more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[removed account4]

but pdeeh did it cost a fortune, if it didn't ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I don't understand the lust for expensive 135 format camera systems. I'm not criticizing at all... just wonder why one wouldn't choose medium format system if absolute quality was really that important. Yes, portability is very different but to pay such extravagant prices for 135 format gear I just can't comprehend.

Quality costs money. Regardless of format.

Did you never stop to think, that as you reduce the size of a negative, you must increase the quality of the negative if you are to get a decent large print from it? This is why bigger is better - a decent MF camera will give nicer 16x20 prints than any Leica. But the Leica is small, you can carry two or three if circumstances dictate. Some things are more important than absolute quality - print quality from my 8x10 will blow any MF camera into another universe. Try photographing your kid's basketball game with an 8x10.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

but pdeeh did it cost a fortune, if it didn't ...

Olympi aren't very good cameras, they don't cost nearly enough.

 

[ntenny]

Quality costs money. Regardless of format.

Aaaaaand the thread comes full circle. But seriously, I think your statement is only sort of true, in that (1) you have to expand "quality" to include things like workmanship and feels-good-to-use-iness, as well as functional usefuless and image quality; and (2) the relationship has a lot of exceptions, quite a few of which come from Wetzlar. (It's pretty hard to explain the premium for Leica accessories, or certain of the bodies and lenses, without appeal to the collectors' market.)

Not that quality doesn't cost money, but things like rarity and cachet do too.

-NT

 

[pdeeh]

but pdeeh did it cost a fortune, if it didn't ...

Oh damn, sorry, no it didn't.

If I'd bought it in 1980 when I first yearned for one it would have been a fortune to me, but when I finally got one in 2013 it cost about the same as a week of groceries.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

For all the fuss we make about Leicas, they were never on my radar at all when I was shooting 20 and 30 years ago - not once.

It was only when I started into the digital world that they started to become visible to me, and curiously I've never particularly wanted one, whether Barnack stylee or M-stylee (although I perfectly see that a nice Barnack is a very pretty camera, and an M - perhaps especially the MP - is a handsome beast in a Bauhausy-cum-Form-Follows-Function sort of way).

I always just wanted a really nice SLR (preferably an Olympus OM), and now I've got one.

I bought one of the first Olympus OM-1 MD bodies that hit US shores. It was so new that there was no news about the "MD" version until 2-4 weeks after I had mine in my hands. Mine came with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. I later bought the motor drive plus 24, 28, 35, 50 macro, 85 and 135 lenses (I don't remember the speeds). I must admit I did love that OM system and it cost a fraction of a similar Leica outfit... so it must have been a POS.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Quality costs money. Regardless of format.

Did you never stop to think, that as you reduce the size of a negative, you must increase the quality of the negative if you are to get a decent large print from it? This is why bigger is better - a decent MF camera will give nicer 16x20 prints than any Leica. But the Leica is small, you can carry two or three if circumstances dictate. Some things are more important than absolute quality - print quality from my 8x10 will blow any MF camera into another universe. Try photographing your kid's basketball game with an 8x10.

Agreed... but sports photography is an entirely different ballgame. The same can be stated about photomicrography and use of extremely long lenses.

 

[MartinP]

Could the value of these things be increased (and therefore also the "goodness") by use of ebay-style descriptions, regarding adjectives and accuracy? A thesaurus could make ones old camera twice as good, easily . . .

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Could the value of these things be increased (and therefore also the "goodness") by use of ebay-style descriptions, regarding adjectives and accuracy? A thesaurus could make ones old camera twice as good, easily . . .

Absolutely without doubt. It happens all the time.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Quality costs money. Regardless of format.

Hmm. Nikon F vs. Nikkormat? And when I bought my Nik'mat at the 4 Wing RCAF 1970 spring photofair it was priced at par with numerous other 35 mm SLRs at my base PX.

Hmm. My humble Century Graphic with a 38/4.5 Biogon (I still have have two of the lenses) vs. Alpa 12 with a 38/4.5 Biogon? Alpa 12 with a 38/4.5 Biogon vs. SWC with the same lens?

Hmm. Any modern 4x5 monoral camera vs. Calumet CC40x? Don't even think about mentioning digital backs.

When we get concrete many of the supposed advantages of beautifully made and very expensive gear look like illusions.

 

[removed account4]

Oh damn, sorry, no it didn't.

If I'd bought it in 1980 when I first yearned for one it would have been a fortune to me, but when I finally got one in 2013 it cost about the same as a week of groceries.

it might not have cost much $ but now you are in what they call the OM - CULT so i guess it cost a lot more than money
- j

 

[Bill Burk]

Try photographing your kid's basketball game with an 8x10.

I don't see why it can't be done... Prefocus, pull the darkslide, f/8 and hit the flash.

I drew a line in the sand at 4x5 and I'm staying behind that line.

But I would encourage anyone to take it further. If you were to shoot a kids' basketball game with an 8x10, I'd very much enjoy seeing a print.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

why is it that many people believe if they have expensive equipment,
excessively large format cameras &c. that they will be better photographers?

I've long wondered about that too. There appears to be something like this going on with the new Pentax 645Z — never have I witnessed so many people getting carried away with themselves with such an artificial piece of machinery...

Only many years of experience and skill-building will determine how well a photographer uses and gets the most out of his equipment. I bought pretty expensive cameras "way back when", around 1982 to 1988 (working through all of the systems) but my output was always mediocre until there was a "click" (so to speak!) and I settled on a Canon T90 (1988 I think); from there it was the right stuff and continues to be even though that T90 was pensioned off more than 25 years ago. I could happily create my very best work using a pinhole camera (and I do) besides my Super Trooper Pentax 67. And now... the weekend is here! Time to rumble in the [rainforest] jungle!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't understand the lust for expensive 135 format camera systems. I'm not criticizing at all... just wonder why one wouldn't choose medium format system if absolute quality was really that important. Yes, portability is very different but to pay such extravagant prices for 135 format gear I just can't comprehend.

And I can't comprehend why you can't stretch your mind beyond your own aesthetics. It doesn't take much to understand why somebody would love to shoot a format that is portable, fast, and has great lenses, and yields prints that are convincing enough to put in museums. What's not to like?

And you get the added benefit of showing off the gorgeous grain that film exhibits. 35mm Tri-X or HP5+ are so beautiful in 16x20 and 20x24 when you treat the film right. And with films like Pan-F+, Acros, and TMax 100, you can easily shoot landscape with the format also.

I know 35mm isn't for everybody, but maybe (as you say), absolute quality isn't really that important? I do think quality is important, and we must always strive to make the best prints we can make, regardless of camera. When I see what I'm able to squeeze out of 35mm I often wonder why I bother with bigger negatives. I really mean that.

 

[removed account4]

thomas..
the longer i talk with people, post online or whatever
the more i realiZe it / nothing matters ...
someone wants to use a cardboard box or a cookie tin they do their thing.
others use leicas, nikons minox, ebonies, or dorfs, they do their thing

some may shake their heads and say wtf, others yay!
but trying to convince someone why or why not ends up being futile.
its like tring to convince me i NEED a camera that costs a fortune and fresh film .. i laugh
but others may say YES bring it on
and in the end none of it matters we all do what we do and it makes us happy ...

 

[frank]

thomas..
the longer i talk with people, post online or whatever
the more i realiZe it / nothing matters ...
someone wants to use a cardboard box or a cookie tin they do their thing.
others use leicas, nikons minox, ebonies, or dorfs, they do their thing

some may shake their heads and say wtf, others yay!
but trying to convince someone why or why not ends up being futile.
its like tring to convince me i NEED a camera that costs a fortune and fresh film .. i laugh
but others may say YES bring it on
and in the end none of it matters we all do what we do and it makes us happy ...

