The Camera

[BB52]

It`s not the camera,it`s the person behind it.I may be off base here with this one but there is "some"truth to my statement.I would like to have some serious thoughts on the subject.I respect everyone`s opinions here on the RF forum.Intelligent comments please................Thank you.

 

[oftheherd]

And what is your opinion on your question, sir?

 

[Fred Burton]

I don't think you'll get much debate over that. As long as you have a reliably functioning camera with a decent lens, it really doesn't seem to matter much what the equipment is. Of course this is a forum filled with gearheads, so it may seem at times that gear is everything! 😉

 

[BB52]

My opinion

My opinion

My opion sir, it is the person behind it.Expensive gear does not a good photo make.

 

[Livesteamer]

Most of my photography is indoor, available light people pictures. I did not work my way into a Leica kit for it to be an expensive status symbol but because I can focus them reliably in less than bright light. The Leica enables me and delivers excellent results and for that I respect it greatly. Joe

 

[tvagi]

i will answer by telling a short story.
a couple of years ago as i was trying to set the self timer on my digital camera when a passing by,amateur photographer,with an expensive digital(i am not sure if it was digital!) SLR around his neck offered to take a picture of me and my wife.he took my digital camera,kindly asked my how to adjust light contrast and took a couple of pictures of us!i thanked him.
when i looked at my camera for the shots,there was nothing!he just did not shoot us!...i do not know what went wrong,maybe bad luck.
but he knew everything about light,contrast....and anything you must pay attention for a good picture!he even had a great gear!🙂

 

[capitalK]

I would say for many of the people I meet in the year 2008 it's definitely the camera. With everything full auto most people can only take credit for deciding when to press the button and how to frame the shot, the camera has done all the other creative thinking as far as aperture, shutter, etc etc

I can't do that, even when I shoot digital I have to do it full manual. I guess it's just the control freak in me.

 

[Windscale]

My humble opinion is that there is a lot of truth in the statement. I have seen on many occasions winners of competitions using relatively cheapie gear. But, judging from responses in RFF, we do tend to indulge too deeply with gear. However, the way I choose my gear is not always based on price. This happened many years ago when I was younger and stronger. Now the best gear for me are the ones which I can comfortably carry and those which produce the best colour and contrast to my liking. This does mean very often not using the most expensive gear. For example, a Schneider Kreuznach 47/5.6 converted camera instead of a Hassy SWC. Older Leica M3 + lenses dating back to the 1950 and 60s rather than the latest Japanese CV or ZI cameras and lenses. F3.5 Rolleiflex TLRs instead of the latest Hassy etc. Yes, the photographer is always the most important. But if bigger enlargements such as up to 16x20 for 135 or 24x36 for 120 which I do rather a lot, the best gear which one feels comfortable would certainly help.

 

[telenous]

It`s not the camera,it`s the person behind it.I may be off base here with this one but there is "some"truth to my statement.I would like to have some serious thoughts on the subject.I respect everyone`s opinions here on the RF forum.Intelligent comments please................Thank you.

This is not an either/or choice.

Though if you believe some people, any photographic problem whatsoever can be solved with any camera (e.g. an one-use-p&s) if you are competent enough. At the same time, if you believe others, you do not need a photographer, just an army of infinite monkeys pressing incessantly the shutter for an infinite length of time until they come down with the goods.

Both statements are beyond hyperbole. They are false (the first because of the physical/optical limitations of what cameras can do; the second because there is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys and infinite length of time - we live in a finite universe, or so it seems.)

Camera and operator are in synergy. We can talk about which is the more important (IMO the operator since she is the one doing the problem solving within the confines - photographic compromises - of the photographic system at hand) but the importance of one does not compensate for the relative importance of the other.

Choosing the right system/format for a task is easy (SLR vs rangefinder for macro stuff, for example.) And while the system/format is important for the final result, the exact type (brand) of system is orders of magnitude less so. I wouldn't say it's of no importance at all (we all have to choose one brand over another), but it seems to me diminishing results apply in this case as it is evaluable with great difficulty, if at all, in terms of perceptible photographic results.



.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I agree. Also, as Socrates once said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance".

Yo solo sé que no he cenado.

 

[Gumby]

Reliable and well-understood gear is more important than "good or expensive" gear in the hands of a good photographer.

 

[Fred Burton]

"...the camera has done all the other creative thinking as far as aperture, shutter, etc etc"

But isn't the image the goal, not the process? Most of the time my camera set in aperture priority mode sets the exact same shutter speed I would have set manually. Of course I know how to override it and make creative decisions; but, I could have a large portfolio of excellent images without ever overriding the automation. Too much is made of making these choices manually, IMHO.

 

[raid]

I hesitate commenting like a "Backpfeifengesicht Dummfürzlicher" person here, but I will give it a try;

All you need is a working camera and a reasonably OK lens from an equipment requirement to take photos. The rest is not much related to equipment, unless you get into special lighting cases where a lens with a large max aperture may make a difference, or where a MF camera is better for huge enlargement or when a macro lens is needed for a super close-up image or when a tele photo lens is needed ... etc.

It's the box plus a working mind of a photographer ...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I hesitate commenting like a "Backpfeifengesicht Dummfürzlicher" person here, but I will give it a try

I'm verklempt 😉

 

[bmattock]

It`s not the camera,it`s the person behind it.I may be off base here with this one but there is "some"truth to my statement.I would like to have some serious thoughts on the subject.I respect everyone`s opinions here on the RF forum.Intelligent comments please................Thank you.

Good photographers can do more with good equipment than they can with poor equipment. While it is true that a photographer with great talent can make even a poor camera produce excellent photographs, even they cannot make a poor camera into an excellent one.

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

The proof of that is clear. Paparazzi, wildlife and sports photographers buy very expensive fast long lenses for a good reason - they work. They may be excellent photographers, but a Box Brownie would not do for the use they intend to put it to.

Would having better equipment make me a better photographer? No. But it would give me more capability within my range of ability.

 

[bmattock]

My opion sir, it is the person behind it.Expensive gear does not a good photo make.

But a better lens will take a better photograph than a worse lens, wielded by the same photographer. A faster camera will take more photos faster than a slower one. A better film will render an image with more detail than a poor one. A better-made camera will have more endurance than a poorly-made one.

The photograph is only the last stage in the process.

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

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

 

[bmattock]

Reliable and well-understood gear is more important than "good or expensive" gear in the hands of a good photographer.

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.

 

[raid]

I'm verklempt 😉

Where in the world did you get such a great two word expression? If you made it up, you may want to copy right it quickly! 😀

 

[35mmdelux]

a good camera helps.

 

[Pablito]

Yo solo sé que no he cenado.

Pues métele mano al mondongo...