Your Camera Does Not Matter !!

I agree 100 per cent that it's the photographer who makes the images what they are. Most of my best work was done with the cheapest gear I ever owned.
However I also believe that nice equipment in the hands of the right photographer can help improve on the quality of the images.
I also have to say that Ken Rockwell is totally full of s&*%$ when he talks about equipment. He says it doesn't matter what camera you use but in the same breath says never use third-party lenses because they're never as good as the name brands! Talk about self-contradicting!
He also seems to think it's a waste of time to shoot RAW! The only subjects he seems to have any useful knowledge of are macs and colour calibration.
 
I like your premise. These images (the posted site) I would say are probably digital. I don't know, but that is my guess. So, WE (RFF) are probably not thinking about this, the expensive digital vs inexpensive digital question, possibly as much as the POP PHOTO readers. All of us have taken our 'best shots' with not the most expensive equipment, and I think we have are favorite lenses and cameras, not because of brand but because of seredipity, economics, or we just like the way somethine works for us. I have a digital P&S and it to me gives me the freedom that I don't have lugging around one of my digital DSLRs. BUT if I had my choice, I would carry my Bessa-R with a nice, sweet, soft, small, sexy, comfortable screw mount lens. Another point, I think there is just something better about interchangable rangefinder lenses (even old ones) that you cannot duplicate with SLR (lenses), or digital sensors. OK, go ahead shoot me down (I can take it, I also post on PhotoNet.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is Rockwell's wisest essay, and one can't help but note that it runs rather antithetical to the main thrust of this forum, where people obsess over gear far more than they do over actually taking pictures.

I enjoy the gear talk, but at a certain point it becomes faintly ridiculous when one thinks that the tiny differences between lens x, y or z (at the quality level of gear that we're usually talking about here) matters remotely as much as what the photographer does with the gear.

It is a pious wish perhaps, but in that spirit, I'd love to see many more threads about improvement of craft, composition, lighting, street technique, working with models, landscape, wet or computer darkroom technique, etc.

Oh, and here's an image from my cheapest rangefinder.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/392159818/
 
Many good points there, but to my opinion the chief is basically wrong.

First, in order to produce a piece of art you don't need a camera at all, it's enough a pencil and a piece of paper.

Yet somehow the great Ansel Adams didn't use a pencil, but the most sophysticated gear of his time, like most or almost all the great masters did. Of course it was never the camera but first of all the artistic skill. Yet the camera has the power to "extend the eye" of the photographer furthermore. Who doesn't want to extend his eye to its maximum capacity, both artists and common people ?

Secondly, Photography is not only the end result, but many folks not born with the artistic skill, me included, still enjoy very much the process, and the illusion of the power of the camera. Why to ruin their feast ? To see Photography as art only is a one sided sight. Photography, in contrast to other arts is a practice of hundreds of millions, or more. It seems the chief overlooked the main feature of Photography. Isn't Photography about seeing ?

Artistic creation is something you either are born with or not, (at different degrees of course). Being human in your sight is a totally different issue. You aren't born with it but you build it from scratch.

And being an artist, who doesn't enslave himself to his art like a kid inserting his finger into his nose, but keeps a sense of human needs - that's the best of all. And that's why I love so much our RFF member Beniliam, equal among equals, unique among artists.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Ken Rockwell's attitude, brash though it may be.
While he gets carried away at times, maybe even most times, I think he offers a valid and useful counterpoint to a number of sources.
I personally can't wait to hear his commentary on the M8.
 
I'll go out on a limb and say the camera does matter.

First you must see the photo, imagine the photo, sense it, find it; does the camera matter? I think the camera and lens focal length influences how you see and find photographs.

If I am carrying a camera with a fixed wide angle lens, then I am filtering opportunities for something suitable.

If my camera has a medium telephoto lens, I will find different subjects to be interesting.

And If I have two cameras and a bag of lenses, I get distracted by the gear. The gear gets in the way of seeing (or perhaps seeking). Perhaps if I were a better photographer I could see the opportunities that all this gear opens up.

So for me, the camera and lens mounted influences choice of subjects and also of course the ability to capture what I thought I saw.

And then upon output, the quality and nature of the result can impact on how successful the photo is. Sometimes a poor lens is what is needed (e.g. lens baby). Othertimes it is the very quality of the image that makes it successfull.

These are just opinions of course but I think when I wanted to change gear from my old 110 fixed lens fixed focus camera it was because the camera mattered.

Can you make an amazing photo with minimal gear - of course you can. But if you are trying to photograph purposefully then I think the camera/lens/format etc matter quite a lot.




Jim
 
"It is a pious wish perhaps, but in that spirit, I'd love to see many more threads about improvement of craft, composition, lighting, street technique, working with models, landscape, wet or computer darkroom technique, etc."




EXCELLENT BUNKAWEN14
 
I don't think saying that the camera doesn't matter should be taken quite literally. Of course it matters, just not remotely much as we often pretend in our discussions here.
There is nothing wrong with being a collector or a camera lover. If you're interested in becoming a better photographer, though, there is a strong case to be made for de-emphasizing the gear and putting all of that energy and thought into the picture taking itself. That's one reason why intro photography courses so often have insisted on simple, manual cameras.
The kid in each of us wants to race ahead, and there is a thrill in getting newer, fancier, ostensibly more powerful kit, if for nothing else just to see what it can do.
I know the best thing that happened to my photography, after having lived all of these sensations myself, was to buy a twin lens reflex, and be forced to work manually again and with a single focal length. I eventually bought a rangefinder - a Hexar - but only used a 50mm lens, and continued this way for about two years.
I'm just now expanding my focal length choices, and I'm really glad I waited. In fact, very often, even though I have choices now, I go out with only one lens, or at a minimum keep other lenses in my bag when I go out to do my street work.
Few of us "see" very well, fewer still "see" well at multiple focal lengths, and even fewer of us see well when worrying about a bunch of kit choices when we are out and about.
I've already gone on too long here, but I'd just add that for me this is biggest argument against zooms - more important than any sharpness or speed question. Zooms have their purposes, they just don't teach you to "see" very well.
 
bunkawen14 said:
Yes, this is Rockwell's wisest essay, and one can't help but note that it runs rather antithetical to the main thrust of this forum, where people obsess over gear far more than they do over actually taking pictures.

I enjoy the gear talk, but at a certain point it becomes faintly ridiculous when one thinks that the tiny differences between lens x, y or z (at the quality level of gear that we're usually talking about here) matters remotely as much as what the photographer does with the gear.

It is a pious wish perhaps, but in that spirit, I'd love to see many more threads about improvement of craft, composition, lighting, street technique, working with models, landscape, wet or computer darkroom technique, etc.

Oh, and here's an image from my cheapest rangefinder.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/392159818/
Click to expand...

please feel free to begin a thread on any of these subjects.

i will gladly join in.

joe
 
Two of the most-viewed images in my RFF gallery were made with a pawn-shop Exa and a Steinheil Culminar 85mm/2.8 lens that I obtained in a swap with a member of another forum. This camera is the least-valued one I have in usable condition, though I have some cheaper lenses for it as well. A good eye and a knowledge of what the gear can produce will get one a long way. Sure, I have a couple of Leicas and Leica lenses, but they are not all together the solution in obtaining a good image. See the following links:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21027&ppuser=2111

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=20890&ppuser=2111

Jim N.
 
I would follow HCB, who if my memory doesn't fault me, declared himself as an "amateur", lover of Photography.

That's why I love RFF. A multinational plataform in which I meet people alternating all facets of Photography, even the last Mundial. Sometimes we teach, sometimes we ask, sometimes we fight and always we learn, provided we have the curiousity for it.

Photography, being a practice of hundreds of millions, cannot be but a multifacetic complex phenomena, as complex as life itself, far beyond good gear and good images, but including good gear and good images.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mw_uio said:
Have you ever read this......

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm


So much truth to it eh, as we dig around the four corners of the earth for more camera gear. 😎


Cheers,

MArk
Quito, Ecuador
Click to expand...
It was a "cheap" CV Bessa T that taught me more about my Leica Ms, and the glass I had... and not about the "Golly, my Leica is sooo much better" GAS: it was the separation of RF and VF.

Gear can effect process... and affect it too!

Process can effect image... but you know this 😉

My M4 has no meter, so they claim, yet it does a fine job of supporting the relationships among film stock, shutter speed and--this the lenses--aperture... oh, and focus too 😉 I'd say it keeps a beat fairly well, what's this about no meter?

Sure the outcome/end state may not display the tool. OK, but should I limit my interest in what a tool may offer me?

The IR sensitivity of my Nikon CoolPix 950 I exploit, with (near)IR images I'd have a tougher time finding film or a lab to process. It also gives me that LF feel, framing through the "live preview"... because the VF is not "all that".

What fun! Gear does matter because we use it! Yes, even those who merely gaze upon it, that gear is used; as statues and fountains in the yard: it's your yard, not Mr. SoAndSo's.

rgds,
Dave
 
mw_uio said:
Have you ever read this......

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm


So much truth to it eh, as we dig around the four corners of the earth for more camera gear. 😎


Cheers,

MArk
Quito, Ecuador

[I am wanting a Canon F1-N / AE Finder ]
Click to expand...

Yeh, but Ansel Adams equipment was pretty darned good and he labored in the darkroom for hours on each image. Who nowadays would lug one of those big Horseman cameras up to El Capitan.

But the Large format cameras have excellent glass and of course the large negatives of very low ISO's. His images are the labor of love.

Cheers
 
mike goldberg said:
Hi... There's some great comments above.

I've opened a new Thread, Of Camera, Lens & Seeing.
mike
Click to expand...


"Of Camera, Lens & Seeing" - Where is it ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Ruben,
I agree with your comments about photography, and in no way intended my remarks as a slap at RFF, which I log onto and read with the best of them.
For me, though, gear talk becomes sterile a lot quicker than does an appreciation of images and of what goes into making them, of which lenses and bodies are, at the end of the day, a relatively small part.
 
Since I got interested in film and rangefinders a year or so ago (no thanks to Ken Rockwell I might mention who's website convinced me that my D70 was the perfect camera for me) the camera that really got me off my digital snap shooter's butt and actually provided me with some images I really liked ... was a $45.00 fed 2.

It was a pivotal camera for me and made me realise that my M7, which had sat on the shelf unused since I bought it, was not going to make me a good photographer. In fact I was scared to use it because of the possibility that the photos I took with it would be rubbish and the $2800.00 it cost me would haunt me from then on. A few rolls of film through the delightful Fed and I was over myself at last and realised that the Leica was just a camera and used it accordingly.

Every now and then I look at the rather underexposed first roll out of that Fed and thank the camera for taking away my precious attitude towards my Leicas and making me realise that even though I am a gearhead ... it's important for me to maintain the correct perspective of what makes a good photograph!

I will never ever part with that Fed! ;-))
 
Last edited:
Keith, you made a precious discovery and it goes to the heart of what I've been trying to say in these threads. Gear lust is fine for what it is, but it is very seldom truly about photography. The Fed allowed you to make an important psychological leap, much as did my twin lens work: find a camera you're comfortable with and understand it deeply, work it until it is like an extension of yourself, don't get too distracted with myriad other gear combinations too quickly.
 
There can be a certain synergy between the photog and camera - we must have all felt that...and that can encourage us to take more - and better - photos...a good thing. Even very experienced photographers will talk about a particular camera being their favourite - and the one they use all the time - that 'works' the way they do...etc...

But the basic thrust of Ken's statement is a good one...if taken in the spirit of his writing...and probably very encouraging to relative beginners or even those just suffering an 'insecure' patch.

And the statement is far from original - we've all heard it for years - and rightly so. I used it last night in a conversation with my 12 year old son who is developing an enthusiam for photography...should I tell him that a 4,000 UKP Leica M8 is the only way to go? Hardly.

Now, lenses...
😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom