ChipNovaMac
Established
Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape went on a rant today about a Ken Rockwell essay saying that the camera does not matter.
(links:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml )
IMO, in this debate Michael lost out. Ken had plenty of samples that showed that great images can be had from most any camera.
I work in a camera shop. I have a customer that had an image published in National Geographic taken with his Olympus C-8080 IIRC (their reader submitted pics). Another won in the Nikon contest years ago with a 70-300ED lens from Nikon. I had another customer that used a simple P&S digicam to do portraits of her children that would make "Pros" blush.
So I tend to agree with Ken here. MANY years ago I remember seeing an exhibit by "Pros" that were given the challenge of shooting with a Kodak Instamatic 104. They were stunning images.
I tend to look at cameras as being tools. And in some way Michael may be right about the right tools for the right job. I have a couple P&S digicams that are great when I want to travel light and easy. I have a Nikon DSLR kit that has two cameras (one converted to IR) and a assorted lenses (covering the 10.5 to 200mm range - and no, the 200mm is not the beloved by some - the 70-200/2.8VR. But the much talked about 18-200VR). This is my go-to kit when I want simple and varied focal lengths.
I do have a Leica RF kit (both film and digital); but my love there is the size and the viewfinder. To some degree I do see to my eye, the "Leica glow" in some images. But would I throw out those shots if they had been taken with my newly aqquired Olympus 35SP? Most likely not. This is my kit for when I want to be stealthy and light.
I also have another newly acquired camera, the Hasselblad 500/CM. I have shot MF in the past, and love the DOF limits of shooting with an 80mm "normal" lens. Not to mention the silkiness of grain of a 11x14 or 16x20 MF neg.
Yes, I do have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome); a hazzard of working in a camera shop. To be honest, after a trip with my M8 and G7 to SF in February I am rethinking my Nikon kit - perhaps selling off some of it. Focusing my shooting with my Leica gear.
The question becomes how many tools does one need? In looking at what I want to keep in my Nikon DSLR kit, I looked at my Reykjavik/London trip in February 2006. Because of limited time in each city, and since it was my 1st overseas trip - I had concerns about the stories I had heard about carry-on limits. So I took a Pani Lx-1, and a Nikon D50 with the 18-200VR and the 10.5mm FE lens.
As I sort through the images from that trip for an iPhoto album I am working on, I am even amazed at what I did with "so little". Two images that friends love are 13x19's from the Pani that hang on my wall. And I have to admit that there was a new freedom in walking about Reykjavik with just the Pani LX-1.
So in the end how do you all weigh in on this debate?
(links:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml )
IMO, in this debate Michael lost out. Ken had plenty of samples that showed that great images can be had from most any camera.
I work in a camera shop. I have a customer that had an image published in National Geographic taken with his Olympus C-8080 IIRC (their reader submitted pics). Another won in the Nikon contest years ago with a 70-300ED lens from Nikon. I had another customer that used a simple P&S digicam to do portraits of her children that would make "Pros" blush.
So I tend to agree with Ken here. MANY years ago I remember seeing an exhibit by "Pros" that were given the challenge of shooting with a Kodak Instamatic 104. They were stunning images.
I tend to look at cameras as being tools. And in some way Michael may be right about the right tools for the right job. I have a couple P&S digicams that are great when I want to travel light and easy. I have a Nikon DSLR kit that has two cameras (one converted to IR) and a assorted lenses (covering the 10.5 to 200mm range - and no, the 200mm is not the beloved by some - the 70-200/2.8VR. But the much talked about 18-200VR). This is my go-to kit when I want simple and varied focal lengths.
I do have a Leica RF kit (both film and digital); but my love there is the size and the viewfinder. To some degree I do see to my eye, the "Leica glow" in some images. But would I throw out those shots if they had been taken with my newly aqquired Olympus 35SP? Most likely not. This is my kit for when I want to be stealthy and light.
I also have another newly acquired camera, the Hasselblad 500/CM. I have shot MF in the past, and love the DOF limits of shooting with an 80mm "normal" lens. Not to mention the silkiness of grain of a 11x14 or 16x20 MF neg.
Yes, I do have GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome); a hazzard of working in a camera shop. To be honest, after a trip with my M8 and G7 to SF in February I am rethinking my Nikon kit - perhaps selling off some of it. Focusing my shooting with my Leica gear.
The question becomes how many tools does one need? In looking at what I want to keep in my Nikon DSLR kit, I looked at my Reykjavik/London trip in February 2006. Because of limited time in each city, and since it was my 1st overseas trip - I had concerns about the stories I had heard about carry-on limits. So I took a Pani Lx-1, and a Nikon D50 with the 18-200VR and the 10.5mm FE lens.
As I sort through the images from that trip for an iPhoto album I am working on, I am even amazed at what I did with "so little". Two images that friends love are 13x19's from the Pani that hang on my wall. And I have to admit that there was a new freedom in walking about Reykjavik with just the Pani LX-1.
So in the end how do you all weigh in on this debate?
Bryce
Well-known
Its the context, stupid!
Many times statements are made that are more extreme than they are meant, to make a point when the author sees trees being obscured by forest. Or the opposite.
In textbooks even the method is used; when it is intentional you'll see "exaggerated for clarity" somewhere near the statement. When the author has lost track of reality himself and/or sees the exaggeration as obvious, there is no such disclaimer.
So obviously there is truth in both sides of the argument...
Many times statements are made that are more extreme than they are meant, to make a point when the author sees trees being obscured by forest. Or the opposite.
In textbooks even the method is used; when it is intentional you'll see "exaggerated for clarity" somewhere near the statement. When the author has lost track of reality himself and/or sees the exaggeration as obvious, there is no such disclaimer.
So obviously there is truth in both sides of the argument...
bmattock
Veteran
Imagine any human endeavor that requires tools. I can't think of a single one of them that does not employ specialized tools to do specific jobs - from origami to cooking to deep-sea diving to CGI generation. Imagine the laughs you'd get if you told a designer at Industrial Light and Magic that a single-CPU pc is all he needs to generate the CGI for a movie like "The Matrix." Sure, if he has a few thousand years to wait.
Everyone who uses tools professionally, uses tools specifically made to do the job at hand well. In very few of them do its practitioners periodically throw away their tools and proclaim themselves as having been made better thereby.
At least, not that I can see.
Do cheap cameras make amazing photos? Yes. That is not the same as saying that any camera can be used to make amazing photos of any scene. The right tool for the right job. This seems so simple to me.
Everyone who uses tools professionally, uses tools specifically made to do the job at hand well. In very few of them do its practitioners periodically throw away their tools and proclaim themselves as having been made better thereby.
At least, not that I can see.
Do cheap cameras make amazing photos? Yes. That is not the same as saying that any camera can be used to make amazing photos of any scene. The right tool for the right job. This seems so simple to me.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I think Mr. Reichmann lacks a sense of humor. I liked Ken's article more than Michael's. That doesn't mean I agree with everything Ken Rockwell says, only that his article was entertaining, and the other one was a tad dry...
maddoc
... likes film again.
It is about the set of tools ...
It is about the set of tools ...
... I think the right tool for the job is what makes life easier for somebody earning money doing the job. For me as an pure amateur and hobby-photograph it only matters, if I like the result (or maybe my friends / photo-buddies). For sure for trained photographers, who don't do anything else than taking photos on a daily basis, any camera will do the job somehow. But since they have to rely on their tools they would be wrong adviced to limit themselves on either only P&S, RF cameras or DSLR. I think the right mixture of tools is what gives the best result.
Since my photographic interests are limit to a little documentation of my daily life, I don't need DSLRs, huge MF / LF setups or flash systems. Neither do I need a drum scanner to get some snaps ready for web-publishing. So one day, I choose lurking around with a 500 C/M mounted on tripod and the other day with a Leica and one lens. The results will differ for sure but since it is only a hobby for me, the worst thing that can happen is a set of completely boring photos.
It is about the set of tools ...
... I think the right tool for the job is what makes life easier for somebody earning money doing the job. For me as an pure amateur and hobby-photograph it only matters, if I like the result (or maybe my friends / photo-buddies). For sure for trained photographers, who don't do anything else than taking photos on a daily basis, any camera will do the job somehow. But since they have to rely on their tools they would be wrong adviced to limit themselves on either only P&S, RF cameras or DSLR. I think the right mixture of tools is what gives the best result.
Since my photographic interests are limit to a little documentation of my daily life, I don't need DSLRs, huge MF / LF setups or flash systems. Neither do I need a drum scanner to get some snaps ready for web-publishing. So one day, I choose lurking around with a 500 C/M mounted on tripod and the other day with a Leica and one lens. The results will differ for sure but since it is only a hobby for me, the worst thing that can happen is a set of completely boring photos.
I like using tools I like to use. :angel:
JT07
Newbie
This is a never ending question that comes up all the time and I don't think we'll ever really know the actual answer.
I've always used the example when someone says, "That Camera takes great pictures" that it's the photographer that took the pictures, not the camera.
If you took a $75 set of golf clubs off the rack at Kmart and handed them to Tiger Woods, he could probably go out tomorrow and shoot 5 under par on any golf courses. He's a great golfer, doesn't matter what clubs he uses, he'd still be great.
I think it's similar with photographers, a good photographer can be handed any camera and will get the most out of that camera and use his / her knowledge to maximize the image quality they can get out of it. Whether it be a Nikon, Canon, Leica, holga or an old kodak brownie. They know photography, they know light, they know exposure, grain, DOF, etc, etc, etc, and they know how to make great photos.
Me, I'm just a weekend hacker who every once in a while shoots a great shot of his kids or wife and my friends say, "great photo" I'm a amatuer so I also find great pleasure in researching equipment, and generally just using the Leica M system. I'm never going to be a professional photographer, no matter what camera I use, so I try to get some good photos while at the same time, really enjoying the equipment as well.
Does that make any sense? I think I confused myself as I was going along..
JT
I've always used the example when someone says, "That Camera takes great pictures" that it's the photographer that took the pictures, not the camera.
If you took a $75 set of golf clubs off the rack at Kmart and handed them to Tiger Woods, he could probably go out tomorrow and shoot 5 under par on any golf courses. He's a great golfer, doesn't matter what clubs he uses, he'd still be great.
I think it's similar with photographers, a good photographer can be handed any camera and will get the most out of that camera and use his / her knowledge to maximize the image quality they can get out of it. Whether it be a Nikon, Canon, Leica, holga or an old kodak brownie. They know photography, they know light, they know exposure, grain, DOF, etc, etc, etc, and they know how to make great photos.
Me, I'm just a weekend hacker who every once in a while shoots a great shot of his kids or wife and my friends say, "great photo" I'm a amatuer so I also find great pleasure in researching equipment, and generally just using the Leica M system. I'm never going to be a professional photographer, no matter what camera I use, so I try to get some good photos while at the same time, really enjoying the equipment as well.
Does that make any sense? I think I confused myself as I was going along..
JT
bmattock
Veteran
JT07 said:
Yes.
All true. But hand a Box Brownie to a great photographer and ask him to take macro shots of a snowflake. No matter his skill, he cannot make the camera do what it cannot do. Perhaps, given his experience, he knows a way to get a reasonable facsimile - but what would the point of that be? To prove he could do it? They make specialized lenses and cameras for exactly that type of work - why not use one?
I think people keep making the same mistake - it's a semantic error, but it leads to a logic fallacy.
"A great photographer can make any camera perform well."
This is true. But it is a semantic error. It is not same as saying:
"Any camera can perform any photographic job well if used by a great photographer."
The first statement says that pros are good at what they do and make the best possible use of any tool they're given.
The second statement says that pros somehow have the ability to make a camera do something it is otherwise physically impossible to do.
A camera cannot perform beyond it's physical limits, no matter who holds it.
