Fred Burton
Well-known
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
Derek Ross
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.
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
Veteran
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
coco frío
NO, IT WILL ONLY TAKE A SHARPER PHOTOGRAPH
AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF QUALITY AND AND QUANTITY IS.....?
AND MORE DETAIL IS GOOD BECAUSE.......?
ANY MACHINE CAN FAIL. BAD CAMERAS, WITH POOR OPTICS, CAN BE VERY DURABLE.
ASTRONOMERS USE TELESCOPES FOR GATHERING DATA, NOT TELLING STORIES.
THAT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND WHAT SHE/HE IS TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.....
chris000
Landscaper
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
Veteran
I don't wish to argue with Ken Rockwell by proxy. I like his writing, and I disagree with this article completely.
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
coco frío
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
Veteran
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.
Gumby
Veteran
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
cyclic iconoclast
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
Derek Ross
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.
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
Veteran
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
Panoramist
Gumby
Veteran
You've found the right photography, err... camera, forum to hang out in then!
chris000
Landscaper
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
ully
Are you telling me my $25 Fed can take as good pictures as my
1500 Leica. Unbelievable. /humor off.
1500 Leica. Unbelievable. /humor off.
chris000
Landscaper
Fair enough, I was just interested
What a pity you might have given up photography first - I would like to have seen the results from that
Pablito
coco frío
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
coco frío
Actually, yeah, of course - it depends on who is using the Fed and who is using the Leica
Merkin
For the Weekend
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...