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

[removed account4]

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.

the difference is that
i am not suggesting picasso or tichy wouldn't be able to do these things
but if you showed someone a picasso made with a rag mop and housepaint and
said here you go, do it, or show someone a tichy photograph made with a nikon or rollei and have them repeat it
that's the difference, the materials used to make the final product are irrelevant. unfortunately people
with gear fetishes, process fetishes &c, who go on websites and need to know what gear made what photos &c
don't realize the gear can be nearly immaterial. its just static ..

 

[OptiKen]

I think the camera body has more to do with the finished product than most of us give credit to it.
Ergonomics of the body can dictate whether you use a tripod or not, weight being a factor in stability.
How the buttons are arranged may also influence the end picture. I use an Exakta XA a lot and swear it was designed by a left-handed person. I use a different hand focusing and on the shutter than I do with say, my Leica IIIf. Consequentially, I take different shots - or I approach my shots differently with that camera and feel that the picture is 'different' somehow than with the Leica. TLR's definitely give me a different picture than a rangefinder or SLR.
There are subtle differences to the way in which I approach, frame, shoot and even envision a subject based upon the camera I am using. To think 'any old camera' will do provided I have the right lens just doesn't apply. If it did, I would probably just stick with my cell phone. It's light, easy, and always with me.
But it is not only the lens difference that I see in the pictures I take with it. I'm sure that the landscape photographer with his view camera would argue the point of the lens making the photograph. Without his cameras movements, he would not be able to create what he does or what he envisions.
The camera body does make a difference. And camera ergonomics will dictate to me whether I can take a macro of something, a mere close-up or standard photo, a candid street shot, etc.
We may think that the lens makes the shot, but the body dictates the composition and the composition is what tells the story.

 

[JBrunner]

With photography, people are fascinated with the idea of the magic bullet.

Most of my camera bodies are beaters. They hold the film flat and keep the light out. That's all I need.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The camera body is critical. The bigger the better. That way when some nosy tourist asks you why you shoot something like that instead of
some tiny cell phone like he does, just give him a whack on the head with a real camera. First round knockout. Then you can shoot pictures
in peace, and take your time being creative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's that spirit!

 

[flavio81]

The camera body is critical. The bigger the better. That way when some nosy tourist asks you why you shoot something like that instead of
some tiny cell phone like he does, just give him a whack on the head with a real camera. First round knockout. Then you can shoot pictures
in peace, and take your time being creative.

+1

Great idea.

For this purpose I recommend a Nikon F, Contarex, or Pentax 6x7.

 

[analoguey]

If you have learnt driving a car with wiper stalk on the left and indicators on the right, and switch to a car that has it other way around, you'll know the difference tiny details like that make to the driving experience. (like the windshield getting a bath when you were going to turn, eg)

So also with camera bodies.

A heavier body will (usually) hold heavier lenses well; a well balanced body will not strain you, when you're composing a shot, handheld.
A shutter release positioned just right will mean you're not looking for it, but more or less, it's where your finger is.
And there's the thing about film loading.
Or How about when shooting on a rangefinder with lens cap on?
Mirror lockup helps with long exposures etc etc

Not to mention sizing of camera vis-a-vis hands(35mm) or your willingness to lug it(for larger formats).

Sure, 'camera body doesn't matter', it's the Vision. But carrying the wrong* one is like walking miles with the tiny irritating pebbles in the shoe -that can't be removed. Couple of miles of walking later you'll have less mindspace for the view/destination than you would have had, if you had worn comfortable shoes.

*'wrong' to you, not anyone else

sent from tapatalk

 

[RobC]

It's no good having a six pack if you're missing the plastic thingy that holds it all together. The camera body is the plastic thingy.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I am curious as to how many of you regularly shoot with a Brownie.

 

[Peltigera]

If you have a camera where you compose upside down and back-to-front, the end result is likely to be very different to using a camera body which allows you to compose right way up and right way around.

The camera body is much more than a device to hold film flat and support a lens!

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

I am curious as to how many of you regularly shoot with a Brownie.

maybe not a "brownie" by brand name
but i shoot with a box camera 60-70% of the time.
delmar, cyclone ( 3&5) agfa sureshot maybe 1 or 2 others.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

John..................my friend you don't count.

 

[removed account4]

John..................my friend you don't count.

 

[JBrunner]

If you have a camera where you compose upside down and back-to-front, the end result is likely to be very different to using a camera body which allows you to compose right way up and right way around.

The camera body is much more than a device to hold film flat and support a lens!

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

Long ago I quit being aware of these things.

 

[JBrunner]

After some pondering, I should explain what I mean. Personally, most of the time, I see the finished photograph before I ever engage the camera. The composition, exposure, developing, printing are all there. If they aren't, I usually pass on making the negative. I've never sought to be a photographer. I'm a printer. The camera is just something that stands between me and a print. I like my cameras, but they don't make me do anything. If one did, I'd get rid of it.

 

[bdial]

It's kind of tough for me to say, but I don't think the camera body's ergonomics really plays that much of a role. Though it could be that you don't buy a camera with bad ergonomics (for you) in the first place.

This past year I've been cycling through at least 5 or 6 different cameras, big and small, and very different from one another in operation and features. Aside from adjusting my head a little for format (square vs rectangle) I work with all of them the same, and haven't felt like I'm working with house paint and a mop with any.

 

[darkosaric]

Camera is important. The less you think about the camera - the better the camera is. That is why I consider the Leicas to be great cameras: you don't think about them at all when you are using them.

 

[naaldvoerder]

In truth, "the camera" is a system. Take away one of the parts and the process to expose the film must also change.

If "X camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" and "V camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" does "X camera" = "V camera"? ;-)

The camera body is simply a "film holder", and for some cameras it also provides the function of a "shutter". It also acts as an interface between the photographer and the process of making the exposure. Nothing new there. If it is operating properly, it's influence on the appearance of the exposure would be negligible. That's why you can move the lens from camera to camera with no apparent difference in exposure. But, swap lens on a 35mm body, ie; 28mm vs 135mm, the visual differences in the negative exposure would be quite noticeable. So when you hear people rant and rave that their particular camera is "the best". I have to ask . . . The best at what? Holding the film flat?

I choose my camera just for that, holding the film flat. The Contax RTS III has a vacuüm succer thingy installled for that purpose. Offcourse this was before I realised, sharpness is not a very important factor in the esthetic quality of a picture. The way the grain of the film is convayed on to the paper, is much more a factor in the percieved quality of a photographic print. So I should have invested in enlarger and enlarger lens, instead of Contaxes and Zeiss..

 

[removed account4]

i really am indifferent to what camera i am using.
i grab whatever is handy or i have film ( or paper, or glass or ? ) loaded in
and just use it. i don't see it as part of a system, but as a way to stop time
not a tool, not some sort of mystical device. if i could draw what i see,
i wouldn't even bother with a camera and film ... gear is just a trap and a distraction

 

[frank]

For me, photography is like life: it's about the journey, not just the final destination.

 

[James Page]

It certainly makes a difference what camera you use to the extent that some cameras allow photographing in conditions that others can't e.g. My Nikon D3s @6400 ISO can capture a lot of imagery that my Nikon F, loaded with whatever film you orefer, simply cannot. ....

Oops, just read the question again, which concerns "analogue" cameras, so my answer is ... Not much, although I suppose my 4x5 can take certain photos that wouldn't work very well with a IIIf.

 

[removed account4]

It certainly makes a difference what camera you use to the extent that some cameras allow photographing in conditions that others can't e.g. My Nikon D3s @6400 ISO can capture a lot of imagery that my Nikon F, loaded with whatever film you orefer, simply cannot. ....

Oops, just read the question again, which concerns "analogue" cameras, so my answer is ... Not much, although I suppose my 4x5 can take certain photos that wouldn't work very well with a IIIf.

it is not hard to tilt the enlarger or easel and repair converging lines ...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

it is not hard to tilt the enlarger or easel and repair converging lines ...

That's as may be, but...

Suppose I'm taking a product shot in a kitchen and the subject is a spice rack going the length of the wall. Let's suppose I don't want a boring straight-on shot, but rather an oblique one. Stopping down the lens won't give me anywhere the DOF I need, but swinging the front standard will bring the rack into focus from the near to far ends. No darkroom or even PhotoShop magic can accomplish that.

Another favorite is an apparent head-on shot into a full length mirror without getting a reflection of the camera... (use shift).

 

[removed account4]

i see whatyou mean theo ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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:

It's simply that the camera body is often linked to a certain type of lens and film format as in 'Hasselblad' for example.So,the camera body tells much about the other variables.