dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I know that many of us have said "It's not the camera it's the person tripping the shutter" that makes the image yet today I thought really hard about this.
Is it really just about the person or does the gear play a role in capturing the image?
Here we are on a forum named for a specific type of camera.
Then there's a forum strictly for Leica as well.
There's a Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
I know there's a Nikon User Group out there as well.
While I'm aware that the gear does not necessarily mean you'll get a great image then why, I must ask, do we have to be so parsed out into the various camps such as we are? That is, why don't we just all belong to Pnet or just a general "photography" forum and have general discussions. Why do we want to use an RF over an SLR; film over digital; medium format over 35mm etc.
If the case was that we really didn't think gear mattered then we would all just be walking around with any number of digital P&S cams or Holgas or even pinhole cameras; after all.. it's the person behind the camera and not the camera itself isn't it?
I know I may be adversarial by posing such a topic but really.... I think deep down inside we do think that our gear makes a difference in the end.
Love to hear your thoughts on this.
Dave
Is it really just about the person or does the gear play a role in capturing the image?
Here we are on a forum named for a specific type of camera.
Then there's a forum strictly for Leica as well.
There's a Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
I know there's a Nikon User Group out there as well.
While I'm aware that the gear does not necessarily mean you'll get a great image then why, I must ask, do we have to be so parsed out into the various camps such as we are? That is, why don't we just all belong to Pnet or just a general "photography" forum and have general discussions. Why do we want to use an RF over an SLR; film over digital; medium format over 35mm etc.
If the case was that we really didn't think gear mattered then we would all just be walking around with any number of digital P&S cams or Holgas or even pinhole cameras; after all.. it's the person behind the camera and not the camera itself isn't it?
I know I may be adversarial by posing such a topic but really.... I think deep down inside we do think that our gear makes a difference in the end.
Love to hear your thoughts on this.
Dave
robin a
Well-known
Hi,I agree that the gear used does make a difference in the outcome.Poor equipment -degraded photo....................Robin
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
The only problem with my gear is when the picture is crap, I can't blame it.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
we use gear that appeals to us and that makes us happy.
if we did not care at all, we would be just like the millions of people with chinese made digital P&S cameras, where the disposable image is all that matters.
if we did not care at all, we would be just like the millions of people with chinese made digital P&S cameras, where the disposable image is all that matters.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Different cameras have different "personalities."
I feel one way with a digi P & S, and quite another with an M2 or IIIf.
I feel one way with a digi P & S, and quite another with an M2 or IIIf.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
If one feels at one with their gear, the probability of better shots increases.
back alley
IMAGES
i agree with you dave.
as a fellow gear experimenter, same as you, i think, i ended up with cameras and lenses that i am comfortable shooting with.
i could easily have a leica body, had 2 in the past - 3 if you count the cl. but no more, why? i dislike the bottom needing to come off to change film. it's not comfortable for an arthritic hand in the freezing cold to change film and need to think about a second piece so i prefer a hinged back.
i have decided that i prefer new gear to old so that limits my lens choices.
choosing 35 and not medium format is a clear example of gear choice making a difference in the photos. i will never have that ilford 3200, shot at 1000 on medium format look again and i love that look but i want to stick to 35mm.
gear makes a difference to me...
joe
as a fellow gear experimenter, same as you, i think, i ended up with cameras and lenses that i am comfortable shooting with.
i could easily have a leica body, had 2 in the past - 3 if you count the cl. but no more, why? i dislike the bottom needing to come off to change film. it's not comfortable for an arthritic hand in the freezing cold to change film and need to think about a second piece so i prefer a hinged back.
i have decided that i prefer new gear to old so that limits my lens choices.
choosing 35 and not medium format is a clear example of gear choice making a difference in the photos. i will never have that ilford 3200, shot at 1000 on medium format look again and i love that look but i want to stick to 35mm.
gear makes a difference to me...
joe
Last edited:
monochromejrnl
Well-known
it's easier to acquire better gear than it is to acquire photographic talent or improve one's technique...
different gear isn't a substitute for experience gained by shooting more... generally gear is a distraction from focusing on what is most important... shooting, evaluating, self-critique then more shooting...
most 'photographers' are probably guilty of this, though to differing degrees...
different gear isn't a substitute for experience gained by shooting more... generally gear is a distraction from focusing on what is most important... shooting, evaluating, self-critique then more shooting...
most 'photographers' are probably guilty of this, though to differing degrees...
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
certainly I agree that certain types of equipment have very real effects on how we shoot. I do think we get stuck on brands within a category though.
ie. does a 50 1.2 have a real effect on how I shoot - yes, the long focus throw, the wide aperture, etc. All very measureable. The difference between a noctilux 1.2 and a canon 1.2 - harder to define (image characteristics maybe) but how I approach the image, how I shoot, and the quality of the shot - not so much.
ie. does a 50 1.2 have a real effect on how I shoot - yes, the long focus throw, the wide aperture, etc. All very measureable. The difference between a noctilux 1.2 and a canon 1.2 - harder to define (image characteristics maybe) but how I approach the image, how I shoot, and the quality of the shot - not so much.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Dave,
Let me start by saying I like finding the right tool for the right job. That’s not to say that I will not do something without the perfect tool, but it’s a heck of a lot easier to put up a railing on a deck with a nail gun than a hammer and a box of nails. For me a good tool is one that I do not have to think about when I’m using it. It needs to blend into me and allow me to concentrate on the task, creating a picture, putting up a wall, what ever I do not want to think about my tool, I want to do.
The gear I pick is a combination of what works for me, which may change from time to time. Here seems to be a special place. Not sure how I found out about this place, but there we have a great mix of all sorts of people. Not sure where I learned, but I lurk first and to be frank never liked a lot of the mindset of other sites. That said, some of the stuff I did not like at pnet and others has come over here, but dilution is not horrible. It challenges me to take another look at things from different perspectives and learn.
I do not think I am locked into a particular camera, but that’s me. I am locked into a particular way of working though. Where wonderful advances have been made in AE (e.g. Matrix Metering) I still do not want to give up the control. I loved to shoot chrome, slides were just a purer medium for me. My shots did not get tweaked by someone else’s printing. I haven’t had long term access to a dark room in many years. While 1 hour printing at Costco does a good job, it’s not the same as the way I expose a shot with Kodachrome 200, dang I loved that film.
I have to admit I love the RF glass, 40 year old Nikkors, 2 year old CV and 20 year old ‘Crons are great glass. While I like SLRs, I have yet to get excited over anything I’ve seen, tried or read about in the past 10 years. I look at the total package, the camera, lens, medium (film or digital), reliability.
B2 (;->
Let me start by saying I like finding the right tool for the right job. That’s not to say that I will not do something without the perfect tool, but it’s a heck of a lot easier to put up a railing on a deck with a nail gun than a hammer and a box of nails. For me a good tool is one that I do not have to think about when I’m using it. It needs to blend into me and allow me to concentrate on the task, creating a picture, putting up a wall, what ever I do not want to think about my tool, I want to do.
The gear I pick is a combination of what works for me, which may change from time to time. Here seems to be a special place. Not sure how I found out about this place, but there we have a great mix of all sorts of people. Not sure where I learned, but I lurk first and to be frank never liked a lot of the mindset of other sites. That said, some of the stuff I did not like at pnet and others has come over here, but dilution is not horrible. It challenges me to take another look at things from different perspectives and learn.
I do not think I am locked into a particular camera, but that’s me. I am locked into a particular way of working though. Where wonderful advances have been made in AE (e.g. Matrix Metering) I still do not want to give up the control. I loved to shoot chrome, slides were just a purer medium for me. My shots did not get tweaked by someone else’s printing. I haven’t had long term access to a dark room in many years. While 1 hour printing at Costco does a good job, it’s not the same as the way I expose a shot with Kodachrome 200, dang I loved that film.
I have to admit I love the RF glass, 40 year old Nikkors, 2 year old CV and 20 year old ‘Crons are great glass. While I like SLRs, I have yet to get excited over anything I’ve seen, tried or read about in the past 10 years. I look at the total package, the camera, lens, medium (film or digital), reliability.
B2 (;->
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I think the gear has less of an effect on the final picture than it does on the photographer.
If photography is a journey, then the gear helps us on that journey and makes it more enjoyable (or not). You'll get there eventually regardless of the gear, so why not make it a more interesting ride.
Of course, the gear has to be appropriate to the journey. Eg, you won't get too far trying to shoot candids at a wedding with a 8x10 view camera.
If photography is a journey, then the gear helps us on that journey and makes it more enjoyable (or not). You'll get there eventually regardless of the gear, so why not make it a more interesting ride.
Of course, the gear has to be appropriate to the journey. Eg, you won't get too far trying to shoot candids at a wedding with a 8x10 view camera.
keithwms
Established
For every task, there is [at least] one optimal tool. *
After shooting for a while, my thought on the matter is: mix it up, keep it fresh, use different tools, think different thoughts.
As for me, each camera is optimal for some particular something that I like to do. Nothing sits on a shelf very long. I assume that this is true of many/most of us- we regard cameras simply as tools of convenience. Nothing more, nothing less.
*If perchance this tool doesn't yet exist, then you simply build it yourself.
After shooting for a while, my thought on the matter is: mix it up, keep it fresh, use different tools, think different thoughts.
As for me, each camera is optimal for some particular something that I like to do. Nothing sits on a shelf very long. I assume that this is true of many/most of us- we regard cameras simply as tools of convenience. Nothing more, nothing less.
*If perchance this tool doesn't yet exist, then you simply build it yourself.