more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

E. von Hoegh · Sep 12, 2014

Dan Fromm;1697707[B said:
]Public camera store price? [/B]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?

I have a black F/FTN with the 1.2 lens. The original bill of sale from 1971 is about $450; I'd have to look for the exact amount. Say 25% of a cheap car. In today's money, what's that, $3800 - $4000?

The potential picture quality will depend on the lens, the actual quality will depend on who's using it. As you well know.

ntenny · Sep 12, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I had a Contax II with the 50/2 collapsible Sonnar. (...)

My 50/1.5 Sonnar is one of those magic lenses you occasionally find, seemingly capable of doing no wrong, so I haven't really given the J-8 a lot of exercise. It seems like a solid performer though, which has been my experience of the 6-element Sonnars in the past---no drama, no extreme signature, sort of a "just-the-facts-ma'am" lens.

As for collecting vs using, I won't have something that can't be used.

But you will, if I understand you right, buy something on the basis that "this marvel of workmanship will be fun to shoot", rather than "this tool will achieve something in the final product that my existing tools won't". So will I, but there are those who will look at both of us and wonder why.

I have some sympathy for the original question, though. I'd be almost completely out of 35mm if not for the cameras that are too delicious *not* to use. Almost all of which, interestingly, are Hubert Nerwin designs. That guy had my number but good.

I forget, what was this thread about again?

-NT

analoguey · Sep 12, 2014

ntenny;1697774. said:
I forget, what was this thread about again?

-NT

Whether scanning/inkjet betters darkroom prints.
;-)

Sent from Tap-a-talk

E. von Hoegh · Sep 12, 2014

ntenny said:
My 50/1.5 Sonnar is one of those magic lenses you occasionally find, seemingly capable of doing no wrong, so I haven't really given the J-8 a lot of exercise. It seems like a solid performer though, which has been my experience of the 6-element Sonnars in the past---no drama, no extreme signature, sort of a "just-the-facts-ma'am" lens.

But you will, if I understand you right, buy something on the basis that "this marvel of workmanship will be fun to shoot", rather than "this tool will achieve something in the final product that my existing tools won't". So will I, but there are those who will look at both of us and wonder why.

I have some sympathy for the original question, though. I'd be almost completely out of 35mm if not for the cameras that are too delicious *not* to use. Almost all of which, interestingly, are Hubert Nerwin designs. That guy had my number but good.

I forget, what was this thread about again?

-NT

Precisely. My working Nikon outfit was/is 20, 28, 35, 50, 55 Micro Nikkor and 105 and it will do anything I will ever want to do with 35; I have the other 35 stuff just for the enjoyment factor. IMO the Contax rangefinder is the best ever put on a 35mm camera, the rangefinder on my Linhof ST IV is no better. Don't forget Ludwig Bertele who designed all the Sonnars and the Biogon for Hubert's camera.

BTW I just bought a '69 K4 with a Helios 103 on it.

removed account4 · Sep 12, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I don't see myself as 'owner' but as a custodian for posterity.

man, this quote made this 28 page long thread for me, thanks EvH ..
in many ways i feel the same way about things.

now back to using dodgy stuff
- john

Bob Carnie · Sep 12, 2014

I think Sudek used any materials smuggled to him. I don't think he even heard of a Linhof

CatLABS · Sep 12, 2014

jnanian said:
in 11 years i have asked this question maybe 4 times
and it is always interesting to read different people's thoughts on this subject ..

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

im not talking the fun factor here, or that what used to be obscenely expensive
professional gear a few years back now costs a song and a dance so why not ..
but the fact that if a person cant drive the cheapest of the cheap cars ..
lets say a 1980 chevy citation that they think if they have a carbon fiber
bmw they will be an expert driver?
is it perception? that others will think people are experts, after all the car cost
as much as a house in 1970, and that perceived greatness rubs off
and the photographer actually becomes great by association?

i am as stumped in 2014 as i was in 2006.
back in 2006 i remember an apug member bought an 11x14 ebony (new)
with lenses that cost more than my first 2cars thinking
it would make her an expert, she hiked with it on her back
and did all the things she did with her spotamatic or whatever it was she had before and her photographs were less than expert in look.
she must have exposed thousands of dollars worth of color and b/w film.
i just wondered why she would do this, cause i never understood the point ... sure people do whatever they want and its their money and their business and it really doesnt matter ... but
i just wonder what the point is ..

thanks
john

if you want to post something not serious i couldnt care less
im not anal retentive about seriousness.

I had a professor in college who was one of the highest paid commercial photographers at the time, mostly shooting product.
He used to tell this story to each class - he always kept a massive 4X5 setup on a rolling tripod, and massive lights arrays all around the shoot area, but then would do most of the work with his then state of the art Canon G5 point and shoot. At some point he bought a big filter carrier and flash bracket for that camera to make it look more serious, the reason being that several high profile clients refused to have their product shot with a tiny dinky looking camera.

So it really is mostly in the hand of the photographer. Sure - some cases require expensive gear which with out, a shoot cannot be done, but this type of specialty gear is rare, and those cases are about 0.1% of most of what anyone who gets paid to shoot needs.

In most cases, talented photographers will make the same great work with junk gear, like a holga or Iphone, and even with dinky 35mm cameras, that they would have with top of the line gear.

Bad photographers on the other hand, will stay bad regardless of how good, and more amusingly, how expensive the gear is. They will still use that brand new custom ordered 8X10 camera/SLR/MED format and specialty lenses to make god awful images of boring things, the same as they would have done with lesser gear.

In the newsroom - functionality is key. Because no one actually ever pays for that gear (agency pays, or gear is sponsored by the manufacturer) the only gear that gets used, lasts, and is useful - is what actually works in the field. Because 80% of leicas are broken when they leave the factory, they never really get massive use in daily/spot news, same goes for hasselblad (though now that they are made by Fuji in japan, they are slightly better).

Numbers: Is am AF 300mm F2.8 lens expensive? if you count it compared to its fractional value of a corolla, compared to some other 300mm lens, the numbers might say it is expensive but if you cannot get the shot of some visiting dignitary because you ran out of Fstops, and that shot cost your desk 5000$, it is not very expensive. If you are shooting your kids baseball game in a sunny sunday, it is very expensive.

Interestingly enough - both canon and nikon usually price the "pro" top tier SLR bodies about X3 above the high end "not pro" high end camera - however, some cameras are just so good, and so much easier to use - in the digital age, most (if not all) professional photojournalists i worked with opted to buy and use their own smaller, less expensive SLR bodies, rather then using the FREE large and heavy "pro" bodies for a myriad of reasons.

So those lesser cameras did need service more often, but they were so cheap relatively, that who cared...

removed account4 · Sep 13, 2014

thanks catlabs!
i appreciate your chiming in ...
i had a friend who lived in NYC and he used to do commercial jobs with a yashica t4
but from what i sort of remember ... he also had the 'blad nearby in case the client "freaked" ...

analoguey · Sep 13, 2014

Hassies are made by Fuji now?!

pdeeh · Sep 13, 2014

CATLabs said:
80% of leicas are broken when they leave the factory,

???

ToddB · Sep 13, 2014

I see it all the time too..

Here in New Mexico we have the Annual Balloon Fiesta event in October. Boy... That's when all the so called pro photogs come out sporting their expensive gear. There are the news media shooters that are of course getting images for the paper. But there are a truck load of wannabes with very exspensive digital cameras getting the action. Which is fine. I just think it's funny that a lot of of them don't know the basics of operating them. They just want the status of carrying around a huge camera. It's funny the reaction I get with the Rolleiflex. A lot of people don't know what it is and some will drop everything to check it out. I know I sound broken record on saying that I absolutely blown away with the quality of image that are able to to in such a small compact unit.

pdeeh · Sep 13, 2014

Excellent summation

CatLABS · Sep 13, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
So many complex things going on here. But one thing we can all agree on, more expensive the gear the better the photographer.

I am not sure i got this, but you are being cynical right?

CatLABS · Sep 13, 2014

pdeeh said:
???

QA is not their best feature.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2014

CatLABS said:
I am not sure i got this, but you are being cynical right?

(thread title )

and YES i am cynical ... then again, maybe
if i get a 20x24 de golden bush anda 18" de golden bush lens and accessory case and i will feel better
even thought i only photograph the grass on my front lawn my neighbors will think i am that much better.

georg16nik · Sep 14, 2014

CatLABS said:
QA is not their best feature.

You mean Leica film cameras QA is not their best feature?....

Jim Jones · Sep 14, 2014

georg16nik said:
You mean Leica film cameras QA is not their best feature?....

My M4 and five lenses look like wrecks after many decades of hard use, but work fine. QA doesn't come much better than that.

georg16nik · Sep 14, 2014

Jim Jones said:
My M4 and five lenses look like wrecks after many decades of hard use, but work fine. QA doesn't come much better than that.

My experience is same as yours.

Perhaps CatLABS is talking about different Leica from another planet.

removed account4 · Sep 16, 2014

NB23 said:
Got my billingham stolen, last month.
One camera, one lens. 20,000$ loss.

Yes, my photography reached a level where, after extremely serious, hard work and rewards of all kinds and nature, I was pushed to own and to "deserve" the best. And yes, my photography improved with it on many aspects.
I see my tools as invaluable. I will die with my tools. I'm not a camera operator with my extremely expensive film gear but an artist that follows hos own vision. My gear is second nature. My camera is my hand. Thereofore it's priceless. A dollar sign cannot replace the value of my personal gear that's been seasoned in my hands.

Looks like the best didn't deserve me, though. Sigh. Printing in the darkroom has helped me get over the loss. each one of my prints make me realize that each one of them is priceless. I am blessed, in a sense.

that's terrible. i hope they find your bag and its contents and the thief and put him/her in a pillory.

but NB i think there is a difference between the person i knew from here, and the other whom i knew personally for 4 years ... who
were "lacking" something ... and someone like you who ( as seen by your beautiful work you have shared here on apug ) is anything but lacking.
i am guessing you didn't start off with the valuable equipment but something else with which to learn ...

john

ps. i hope when you have an expo of your serbian series you will be close enough to where i live so i can see them in the flesh ..

scheimfluger_77 · Sep 16, 2014

wy2l said:
... A few good pieces, ...

, and then this piece, and then that piece, and then some other piece over there. I've had to stop making myself go to ebay more than once because things began to get out of hand.

scheimfluger_77 · Sep 16, 2014

markbarendt said:
The Adirondacks are sounding more fun than the Rockies.

They are not as high...

Arklatexian · Sep 16, 2014

Jnanian, it seems to bother you how much that, dare I say "kid", that kid spent so much money on a more expensive camera than it evidently did him. If less than talented people did not buy expensive camera equipment, there would be even fewer "used" Leicas, Hasselblads, Linhofs for those of us who can't afford "new" but would still like to own them for whatever reasons we have....Regards

markbarendt · Sep 16, 2014

scheimfluger_77 said:
They are not as high...

Define "high".

removed account4 · Sep 16, 2014

oldtimermetoo said:
Jnanian, it seems to bother you how much that, dare I say "kid", that kid spent so much money on a more expensive camera than it evidently did him. If less than talented people did not buy expensive camera equipment, there would be even fewer "used" Leicas, Hasselblads, Linhofs for those of us who can't afford "new" but would still like to own them for whatever reasons we have....Regards

hi oldtimermetoo

if you have read my posts in this thread, you 'd know it really doesn't bother me that he had expensive gear, to be honest i am glad he did
because every class it reminded me that the gear didn't matter one bit. he wrestled with every exposure ... as i clicked away with my k1000 for 7 semesters
i just wondered why he got it since he could barely use the "inexpensive" gear he had. i don't think he sold the expensive camera but he continued making photographs
and might actually be making a living making photographs as i type this ... i don't know, we lost touch. the other person i alluded to used to be active here
but a few years after she purchased the big camera &c she kind of vanished. i don't know if she continued either.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 16, 2014

With the usual caveats for the occasional exceptions to the rule, in capitalist economies the more talented can, when all is said and done, buy more expensive things than the less talented. Even when those things are not directly related to the talents that provided for their purchase.

Maybe what we see here is nothing more than yet another expression of the more generalized Peter Principle. There's a reason that, barring the caveats, the less talented are driving Toyotas and the more talented are driving Ferraris. Even when those doing the driving are unschooled in the art of automotive engineering.

Capitalism is, at its heart, nothing more than a thin societal and legal veneer papering over the fundamental principle of the survival of the fittest.

Think about it...

Ken

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency