robklurfield
eclipse
With skill, vision and creativity, one could make a stunning image using a Quaker Oats container as a pinhole camera. You can even eat the cereal before converting the cannister into a camera.
There is abundant proof that one can make exceptionally bad images using megabuck gear.
If you're enjoying Zorkis and the like, keep at it. Life is far to short to worry about all this other silliness.
Might a megabuck rig be easier, more flexible, more comfortable, more capable, etc.? Sure. But if your budget can't be stretched, you mind and your eye have no such limitations. If you win the lottery, go buy a $7K kit. In the meantime, just make pictures.
There is abundant proof that one can make exceptionally bad images using megabuck gear.
If you're enjoying Zorkis and the like, keep at it. Life is far to short to worry about all this other silliness.
Might a megabuck rig be easier, more flexible, more comfortable, more capable, etc.? Sure. But if your budget can't be stretched, you mind and your eye have no such limitations. If you win the lottery, go buy a $7K kit. In the meantime, just make pictures.
nikkor-watching
Established
You mean you actually take pictures with these things? I just like to stand next to onlookers and rattle off 10 frames a second with my 1D III to make them jump.
konicaman
konicaman
As I said, I was not being nice! Just to explain: The gear head had spent most of the day at the exhibition telling both painters and photographers how they could improve their work - obviously not having a clue about either media. I am usually a real softy when people compliment me on my work
- and they are welcome to talk gear as well, but enough is enough. I don´t know, maybe I should have been pleased as he did not get around to give me any advice - and as stated, I think I made his day...
dmr
Registered Abuser
Exchange of the decade:
He: You paid less than $50 for that camera and it takes photos like that?
Me: No, I paid less than $50 for that camera and I take photos like that!
I believe in the quality threshold, meaning that any camera of a certain degree of precision and functionality is what is needed, and that any increase of the so-called quality over that point will have minimal effect on the photos. Most vintage RFs, SLRs, modern P&S, even (d-word) cameras plain and fancy meet that threshold.
No.
rodinal
film user
So true, well said !
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Very old thought, been around that maypole several times.
Buy and use what satisfies you. What other people buy and use is irrelevant.
Better equipment can/does make a difference. But it's absolutely true that 98% of the cameras out there are better quality than 99% of photographers' vision can exploit to the fullest.
So you like older, inexpensive film cameras. And other people like state of the art Hasselblad H4s which cost in the $30,000 and up range. Eh, who cares? What matters is what you do with them, how expressive your photographs are. I see excellent photos made with a plastic toy camera and terrible junk made with a $12,000 Leica.
In the end, there are no absolute answers, only what you like to work with and what you create with it. Do that and forget the question. It's not worth the waste of energy.
G
Buy and use what satisfies you. What other people buy and use is irrelevant.
Better equipment can/does make a difference. But it's absolutely true that 98% of the cameras out there are better quality than 99% of photographers' vision can exploit to the fullest.
So you like older, inexpensive film cameras. And other people like state of the art Hasselblad H4s which cost in the $30,000 and up range. Eh, who cares? What matters is what you do with them, how expressive your photographs are. I see excellent photos made with a plastic toy camera and terrible junk made with a $12,000 Leica.
In the end, there are no absolute answers, only what you like to work with and what you create with it. Do that and forget the question. It's not worth the waste of energy.
G
outfitter
Well-known
If you are a journeyman photographer shooting press (are there any left?) or weddings perhaps you need a tank. Otherwise knock your socks off - anything you can afford (hopefully with a decent lens).
I still fool with the Voigtlander Bergheil I learned on circa 1947. My daughter is making a career as a fine art photographer with my 60 year old wooden Gandolfi 5x7. There are plenty of great FSU lenses and inexpensive bodies if you like 35mm - a better choice is MF like inexpensive Yashicas that can scan better than a $7,000 camera. Most of the Japanese fixed lens 35mm RF from the 1970s will also do a fine job. Even in the digital realm there are plenty of discontinued Nikons or Canons that for all practical purposes will do as well as the big buck pro cameras (which are so heavy that they are best used to fend off the Taliban), and you can use your SLR lenses on some.
I still fool with the Voigtlander Bergheil I learned on circa 1947. My daughter is making a career as a fine art photographer with my 60 year old wooden Gandolfi 5x7. There are plenty of great FSU lenses and inexpensive bodies if you like 35mm - a better choice is MF like inexpensive Yashicas that can scan better than a $7,000 camera. Most of the Japanese fixed lens 35mm RF from the 1970s will also do a fine job. Even in the digital realm there are plenty of discontinued Nikons or Canons that for all practical purposes will do as well as the big buck pro cameras (which are so heavy that they are best used to fend off the Taliban), and you can use your SLR lenses on some.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I think you need to find the equipment that best works with your vision and that allows you to be able to get what you are seeing to a finished form. For some it could be a Holga. For some that might mean an 8X10 Deardorff. It just depends on your vision and what you are trying to say visually.
rluka
Established
First, IMO the "skill, not gear" mantra is often what's called beating the dead horse.
Are you looking for justification of not buying, or are you on a silent-mission to proof those marketing-brainwashed crowds that they're wrong ?
Are you looking for justification of not buying, or are you on a silent-mission to proof those marketing-brainwashed crowds that they're wrong ?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Vision and the ability to see above it all.
"People always ask about cameras but it doesn't matter what camera you have. You can have the most modern camera in the world but if you don't have an eye, the camera is worthless." - Alfred Eisenstaedt
"People always ask about cameras but it doesn't matter what camera you have. You can have the most modern camera in the world but if you don't have an eye, the camera is worthless." - Alfred Eisenstaedt
Addy101
Well-known
I hope the SS stands for social security and not the other SS....You can get very good pictures from cheap stuff, but it often is easier with more expensive equipment. If all you can afford is cheap, you can get good pictures - if you have more money, you can make it easier to take the same pictures. It hardly is a philosophical question
russelljtdyer
Writer
Elements and Components
Elements and Components
In part of your post, if I'm reading correctly, you say that you believe that the quality of the equipment matters little. I think it does matter, but there are other factors that can compensate or undo the effects of good equipment.
Here's a humorous example of how the photographer can undue the value of good equipment, which supports your argument. I used to have a Canon 5D Mark II digital SLR camera, with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L lens. If you don't know, these are excellent. A friend at a party wanted to try the camera. I put the camera on auto-focus and explained to her what to do, including how auto-focus works. She took a shot of two people, shown below:
As you can see, the focus was locked on the wall far behind them. I explained to her again about the red squares that appear in the viewfinder for focusing. She tried again and took this second shot below:
She got the focusing right, but didn't quite get the composition right. I explained about composition then. She took several more pictures and all of them had something major wrong with them. She and I laughed after each photo. She knew she wasn't a photographer and didn't care. After awhile she gave me the camera back. I'm not picking on her. This is just a funny, extreme example.
I could post many photos that I've taken using a mobile phone. Almost all of them are terrible. But that friend of mine, who couldn't wield a Canon 5DII, can take pictures just fine with her iPhone, much better than me. The photographer has to know and be comfortable with her equipment. Nevertheless, there is definitely a quality difference when the photographer is equally skilled in the equipment of various quality levels. A person who knows how to take photos with an iPhone and a Canon 5DII will take better pictures with the 5DII.
For me, this is the order of what components matter: subject, photographer, lens, camera, processing. Subject can include things such as a model and lighting. If there's nothing interesting to photograph, the photo won't be interesting. Of course, there's beauty everywhere, always. If the photographer doesn't know where to point the camera, doesn't know when to take the picture, doesn't now how to use the equipment, he'll take a bad photo. If the lens is of poor quality, scratched and dirty, the results will be effected. If the camera is limited in features, the sensor is minimal and small, or the film is not high quality, the photo will not be as good. If the image is processed badly, be it film developing or in a program like Adobe Lightroom, the final image can be ruined.
Following my order of components and assumptions, if there is a good shot wherever and whenever, a good photographer can always take a good photo, a better photo with a better subject. The components that follow in my chain can make for a better final product. Looking at my silly example above, a high quality camera, lens, and processing won't compensate much for a poor photographer.
The reality of the subject, of a scene is enormous. The narrowing of the vision by the photographer reduces the scene into a photo to preserve and show others. The components that follow in the chain may narrow further what the photographer saw. The less it narrows that vision of reality, the better generally. The less it corrupts it, the more true it will be to what the photographer first saw. To the extent that the lens has greater clarity than the photographer's eye and the amount that the sensor is more sensitive, they can even improve that vision. And with a program like Lightroom, the vision can be enhanced and artistically altered. But it all starts with the subject and is dependent upon the photographer. This is my perspective and appreciation of the elements and components involved.
Elements and Components
In part of your post, if I'm reading correctly, you say that you believe that the quality of the equipment matters little. I think it does matter, but there are other factors that can compensate or undo the effects of good equipment.
Here's a humorous example of how the photographer can undue the value of good equipment, which supports your argument. I used to have a Canon 5D Mark II digital SLR camera, with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L lens. If you don't know, these are excellent. A friend at a party wanted to try the camera. I put the camera on auto-focus and explained to her what to do, including how auto-focus works. She took a shot of two people, shown below:
As you can see, the focus was locked on the wall far behind them. I explained to her again about the red squares that appear in the viewfinder for focusing. She tried again and took this second shot below:
She got the focusing right, but didn't quite get the composition right. I explained about composition then. She took several more pictures and all of them had something major wrong with them. She and I laughed after each photo. She knew she wasn't a photographer and didn't care. After awhile she gave me the camera back. I'm not picking on her. This is just a funny, extreme example.
I could post many photos that I've taken using a mobile phone. Almost all of them are terrible. But that friend of mine, who couldn't wield a Canon 5DII, can take pictures just fine with her iPhone, much better than me. The photographer has to know and be comfortable with her equipment. Nevertheless, there is definitely a quality difference when the photographer is equally skilled in the equipment of various quality levels. A person who knows how to take photos with an iPhone and a Canon 5DII will take better pictures with the 5DII.
For me, this is the order of what components matter: subject, photographer, lens, camera, processing. Subject can include things such as a model and lighting. If there's nothing interesting to photograph, the photo won't be interesting. Of course, there's beauty everywhere, always. If the photographer doesn't know where to point the camera, doesn't know when to take the picture, doesn't now how to use the equipment, he'll take a bad photo. If the lens is of poor quality, scratched and dirty, the results will be effected. If the camera is limited in features, the sensor is minimal and small, or the film is not high quality, the photo will not be as good. If the image is processed badly, be it film developing or in a program like Adobe Lightroom, the final image can be ruined.
Following my order of components and assumptions, if there is a good shot wherever and whenever, a good photographer can always take a good photo, a better photo with a better subject. The components that follow in my chain can make for a better final product. Looking at my silly example above, a high quality camera, lens, and processing won't compensate much for a poor photographer.
The reality of the subject, of a scene is enormous. The narrowing of the vision by the photographer reduces the scene into a photo to preserve and show others. The components that follow in the chain may narrow further what the photographer saw. The less it narrows that vision of reality, the better generally. The less it corrupts it, the more true it will be to what the photographer first saw. To the extent that the lens has greater clarity than the photographer's eye and the amount that the sensor is more sensitive, they can even improve that vision. And with a program like Lightroom, the vision can be enhanced and artistically altered. But it all starts with the subject and is dependent upon the photographer. This is my perspective and appreciation of the elements and components involved.
jim sparx
crank
You can get very good pictures from cheap stuff, but it often is easier with more expensive equipment. If all you can afford is cheap, you can get good pictures - if you have more money, you can make it easier to take the same pictures. It hardly is a philosophical question
Yes, SS means Social Security and not the German SS (although I did not know they were still around to hand out old age pensions. (Strangely, i still remember the air raid sirens from that era)
All of my filim cameras are inexpensive, less than $100, in some cases less than $50 like the Kiev and Minolta Hi Matic, Yashica GX was around $100. Forgot how much the Nikon 6006 costs. I have two digital, the most expensive was the GRD 4 at around $400. I will not be buying anymore digital. My last purchase of an expensive film camera was the Leica M2 ($600)which is getting CLA'd and will be here in Sept. Then there is the lens...then there will be the M4 and M6...and then there will be...
(don't tell my wife)
If you were reffering to my post about eqip. mattering little, I did not intend that. However i think it is the lens on the end of the camera and the photographers knowledge about taking pictures that do matter. I just don't see the need to spend $7000 on a camera when you can buy quality Leicas for less than 1K and a lens for even less.