Photo gear question

daveleo said:
I get remarks from family and friends - "Jees, why do you need all these cameras and lenses?" My answer is usually "For the same reason you need all your golf clubs." That usually shuts them up.
Click to expand...

That's a round well played, Dave. ;)
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Greg, that photo, like many of Steiglitz's from that time period, was printed as a photogravure. This historic process transfers the photo to a metal plate that is used to make prints using an Intaglio press. The process is much lower resolution than a modern print, or even a normal photo print of the time. Steiglitz chose the process because he liked that look. 4x5 had more than enough quality; much of the image detail was lost in translation to the etching plate.

Because he deliberately chose a process that gave a less detailed print, I don't think its a good example to refute the need for good lenses. Other styles of photography have emerged and become popular since then, and currently no style that really dominates the art world. Some people are reviving old 'pictorialist' processes like gravure, and other prefer the more modern look of a 'straight photography' style (sharp, full tone range, little or no manipulation).
Click to expand...
You certainly know more about the process than I do. My reason for posting, & sorry I failed to make that clear is the 4X5 camera Steiglitz used at the time was frowned upon by those who thought the 8x10 view camera to be far superior.
 
Is it a cop out to say I've enjoyed every remark I've read ? Not to forget that I've gone through these thoughts pretty well every second time I've returned from taking pics.
And I 'll bet I'm not alone, when the thought is "should've brought my other ....?)
Peter
 
I do sort of wonder sometimes about the sort of person who needs the sharpest lens - then goes around taking candid, hand held photos in dim light.
 
ferider said:
Very often on RFF (and also in this thread) these discussions are about used gear and money. Expensive vs. cheap, "gear is cheap for a reason", "you get what you pay for", etc.

Let's take money out of the picture: you can buy today very similarly performing film cameras and lens combos for a vast difference in price; for example, a Nikon F or Olympus OM1 with 50/1.8 (combo costs between US 150 and 200) will be technically on par with, say, a Leica M2 or M3 with 50/2 Summicron v3 or below (as a combo, between US 1500 - 2000 these days).

The fact that some prefer the Leica, at least for many applications, and that they are ready to pay 10 times more, shows that technical quality is only a tiny part of the picture. For me, often, the Leica is more fun. Which sometimes translates to better photos. A camera is not only a light tight box.

People try to rationalize "fun" into quantitative discussions, but it's pointless, since it's personal. Also, when money is discussed, envy will rear its ugly head. Roger often talks about "quality threshold". I care more about my "fun threshold". And I also do my own tests and comparisons, often because I want to understand why I enjoy some gear, and other not so much.

So there, my 2 cents.

Roland.
Click to expand...
Dear Roland,

You are without doubt right: the "fun threshold" is at the very least as valid as the "quality threshold". I also very much like your point that "I want to understand why I enjoy some gear, and other not so much." What puzzles me is the people who appear to prize pixel-peeping "quality" above fun, and are perpetually dissatisfied. This strikes me as being some way from "fun".

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Roland,

You are without doubt right: the "fun threshold" is at the very least as valid as the "quality threshold". I also very much like your point that "I want to understand why I enjoy some gear, and other not so much." What puzzles me is the people who appear to prize pixel-peeping "quality" above fun, and are perpetually dissatisfied. This strikes me as being some way from "fun".

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

A lot of people get pleasure from being dissatisfied, I don't know why.

Regards, David
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Roland,

You are without doubt right: the "fun threshold" is at the very least as valid as the "quality threshold". I also very much like your point that "I want to understand why I enjoy some gear, and other not so much." What puzzles me is the people who appear to prize pixel-peeping "quality" above fun, and are perpetually dissatisfied. This strikes me as being some way from "fun".

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Quite right, Roger and Roland.
 
I keep thinking back to Raid's 50mm lens test he did right after I joined this site. When I saw the comparison of a much underated (Sweenyfied) J-3 beside it's more expensive counterparts I knew I had to have one. Bought one for $85 shipped from a FSU seller. Brian told me what needed to be done with this lens & I'm well pleased.
 
My experience is still back in the dark ages of film. I dont know from digital.

That said, most people in the business, trying to make a living went with what was current professional tools when they could afford to. Sure, if just starting out and short on funds then instead of buying Nikon FTn they mignt get a Nikkormat. But seldom would you see them with a Practica Nova B. You just had to maintain a minimum level of reliability and quality.

PS. Before all the Nova B owners jump on me just let me say I'm only reporting what I observed in the 1970's when I sold cameras. I have nothing against Practica cameras and I'm sure their owners have produced some of the world's great photographic art.
 
Having the right gear does affect the final outcome in my humble opinion. In extreme conditions it is imperative. In less than extreme conditions its more psychological. Sure you can take a killer photograph w/ a Mamiya RZ or 'Blad, or pick up speed and stealth with a smaller rangefinder camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom