Zenjitsuman
Established
In my opinion, if you are taking your film or digitals to a Pioneer or like machine at Costco or the drug store you are bringing your fancy gear to the L.C.D. of photofinishing and while it produces exceptable results you probably won't see the $3,000 lens perform better than the average lens on a medium priced camera.
I have alway felt that some courses at a local college in photography or a Nikon or like school seminar is a better use of your money than more gear you seldom use.
I have alway felt that some courses at a local college in photography or a Nikon or like school seminar is a better use of your money than more gear you seldom use.
ChipNovaMac
Established
Add to that he lives off of the "referral" links to buy gear. Michael at least seems to live off his DVD's and workshops.
ChipNovaMac
Established
Sort of the way I feel about Phil Askey and their reviews over on DPReview at times.
Sort of along the lines of the D300 review conclusions:
The only one above that was subjective IMO was perhaps the the WB issue. But then most of us have grown accepting of the Japanese acceptance of warmer tones in incadencent light than what we prefer in the west....
The others were objective views of what we all debate every time a new camera comes out. We all seem to want more for less.
As one that sells this stuff day in and day out, the new Sony A300 and A350 SLR's offer a lot for the money. Only the Olympus E-3 comes close to what many want. But the negatives did seem more objective.
Holmz
Established
The Little Lamb
The Little Lamb
I find with Rockwell's site not so much the "Gear doesn't matter" part as being offensive, but the less verbalized "The craft doesn't matter".
- The "go out and shoot whatever, in whatever format on automatic", for me misses the point of being a photographer. Yes it is fine for taking pictures.
But you can't make someone want to be a photographer, if all they really want is to take pictures.
So what happens when you give less than great to a good photographer, is that they have the skill, and know the craft.
But skill and craft are almost the same, with one being scandinavian derived and the other (I forget, and I am digressing anyhow).
So my daughter looked at the Rockwell site and choose for her first camera the d40x, which I bought for her. I was advocating her to shoot with a rangefinder for a year (and I would pay for film and processing), and if after that year she decided she still wanted the d40x, then no problem; i would take the film camera for myself and buy her the D40X.
And she has taken some shots which make me proud...
I asked "How did you do that?"
She said, "Well this camera never does what I want it do, so I now shoot it in manual". She is in her first photo class and using a film camera by decree from the instructor, and liking it.
(And I am smiling)
In some sense Rockwell might be right in that it is more important to shoot pictures than obsess over gear, but there is a big void between taking pictures and being a photographer. For the later you need skill and knowledge of the craft, in order to bring out the most in the situation.
Yeah having a sense of composition and and eye for it - is the art side that can be developed, but often is more of an innate talent.
(The part about being a great photographer with crap gear though, is missing the point that (IMO) he should be making, which is: You can take great photo's with average gear, but you will need to learn the skill.
The go out a snap like mad puts it all in the "Chance" category. When film was time consuming and expensive, you had to first learn how to get the shots to be consistent, as well as learn how all the rest.
The best advise might be to take a class and not learn all your info from the net.
So I just held in my hands last week an Ikon, and took some shots which are yet to be developed. (Oh how I wish I had gotten it...) On the other-hand, my little lamb would likely not have been as eager to get more into photography. For tLL (the little Lamb) Rockwell might have been right, but there is lots of room for other opinions than Rockwell's.
LtLL now wants possession of an old 4x5 that I have.
tLL said the only things that scare her with the 4x5, are:
1) Not being able to chimp with the 4x5.
2) No zoom
I said in the old days when we had just come down from the trees, we chimped with a film-back called polaroid. It took a minute but the world moved slower, so it wasn't too long to wait. We also used the popular foot-zoom that God and Darwin bestowed upon is.
tLL> "what's a foot-zoom?"
Me> "you walk closer"
tLL> She laughed and looked down at her feet - "Ohhh - I'll remember that one..."
The Little Lamb
I find with Rockwell's site not so much the "Gear doesn't matter" part as being offensive, but the less verbalized "The craft doesn't matter".
- The "go out and shoot whatever, in whatever format on automatic", for me misses the point of being a photographer. Yes it is fine for taking pictures.
But you can't make someone want to be a photographer, if all they really want is to take pictures.
So what happens when you give less than great to a good photographer, is that they have the skill, and know the craft.
But skill and craft are almost the same, with one being scandinavian derived and the other (I forget, and I am digressing anyhow).
So my daughter looked at the Rockwell site and choose for her first camera the d40x, which I bought for her. I was advocating her to shoot with a rangefinder for a year (and I would pay for film and processing), and if after that year she decided she still wanted the d40x, then no problem; i would take the film camera for myself and buy her the D40X.
And she has taken some shots which make me proud...
I asked "How did you do that?"
She said, "Well this camera never does what I want it do, so I now shoot it in manual". She is in her first photo class and using a film camera by decree from the instructor, and liking it.
(And I am smiling)
In some sense Rockwell might be right in that it is more important to shoot pictures than obsess over gear, but there is a big void between taking pictures and being a photographer. For the later you need skill and knowledge of the craft, in order to bring out the most in the situation.
Yeah having a sense of composition and and eye for it - is the art side that can be developed, but often is more of an innate talent.
(The part about being a great photographer with crap gear though, is missing the point that (IMO) he should be making, which is: You can take great photo's with average gear, but you will need to learn the skill.
The go out a snap like mad puts it all in the "Chance" category. When film was time consuming and expensive, you had to first learn how to get the shots to be consistent, as well as learn how all the rest.
The best advise might be to take a class and not learn all your info from the net.
So I just held in my hands last week an Ikon, and took some shots which are yet to be developed. (Oh how I wish I had gotten it...) On the other-hand, my little lamb would likely not have been as eager to get more into photography. For tLL (the little Lamb) Rockwell might have been right, but there is lots of room for other opinions than Rockwell's.
LtLL now wants possession of an old 4x5 that I have.
tLL said the only things that scare her with the 4x5, are:
1) Not being able to chimp with the 4x5.
2) No zoom
I said in the old days when we had just come down from the trees, we chimped with a film-back called polaroid. It took a minute but the world moved slower, so it wasn't too long to wait. We also used the popular foot-zoom that God and Darwin bestowed upon is.
tLL> "what's a foot-zoom?"
Me> "you walk closer"
tLL> She laughed and looked down at her feet - "Ohhh - I'll remember that one..."
Ade-oh
Well-known
I think you're completely misunderstanding what Rockwell says. If you actually read it, you will see that learning the craft of photography - both film and digital - is what his site is all about. Rockwell shoots most of his 'personal' photography on a 5X4 camera: the 35mm/digital reviews are what he does to fund himself. The whole point of the 'Cameras don't matter' article is that technique and 'eye' are what is really important, rather than having the latest camera.
Holmz
Established
I don't know I read it different.
The one thing that comes to mind is his statement that Imagination is the root word of image.
Surely it is the other way around!
Statements like that I find irritate me, and I gave up.
I don't know how he fund himself, but his paypal donation is one way.
Personally I found little value in reading his blogs, and so out of respect (mostly to myself) I don't.
Ara Ghajanian
Established
I agree on all points with Ken Rockwell. Photos haven't improved over the years because of "better" equipment. They've gotten more convenient, but if anything the image quality has gotten worse. How can you compare the image quality of a digital camera to a 8x10 negative? Yes, it's much easier and convenient to get a shot with a DSLR than having to set up a view camera, but people need to figure out which one works best for them, not which one is better over the other.
There should be a new art form created called "equipment testing". All these people can sit around in a circle and masturbate (figuratively) over each others' gear. These are the same people who MUST list exactly what pieces of equipment are used to make each of their photos as if the equipment is giving them credibility. If anything, you shouldn't list your gear and technique because you're just giving away the secrets you've worked so hard to develop.
I think I finally got over that mountain Ken is speaking of. I made the mistake of thinking that buying an M8 would make me take more and better photos. All the photos I took with the M8 looked like all my other photos (which I'm very happy with). All it afforded me was the convenience to post images quicker than with film. So I'm selling it because that $5000 can be better spent on other things.
Just remember what they say in the recording industry: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on a 4-track analog deck with no automation. Do you think the Beatles could have written better music if they were in a state-of-the-art digital studio? Maybe. I doubt it though, listen to anything Paul has done in the last 20 years. Hahahaha
Ara
There should be a new art form created called "equipment testing". All these people can sit around in a circle and masturbate (figuratively) over each others' gear. These are the same people who MUST list exactly what pieces of equipment are used to make each of their photos as if the equipment is giving them credibility. If anything, you shouldn't list your gear and technique because you're just giving away the secrets you've worked so hard to develop.
I think I finally got over that mountain Ken is speaking of. I made the mistake of thinking that buying an M8 would make me take more and better photos. All the photos I took with the M8 looked like all my other photos (which I'm very happy with). All it afforded me was the convenience to post images quicker than with film. So I'm selling it because that $5000 can be better spent on other things.
Just remember what they say in the recording industry: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded on a 4-track analog deck with no automation. Do you think the Beatles could have written better music if they were in a state-of-the-art digital studio? Maybe. I doubt it though, listen to anything Paul has done in the last 20 years. Hahahaha
Ara
photogdave
Shops local
But IF the Beatles did record Sgt. Pepper now it would certainly SOUND better.
I do list the gear I use for the shots I post. Not to show off what I have (no one is really impressed about my lineup of Voigtlander lenses), but because people seem interested to know and it's no skin off my nose to share that info.
ampguy
Veteran
We have the A550, with about 5K photos on it, great camera, and yes, it does take great photos, even 20"x30" posters. The only advantage I would see in a 5D would be interchangeable lenses for tele, and if one were an action photographer I'd guess they could fire off a lot of shots quickly. The 5D's FF would also allow for wider than the A550's 35mm equiv', and the A550 gets noisy above 200 or so ISO, where maybe the 5D could do better in low light than the A550.
mikeb380
Camera Junky
Mike, I disagree with that statement. A Pop Photo photog/writer did an article on what difference do MP mean. He stated that it is really meaningless due to technical features of the various sensors. He showed why a Canon Snappy at 4mp might have better resolution than a 10mp Nikon. (No I'm not starting a flame war, that is the only caeras I could think of at the moment) What he was saying is that a manufactuer could claim a certain camera was 10mp and the res it was getting was very low while the P&S had better res with a lower claimed MP. Talking about tools, it all comes down to the tools you use to measure a certain spec and how you translate it.
I just gave my son in law my EOS 300D and got a 350D. That was a jump of about 2MP and yet when I blow up photos from the two of them, I cannot see any difference. People make too much of MP and not enough on how to use the tools. If you are a lousy craftsman it doesn't matter how good a lathe and cutting tools you have, You'll end with just as lousy results as a cheapo lathe.
I think you guys are trying to pick the flys**t out of the pepper. No, you cannot take a P&S with a fixed lens and shoot a subject from 300 yards. You need a camera with a tele or a zoom. Once having arrived at that conclusion, it really doesn't matter whether you use a FED 3 camera with a Jupiter 250 MM lens or a Leica M7 with a CZJ lens. Using the same film and techniques your photos will be the same, I've helped prove it using a Topcon and my friend using a Leica M3 and shooting the same subject at the same time. After processing and printing 11X14s from both our manager couldn't tell which camera did which photo. In fact when he shuffled them and handed them back, we couldn't either.
Yes, you have to have a tool suitable for the job, but you don't need the most expensive available. The manufacturers just found a bunch of suckers they could convince they needed "the best" 'Tis to laugh as someone or t'other once said. L glass? Why? do you really think it will make you a better photographer? I think not.
Now you can all flame me or some of you can.
Michael d' Angel
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
Michael Reichmann doesn't have a single point for as long as he's illustrating his article with puketures that could have been taken with a point and shoot..
W
wlewisiii
Guest
This is a wonderful distillation of everything that needs to be in a Photo 101 class these days.
One other point - you can too chimp easily on a 4x5 sans polariod. It's just that you have to move your head around rather than the ground glass...
More seriously, that Lady needs a Speed Graphic, an Ektar 127/4.7 with a working RF & some GE #22's...
:bang: To the OP: Count me with bill & dmr.
William
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Um, I think I made two of 'em - but I guess you disagree with both.
Hmmm... I would have thought my 2nd statement was far the less problematic. If I shoot Fuji NPH in my Olympus P&S, my Canon SLR or Leica M3 its still NPH, and so the sensor is the same (within batch-to-batch tolerances from Fujifilm) no matter the camera. If I shoot 3 different digital cameras from three different manufacturers I'm likely shooting three different sensors and imaging engines. How important these differences are depends on a whole raft of factors. Nonetheless, there are differences, whereas NPH is NPH is NPH. I'm not quite sure how you can disagree with that. If, as you say, you do then I'll remain confused and just leave it at that.
I have a digi "superzoom" with a non-interchangable lens that can do that. Sometimes with good results, other times not.
You're better than I am if you can accurately focus a 250mm lens on an RF camera.
(my emphasis)
Using two different digital cameras you might or might not get indistinguishable results, depending on camera and conditions. Using the same film means your sensor was the same in the above test, which you can't generally do with different digital cameras.
No you don't. But I can tell, same focal length and aperture, that my EF 50mm f1.8 (a very inexpensive lens) takes a technically better shot than my kit EF-S 18-55 lens. Even on a 6x4. Move up to a better zoom (eg. my father's Sigma 17-70) and that's not so, or at least not so much. A certain minimum level of technical quality is needed. My first statement re cheap consumer zooms was intended to say such lenses often aren't good enough to meet that minimal level (though no doubt some are).
No. And I never said such a thing.
Happy to oblige.I think not.
Now you can all flame me or some of you can.
Michael d' Angel
...Mike
Last edited:
mikeb380
Camera Junky
mfunnell said:
Mike, seems as though you are contradicting yourself there.You state that cameras shooting NPH all have the same sensor and thus no difference in quality. Then you say that the lens makes a big difference. you can't have it both ways.
