more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Somebody had to take good pictures while HCB was doing his thing.

yep someone had to take photographs of all those rocks and trees alright, the deeper the DOF the better, the most expensive equipment money could buy
as dr house would say" all those trees and rocks weren't gonna photograph themselves"

pdeeh · Sep 23, 2014

All this guilt and self-flagellation over nothing ...

gzinsel · Sep 23, 2014

well pdeeh,
I feel somewhat responsible for this. I am sorry to everyone. I did not intend for my statement to hurt anyone. again i am sorry. in my defense, I thought I was stating the obvious. it was not directed to anyone in particular. It was only affirming our cultural milieu.

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

at the moment i have probably 60 different lenses
and 30 different cameras that i will need to sell fast
so i can buy something better than what i have seeing
for the past 35 years i have never had the opportunity to
buy anything new or good. i really need a crutch to help me stand
so having a big camera or a better camera might help. i am also
thinking of taking up some sort of alternative process image making
so even if my lack of technique of my large camera makes my images oh-humm
i might just make them different so people will be impressed.
i know i am always impressed by that sort of thing ... so i am sure others will be too

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 23, 2014

Just switch to high quality nudes of gorgeous woman. Those never fail to impress me. Publish those here and I promise not to criticize type of equipment used... unless too much detail is lost.

pdeeh · Sep 23, 2014

gzinsel said:
well pdeeh,
I feel somewhat responsible for this. I am sorry to everyone. I did not intend for my statement to hurt anyone. again i am sorry. in my defense, I thought I was stating the obvious. it was not directed to anyone in particular. It was only affirming our cultural milieu.

Nothing I said was directed at you gzinsel.
Or indeed any particular individual.
It's not my thread, I don't own it, and you have no need to apologise to anyone, least of all me, at least from my point of view.

Many times when I hear people complaining about "political correctness gone mad" it's really people complaining that they are unable to express their casual (sometimes not so casual) racism, sexism and general vileness.

In this case, we really seem to have a lot of apologising and reapologising and general oh-we-must-be-very-solemn about nothing very much at all, except that one person made a mild joke and another took exception to it (from my point of view unnecessarily, but then I'm not him) ...

then it turns into a lot of hot air, and high horses being mounted and ridden off at speed towards the moral high ground.

jeez ...

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

pdeeh,
no moral high ground or high horses here,

frivolous-THREADS are an escape from the day to day ...

its not jeez its cheez

Ko.Fe. · Sep 23, 2014

Not a LF or even MF guy, don't have enough experience with those.
As RF guy I could tell what most of pictures taken with Leica gear aren't much better comparing to FSU gear.
To me good photography isn't related with lens sharpness, but I have to admit I could take Holga pictures in limited numbers.
More expensive gear might make you better photog if you shot commercially. Same applies for any trade tools. Where price indicates materials and design.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 23, 2014

So the overall consensus is that SAXL, SSXL, Apo Symmar-L, Apo Sironar-N, Apo-Computar, etc. aren't worth owning vs. comparable lenses two or three generations older. Is this true for those who can eek-out the last tiny bits of quality from a given lens and make mural-sized enlargements with the highest quality optics designed for that task such as Rodagon-G and Apo Componon HM?

pdeeh · Sep 23, 2014

correct

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
So the overall consensus is that SAXL, SSXL, Apo Symmar-L, Apo Sironar-N, Apo-Computar, etc. aren't worth owning vs. comparable lenses two or three generations older. Is this true for those who can eek-out the last tiny bits of quality from a given lens and make mural-sized enlargements with the highest quality optics designed for that task such as Rodagon-G and Apo Componon HM?

i don't know if is the the general consensus but it is my belief from seeing it first hand
for the average person, not the expert/professional
and for the ill-advised ... saxl, ssxl apo symar and whatever else you want to sell them for thousands ...
won't make any difference at all. i would also suggested the ill-skilled, ill-talented and incompetent's
photographs made with those lenses you mentioned, even if enlarged to be mural sized enlargements
probably wouldn't make a bit of difference.
since the beginning of this thread, i have stressed the user of this high end high-line &c equipment
is NOT a professional, is not versed in technique &c yet purchase the equipment thinking it will make them
seem professional-like, will somehow magically give them the things they lack ... but in the end
they will ultimately lack $$ in the bank ...

Bill Burk · Sep 23, 2014

jnanian said:
...purchase the equipment thinking it will make them
seem professional-like, will somehow magically give them the things they lack ... but in the end
they will ultimately lack $$ in the bank ...

So hard to answer this question. For you see, buying that equipment did do something magical...

It made them realize they needed the money for something else.

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
So hard to answer this question. For you see, buying that equipment did do something magical...

It made them realize they needed the money for something else.

maybe, or maybe all that $$ was a drop in the bucket and they didn't miss it ?

bdial · Sep 23, 2014

It's a fine line. A master has a better chance of producing something great with a poor tool than the student, but a good tool can compensate to some degree for a student's lack of skill.

Bill Burk · Sep 23, 2014

jnanian said:
maybe, or maybe all that $$ was a drop in the bucket and they didn't miss it ?

That's what I mean by hard to answer.

In my first draft I jokingly typed..

They realized they didn't need the money after all.

But then I turned the thought serious.

In both cases I was talking about me.

removed account4 · Sep 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
That's what I mean by hard to answer.

In my first draft I jokingly typed..

They realized they didn't need the money after all.

But then I turned the thought serious.

In both cases I was talking about me.

yeah that is hard .. and i understand what you mean.
and i am not worried about your answer bill,
every answer is about whoever typed it
that's why i have suggested this thread is about me

pharmboycu · Sep 30, 2014

Very interesting thread! As a complete amateur, I wanted to chime in on my thoughts. I have four analog cameras I routinely use: a Pentax K1000, a Canon A-1, a Canon F1, and a Nikon F6.

Strangely enough, I think the Pentax and the F1 are my favorites. I will admit that I usually get better results from the Nikon, but the Pentax and F1 are more fun and more fulfilling when the results turn out the way I'd hoped.

The Nikon is a much more expensive camera, but I do get better results with it: the metering is better and the lens is better. Does it enhance the composition or aesthetic merit of my photograpy? Not a chance. But it does help the technical aspects and is helping me learn to improve my photography with the manual cameras.

As far as justifying the expense, my thought was that the F6 would serve me well as I learned more and would be a camera that would not become obsolete as I continued to learn more. One often spends more in the course of upgrading from product to product to product than if he has simply bought the more expensive product at the outset.

I think of it like my guitar playing. When I first began, the quality of a vintage Martin D-28 would not have been of any more benefit to me than a well setup $300 starter guitar. As my playing developed and improved, the subtle precision and tonal qualities of a vintage D-28 elevated my playing beyond the limits of the starter guitar; but I had to reach the level of proficiency at which those differences became critical, otherwise those differences would have been lost on me.

My dream cameras would be a Leica M3 and a Hasselblad (I love the mechanical precision and sharpness of both and the square format of the Hasselblad), but I recognize I haven't reached the level of proficiency at which the subtle differences will elevate my photography beyond the equipment I have. Right now, I'm at the photography equivalent of a using a new Martin D-28: they're great for moderate and advanced players and will serve a professional well (meaning, the Nikon F6 will serve me as a growing amateur well into the future). I hope someday to be the kind of photographer that would benefit from the vintage D-28: tonal colorations and construction matter to a skilled artist (meaning I'd love to be at the level where those nuances of a Leica and Hasselblad aren't lost on me).

M Carter · Sep 30, 2014

Of course "does gear make you better" would be a 50-page thread...

All I'll add to this discussion: my wife has zero photo training. She continually startles me with her phone photos. Her sense of composition and color, and the fact that she "sees" a photo when nobody else does, and that her pics often have a sense of story - all that makes her one of the best shooters I've known. She's thoughtful and methodical when she decides to take a pic, and she's a great self-editor.

If she ever decided to get serious, look out. But I did just buy her a rangefinder that's fairly portable. "take it on your walks, babe!"

mweintraub · Oct 1, 2014

I didn't read the entire 50 pages here, but I'll say this. Better gear might be needed for certain situations / jobs. Most people won't want their wedding shot on a Holga. So gear does matter... but more importantly, so does the photographer.

frank · Oct 1, 2014

pharmboycu said:
Very interesting thread! As a complete amateur, I wanted to chime in on my thoughts. I have four analog cameras I routinely use: a Pentax K1000, a Canon A-1, a Canon F1, and a Nikon F6.

Strangely enough, I think the Pentax and the F1 are my favorites. I will admit that I usually get better results from the Nikon, but the Pentax and F1 are more fun and more fulfilling when the results turn out the way I'd hoped.

The Nikon is a much more expensive camera, but I do get better results with it: the metering is better and the lens is better. Does it enhance the composition or aesthetic merit of my photograpy? Not a chance. But it does help the technical aspects and is helping me learn to improve my photography with the manual cameras.

As far as justifying the expense, my thought was that the F6 would serve me well as I learned more and would be a camera that would not become obsolete as I continued to learn more. One often spends more in the course of upgrading from product to product to product than if he has simply bought the more expensive product at the outset.

I think of it like my guitar playing. When I first began, the quality of a vintage Martin D-28 would not have been of any more benefit to me than a well setup $300 starter guitar. As my playing developed and improved, the subtle precision and tonal qualities of a vintage D-28 elevated my playing beyond the limits of the starter guitar; but I had to reach the level of proficiency at which those differences became critical, otherwise those differences would have been lost on me.

My dream cameras would be a Leica M3 and a Hasselblad (I love the mechanical precision and sharpness of both and the square format of the Hasselblad), but I recognize I haven't reached the level of proficiency at which the subtle differences will elevate my photography beyond the equipment I have. Right now, I'm at the photography equivalent of a using a new Martin D-28: they're great for moderate and advanced players and will serve a professional well (meaning, the Nikon F6 will serve me as a growing amateur well into the future). I hope someday to be the kind of photographer that would benefit from the vintage D-28: tonal colorations and construction matter to a skilled artist (meaning I'd love to be at the level where those nuances of a Leica and Hasselblad aren't lost on me).

I'm on board with this.

benjiboy · Oct 3, 2014

The basic premise is flawed because if it were true the photographers with the most money would take the best photographs.

Bill Burk · Oct 3, 2014

benjiboy,

I love the way you opened the floor to discussion... It's painfully obvious there is a loophole in your logic.

If they have the most money, they didn't spend enough on the gear.

removed account4 · Oct 4, 2014

bill and benjiboy,

THANK YOU !

E. von Hoegh · Oct 4, 2014

I bought a Pentax Spotmatic at a yardsale for $2. Does this mean all the pictures I take with it will be crap?

Dan Fromm · Oct 4, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I bought a Pentax Spotmatic at a yardsale for $2. Does this mean all the pictures I take with it will be crap?

Yes, of course they will be. But that's more because of you than because of the camera and lens. [ask a silly question, get a silly answer]

In the '70 professional photographers in the UK used Spotties.

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency