Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: robertdfeinman on March 13, 2008, 04:20:25 pm

Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: robertdfeinman on March 13, 2008, 04:20:25 pm
I have no disagreement with "Your Camera does Matter - rebuttal", but I think the discussion could be better clarified.

Most of the time when a person (usually a beginner) is asking about buying A vs B it is within the context of the type of camera and photography they envision.

These days that usually means a person buying a point and shoot or a digital SLR. I'm sure there is advice that could be given to those making such choices that would help them narrow their options.

It is the discussions where types of cameras are compared that lead to meaningless comments.

There is some value in discussing camera types in general when giving advice to those who are unclear about the type of photography they are planning to undertake. I use different cameras for different purposes even when the nominal subject might be the same. So a shot of a landscape made with a medium format camera will get me framing in a certain way and also lead me to certain subjects. While the same scene approached with my swinglens panorama will put me in a different frame of mind.

I doubt I would do anything different if I were using a 35mm RF or SLR for this type of subject. Street photographers seem to think otherwise.

So, to my mind, the choice of camera not only is influenced by the type of output I'm contemplating and the type of subject I'm approaching, but aesthetic considerations as well.

The problem seems to be that the question as to which is "best" is formulated imprecisely. When stated correctly sometimes it is a valid query.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: BFoto on March 13, 2008, 06:26:17 pm
Michael

Nice to see your rebuttal.

What i find a little amusing is the size of the lens he is holding on his home page.

Then, if you sift through all of his images in the galleries, and look at the gear he used, they are full on high end DSLR or medium format.

Moreover, read any futher into his site, and it seems he disagrees with his own view point in a lot of his writtings.

And, finally, read his "Recommended Cameras" list.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: nexus6 on March 13, 2008, 06:48:45 pm
I do a reasonable amount of gig photography , which means action photography in low/difficult light conditions. I stared with and eos 5, great camera but not having any idea if i had captured "it" until the next day mean that i was always wanting to move to digital. My first digital was a sony 717, nice camera, but shutter lag was so pathetic that i bought a canon 10d as soon as i could. eventually i purchased a 70-200 2.8IS. there is no doubt that i get better and more consistent results with my current setup than i have with previous gear.
   I guess if your spending to much time on the forums or in the shops selecting gear rather than out shooting then you might have a problem. but thinking about gear is what i do when im NOT shooting. ( i also acasionally think about other things )
  SO saying that the gear is unimportant is a complete load of crap, its part of the overall equation. its value withing the equation can be argued forever, but its definitely there.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: johnpowell on March 13, 2008, 08:34:29 pm
I do read Ken's articles from time to time and find myself frustrated with his contradictions.  

Mind you, Ken is not an artisan in the same vein as Michael.  I quote Ken, "Inkjet printers went obsolete back in 2004. I still use a $99 Epson printer, but only for printing emails and, once a year, business cards."  He continues, "This is because today we can get much better prints on real, light-sensitive, chemically-processed photo paper at almost any lab including Wal-Mart, Costco and Target."

Point well taken for the amateur or volume shooter not concerned with the tactile quality of printing.  He is not a fine art photographer in many senses of the term.  I just do not get the satisfaction of looking a print from Wally World as I would when I print a large print on Museo, Arches or Hahnemuhle  papers.  Dont' even discuss B&W if you get your printing from Wally!

However, if the camera doesn't matter then why did Rockwell buy a D3 and D300 and then test it against his Canon 5D and labor over the minor differences?  

Why does it matter if the camera doesn't matter?  If the gear doesn't matter and the lowest form of the photographer is the measurebator (and I agree with Rockwell on that point!), then why does Rockwell spend so much time on his ridiculous tests of old lenses?  Do I really care what the lens sounds like when I shake it?  Sheesh.  The gear does matter specific to its intended purpose.  Photographers can be so full of shit.


I have to say that such arguments coming from a photographer who suggest that we all shoot in SRGB color space and that RAW is a waste of time and that resolution does not matter (I'll take that hi-rez D3 off your hands Ken, and gladly give you my old D1), I am compelled to believe that he is very narrow in his thinking!


Ken says, " I'm honest enough to admit that expensive cameras are merely for the convenience of the photographer."  Hmmm... I'm honest enough to admit that the more your pay, the better it gets.  There is NO comparison in image quality and print capability between the D200 in my shoulder bag and the Leaf 33 megapixel camera we use for product and architecture.  The 5D does not compare favorably with the Leaf.  They are just not in the same league.

I ramble... but I needed to say that agree with Michael's assessment.  Rockwell's reply to Michael's rebuttal misses the point.  Michael never said you cannot take a good photograph with a crappy camera rather it is the specific application which determines which camera should be chosen.

 It is funny that Ken admits that he takes thousands of lousy photos with expensive cameras yet seems to do well with the crappy cameras.  Who is the bad photographer now?
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Omar on March 13, 2008, 11:00:20 pm
I think I may be more of a target for Rockwell's writing than most readers of Luminous Landscape. I consider myself a rank amateur. Rockwell is merely trying to keep me focused on the right problems with my photography. I have a long way to go before a better camera will make a significant difference in my photography. Maybe a better lens for low light action shots of the kids?  

I'm just enough of a technical guy that I could spend all my time reading dpreview and never getting out and taking pictures. As Rockwell says, reading test charts is no fun. Get out and take pictures!

That said, he also highlites in many other places why a better camera will help you. His fixation on the full frame advantage is one example.

Finally, he clearly states on other pages that professional photographers do need the better camera, not necessarily to get better pictures, but to get the job done. I take that to mean if you have time to set up the shot, you can get it with a cheap camera, but the speed and better controls of the pro models allows the pro to get pictures that will be missed completely otherwise.

His writing style is much different than I'm used to. I've learned to read him like I was in a bar with him as he was bouncing off the walls about some topic or other. Fun to listen to, but not my only source of information either.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: gdanmitchell on March 13, 2008, 11:55:16 pm
It is not really worth our time to give too much consideration to what Ken Rockwell posts. In fact, I'll bet he's having a good laugh over all the hits this has generated for his "photography web site."

The way I look at it: While photography requires equipment, photography is not about equipment.

Dan
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 13, 2008, 11:59:28 pm
"Get out and take pictures" is good advice. But saying that "The camera doesn't matter" is just plain stupid. If he had said "The camera and the photographer's vision are both important", I would be interested.

I suspect his main intention was simply to tick off Michael. Unfortunately, he succeeded.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: degrub on March 14, 2008, 12:11:54 am
i think i agree with Michael and Ken. Until i started learning how to see the image i wanted to create, the form, or dare i say the quality of the camera was not limiting my photography.  When i could not create the images i wanted with the "camera" that i had to work with, i had to move on to equipment that would allow me to create my image. So  Michael is correct when he says that the equipment does matter.  Equipment is an enabler in my book. It is not the craftsman. Alain Briot's essays on "Aesthetics and Photography" are a case in point.

i think the equipment is not limiting for many people as their needs are different. Which, i think, was part of Ken's point, however we  disagree about his presentation.

Best regards,

Frank
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Slough on March 14, 2008, 06:49:38 am
I could not agree more, though I am a little surprised at the apparent anger and emotion in Michael's essay. But then again, he does earn his living from photography (and not just writing about photography), and hence has an informed perspective on the matter.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: David Hufford on March 14, 2008, 08:07:39 am
Quote
I suspect his main intention was simply to tick off Michael. Unfortunately, he succeeded.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt that since Rockwell's article has been up for years. I have no doubt that Ken likes stirring the pot, though. He has to as he seems to get more ad hominin attacks than most anyone.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Slough on March 14, 2008, 08:26:25 am
Quote
I doubt that since Rockwell's article has been up for years. I have no doubt that Ken likes stirring the pot, though. He has to as he seems to get more ad hominin attacks than most anyone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you have to understand where Rockwell is coming from. In many respects I admire his chutzpah, and nerve as he has had the business nous and nerve to go full time as an online phography journalist which he clearly enjoys. He also probably does not care for Michael's opinion. And I don't mean in a disrespectful way. He earns money from web visits, and clicks to advertisers, and the market that he will target is the huge number of amateurs and novices who want a camera to photography family events etc. Professional/expert photographers make up a small market for him. So he writes in a style that addresses the 'great unwashed'. Now I suspect he does not care too much about accuracy, and instead aims for impact, to draw in readers. Whether or not that is the case I know not. In my opinion his web site is a bit like Las Vegas i.e. lots of glitz and bright lights. I happen not to respect the technical content of his writing, but that is my subjective judgement.

Yes a lot of people are rude about him, but I think gratuitous rudeness reflects badly on the writer rather than him. And anyway, it's not fair IMO.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 14, 2008, 11:24:53 am
Quote
Yes a lot of people are rude about him, but I think gratuitous rudeness reflects badly on the writer rather than him. And anyway, it's not fair IMO.

Sure it's fair. If you are going to make statements online that are demonstrably false (JPEG/color management) or at least inaccurate and misleading (camera doesn't matter), you have no right to whine when you are taken to task.

The camera sure as hell does matter, and so does the lens and the skill and creativity of the individual who uses them. If the camera doesn't matter, then 8x10 film would be a perfectly acceptable choice for shooting NASCAR racing, and wedding shooters could go back to using pinhole cameras and ambient light only.

The choice of a Nikon D3 vs the Canon 1Ds-III might not make as much difference as some of the brand-fanboys might claim, but there are differences significant enough that in some situations Canon might be a somewhat better tool than the Nikon, and in other situations, the Nikon may be the best option. Such differences are worth analyzing and discussing, so that individuals can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the respective systems, make a more informed purchase decision, and use their equipment to the utmost of its capabilities.

Saying the camera matters less than the photographer is fine; no camera can capture images of its own volition, or make up for the lack of a photographer's talent. But saying that the camera doesn't matter at all is patently absurd.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: dave230862 on March 14, 2008, 01:21:55 pm
While we can't build a modern house with a stone axe, we could probably fashion a pretty good igloo with one, all other needs being met by appropriate circumstance.

I shoot with a D70 and have done so for a few years.  I'm patiently waiting for something with more megapixels and a little bit better glass to hang on it, but I'm amateur and have a tight budget.  Maybe next year.

Having said that, I'm pretty happy with my bang-for-buck factor and have had prints hung in galleries, sold them at auction, won high praise from old time, dye-in-the-wool darkroom guys for a select few that turned our particularly well.

Wheny my shot doesn't turn out to be what I hoped I'd captured, I don't blame it on the camera, lens, or my lack of expertise at Photoshop.  Will my absolute technical quality of photography improve when I do upgrade my kit, of course.  But I have no illusion that my current gear is holding me back.

When I do upgrade, I'm seriously thinking I might retrofit my D70 into a pinhole camera (seen it done recently with a similar Canon model).  

Horses for courses, folks.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Ray on March 14, 2008, 01:43:12 pm
Quote
But saying that the camera doesn't matter at all is patently absurd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is that what he wrote? The camera doesn't matter at all, period?

I think some of you guys are taking Ken's words too literally. He's just sounding off. I think there's another article on his site that claims that tripods are no longer required with modern digital cameras.

Such comments are aimed at people who might be persuaded to use a tripod without understanding the reasons why. They see a professional using a tripod and perhaps think that any use of a tripod in any circumstances will result in a better picture, just as some people might think that enabling MLU will result in a sharper picture whatever the shutter speed.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 14, 2008, 03:31:04 pm
Quotes from Ken:

Quote
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.

This is obvious bullshit. Try using a webcam to shoot by candlelight, and I guarantee the quality of the image will be worse than if the same scene was shot with the same photographer using a Canon 1D-MkIII, especially if prints are larger than wallet size.

Quote
Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography.

It may not improve it artistically, but it sure as hell can improve it technically. See above.

Quote
3.) Advanced users may find some of the minor extra features convenient. These conveniences make the photographer's life easier, but they don't make the photos any better.

Yeah, extra features like faster and more accurate autofocus that can accurately lock on to and track subjects even in light too dim for decent manual focusing. Again, that won't necessarily improve your composition skills but it can certainly make the difference between getting a keeper and crap.

Rockwell's fundamental errors are his failures to acknowledge that the technical side of photography is as important as the creative/artistic side, and that some photographic tools are more suited to certain shooting situations than others. If you're shooting the X-games and need to capture a skiier upside-down in midair, a pinhole camera or 8x10 view camera aren't going to do the job.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Slough on March 14, 2008, 03:52:12 pm
Quote
Sure it's fair. If you are going to make statements online that are demonstrably false (JPEG/color management) or at least inaccurate and misleading (camera doesn't matter), you have no right to whine when you are taken to task.

Hello Jonathan. Your postings are well argued, coherent explanations of why you think Ken is often misguided. There is nothing wrong with such honest debate. On the contrary. And in fact I agree with the points you make. But Google Ken's name, and you will find a lot of personal abuse directed at him, and that is not so nice. It also directs attention away from the key issue which is that Ken sometimes says very silly things. Describing the off camera ability of the SB600 and SB800 flash units as 'fluff' is bizarre and ill informed. One of the great beauties of the Nikon system is the Creative Lighting System, or CLS
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: barryfitzgerald on March 14, 2008, 04:16:21 pm
I think people are trying to suggest you cannot take sports shots with a pinhole, and guess what..you are right. But I never saw any mention of that in KR's article.

We are not stupid, everyone knows that certain cameras have limitations. Quality of photos is subjective to a point...and we know that a webcam has bad IQ compared to even a cheap digi compact.

But I do see an over obsession with collecting gear, and flashing big lenses about etc..kinda like a parade. I dont think the article is insulting to those who have good quality stuff, it just puts things into perspective a little. We are all caught up in these tests and image quality. And I can tell you few people do give a damn about what lens you used, or camera. You might get asked by another photographer..but a normal person just wants to see the image.

Most of us have good stuff, and some have cheapo stuff too. That is life, if I need a fast lens, I go get one. If I cannot afford it, I buy an ebay one!

What the article is really saying is "worry about what really matters" and yes that is what you are doing, your ideas, your composition, lighting..and nothing wrong with that at all.
You dont need a D3 and pro lens to do sports photography, if you have it..its going to help, esp low light etc. And you can ebay a film SLR and cheap lens, and take good sports shots. (in good light)

My old man used to say, it's what comes out the end of the mincer that counts. It sure does. Good gear looks nice, good photos look nicer..
I do take my compact out sometimes, because its easier, it wont give the the quality of my SLR stuff, but its handy. And if I am up to it, it can be used to take good photos.

Some people are on a never ending quest for the ultimate image quality, 40mp + super high res lenses, this is all fine. But for some, what they have really is good enough to do the job. Its nice to have the right lenses for what you do, and decent gear, but its only a small part of the overall aspect of taking photographs.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 14, 2008, 04:30:48 pm
I think the people defending KR here on the LuLa forum are trying to suggest that Ken is urging an appropriate balance between equipment and skill/craft/vision/whatever. But nowhere in that essay does Ken say a thing about balance.

Reread the first quote Jonathan mentions: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." That is a simple, clear, categorical statement. And whether it is addressed at "the masses" or at anybodey else, it is a sweeping generalization that is obviously wrong in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Read what he says, and not what you think he might have meant.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: barryfitzgerald on March 14, 2008, 04:38:51 pm
Quote
Reread the first quote Jonathan mentions: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." That is a simple, clear, categorical statement. And whether it is addressed at "the masses" or at anybodey else, it is a sweeping generalization that is obviously wrong in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Read what he says, and not what you think he might have meant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is obvious to me, he is saying a fancy camera does not take good photos, you do.

When he says "Quality" of your image, he is not talking about IMAGE QUALITY, or PRINT QUALITY, he is saying "It wont make your shot better" the composition, the lighting, the overall impact of the shot. NOT IMAGE QUALITY

If we compare even cheapo stuff nowadays to the wetplates of yesteryear, compared to that..well..its light years ahead of it.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Slough on March 14, 2008, 04:56:39 pm
Quote
Read what he says, and not what you think he might have meant.

I just thought I would quote a very sensible statement.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: ZoltanZZZ on March 14, 2008, 06:33:17 pm
Quote
I just thought I would quote a very sensible statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Ray on March 14, 2008, 08:25:43 pm
Quote
I just thought I would quote a very sensible statement. " Read what he says, and not what you think he might have meant. "
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everything has to be interpreted, even complex scientific data, or especially complex scientific data. People who take everything literally can be a great danger, but we shouldn't get into religion here.

Ken Rockwell's article seems to me to be pretty much in line with the idea that Ansel Adams was trying to get across when he wrote, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Taken literally, that's not strictly true. Most of us would prefer our rejects (or images that only make it to C grade) to at least be sharp, if sharpness was intended. We generally don't think such images might be the worse off as a result of their being sharp. "Damn! I don't know why I took that shot. If only it wasn't so sharp it would be better."  
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: lovell on March 14, 2008, 09:06:36 pm
I saw the referenced Rockwell piece the other day.  As usual, it is full of well, excrement.  As usual.  Like, all the time even. ;-)

So why are we discussing it?  ;-)

Ok, I'll do it too.  Well, gear can matter.  Do you really think Ansel Adam's would be able to create his masterpieces with a shoebox pinhole camera?  All his skill, knowledge, and talent would not magically make the landscapes coming out of his shoebox camera amazing.

Or take Michael, the owner of this forum.  I doubt he would be able to create the amazing work that he does if this kit was not up to the task, in support of his exceptional eye.  

If you frame a once in a lifetime composition in your viewfinder, what good is it if your kit is so inferior that it provides lots of noise, or really soft edges, or way too much chromatic abberations, etc, etc, I hope you get my point.

Getting a great composition is a conspiracy between the photographer, and his kit.  Sure the photographer matters a heck of a lot more, but without his kit to compliment his vision, the resulting pictures might be crud.

Poor image quality can be very distracting to the viewer, even if the composition is amazing.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: barryfitzgerald on March 14, 2008, 09:21:08 pm
I am still amazed so few people "get it"

It is not about "you dont need XYX to do this type of shot"
Not about..."does that MF camera deliver better bigger prints than my brownie"
And its got nothing to do at all with image quality, lens sharpness etc etc.

KR isnt saying you are a fool for buying decent gear, but you are if you think you can "buy your way" into being a decent photographer.

State the obvious, but just unleashing your credit card on pro line gear and top spec pro level cameras, does not a good photographer make. That is a bit obvious really. And how anyone can not agree with it, is amazing in itself.

Yes you will get nicer quality in print with a tasty camera/lens, but that means very little if you dont have the skill to get the good shots, and you super sharp mega large prints are just plain "naff"

Big camera does not = big photographer..

You dont have to be a genius to work it out. If I give my 4 yr old son a leica M8, he will produce some awful shots...now I wonder why that is? But hey..dont worry because its a "fine camera" Can someone point out the robot camera out there that takes the shots for you?
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: lovell on March 14, 2008, 09:47:42 pm
Quote
I am still amazed so few people "get it"

It is not about "you dont need XYX to do this type of shot"
Not about..."does that MF camera deliver better bigger prints than my brownie"
And its got nothing to do at all with image quality, lens sharpness etc etc.

KR isnt saying you are a fool for buying decent gear, but you are if you think you can "buy your way" into being a decent photographer.

State the obvious, but just unleashing your credit card on pro line gear and top spec pro level cameras, does not a good photographer make. That is a bit obvious really. And how anyone can not agree with it, is amazing in itself.

Yes you will get nicer quality in print with a tasty camera/lens, but that means very little if you dont have the skill to get the good shots, and you super sharp mega large prints are just plain "naff"

Big camera does not = big photographer..

You dont have to be a genius to work it out. If I give my 4 yr old son a leica M8, he will produce some awful shots...now I wonder why that is? But hey..dont worry because its a "fine camera" Can someone point out the robot camera out there that takes the shots for you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was taught to say what I mean, mean what I say.  Did Rockwell do this?  When one writes an essay, one must never expect the readers to not take one's words literally.  

Caution to the newbies, the uninitiated, and the students that will read his foolishness.

You seem to be putting words in his mouth. ;-)
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 14, 2008, 10:21:52 pm
Quote
State the obvious, but just unleashing your credit card on pro line gear and top spec pro level cameras, does not a good photographer make. That is a bit obvious really. And how anyone can not agree with it, is amazing in itself.

You desperately need to get some retraining in reading comprehension, bucause it is quite obvious you have only a very tenuous familiarity with the concept. Nobody is arguing that any idiot with an overstuffed wallet can buy his way to photographic competence. What we're arguing against is the notion that that "the camera makes no difference". Both premises are equally retarded. You admit as much with your statement:

Quote
And you can ebay a film SLR and cheap lens, and take good sports shots. (in good light)

See the thing is, there are many sports venues where the light is NOT good. As in f/2.8 and ISO 1600 aren't necessarily going to give you a fast enough shutter speed to keep motion blur down to acceptable levels. A guy with a DSLR shooting with a good f/2 prime is going to have a huge advantage over the guy with the film SLR and an f/5.6 consumer-grade coke bottle.

The skills of the photographer matter, but so do the cababilities of his or her tools; both are equally pertinent to the final result.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Ray on March 14, 2008, 10:36:56 pm
Quote
The skills of the photographer matter, but so do the cababilities of his or her tools; both are equally pertinent to the final result.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But that's really obvious, Jonathan. It applies across all human activities where tools are used, whatever the tools. You have to give the guy credit for not being a complete idiot. You should consider the entire context of the article and whom it's written for. Dale Cotton's plea for contextual specificity might apply here.

However, there could be some sensible dispute about the 'equally pertinent' bit.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: John Camp on March 14, 2008, 10:57:24 pm
Quote
But that's really obvious, Jonathan. It applies across all human activities where tools are used, whatever the tools. You have to give the guy credit for not being a complete idiot. You should consider the entire context of the article and whom it's written for. Dale Cotton's plea for contextual specificity might apply here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think the guy's a complete idiot -- I think he just tries to be controversial to drive traffic to his site. In other words, his expertise seems to be in public relations, not in photography. I have been aware of him for years, and used to check his site occasionally. But he was so often incorrect  -- not simply in the sense that his opinions were bad, but that he made egregious factual errors -- that I quit reading it. The problem is that he's so bad, that I think he may actually do damage to serious beginners who believe that he is both sincere and accurate. His comments about printing are absurd on their face; some of the most gorgeous prints I've ever seen are digital prints, and you ain't gonna get them at WalMart.

So when you (Ray) say that we have to consider who the article was written for, well, do you think it's okay to give bad information to somebody just because he or she is a beginner?

Put me down as subscribing to Jonathan's arguments.

JC
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Ray on March 14, 2008, 11:10:44 pm
Quote
I don't think the guy's a complete idiot -- I think he just tries to be controversial to drive traffic to his site. In other words, his expertise seems to be in public relations, not in photography. I have been aware of him for years, and used to check his site occasionally. But he was so often incorrect  -- not simply in the sense that his opinions were bad, but that he made egregious factual errors -- that I quit reading it. The problem is that he's so bad, that I think he may actually do damage to serious beginners who believe that he is both sincere and accurate. His comments about printing are absurd on their face; some of the most gorgeous prints I've ever seen are digital prints, and you ain't gonna get them at WalMart.

So when you (Ray) say that we have to consider who the article was written for, well, do you think it's okay to give bad information to somebody just because he or she is a beginner?

Put me down as subscribing to Jonathan's arguments.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,
I'd have to spend more time reading his articles before I can comment on the wrong information that he might have provided to beginners. I'm not prepared to spend the time doing that.

However, it seems clear from this article, which has provoked Michael's rebuttal, that he's addressing an obsessive concern, that we know many of us have, with our photographic equipment, whether they are beginners or not.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: dseelig on March 15, 2008, 01:02:13 am
I was tempted to get a nikon d3 when I read about it, I did not . I shoot pro football for about 1/3 of my living. The loss of the crop factor over my mk 111's would've meant I Need a 500 in addition to my 400. Because of this buying a d3 would have to come at the expense of the ids mk111 and having few lenses for it. Money is always a factor. The point is if you are a working pro the right tool for the job. If Rockwell thinks his whole audience is the walmart crowd well he is partially right .If his crowd are people that might want to learn and grow well Rockwell is just plain wrong, and doing his audience a huge disservice. I prefer to think anyone reading about photos on the web is intrested in learning.
david
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Tony Pearce on March 15, 2008, 04:32:19 am
This parable (from Luminous Landscape itself) seems to suggest something similar to the view espoused by Mr Rockwell.......

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml)
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: barryfitzgerald on March 15, 2008, 05:45:40 am
Quote
See the thing is, there are many sports venues where the light is NOT good. As in f/2.8 and ISO 1600 aren't necessarily going to give you a fast enough shutter speed to keep motion blur down to acceptable levels. A guy with a DSLR shooting with a good f/2 prime is going to have a huge advantage over the guy with the film SLR and an f/5.6 consumer-grade coke bottle.

The skills of the photographer matter, but so do the cababilities of his or her tools; both are equally pertinent to the final result.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Nobody is going to deny that you have your work cut out for you slapping a cheap longer zoom on your camera, and wandering out in low light levels. That is just obvious. We know why some buy fast lenses, and its mostly the speed they desire.

You can pick a dozen scenarios where you need certain equipment to get the shots in the ist place. On the other hand, you can pick a dozen where low grade tools can do the job, and do it well.

Lenses are an easy one. There are decent lower cost options on all the mounts. One super budget gem is the tamron 55-200mm, its not fast, its not going to blow you away with it robusts build, its cheapo. But the optics are good. I have a few pals with that lens, who didnt want to splash much cash to start playing with tele shots. And they can get good results. Lots of reasonable cost lenses on A mount, which I use..decent lenses that can cost £200 or so s/h on ebay. You could buy a D40 and go and take good tele shots, you dont always need pro spec bodies.

I have seen too many gifted superzoom owners, who can take bird shots as good as shooters with pro line bodies and lenses, using a camera that cost very little. Yes these cameras have limitations, and I am more into SLR's myself..because mostly I have DOF control, that small sensors do not.

But you can still take good shots with some of these cameras, plenty of good macro shooters with fujis, and canons and other makes. I sometimes take my compact out, because I dont want to carry the SLR bulk..I can still get nice shots with it.

Lots of good reasons for getting high quality stuff, I have a few nice lenses myself..but again, it just there as a tool to help me. Evertyhing has some limitations, of course. But in many cases you have ways to overcome them, if you dont have the cash for a DSLR, and you want to do quality landscapes, lots of MF flim options that are pretty cheap on ebay too.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on March 15, 2008, 07:59:38 am
Quote
But that's really obvious, Jonathan. It applies across all human activities where tools are used, whatever the tools. You have to give the guy credit for not being a complete idiot.

Why? Rockwell makes categorical and absolute statements without including anything to indicate that there exceptions or nuances that may constitute a valid exception to his statements. His article pages long, and included many citations, and yet he appears not to have made any attempt to clarify that his point wasn't completely absolute. But I didn't see any such clarification anywhere, just ad nauseam repetitions of "it doesn't matter" without any attempt to qualify or nuance his theme.

If you don't want to be thought of as an idiot, then don't make idiotic categorical statements without clearly explaining the limitations of how far your point can be taken. There is nothing in Ken's article to prove he is not an idiot. If he had said anywhere in his article that shooting ski-jumping with an 8x10 and ISO 25 film wasn't the using the best tool for the job, or that a pinhole camera shouldn't be the first choice for shooting a fashion layout where the client wants life-sized prints of the models whearing the clothes, then I'd say you have a point. But he did not.

Words have meaning, and when you are communicating to people you must use the words that say what you actually mean, not what you hope your audience will think they mean. If you fail to say what you mean, every attempt at communication devolves to interpretational debates over the meaning of is, and whether or not fellatio constitutes "sexual relations", etc. and meaningful communication becomes impossible.

Quote
However, there could be some sensible dispute about the 'equally pertinent' bit.

If one wanted to say 60/40 or 70/30 with the photographer having a greater importance than the gear, I'd offer no argument. But 0/100 and 100/0 are equally indefensible and stupid.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Slough on March 15, 2008, 08:04:02 am
Quote
I don't think the guy's a complete idiot -- I think he just tries to be controversial to drive traffic to his site. In other words, his expertise seems to be in public relations, not in photography. I have been aware of him for years, and used to check his site occasionally. But he was so often incorrect  -- not simply in the sense that his opinions were bad, but that he made egregious factual errors -- that I quit reading it. The problem is that he's so bad, that I think he may actually do damage to serious beginners who believe that he is both sincere and accurate. His comments about printing are absurd on their face; some of the most gorgeous prints I've ever seen are digital prints, and you ain't gonna get them at WalMart.

So when you (Ray) say that we have to consider who the article was written for, well, do you think it's okay to give bad information to somebody just because he or she is a beginner?

Put me down as subscribing to Jonathan's arguments.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that summarises my views. He is probably a nice enough chap, but he talks too often about things of which he knows little.

For example he wrote an article on MTF which I could not follow even though I understand what an MTF plot is. If my memory serves me well, Michael on this site wrote an explanation of MTF plots. Compare the two, and ask yourself which author knows their onions and/or has good communication skills.

Getting back to the original "Your camera does not matter" article, your camera does matter and quite often it can matter a lot, as can the lens. In fact for nature photography (my interest) equipment is crucial. I need to use a camera body with mirror lock up, a macro lens that goes to lifesize, a diffuser screen, a set of reflectors, a 'third arm', a Uniloc tripod (for low level shooting), a smooth ball head, a right angle viewer and so on. I also sometimes need to use a macro flash unit, and a camera body that supports Nikon's flash controller mode. Contrary to Ken's claims, improving my equipment did improve the quality of my images. To show what I mean, here is an image of a common fungus called Mycena inclinata.:

Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Tim Gray on March 15, 2008, 08:57:11 am
Quote
I am still amazed so few people "get it"

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, me too.  The most interesting element in this discussion, is how many posts were generated.

Arguably, the only thing that's up for debate is given what KR actually said, what did he mean, or not mean.  That's not very interesting.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Ray on March 15, 2008, 09:49:56 am
Quote
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: Omar on March 15, 2008, 12:48:11 pm
Rockwell has a range of thought and often presents opposing points of view on his web site. In fact, the article in question is just a minor revision of one that's been on-line for some time. Here's a different article. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/wife.htm) He lists several scenarios on how to talk your wife (he being a husband after all) into expensive gear.

After reading many of his articles, I see that Rockwell writes in a stream of consciousness style. Many statements are repetitive. It's obvious he doesn't even make a single editing pass, other than to possibly check for spelling and grammar (in that area, he definitely does better than many other photography web sites!).

Really, maybe I'm putting words in the guy's mouth, but he understands that a pro will work with the limitations of a camera to get a quality image. Again, many places on his web site talk about that pros need something for specific reasons. He admonishes the newbie against buying something just because the pro has it.

When I bought my D40, I appreciated his no bullshit attitude about cameras. I found the emphasis on getting the image right in the camera (framing, composition, exposure, white balance) was what I needed and still need. His tutorials allowed me to get quickly up to speed on what was a big step up for me, and get some decent successful vacation shots a month later.

Maybe all those arguing against Rockwell didn't need that help. I did, and his site was a huge help to me. That said, I've since branched out, primarily from initial links that Rockwell provided on his site. By viewing and reading lots of other photography sites, I'm hoping to make the transition from just a snapshooter to a photographer.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: ZoltanZZZ on March 17, 2008, 06:19:19 am
With regard to the camera does matter, I believe the point may have been missed.  The issue is that the forum discussions revolve around pixel peeping between similar cameras.  At one time the technical difference between similar cameras was more noticeable, the technical gap has closed and cameras in the same price range produce pictures with virtually no noticeable difference in the picture without printing at very large sizes and even that is a stretch.  Where the camera does matter is in its usability how the camera feels in your hand control layout menus etc and that is dependent on personal preference and budget.  This is the advice given by more knowable photographers, unfortunate most beginners miss the point and get wrapped up in other technical details that have nothing to do with creativity.
Title: It's not the Camera "rebuttal"
Post by: lovell on March 20, 2008, 03:35:31 pm
Quote
With regard to the camera does matter, I believe the point may have been missed.  The issue is that the forum discussions revolve around pixel peeping between similar cameras.  At one time the technical difference between similar cameras was more noticeable, the technical gap has closed and cameras in the same price range produce pictures with virtually no noticeable difference in the picture without printing at very large sizes and even that is a stretch.  Where the camera does matter is in its usability how the camera feels in your hand control layout menus etc and that is dependent on personal preference and budget.  This is the advice given by more knowable photographers, unfortunate most beginners miss the point and get wrapped up in other technical details that have nothing to do with creativity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting comment you made.  I prefer not to interpret KR's ramblings.  I prefer to take his words and sentences at face value.  Literally.

As to choosing a camera, the last thing on my list hand-comfort, ergonomics, and menu layout.  This is not to suggest that those things are not important, just that they're the least important for me.  I couldn't care less how the body feels in my hands.  What really matters to me is the image quality that it can provide.  One can learn ANY camera user interface/button layout, regardless of how good or bad it is, so for me, this matters very little.  The prime directive is image quality, and if the best camera is shaped like a banana or pretzel, then I will use it, and over time I will learn to be very proficient with it.

I would suggest that the wrong thing newbies do is to get too fixated on ergo's, menus, layouts, etc, as these things will never have a direct benefit to image quality.  As a wedding pro, I can appreciate a good feel in my hands, but really most of us can get use to most any form factor I think.