Sparrow
Veteran
chikne said:
😱 give that man a cigar
The gear wars have started....
- Thread starter ChipNovaMac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 101
- Views 11K
😱 give that man a cigar
bmattock
Veteran
varjag said:
Well, that's what I was saying. People read:
"A great photographer can get great photos from any camera."
And they THINK it means:
"Therefore any camera is as good as any other."
They put the 'therefore' in where it does not belong.
The first statement is true - it does not mean that the second one is, but that tends to be what people THINK it means. In this case, that's what Reichmann thought Rockwell meant. I think.
bmattock
Veteran
dmr said:
Yes, I agree.
If we make that qualification, then yes, I agree with that too.
Yes - many are the people who believe that there is a magic bullet out there somewhere. In golf, fishing, bowling (yes, believe it or not), photography, you name it.
I used to belong to the Goldsboro Area Photography Club when I was living at home in NC. We had some ladies in that club who used p-n-s film and digital cameras and the images they turned out were flat-out amazing. By encouraging them to enter contests and so on, some of them got national recognition. Yeah, they were still doing it with inexpensive consumer point-n-shoots and their photos were hanging on gallery walls. So no one has to convince me that if you have 'the eye' you can do great work with your basic competent camera.
Unfortunately, no amount of preaching, teaching, or forum discussions will ever change those people's minds. And if they've got the money to spend on that kind of stuff, it doesn't hurt anyone, even if it doesn't make their photography even one whit better. So let 'em obsess over their gear. Somebody has to buy that stuff, and someday maybe it will be on the used market cheap enough that I can snarfle some of it up.
Again, the basic statement is true:
"A great photographer can get great photographs from any camera."
But not only do people insert a 'therefore' and take it too far to mean:
"Therefore, every camera is as good as any other."
But they also take it too far the other way and read it to mean:
"Therefore, divest yourself of all your camera kit except for the extreme basics, and loathe anyone who dares to own two lenses."
Neither extrapolation is correct, in my opinion.
pmu
Well-known
Often when talking about street photography you hear this "you can´t shoot with big slr´s because of the size of the camera and because of the loudness of the shutter" -statement... Well, yeah, I have been testing this because in the next summer I will be shooting professional work with those big digi-slr's so I want to know how to operate my camera 100% in that time...Just the same kind of street images with people as always before ( I don´t ask permission for 95% of the time) ...
No problems at all...to me and my style it really does not matter which kind of camera I use as long as I know how to use it...
Man taking a leak in front of a big mall. Focal lenght about 24mm in 35mm. I took maybe 8 frames.
No problems at all...to me and my style it really does not matter which kind of camera I use as long as I know how to use it...
Man taking a leak in front of a big mall. Focal lenght about 24mm in 35mm. I took maybe 8 frames.
Attachments
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Doug said:
I'm with Doug. The path is as important as a the goal.
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too 🙂
bmattock
Veteran
ferider said:
At the same time? 😱
ferider
Veteran
If I have to .. damn hybrids 😀
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I think for a lot of people, the gear itself is part of the hobby. I've had so much fun this past year learning about all the different lens options that are out there. Before I found this forum, I pretty much lived under the impression that I had to use leica lenses on my leica M bodies.
So I've been having a blast buying and selling lenses, trying out different combinations, old lenses, new lenses. I've used Leica, Konica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and voitglander.
Has any of this made me a better photographer? Of course not. But I have become a lot more knowledgable about photography along the way.
I'd love it if I could spend 8 hours a day taking photographs. My employer, however, doesnt' pay me to do that. (I write the stories that go with the photos) But this interest in lenses, etc. gives me something fun to do, when I can't be out shooting.
So I've been having a blast buying and selling lenses, trying out different combinations, old lenses, new lenses. I've used Leica, Konica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and voitglander.
Has any of this made me a better photographer? Of course not. But I have become a lot more knowledgable about photography along the way.
I'd love it if I could spend 8 hours a day taking photographs. My employer, however, doesnt' pay me to do that. (I write the stories that go with the photos) But this interest in lenses, etc. gives me something fun to do, when I can't be out shooting.
bmattock
Veteran
tbarker13 said:
Hear, hear!
This is an unusual age we live in. Never before have we had access, at fire-sale prices, to such an embarrassment of riches in terms of camera equipment. Lenses that were the pinnacle of quality are still very, very, good, even by today's standards - and the market is fairly flooded with them.
So it is that without being a reviewer for a mighty magazine, we can purchase, for very little money, the best of the best of yesterday's gear and actually compare it for ourselves. Our fathers and grandfathers would have had to rely upon second-hand information from trusted sources to know if a Nikon lens was indeed sharper than the equivalent Canon, or vice-versa. Now we can buy both and see for ourselves.
I think it is also fairly said that there are:
1) Photographers who use cameras and lenses as tools.
2) Collectors who enjoy collecting for collecting's sake.
3) Gear-fondlers who just enjoy owning high-quality kit.
4) Tinkerers and comparators who just can't stop fiddling with their gear, constantly searching for that tiny incremental increase in resolving power of a lens, or fine grain in a film, and so on.
And some of us take bits from each of the 4 categories. I know I do.
On a personal note in line with the above - in my opinion, one cannot realize how differently-made today's cameras are without owning and using a classic SLR or high-end rangefinder from about the mid 1960's. The mechanical precision, the amazing balance, the ergonomics that could be achieved without the use of trigger grips and rubberized components - just steel and brass and glass - amazing. It might not make you a better photographer - but dang, you sure feel like one, stalking around with a silver Nikon or Canon SLR in your hand. It's something people should try, at least once.
antiquark
Derek Ross
It's funny, I agree with both sides of the argument. In fact, I've experienced both viewpoints simultaneously...
On flickr, I occasionally see a picture that makes me say "wow, what a great pic!" But I'm looking at the medium size pic. So I click to see a larger version, and it turns out that it's a cellphone pic... there is no larger version! (which is a big disappointment).
So, Rockwell is right that even a crappy camera can make interesting pics, and the other guy is right that a level of technical performance is needed for picture quality.
On flickr, I occasionally see a picture that makes me say "wow, what a great pic!" But I'm looking at the medium size pic. So I click to see a larger version, and it turns out that it's a cellphone pic... there is no larger version! (which is a big disappointment).
So, Rockwell is right that even a crappy camera can make interesting pics, and the other guy is right that a level of technical performance is needed for picture quality.
Ade-oh
Well-known
The irony of Ken Rockwell's site (which, as I mentioned before, I think is great) is that although he espouses his 'anti-gearhead' attitude, I'd suspect that 99% of the people who visit the site are looking for gear-related information; and that's what his site does best. I certainly found out about it when I was looking to buy a DSLR. The fact is that he knows his stuff, and he is honest and realistic in his appraisals of the quality of modern photographic equipment.
I really don't understand why he raises peoples' hackles so much. He's opinionated but the best journalists and bloggers generally are.
I really don't understand why he raises peoples' hackles so much. He's opinionated but the best journalists and bloggers generally are.
Nh3
Well-known
Let me settle this argument once and for all.
The gear does matter:
1- I cannot shoot a concert with a P&S or a pinhole camera, and even if i did its not going to be blown up and hang in a gallery.
2- I cannot shoot Anacondas in Amazon jungle with a camera which is not waterproof and able to work under extreme conditions.
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
4- I cannot photograph architecture 'properly' without a tilt-shift lens or a view camera.
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
5- I cannot shoot weddings, models and food for grocery shop flyers without using a P&S and expect my clients to be happy.
Ken Rockwell is an egoistical hack and Michael Reichmann is an old professional with a passion for photography and the genuine desire to help others... Rockwell talks to the weekend shooter with his P&S or DSLR and Reichmann talks to professionals and serious amateurs.
I agree that Reichmann’s article came across as a rant, but I can't blame him because Ken Rockwell does that to people. 🙂
Btw, Reichmann is my local Torontonian.
The gear does matter:
1- I cannot shoot a concert with a P&S or a pinhole camera, and even if i did its not going to be blown up and hang in a gallery.
2- I cannot shoot Anacondas in Amazon jungle with a camera which is not waterproof and able to work under extreme conditions.
3- I cannot use a D3 with 17-55m for street photography or for that matter a digital P&S, the former is big and intimidating and the later is slow.
4- I cannot photograph architecture 'properly' without a tilt-shift lens or a view camera.
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
5- I cannot shoot weddings, models and food for grocery shop flyers without using a P&S and expect my clients to be happy.
Ken Rockwell is an egoistical hack and Michael Reichmann is an old professional with a passion for photography and the genuine desire to help others... Rockwell talks to the weekend shooter with his P&S or DSLR and Reichmann talks to professionals and serious amateurs.
I agree that Reichmann’s article came across as a rant, but I can't blame him because Ken Rockwell does that to people. 🙂
Btw, Reichmann is my local Torontonian.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Nh3 said:
Errrr... in all these cases I would say 'oh yes you can'. Using the 'proper' equipment would make it easier to get satisfactory images but none of these things are an impossibility for someone with a good grasp of technique.
Sparrow
Veteran
Nh3 said:
too much negativity man, those negative waves so early in the morning ………try to focus on what you can do, ya’ll be surprised how much brighter the world looks
bmattock
Veteran
Nh3 said:
I agree, but just to be the fly in the ointment...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
ChipNovaMac
Established
Wow, I never expected the depth of responses so far....
Will post some comments to what has been posted so far....
You are right on on my take between the two posts.
I find it interesting that Ken has "reviews" on gear. Maybe this is a new direction for him. Focusing more on the craft then the gear.
Both Michael and Ken have models to generate income from their websites. My take is that Michael would be the one to go to for his workshops.
You hit it on the head in my reading of Michael's comments.
Amen, that is the point I am am at as I try to "gear down"...
I was taken aback by Ken's recent post given the bent of his website.
Like I mentioned I have a Nikon kit. I am really looking at cutting it down after reviewing my images from REK/LON from 2006. In that trip I used only a 18-200VR and and the 10.5mm FE - along with a Pani LX-1.
Will post some comments to what has been posted so far....
stuken said:
You are right on on my take between the two posts.
Ade-oh said:
I find it interesting that Ken has "reviews" on gear. Maybe this is a new direction for him. Focusing more on the craft then the gear.
Ade-oh said:
Both Michael and Ken have models to generate income from their websites. My take is that Michael would be the one to go to for his workshops.
varjag said:
You hit it on the head in my reading of Michael's comments.
dmr said:
Amen, that is the point I am am at as I try to "gear down"...
Ade-oh said:
I was taken aback by Ken's recent post given the bent of his website.
Like I mentioned I have a Nikon kit. I am really looking at cutting it down after reviewing my images from REK/LON from 2006. In that trip I used only a 18-200VR and and the 10.5mm FE - along with a Pani LX-1.
Athos6
Tao Master
leicasniper said:
Totally agree, thats the good thing about photography as hobby vs photography as work. I totally don't need film, my D200 takes better pictures then I can produce with my film bodies, BUT I just love shooting with them. People sometimes forget to have fun. One thing though, I relly do wish expesive reels would help me catch fish, with fishing you get to eat something, you can't eat pictures, well they wouldn't taste good at least.
williams473
Well-known
Good point Bill - that article says it all - thanks for the link.
In the article we should notice that Majoli points out what a "nice file" the digital P&S camera makes. So is he really shooting with "unprofessional" gear? The camera has a nice sharp lens and obviously he works well with it, so perhaps this opens up some discussion as to the perceptions we have of what is and is not pro gear.
In the article we should notice that Majoli points out what a "nice file" the digital P&S camera makes. So is he really shooting with "unprofessional" gear? The camera has a nice sharp lens and obviously he works well with it, so perhaps this opens up some discussion as to the perceptions we have of what is and is not pro gear.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You'll never hear a pickup truck lover say that motorcycles and good cooking knives are the "best tools for the job", or could ever carry that deer off to the jerky-making hut.ferider said:
And you'll never hear a good cook claim that a pickup truck is the best thing for cooking a great deer a l'orange, non non!
Universes indeed are defined by the void and dark matter contained within them.
😱
williams473
Well-known
Athos6 said:
As I kid I remember fishing off a dock one day with a piece of kite string tied to a stick with some bread on a hook, and catching a bunch of bluegill, one after another, while this older guy next to me caught nothing for over an hour with his expensive baitcasting reel and rod setup. Not that I was the better fisherman, but for sure, his expensive gear wasn't helping him, or maybe he wasn't using it to its full potential. The same can be true of photography.