more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

cliveh · Aug 22, 2014

Chris Lange said:
After a certain point cameras become rather boring to look at, don't you think?

I no longer get excited by new product announcements, or pristine cameras.

If you were to offer me a brand new MP in exchange for my M2, I would turn you down. The gear I know and trust, whose leather and metal I've sweat and bled onto; that gear makes me a better photographer. It's mental confidence, not material affluence, which gets us the pictures that matter.

Well said Chris, I also would not swap my M2 for any new or more expensive Leica.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 22, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

"The higher doth the monkey climb, the more he shows his arse"

Are baboons tasty?

E. von Hoegh · Aug 22, 2014

markbarendt said:
Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Is that like Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Ohhhh, I get it.

I invented a drink called that -
Rye whiskey
Orange bitters
Prune juice.
There's a variant called the Withered Scrotum with a date slit and stuck on the rim of the glass.

Then there's one in honor of Hunter Thomson called the Khefir and Loathing -
Half khefir
Half Mescal
A crust of ground magic shrooms floating on top.
Served with a saltshaker full of coke.

Ian Grant · Aug 22, 2014

Chris Lange said:
After a certain point cameras become rather boring to look at, don't you think?

Around 1900 I think

There were a few odd high points after that the Rolleiflex, the Spotmatic, and a few similar cameras.

Ian

markbarendt · Aug 22, 2014

Chris Lange said:
After a certain point cameras become rather boring to look at, don't you think?

I no longer get excited by new product announcements, or pristine cameras.

If you were to offer me a brand new MP in exchange for my M2, I would turn you down. The gear I know and trust, whose leather and metal I've sweat and bled onto; that gear makes me a better photographer. It's mental confidence, not material affluence, which gets us the pictures that matter.

Learning any new tool well is real work on top of any monetary cost. It wasn't always this way for me, but there needs to be a truly significant bump in value for me to consider adding a new toy/tool to my world.

markbarendt · Aug 22, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I invented a drink called that -
Rye whiskey
Orange bitters
Prune juice.
There's a variant called the Withered Scrotum with a date slit and stuck on the rim of the glass.

Then there's one in honor of Hunter Thomson called the Khefir and Loathing -
Half khefir
Half Mescal
A crust of ground magic shrooms floating on top.
Served with a saltshaker full of coke.

The Adirondacks are sounding more fun than the Rockies.

michaelbsc · Aug 22, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
But PETA wouldn't like us putting them in suits...

Politicians should wear suits like NASCAR drivers - ones with their corporate sponsors' logos all over them.

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 23, 2014

michaelbsc said:
Politicians should wear suits like NASCAR drivers - ones with their corporate sponsors' logos all over them.

That right there is pretty darned funny. I like!!

Jim Jones · Aug 23, 2014

Ian Grant said:
Around 1900 I think

There were a few odd high points after that the Rolleiflex, the Spotmatic, and a few similar cameras.

Ian

Long after 1900! My RB Cycle Graphic is an elegant combination of red and black leather, finely finished wood, and lacquered brass. So is the much later Anba Ikeda, without black leather and with gold finish replacing the brass. The rangefinder thread-mount Leicas were a refined example of form following function. We probably idealize the cameras we use. After all, a camera is intended as a tool. The Rollieflex was more functional than beautiful, a basic design produced for decades. The Spotmatic was little more attractive than prism SLRs that preceded and followed it. To me, the versatility of a Nikon prism mounted camera and its system more than makes up for any aesthetic advantage of the Pentax. Beauty in cameras is like beauty in women: there is more than meets the eye.

removed account4 · Aug 23, 2014

Jim Jones said:
Long after 1900! My RB Cycle Graphic is an elegant combination of red and black leather, finely finished wood, and lacquered brass. So is the much later Anba Ikeda, without black leather and with gold finish replacing the brass. The rangefinder thread-mount Leicas were a refined example of form following function. We probably idealize the cameras we use. After all, a camera is intended as a tool. The Rollieflex was more functional than beautiful, a basic design produced for decades. The Spotmatic was little more attractive than prism SLRs that preceded and followed it. To me, the versatility of a Nikon prism mounted camera and its system more than makes up for any aesthetic advantage of the Pentax. Beauty in cameras is like beauty in women: there is more than meets the eye.

couldn't agree more with your post jim jones ...

and as long as we realize the camera isn't the silver bullet to success
but understanding, vision, practice(x3) and "chops" we should be "all-set"
the silver bullet thing i think is too easy to get caught up in, as much now as it was
back in the early days " if you use this camera and this lens and this plate and this developer and this and that
your photographs will be worthy of any photo club wall and adorning the walls of xyz gallery "
i don't think it matters what equipment one uses as long as the user sticks with it, practices learns
and never stops those things because its when we rest on our laurels its the end

E. von Hoegh · Aug 23, 2014

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

We try. Although for some strange reason no one wants to try those drinks...

moltogordo · Sep 7, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
I invented a drink called that -
Rye whiskey
Orange bitters
Prune juice.
There's a variant called the Withered Scrotum with a date slit and stuck on the rim of the glass.

Then there's one in honor of Hunter Thomson called the Khefir and Loathing -
Half khefir
Half Mescal
A crust of ground magic shrooms floating on top.
Served with a saltshaker full of coke.

I invented a drink, too, and I'll share it here: As a Canadian with fairly Yankee/British taste in booze, I took my favorite Scotch-based drink, the Rusty Nail, and gave it a Southern twist. I give to you the "Southern Spike":

1 1/2 ounces quality bourbon
1/2 oz Jack Daniel's Honey Liquer

Pour ingredients into an Old Fashioned glass with ice cubes, stir, garnish with a twist of lemon, and enjoy.

To answer the question, I think a good photographer can make a great image using a piece of spaghetti. Equipment is nice but has nothing to do with the final image. I do like to have confidence in my equipment, and my favorite using cameras I settled on after I outgrew being an equipment snob, ended up being a Pentax MX, a Mamiya C330 and a nice old Linhof 4x5 Kardan. All good, solid stuff but not in the 'elite' class. But I could just as well use any workable machine in those categories, as long as I had a lens that suited my work.

In that regard, I never needed anything except a 35mm, a macro, and a fast 85 or 100mm lens. I could live with that, and in medium format a 55, an 80 and a 120, and in 4x5 a 150. I never went real wide or real long, but that's me. As long as what you have and use, suits your work.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 7, 2014

moltogordo said:
I invented a drink, too, and I'll share it here: As a Canadian with fairly Yankee/British taste in booze, I took my favorite Scotch-based drink, the Rusty Nail, and gave it a Southern twist. I give to you the "Southern Spike":

1 1/2 ounces quality bourbon
1/2 oz Jack Daniel's Honey Liquer

Pour ingredients into an Old Fashioned glass with ice cubes, stir, garnish with a twist of lemon, and enjoy.

To answer the question, I think a good photographer can make a great image using a piece of spaghetti. Equipment is nice but has nothing to do with the final image. I do like to have confidence in my equipment, and my favorite using cameras I settled on after I outgrew being an equipment snob, ended up being a Pentax MX, a Mamiya C330 and a nice old Linhof 4x5 Kardan. All good, solid stuff but not in the 'elite' class. But I could just as well use any workable machine in those categories, as long as I had a lens that suited my work.

In that regard, I never needed anything in 35mm except a 35mm, a macro, and a fast 85 or 100mm lens. I could live with that, actually.

many(toomany) claim that the type of equipment does not matter and that it is all in the photographerbut, I have never seen a really good photographer use anything but the best equipment

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 7, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
many (too many) claim that the type of equipment does not matter and that it is all in the photographer but, I have never seen a really good photographer use anything but the best equipment

I've never understood the claims that a photograph has no connection to the camera equipment used to make it. And anyone who thinks it does is an equipment snob.

"It's never about the camera. It's only about the photographer."

I mean, the photographer wasn't exactly pressing the button on a piece of fruit when the picture was made, was he? And during at least one brief moment while making a photograph I can virtually guarantee you that it is indeed all about the camera.

Ken

Dan Fromm · Sep 7, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
many(toomany) claim that the type of equipment does not matter and that it is all in the photographerbut, I have never seen a really good photographer use anything but the best equipment

Ralph, what do you mean by "the best equipment?"

I ask because the best photographer I'm acquainted with still uses Nikkormats and, mainly, pre-AI Nikkors. There are 35 mm cameras with more features than a Nikkormat and there are better lenses than his, including some newer Nikkors.

Saint Ansel used gear that wasn't the latest most best at the time.

I agree with you that when one wants to print huge good gear helps. And the guys who are mad for soft focus lenses puzzle me. But they have a point, for many images sharpness is overrated.

Ken, I agree with you that the camera has to function properly. Keep the dark in, time the exposure properly, hold the film where it is supposed to be. Thing is, most cameras that aren't "the best" do these things quite well.

Cheers,

Dan

markbarendt · Sep 7, 2014

For the average Joe or Jane I get why they might view this as an either or question, making one system or tool do various chores is a practical choice.

But "Serious" Surfers, Kayakers, Bicyclists, Snow Skiers (pick almost whatever activity you please) each typically puts together a "quiver" of boards, boats, or ... to suit the various different types of activity and conditions within the sport that they may want to participate in at any given moment or based on the condition presented to them. For example in the summer with no storms close one might get away with even prefer using a long board (large format) on Hawaii's famous big wave north shore, in the winter with storms in the North Pacific one might prefer a shorter, easier to handle, board (small format). Flipping the choices is surely possible but it makes for more work.

There really are differences in what each piece of gear/glass does "naturally" or "easily". The price isn't really that relevant if you need what a specific tool (or toy) does. This is why professional photographers tend to have a quiver of cameras. It's not uncommon for todays wedding photographers to carry a Holga in their kit with their F6 or D4.

Similarly using my $100 Calumet monorail 4x5 is more tedious and harder to haul around than my $700 Toyo Field camera, but if I want a really close macro or need big movements the Calumet is the better choice.

If one likes what a Sumicron does one should save their pennies and get one, they will be happier. If one is trying to get what a Plastic lens Holga does, then buying a glass lensed Holga or a Sumicron is probably a waste of cash and would just create extra work and take extra time to "fix" the print later.

benjiboy · Sep 7, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
many(toomany) claim that the type of equipment does not matter and that it is all in the photographerbut, I have never seen a really good photographer use anything but the best equipment

On the other hand too many photographers believe that buying the most expensive equipment that money can buy will make their photographs better, and when it doesn't they have nowhere to go and nothing to blame except their lack of talent.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 7, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
Ralph, what do you mean by "the best equipment?"

I ask because the best photographer I'm acquainted with still uses Nikkormats and, mainly, pre-AI Nikkors. There are 35 mm cameras with more features than a Nikkormat and there are better lenses than his, including some newer Nikkors.

Saint Ansel used gear that wasn't the latest most best at the time.

I agree with you that when one wants to print huge good gear helps. And the guys who are mad for soft focus lenses puzzle me. But they have a point, for many images sharpness is overrated.

Ken, I agree with you that the camera has to function properly. Keep the dark in, time the exposure properly, hold the film where it is supposed to be. Thing is, most cameras that aren't "the best" do these things quite well.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan, you spent quite a lot of time testing and evaluating lenses to select some of the very best ever made for your purposes... maybe not the latest but the best.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 7, 2014

benjiboy said:
On the other hand too many photographers believe that buying the most expensive equipment that money can buy will make their photographs better, and when it doesn't they have nowhere to go and nothing to blame except their lack of talent.

PRECISELY... buy better and GET better.

miha · Sep 7, 2014

Nothing wrong with buying expensive stuff and having no talent. People are way too judgemental...

Ian Grant · Sep 7, 2014

benjiboy said:
On the other hand too many photographers believe that buying the most expensive equipment that money can buy will make their photographs better, and when it doesn't they have nowhere to go and nothing to blame except their lack of talent.

I'm sure you came across quite a few people like that in your retail days. I know I've met a few over the years and they'd throw money into the latest gear based on hype they'd read in adverts and magazines.

All the major manufacturers made decent equipment but their cheaper SLR's etc would perform just as well as their most expensive models in terms of image quality. The top mode;s were usually more durable and designed for being worked hard, so the best photographers often used the most expensive equipment for those reasons.

Ian

Dan Fromm · Sep 7, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
Dan, you spent quite a lot of time testing and evaluating lenses to select some of the very best ever made for your purposes... maybe not the latest but the best.

Not the best, O-N-F, good enough. And I did much of the buying and testing to find out what the lenses were and whether they were good enough. Good enough is good enough. I seem to have bought one lens this year, and I bought it because I wanted it and the price was right, not because I needed it or because having it would improve or change anything I do.

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2014

miha said:
Nothing wrong with buying expensive stuff and having no talent. People are way too judgemental...

hi milha

there is nothing wrong with having no talent and buying the best equipment, but having the notion in you mind
that if you buy the best camera and lens/es money can buy ( money is no object ) and claiming it will
making your lack of talent disappear that is something different. i think there is a difference.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 7, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
Not the best, O-N-F, good enough. And I did much of the buying and testing to find out what the lenses were and whether they were good enough. Good enough is good enough. I seem to have bought one lens this year, and I bought it because I wanted it and the price was right, not because I needed it or because having it would improve or change anything I do.

I stand corrected. You evaluated until you found optics that performed better than you needed. If you were printing mural size might your choices have been different?

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 7, 2014

jnanian said:
hi milha

there is nothing wrong with having no talent and buying the best equipment, but having the notion in you mind
that if you buy the best camera and lens/es money can buy ( money is no object ) and claiming it will
making your lack of talent disappear that is something different. i think there is a difference.

Some people may think this way. However, others just want the full weight of responsibility regarding success to be on their own merits... no excuses for equipment failure. If we own the best then we have no excuses to fall back on... if only I had this lens or that camera. Zero excuses... so we must either improve or accept the fact that we haven't the technical skills and/or artistic vision. Take away all variables except which rest solely on our own shoulders and the undeniabilities force us to either improve or accept our own limitations.

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency