Photographers, cameras, style

[Roger Hicks]

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.

 

[gavinlg]

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.

 

[Harry S.]

I was inspired to purchase a mamiya 7 years ago when I found that a large number of young, up-and-coming, successful photographers were using it; I liked the photos they took and wanted to be part of the club...it was "the" serious art photographer field camera in the circles I was attuned to.

I very rarely use film these days but I still think of the Mamiya this way. Its got an almost 'Large Format' quality to the images it makes but due to its' form factor allows for more dynamic images. I never quite got there though.

 

[Sparrow]

I thought the Rolleiflex/Yashicamat statement was unlikely when it was first made ... I certainly could not

 

[jsrockit]

Sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[nongfuspring]

Making blanket judgements about people (or the photos they take) based on a single metric is always a bit sketchy to say the least.

But sure, certain cameras develop a culture or demographic around them. In my generation of "creatives" the main camera to have is the 5d mkII, and I know quite a few young art photographers using MF fuji RFs, though none of them the same model.

I'm traveling through China right now and today I saw at least 15 people with 5d mkIIIs, it was the only camera I've seen all day. Everyone was in their early 20s and literally nobody taking any photographs at all.

 

[sreed2006]

I would really need to know what "different kinds of photographers" means in order to answer this question. I own both Yashicamats and Rolleiflexes. As far as I can tell, I don't change what kind of photographer I am when I change TLR camera brands.

To declare that one can determine which brand camera I used based on the kinds of pictures I took is, frankly, totally absurd.

 

[Soeren]

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

 

[furcafe]

I think we can all agree that different camera types & formats tend to correlate w/different genres/styles of photography. However, I don't believe you can really link different styles of photography with different brands within a particular camera type/format unless a particular brand has a technological advantage ("killer app"), but that tends to be temporary (e.g., Nikon v. Canon in 35mm SLRs).

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I think there's a degree of truth to belief that the type of camera you buy is influenced by its intended use. I'm sure there are some people who have used Hasselblads for motor sports and half-frame cameras to shoot weddings and landscapes. My own selection is based on trying to get what I regard (or conventional wisdom suggests) is the right kit for the job.

As for brand; I'm one of those people who couldn't care less. The factors that influence me are what's the best type of kit for the job (as above), does the camera fit my hand, do I like the viewfinder, are additional lenses / accessories available and can I afford the kit? I used to use Canon SLRs until EOS range arrived and I then swapped to Nikon as their kit fitted my mitts better.

If Pentax (or any other brand) had fitted better and covered the other requirements, I'd have used their kit in an instant.

 

[sreed2006]

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

Explained that way, I see your point. Maybe original gear choices were based on marketing at the time the cameras were in production, so certain brands attracted certain kinds of buyers, and similar styles.

Since I am way too late to the party for the marketing to have influenced my choice of TLRs, my gear choices have been based on what was available when GAS hit, and how much money I had in the bank.

What I am not certain of, but believe to be possible, is whether the 'accent' of the photographs changes based on which camera I am taking the picture with. For example, I tend to be quite careful and slow with a Rolleiflex, while a Yashicamat can be used more spontaneously, since it costs less. Perhaps in that regard, the style is different. Is that the sort of difference you see?

 

[sevo]

Well, in my work there are obvious differences if there are very fundamental technical differences (RF vs. SLR, or format step-ups). But for cameras of the same type, no - in the rare case where I don't know the camera (as I shot the same situation with several and kept no notes) I generally cannot tell them apart. Not in case of Canon FD vs. Nikon AI vs. Leicaflex, nor Leica vs. Contax - and unless I ran into some technical limitation or a lens or camera flaw, not even Leicaflex vs. Exakta or Leica vs. FSU (or fixed-lens rangefinder).

Of course, there are situations where I never used one of the less capable cameras or lenses - presumably where I knew (or guessed) that I'd hit a limitation. So that won't be a universally true statement, but wherever I trusted several cameras to be up to the job, the outcome is usually so similar that I have to refer to my notes (or the film spacing, or some other secondary method of discrimination) rather than the visual result if I want to identify the camera used.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Rollei v Yashica Mat is definitely a price issue. Though not true all the time people who choose Rollei at a much higher price may have a stronger commitment to photography and with that comes more expertise. I do think that there is a distinct difference with Leica v. Canon/Nikon. While there are many low end C/N there are no low end Leica rangefinders. (I exclude the ps cameras.) Many move up to Leica ergo same as above with R. v. Y. Also, with high end C/N they are more used for long range and with vf lenses & other professional add ons provide better use for many commercial purposes.
After all, these are tools and tools have different uses and people have preferences. With that said higher end equipment is more often purchased with people who have a stronger commitment to photography hence their images are as a general rule better. Does the camera and lens help? I would say yes.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

One thing which is poping up as ?-mark in my head for sometime recently.
Why and who are those people who are buying and using FSU Zenits?
I understood why FED-2 and LOMO now, but why the Zenit!?
They have to be very special kind of people. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Explained that way, I see your point. Maybe original gear choices were based on marketing at the time the cameras were in production, so certain brands attracted certain kinds of buyers, and similar styles.

Since I am way too late to the party for the marketing to have influenced my choice of TLRs, my gear choices have been based on what was available when GAS hit, and how much money I had in the bank.

What I am not certain of, but believe to be possible, is whether the 'accent' of the photographs changes based on which camera I am taking the picture with. For example, I tend to be quite careful and slow with a Rolleiflex, while a Yashicamat can be used more spontaneously, since it costs less. Perhaps in that regard, the style is different. Is that the sort of difference you see?

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.

 

[Michael Markey]

I suspect that there is something in the advertising campaigns which is possibly strengthened by following the work of certain photographer.
This feeds through to the purchase of a type of camera .
The life cycle is completed by mimicking the oeuvre which was subliminally suggested .

So once again its all the fault of those marketing people 🙂

 

[Rodchenko]

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 don't know.

Cheers,

TJ.

😀

 

[Jamie123]

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

I don't mean to attack you but even if I were to believe that you can tell a difference, unless you can actually describe the differences in style, how do you know that what you're perceiving is not a subtle difference in image quality?

If I had to make a hypothesis I would guess that maybe the average Rolleiflex user is a more experienced square shooter than the Yashica user since the former is more of a financial commitment. If you're used to shooting other formats and only occasionally use a 6x6 camera that will definitely have some effect on how you compose images.

 

[Rodchenko]

Actually, I think that those buying their first camera or system will often be swayed by the marketing, so end up with a basic Canon or Nikon SLR, because they are names they've heard of, and that's what a 'serious' camera 'should' look like.

After that, when we explore photography, and decide what's important to us, we may opt for different styles or brands, but the vast majority are likely to stay with their original system, so it's difficult to determine anything from camera selection.

 

[mickbenjamins]

But you can take bad shots with any camera.

And more importantly:

You can take great shots with any camera.