Photographers, cameras, style

[YYV_146]

SLRs, probably no. A Canon DSLR is the physical equivalent of the Nikon or Pentax DSLR of the same tier, the only difference is in the button layout and sensor used. Considering that the vast majority of SLR users don't even care that much about sensor performance in the first place, especially sports and wildlife shooters, these cameras are to them essentially generic. I've used most of the production DSLRs from CaNikon in the past four to five years and, honestly, apart from when I need to dial in the ISO and aperture, I can't even tell which one I have in my hand.

But mirrorless, RFs, other formats, that's a different story. Look at Hasselblad V verses Mamiya/Pentax. They have a distinct philosophy behind their bodies. I prefer Pentax for my medium format work, because the controls, weight and functionality agrees with me. Hassy's, however, don't.

I guess the same goes for RFs. The Ikon ZM and the M7 represents as different a design theory for photographic equipment as there could be. On the one hand you have a light, quick, sleek body that looks like a Panasonic mirrorless, on the other it's a rigid, precise, crafted, tank-like body built ready for the worst abuse. It's only reasonable that people who like them have different personalities...

 

[YYV_146]

This is the kind of subtlety I was hoping for: thanks. At first sight, yes, the assertion looks like nonsense. But the more you think about it, as Soeren pointed out, the more you begin to suspect that maybe, yes, well, there could be something to it. Not necessarily much, and not always, but something, sometimes. Especially in the residual influence of advertising campaigns.

Cheers,

R.

Not all companies try to attach an "image" to their advertisement. The CaNikon commercials are basically all touting their bodies as a "professional's choice". True, but professionals don't use the best body, they use what gives them the best punch per pound, and of course the brand that sponsors them.

Leica certainly does, maybe also Zeiss and Hasselblad, and Fuji to a lesser extent. Sony has been pitching itself as a "young person's choice", which IMO is a good move, since they are a distant third in the game.

 

[oftheherd]

Do different brands of cameras attract photographers with different styles? A few days ago Soeren reckoned he could tell Rollei shots from Yashicamat shots, not from image quality but from style: different kinds of photographers buy the different cameras.

To preempt one inevitable snipe, yes, we've all seen bad "street" shots from people who think by buying a Leica they can become a new Cartier-Bresson. But you can take bad shots with any camera. Let's concentrate on good pictures instead. Did you buy your camera(s) with a particular style in mind? Or do you find that a particular camera imposes its own style, as compared with another superficially similar camera?

I'm not really talking about rangefinder v. SLR, or MF v. 35mm, though this is not entirely irrelevant. No: I'm asking if different kinds of people buy (say) Canon v. Nikon SLRs (or even rangefinders), or Rollei v. Yashicamat TLRs, and if their different personalities are reflected in their pictures. Or is it just (as I have always suspected, because it's true of myself) a question of what you can afford, plus historical accident?

Cheers,

R.

I think it has defininently been a question of cost for me, plus accident.

I used my father's Welti for a long time, and had no problem with it until it began to scratch film.

In the early 60s, I bought a Yashica movie camera. When it came time in the about 1971 to get a 'real' camera, I decided on a Yashica TL Super, for both price and brand loyalty, or perhaps more brand familiarity. That put me in M42 lens mounts, and 3 more lenses about 1974. That led to the Fujica ST 901, also with M42 lenses, when I wanted auto-exposure.

Due to increased 'knowledge' from magazines, I 'knew' I needed a MF camera, and a Yashica 124 MAT G was available in the PX. So were Mamiya 330s, but they cost more. When the Yashica was stolen, I put a C330 on lay-a-way, but purely by chance, a visiting colleague from Japan talked me into a Super Press 23. I had never even heard of them before. It cost less than the C330.

I found that I prefered b/w in my MF, for the big enlargements that I could do myself. Later when I acquired a Rolleiflex, I couldn't bond with it, mostly I think since I had fallen in love with 6x7 and the versatility of the Super Press.

Purchases of cameras still tend to be 35mm for portability and color film, and MF for b/w. I still like to use Welta and Fujica folders, pretty obviously because I know the brands and think they have quality.

I tend to use 35mm for color and MF for b/w. I also stay cost conscious in camera choice. But I don't use MF and SLR for different styles of photographs, other than type of film.

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to show how in my purchases and use, history and cost affected my choices. Interesting thread as I had never really thought too much about that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Sorry for the long post but I wanted to show how in my purchases and use, history and cost affected my choices. Interesting thread as I had never really thought too much about that.

Don't apologize! Your experience/analysis matches my own. Or matched it until Soeren put doubts in my mind. Now I strongly believe that Soeren has identified a minor but non-negligible factor in some people's photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Well some people claim they can see if a pic is taken with lens A or B and in direct comparison using the same subject they probably can.
What I experienced was a very high amount of hits when browsing though the TLR thread with the " This must be a Rollei/Yashica" thoughts in my head. I don't believe I can see if an image is actually made using one or the other but I found it odd that Rollei photograpers was so allike in style and "signature" So my take is there is more to it than just that lens there must be a relation between the gearchoice you make and your technique and approach to photography.. As I said in the other thread it becomes part and modify your accent. Not to say that one or the other are better, they are just different like accents
Best regards

If this were the case then we have many folk on this forum that have multiple personalities I fear ... and from what I see peoples creativity comes through regardless of what they choose to record it on. Resorting to 'drawing' 'signature' or 'accent' is simply pulling a fig-leaf across an embarrassing lack of evidence for one's opinion, sorry 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

And more importantly:

You can take great shots with any camera.

Not necessarily. Some people just won't get on with a particular camera, making it MUCH more difficult to get anything other than dull, formulaic, uninteresting shots: look at all the REALLY BAD Ansel Adams wannabees with LF. Others will take bad imitations of pictures that others shoot with the same camera (think Leica Street), when they might do better to start with a clean sheet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kbg32]

If the cart came before the horse, that would be an influence as well. Some types of cameras cannot be looked at without thinking of certain photographers who used them and became famous. If the SLR came before the rangefinder, would HCB be who he is? Would that type of camera influenced how he made photographs?

Just food for thought.

 

[hlockwood]

I sort through cameras until I find ones that suit my style, personally. Rangefinders on the whole tend to suit me really well - but I don't take photos of landscapes or sport or close-ups. I like people and situations which, really, is the rangefinder's forte.

My profile exactly.

And to expand a bit: I don't do color, ever. So, between the M7 and the M9P, I'm covered. Now if I only had an MM, I'd ditch the M9P in a heartbeat.

HFL

 

[Roger Hicks]

If this were the case then we have many folk on this forum that have multiple personalities I fear ... and from what I see peoples creativity comes through regardless of what they choose to record it on. Resorting to 'drawing' 'signature' or 'accent' is simply pulling a fig-leaf across an embarrassing lack of evidence for one's opinion, sorry 🙂

First highlight: not really. Both Soeren and I would, I suspect, agree that it's not a major factor. Second highlight: No, I don't think so. The fact that that something is subtle and hard to describe, or even incomprehensible to many, is not proof of its non-existence. Otherwise why would anyone follow sport?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If the cart came before the horse, that would be an influence as well. Some types of cameras cannot be looked at without thinking of certain photographers who used them and became famous. If the SLR came before the rangefinder, would HCB be who he is? Would that type of camera influenced how he made photographs?

Just food for thought.

Dear Keith,

Elegantly phrased. Thanks!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Robin P]

I believe Yashicas were popular with wedding phototographers (before they took up Bronicas), perhaps because then they could afford two, whereas Rolleis were more for other sorts of "pro" (reportage & portrait) + well heeled amateurs.
If we're going to attribute different personalities to owners of different cameras why not hypothesise on why some folks preferred their Rollei to have a Schneider lens rather than a Zeiss? 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

First highlight: not really. Both Soeren and I would, I suspect, agree that it's not a major factor. Second highlight: No, I don't think so. The fact that that something is subtle and hard to describe, or even incomprehensible to many, is not proof of its non-existence. Otherwise why would anyone follow sport?

Cheers,

R.

I sometimes join a discussion on which I know I hold strong opinions but am unable to remember what those opinions are, however I distinctly recall you argued recently that such perceived subtly was in fact imperceptible, no?

As for the final statement, I have no idea, ... why do people follow sport?

 

[Pioneer]

I do believe that certain types of camera are more likely to be used for certain types of photography if only that they are better suited to that work. Whether that translates to a certain style is not as clear in my mind.

Obviously nothing is absolute. Sports photography can be done with many different types and formats, and has been. Likewise, documentary photography can also be done with a number of different types of camera. There will always be certain photographers who are comfortable enough with their camera to "buck the trend", so to speak.

As for choice of camera being a conscious decision? I am certain that it can be, but there are so many variables that it would be difficult to say. According to her book, Annie Liebovitz started with a Minolta but moved to Nikon as it was considered the "pro's" camera. But later in here career she has used a number of cameras based on what she intended to create. So, in one story you have a historical accident, a decision based on marketing or word of mouth, and finally, decisions made based of type of work being planned. And then maybe all of this was just justification and she made these decisions for no other reason than she just likes cameras. 😀

 

[aizan]

there definitely can be a relationship between the style of photography and the camera that a person uses. people often ask "what kind of camera does (famous photographer) use?" because they like his or her style and want to technically be able to get the same look.

also, communities define their own unique styles. sometimes you see people announcing a new purchase by saying "i've joined the (camera brand) club." they identify with the group, and they conform to its aesthetic and cultural values.

 

[pgk]

The fact that that something is subtle and hard to describe, or even incomprehensible to many, is not proof of its non-existence. Otherwise why would anyone follow sport?

I recently watched this years TT and the difference between the very top riders is both subtle and incomprehensible (to me). I couldn't begin to describe it, but it most certainly exists!

I think that a photographer who exhibits a style is probably (but not definitely) using appropriate equipment which can best deliver the style and which (most likely) suits him/her. I'm not sure about brand or type though, but I would say that actually enjoying using specific equipment must be a positive factor in using it better.

 

[thegman]

Sometimes I feel I can tell a Pentax 6x7 shot from other medium format shots. I think often people who use them are better photographers than most of us, it's a practical camera with (no offence to owners) perhaps less sex appeal than Rollei, Hasselblad etc.

I'll be honest and say I bought my Rollei not because of lens quality, ergonomics, or what great photos they can take, I bought it because it's a sexy camera. A Pentax 67 would probably suit my tripod photography better, as I could get a longer lens than the Rollei, but the Rollei is just more appealing to me. Perhaps my photography suffers a bit because of it.

I think a lot of of us are using cameras we really like rather than ones which will give us optimal results. I know some people will say using a camera they like gives them the results they want, and that is quite likely true in some situations, but I know that could probably do with a long medium format lens, but I also know I'd rather have a GF670.

 

[rluka]

Cameramen of the same brand (and taste) flocks together, look at each others' works, and got influenced by it.

Two months ago there's someone in local camera forum who got lightly tapped with comment that his test shots doesn't have a "Leica look" (it's a Leica thread, and he's using a Leica camera). He then got explanation that "the look" also includes choice of object, composition style, framing. As if it's expected by their peers that all users of the brand/genre will be developing their style based on the reference photographers known for it.

 

[charjohncarter]

My answer is: I do have a few auto exposure cameras that I like for just casual shooting. And I have some AF film cameras that (along with AE) make shooting a no brain exercise, So yes, I do pick a type of camera for the style of shooting I'm thinking of doing. But sometimes I get fooled and wished I had my Rolleiflex.

But since the Japanese have been in the market I can't tell one from another.

When I was 20, I could tell a Leica shot from a Instamatic. But now everything is so good I don't see how you tell.

 

[nikon_sam]

Any properly working camera body will fire at 1/500, or 1/250, or 1/60 so what has the body got to do with the final output...
I can put a great lens on a low end body and as long as the shutter is working right it will produce the same image as the higher end bodies...
Now, if we're talking Rollei v. Yashicamat we are talking about two different lenses since these are fixed lens cameras...some people could then tell the difference due to knowing just how good each lens is and their limits...
It would be interesting to see test shots done by both cameras (in similar conditions) and if anyone can tell what came from what...

 

[sparrow6224]

Various thoughts on the relationship of equipment to style:

1. There is large format, medium format, and 35mm (or, rarely, smaller). Plus digital but that don't count. The differences of intention and method among these formats is pretty clear, yet in results there is some crossover: a very careful landscape shot, at a small aperture, with lots of detail, a real sense of composition, cropped to fit the standard paper -- can be made by any of these and until you blow it up very large you'd not be absolutely certain of the differences. However it is quite easy to state that choosing each of these formats reveals a stylistic intention. Not even debatable.

2. Among the prominent MF cameras, I understand better, and recognize more happily, the stylistic intentions and habits common to the Hasselblad user. To put it over simply, Hasselblad users tend to have more style. More extreme effects; more naked people; etc. The Rollei is a wonderful urban street machine, far less obvious than the Hasselblad. You don't suspect that someone who's lusting for a Rollei 2.8F is imagining himself/herself shooting naked models on rare furniture. You might suspect this of someone going on about the Hasselblad.

3. Among 35mm -- there is RF and there is SLR. The RF is slower. Just a fact. Not absolutely necessarily so -- there are ways of making yoru RF go fast -- but nearly always in practice. But even here; Look at Winogrand and look at Eugene Smith and look at Cartier Bresson -- very very different styles. Smith in the end would use anything anyone gave him but for most of his career he used Leicas, as did HCB and Winogrand. Way different. But only Smith of these guys ended up wearing the khaki vest with all the pockets. These became de rigueur for pros and pro-wannabe's by the 1970s. If by then you were a photo vest wearer, or worse, safari jacket wearer, than chances ran to over 90 percent you were carrying Nikon F/F2's; preferably 3 at a time. A decade earlier some of these guys were in Vietnam still shooting Leicas. In other words, the equipment often signifies not a particular vision of photography/photographs, but a very particular vision of oneself as photographer.

4. Some photographers are fetishistic about their equipment -- only this, only that. Others are ecumenical; still others profligate, owning and using no end of stuff and amused by what they discover are the minute differences among them. You gotta have a lot of time on your hands for the last. (Check out Tom Abrahamsson 's Flickr pages. And his discussions here. An orgy of equipment, but he's an engineer, spiritually and in practice, and his discoveries about these different pieces of equipment, films, and processing formulae, are very instructive and even important. In style: you'd have to say he's a Leica M2 w/ 35mm lens kinda guy.)

5. Professionals tend to be far more practical about equipment -- what gives the best results most easily, now, period -- than amateurs and art photographers who bring whole visions of themselves as artists into the equation. I found it completely to be expected, when Kodak gave Steve McCurry the last roll of Kodachrome off the line, that he went off to shoot it with an F6. What else would a pro at his level use for his final roll of film? There ain't no room for sentiment or romance in the work of such people.

6. Yashicamats? Hipsters.

7. For myself: I have finally shed everything in my "collection" except Nikons (F2's mainly, with an F100 and a Df, not to mention one beloved S2) and RFs: one Canon IVSB, the aforementioned Nikon S2, and three Leicas: III, M2, and M6. I also have a Hasselblad 500C/M I love, w/ 3 lenses; and an old Calumnet 4x5 that I have not yet used. I came back to film photography in 2008 after decades away when I discovered that everything I'd ever wanted was now available on eBay, usually cheap (more so then than now: hello Zeiss Sonnars...) I started with Minolta, expanded to Nikon, to Leica M and R, to Contax C/Y, to Canon RFs and SLRs, to Zeiss, went big into Olympus.... etc etc. Now at least I've narrowed it down. And my biggest weakness as a photographer, outside of many technical failures and areas of ignorance: I ain't yet got a style.