What makes a camera a "real camera?"

M

matthewm

Well-known
Local time
1:35 AM
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
336
I work at a sign shop. Part of my job here is to photograph most of the signs going out of the shop for our portfolio (straight on, angles, close-ups of details, etc.). Normally, I use a Canon 5D with a couple of different lenses, extension tubes, yada, yada... Today, though I didn't bring my gear but, as always, I have my Ricoh GR Digital III. Not only do I like the GRD3 for everyday images, but I've found I love it for photographing the details of the signs because of its extreme macro capabilities and small stature. We use some interesting materials and I can get it incredibly close to the details of the signs for maximum exposure of the materials' attributes (no pun intended).

Anyway...my boss comes to me and says, "Hey, got your camera? I need you to photograph a sign for me." I said, "Yeah...well, I have A camera. Not the one I normally have, but it'll do." I pull out the Ricoh and he says, "Come on, man! That ain't a real camera! I could have done this myself with my little 89 dollar Kodak out there." It's a Fuji, but hell, small cameras are obviously all the same to this guy.

So that brings me to my point. What makes a "real camera," and do you think cameras like the Ricoh GRD3 (and similar cameras, ie: Canon's S95 & G-Series, Nikon's PX000 Series, etc.) are any more "real" than say, an 89 dollar Fuji compact? If so, what makes it that way? Is my 5D + 50/1.4 any more "real" than my GRD3? Is your M8 more "real" than your M6?

I'd just like to hear some thoughts on this. It didn't make me mad, but it instantly got my gears turning...

Best,
Matthew
 
I should think the vast majority of people don't know too much about photography would consider me as 'just another lunatic with a useless film camera' just because they're too used to their digital point and shoot that only comes out at family events.

To me, a 'real' camera is a anything capable of taking photographs. And even then, it's down to the photographer, not the camera.
 
Just show your boss the pics that you took with your little Fuji, and ask him if he thinks its a "real" camera then.

I think that some of the best pictures that I have ever taken were shot with a little Canon AF35MII. And I have taken some pretty crappy ones with my Contax SLR. Reality is only a matter of perception, anyway.
 
What makes a real camera? The bit between your ears.

What makes a real camera? Well it's like a mouth, you need to engage your brain before using it.
 
Last edited:
Real materials? Brass, wood, film...?

Seriously, a lot of it is pure theatre. In pre-digital days, a lot of clients used to insist on 5x4 inch, even where 35mm (never mind roll-film) would have been adequate, because they didn't know how to use these 'professional' cameras, meters, film holders, etc., and therefore they were buying REAL expertise that they didn't have.

Whereas everyone knows that no skill, intelligence or anything else is required to operate a camera that the client can use himself: a rare piece of self-awareness.

Give 'em the performance they want!

Cheers,

R.
 
When you press the shutter release, and it squirts water at the subject, it is not a real camera. If it takes a picture of them, it is real.

Nikki had a toy camera that you looked through the viewfinder, pressed the shutter release, and got a tour of the San Diego Zoo. That one was loaded with film- albeit already exposed and developed. Probably would not classify as a real camera.
 
matthewm said:
So that brings me to my point. What makes a "real camera," and do you think cameras like the Ricoh GRD3 (and similar cameras, ie: Canon's S95 & G-Series, Nikon's PX000 Series, etc.) are any more "real" than say, an 89 dollar Fuji compact? If so, what makes it that way? Is my 5D + 50/1.4 any more "real" than my GRD3? Is your M8 more "real" than your M6?
Click to expand...

People's ego makes a camera real or not.
 
a real camera should:

have knobs
lever things
relatively few actual buttons
Some metal bits
It must be ever so slightly intimidating
Must not make sense to a non-photographer
 
2 thoughts:
1) Any device that will capture an image and allow the image to be processed subsequntly in some manner and be preserved. Hence, the $.25 miniture roll film spy camera advertiesed in the comic books when I was a kid is a real camera. Or, a Minox B, C, LX,Ec, etc.
2) Looks like it will need a user with an advanced degree in physics, lighting, mechanical, and electrical engineering; to be moved requires one to be Mr. Universe and is no smaller than a GMC.
 
Some of my favorite images came from a $25.00 Yashica MG1 with stale dated Tri-X......a real camera is the one you have with you as long as its loaded.
 
I'm really sold on the concept of the "Quality Threshold", above which any so-called improvement in the gear results in negligible improvement in the image.

In my not so humble opinion, any of the classic rangefinders or SLRs, any modern P&S, and yes, any {cringe} DSLR exceeds this threshold and can be called a Real Camera<tm>.

Various things as cam phones, so-called toy cameras, lower-end box cameras, web cams, el-cheapo digicams, and anything which by nature produces a visibly inferior image, do not meet the Quality Threshold and therefore, are not Real Cameras in the strict sense. :)
 
Many people think, Leica doesn’t produce real cameras.
Nikon-haters say, Nikon doesn’t produce real cameras, as Canon does them best.
Canon-haters say, Canon doesn’t produce real cameras, as Nikon does them best.
To be continued...

You get, what I mean. I don’t think every camera is nice, as a compact one for 60€ just doesn’t fit my needs and often just produces crap with bonbon-colours. But in general, there are many things out there to be called „real camera“.
 
Real camera is large, has large lens, neck strap, lens hood adds a lot.

Thus a big superzoom P&S is more real camera than small bodied SLR or RF with dmall lens. I can understand those people. Leica CL is only worth a name on it, but it can not be serious camera. It looks like a small Yashica Electro MC. Canon 450 with kit zoom is much better, it's obvious. And you don't have to buy a film. Is it's still available?
 
Any device that has the necessary features and the ability to capture a permanent image is to my mind, by definition, a "real" camera.
 
Whereas everyone knows that no skill, intelligence or anything else is required to operate a camera that the client can use himself: a rare piece of self-awareness.

Give 'em the performance they want!
Click to expand...

There's some truth to this. I worked with a DP who owned his own video rig. He said that once he bought an Arriflex package, clients treated him with more respect because shooting film had a higher perceived "degree of difficulty." :D
 
As with many things, "Real" is a relative term. If the camera meets a particular photographer's needs and expectations, then it is a "Real" camera for that photographer; no kibitzing required. :D
 
While I agree with the sentiments expressed here from personal photography standpoint, I have to say that if you make a living (or even a side business) taking pictures of parties (wedding, birthday, anniversary, etc.), then you'll find out that you *do* need a 'real' camera.

Because you are no longer the decision maker whether a camera is real or not, those who see you at the event (including the paying client) are.

My wife would often use my pictures (M4-P, Fuji GA645wi or Olympus E-P2) in her final products to her clients, but they don't know/care about that.

All they remember was my wife showing up with an impressive black camera with big lenses (5D + all prime L lenses -- no zooms, she's *my* wife after all :p ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom