more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

removed account4 · Sep 17, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
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.

ONF

you are right, i haven't raked anyone over the coals, and i don't think pricy equipment
is a waste of money. i love pricy equipment, and i could probably afford it if i really felt
that it would make a difference in the things i do, but i have different priorities right now.
and that $$ is being used for something else. maybe someday i will get a "dream camera/dream optics"
but i don't really think it will give me any sort of edge that you have referred to, so in my case it wouldn't be useful.
the expensive stuff i have seen has been quite special, really pretty works of mechanical art.
when did i suggest using limiting equipment ? maybe you confused my suggesting that someone
who is skilled and has a certain talent can make low tech cameras make negatives and images that are astounding
while someone with less skill and less talent can have the most expensive camera and most expensive lenses on the planet
and not take astounding photographs. but i don't think i came out and suggested people throw away their
nice gear and everyone buy a crappy camera, because this thread has nothing to do with that ( even though some folks might think it does ).

as i have stated several times, i just wondered why someone would drop that kind of money on equipment
( other than the fun factor, or i have the $$ so why not )
when there certainly is less pricy cameras than something that cost as much as a car, that will get the job done
just as well, especially as a beginning photographer. i mean a photo 1 student using a high end MF camera?
most of the other students in the class had K1000s and similar manual cameras and i don't think any of them were
limited by their gear. i never found ( and i still use it so i never find ) a k1000 to be self limiting.
pentax optics have never let me down.

ambaker · Sep 17, 2014

Better tools make it easier to do a better job. This is true in any field. Yes I have done a brake job with a screw driver, pliers, and a crescent wrench. Wasn't much fun, but it worked. They also were the only tools I had, at the time.

If there is a camera you want, go get it. If it is brand new, so what? Leica technicians have to eat too...

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 17, 2014

jnanian... I was referring to all posts as a whole, not to anyone in particular. I never intended to infer you stated pricey equipment is a waste. The overall consensus of those who argue against high-end gear seems to be leaning that way though. I never stated that budget-priced cameras and lenses can't be used very effectively by skilled craftsmen. I only stated that highly skilled craftsmen may benefit from the highest quality equipment with heavy emphasis on lenses. I agree that photography, or any other endeavor, should be fun. Otherwise, why do it?

BTW, I made a post in another thread... or maybe it was this one (I can't remember)... regarding the heavy cost of top-end Leica cameras and lenses. I stated that I didn't understand spending that much money on equipment that's limited to 24x36mm film quality. The consensus was... "it's because we like them" and "the quality is generally top-notch" and "because we (they) can afford them". Obviously, I must concede to all three points.

MattKing · Sep 17, 2014

There is an important difference between equipment being more expensive because it incorporates characteristics that make it work better, and equipment that must certainly be better for the photographer because it costs more.

From the beginning, I've though John's complaint has been about people only determining value by measuring cost.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 17, 2014

MattKing said:
There is an important difference between equipment being more expensive because it incorporates characteristics that make it work better, and equipment that must certainly be better for the photographer because it costs more.

From the beginning, I've though John's complaint has been about people only determining value by measuring cost.

I think you're probably right. My posts are intended to infer best "quality" and not necessarily "highest price" though these are usually not mutually exclusive features. I would never buy a $20,000 lens EVER because I can't afford it but even if I was very wealthy I still wouldn't buy one if it performed no better than a $2,000 or $200 lens.

I would gift away the Toyota and buy a Ferrari though!!

Dan Fromm · Sep 18, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
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?

Good point even though I'm not sure the Chamonix is the end-all and be-all of 8x10 cameras.

I don't agree with you about what APUG is all about. Circling the wagons, mainly, as I see it but this is a subject on which its best to agree to disagree.

Funny thing is that I'm a bottom feeder -- my mother taught me to never pay retail -- but I'm not jealous of those who can. Whenever I decide its time to part with one of my cult lenses I'm grateful that such people exist.

removed account4 · Sep 18, 2014

MattKing said:
There is an important difference between equipment being more expensive because it incorporates characteristics that make it work better, and equipment that must certainly be better for the photographer because it costs more.

From the beginning, I've though John's complaint has been about people only determining value by measuring cost.

exactly, thanks matt ...:eek:

Dan Fromm said:
Good point even though I'm not sure the Chamonix is the end-all and be-all of 8x10 cameras.

I don't agree with you about what APUG is all about. Circling the wagons, mainly, as I see it but this is a subject on which its best to agree to disagree.

Funny thing is that I'm a bottom feeder -- my mother taught me to never pay retail -- but I'm not jealous of those who can. Whenever I decide its time to part with one of my cult lenses I'm grateful that such people exist.

where did this thread mention chamonix cameras and lenses ...
i don't think they cost a semester's tuition or as much as a house in the 1970s
...
great, for whomever bought the chamonix and lenses i hope they get years of enjoyment out of it ...

i agree with you dan, i don't think a chamonix is the top of the line .
maybe if it was hand made in vermont or japan, or the camera + lenses were owned by someone "famous" so that
the appraisers at skinner, robert klein, westlict, or antique's roadshow would consider the camera's greatness not only by
its aesthetics/beauty but also by association / provenance ... chamonix is nice still ... they make a nice ( and pretty ) camera.

removed account4 · Sep 18, 2014

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
You can rake me over the coals if you want. I'm still undecided on which high end monorail.

Toyo Robos or GXII?

Dan Fromm · Sep 18, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
You can rake me over the coals if you want. I'm still undecided on which high end monorail.

If the time ever comes you'll get one. Until then, you probably won't.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Bill Burk · Sep 18, 2014

Andreas Feininger wrote on this topic, a chapter titled "The Practical Value of Photography" in the book Advanced Photography: Methods and Conclusions.

He's got this topic nailed in that chapter, which would be great to share but Google Books is butchering snippets these days, so you can't even get a coherent phrase out of the preview.

I don't think this thread is about any one person, this is a general topic on which APUG members have strong, sharply divided opinions as Dan Fromm says we'll have to agree to disagree. We have two camps represented at APUG, and it is difficult for the one to comprehend the other's arguments. We're as different as Weston and Cartier-Bresson...

For example, in one sentence pg 41 he explains the difference between Weston and Cartier-Bresson after an expressive passage describing the general impression of technical perfection in an American photo annual compared to the imagination, creativity and originality in a French photo annual.

"While we distinguish a genuine Weston from an imitation mainly by its superlative degree of technical perfection, we distinguish a genuine Cartier-Bresson from a copy mainly by the superior strength of its emotional content."

Feininger goes on to say "The real superiority of the expensive camera manifests itself only in the hands of the superior photographer."

removed account4 · Sep 18, 2014

great quote, thanks bill!

Michael R 1974 said:
I'm somewhat spoiled because my first 4x5 was a Sinar. Granted it was an A1 (entry level) but I loved it. This was around 1990. I saved and saved for that thing. Should have never sold it and to this day I have no idea what I was thinking. The current list is:

Linhof TK45, RE or GT
Sinar
Arca
Toyo VX125

Analysis paralysis. It has been going on for a few years now. Oddly, the least expensive by far would be the Kardan RE.

In some ways I wish I could go way back in time and buy a new Norma or Kardan Bi. Somehow I feel like those were some of the greatest LF machines and would last a lifetime.

Ok go ahead and do your worst, people! Although I should point out I'm an awesome artist so I NEED the very best.

no coals .. , a pro shop in 1988 tried their best to sell me a TOL sinar, i have always wanted one, after he showed me
the gearing and elusive beauty ... i ended up only being able to afford a beater GVII ( repair shop on consignment ) with a case
and 2 lenses ... the fiber case closed the deal for me because i needed a few inches of heightening, my lifts weren't enough ...
it was soon after the house fell on me and i was getting used to my less than tall stature ( i used to be 6feet ) ... i still have a case
(smaller one for a speeder ) but that's OK i've gotten lanky since i started to spend time on "the rack" before bag some zzz's ...

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

Bill reads to darned much.

ntenny · Sep 18, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Geez all of Bill's recent posts are "making me very angry". First Mortensen, now this? What's going on with you, Bill?

Shouldn't you be angry at Feininger, whom he's quoting?

I feel like in the broadest sense Feininger has a point, though one could quibble with specific examples or with the French/American generalization. Of course technique and equipment are largely independent, and if you gave a Weston or an Adams a mediocre tool you'd still find that their technical expertise allowed them to do fine work despite its limitations---but there do seem to be people who are technical "maximizers" and whose workflow is optimized for high-precision tools and processes, and people who work with more of the "artistic temperament" and for whom technique is only of interest as a means to an artistic end. If you don't like Feininger's examples, maybe you can call them the Bertilsson and Nanian schools?

Some people spend hellacious amounts of money on gear because they can, I suppose, and if they enjoy photography and can afford to enjoy it with an Aurum Rolleiflex or something, well, there it is. I won't deride them for it unless they think the price tag is in the optical path!

-NT

E. von Hoegh · Sep 18, 2014

If you want to plink at tincans, a semiauto .22 with iron sights will do you just fine. If you want to shoot one-hole groups at 50 yds, you'll need to a) learn how to shoot and b) get a better gun with appropriate sights. If you get the better gun without learning to shoot with precision, you've just wasted a lot of money. Conversely, all the skill in the world won't make up for the inherent accuracy limitation of the inexpensive autoloader.
No substantive difference with photo gear, or anything else.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
If you want to plink at tincans, a semiauto .22 with iron sights will do you just fine. If you want to shoot one-hole groups at 50 yds, you'll need to a) learn how to shoot and b) get a better gun with appropriate sights. If you get the better gun without learning to shoot with precision, you've just wasted a lot of money. Conversely, all the skill in the world won't make up for the inherent accuracy limitation of the inexpensive autoloader.
No substantive difference with photo gear, or anything else.

What if I want to plink at tin cans at 100 yards?

Bill Burk · Sep 18, 2014

I'll need to watch what I say...

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

Bill Burk said:
I'll need to watch what I say...

How can you watch what you say? Can you see sound waves?

Bob Carnie · Sep 18, 2014

What kind of camera did Brassai use, I think he timed his images by a smoke. His images are pretty good.

removed account4 · Sep 18, 2014

Bob Carnie said:
What kind of camera did Brassai use, I think he timed his images by a smoke. His images are pretty good.

bob you keep bringing up the classics
huge thanks !
john

E. von Hoegh · Sep 18, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
What if I want to plink at tin cans at 100 yards?

I have a .22/250 built on a 1941 Oberndorf Mauser action; heavy barrel and a 14x Unertl 'scope. I've hit beers at 400 yds with it. It gives 1/4" groups at 100 yds. with good handloads.

E. von Hoegh · Sep 18, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
How can you watch what you say? Can you see sound waves?

Of course, or at least the electrical analogue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscilloscope

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I have a .22/250 built on a 1941 Oberndorf Mauser action; heavy barrel and a 14x Unertl 'scope. I've hit beers at 400 yds with it. It gives 1/4" groups at 100 yds. with good handloads.

NICE!! I could have been that accurate in my youth with the right rifle and optics. These days... forget about it.

E. von Hoegh · Sep 18, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
NICE!! I could have been that accurate in my youth with the right rifle and optics. These days... forget about it.

I'm 53, 54 in a couple months.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 18, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
Of course, or at least the electrical analogue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscilloscope

The joke was: If Bill wants to be more careful of what he writes... he shouldn't write, "I need to watch what I say", because he didn't say anything and if he did he couldn't see it. Even an oscilloscopic rendering is a visually abstract interpretation of sound... not the sound itself. However, I suppose he is watching what he's writing.

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency