Philosophy question for the day

[jim sparx]

I asked this question on another photo forum and was shot down, even accused of being a troll, it was my third post in as many months. Although I have been in and around photography since 1957 (Argus C3) I don't consider my self a beginner, but I am new to photography forums, this one (Rangefinder), Digital Review, Ricoh and the previously mentioned no name one where I asked the question.


The question went something like this with the following disclaimer: I do not believe you need a $7000 camera to take an acceptable photo. I believe it is the photographer (his knowledge and background of photography fundamentals) and a good lens. Granted, you a take nice pictures with a cell phone.


So, instead of investing in a $7000 camera, I have been buying cheap cameras (Kiev 4, FED, Minolta Hi Matic), with a few more on my list I would like to try (all recommended as classic, all with excellant LENS, and all for less than $50 ea. I'm doing this because I have gas, I like film cameras and I would like to see what kind of results I get with cheap cameras with good lens.


Is this a skewed way of thinking about photography or is this some sort of defense mechanism for the inability to afford a $7000 camera, being 75 and living on SS and Army retirement?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well first off, you're shooting film. No film camera will cost you $7000, unless you buy a rare collectible. Even Leicas and Hasselblads..the really expensive film cameras, can be bought used for much, much less.

With digital, cheap cameras still cost far more than your old film cameras are costing you, and the high-end ones do indeed cost $7000 or more (Nikon D4, Canon 1DsIII, Leica M9) if bought new.

As a professional, I prefer to use higher end cameras because they're built to take daily professional use, and I've found them to be better designed, more ergonomic.

Here's an example. I give private photography lessons. Many of my students have bought their first digital SLR. They want to learn to use manual exposure, which means controlling both aperture and shutter speed. The cheap cameras make this as painful as possible.

On mid-to-high priced D-SLRs, there are two finger wheels, one on the front grip, one on the back. This is true of Canon, Nikon, and probably Sony, Pentax, etc. One wheel sets the aperture, the other does the shutter speed. Easy and fast to operate!

On every cheap one my students have brought me, there is just one finger wheel, which sets the shutter speed. So how the Hell do you set the aperture? You have to hold down a button while turning the wheel. My last two students have had Sony cameras. The damned aperture button is not even marked as such! The first one had to pull out her instruction manual so I could look it up. It uses the Exposure Compensation button. What a bloody pain.

I'd go nuts if I had to jump through so many hoops to set my camera for each photo. I told the last student, "This is how it USED to be!" I pulled out my Leica and showed her the aperture ring on the lens and the shutter dial on top of the camera.

So yes, there is an advantage to expensive models. If you use them to make your living and want gear that just works without getting in your way, you'll realize it was money well spent. That's also true for serious hobbyists who shoot a lot.

This is even true with film cameras. I remember a lot of cheap Nikon 35mm SLRs, like the FE and FM were just maddening to use because the shutter WOULD NOT FIRE unless you had the film advance lever pulled out to the standoff position...where it jabbed me in the eye. The much costlier F3, the pro model of the era, did not get in the way, it just worked. Worth EVERY dollar. You could not pay me to shoot with one of the lower end Nikon film bodies of that time period. Not worth the hassle.

 

[YYV_146]

Being 20 and having owned and used as many digital bodies, my answer would be no.

Looking back at the photos I took with an F717 some years ago, a camera with a tiny sensor and only goes up to iso 800, I see many keepers. Now my cameras shoot 9fps with continuous AF, but they haven't made my photos better, just easier to create. Most of the extra money you pay for flagship bodies are about the reliability, extreme condition shooting and AF abilities (for DSLRs). With film the issue isn't even there, the only difference between film bodies is build quality and operations, the latter will depend on personal preferences.

But it also depends on the kind of photography you do. Very fast and capable bodies are needed when it comes to wild animals, sports, certain events. But I don't think any type of work needs a $7000 camera, not even close.

 

[daveleo]

If you are looking for other people to legitimize your choices, you should
stop that. Do whatever you desire to do regarding hardware and methods.
At $50 / camera, how bad can the mistakes become ?

You will likely get buried in a variety of responses here of who would do what and why you should
do this or that because this population of members is extremely broad in experience, objectives, cash flow,
business needs etc etc. You know . . . listen, absorb then go your own way.

EDIT: I just realized that I dodged your question ! 😱 . . . . I think what you're doing would be fun and get some interesting results. Make a great scrap book or web page story !

 

[L Collins]

Is this a skewed way of thinking about photography?

Yes. And so is the other way. From a creative perspective, type of gear is completely irrelevant, whether it be cheap or dear. The Lomo guy makes the same conceptual mistake as the Leica guy.

It's your vision that matters, and it only. Nothing prints on the negative that it was taken with a Leica MP or a Pentax k1000.

 

[ChrisN]

Hardly a new proposition. In fact a very old argument.

Use whatever you feel comfortable with. Allow others the same privilege.

 

[Keith]

Jim,

When I'm seventy five I won't give a **** what anyone thinks because at that age I'll have the right to live totally to the beat of my own drum! 😀

And I agree with your post ... but I don't think it matters what others think when it comes to photography. It's a very personal thing.

 

[nikon_sam]

If people like the images you're producing what difference does it make which camera/lens you used to do it...if they ask then just say that you happened to have used the exact same camera they have (if they happen to be holding one)...or make up some story...

 

[segedi]

After looking at many photos and getting some printed to hang on the walls, mist are film and none, yet, with the Leica's I own. One of my favorites is from a canon élan 7e with 50mm lens.

So no, you don't need eensive cameras to produce great work. That said, I could shoot at ISO 8000 and have my film images look anywhere what the Monochrom will give me.

And, you still have a wee but of a "problem"...GAS at $40 a pop is no different than $4000 a pop. GAS is GAS and should be dealt with promptly 🙂

 

[TXForester]

I'm with ChrisN on this. Use what you like. Being not so successfully self-employed 🙂 I understand using cheap bodies. I also agree with good lenses on cheap bodies as long as the body is relatively reliable. With film, good film and good lenses are far more important than the body. The body is mostly film holder and transport device with a shutter.

That's not true of digital as you are stuck with the sensor and other electronics that come with the body. In digital, more money often equates to better quality, though within the limits of its capability I still like the image from my 6mp Canon 10D. Bought used and cheap. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes. And so is the other way. From a creative perspective, type of gear is completely irrelevant, whether it be cheap or dear. The Lomo guy makes the same conceptual mistake as the Leica guy.

It's your vision that matters, and it only. Nothing prints on the negative that it was taken with a Leica MP or a Pentax k1000.

But you'll get better pictures with cameras you're happier using. For me, this means simple, manual cameras with prime lenses. For someone else it might be a DSLR with 40 modes and a 10:1 zoom.

Trying to impose my vision on the DSLR guy would be as painful for both of us as his trying to impose his vision on me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noisycheese]

I do not believe you need a $7000 camera to take an acceptable photo.

I believe you are correct.

I believe it is the photographer (his knowledge and background of photography fundamentals)...

See previous comment.

... and a good lens.

Right again - but there seems to be some disagreement about what constitutes an accurate definition of a "good" lens (and therein lies the source of untold heartache and discontent).

Is this a skewed way of thinking about photography or is this some sort of defense mechanism for the inability to afford a $7000 camera, being 75 and living on SS and Army retirement?

Actually, I think it is an approach that is full of wisdom.

Some people make themselves miserably unhappy over the cameras or lenses they don't have, while taking for granted the ones they do have. That's a sad way for a person to live their lives, IMHO. I used to do it, too - until I figured out that photography is not about the price of your camera or lens.

I like cars like the Ferrari 458 Spider and the Lambroghini Aventador J; does the fact that I don't own either one make my life not worth living? No.

I'm too busy driving around in my Toyota Corolla with the sunroof open with my windows down, being grateful that I have my Corolla instead of some of the piece of crap rattletraps I have had in the past. 😀

 

[hepcat]

When someone can look at a print hanging on a wall and tell me what camera/lens combo it was taken with (other than lomo/lens baby of course) THEN I'll be concerned about what camera I ought to have and how much it costs.

That said, I've used a bunch of different gear over the years, starting with Leica, and after 40 years I'm back to Leica. That has to do with my ability to use the gear to get the images I want the way I want them. I find everything else to be frustrating to use... and that has nothing to do with the quality of images that the other gear I've used produces... but everything to do with my ability to capture them the way I want to without the gear causing me problems. I want my equipment to operate "just so" and the gear I have now does that for me, so I'm happy with it.

I've had a number of FSU cameras and lenses over the years and they're fun to use, even if finicky and frustratingly clunky. If that's what makes your clock go 'round though, and you're comfortable with them, and they produce the images you're after, go for it! As I said... no one will have the faintest idea what gear was used to make your images, and frankly it doesn't make any difference at all.

 

[TXForester]

Right again - but there seems to be some disagreement about what constitutes an accurate definition of a "good" lens (and therein lies the source of untold heartache and discontent).

If Jim, like myself, shoots for himself then only he knows what "good" lens is. Good only becomes a problem when two or more people are involved, and then you can only hope for a definition that relies on measurable values.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I asked this question on another photo forum and was shot down, even accused of being a troll, it was my third post in as many months. Although I have been in and around photography since 1957 (Argus C3) I don't consider my self a beginner, but I am new to photography forums, this one (Rangefinder), Digital Review, Ricoh and the previously mentioned no name one where I asked the question.


The question went something like this with the following disclaimer: I do not believe you need a $7000 camera to take an acceptable photo. I believe it is the photographer (his knowledge and background of photography fundamentals) and a good lens. Granted, you a take nice pictures with a cell phone.


So, instead of investing in a $7000 camera, I have been buying cheap cameras (Kiev 4, FED, Minolta Hi Matic), with a few more on my list I would like to try (all recommended as classic, all with excellant LENS, and all for less than $50 ea. I'm doing this because I have gas, I like film cameras and I would like to see what kind of results I get with cheap cameras with good lens.


Is this a skewed way of thinking about photography or is this some sort of defense mechanism for the inability to afford a $7000 camera, being 75 and living on SS and Army retirement?

Jim,

Given: You're of limited financial means. Why is irrelevant to the question.
Given: You're ex-Army, perhaps sick of being told what to do every second.
Given: There are lots of people here up to their eyeballs in expensive camera doodads.
Given: Nice stuff is nice, but almost never mandatory. At times it's even contra-indicated.

Question: Why are you asking for this forum's validation? I'd bet you can supply your own. 😉

s-a

 

[koven]

Gear matters a hell of a lot if you know what you're doing.

It takes a lot of practice to know what you need, don't need and what fits your style.

 

[swoop]

I've developed an appreciation for cheap digital cameras. Just browse eBay or craigslist and you can find a bunch of great top of the line cameras circa 2008 really cheap. They're fun to play with for awhile.

 

[msbarnes]

....a lot of cameras/lenses are nonsense but I wouldn't make a broad generalization like that.

 

[Contarama]

On every cheap one my students have brought me, there is just one finger wheel, which sets the shutter speed. So how the Hell do you set the aperture? You have to hold down a button while turning the wheel.

I have a D5000 which is like this...I set the aperture with the aperture ring on the 105/2.5 non Ai cheap lens that I bought when I bought the cheap body. 😛

The viewfinder sure does suck though...

Perhaps this is a skewed way of looking at photography - treating a digital camera as if it is a manual film camera with no auto anything.

 

[Boris Stupak]

A Kiev 4 in good working order with a well-calibrated lens can take photos as good or better than the most expensive film Leica with the equivalent Leica lens.

Both in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc, as well as the more subjective "artistic" qualities.

This is also true of thousands of other film cameras.

Digital cameras vary to a small degree because of sensor size, quality, and so forth, but almost any modern digital camera can take technically excellent photographs that rank in the highest percentiles.

There is no compelling reason to use a digital M Leica that costs $7000, for example. The photos will not be that much better than other digital photographs, if at all.

The only reason to use one is because you like to. (which is a perfectly good reason)