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

[Nodda Duma]

I think what is really being asked is what camera *system* are you using?


Btw for me it's the lens that matters. But that's just me

 

[Sirius Glass]

In general it is for bragging rights.
A better camera can make better technical photographs than say a Holga, but if the photograph is in focus, properly exposed, properly developed and printed it should not matter.

 

[flavio81]

This post was written using a LENOVO keyboard, look how magnificent it is.

 

[pdeeh]

This post was written using a LENOVO keyboard, look how magnificent it is.

Yes! Superlative!

 

[flavio81]

Hahaha!!

Now, back on topic, sometimes knowing the camera is significant because you can deduce a little bit on how the photograph was approached.

For example, suppose we see a street shot of a couple kissing on a restaurant.

If the camera was _____, then you can infer that ____ happened. For example:

If the camera was an Olympus XA, you can infer that perhaps the photographer was just walking and he very quickly took the pic without anyone taking notice.

If the camera was a RB67, probably the couple would have noticed afterwards, implying a different way of approaching street photography.

If the camera was a 4x5" large format, probably the whole street noticed it, and the shot was staged or got active collaboration from the subject.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I would say a lot. It holds the lenses that are more important but you gotta have a snug fit. Once you get that lens in place the rest is secondary.

 

[frank]

Of all the variables of tools and materials, the camera body usually plays the least significant role in the appearance of the final image for the viewer, but plays a significant role as interface in the process for the photographer.


A Nikonos body is an obvious exception in certain instances. There are many other times where obtaining any image at all is highly dependent on the camera type.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Of all the variables of tools and materials, the camera body usually plays the least significant role in the appearance of the final image for the viewer, but plays a significant role as interface in the process for the photographer.

That's an important point.

Having used a Pentax SP500 with 55/2 as my only camera for 15 years, it became an unobtrusive extension of my vision. It was and still is effortless to use this camera (after the first month I never used the meter, but that's another story).

All my cameras after that, no matter how nice, are a bit distracting to me. Although I love having lots of information in the viewfinder (such as in my F4s, FM3a, or Rebel G), that's more of a plaything and also a distraction for me when making photos. My M3 is very basic, but doesn't fit my hands well when adjusting settings or focusing - another distraction.

So, indeed, the camera as an interface in the process is significant.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the shutter is in the camera body, then the body has a bigger influence than a camera with the shutter in the lens.

 

[ic-racer]

Camera body is most important. I want to know if an image was taken with Minox vs. 6x9 technical camera vs 6x6 TLR vs 8x10 view camera etc.

 

[Xmas]

Apple published billboards with photos taken with 8 million hard working pixies and they were just exceptional... So it is not the paint brush that Sn M Angelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel?

 

[StephenT]

It has been said that a camera is just a box. The lens records the image. The image originates in the mind of the photographer - everything else is a tool to produce the image.

 

[Bill Burk]

Love your answer.

"The best at what? Holding the film flat?" cracked me up

I love DannL's answer too. Reminds me a time I got furious with a new camera, I'd used on an important trip, came back and a sliver of light leak appeared on most shots.

In my anger I talked to my camera as if it was a person: "You have a simple job to do. You're a box to keep out the light until I want to let it in. You can't even do that right."

I found the leak, stuffed it with epoxy and black shavings from film cans and have been happy ever since.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the camera has answered you then you would have had an interesting situation on your hands.

 

[Photo-gear]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is really hard to take a photograph without a camera body. Jes' sayin'

 

[Bill Burk]

If the camera has answered you then you would have had an interesting situation on your hands.

It might have.

Meanwhile, I agree the body is just there to hold the film.

So while an M42 Pentax SMCT lens may be very nice on a Spotmatic F, it does just as well on a Mamiya. Then the competition comes down to functionality and reliability. I've got several M42 bodies that I won't shoot above 1/250 because of capping issues. The winding is kind of stiff on some. The mirrors don't always come back down. Things like that are the real reason to choose a reliable camera. And I recommend a good CLA for the camera you rely upon (though I don't always take this advice of my own).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't think the camera model is quite as irrelevant as some folks are making it out to be, but it is more irrelevant than others are making it out to be too. Certain types of cameras lend themselves to making certain types of images- I would want to know about which camera/lens someone used when viewing their bird photos, for example, if I were interested in bird photography, because I might want to try and take similar shots myself, and if there were a feature on body X that enabled that photo to be taken that other cameras lacked, that would be important (say a faster shutter speed or flash sync, or a particular focal-length lens that was only available from a specific manufacturer). And different types of cameras lend themselves to different types of photography - a lot of the "street" photography I do I would NOT try to do with my Contax RTS III because its working style is not conducive to street photography, but my Rolleiflex is perfect for.

