How much part does a camera body play in analog photography ?

[RalphLambrecht]

camera, lens, film, developer &c
its all just static
its the image that matters ...
to me at least,
its like tuning in a radio station you can barely get

I don't think so anymore.Sometimes the trip is just more interesting than the deatination.Otherwise,APUG wouldn't need a forum;just a gallery.I'm not in it for the image.I'm in it for the image making!

 

[RobC]

Taking a photograph requires using a "whole system". If any part of that system is missing the system doesn't work. The body is therefore as important as any other part of the system. This seems like a fairly pointless topic to me.

If you don't beleive this, throw your camera body away and take the other parts of the system and try and make a photograph. You will then find out how important the body is.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

"That's a really nice photograph. You must have a really good camera."

That was a really nice dinner you made;You must have very good pots.

 

[removed account4]

I don't think so anymore.Sometimes the trip is just more interesting than the deatination.Otherwise,APUG wouldn't need a forum;just a gallery.I'm not in it for the image.I'm in it for the image making!

i agree ... but the gear isn't the be all and end all,
and to the folks the OP is refering to, who NEED to know what camera body,
what lens, what sort of lens wrap or camera bag, eye cup, soft release, lens shade, tripod &c was used
( i figure they don't need the tripod holes until they get the gear ), to them the gear is the be all and end all ...
photography is more than just a hassle blad body and lens
or a ebony and brass body and 1200fineartxl schneider convertible lens.
sure, sometimes that stuff matters, as others have said, for bragging rights,
and for something to talk about because talking about imagery isn't as easy
as talking about how someone's apo-15 coated surface 5000$ lens makes such nice cute puppy pictures.
or what base+fog might be or what app can be downloaded as a densitometer or light box or ...
gear+technique is important, but it doesn't donald the photograph that comes out at the end.

Taking a photograph requires using a "whole system". If any part of that system is missing the system doesn't work. The body is therefore as important as any other part of the system. This seems like a fairly pointless topic to me.

If you don't beleive this, throw your camera body away and take the other parts of the system and try and make a photograph. You will then find out how important the body is.

maybe it does for some, but not to everyone ...
i have done just that, taken lenses off of one type camera, or used instant film in another or roll backs on another and used them with
cameras (or enlargers )that didn't originally have these features and it worked just fine ...

 

[RobC]

i agree ... but the gear isn't the be all and end all,
and to the folks the OP is refering to, who NEED to know what camera body,
what lens, what sort of lens wrap or camera bag, eye cup, soft release, lens shade, tripod &c was used
( i figure they don't need the tripod holes until they get the gear ), to them the gear is the be all and end all ...
photography is more than just a hassle blad body and lens
or a ebony and brass body and 1200fineartxl schneider convertible lens.
sure, sometimes that stuff matters, as others have said, for bragging rights,
and for something to talk about because talking about imagery isn't as easy
as talking about how someone's apo-15 coated surface 5000$ lens makes such nice cute puppy pictures.
or what base+fog might be or what app can be downloaded as a densitometer or light box or ...
gear+technique is important, but it doesn't donald the photograph that comes out at the end.



maybe it does for some, but not to everyone ...
i have done just that, taken lenses off of one type camera, or used instant film in another or roll backs on another and used them with
cameras (or enlargers )that didn't originally have these features and it worked just fine ...

But you had to find another body or you couldn't have done it. i.e. it wouldn't work without a body.

 

[removed account4]

But you had to find another body or you couldn't have done it. i.e. it wouldn't work without a body.

i misread what you wrote, and thought you were suggesting that the body of a system ( like a mamiya system or leica system or hassy system )
required the rest of the parts to be whole, i didn't realize you meant you need a body otherwise there is no way to make an image

sorry for my confusion!

 

[DannL.]

What I distilled from the OP's original post was whether a camera body played a significant part in the final image. But, I could be wrong in that interpretation. I know of a couple camera bodies that have been detrimental to my photography. I no longer own them . . . thank goodness.

 

[RobC]

i misread what you wrote, and thought you were suggesting that the body of a system ( like a mamiya system or leica system or hassy system )
required the rest of the parts to be whole, i didn't realize you meant you need a body otherwise there is no way to make an image

sorry for my confusion!

My point is that the camera body is as important as every other part of the system.

 

[Aleksej6]

My point is that the camera body is as important as every other part of the system.

You are right Rob, of course.

 

[frank]

As I said before, the user interface with the photographer is important. Given the choice between a premium body with second tier lens (Leica M2 with Canon 50f1.8) vs a premium lens with a second tier body (canon 7 with latest Summicron 50), I'd choose the former.

Even though the choice of lens would have the greatest impact on the final image.
Having used both bodies, every time I'd pick up the Canon 7, I'd feel meh.
The Canon lens is more than good enough, and I would thoroughly enjoy handling/using the M2.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am tired of piece part body replacements, next time I go in for surgery I was a complete body replace with an 18 to 21 male hard body. That way I would only have one recovery and one rehabilitation.

 

[SanMiguel]

frank I have to agree. You have to want to use the camera in the first place. I suspect like most of us I have a number of cameras I can choose between to use on a particular day, but the ones that are a joy to use get taken out a lot more than the others.

 

[frank]

I am tired of piece part body replacements, next time I go in for surgery I was a complete body replace with an 18 to 21 male hard body. That way I would only have one recovery and one rehabilitation.

I hear you. I just had a hip replaced.

 

[removed account4]

I hear you. I just had a hip replaced.

hope you have a speedy recovery !
i hope it wasn't orlac's hip they replaced yours with
we all know what happened when his hands were used ...

 

[chip j]

The journey is fine, but the destination (print or slide) is Glory!

 

[mdarnton]

I asked myself that question when it came time to get a film camera when I completely jumped systems to buy a new Nikon D300 eight years ago. After one mistake, I realized I could get six FGs, a small and durable camera with all the function I need, for the price of one F3, the camera I thought I wanted. Now I do have six FGs--cameras all over with different films in them--and no "high end" Nikon. Truthfully, most cameras are adequate for the job they do.

I also did the other thing I thought I wanted, and I'm up to my ears in old MF lenses, most focal lengths. But almost all I carry or use is a 50 and 24 or 28. So I guess lenses don't matter much to me, either.

 

[Jim Jones]

Pinhole photographers often get by with improvised bodies and no lens at all. However, some photography, fast moving sports for example, benefit greatly from the right camera body. Usually it's the photographer, not the equipment, that is most important. I still prefer Timothy O'Sullivan's iconic photo of the Canyon de Chelly taken in 1873 with primitive equipment over Ansel Adams' similar photo taken almost 70 years later with the much better equipment of his day.

 

[benjiboy]

The camera is just the body that makes the film advance. Regarding this only aspect, I'd say the durability of the body has its importance. Overall, though, it is your composition that matters.

But the lens has a definitive impact on the quality of the picture. IMHO.

I emphatically disagree with this statement, the materials that the a the camera body is manufactured from the precision they are assembled with are of great importance to the quality of the final image that the camera is able to produce, how parallel the bearing surfaces lens mount is to to the film guide rails is of paramount importance in producing overall sharpness on the negative the same principle also applies to enlargers.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

A fine camera body should hold the film flat, to be sure, but some people do exaggerate just how flat the film plane need be.
You really need a perfect film plane if your lens is wide open, however, if your lens is wide open, your depth of field will suffer. You may find it impossible to have all of the scene in focus, or the curvature of field of your lens can cause problems. We get around the problem by closing down the lens, which means that while a flat film plane is still desirable, it is usually no longer an obsession in moderately-priced bodies.
If you were to ask me, the problem is that 99% of cameras/bodies produce a complete image, assuming the people viewing your work have all lost an eye (which is why I carry a Realist .

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Which camera is easier to ask than which tools and materials.

I'm waiting for the 'subject bell';It' rings every time an interesting subject is found and a picture should be taken; why not?

 

[michr]

The body is a carrier and container. As in the case of a box camera, or pinhole camera, it can be extremely minimalist and still be used to make great photographs. Beyond it's basic purpose, the camera body is designed for the convenience of the photographer. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, for example, a 1/4000 shutter speed, if that matters to your photography, then the body is essential. But aside from that, often people just like to brag about owning nice gear, and to be in a club with others who have the same gear.

 

[waileong]

When we post images on social media, forums, etc what I noticed is people mention 'Shot with X camera' and get done with it. Even when people see a analog image the question is which camera you shot this with and sometimes the question of film. But technically the thing that plays a major part in the image might not be the camera body. I think it should start with the Lens & Film, Exposure settings (if you have written them), the development process/chemicals and the print/scan.

What is your stand on the camera body used ? Is it more important than the lens, film, development, print/scan ? :confused:

Ain't heard of analog photography. Only film. And frankly, the body is not a very important part of it, unless there is some special consideration (eg if you shoot sports and you need a body with fast frame rate).

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Makes no difference so long as is light tight, accurate shutter, and focuses properly. Some like one as light as possible camera which are not built as well. I have become fond of Leica M which are smallish, but not light, and Nikon F2 models which I have been buying up used. These were heavy duty cameras built to make 100s of thousands of pictures. They have great reliability.

 

[TonyB65]

The camera can make all the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. Much as I love my semi/fully auto cameras, they slow me down quite a lot at times. However, I have a Canon EOS 50E, and whilst it's mostly plastic (still fairly robust, apart from the battery door) and never going to win any beauty competitions, I love shooting with it, and get great shots from it, mostly because it has auto-focus, excellent metering, auto-wind etc and is very responsive and quick to shoot with. So it may not technically get me better shots, but it will definitely get me shots other cameras can't, because it allows me to just concentrate on composition and generally just observing and responding to things quickly if I need to. So IMHO, yes, the camera can make all the difference, depending on what you're trying to achieve.

 

[Chan Tran]

That was a really nice dinner you made;You must have very good pots.

And both of the comments are generally true. If you don't believe me then we have to do some kind of statistically analysis.