crappy photos ... stuff like pre-exposed hearts on film ...

Thanks for posting that; I feel I'm even better at photography than my mum thought.

If we all look at this photo and think what I'm thinking, someone's ears are really going to burn badly.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hello Roger

I suppose that would be helpful to better express the image you have in mind. More tools means more ways to express. Same as when talking and expressing ideas, when you have an ample vocabulary, you get better chances to better express your ideas. . . .

Dear Marcelo,

I'm wondering, though, whether this is true: whether it might not be better to learn to use one or two (or even three) focal lengths really well, rather than zooming all over the place.

It's always going to be a personal choice, of course.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PKR]

Me too.
Learning to SEE requires dedication and time.
Buying a camera with higher specs requires money.

robert

Yes Robert, you're correct

IPPA

NEW YORK – July 18, 2018 – The iPhone Photography Awards (IPPAWARDS) is proud to announce the winners of the 11th Annual Awards. This year’s winners were selected from thousands of entries submitted by iPhone photographers from over 140 countries around the world.

https://www.ippawards.com/

https://www.ippawards.com/gallery/

 

[PKR]

The majority of folks even here do NOT print.
The whole concept of bigger and more pixels a waste of time!
And Money.
Seeing cannot be taught, one either sees or one does not.
I taught photography and it was mostly very sad, as regards visualizing.
Photographers in the past with so called "primitive" equipment did great photographs.
Technology cannot match seeing..

Yeah, you can't teach creativity. You can help and encourage the creative, but that's it, as per my experience.

 

[NickTrop]

Focal lenghts are simply tools. Different tools for different jobs... For example:

1. I want to shoot an interior of a room. I want to get the entire room in the picture. I better have a wide angle zoom. A zoom to aid in composition. I can't use a tele. I can't use a 50.

2. I want a versatile lens that's great in available light because I don't want to (or can't) use a flash. I want one lens to rule them all. A fast 50.

3. I want to shoot portraits. I want some compression so faces are not distorted. I want to blow out the background. I want a wide ap for available light and/or aid in bokeh. Short tele-length fast prime.

4. I want to shoot wildlife, birds, sports. Telephoto zoom.

5. I want to shoot small items -- products, coins, stamps, insects. Macro (or "micro") lens.

Versatile pairs -- 50 and a 24. 85 and a 35.

Wrenches come in sets. Different sizes -- same general function but vastly different uses. You don't use a the same wrench to fix your bike as you do for your plumbing. Doubtful you can make due with one wrench if you're a mechanic or a plumber. No. You need a set. Same concept with lenses if you're a photographer. Fast primes for your mains. Zooms in the wide and tele extermes. Keep slow mid-range zooms. Useless. (Exception being a small digicam. But those are obsolete for the most part. For the price, get a used full frame camera...)

Yes -- lenses are expensive. Start with a fast 50/1.4. Not a 1.8, not a 2.0. A 1.4. This is the only 1.4 you need. And don't listen to anyone who claims that a 1.8 is "better". No. Buy a good quality used one, let some other sucker eat the depreciation. Next comes a 24/2.8 with which to pair it. The 50 over the 35 because it acceptably renders faces without too much distortion -- the 35 is unacceptable in this regard. In instances where 50mm is too narrow, use the 24 where. Buy older smaller AUTOFOCUS prime lenses so you will actually use them instead of leaving them at home.

 

[PKR]

Focal lenghts are simply tools. Different tools for different jobs... For example:

1. I want to shoot an interior of a room. I want to get the entire room in the picture. I better have a wide angle zoom. A zoom to aid in composition. I can't use a tele. I can't use a 50.

2. I want a versatile lens that's great in available light because I don't want to (or can't) use a flash. I want one lens to rule them all. A fast 50.

3. I want to shoot portraits. I want some compression so faces are not distorted. I want to blow out the background. I want a wide ap for available light and/or aid in bokeh. Short tele-length fast prime.

4. I want to shoot wildlife, birds, sports. Telephoto zoom.

5. I want to shoot small items -- products, coins, stamps, insects. Macro (or "micro") lens.

Versatile pairs -- 50 and a 24. 85 and a 35.

Wrenches come in sets. Different sizes -- same general function but vastly different uses. You don't use a the same wrench to fix your bike as you do for your plumbing. Doubtful you can make due with one wrench if you're a mechanic or a plumber. No. You need a set. Same concept with lenses if you're a photographer. Fast primes for your mains. Zooms in the wide and tele extermes. Keep slow mid-range zooms. Useless. (Exception being a small digicam. But those are obsolete for the most part. For the price, get a used full frame camera...)

Yes -- lenses are expensive. Start with a fast 50/1.4. Not a 1.8, not a 2.0. A 1.4. This is the only 1.4 you need. And don't listen to anyone who claims that a 1.8 is "better". No. Buy a good quality used one, let some other sucker eat the depreciation. Next comes a 24/2.8 with which to pair it.

I own a bunch of glass. It's necessary for work. But, extreme WA distortion aside, it's pretty easy to change perspective in most cases, with your feet.

"The best zoom lens is your legs.” -Ernst Haas