What makes a camera a "real camera?"

shadowfox said:
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 ).
Click to expand...

Yup. I quote myself earlier in the thread:

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.

Cheers,

R.
 
Anti-stealth, i.e. having an impressively large and expensive looking cameras, is a great way to obtain behind the scenes passes for public events.

Something that is beyond the norm like a shinny Hasselblad goes a lot further than a common or garden pro-DSLR with a large white zoom lens or just a small rangefinder rig.
 
Last edited:
It's all psychology - it has to be a bit scary to be "real". Whenever I do reception/party shots, I always bring a huge bag filled with gear (which I don't use) and equip my DSLR with the biggest zoom lens I've got. Shooting for myself I normally use prime lenses. The mega zoom delivers pictures in an acceptable quality, but nowhere near as excellent as that of the prime lenses. Nobody will see the difference in quality (except me) - but the guests and the client sure as h*** are very impressed by the gear :D

My old teacher of photography once turned up to a friends wedding with his Minox 35 GT and a huge Rollei flash (you know the one with the battery pack in a shoulder bag) as his only gear. The groom got a funny red color in his face, steam out of his ears and started shouting about bringing the real cameras and all the lenses - to make good pictures. The pictures turned out great (I saw them) and the bride loved them, but it took quite some time before my teacher was forgiven by the groom...

If people want a show, let them have it - as long as they pay, I think they are entitled to it :p
 
People are naive... who cares what they think about your equipment unless it's for a job. If its for a job, bring the "real" camera...
 
It's real if it takes physical form, as opposed to imaginary cameras and virtual cameras.:D

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
This sort of carry-on is seen in nearly all fields.

I remember a friend relaying the tale of another friend, who having commenced a new job in a bank, and despite any of his efforts, could seem to do nothing right in the eyes of his manager.

Until the day he bought a new suit.

Looks are often quite important to those ignorant of the real qualities required to get results.
 
matthewm said:
I
I could have done this myself with my little 89 dollar Kodak out there.
Click to expand...

Of course. If you know how to do it you can take stunning pictures with a disposable.

I agree with dmr's post. Other that that, in these days you can always carry a battered, cheap F5 to show a "real camera" if required.
 
Its all perception of the client at the end of the day...

Most of my regular customers are happy with whatever kit I choose to turn up with, old/new, SLR/Rangefinder/View camera. My new clients can get a bit snooty, so I usually do the first couple of shoots (Bands etc) With my canon, and I always arrive with it round my neck and a big white L series lens on show.

Might never use it on the shoot, but they see the distinctive "Pro" lens and are happy to leave me to it...

Very odd how a simple thing changes peoples ideas.

Maybe thats your solution, paint your GRIII white :)
 
It's always about the performance you give to certain people and it's been like that forever.
I read about a photog in the 50's who had to have a 4x5 visible to her clients while doing the real shots with a 6x6.
Indulge your boss, before he starts taking photos with his p&s himself make yourself indispensable.
Iliked the story with the new suit
 
Real cameras:

Kodak Medalist II

LoadMedalist-3.jpg

​

and Horseman 970 Press:
attachment.php


attachment.php


And with me the Mamiya C330f set qualifies too as a real camera, but I haven't got any pictures of that handy right now.
​
 
My first 35mm camera was a black bodied Sears TLS (Ricoh Singlex). I had a full complement of lenses to go with it, a decent flash, and to top it off, I mounted the flash on a bracket with a curly PC extension wire. Folks thought I was a professional photographer when I showed up with that rig, and I was just out of high school. I later upgraded to a Nikkormat, but remembering my earlier lessons, I got a flash bracket for it too. And every other 'serious' camera I have bought since then, whether 35mm or medium format.

If it looks professional, people will treat you differently. Just don't disappoint them.

PF
 
Phil_F_NM said:
The person behind the camera makes it a real camera.
Click to expand...

Agree. :)

One snappy come-back I almost used, but held off since he was a client and I didn't want to rattle cages ... upon seeing some shots from my GIII he remarked: "You paid less than $50 for that camera and it takes pictures like that?"

I felt like saying "No, I paid less than $50 for the camera and I take pictures like that!" :) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom