Your Camera Does NOT Matter

[Paul Kay]

Whenever I want entertaining I return to this thread.

I did read the article - actually as a result of LL posts. IMHO its basically a rather extended sweeping statement which is in need of numerous qualifications. I don't think that it is particularly well written and it certainly doesn't prompt me to read anything else on the same website (actually somewhat the opposite). But its one great asset is that it created a lot of entertaining posts!!!

[Slough]

I've made my thoughts clear on some of KRs opinions, but his more objective articles are well worth looking at, like this one.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm

I don't know many people who would have access to all these lenses at the same time.

This is much better and if he would stick to relatively objective articles like this he would gain a lot more credibility. This is genuinely useful info but, and I can't resist this, it rather does make a mockery of the 'equipment doesn't matter' dogma.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IMO the following are much better:

[a href=\"http://www.PhotoZone.de]http://www.PhotoZone.de[/url]
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

And of course:

http://www.NikonLinks.com

I cannot trust someone who says such stupid things as Ken sometimes does. I also find that his opinions on equipment which I have owned is often at variance with my own experiences. His opinions are also often at variance with the reviews linked above.

[italy74]

Hi guys,

I know I'm pretty new to this forum, but I'd like to spend a word on this topic and try to face it from a different side.  

Where a certain and PRO camera matters:
- on a daily basis if photography is our bread to survive.
- tough field conditions (i.e. photoreporters on a war area)
- under certain lighting conditions, the image recorded can have a better or worse overall quality due to a not good noise management or, especially with some lenses, an exposure mistake
- for certain subjects, as already stated, you can't use another kind of camera.
- to get some particular effects which couldn't be taken with a less flexible camera (just think of artistic work)
- where, and this is what I'd like to underline, the EMOTIONAL side prevails on the rational side. It's for sure that brands sell much more PRO cameras than the ones strictly necessary. It's like for cars, especially in those countries where having the "bigger" is the "better". Some spend money on cars, some others on cameras, simple as that. Who of you would ever deny that camera handling and appeal has its importance, especially if you use it quite often?

Where the camera doesn't really matter is the SELECTION (what) and the FRAMING (how it's photographed) of the subject, which is only in photographer's mind (able or not to yield a catching picture or not, depending on his experience)

Of course, for an occasional and spot use (just think of a photoreporter that, having lost his camera in a war area casually finds another one to use) each camera is good to take pictures.

That said, even if I know that 95% of my pictures can be taken with a common F80, having found locally for a really little price (nay, just a trade) a demo F6, why shouldn't I get it? I know the F6 will presumably last much longer and could really be MY film camera for the life. It's THE (latest) Nikon film camera, it has also a collectible value. With DSLR is different. Each two years a new model comes and everyone is praising it against the older one even if it served us very well. This is the "consumistic" model that we're actually following. Of course today I lust for a D3 against my actual DSLR (just think of noise management, so useful during low-light shooting) but I'm also aware that a D4 will be released in a couple of years so why have I to spoil my life if I can't actually afford a D3? I'll save money for the next one.  

Here I'd like to widen a bit the concept. Why necessarily striving and crying for more MP when you would need a 4x MP camera to get a quality just double of the actual model, so needings a lot of time to be released? If the gap is really high and relevant (let's say a 5x-10x) ok, I can think of it. But why spoiling my day if a 15 MP camera has just released the day I got a 12 MP one? THERE is no REAL matter about cameras.

Same with lenses. Just think of the recently released Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon. They are MF and their optical quality, although stunning, is NOT 10x better than direct competitors, if you want to get them despite their price it's just for an emotional factor build-quality related or a specific needing, not surely for a valid common rational reason, but that's it, in some way they "matter" for some of us.

So, depending on what you have to do (and the way you do it) there's never a certain answer about that. Flexibility is the keyword. Flexibility with uses and flexibility with emotional side of things.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Whenever I want entertaining I return to this thread.

I did read the article - actually as a result of LL posts. IMHO its basically a rather extended sweeping statement which is in need of numerous qualifications. I don't think that it is particularly well written and it certainly doesn't prompt me to read anything else on the same website (actually somewhat the opposite). But its one great asset is that it created a lot of entertaining posts!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right on!  

[Ray]

But your argument is indefensible in either case. Words mean things, and "it doesn't matter" means "it doesn't matter[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whatever you do, Jonathan, do not become a lexicographer. A dictionary written by you would be very uninformative.  

abacus n. (pl ~uses, or ~i) 1. abacus. 2. abacus 3. abacus.

matter v.i. 1. matter 2. matter.

The fact is, and I'm sure you know this, common and non-technical terms often have a very vague meaning. The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.

[NikosR]

Whatever you do, Jonathan, do not become a lexicographer. A dictionary written by you would be very uninformative.   

abacus n. (pl ~uses, or ~i) 1. abacus. 2. abacus 3. abacus.

matter v.i. 1. matter 2. matter.

The fact is, and I'm sure you know this, common and non-technical terms often have a very vague meaning. The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So the camera does not matter except in the cases where it does    
 

[Jonathan Wienke]

The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.

Bullshit. 1,000 C is a precise definition of a specific temperature, regardless whether you characterize it as "hot", "cool" or "purple". "Does matter" and "doesn't matter" are equally precise, along the lines of "pregnant" and "not pregnant".

[Ray]

Bullshit. 1,000 C is a precise definition of a specific temperature, regardless whether you characterize it as "hot", "cool" or "purple". "Does matter" and "doesn't matter" are equally precise, along the lines of "pregnant" and "not pregnant".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How come you are so adept at missing the point? 1,000 degrees C is indeed a very precise term. It's a technical term of the sort that Ken Rockwell's article is very much lacking, because it is not, and clearly was not intended to be, a technical article.

Common words such as 'hot' and 'cold', and colloquial expressions such as 'it doesn't matter' do not have precise meanings outside of the context in which they are used.

One, just one, of the meanings of the intransitive verb 'to matter', according to my small, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, is 'to be of importance or significance'. I won't bother to refer to the complete Oxford dictionary where there would be many more shades of meaning mentioned.

As far as I know, there's only one meaning of 1,000 degrees centigrade, and that's how it should be, otherwise we wouldn't be able to do science.

[TaoMaas]

Common words such as 'hot' and 'cold', and colloquial expressions such as 'it doesn't matter' do not have precise meanings outside of the context in which they are used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's the whole problem with this discussion.  Some people are trying to extract exact meanings from imprecise terms.  For instance, Rockwell said: "Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer."  The meaning a person attaches to "better" will determine how he interprets this sentence.

[Quentin]

It's actually more of an opinion piece or editorial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rockwell is exaggerating for effect, that much is obvious.  Looks like it worked, judging by the furore he has let loose.  Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right.  You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.

Quentin

[mfunnell]

That's the whole problem with this discussion.  Some people are trying to extract exact meanings from imprecise terms.  For instance, Rockwell said: "Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer."  The meaning a person attaches to "better" will determine how he interprets this sentence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually he said, in a separate standalone paragraph, with his emphasis:

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need."

Me, I'm off to work on capturing birds in flight, close-up and freeze-frame with my camera obscura. Wish me luck, 'cause I suspect it will be difficult, slow and inconvenient.  I didn't spend any time thinking about this, but high-quality photos will result, because I need them.  However, I might need to spend a great deal of effort.  Good thing I didn't spend any time thinking about my equipment beforehand, as this looks like taking a long, long time...

   ...Mike

[Jonathan Wienke]

Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right.  You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.

Take away the hyperbole and you have nothing left. You can't buy talent by buying a better camera, and great talent isn't going to change the fact that an 8x10 is the wrong choice for capturing close-ups of birds in flight. A large part of talent and creativity is based on recognizing that tools do matter, and choosing the best one available for a particular task, whether that tool is a Hasselblad, Holga, or something in-between.

[Slough]

Rockwell is exaggerating for effect, that much is obvious.  Looks like it worked, judging by the furore he has let loose.  Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right.  You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It isn't hyperbole, which is indeed exaggeration for effect, because he uses absolutes. A logical corollary of Ken's stance is that you cannot improve your image quality by buying a better camera. And that is wrong. But I bet a lot of people believe that. They do not realise that, for example, for good nature photography you pretty much need mirror lock up, and the cheapest (Nikon) cameras don't have that. It is that level of arrogant ignorance that makes me annoyed with Ken. Just because he hasn't got a clue about nature photography (because he does not pursue it) doesn't give him a right to preach nonsense to, and mislead, the inexperienced. The camera bloody well does make a difference. Phew!

"You can't buy talent by buying a better camera."

Yes but that isn't what Ken said. It's what you said. And of course we all agree with your statement.

[Ray]

A logical corollary of Ken's stance is that you cannot improve your image quality by buying a better camera. And that is wrong. But I bet a lot of people believe that. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bullshit! Everyone who understands the first thing about photography knows that expensive lenses can produce sharper images and that distant objects need telescopes, or telephoto lenses, and that very distant objects need super telescopic lenses like the Hubble telescope. This is common knowledge.

The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.

It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". The fact that Ansel Adams might also be considered a 'gear head' is another matter.

For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.

[barryfitzgerald]

It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". The fact that Ansel Adams might also be considered a 'gear head' is another matter.
For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well at least 4 or 5 of us "get it"

But we are not allowed to use "corny" quotes from Ansel Adams are we? lol

The Rockwell article came across to me, in exactly the way you say. As in a "quality image"

The much hyped "Image Quality" is something very different indeed, Ken calls them "gear heads"
As Michael decided to blast ken on his article, I can come to no other conclusion, bar the fact he is obviously far more interested in "image quality" and "sharp lenses" etc etc. Sometimes the soap box thing doesnt work very well!

I think most people know what is far more important. And I think that Michael, sends out the "wrong message" to people. That is fine, we can all have a view..just this time, MR is plain and simple "WRONG" in a huge way.

[Jonathan Wienke]

The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.

It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept".

This is a red herring. The choice of camera and lens has just as significant effect on the artistic and aesthetic properties of an image as it does on its technical qualities. If you want to photograph a waterfall and blur the motion of the water, it's a lot easier to do that with an 8x10 than a small-format camera. The technical and artistic aspects of an image cannot be divorced from one another; they are inextricably linked. Each affects the other--you can't ignore either aspect.

[mrleonard]

This is a red herring. The choice of camera and lens has just as significant effect on the artistic and aesthetic properties of an image as it does on its technical qualities. If you want to photograph a waterfall and blur the motion of the water, it's a lot easier to do that with an 8x10 than a small-format camera. The technical and artistic aspects of an image cannot be divorced from one another; they are inextricably linked. Each affects the other--you can't ignore either aspect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Red herring? Wha?! A camera is a camera is a camera....they all work on the same principle. Blurring a waterfall is easier with an 8X10 is easier than a small-format?!? You're having a laugh now...Which part is easier? Lugging it around to said waterfall and adjusting on a large tripod...after you've taken a few Tylenol 3's for the slipped disc in your back?
The point is ...KR wasn't talking about technical specifics....ie...all that minutia of info that (mostly) hacks always drool  about, while giving no consideration to ideas of content, composition, form et al. The technical aspects are only empirically relevant as they pertain to the artistic and creative qualities....that is unless you are interested purely in the 'science' of photography (yawn).

[Jonathan Wienke]

Red herring? Wha?! A camera is a camera is a camera....they all work on the same principle.

And they are all equally useful for every shooting situation. A Holga is just as appropriate of a tool as a Hasselblad + digital back for a fashion shoot where 2-meter prints are needed, and an 8x10 view camera is just as good of a tool for shooting motocross or birds in flight as a Canon 1D Mark III. Are you really that obtuse?

Blurring a waterfall is easier with an 8X10 is easier than a small-format?!? You're having a laugh now...Which part is easier? Lugging it around to said waterfall and adjusting on a large tripod...after you've taken a few Tylenol 3's for the slipped disc in your back?

No I'm referring to getting a long enough exposure to blur the motion of the water acceptably without having to stop down to the point where diffraction is a problem, stack ND filters, etc. Larger formats require greater exposure times for a given DOF and ISO than smaller formats, and their use when long exposure time is desired is advantageous. Conversely, smaller formats are advantageous when fast shutter speeds are desired, such as sporting events.

The point is ...KR wasn't talking about technical specifics....ie...all that minutia of info that (mostly) hacks always drool  about, while giving no consideration to ideas of content, composition, form et al.

No, the article was almost entirely composed of a long-winded rant denying that the technical side of photography is of any relevance whatsoever.

The technical aspects are only empirically relevant as they pertain to the artistic and creative qualities...

Exactly. The technical always affects the artistic to some degree, which is why the technical side is not irrelevant. It's not as relevant as some of the brand-fanboys make it out to be, but that does not mean that "a camera is a camera is a camera" and has no impact on the final image. The choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1D Mark III may not have a  impact on the final image in the hands of a skilled photographer shooting a ski-jumping event, but choosing between a DSLR and a Deardorff in the same situation will have a major impact on the final image, regardless of the skill of the photographer.

[lovell]

Ray,

Are you related to the Clintons?    

Just wondering...Bill too had issues with words...as you might remember him asking the question "What do you mean by the word 'is' "?  If you take KR's words literally, if you apply the dictionary to his words, his grammer and such, then there is only one conclusion you should've had.

 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Now that Ray has educated us all on the proper interpretation of English sentences, I am tempted to suggested a replacement for KR's original title claim. Perhaps it should have been, "Ken Rockwell's Camera Does Not Matter." I find that a more defensible position. Maybe it applies to Ray's camera as well.