The Camera

[Fred Burton]

But how much better photos can a good photographer take with a M4 and Leica glass vs. a Nikon F with Nikkor glass. Of course using a junk camera vs a decent camera would be silly; but, that's a false dichotomy. Does an M4 over a Nikon F really help in any significant way in real world photos?

 

[antiquark]

Here's Ken Rockwell's comment on the issue:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

IMO, camera capabilities do make a difference, however, you don't have to spend much money to get a decent camera setup.

 

[bmattock]

But how much better photos can a good photographer take with a M4 and Leica glass vs. a Nikon F with Nikkor glass. Of course using a junk camera vs a decent camera would be silly; but, that's a false dichotomy. Does an M4 over a Nikon F really help in any significant way in real world photos?

It truly depends on what the good photographer was photographing. An M4 would be a better choice for some purposes, the Nikon for others. By the same token, a good photographer more familiar with one system over the other would tend (I would surmise) to produce better work with the one he or she was familiar with. So the answer would be 'yes', an M4 over a Nikon F can really help in a significant way.

It sounds as if what you are asking is whether or not lenses of sufficiently high quality on cameras of sufficiently high quality compare well enough to be equivalent to one another. I would say yes. Once you have controlled for every factor, comparable lenses are - surprise - comparable.

But that is a far cry from a blanket statement of "It's not the camera, it's the photographer."

 

[Pablito]

But a better lens will take a better photograph than a worse lens, wielded by the same photographer.

NO, IT WILL ONLY TAKE A SHARPER PHOTOGRAPH

A faster camera will take more photos faster than a slower one.

AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF QUALITY AND AND QUANTITY IS.....?

A better film will render an image with more detail than a poor one.

AND MORE DETAIL IS GOOD BECAUSE.......?

A better-made camera will have more endurance than a poorly-made one.

ANY MACHINE CAN FAIL. BAD CAMERAS, WITH POOR OPTICS, CAN BE VERY DURABLE.

Astronomers use telescopes and not box brownies because the lens DOES matter.

ASTRONOMERS USE TELESCOPES FOR GATHERING DATA, NOT TELLING STORIES.

Talent is important - but talent with a good camera will be able to do more than the same talent with a bad one.

THAT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND WHAT SHE/HE IS TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.....

 

[chris000]

It's great to work with quality equipment so we should buy the best we can afford - and just avoid the trap that some fall into by assuming that owning and using top quality equipment will make you a top quality photographer, that requires a few other things that money can't buy.

 

[bmattock]

Here's Ken Rockwell's comment on the issue:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I don't wish to argue with Ken Rockwell by proxy. I like his writing, and I disagree with this article completely.

IMO, camera capabilities do make a difference, however, you don't have to spend much money to get a decent camera setup.

True. That being said, there is a difference between a good lens and an excellent one, and often, the better lens costs more. Will it make a better photograph? That is in the hands of the photographer, yes - but a better photographer is often one who understand how to use their equipment better as well, so a better photographer with an excellent lens will make a better photograph than an average photographer with that same excellent lens.

 

[Pablito]

It truly depends on what the good photographer was photographing. An M4 would be a better choice for some purposes, the Nikon for others. By the same token, a good photographer more familiar with one system over the other would tend (I would surmise) to produce better work with the one he or she was familiar with. So the answer would be 'yes', an M4 over a Nikon F can really help in a significant way.

It sounds as if what you are asking is whether or not lenses of sufficiently high quality on cameras of sufficiently high quality compare well enough to be equivalent to one another. I would say yes. Once you have controlled for every factor, comparable lenses are - surprise - comparable.

But that is a far cry from a blanket statement of "It's not the camera, it's the photographer."

Yes, but all the OP was saying is that there is "SOME" truth to the statement. I think there is plenty of truth in that statement. I'd say it's essentially true, but your comments on the M4 vs. Nikon F make sense of course. I mean if you need to shoot with a very long lens, you're not going to use an M4.

 

[bmattock]

NO, IT WILL ONLY TAKE A SHARPER PHOTOGRAPH

Not true, for several reasons. First, because a better lens may not only be sharper, but may also render with more pleasing contrast, reject flare better, and provide any number of favorable characteristics that a lens is capable of producing - besides just sharpness.

Second, sharpness can be made less so, but not the reverse.

Third, if a photographer wishes the photograph to be sharp, then a sharper lens is better than a less-sharp lens, always.

AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF QUALITY AND AND QUANTITY IS.....?

A lot, if you're a sports photographer or standing where Zapruder was with his movie camera.

AND MORE DETAIL IS GOOD BECAUSE.......?

Because it is frequently desired in a photograph - and again, a better lens can render less detail if desired, but a poor one cannot render more.

ANY MACHINE CAN FAIL. BAD CAMERAS, WITH POOR OPTICS, CAN BE VERY DURABLE.

And that is why photographers who have to make their living by their equipment always buy the worst. Right?

ASTRONOMERS USE TELESCOPES FOR GATHERING DATA, NOT TELLING STORIES.

You're right, I've never seen a NASA photograph enlarged and hung as art in a home. Oh, wait, I have. Whoops.

THAT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND WHAT SHE/HE IS TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.....

Yes. And if the photographer is trying to do something which is beyond the capability of their camera, then a better one would do that particular job better. Which makes the answer to the question "Is it the photographer and not the camera," a solid 'no'. It is both, which I said.

 

[Gumby]

That's why all the best photographers use thrift-store cameras.

Or maybe, they buy the best equipment because the final image is important enough to them to warrant it.

I've yet to see an race car driver say "Screw it, I'm a good enough driver, bring me my SUV and I'll still win the Indy 500."

The gear matters - without talent it is useless, but with talent, good gear is better than bad gear.

I suspect your tongue was in your cheek, but there has been nothing said about bad gear, or inappropriate gear, being better than "good" gear (whatever that is)... especially not by me. I totally agree with the last sentence, and a few others you've made about "good" gear.

My point was intended to be simple: if a camera is reliable (whether somebody else thinks it is "good" or "bad" being completely immaterial to this point) it is better suited to being the instrument by which a servicable photograph might result than an expensive "good" camera that is unreliable.

It is funny to read, sometimes, when folks buy "good/expensive" vintage gear but then don't want to pay the price of overhaul... only to come back with complaints about light leaks, uneven framing, unanticipated shutter speeds.

 

[visiondr]

That's why all the best photographers use thrift-store cameras.

Or maybe, they buy the best equipment because the final image is important enough to them to warrant it.

I've yet to see an race car driver say "Screw it, I'm a good enough driver, bring me my SUV and I'll still win the Indy 500."

The gear matters - without talent it is useless, but with talent, good gear is better than bad gear.

Brilliant! I couldn't have said it better myself.

I always wondered why carpenters don't use rocks to hammer nails instead of hammers.

 

[antiquark]

Just to quantify my earlier statement, the famous "Afghan Girl" portrait by Steve McCurry was taken with a Nikon F3 and a 85/1.8 lens on Kodachrome film. (If I recall correctly).

That's is a relevant example I think, because it's recent enough that the image quality is close to modern expectations.

If you were to buy that equipment used today, it would cost around 400 dollars, plus the cost of film. Which isn't all that expensive, considering that some digital point-and-shoots cost more.

 

[Gumby]

I always wondered why carpenters don't use rocks to hammer nails instead of hammers.

But you might hear, "Screw it, I'm a good enough driver, bring me my SUV and I'll still win the Baja 1000."

Let's keep the apples in the apple crate and the oranges in the orange crate. 🙄

 

[sjw617]

No matter how good the photographer is, better equipment can give them more creative choices and better results than poor equipment.

If you were to take a fully manual Leica and your favorite lens and take a shot. Then take the lens and put it on a $5.00 Ebay fully manual crapper and take the same shot. Why would the Leica shot be better? Why would there be better creative choices? What would they be? Why would the results be better? Wouldn't both have the same result?

Steve

 

[Gumby]

The gear I choose is part and parcel to my enjoyment of the hobby.

You've found the right photography, err... camera, forum to hang out in then!

 

[chris000]

If, for example, the only camera available was a dSLR I wouldn’t even consider photography as a hobby. This type of camera and media hold no interest for me.

I accept that, of course, as a statement of your position but confess that I don't understand it.

My first love is photography and any interest I have in cameras is purely because I need them to pursue my hobby. I prefer rangefinders (which is why I'm here) but if they became unavailable I would use something else. Likewise, if I am still around when film is no longer available I will switch to digital. I would much prefer to stick with film but being able to make images is more important even if the only option for doing so is digital.

Is that your primary interest is in cameras as instruments and using them to make photographs is secondary?

 

[ully]

Are you telling me my $25 Fed can take as good pictures as my
1500 Leica. Unbelievable. /humor off.

 

[chris000]

I don’t have to ‘photograph’ to live a happy and full life.
I would simply change hobbies.

Fair enough, I was just interested

If I needed to express myself visually then maybe finger painting or gluing popsicle sticks together, add some glitter and some dried macaroni, whatever.

What a pity you might have given up photography first - I would like to have seen the results from that 🙂

 

[Pablito]

Not true, for several reasons. First, because a better lens may not only be sharper, but may also render with more pleasing contrast, reject flare better, and provide any number of favorable characteristics that a lens is capable of producing - besides just sharpness.

Second, sharpness can be made less so, but not the reverse.

Third, if a photographer wishes the photograph to be sharp, then a sharper lens is better than a less-sharp lens, always.



A lot, if you're a sports photographer or standing where Zapruder was with his movie camera.



Because it is frequently desired in a photograph - and again, a better lens can render less detail if desired, but a poor one cannot render more.



And that is why photographers who have to make their living by their equipment always buy the worst. Right?




You're right, I've never seen a NASA photograph enlarged and hung as art in a home. Oh, wait, I have. Whoops.



Yes. And if the photographer is trying to do something which is beyond the capability of their camera, then a better one would do that particular job better. Which makes the answer to the question "Is it the photographer and not the camera," a solid 'no'. It is both, which I said.

bmattock you are very articulate and you write well. We'll just have to agree to disagree because even though much of what you say is true, I'll always hold that it's the photographer and not the camera. Both? sure, but there are always all the "ifs" in your post above. And in the end, it's your life experience and your intuition that make the picture. I use Leicas and Nikons for all the reasons you might easily guess and for the same reasons many photographers use them. But if there were no Nikons or Leicas, my pictures would look pretty much the same. Who you are (your idenity), your values, your tastes, your likes and dislikes, your ingenuity, your humor, your past joys and sufferings, THESE are what make your pictures what they are. The cameras play as much of a role as the choice of brand of paint for a painter - it's significant but not that important in the bigger scheme of things. And you'll have some photographers who prefer to use toy cameras and some painters who prefer to use house paint or Crayolas. You use what you need to use to get the results you want - this goes without saying. But I would not give equipment any more credit than that. Incidentally, I DO make a living by my photography, and further I am fortunate to make a living photographing what I please, not weddings or products or other commercial stuff (nothing wrong with that, though) but exactly what I want to photograph and specifically and only what I find meaningful. Plenty of photographers use exactly the equipment I use, no one else takes the pictures I take. Good equipment is nice if you can afford it - in the end it matters not nearly as much as your drive and your vision. Sure good equipment can be a pleasure to work with and sometimes even a necessity to accomplish certain tasks. But give me a photographer with vision and a lousy camera over a photographer with no imagination and the best camera any day. Yawn.....maybe this is turning into a matter of semantics.....

 

[Pablito]

Are you telling me my $25 Fed can take as good pictures as my
1500 Leica. Unbelievable. /humor off.

Actually, yeah, of course - it depends on who is using the Fed and who is using the Leica

 

[Merkin]

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.

While I personally feel that the photographer is more important than the camera, it does not mean that the camera is unimportant. The trick is to find the camera that works best with one's style and the environment one is shooting in. Both Ansel Adams and HCB (good lord, i feel like I just Godwined the argument) were able to take great photos, but Adams's 8x10 view camera would have been too slow and cumbersome for HCB, and HCB's Leica wouldn't have given Adams the level of control he desired from his imagemaking equipment.

We live in an age where imagemaking is more democratic (in the sense of being accessible to anyone) than it has ever been in history. Does that mean that everyone is a photographer? Yes and no. In one sense, anyone who makes a photograph is, if you use the definition of photographer as "one who photographs," a photographer. There are differences, however, between someone who takes a casual snapshot on a cell phone and someone who is on some level serious about photography. It is this latter sense that most people think of when they think of the term "photographer." In this day and age, there is a greater onus than ever on the shoulders of the photographer to stand above the teeming hordes with their blackberrys and 79 dollar black friday special pink 10.1 megapixel kodaks. It is at this point where the photographer can do one of four things: he (or she, I just tend to use the masculine to refer to both genders when convenient) can make sure his work is better than the unwashed masses by having superior equipment, he can work much harder to improve his skill, he can do both, or he can do neither. I think we would all agree that doing both to varying degrees is the best option. Does anyone "need" 40,000 dollars worth of equipment to make a good image? I don't think so. Can some people make good images with 20 dollar cameras? Certainly. Are there some people who can make great images with a 500 dollar camera that couldn't make a good image with a 20 dollar camera? Probably, and the inverse is probably true as well. All photographers are, first and foremost, human, which means we all make different choices. The key to all of this, in my mind, is for the individual photographer to find the equipment that makes him or her the happiest and most productive, even if that takes a lot of experimentation. I have experimented with all sorts of different cameras and methods over the years, and I am still not settled. I have been able to get at least passable results from most of the various equipment I have tried, and those results were quite varied in form. For myself personally, different types of cameras tend to want to be used differently, and in different situations. In this case, is it the photographer? Yes. Is it the camera? Yes. Is it both? Yes. Is it neither? That is also a possibility.

With that said, I could be wrong...