Right.

My last few posts in various threads have been: use what you want to use, do what makes you happy, and don't worry about what cameras others choose to use.

 

[eddie]

I think cameras are a very personal decision, and it's difficult to criticize the choices of others. How they feel... how they work... how instinctive their use becomes... The only poor camera choice is one that never gets used.
(all this being said by someone who hasn't used a camera in months, but has gone through a bunch of film, and made a bunch of prints... )

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I don't see why it can't be done... Prefocus, pull the darkslide, f/8 and hit the flash.

I drew a line in the sand at 4x5 and I'm staying behind that line.

But I would encourage anyone to take it further. If you were to shoot a kids' basketball game with an 8x10, I'd very much enjoy seeing a print.

I've seen an 8x10 negative of a bobsled going through 'Shady', a high banked curve at Mt. van Hoevenburg near Lake Placid. Panned, to boot.
But, were I to take the same type photos, I'd default to 35mm. Or for MF, maybe a Combat Graphic with a wireframe finder or the Pentax SLR.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Aaaaaand the thread comes full circle. But seriously, I think your statement is only sort of true, in that (1) you have to expand "quality" to include things like workmanship and feels-good-to-use-iness, as well as functional usefuless and image quality; and (2) the relationship has a lot of exceptions, quite a few of which come from Wetzlar. (It's pretty hard to explain the premium for Leica accessories, or certain of the bodies and lenses, without appeal to the collectors' market.)

Not that quality doesn't cost money, but things like rarity and cachet do too.

-NT

That's it. I know from experience what it takes to design and build such things, and that's a great deal of my appreciation. As far as what others think, I could care less. I want a prewar Contax II with a Kiev nameplate.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Oh @#!*% , sorry, no it didn't.

If I'd bought it in 1980 when I first yearned for one it would have been a fortune to me, but when I finally got one in 2013 it cost about the same as a week of groceries.

I got an OM2 in 1978, when I was 17. It was a ridiculous expenditure, but I was a kid making a lot of money and captured by the allure of an f:1.4 lens - which couldn't make a photo at f:1.4 without putting red halos around all the highlights.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

]Hmm. Nikon F vs. Nikkormat?[/B] And when I bought my Nik'mat at the 4 Wing RCAF 1970 spring photofair it was priced at par with numerous other 35 mm SLRs at my base PX.

Hmm. My humble Century Graphic with a 38/4.5 Biogon (I still have have two of the lenses) vs. Alpa 12 with a 38/4.5 Biogon? Alpa 12 with a 38/4.5 Biogon vs. SWC with the same lens?

Hmm. Any modern 4x5 monoral camera vs. Calumet CC40x? Don't even think about mentioning digital backs.

When we get concrete many of the supposed advantages of beautifully made and very expensive gear look like illusions.

In 1970 you could purchase a new Toyota Corolla for eighteen hundred dollars and change. What fraction of that price did a Nikkormat at a U.S. public camera store represent? Now convert that price to 2014 dollars by the same method. I recently bought a clean functioning Nikkormat body for $17 and change...

 

[Dan Fromm]

In 1970 you could purchase a new Toyota Corolla for eighteen hundred dollars and change. What fraction of that price did a Nikkormat at a U.S. public camera store represent? Now convert that price to 2014 dollars by the same method. I recently bought a clean functioning Nikkormat body for $17 and change...

Public camera store price? I have no idea. RCAF 4 Wing spring photofair, $75, 4.2% of a Corolla.

Will a more expensive Nikon body take better pictures than a $17 used Nikkormat?

 

[analoguey]

Will a more expensive Nikon body take better pictures than a $17 used Nikkormat?

Quality / ease-of-use matters.
Will I get to see better/more of the composition in my viewfinder.
Can I check my aperture and shutter speed settings faster? (do I want that?)
Is focusing easier, clearer, better, faster, elsewhere?
Can I focus more on composition than working around the camera?
Do I need to change viewfinder to a better one?
Is there a need for really rapid operation of all the above?(if so command dials win hands down)

When do I need to have the picture? Instantly?

Ease-of-use or Quality of the device isnt just to be measured in one direction only.

And chances are, depending on what you prefer of the above - or even if you prefer larger formats..or movements afforded there, you choose based on that. Based on the best quality available for that. (money permitting)

Why would you shortchange your photography, photographic growth and learning by choosing what doesnt work for you?


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[ntenny]

That's it. I know from experience what it takes to design and build such things, and that's a great deal of my appreciation.

I think this attitude is perfectly fair and rather common, and almost nobody objects to it (do they?). Conversely, it can be kind of fun and a useful creative constraint to use ridiculously dodgy tools on purpose, as our OP in this thread knows as well as anyone. You do get the occasional odd person who appears literally to believe that the brand name affects image quality directly, but that's humanity for you; full of strange corner cases.

It's basically a collector mentality though, n'est-ce-pas? There's nothing wrong with collecting stuff, but it's mostly independent of *using* stuff, and in that light I get where someone upthread was coming from about expensive 35mm systems: Why would a person choose to spend their money on the collectible virtues of a camera system, rather than on the performance virtues? There are plenty of good answers, but it's not a dumb question.

As far as what others think, I could care less. I want a prewar Contax II with a Kiev nameplate.

Little bit of reverse snobbery going on there?

I actually did spring for an early Kiev, not quite the "relabeled Contax" version but close, and man, that's a nice-feeling camera. A modest supply of Contax system stuff has left me with absolutely zero GAS directed towards Leica.

-NT

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think this attitude is perfectly fair and rather common, and almost nobody objects to it (do they?). Conversely, it can be kind of fun and a useful creative constraint to use ridiculously dodgy tools on purpose, as our OP in this thread knows as well as anyone. You do get the occasional odd person who appears literally to believe that the brand name affects image quality directly, but that's humanity for you; full of strange corner cases.

It's basically a collector mentality though, n'est-ce-pas? There's nothing wrong with collecting stuff, but it's mostly independent of *using* stuff, and in that light I get where someone upthread was coming from about expensive 35mm systems: Why would a person choose to spend their money on the collectible virtues of a camera system, rather than on the performance virtues? There are plenty of good answers, but it's not a dumb question.



Little bit of reverse snobbery going on there?

I actually did spring for an early Kiev, not quite the "relabeled Contax" version but close, and man, that's a nice-feeling camera. A modest supply of Contax system stuff has left me with absolutely zero GAS directed towards Leica.

-NT

I had a Contax II with the 50/2 collapsible Sonnar. Last winter I got a '59 Kiev 4a with a J8m. I sold my Contax years ago to a friend, but when I opened the box and took the Kiev out it was just like having the Contax back! I even visited the guy who bought the Contax and spent an hour comparing the two. As far as function goes, the Kiev need make no apologies, in fact it scores on having flash synch. Looking at some old negatives, the J8 is every bit a Sonnar, only better due to the coatings. That J12 35/2.8 is pretty nice too, I got a '61 Arsenal version to go with the camera.
As for collecting vs using, I won't have something that can't be used. I have a Canon IIb in gorgeous condition - a total of three marks and two you have to look for. I use it, but I don't use it like I use my workhorse Nikon gear.
As for using dodgy equipment, I also have a Kodak Bantam 4.5. I know I can, with a little effort, make stunning prints from this simple little scale focusing camera from 1938 and intend to do so. I like old stuff that works, old cars ( the fellow who got my Contax has a barn full of cars; a V16 Caddilac, a Minerva, several Packards; more. His daily driver for the last 50 or so years has been a 1928 Packard sedan cut down to a pickup) old watches, old guns, old radios, and I use them all. I don't see myself as 'owner' but as a custodian for posterity.