Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Your Camera Does Matter  (Read 190346 times)

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2354
    • sammorganmoore.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #100 on: March 14, 2008, 06:46:41 pm »

Another thought about all this waffle

I am clearing through my old cameras box

Great uncles Leica, other great uncle had a Contaflex, I recently gave my contax T2 to my mother - the only person who uses film that I know

(all these cameras still work BTW)

Now the contaflex has a leaf lens 50 F2 500flash synch - its better than any current DSLR for some uses and has a lovely bright viewfinder - really easy to focus

The rangefinder on the leica is pretty sweet too

I reckon my Guncles  leica and half decent film is better than the M8

The contaflex easier to manual focus than a D80

My T2 was always as good as my nikon F5 IN the right circumstances

And better than any compact avaiable now ?

Basically until pretty recently Digital was Crap

So there was a chat worth having - can any digital camera give the results of my Great Uncles cameras from the 40s and 50s ?

Then answer was probably no  

That conversation is luckily fast coming to an end

The camera no longer matters therefore - because most cameras are great

Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'

SMM
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 06:54:24 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #101 on: March 14, 2008, 07:14:08 pm »

Quote
Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm, remind me, did Lance Armstrong choose to ride a Schwinn or a carbon fibre featherweight costing more than a small car?

At the top of your field the tiniest differences in equipment performance can make 1/100th sec difference - a potentially winning margin in many sports.

... it's not ALL about the bike.

... it's not ALL about the camera.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

MikeMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
    • http://
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #102 on: March 14, 2008, 07:21:22 pm »

Quote
Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Your talking about the same thing lol, no matter what Lance says it is about the bike to a certain extent, I could vouch for that being a biker, I wouldn't dream about taking a road bike down a mountain, or a mountain bike 50+ km.  Like cameras for us: Leica for wildlife when I'd need a 500mm, or 500mm in a studio apartment for a portrait? lol  

I do agree with you though about how you said cameras don't matter anymore because most cameras are really great. That's true, but for the niche.

I was in the market for a pocket camera not long ago and while looking and comparing online I realized that for what I was doing (me only) it didn't make a difference what the hell I got, the camera was going to be used for emails to family, and i didnt care what so ever about noise etc. let alone resolution.
Have u guys ever played with the Iphones camera? not bad for a cell.

Sometimes the camera matter, sometimes it couldnt make a difference.
Logged

jashley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #103 on: March 14, 2008, 07:24:47 pm »

Quote
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"

Watch his site for the answer.      
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm betting on "Your Lens Doesn't Matter".
Logged

glenerrolrd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #104 on: March 14, 2008, 08:32:26 pm »

Michael     Thank you for posting this rebuttal .  I believe you were speaking to issues beyond the actual essay.   There is quite a tendency across most of the forums I follow,  to answer ever question about .."what lens, what camera etc"  with a sharp response to "go shoot pictures".  Rarely are any of the relevant questions ...like  "what do you like to shoot"  asked.  IMHO you hit the nail right on the head.
Logged

mbutler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #105 on: March 14, 2008, 09:11:50 pm »

Oy...

The years roll by, the testosterone steadily declines, and this discussion reminds me of schoolyard pissing matches. Your 200mm 2.8 lens is impressive but a poor substitute for the way I can stream it out there with my sheer artistic vision.

I think I got over the gear thing and the artistic vision thing in junior high.

My house smells of rich mahogany and leather-bound books...
Logged

Tim.Lewis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
    • http://
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #106 on: March 14, 2008, 09:40:45 pm »

Hi All

As a new member, it was interesting to read this debate.  It remained relatively free of pejorative remarks and free of personal attacks.

I read a similarly controversial topic on the DPReview forum a couple of years back when I first joined there.  It was full of trolling, flaming and vitriol.  Little wonder I have never posted there.  

As for the slight sideline of the girlfriends and wives, I am also a jeweller and can tell you that in the trade there is considered three rings you will pay for:

1. The Engagement Ring

2. The Wedding Ring

And the last but definitely the most costly:

The Suffering


Cheers

Tim
Logged
[span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Geneva']Got a Mac, not going back![/span][/span]

mminegis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
    • http://www.marifotografia.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #107 on: March 14, 2008, 09:42:36 pm »

and hurray for the Duck addition    this one is also great as animated!!!

http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_...WTD433web_1.mov

love the background piano... he he...
Logged
[span style='color:blue'][url=http://www

Tim.Lewis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
    • http://
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #108 on: March 14, 2008, 09:44:37 pm »

That says it all!
Logged
[span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Geneva']Got a Mac, not going back![/span][/span]

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #109 on: March 14, 2008, 09:59:06 pm »

Quote
this discussion reminds me of schoolyard pissing matches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You may have missed the point of this thread. Michael's lashed out at yet another ill-informed blogger's attempt to stir. His conclusion was in fact to get over it and move on - as you have bluntly pointed out.

Your dismissal of this discussion as a "pissing match" unfortunately insults all the participants in a (so far) mostly well reasoned debate.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Mark F

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #110 on: March 14, 2008, 10:17:31 pm »

Equipment does matter today not because you get more features or custom functions to  set, but because more money buys you better picture quality. That was not necessarily the case  6 or 7 years ago.  It used to be that the camera body was just a light tight box and it was the glass attached and the film chosen that was really important. Unless you needed 1/8000 of a second or 8 frames/second, which less expensive bodies didn't handle. I recall that many of Galen Rowell's great shots were taken with the Nikon FM, but he always used the good glass and Velvia.  Top of the line was built better and had more features, but for many uses less expensive was good enough so long as you had good glass and good film. If you wanted better quality large prints, you used a finer grained film and better glass. Today, more pixels means better quality large prints and that means a better camera body and not just a different kind of film.  Switching to an improved film was easy and cheap. Changing camera bodies isn't.

I'm hoping that this will play out similar to the PC world. Each generation of PC was genuinely more capable than the preceding one but we've probably reached the point that for most of us, midrange models are Good Enough.  It will take a while but I'm hoping that in a few years we'll have 15-20mb full frame cameras in the midprice range. There will always be the top of the line models that are built better to pro-specs and with a lot more features, but for me it will be nice to get back to the time when the glass is more important than the camera.
Logged
Mark

Satch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #111 on: March 14, 2008, 10:28:42 pm »

Serious question:  does anyone know what Rockwell actually does for a living?  I'll go out on a limb here and guess it's computer-related.
Logged

RomanJohnston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #112 on: March 14, 2008, 10:47:05 pm »

Quote
Serious question:  does anyone know what Rockwell actually does for a living?  I'll go out on a limb here and guess it's computer-related.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Should I take offense to that?

That is my day job.

 

Roman
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2008, 10:56:43 pm »

Quote
Should I take offense to that?

That is my day job.

 

Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think what Statch means is that his 'job' is not photography related (directly). Apparently the ads on his website earn his money therefore, yes, his job is computer related. Good for him if he is making money out of the internet - even if the information he is peddling is weak.

It therefore seems that his income is derived from talking about photography, rather than doing photography. He mentions his work hanging in private collections but gives no examples and of work in 'hard cover books' but again no examples.

Here's a cliche : "Those who can do, those who can't teach".

Actually I don't agree with this since there are some wonderful do-ers who are very proficient in their subject professionally but who choose to teach as well. However, in the case of Ken Rockwell, well, you be the judge.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Satch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #114 on: March 14, 2008, 10:58:22 pm »

Quote
Should I take offense to that?

That is my day job.

 

Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's funny because I was also going to add "like half of all participants on photo forums".  But you still shouldn't take offense since I'm part of that "half", too (.NET developer).
Logged

papa v2.0

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2008, 11:39:46 pm »

mmmm very interesting debate, its got a lot of attention

i think to a way to settle this is for all those taking part to is engage in an  experiment.
dig out all you old gear and new gear, take what you think the 'best shot(s)' you can of various subjects, with both, and post the results, keeping the equipment used a secrete.

dont be biased towards the experiment due to your personal feelings on the subject but try to be objective.

choose a wide range of subjects that will reinforce the argument or work against it.
but be objective.

the argument being
that 'your camera does not matter'.

e.g. a studio photographer could use the latest medium format digital back and then switch to a film medium format (if there is any left)  and scanning to digital etc.

use an old olympus OM2n for a night shot and a Nikon D70s  for the same scene and compare

do some art stuff on any camera and compare etc

do some landscape on digital and on large square plate

whatever you want

but when you post, the equipment used is not mentioned.

how this would be judged is open to suggestions.

will it boil down to
technical photography IS dependent on equipment and subjective photography IS NOT, or am i defining parameters?


any ideas?
Logged

Demokrit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
    • http://
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #116 on: March 15, 2008, 12:51:04 am »

I think the difference between Ken and Michael  in the understanding of photography and equipment is far smaller than it might appear upon reading the original article and the rebuttal; it is not black & white, more like different shades of gray.

Ken, who says the camera doesn’t matter, prefers to use his spanking new top-of-the-line Nikon D3 and not some older DSLR or compact model. Michael, who stressed the importance of quality equipment, offers workshops and writes or hosts articles concerning the art of photography on his web site.

Cheers,

Achim
Logged

Cheers,

Achim

Ken Tanaka

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
    • http://www.KenTanaka.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #117 on: March 15, 2008, 01:38:05 am »

Indeed, Ken Rockwell and Michael Reichman are different ages but have far, far more in common than in distinction, not the least of which is that both are Internet "personalities".

Rockwell's article and Reichman's rebuttal contain, to my eye, about the same measures of conceptual accuracy, conceptual obfuscation, tunnel-vision, and self-righteous hubris.  Many of the six pages of posters above have already wrung this subject dry, with many making observations that are far keener and cooler than anything found in either source pieces.  Adding my pence to the subject would be utterly superfluous.

I will say, however, that in the final analysis Reichman's rebuttal was the weaker of the two pieces by virtue of its angry reactionary tone.  In my opinion, his rebuttal both raised the general awareness of Ken Rockwell (formerly a boundary gadfly by most measures) and reinforced the popular opinion that Reichman is merely a gear hound.   I think it was a misjudgment for Reichman to post his rebuttal.  He should have written it, carefully edited it, and then filed it away for revisiting  in 90-120 days to review its value after the bug had exited the orifice.
Logged
- Ken Tanaka -
 www.KenTanaka.com

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #118 on: March 15, 2008, 02:51:54 am »

The same stuff is in front of everyone with a camera. There have been many fine photographs taken of subjects considered boring by others, just a there have been interesting images produced by low tech gear.

In B&W photography there is black and white, but also many shades of gray. Or not, if that is the intent. Unfortunately the "for us or agin us" mentality that has taken root in the political/religious arena seems to have insinuated itself into all levels of this society. Mr Rockwell's simplistic blanket statements seem to embrace this, humorous intent or not.

Good equipment only makes photography easier? Tell that to the guy lugging the view camera with attending tripod, film holders, etc., ten miles into the Sierras. The Holga would be much easier.

As others have said, it's just tools. Either they do what you want or they don't and it really doesn't seem to make sense to adhere to a dogmatic loyalty to any one format or brand. Art is subjective and what floats my boat may leave you cold. There is no right or wrong and one is not better than the other, just as "art" and "commercial" aren't mutually exclusive. I've seen excellent advertising work and bland junk passed off as art. There are lots of Thomas Kinkade's out there.

In regards to commercial work, if you want to actually make a decent living and be taken seriously by clients, what gear you show up for the job with is almost as important as your portfolio.

If you do believe that the equipment is unimportant, chuck all the camera stuff and just use your phone. No problem.  But why dismiss people who do want to use the best tools they can? Almost seems a form of reverse snobbishness.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2354
    • sammorganmoore.com
Your Camera Does Matter
« Reply #119 on: March 15, 2008, 05:15:58 am »

Is not the basic point this

Obviously one wil need a 500 for traditional  sports photography or wildlife, decent ISO if its indoors or near dark

You may need a wide lens for interiors

Prints from a P45 are sharper

WHILE

a photo of 911 bombing or death of JFK , will still have vlaue even if shot on a phone camera

etc

but fundamentally incremntal differences are not going to do much to change ones photography compared to getting up earlier, talking to more people, being more charming, more inspired, doing more research, finding better props, hiring expensive models or whatever  - that IMO is kens core point

40d , d200, d80 d300 - all the same

70-200 2.8,  80-200 f4 - the same

85 1.2, 135 f3.5 - the same

50 1.8 50 1.2 - the same

Zeiss WA adapter on canon - 16-35 - the same

H3d, P45 - the same

1ds2 1ds3 - the same

canon/nikon -the same

WHich would damage MRs photography most - banning P45 use or air travel ?

SMM
« Last Edit: March 15, 2008, 05:19:06 am by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Up