The gear wars have started....

A comment on tools:
Sometimes you HAVE to pay the big bucks to get the right lens to get the right look. When I was young sports photographers starting out I had a cheap Tamron 70-210mm f4-5.6 zoom. It cost $200. Even though it was sharp enough for newspaper work I was never happy with the results. Even when I caught peak moments of action and the strained expressions on the athletes' faces were clear, the photos never popped. I still didn't know enough about photography to realize that my subjects were blending into the background because I was shooting at f5.6 and the shooters at the bigger papers had better shots simply because they could afford f2.8 lenses. They weren't necessarily better photographers, they just had the better or proper tool. There is no cheap and cheerful 70-200 2.8, you either spend about a grand to get one or you live with the limitations of a slow lens.
A comment on Rockwell:
I think he does his website to amuse himself and the more people take him seriously, the more he gets off on it! He is always contradicting himself. "Your lens doesn't matter - oh but NEVER use a Sigma lens," or "The 5D and D3 are better because they have bigger sensors and give you more information - oh but don't bother shooting RAW because you don't need those big files."
(Paraphrases, not direct quotes!)
A comment on Reichmann:
I think he went a little overboard on this one. Sometimes he seems to get angry and write a weird essay like this to blow off steam. Maybe he's a little stressed out. However the Luminous Landscape is one of the BEST resources of photographic information on the web and certainly deserves support and respect.
Final comment:
Reichmann uses rangefinders. Rockwell thinks a manual focus only digital camera is "stupid".
 
Oh dear god.. not another "tastes great!!!" / "less filling !!!" debate.

Like the game "global thermonuclear war" the only way to "win" is not to play 😀

That said, (and I keep saying this over and over and over etc.) go out with the RF or P&S and try to capture the face of a quarterback at a football game when you're on the sidelines at the other end of the field.

Also.. try being "quiet" and "unobtrusive" at a funeral using a current pro DSLR (D3, 1Ds, etc.) (if that's your thing that is.. 😀).

Tools DO matter - it's that simple - as long as you're choosing the right one for the job you intend on doing the rest can then be left up to the photographer..

Sheesh!!!
Dave
 
5- I cannot be a photojournalist and carry a P&S to war or the local press conference.
Click to expand...

... and from the cited page:

But in fact, Majoli shot every frame with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
Click to expand...

A recent exchange between me and another on a local board, most relevant to this thread, occurred shortly after I posted the "Alphabet City" walk-through on the blog. It went kinda like this:

He: Nice photos.
Me: Thanks {blush} 🙂
He: What kind of a camera did you use?
Me: Olympus Stylus Zoom P&S.

He: If I knew that was all you had, I would have loaned you my (some kind of DSLR type thing) ...

Obviously he didn't "get it". 🙂

I didn't go on telling him that I did have other cameras but chose to use that one for this shoot.

Interesting thread ... I do think quite a bit of it has to do with the opinions of the personalities of those having the original "argument", however. 🙂
 
williams473 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I originally saw that link right here, so that's how I remember it to pass it along - thank whomever originally posted it here, long ago!

I think Majoli did a very smart thing - he did a dispassionate needs assessment (as we in IT call it) and did not leave anything off the table, regardless of status as 'pro' or 'amateur' status gear.

At the airshow I went to last summer, I took a cheap point-n-shoot for static displays. I did not have any need to top-end kit for that. Deep DoF was no problem. I just needed wide angle and bright colors, and my Kodak el cheapo digicam gave me that. For the planes in the air - the dSLR was a better choice, obviously.
 
Nh3 said:


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.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should use Canon 1-series instead, those you can use in street work. If you don't believe, check out my recent blog images from my signature.
 
ferider said:
I ride motorcycles and use good cooking knives, too
<snip & paste>
If I have to .. damn hybrids 😀
Click to expand...
Well, all I have to say is, that's a classy way of running with scissors.

So: paper scissors, hair scissors, or hydraulic scissors?

Which is the best pair?
 
Funny that...

Choosing a gear is like courtship, all rosy, and all that anticipation.
Buying a gear is like wedding and honeymoon, all excitement, and all that rush.
Using a gear is like marriage, you get out of it what you put in it.

😀
 
A pic taken by a young boy (4 or 5) with his digital camera -- not kidding -- made the cover shot of the Los Angeles Times newspaper about 4 months ago.

Why?

The boy photographed a rare endangered condor (the largest bird in North America) in a tree in the outskirts of Los Angeles.

Stephen
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Well, all I have to say is, that's a classy way of running with scissors.

So: paper scissors, hair scissors, or hydraulic scissors?

Which is the best pair?
Click to expand...

Hmm. For hybrids in the carpool lane ? Ever seen the Roman charriot race in the Collosseum in "Ben Hur" ? ... These are the kind of scissors I would like to have 😀
 
Update: Rockwell has turned this into a nationalistic pissing match because Reichmann is Canadian.
Yes Ken, I know the U.S. has done all the important things in modern history and the rest of us should be thanking Allmighty God, who smiles favorably upon your great land, that you were here to bring us out of the dark ages. Your patriotism is duly noted! 🙄
 
ferider said:
Hmm. For hybrids in the carpool lane ? Ever seen the Roman charriot race in the Collosseum in "Ben Hur" ? ... These are the kind of scissors I would like to have 😀
Click to expand...
Ah. They don't make them like they used to, anymore, do they? 😉
 
Of course gear matters.

