are there types of equipment that are detrimental to "vision"

[removed account4]

no, this thread isn't started to start people badmouthing others for
because of their style, and type of equipment they might use
but from personal experience are there different
types of camera/gear/lenses &c that you have found
to be a hinderance, not a helping hand when making photographs ?

in a recent thread a respondant suggested that for him, using certain
cameras were not helpful with what he was doing ...
while it is a known "silver bullet" to buy fun equipment, new stuff, big and small when
one is in the dumps creatively ( creative block ) ... and it is easier now more than ever
because auction sites, craigslist, friends, family, local classifieds ads, thrifts stores camera stores
have lots of used, fun, large and small format equipment for sale ... and it is easier now
to buy use and if it doesn't treat you or your style well, to sell / swap &c ...

all that said, are there any cameras, formats &c that you find less helpful as you have fun and enjoy your photography.

( examples would be, lo-fi, large format, RF, SLR, pinhole/zone plate, retina/solargraph, 35mm, folders, zone focus &c )

me?

while i am fond of using pretty much anything i can get my hands on, the only type of camera i find a hinderance/detrimental to what
i enjoy doing, it is cameras that "zone focus" ... whether it is a mf camera like a holga, or a fun folder from the 20s i am a bad judge of distance
and i can't do it no mater how hard i try ... i'd rather have a no focus camera than a zone focus camera ...
and if you see someone respond they can't ( zone focus like me ) if you have any tips you have used that make it easier ( to zone focus for example )
feel free to post your tips and suggestions ... to me at least it is all learning curve, getting comfortable so you don't have to think that makes things less
difficult, and once you get used to saying " that is 12 feet away " its easy... but that's just me and the way i work, and i am sure YMMV

 

[Alan Klein]

Every piece of equipment has their limits but all can provide artistic photographs within those limits. Vision belongs to the photographer, not the camera.

 

[grahamp]

If you have trouble judging moderate distances (5-100 feet), try using larger units like yards or metres. Even strides, or dining table lengths. Another trick is to divide the distance into maybe four equal segments, and then judge the smaller unit by eye. You need to practice, of course.

 

[chip j]

Being left-eyed, I have a problem w/rangefinders. My Contax Gs are just fine, though--the finder is more towards the middle.

 

[DannL.]

I would consider most roll-film cameras as having an impediment:

1. You are inclined to wait until a roll is full before you develop it. That is a constant show-stopper. For example, it can take me weeks to fill a roll of 6x7. Task: I want to take two exposures and get on with making the "prints". If I installed a new roll for this, do you waste the 8 exposures?

2. You have to develop your frames all the same. No N+ N or N- development.

3. Scratches (equipment issue). I can't count the times I have had a tiny scratch cross more than one frame. That has probably occurred with twenty different cameras, of different makes and models over the years. And I can't recall the last piece of sheet-film that had a scratch. Tell me to clean my camera, and I'll poke you in the eye with a stick!

4. Most roll-film cameras cannot adjust for perspective. Yes, you could put a roll-film adapter on a view camera, but then I'm still stuck with items #1, #2, and #3.

5. Sheet film can obviously be developed individually, which is what I have followed for some time. Roll-film . . . There's nothing like having all your ducks in one sock. Especially when the development is just sightly off. And if frame No. 1 could be better, you can't make adjustment to your development . . .because you developed all the frames together.

Do I use roll-film? Absolutely. I have my 6x7 with me most days, even today. I wanted to print the first exposures on that roll two weeks ago already. But, I'm only up to exposure No. 5 on the roll. I also think exposure No. 3 on the roll would be best developed at N+1. I just haven't figured out how I will accomplish that, yet. ;-)

 

[cliveh]

are there different
types of camera/gear/lenses &c that you have found
to be a hinderance, not a helping hand when making photographs ?

Yes, any camera that gives a distraction from the art of seeing. Most camera manufacturers/marketers are not photographers. Cameras that have too many distractions (let’s put more options on the chip), cameras that don’t take the picture the moment you press the shutter, cameras that wrrrrrrrrrrr and bleep and flash. Cameras that print the date/time on your negative. I need to stop now as I’m getting angry about many so called cameras that are detrimental to the original purpose of image making.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I have different kinds of cameras that I like to use for several reasons - sometimes because of the film stock being used (HIE in 35mm for example), or because of certain aesthetic (Holga, pinhole), or because it's my preferred camera/format (6x6).

None of my cameras get in the way of any type of vision, but too many cameras (and/or film types) at one time certainly will. It's something I've been trying to work on.

 

[Peltigera]

Cameras from the late 1940s and early 1950s - the viewfinders are just too small. I have to take my specs off to use them and then I can barely see what I am doing. 1920s and 1930s cameras had much larger viewfinder (or at least the ones I own).

 

[pdeeh]

A camera that, every time you pick up up, or look through the viewfinder, or advance the film, or set the focus, or (you get the idea), or a camera that offends you aesthetically whenever you pick it up or think about it, or a camera that you're nervous of using because you don;t understand it or because it cost so much or because it's so associated with one of your heroes and you can never live up to their example ...

... well, all of those things can get in the way of making a good photograph or expressing your "vision".

Which is why I get so niggled when people trot out the "a camera is only a tool, you can make a photograph with anything" ... of course you can make a photograph with any camera, but tell me, if that's not only true but important, why doesn't everyone use the same camera? Why are there thousands of different camera models, when they all have the same functional design (a dark box with a lens at one end and something sensitive at the other - often two sensitive things, come to think of it) ?

Because people like different things, and some different things feel better to use than other different things to different people.

I've just sold my rangefinder kit, not because I didn't approve of it or was unable to use it correctly, but because while I appreciated all the nice mechanical feel, I just didn't much like putting it up to my eye to make a picture. Whereas my OM-1n I love, I love the way it feels in my hand and I want to pick it up and take photographs with it, and the experience of doing so is pleasing and doesn't get in the way of looking.

Other people feel the same way about their Leica or Canon or Nikon or whatever. The mistake people make is thinking that this feeling that they are having is intrinsic to the camera and not to them as an individual.

Which is a windy way of saying, yes, some gear "gets in the way" and others doesn't ... but the issue is not about the gear, it's about us

 

[Peltigera]

while i am fond of using pretty much anything i can get my hands on, the only type of camera i find a hinderance/detrimental to what
i enjoy doing, it is cameras that "zone focus" ... whether it is a mf camera like a holga, or a fun folder from the 20s i am a bad judge of distance
and i can't do it no mater how hard i try ... i'd rather have a no focus camera than a zone focus camera ...
and if you see someone respond they can't ( zone focus like me ) if you have any tips you have used that make it easier ( to zone focus for example )
feel free to post your tips and suggestions ... to me at least it is all learning curve, getting comfortable so you don't have to think that makes things less
difficult, and once you get used to saying " that is 12 feet away " its easy... but that's just me and the way i work, and i am sure YMMV

I imagine myself lying down on the ground between the camera and the subject. I am all but dammit 2 metres tall - if I could lie down three times, that is 6 metres. keep the aperture to f/8 or smaller and that is plenty accurate enough.

 

[removed account4]

thank you for your suggestions about figuring out how to focus
i'll leave it to the pros and i'll stick to stuff i know will focus, or perm-focus sweet spot cameras ..

 

[NedL]

John I love my scale-focus old folders, and made a conscious choice not to get a rangefinder when I got my last one.

Some cameras have inherent limitations, so a pinhole camera is not (usually) the best choice for high speed sports photography or sometimes even if the wind is blowing. I think the fellow who prompted this idea was thinking of something more subtle: certain cameras encourage a frame of mind or way of thinking, maybe even influence the way of seeing.... I'm not sure.

Do we see the world around us differently if we are holding a small 35mm camera than if we are standing behind a ULF camera on a tripod?

 

[NedL]

...a camera that offends you aesthetically whenever you pick it up or think about it...

That really made me laugh.

 

[removed account4]

Do we see the world around us differently if we are holding a small 35mm camera than if we are standing behind a ULF camera on a tripod?

hi ned

i don't see the world differently at all
and if i couuld stick a 4x5 or 5x7 out the window while i drive
and trip the shutter i would more often ... i don't see much of a difference
no matter what i use, as long as i can focus or hyperlocal or it is a box camera that is fixed to infinity or 10 feet or something like that ...

now that i think of it, i am repulsed by certain designs, they make me queasy LOL

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For 35mm,I bought three camera bodies,each dedicated to a specific contrast developmentN-,N and N+;couldn't be easier;used 35mm bodies are less expensive than MF backs

 

[gzinsel]

for me the camera bodies THAT I MAKE, are the best! followed by my grandfather's netter, which my cousin owns, which by the way, I have to ask to use every time, i take it out! (yes, I have tried other netters, but this one "something" that no others do- a family history!!!! a personal attachment! The camera bodies I make myself, are sentimental and personal,. . . . It charges me in a psychological kinda way. My Canon P and my fuji 6x9III are "off the shelf" type products which by the way, does not make me feel. . . . . . when in my hands I take so-so images. but my box cameras I have made are a delight to use for me. also It always turns out that I tend to prefer older lenses, then new. While I like my fujinons 65mm, 150, 210. they seem too . . .. . . too ( something) I don't the word(s) to describe. but. . .. . My kodak tessar types from the fifties, single coated seem to have (something) I like. its all sooooo sooooo weird????????? you would think a more precise machine would fair better in the approval of the intended user, but its usually the opposite. at least for me.

 

[peter k.]

I have a Zeiss Ikon 230/7 folder which I love and cut film for... but the darn thing is so smalllll... light and fragile... I rarely take it out.
I just don't know where to grab it... how to handle it.. as it just has no comparison with the 35mm F2 Nikon , RB67.. Speed 3x4 or 4x5...

 

[horacekenneth]

I clicked on this thread thinking about what cameras would strain my eyes less...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think it all depends on A: what's your vision, and B: how well you relate to the specific camera. If the knobs and dials are in the wrong place FOR YOU, then no matter what lenses are available, how fast the motor drive, etc, operating the camera will get in your way and frustrate your vision. If the format is wrong for the job (you want to shoot panoramas but you have a 2 1/4 square camera), everything else about the camera could be ergonomically perfect and it would still get in the way. I don't think a particular film format (or even digital format) in itself has any inherent universal flaw. I keep a variety of cameras around ranging from a 35mm SLR to a 5x12 inch to a 14x17 inch all depending on what I'm trying to do. But the success of that is entirely dependent upon me knowing what I want to do in the first place before I walk out the door for the day.

 

[NedL]

...
and if i couuld stick a 4x5 or 5x7 out the window while i drive
and trip the shutter i would .....

probably get arrested for auto exposure.

 

[IloveTLRs]

I clicked on this thread thinking about what cameras would strain my eyes less...

I get that when I use SLRs; I spend so much time looking through the VF that vision in one eye gets blurry.

 

[MattKing]

For me it is computer screens that make my "vision" go blurry.

 

[dpurdy]

To each his own, one mans floor is another mans roof and several other cliche's.
I couldn't work with the Leica M3, the only leica I ever owned, because it threw me off to have to compose in a little white super imposed box.
I was always frustrated with my Rollei 3.5F 75mm lens because when I went to look through the finder everything seemed further away and different perspective than I thought.
I always struggled with the WLF on my 2.8F Rollei due to the reversed image and never really took the camera seriously till I got a prism.
Dennis

 

[Jim Jones]

Unlike pdeeh, I found a Leica M the most intuitive film camera of the many styles of cameras used over the past 6 decades. Part of that is from using one so much. Friends starting out with an SLR sometimes found switching to a rangefinder camera unpleasant.

 

[pdeeh]

Ah but Jim, mine wasn't a Leica so perhaps that's why I didn't get on with it