 

[removed account4]

i agree scott,
the camera, and lens (maybe)
are the only tangible part of the process
so if someone wants to try to make similar photographs ...
they can get and use the same camera+lens ..

unfortunately, the camera and lens is less than 1/2 of the final image ( or scan or ? )
people who use cameras are able to finesse things out of their gear ( and consumables) that others
might not be able to get ...
its like asking a writer what pen or typewriter s/he uses ...
or a sketch artist what kind of pencil .
in one sense its useful to know what certain mechanical devices and materials are capable of
but in the end, it is just "potential"

 

[DWThomas]

Well, the camera body is a significant mechanical link in setting the spacing between the lens and the emulsion, so I'll concede that it's important -- in an abstract sense!

Beyond that -- enh! In general the box is just part of a tool set, and maybe just a small part.

:munch:

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

i agree scott,
the camera, and lens (maybe)
are the only tangible part of the process
so if someone wants to try to make similar photographs ...
they can get and use the same camera+lens ..

unfortunately, the camera and lens is less than 1/2 of the final image ( or scan or ? )
people who use cameras are able to finesse things out of their gear ( and consumables) that others
might not be able to get ...
its like asking a writer what pen or typewriter s/he uses ...
or a sketch artist what kind of pencil .
in one sense its useful to know what certain mechanical devices and materials are capable of
but in the end, it is just "potential"

Of course- in the end it's just a tool. Saying that you must use tool x to achieve a given result, to a novice, is like saying you must use a chisel and only a chisel to carve wood. The novice will run out and buy a chisel, try to duplicate the work of the expert who used the chisel in some very particular and perhaps unorthodox way, and then fail to achieve the same result, and blame the tool. When in reality, the novice should have been using a chainsaw to get the result they wanted. But to a fellow expert, hearing that the first expert used a chisel to create a given look, will look at it and say, "yeah, I can see that. I'd like to try the same thing, for my own purposes".

Photographically speaking, it's like seeing a photo taken with a Rolleiflex at wide-open aperture. The novice thinks they need to buy the Rollei to get the same look, then shoots everything at f16 and wonders why their background isn't creamy soft. But the expert looks at the same picture and knows what the difference between the bokeh of the Rollei and the Mamiya C330 means, and decides they like the look of the Rollei bokeh better, so they go buy a Rollei.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one is doing shift and or tilt movements then the camera back becomes much more important.

 

[removed account4]

Photographically speaking, it's like seeing a photo taken with a Rolleiflex at wide-open aperture. The novice thinks they need to buy the Rollei to get the same look, then shoots everything at f16 and wonders why their background isn't creamy soft. But the expert looks at the same picture and knows what the difference between the bokeh of the Rollei and the Mamiya C330 means, and decides they like the look of the Rollei bokeh better, so they go buy a Rollei.

right, it shows the potential to a seasoned pro or novice alike, but that is about it...
i think of what Tichý was working with ... it shows what can be done with cardboard and a ground piece of plastic
but if you give the same cardboard and piece of plexi to you or me or someone more "skilled"
to transform them to a camera like Tichý used, still, even with a replica of his camera, we are not him, and no matter
how we try to do as he did ( watching u tube movies &c on his shooting and interviews &c ) ..
the potential is there, but no more than that.

If one is doing shift and or tilt movements then the camera back becomes much more important.

one can do movements in the darkroom with
the enlarger & easel.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

right, it shows the potential to a seasoned pro or novice alike, but that is about it...
i think of what Tichý was working with ... it shows what can be done with cardboard and a ground piece of plastic
but if you give the same cardboard and piece of plexi to you or me or someone more "skilled"
to transform them to a camera like Tichý used, still, even with a replica of his camera, we are not him, and no matter
how we try to do as he did ( watching u tube movies &c on his shooting and interviews &c ) ..
the potential is there, but no more than that.

Tichy has an unique vision that nobody else can duplicate - I don't know that he'd want to participate in the experiment but I'd bet you if you gave him a brand-new Nikon or Rolleiflex, he'd still take pictures that we would be able to identify as Tichy photos. So yes, in that sense, the equipment is absolutely irrelevant, when someone has "vision" and the talent to communicate that. If you gave Picasso a rag mop and housepaint, he'd still be able to create Les Damoiselles d' Avignon. It would look different, because the tools would force him to make it differently, but it would still be visibly a Picasso.

 

[cliveh]

After the image itself, everything else is secondary.

Trying to rank those secondary details in order of importance is pointless. It's just interesting background information.

Frank, you nailed it in your original post.