I do a lot a railroad photography. When we have a photo runby where the train backs up around a curve, you want an SLR with a zoom, as you don't have time to change lenses. Sure I could pick my best lens and get a "better" shot, but I might miss two or three I can only get with a zoom.

And I wouldn't use my A-1 and a 70-210 zoom to shoot street shots.
 
Athos6 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.
Click to expand...

Having fun is where it is at. Just look at my list of gear.

But working in a camera shop I get it everyday of folks that come in that are looking to buy a 40D/D200 or a 5D/D3 - all because they want to have pictures that look as good as the "Pros". I then show them promo 24x36 prints from Nikon and Olympus with "entry" level DSLR's - and the comment I get is "well those we taken by professional photographers" - they weren't, they were done by reps around the country that are not photographers.

Or the comment that I love hearing is - "I want to do wedding photography, so I need a camera that "looks professional". In some ways I understand where those thoughts come from. Sort of like arriving to a wedding in a mini-van verses a limo perhaps. Both get you there, but the limo does look good.
 
photogdave said:
A comment on tools:
Sometimes you HAVE to pay the big bucks to get the right lens to get the right look. When I was young sports photographers starting out I had a cheap Tamron 70-210mm f4-5.6 zoom. It cost $200. Even though it was sharp enough for newspaper work I was never happy with the results. Even when I caught peak moments of action and the strained expressions on the athletes' faces were clear, the photos never popped. I still didn't know enough about photography to realize that my subjects were blending into the background because I was shooting at f5.6 and the shooters at the bigger papers had better shots simply because they could afford f2.8 lenses. They weren't necessarily better photographers, they just had the better or proper tool. There is no cheap and cheerful 70-200 2.8, you either spend about a grand to get one or you live with the limitations of a slow lens.
Click to expand...

You are right on about tools. That is why I have moved back towards RF's for my photography. I love the viewfinder of RF's and using the DOF scale when needing to shoot fast.

We are among the few perhaps that can look at our images and see that a better lens might have made it even better. Ken was talking to the other 80% that can't see the difference between the stock 18-55 and the "pro" 17-50 lens.

In the end Ken was talking about the images that we admire. In galleries, seldom do we see the technical details of what was used to get the photograph. Never at a gallery have I heard anything along the lines - "this is a nice photo, but since it wasn't taken with the LieNikCan with a LZ series lens it doesn't belong here".

A comment on Rockwell:
I think he does his website to amuse himself and the more people take him seriously, the more he gets off on it! He is always contradicting himself. "Your lens doesn't matter - oh but NEVER use a Sigma lens," or "The 5D and D3 are better because they have bigger sensors and give you more information - oh but don't bother shooting RAW because you don't need those big files."
(Paraphrases, not direct quotes!)

A comment on Reichmann:
I think he went a little overboard on this one. Sometimes he seems to get angry and write a weird essay like this to blow off steam. Maybe he's a little stressed out. However the Luminous Landscape is one of the BEST resources of photographic information on the web and certainly deserves support and respect.
Final comment:
Reichmann uses rangefinders. Rockwell thinks a manual focus only digital camera is "stupid".
Click to expand...

I gave up long ago at looking at Ken's site on a regular basis. Until Michael's comments, it had been over 6 months that I even looked at Ken's site. I found Ken's site to be very ego driven.

Michael's site is one that I check at least once a week. Normally he is straight up. But this last rant has tarnished his reputation with me. I guess those that show up on his workshops with a stock 18-55 and a 55-200 lens will find themselves ending up with gear lust.
 
dmr said:
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.

Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.

When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
Click to expand...

How true that is; even today


🙂
 
People say gear does not matter because awards have been won by images taken with mediocre gear. Well, just think how much greater those images would have been if they were taken with Zeiss gear.😉
 
This is all somewhat ironic, at least for me, because it was Rockwell that actually got me into 35mm. Prior to my Olympus Trip 35, I had never shot on film. When he did that ridiculous comparison between the 5D and the Trip, I was amused and mortified. Shortly after, as fate would have it, a Trip 35 crossed my path and I remembered Rockwell so ended up spending $30 on a CLAed unit.

I've never looked back, and heck, I actually think my skills have improved since I'm taking more time to think about my shots rather than just clicking away indiscriminately. I actually feel better about posting on flickr now.

So out with digital, except for my DMC-L1, and after sampling several other film cameras, I settled comfortably with the Trip, the QL17-GIII and the Olympus OM-2n.

So maybe another way to look at this is that the right camera should be matched with the right photographer. Does that make sense? I can't explain it but I do know that certain cameras immediately "feel right" in my hands. I'm not saying I can't shoot on other cameras, but I probably wouldn't have as much fun and the satisfaction level would be different. In that sense, at least for me, gear does matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom