Does owning a camera,such as a Hassleblad or Leica, make one a better photographer ?

[chip j]

I wouldn't be as inspired using a K-1ooo as I am using my Nikon F. In fact, I probably wouldn't shoot as much.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Ken Rockwell once made an interesting statement that I find somewhat convincing: There are two kinds of photographers with premium cameras. The one sort just consists of bad and boring photographers that are more interested in gear and pretension. The others are great photographers who, now that they are relieved from any doubts about their equipment because they simply own the best, produce the most fabulous images.

 

[pdeeh]

Does owning a camera,such as a Hassleblad or Leica, make one a better photographer ?

Yes, but only if you purchase the most expensive one that is available.

It will also help your photography immeasurably if you go on to forums and bang on endlessly about the superiority of your chosen marque while at the same time denigrating those who own lesser ones, or indeed less expensive versions of your own camera.

 

[blockend]

When I'm outside shooting, I don't care what camera I'm using so long as it's suited to the purpose. Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Canon in 35mm, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica, Fuji in medium format, no one viewing a photograph will be able to tell the difference, and each will fit the style and budget of an individual photographer. Of more importance to me is the replacement value and the conditions I'm shooting in. If it's a demonstration that's likely to turn ugly, or a dodgy urban area, I'm less likely to carry a Leica. If I'm scrambling down a rock face to photograph a secluded cove at low tide, I don't want an expensive camera and lens banging off rocks on the way down.

The answer of course is a resounding no, a particular camera won't make you a better photographer, but if you can afford it as jewellery and it improves your self esteem to be seen with it, it's nobody else's business.

 

[removed account4]

I don't think that this is a serious question. I think you are trolling.

i can see why you think that doc.w but it is a question that has been asked before ( see previous link in my
previous post ) it is a state of mind that effects for better or worse millions of photographers
no matter the format, no matter the media, no matter the process. the OP could have asked
"does making wet plate negatives and contact printing them on hand coated albumen paper make someone
a better photographer" or "does owning a 40,000$digital back make someone a better photographer"

maybe it does? but if the content of the images is lacking, and skill of the person behind ( or directing )
the camera is lacking, then no improvement of process or gear will help that. if ergonomics and cost
and labor involved is the indicator of how good or bad someone is or isn't, then spending the $$
on chemistry, or gear is well founded, but if the gear and process is supposed to elevate the images
because of the backstory " this was george hurell's lens tha the photographed liz taylor with" or
"this is the same ebony that zebra makes his luscious 20x24 ambrotypes wth" unless the person
with the stuff has the chops its just the backstory that will impress, not the resulting images made.

I wouldn't be as inspired using a K-1ooo as I am using my Nikon F. In fact, I probably wouldn't shoot as much.

i am just as or more inspired using my K1000 or a point and shoot than i am using a leica.
[ sorry i don't have a hassle hoff so i am ballooning it to 4x5 ]
i'm just as or more inspired using a 20$, 4x5 box camera from the 1800s you can't focus or do anyting
but press a button or using a junk lens harvested off of a folding camera destined for
the rubbish bin, ... than i am with my shiny toyo view camera and sweet schneider SA and center filter.

the camera, at least to me ... whether it is expensive or inexpensive doesn't matter one bit. they are pretty
much both the same-- a light proof box with a lens that can project an image onto something light sensitive,
but i can understand why it matters for a lot of people. its the only tangible part of the operation of making photographs, it is expensive, fun to use and ... brag about to strangers/passers by, friends and family
who like shiny, expensive stuff ( bling ).
to each their own, as long as they are having a good time that is what counts ...

the thing that i still can't wrap my head around is that sometimes
photographers imagine that because they have such an expensive work of art ( or "famous lens" &c )
that they are making photographs with, that the greatness of the gear they have, or lenses with
a storied history will rub off on the photographs they make. it doesn't happen that way very often...
unless majik or a jedi mind trick is involved.

 

[BMbikerider]

Owning a new top notch camera can inspire some people to do better, but it is sometimes the case that after after weeks/rolls of film the inspiration can drop off and you will find that you are at the same level that you were before the new equipment. So putting this in context, yes it can do as the original post asks but it may not be permenant.

 

[chip j]

I've been on a 50 yr long wining streak w/ Nikon, Leica, & Contax G. Also you must have top end enlargers to really make life a thrill in the darkroom, & easier, too.

 

[removed account4]

I've been on a 50 yr long wining streak w/ Nikon, Leica, & Contax G. Also you must have top end enlargers to really make life a thrill in the darkroom, & easier, too.

nope, nothing top end. a 40 years old durst 35mm/6x6 enlarger, and 2 80+ year old omegas.
not much of what i use was bought new or cost very much $$
i just don't obsess about the gear --- to me gear is a distraction.
plenty of great images have been made, even by the icons of photography, with not top of the line "stuff"
it doesn't seem to be a requirement, that's not to say its not fun to have high-line stuff.

im glad your nikon, leica and contax g work for you ..
im happy with what i use too . ( isn't that what matters? being comfortable and happy with your gear ? )

 

[removed account4]

thanks michael for the suggestion but ... that's ok
i'm guessing shipping would cost more than i can afford ..
but then again i could post pictures in the darkroom thread
and have a series of blow by blow updates as i would have
to renovate my DR to accomodate the Ttype i would have to buy...
you know jackhammer and drop the floor, widen the doors to the studio &c.
if i had only been alerted to that page before i could have had the enlarger in place
and built the darkroom/ house around it ! a friend did that with his restaurant(oven).
certainly would be a great story, even if i never used it

 

[Jim Jones]

I bought my first Leica in 1953 with a 50mm non-zoom lens, no built-in light meter, and no auto-focus. It cost over a month's pay. My photographs now with a basic DSLR (sorry, folks) are much better than those of 63 years ago. Practice, practice, practice!

 

[gone]

Absolutely! An expensive set of cookware will turn you into a great chef, and if you buy some expensive Snap On tools you'll be turning wrenches on Formula One cars in short order. So naturally buying a Hassleblad or a Leica will turn you into Ansel Adams. Or a dentist. Extra points if you carry them around on a Luigi strap.

 

[tedr1]

The examples chosen, Hasselblad, and Leica, were originally tools for professional photographers, with a high price tag and better than average build quality. Later it became fashionable for imitators to own the professional tool, which has nothing to do with the quality of the pictures at all. Photography is a talent, a skill, and like most talents is learned by study and practice.

 

[Ai Print]

The OP ( Doug ) has been a member here for nearly ten years....I think he already knows the answer to this question.
So my question is....will he return to the topic?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Leica is a rangefinder, and not all of us like the limitations of rangefinders. Hassie is square format, so for most purposes, only a 645 negative. There are numerous highly reliable 35mm and medium format pro brands out there to choose from. But any decent 4x5 will blow away that kind of small negative quality anyway. Back when I did gallery gigs in Carmel, the epicenter of West Coast art photography at one time, I'd sneak a little spare time at nearby Pt Lobos. I always got a kick out of seeing rich old men in suits and bowler hats fumbling around with their Hassies, just because they
thought they were getting good pictures because they had tons of money to waste on gear. Looked impressive as their chauffeur helped them back
into the Rolls Royce in the parking lot. Edward Weston they were not; you could just tell. But I am an advocate for buying good reliable gear. Get the best you can realistically afford, PROVIDED it dovetails well into your intended mode of shooting. If you don't like the way something handles, no amount of money is going to make up the difference. I remember when my brother was selling Linhof and Rollei gear. He owned a Technika and a
couple of Rollei SL66 kits - even classier than Hassie. But every time we went shooting together, he'd ask to borrow my Pentax 6x7, while I shot a
Sinar view camera. For some reason, he just liked the ergonomics of the Pentax better than his expensive German cameras, so got better shots with
it. And that same camera is itself still fully functional after all these decades. So handle gear first, see how it suits you. Cult branding is secondary.

 

[Ai Print]

Hassie is square format, so for most purposes, only a 645 negative.

How do you figure? Most people I know who shoot Hasselblad love the square format and print it as such, me included.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Those do not make the photographer better, but they improve the quality of the optics and the camera so that those are optimal and any mistakes are owned by the photographer.

I wrote the very same thing a couple years ago. Not everyone will agree with this.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If I own a Ferrari, does it mean I can win a Formula 1 race? If I own a Steinway, does it qualify me to solo at Carnegie Hall?

Of course not but if you CAN win a Formula 1 race or play a solo at Carnegie Hall then you are very much limited if you drive a VW Beetle or play a really lousy piano.

 

[Palantiri7]

An expensive view camera went a long way to lowering my frustration levels compared to using a cheap one previously.

 

[Soeren]

How come I havn't been rewarded any Michelin stars yet? I have all the best pots, pans and other pro cooking gear

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm .... I really don't care if you play a million-dollar Stradivarius well or terribly, or just own a squeaky cheap fiddle. I hate violin music in general. But as far as cameras go, I've always thought Hassies were conspicuously overpriced for what they actually do, or don't do. They are good, but no better than X,Y,&Z brands of medium format gear or lenses. Almost everything medium format film-wise goes for a bargain these days on the used market, anyway. It's a good time to buy, regardless.

 

[MattKing]

This is a little bit like asking if owning a dog makes someone a better person.

It can, because training a dog properly, caring for it properly, getting out for walks, enjoying the dog's companionship all can contribute to a more enjoyable and fulfilling life, which can contribute to being a better person.

If you add high quality equipment and it inspires you to use it than that inspiration and that use can lead to better results. However, excellent quality, mid-range equipment is capable of the same.

I just acquired (at a great price) an Olympus OM-4T - a camera I've wanted for a long time, but never thought seriously about paying the premium that that model still attracts.

Having that new (to me), top line body at hand gives a nice surge of satisfaction, and gets me out shooting a bit more 35mm. What can be bad about that?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A Blad or a Leica does more for one's ego than it contributes to their photography. You can take perfectly dreadful photos with either one. The reason why professionals use these cameras is for dependability. You don't want your camera failing in the middle of a shoot. The OP is reading too much into their ownership.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hmmm .... I really don't care if you play a million-dollar Stradivarius well or terribly, or just own a squeaky cheap fiddle. I hate violin music in general. But as far as cameras go, I've always thought Hassies were conspicuously overpriced for what they actually do, or don't do. They are good, but no better than X,Y,&Z brands of medium format gear or lenses. Almost everything medium format film-wise goes for a bargain these days on the used market, anyway. It's a good time to buy, regardless.

And this begs a valid question: How good is good enough?

And the answer is: Whatever satisfies the user. For me, I want the best I can afford regarding sharpness, contrast, distortion, etc. Not that it makes any difference to me anymore.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Of course not but if you CAN win a Formula 1 race or play a solo at Carnegie Hall then you are very much limited if you drive a VW Beetle or play a really lousy piano.

The original question was "Does owning a (insert brand here) camera make you a better photographer?". While having certain tools will increase if not eliminate limits on what you can do when you have the talent, if you don't have the talent, the tool you own doesn't matter. While you are correct that you aren't going to win a Formula 1 race with a Beetle, no matter how good a driver you are, learning to drive in a Formula 1 racecar, especially without proper supervision and guidance, exponentially increases the odds that you're going to kill yourself and/or innocent bystanders until you get your tool under control. AND, keeping with the car metaphor, put a Beetle in the hands of Juan Manuel Fangio and he probably can beat you or me through city traffic with us driving a Ferrari.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm waiting to find out

About 18 months ago I was talking to a couple while having a pint, the husband is an engineer and deep sea diver in the oil industry and makes scale model working railway (steam) engines, and we were talking about making some brass parts for me, His wife asked about her expensive camera phone I said I've no idea about them, she then told me she had a 500Cm and an M3 but hadn't used them recently . . . . . . . . . . .

So now you know why I'm waiting to find out

Ian