I was using a reflex viewer for that.mfunnell said:
Actually, you're correct, I misspoke on the focal length, it should have been 50mm. My tpying sux mfunnell; SNIP No you don't. But I can tell said:
swoop
Well-known
I'm looking to get a used Nikon D200 as I'm getting more studio type work. I've tried using a Leica in a studio and it's just... not right.
I agree any camera can be used to do most jobs. But there's something to be said about the way people work and the right tool for the job.
I agree any camera can be used to do most jobs. But there's something to be said about the way people work and the right tool for the job.
skibeerr
Well-known
As a professional cook/ butcher I use three basic knives, all my amateur friends have an extensive set of expensive knives and can talk for hours about them.
For the moment I own about 7 cameras and I know that my images are not that good but I can talk for hours about them.
!!NO SMILY!!
For the moment I own about 7 cameras and I know that my images are not that good but I can talk for hours about them.
!!NO SMILY!!
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Would it? There are certain things that are just fine the way they were intended to be. Some recordings --I'm talking beyond The Beatles now-- which used an intentionally-mistuned (or "targeted tuned") piano just wouldn't be as great with a perfect-pitch instrument.
Everything isn't absolute, yet nothing is not absolute. Absolutes are absolutely self-defeating.
And that is the Absolute Truth
Or not. I'm confused. No I'm not. I think.
Russ
Well-known
I once spent an evening with Brett Weston, and to quote something that he said to me, "photography is a visual medium. The less we speak about it, the better. Let's just make images."
Russ
Russ
Jack
Member
I've seen people with little ability waste and damage good tools and I've seen people who 'get it' produce great results by modifying, coaxing and using tools to their limit.
I think the statement should be "the camera isn't the most important........."
I think the statement should be "the camera isn't the most important........."
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Sorry for the late reply (I've been away) and for flogging a long-dead horse. We were, as I recall, discussing which factors were more, or less, important in determining overall image quality. I suggested that:
(1) Because different digital cameras of the same format (eg. APS-C) use different (and non-interchangable) sensors, choice of digital camera makes more difference than choice of film camera. All 35mm film cameras can be loaded with Velvia. Only Canon cameras have Canon sensors. Even when the same (say, Sony) sensor is used, different support electronics ("imaging engines") are often used. So the choice of a Canon vs Nikon digital SLR will make more difference to final image quality than choice of Canon vs Nikon film SLRs. I can load Delta 400 in both film cameras but cannot load a Canon sensor in my Nikon digital SLR. If I want and like the look of Canon sensors then I must buy a Canon digital SLR. If I like Porta 800 I can load it in whatever film camera I like. Choice of camera makes a difference for digital while choice of camera makes less difference for film. Because I can use the same film in different cameras but must use different electronics in different digital cameras. However, I doubt I've made myself clear . If you disagree then let's just say I'm wrong. Different sensors produce the same results, while the same film magically changes itself based on the camera its used in. Or whatever.
(2) I agreed with an earlier poster that often the lens used makes less difference than people think. However, I raised the caveat that most rangefinder lenses are pretty good but often cheap SLR zooms are not. Hence "buying a better lens" might gain you more, as improving from "not good to good" rather than "good to better" produces a more obvious difference.
You disagree with this as well. Fine. I see this as more problematic than my first statement. But I don't see how this contradicts my first statement at all. I certainly don't see how it is "having things both ways". Choice of camera and choice of lens both have some influence on the final image. As do choice of format, print size, post-processing and all the other factors being discussed. I think choice of camera matters more when that results in a different sensor, and I think choice of lens matters more when the quality of one lens is fairly low.
I don't really know what you think.
You appear to be saying that two 35mm film cameras loaded with the same film produce results which are quite unalike, while two digital cameras with very different sensors take photos with few differences. Me, I can't see much difference between Provia shot in an EOS 30V and Provia shot in a Nikon F601 (both with 50mm lenses, both I've used recently). I can see obvious differences between my 30D and my friend's D70 (mostly in amount of and "look" of noise at mid-to-high ISO sensitivity). You maintain they are less different than the aforementioned film shots. Or seem to, though I can't really think you do.
You seem to think the difference in quality between, say, a Canon LTM 50/f1.8 and an M-Hexanon 50/f2 is large (I think they produce a different signature but are of similar-enough quality) while a kit zoom and a Canon L prime are of equivalent quality (I think their kit zooms can be adequate-to-good when stopped down and used within their limits, but that almost any prime will do as well or better, and have wider limits). This is more a matter of personal taste and opinion, but I still wonder if you believe what you seem to be saying.
...Mike
Last edited: