Your Camera Does NOT Matter

[TaoMaas]

I can't speak for others but I think Ken is quite simply a bad writer.

Is he a bad writer?  Does he not write what he means?  Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes?  I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel.   If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me.  Everyone is worried about the misconception that might be given by the article, yet so far I haven't seen one person chime in who actually HAS been led astray.

[Slough]

Is he a bad writer?  Does he not write what he means?  Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes?  I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel.   If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me. 

I do not take his words as gospel. God forbid. (I suspect you do not understand the meaning of the phrase.) The only point I and I presume others which to make is that Ken's article is full of nonsense. If you want to completely re-interpret his article so that it makes sense, then that's fine by me. I guess you are a fan of Humpty Dumpty from "Through The Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll:

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ..."

However, such sloppy use of English is not for me.

[Omar]

My concern about Ken is that the information is mis-leading. You could end up wasting years with a given piece of equipment because Ken says the camera does not matter. In fact a well chosen piece of equipment can lift your shots up a level.

What I do not see from Ken is a discussion of important things such as lighting (apart from natural light), of the use of flash, on and off camera. Or the use of accessories such as diffusers. There is little discussion of composition. And so on. And when he does discuss something in detail, such as MTF plots, his writing is confused and hard to follow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks to those of you who took the time to mention authors to check out. I've pulled several web sites from that. Since the internet made it into our house, I find I've got less ability to focus on actual books. That attention span thi......

Anyway, I wanted to re-inforce the point that at least one reader of Rockwell's doesn't take him as gospel. Just another spot on the internet where I can get ideas. The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money. It may not be what he said, but it was the message I got. So, I guess my point is not to get your knickers in a knot over the guy. Even those of us who read his stuff realize the limitations.

[Ray]

The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money. It may not be what he said, but it was the message I got. So, I guess my point is not to get your knickers in a knot over the guy. Even those of us who read his stuff realize the limitations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly! There are limitations to what any tool can do and all art forms are structured within a limiting format. For example, a Haiku poem cosists of 3 lines of 17 unrhymed syllables. Line 1, 5 syllables, line 2, 7 syllables, line 3, 5 syllables.

A sonnet on the other hand consists of 14 lines and a specific rhyming sequence.

I'm no poet, but I see a clear analogy here. A person could spend his whole life just writing sonnets and express everything he wanted to express. The structure of the form is simply the limiting parameters within which one expresses oneself.

Like-wise a person could spend his whole life, and people have done just that, shooting just 35mm film. The limitation is, you can't make a poster-size, razor sharp, detailed prints from 35mm film. That's a limitation one might happily accept to live with and still find more than enough interesting scenes to shoot in a way that taxes whatever talent and imagination one has.

There are clearly limitations to a P&S camera just as there are limitations to a P45+ DB. Using a 35mm DSLR will make it easier to produce shallow DoF, but sometimes too easy with the consequence of unwanted shallowness of DoF, as in macro photography where one might struggle with the slow shutter speed resulting from stopping down in order to get a reasonable DoF.

The message I get from Rockwell's article is not that there are no differences between cameras, but that learning to work within those limits of the equipment you are using, is what matters.

[Paul Kay]

The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm far from sure that this is a sound argument! In my experience most 'gear' (not just photographic) is bought based on specification and personal bias rather than whether it is capable of filling a requirement. I do actually know a few photographers who are not interested in their equipment - so long as it does the job they are happy with it - but I'd say that they are in the minority. So I'd say that to most photographers their equipment does matter - if not for logical reasons.

Having reread the article under discussion I have to say that unless there had been so much discussion about it, I very much doubt if I'd have bothered to read it to the end.

What I've found so fascinating is the discussion that it provoked.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

The message I get from Rockwell's article is not that there are no differences between cameras, but that learning to work within those limits of the equipment you are using, is what matters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then why didn't he say that? Maybe you should sign on as his ghost writer.

While so many are reading what they want to hear into his essay, I am tempted to summarize my own position as "Your camera doesn't matter (but mine does)."  

[Aboud]

I love a good food fight, and this is probably the best I have seen since I was a kid in camp in the 1960s.
As a professional photographer of 35 years, I would say that the gear matters, if the intent of the photograph is to present the image as clearly and as close to the original scene visited as possible. I would also agree that a creative mind will create with any tool available. Now I must admit that I have been to galleries and read Aperture magazine and often didn't "get it." I sometimes scratch my head and wonder why a curator will pick a particular artist or image to put in a gallery. Art being subjective, I try to refrain from making any rigid judgments. So, back to this chicken and egg argument.  To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's the camera stupid" unless  "it's the photographer stupid."  Maybe this whole argument is stupid.

[Fine_Art]

Is he a bad writer?  Does he not write what he means?  Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes?  I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel.   If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me.  Everyone is worried about the misconception that might be given by the article, yet so far I haven't seen one person chime in who actually HAS been led astray.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think Ken's article is a publicity stunt no different than a costume malfunction.

If he believed he could get top quality from a basic SLR or a P&S why did he buy a D3 and a D300? Why did he buy a 5D? The fact is he blows a lot of money on equipment.
He doesnt practice what he preaches.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Maybe this whole argument is stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now there's a point we should all be able to agree on.  

[Cohiba]

Ken Rockwell is absolutely right, the camera makes absolutely no difference. I'd explain it in more detail, but right now I have to get to the airport; I'm going on a wildlife shoot in Africa and I still have to pack my M8 and CV12mm.

[Ray]

I think Ken's article is a publicity stunt no different than a costume malfunction.

If he believed he could get top quality from a basic SLR or a P&S why did he buy a D3 and a D300? Why did he buy a 5D? The fact is he blows a lot of money on equipment.
He doesnt practice what he preaches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course, I'm sure you realise that this sort of argument cuts both ways. Maybe it is necessary for Ken to buy a few good cameras in order to draw the conclusion that your camera doesn't really matter.

If he had made such a comment without ever having owned and used expensive and modern cameras, you would be entitled to declare, "How the heck would he know whether the camera matters or not. He doesn't even own any good cameras." Get my point?

[Ray]

  Maybe this whole argument is stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now there's a point we should all be able to agree on. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not necessarily, Eric. Only living creatures can be stupid, like people and kangaroos.
 
Arguments can be poorly constructed, factually wrong, unconvincing or compelling, as the case may be, but surely not stupid.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But Ray, "Your choice of words doesn't matter!"    

Cheers,

Eric

Or, as Humpty said . . .

[dalethorn]

I've observed that while the average pro is better than the average amateur, the very best work is usually done by amateurs, who have the time, and care personally about each task. And they care about their equipment. And if I were having my wedding photographed, I'd like to see the photog show up with a clean-looking, well-maintained kit, and the kind of wild-eyed enthusiasm that few professionals enjoy. Michael is the professional exception, since you know he'd be doing the same thing whether as a pro or amateur.

[Nick Rains]

I've observed that while the average pro is better than the average amateur, the very best work is usually done by amateurs, who have the time, and care personally about each task.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a stretch - maybe you can give examples.

No doubt there are talented amateurs around but I have yet to see anyone whose work surpasses that of the top pros.

[Fine_Art]

Of course, I'm sure you realise that this sort of argument cuts both ways. Maybe it is necessary for Ken to buy a few good cameras in order to draw the conclusion that your camera doesn't really matter.

If he had made such a comment without ever having owned and used expensive and modern cameras, you would be entitled to declare, "How the heck would he know whether the camera matters or not. He doesn't even own any good cameras." Get my point?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really. I first came upon his website when he was doing an article on the Minolta multi pro scanner. He was reviewing the "top of the line" 135 equipment back then too. He continually buys the expensive gear then he claims it doesn't matter. The next generation of equipment comes along and it repeats. Its either for publicity or it's insanity.

[Tim Gray]

George Barr has posted a balanced (IMHO) view of the issue:

http://georgebarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/pho...and-camera.html

[Ray]

Not really. I first came upon his website when he was doing an article on the Minolta multi pro scanner. He was reviewing the "top of the line" 135 equipment back then too. He continually buys the expensive gear then he claims it doesn't matter. The next generation of equipment comes along and it repeats. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Can't blame him for trying. Don't we all buy new equipment in the hope it will contribute to our taking better photos. However, if we are really honest we might draw the conclusion that our best shots, our most memorable shots (from the many thousands we've taken) were perhaps due partly to chance, being at the right place at the right time when the lighting was magical, and partly due to good technique with whatever camera we happened to be using at the time.

[lovell]

Can't blame him for trying. Don't we all buy new equipment in the hope it will contribute to our taking better photos. However, if we are really honest we might draw the conclusion that our best shots, our most memorable shots (from the many thousands we've taken) were perhaps due partly to chance, being at the right place at the right time when the lighting was magical, and partly due to good technique with whatever camera we happened to be using at the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that life is too short to continue to read articles written by those that clearly know little about photography, like KR, for example.  Additionally, life is too short to spend time justifying those types.

Perhaps your time is better spent reading about photographic articles written by those that write what they mean, and mean what they write, know the subject matter, and don't require the reader to "get it" or read between the lines, or interpret their words.

Our talent, or skills are a function of the people we talk to, books we read, and other sources of education (prgramming of our brains), so for this reason, we should all be mindful of the sources we use to "program" our brains.

I don't read KR, nor Petterie, and especially articles written by socialists!   ;-)

[Ray]

I think that life is too short to continue to read articles written by those that clearly know little about photography, like KR, for example.  Additionally, life is too short to spend time justifying those types.

Perhaps your time is better spent reading about photographic articles written by those that write what they mean, and mean what they write, know the subject matter, and don't require the reader to "get it" or read between the lines, or interpret their words.

Our talent, or skills are a function of the people we talk to, books we read, and other sources of education (prgramming of our brains), so for this reason, we should all be mindful of the sources we use to "program" our brains.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have read very little of what Ken's written which is why I don't comment on his writings generally. In fact, I think the first time I gave a close look at anything he's produced was when I was searching for a comparison between the the 5D and the D3. Ken Rockwell was then just about the only person on the net who had published any comparison images.

I'm surprised that so many contributors on this forum find it necessary to refute what is clearly meant in Ken's article and restate the bleeding obvious. At a fundamental and literal level, of course the camera matters. You can't take a photo without a camera.

I don't read KR, nor Petterie, and especially articles written by socialists!

... or novels, poetry, religious texts, movies, TV dramas, sitcoms etc etc etc, none of which should be taken literally and all of which need some kind of interpretation  .