Avotius
Some guy
Personally I dont care for Ken Rockwell. I think more times then not he misses the point of a topic or is downright rude about things. I dont bother to look at his webpage anymore as I find him to be particularly offensive now, but I have seen this particular blurb before. Frankly, I dont really care about this whole "my camera is better then your so its best at everything" argument. Working pros know what they want, what they need and will have that. These arguments are best left to people who spend their time bitching about photography on forums rather then actually taking pictures. But I tend to side on Michael on this one, tools are for what they do.
stuken
Established
Micheals argument completely, utterly, 150% missed the point. Completely. Totally. Rockwell never once claimed that he could go out and to fantastic table top stock photography with a pinhole, or any of that other nonsense. He is arguing some stupid semantic that skirts the real issue.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
You know, I have frequented many a forum about photography. Especially on dpreview it is almost comical that people start threads about him, saying how much they learnt from him.
Those people are either trolls or the man himself, just to gain more attention. Seeing such a thread here disappoints me. Does Ken even know what a Rangefinder IS?
Those people are either trolls or the man himself, just to gain more attention. Seeing such a thread here disappoints me. Does Ken even know what a Rangefinder IS?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Ken Rockwell styles himself a "man of the people" who tries to encourage those who use a P&S camera or low-end dSLR to take photos of their travels or family gatherings to not be intimidated by photographic jargon, or technical controls they don't understand and just go out and take pictures. He tries to give a little very simple advice to help such people out. When called on some of his pronouncements, he often "back-tracks" (though I don't really think it is that) and says things along the lines of "I'm not talking to photographers like you, I'm talking to the general public".
Michael Reichmann styles himself a fine-art photographer and tries to talk accurately to professional photographers, artists and "advanced amateurs" about tools and techniques to get the best out of their equipment or to select the most appropriate equipment for the task. (Oh, and his complete abandonment of film probably won't endear him much to some around here.)
Personally, I find Rokwell's schtick gets old very quickly and I don't much care for his over-saturated, over-smoothed, over-sharpened style of photograph. But, then, I'm not really his audience. I like some of Reichmann's photos, am less keen on others - and have found some of his articles, tutorials etc. rather useful.
But I do think they are talking past each other, to different audiences about different things for different purposes.
That's an "argument" that is guaranteed to generate more heat than light. And I rather think Reichmann is using Rockwell as a whipping-boy for attitudes he doesn't (or doesn't "really") hold - but which are often quoted out of context by various internet yammerheads. I can recall Chris Weeks doing the same thing, only with more profanity and hilarity. I don't much care for Rockwell, but he means well (I think) and probably doesn't deserve some of the kicking-around he gets from time-to-time on the 'net.
...Mike
Michael Reichmann styles himself a fine-art photographer and tries to talk accurately to professional photographers, artists and "advanced amateurs" about tools and techniques to get the best out of their equipment or to select the most appropriate equipment for the task. (Oh, and his complete abandonment of film probably won't endear him much to some around here.)
Personally, I find Rokwell's schtick gets old very quickly and I don't much care for his over-saturated, over-smoothed, over-sharpened style of photograph. But, then, I'm not really his audience. I like some of Reichmann's photos, am less keen on others - and have found some of his articles, tutorials etc. rather useful.
But I do think they are talking past each other, to different audiences about different things for different purposes.
That's an "argument" that is guaranteed to generate more heat than light. And I rather think Reichmann is using Rockwell as a whipping-boy for attitudes he doesn't (or doesn't "really") hold - but which are often quoted out of context by various internet yammerheads. I can recall Chris Weeks doing the same thing, only with more profanity and hilarity. I don't much care for Rockwell, but he means well (I think) and probably doesn't deserve some of the kicking-around he gets from time-to-time on the 'net.
...Mike
Ade-oh
Well-known
I thoroughly enjoy Ken Rockwell's website and while I don't share his taste in photographic subjects, I've never found anything to dispute in his technical reviews. As for his 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter' (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) article, what he is actually saying is that expensive equipment won't improve the quality of your photography if you don't have the knowledge, talent, eye or whatever it is that is required to take good photographs. Reichmann's article misses the point completely: yes, a surgeon does need specialised tools to perform an operation, but putting the same tools in the hands of a chimpanzee won't make it into a surgeon.
Rockwell is a breath of fresh air IMHO. Too many of us get caught up in the whole 'what's the best Leica lens to take B&W portraits using diffuse window light only?' discussions.
Rockwell is a breath of fresh air IMHO. Too many of us get caught up in the whole 'what's the best Leica lens to take B&W portraits using diffuse window light only?' discussions.
NickTrop
Veteran
The bulk of camera gear is very good. "The best" buys only incremental gains, not visible to the naked eye in the print. MTF graphs that show on curve slightly higher than another at working apertures are not worth paying for. Where there are obvious gains is in format (in the film world), not the lens. You will struggle to identify a photo taken with a Jupiter 8 and a 'Cron. You will not struggle to see the difference between any 35mm and anything shot MF. It's the image captured, not the means on which it was captured, with one exception. Black and white film. For people photography - generally, it is more evokative than color. If you shoot people, MF, with black and white, and make a larger print, what would have been a mundane "snap" you give a second of attention to, becomes "something else". A little window to a moment in the past, charged with emotion.
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
|
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
|
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
this is a very nice example, that i'd like to extend a little:
provide several sets of golf clubs, let's say ...
- the fabulous 75$ Kmart set,
- some halfway quality stuff,
- some pro rank stuff,
- and tiger wood's own set.
then, ask mr. woods, which set he's going to choose.
what will be his choice?
and what will it mean to me (who, admittedly, has no interest in golf at all)?
cheers, and a have nice weekend.
go play! whether golf, or picturetaking, i don't mind ...
now, for a second experiment.JT07 said:
provide several sets of golf clubs, let's say ...
- the fabulous 75$ Kmart set,
- some halfway quality stuff,
- some pro rank stuff,
- and tiger wood's own set.
then, ask mr. woods, which set he's going to choose.
what will be his choice?
and what will it mean to me (who, admittedly, has no interest in golf at all)?
cheers, and a have nice weekend.
go play! whether golf, or picturetaking, i don't mind ...
infrequent
Well-known
its easy to ignore ken rockwell once you realise that he provides opinions / reviews about products that he has not even remotely used.
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
Hm, have you ever heard about a picture of a lioness nurturing her cups in the wild taken with a rangefinder and normal lens the photographer developed himself after getting away alive?
Edit: I don't get Ken Rockwell, is 1/500th flash sync important or not? Or was it important when Nikon had it and isn't when Nikon hasn't?
Edit: I don't get Ken Rockwell, is 1/500th flash sync important or not? Or was it important when Nikon had it and isn't when Nikon hasn't?
Last edited by a moderator:
Athos6
Tao Master
While I agree that the camera matters little in the hands of a true artist, there is all that post-processing stuff that goes on. I have always found that equipment does matter, in one sense. I like my gear, I like the different personalities of the cameras and the lenses. Using these objects makes me feel good, and it’s fun. It’s weird to say but the pictures are only one aspect of the whole relaxing process. I always have to step back from the forums when I read too much and begin to wonder if my lens is sharp enough, since it really doesn’t matter, and I miss focus the dang thing 1 out 3 times… I’m thinking of starting my own grading system, it’ll work on the neatness scale. Right now my Nikkormat Ftn is at about a 7, maybe an eight. My F3 is 6, while my M2 (still in the mail) is about an 8. They all take pictures.
literiter
Well-known
I like what both writers have to say. What Mr. Reichman has to say helps me justify all my camera goodies but Mr. Rockwell has a point. The photographer takes the picture.
Ade-oh
Well-known
infrequent said:
Ken Rockwell isn't the kind of guy to keep his opinions to himself, but I can't recall him actually 'reviewing' anything which he hasn't used. On the other hand, he doesn't rely on advertising revenue from the big manufacturers to keep his site going, nor does he seem to accept loaned gear from manufacturers. If I was in the market for DSLR gear, his would be the first site I would go to for reviews.