more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm not sure I agree on the "fittest" part.

Ethics and morality, if that be your drift, play no part in determining "fittest". There are no rules in a knife fight...

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE "fittest" individuals having the priciest gear: Define "fittest". Is that regarding one's photographic prowess such that they make a very good living at photography? Or if one is a very talented investment broker and made many millions on the stock market, does this make him/her a better photographer because they can afford to buy the best?

I do still argue that better equipment can aid a talented photographer in producing better work. The difference may be minimal but it will be there.

 

[Chan Tran]

First I rather not talking about expensive but rather good. Good cameras are generally expensive but there may be bad ones that are expensive too like those collectible old cameras. So a good camera won't make me a good photographer but surely I will take better pictures with a good camera than a bad one. That is comparing pictures taken by me only.

 

[removed account4]

RE "fittest" individuals having the priciest gear: Define "fittest". Is that regarding one's photographic prowess such that they make a very good living at photography? Or if one is a very talented investment broker and made many millions on the stock market, does this make him/her a better photographer because they can afford to buy the best?

I do still argue that better equipment can aid a talented photographer in producing better work. The difference may be minimal but it will be there.

at a certain point cameras and other gear just become "bling" ...
i had another friend who used to carry around certain books to make it
seem like he was reading them or was well read ( when he wasn't reading them at all )
... the books became bling, or a fashion accessory
it is the same thing ... it has nothing to do with being the "fittest" but pulling the wool over peoples' eyes.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree that "good enough" is good enough most of the time and that differences in quality may be minute. However, a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon simply can not compete with a 90mm SAXL. The differences in quality and capability may not be obvious in many cases and/or in the wrong hands but in the right hands and under the right conditions the quality and capability differences will be obvious.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Define "fittest".

Those that can, drive the Ferrari. Those that can't, complain about those that drive Ferraris.

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

<define fittest> Those that can, drive the Ferrari. Those that can't, complain about those that drive Ferraris.

Ken

What about those of us who drive "fake" Ferraris?

 

[removed account4]

First I rather not talking about expensive but rather good. Good cameras are generally expensive but there may be bad ones that are expensive too like those collectible old cameras. So a good camera won't make me a good photographer but surely I will take better pictures with a good camera than a bad one. That is comparing pictures taken by me only.

in your case, you have talent and skill, and can make a good camera sing, i agree
BUT
if you had no skill or talent would it matter if you used a good camera or a mediocre one ?

ONF
i agree if someone with skill and talent had that nice lens you mentioned it would make a difference, it would be the "boost"
but someone without the skills or talent it wouldn't make a difference ... there are a zillion OK 90mm lenses
that will work just fine ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What about those of us who drive "fake" Ferraris?

View attachment 94760 View attachment 94761

I also own a nice pair of FED 3B rangefinders...



Ken

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Define "high".

You know what a fourteener is.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Those that can, drive the Ferrari. Those that can't, complain about those that drive Ferraris.

Ken

No we don't, we tell ourselves if we could afford the Ferrari we'd buy the Toyota, pocket the difference, and point and laugh.

 

[markbarendt]

You know what a fourteener is.

I think it's 4 that I can see from my window. does that count?

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I think it's 4 that I can see from my window. does that count?

That's 4 more than I can see from my window.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

No we don't, we tell ourselves if we could afford the Ferrari we'd buy the Toyota, pocket the difference, and point and laugh.

Heh, heh...

So, so true.



Ken

 

[Chan Tran]

in your case, you have talent and skill, and can make a good camera sing, i agree
BUT
if you had no skill or talent would it matter if you used a good camera or a mediocre one ?

ONF
i agree if someone with skill and talent had that nice lens you mentioned it would make a difference, it would be the "boost"
but someone without the skills or talent it wouldn't make a difference ... there are a zillion OK 90mm lenses
that will work just fine ...

No matter what skill level one may not make a good pictures but one almost always make a better picture with a better camera. Same thing with the Ferrari and Toyota I won't win any race with the Ferrari but certainly can drive faster with the Ferrari than the Toyota.

 

[pdeeh]

Well, that's cleared that up

 

[removed account4]

No matter what skill level one may not make a good pictures but one almost always make a better picture with a better camera. Same thing with the Ferrari and Toyota I won't win any race with the Ferrari but certainly can drive faster with the Ferrari than the Toyota.

i think that is the problem
people THINK they will make better pictures
with a better camera, even if they have no skill at all
and no talent at all
but they don't make better pictures at all, as seen by my 2 examples
of one photographer i knew from here, and one knew personally for 7 semesters ( 4 years! ).
both must have believed getting a good or better or the best camera would make
their photographs GREAT, but it didn't. one person who sent me a photograph in the mail apologized
for her photographs being terrible, and the student i was friends with put his work up every monday and wednesday for
a critique sessions, and they did not improve.

maybe if you have skill and talent ( i have seen your work and know you have both! ) having a good camera or a great camera &c
helps you make good or better or great photographs, but it didn't matter to the 2 people i used as examples. and THAT is why i posted this thread
not to complain, but because i have wondered about one of these people for 30 years and the other for the better part of my time here on apug
why they would buy such expensive gear, when they could have easily used OK gear and gotten the same results ...
but still if i can't drive a amc gremlin ...

 

[Dan Fromm]

I won't win any race with the Ferrari but certainly can drive faster with the Ferrari than the Toyota.

Interesting idea. Where I live, all cars go the same speed. Traffic jams, y'know.

Where I've traveled things have been much the same. Of course, in some places the traffic jam moves faster than in others. Think of I90/94 northbound towards Rockford. ~ 90 mph (per my GPS and on more than one trip) bumper-to-bumper.

And then there's enforcement. On I-10 from somewhere a bit east of Fort Stockton to approximately Kerrville the posted limit is 80 mph. The limit enforced seems to be 84 mph. If the Ferrari driver didn't need a license to drive, this wouldn't be a problem for it.

 

[cliveh]

Interesting idea. Where I live, all cars go the same speed. Traffic jams, y'know.

Where I've traveled things have been much the same. Of course, in some places the traffic jam moves faster than in others. Think of I90/94 northbound towards Rockford. ~ 90 mph (per my GPS and on more than one trip) bumper-to-bumper.

And then there's enforcement. On I-10 from somewhere a bit east of Fort Stockton to approximately Kerrville the posted limit is 80 mph. The limit enforced seems to be 84 mph. If the Ferrari driver didn't need a license to drive, this wouldn't be a problem for it.

Yes, but races usually take place on a race track, not normal roads. You are missing the point of his analogy.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I think Michael R 1974 said it early on in this thread. If the gear gets someone out shooting more that's great, of course it helps if you actually wish to improve while at it. I think the Muse is there when you work for it, whatever the endeavor. I am grateful to my friend Daryl who gave me one of his Pinhole camera builds about 8 years ago. It has got me out shooting again and that has been very sporadic for the 25 or 30 years previous. I'm actually getting ready for a show in December for my pinhole work and that has pushed me back into the darkroom again too, it's great. Fancy equipment is nice but you have to get out and shoot. Period.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've never thought better equipment would make me a better photographer. However, I've always believed that equipment can limit my ability to become a better photographer. Stated another way, equipment may not not be good enough to show significant subtle improvements in one's abilities despite all his efforts. Why intentionally self-impose those limitations if one can afford better equipment?

I state again: I don't want my equipment to limit me. I want my abilities to be the only limitations. All this really does is remove a few variables from the equation. In other words, the only solution to the result of "failure" is "me"... failure=me.

Anyway, if I want to eat beans and rice for six months to buy a top-quality lens then I'm going to do it and you can't stop me.

 

[removed account4]

I've never thought better equipment would make me a better photographer. However, I've always believed that equipment can limit my ability to become a better photographer. Stated another way, equipment may not not be good enough to show significant subtle improvements in one's abilities despite all his efforts. Why intentionally self-impose those limitations if one can afford better equipment?

I state again: I don't want my equipment to limit me. I want my abilities to be the only limitations. All this really does is remove a few variables from the equation. In other words, the only solution to the result of "failure" is "me"... failure=me.

Anyway, if I want to eat beans and rice for six months to buy a top-quality lens then I'm going to do it and you can't stop me.

ONF

eat those rice and beans enjoy that lens, cause i am stoked to hear of people buying new equipment!
and i know you won't think it is bling ... although i did see some guy on the street corner this afternoon with a linhof technical camera
on a gold chain around his neck, it was a beautiful sight ... a nice lens would be easier to string if you cut a hole through the board ... sk grimes might be able to help

 

[NedL]

Yesterday morning I was on the shore of a lovely high sierra lake. I had carried my F3 there in a knapsack.

After swimming, I went back to my jeep to get a coffee can pinhole camera, which I used instead.
Not better, just different.

No Ferrari has ever been to that lake.
( I know... my jeep wouldn't go on a race track. But it might be a matter of opinion which one is more fun to drive in the places they are used... )

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Almost a month, and 34 pages containing 337 (now 338) posts, many of them of the variety of grape known as sour, all to rake some poor defenseless female photographer over the coals for having had the nerve to buy a nice camera almost nine years ago?

Really?

I think that if someone can and wants to spend their money buying a Chamonix 8x10 and a few nice lenses to go along with it, we should be happy for, and supportive toward, that person. Isn't that exactly what APUG is supposed to be all about?

We shouldn't be running around carrying tar and feathers and pitchforks. Green can be a very corrosive (and divisive) color. Green also happens to be the color the human eye is most sensitive to...

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ken... For the most part I don't think anyone is raking anyone else over the coals. Those who believe pricey equipment is a waste of money are just defending their choices. Maybe it's an ego thing. I don't know. The ego argument can go either way though. The only question I want answered is: If one can afford better equipment (lenses especially) then why buy equipment that isn't capable of making images as good as the photographer can produce? That self-limitation makes no sense to me. Again, that's if one can afford the better equipment.