more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

E. von Hoegh said:

Here's a new premise: The more expensive the equipment, the more the owner spent on it.

Click to expand...

DING DING DING
i think we have a winner !

E. von Hoegh said:

Here's a new premise: The more expensive the equipment, the more the owner spent on it.

Click to expand...

Sometimes...



Ken

It's true there's not a huge difference in the end product (not counting image circle) whether someone uses a fairly late 90mm Super Angulon vs. the latest SAXL. However, there is a significant difference between either of those and an early 90mm Angulon. Whether one decides to, or is forced to, cope with older/lesser technology and performance is up to the user who might be able to use the older lens' faults to enhance certain images. Personally, other than special purpose lenses such as Imagons, I'd much rather have the sharpest/contrastiest lenses I can afford. I prefer to place complete blame on myself because this forces me to admit my own failures without the luxury of blaming equipment. I do place limits, of course, mostly due to my own thin wallet. But I also use some common sense, again for the benefit of my wallet. For instance I have a Chamonix 45N-1 because it's more capable than I'll ever be so no I have need for a pricier camera. I did add a Maxwell screen to eliminate the focus issue but, more importantly, to aid my failing eyesight.

My last word on 90mm WA lenses: I chose a Nikkor f/8 SW over the SA because it's smaller, lighter, sharper and contrastier. Why not opt for the better lens? However, I didn't opt for the latest SAXL because it adds little to improve images other than greater coverage which I don't need. In other words, I buy equipment that will always be more capable than I'll ever achieve but I don't always buy the best of the best.

When my images fail... it's ALWAYS my fault.

benjiboy said:

If the original premise was true, the people with the most expensive equipment would be the best photographers, and buying a Stradivarius would make me a brilliant violinist

Click to expand...

No and no, but a beginning string player will learn more quickly with a good instrument than with the cigar boxes beginners usually start with. An accomplished player can make a good sound with a cigar box but for the beginner its just one more hurdle.

Dan Fromm said:

...a beginning string player will learn more quickly with a good instrument than with the cigar boxes beginners usually start with. An accomplished player can make a good sound with a cigar box but for the beginner its just one more hurdle.

Click to expand...

Dan Fromm,

Nice thought. This is what I feel is at the crux of the matter.

I agree... Dan's analogy is as good as or better than any I can think of.

Here's another: A beginning boxer can learn to fight with one hand tied behind his back. He may learn to fight harder with he other hand and later appreciate the second hand once it's freed... or he may just lose heart... give up... and quit.

I hadn't quite thought of it this way until now but that's exactly what happened to me at age 9 when I was given a Kodak 127 Instamatic. I quickly learned to hate that POS and quit. It wasn't until age 13 when I stumbled across my dad's old Kalimar Reflex 120 format camera that I began to truly appreciate photography.

Michael R 1974 said:

We're not talking about the same thing, John. I mean jury rigging as in DIY fixes to compensate for equipment shortcomings/problems, and make them behave like better things. It doesn't apply very well to optics, but you can do it with cameras (particularly LF), enlargers and other darkroom equipment. I'm talking about finding ways around equipment issues rather than accepting them and calling them "signatures".

And by the way, that "sterility" argument against sharp, highly corrected lenses is a pretty good example of the snobbery that comes from the other side of the equipment fence.

Click to expand...

michael

speaking for myself, not for anyone else ...
i have never had a LF or any other camera that had
shortcomings or design flaws that i have had to jury rig ( k1000, me super, leica m3, yashicmat 124, rolleicord, speed graphic
graphic view II, toyo cx, crown graphic, box cameras, falling plate cameras, pinhole cameras &c )
to make it do something it wasn't designed to do, and to be honest
i am really not sure what that even means, is that like
someone with a speed graphic who flips the front standard so it has a different tilt?
i am at a loss ...
as for lenses, i am not really sure what you are talking about refering to snobbery from the other side
of the equipment fence.
i was speaking of something very specific regarding optics and shortcomings people often see with lesser quality lenses
verses the overly corrected uber sharp modern lenses. older lenses are usually thought to be terrible because
of these shortcomings and until the last 10-15 years older lenses were overlooked as being bad ... even though
when they first were released they were very good ... wollensak lenses were the cream of the crop but by the 80s-90s no one wanted them
because they were old washed up and on " speed graphics or graphic view IIs and real photographers use linhof or sinars, and not wollensaks"
lenses give a different signature, a different look, and it really to me has nothing to do with snobbery at all ... i personally don't like clinically sharp lenses ..
i think they are too much. and whenever i use my a nikon to do certain types of work clients love that overly clinically look of recent schneider or nikon glass
so i give it to them. but if it was for ME it would use something else because i don't want to see every imperfection in someone's face,
and to be honest i think overly in your face DOF details are not my cup of tea... it has nothing to do with snobbery ... but taste ..
is as simple as that ... not sure what snobbery has to do with it

as i asked, i wonder why people who think that buying a $4,000 lens and stopping it down to f45 on their ebony 11x14 camera
( shooting it as a point and shoot "0" indented everything because they don't understand anything about camera movements)
because it will make them seem so much better instead of mastering the basics on a 4x5 using a 30 year old used toyo G with a 70 year old wollensak stopped down to f16 ... ( with together might have cost a few hundred dollars, not 12large )

i agree dan learning on something that isn't a total piece of junk is best, something that is easy to use and manipulate and learn from and feel comfortable with
but there is a big difference between learning the ropes on lets say a toyo vx and a lens with good coverage than with an 11x14 ebony ...
its like learning to drive in a maserati ...

jnanian said:

michael

speaking for myself, not for anyone else ...
i have never had a LF or any other camera that had
shortcomings or design flaws that i have had to jury rig
to make it do something it wasn't designed to do, and to be honest
i am really not sure what that even means, is that like
someone with a speed graphic who flips the front standard so it has a different tilt?
i am at a loss ...
as for lenses, i am not really sure what you are talking about refering to snobbery from the other side
of the equipment fence.
i was speaking of something very specific regarding optics and shortcomings people often see with lesser quality lenses
verses the overly corrected uber sharp modern lenses. older lenses are usually thought to be terrible because
of these shortcomings and until the last 10-15 years older lenses were overlooked as being bad ... even thought
when they first were released they were very good ... wollensak lenses were the cream of the crop but by the 80s-90s no one wanted them
because they were old washed up and on " speed graphics or graphic view IIs and real photographers use linhof or sinars, and not wollensaks"
lenses give a different signature, a different look, and it really to me has nothing to do with snobbery at all ... i personally don't like clinically sharp lenses ..
i think they are too much. and whenever i use my a nikon to do certain types of work clients love that overly clinically look of recent schneider or nikon glass
so i give it to them. but if it was for ME it would use something else because i don't want to see every imperfection in someone's face,
and to be honest i think overly in your face DOF details are not my cup of tea... it has nothing to do with snobbery ... but taste ..
is as simple as that ... not sure what snobbery has to do with it

as i asked, i wonder why people who think that buying a $4,000 lens and stopping it down to f45 on their ebony 11x14 camera
( shooting it as a point and shoot "0" indented everything because they don't understand anything about camera movements)
because it will make them seem so much better instead of mastering the basics on a 4x5 using a 30 year old used toyo G with a 70 year old wollensak stopped down to f16 ... ( with together might have cost a few hundred dollars, not 12large )

i agree dan learning on something that isn't a total piece of junk is best, something that is easy to use and manipulate and learn from and feel comfortable with
but there is a big difference between learning the ropes on lets say a toyo vx and a lens with good coverage than with an 11x14 ebony ...
its like learning to drive in a maserati ...

Click to expand...

No offense but you're WAY off the mark. No one has said anything about buying fine equipment and being so completely incompetent with it.

Old-N-Feeble said:

No offense but you're WAY off the mark. No one has said anything about buying fine equipment and being so completely incompetent with it.

Click to expand...

LOL

I DID ( first page ? ) ( post 1 and post 76 )
that is what this thread is about.
people being totally incompetent,
barely knowing how to make an exposure
and dropping down large sums of $$$ to make it seem
like they are better than they are,, instead of learning on something
of lesser value but still good to learn on and THEN maybe after
they have a better understanding, getting a more expensive "high liner" ...
i referred the first pages of this thread to someone i know here on apug years ago
who bought a pricy 11x14 and in her own words she was not very accomplished ...
and a student friend of mine who bought a rolls royce of a mf camera when he
could barely make an exposure with his k1000 ...
sorry you missed the first pages of this thread ...

and as i had said, i am not trying to be cranky, i just was interested
in getting in their head and learning why someone would make that sort of investment
when it might be more practical to learn on something less expensive,
( not junk ) instead ...

and i guess the answer is " because they can "

jnanian said:

LOL

I DID ( first page ? ) ( post 1 and post 76 )
that is what this thread is about.
people being totally incompetent,
barely knowing how to make an exposure
and dropping down large sums of $$$ to make it seem
like they are better than they are,, instead of learning on something
of lesser value but still good to learn on and THEN maybe after
they have a better understanding, getting a more expensive "high liner" ...
i referred the first pages of this thread to someone i know here on apug years ago
who bought a pricy 11x14 and in her own words she was not very accomplished ...
and a student friend of mine who bought a rolls royce of a mf camera when he
could barely make an exposure with his k1000 ...
sorry you missed the first pages of this thread ...

and as i had said, i am not trying to be cranky, i just was interested
in getting in their head and learning why someone would make that sort of investment
when it might be more practical to learn on something less expensive,
( not junk ) instead ...

and i guess the answer is " because they can "

Click to expand...

I stand corrected regarding no one mentioning carelessness and incompetence. Still, that's not me nor many other folks.

I have not read any of this thread, but the title intriques me....... the first thing that comes to my mind is what would Joseph Sudek have to say about the title of this thread.

Oh, dear. I didn't think that my comment to the effect that beginning string players should start out with good instruments had anything to do with our discussion about whether using expensive gear makes a photographer better.

The first hurdle a beginning string player has to jump is learning how to make the instrument speak. Within limits -- let's ignore the wonderful old instruments from Cremona, these days the market for them is driven by collectors -- the more expensive the instrument is the easier it is to play and the more expensive the bow is the easier it is to control.

Re bows, years ago one of my friends took up 'cello. She bought an instrument, took three bows home from the dealer to try. I came by, was asked my opinion of the bows. I hefted each, said "A is better than B is better than C. You absolutely don't want C, can get by with B, should purchase A if you can afford it." Her husband told me that I'd ranked the bows in price order and asked how I'd done it. Balance.

Cameras and lenses are quite different. With them, price has little to do with ease of use. It may be related to build quality, doesn't have to be. With lenses it may have to do with how much a good negative can be enlarged, doesn't have to be.

Dan Fromm said:

Cameras and lenses are quite different. With them, price has little to do with ease of use. It may be related to build quality, doesn't have to be. With lenses it may have to do with how much a good negative can be enlarged, doesn't have to be.

Click to expand...

Actually prices have to do with ease of use - the ease of use will not be generic or same - one might be with feature buttons on everything, one a jack of all trades, another lack of heft or bulk etc., pro/expensive gear is more focused, isnt it?

/cant believe this thread is still going on.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

The answer comes in two parts:
1 - people use heuristics, they have tools, procedures, etc. In most cases, the better the tool the better the result. Hence, some people apply the same rule to photography, believing that better (more expensive ) tool will make better (more desirable ) pictures. As we know, art is complicated and any complex process requires talent, refinement of technique, as well as best tools.
2 - if you check out the photo industry, on average, more expensive cameras will be owned by more proficient photographers, but there are important outliers

analoguey said:

Actually prices have to do with ease of use - the ease of use will not be generic or same - one might be with feature buttons on everything, one a jack of all trades, another lack of heft or bulk etc., pro/expensive gear is more focused, isnt it?

Click to expand...

We're in different parts of the photographic universe, might be in different universes. Two examples:

Nikon F with FTn head versus Nikkormat FTN. Removable prism/ability to use waist level finder aside, the Nikon F has less functionality than the Nikkormat and is no easier to use. In fact, some users -- I'm one -- find the Nik'mat easier to use. With these cameras the user makes the difference.

47/5.6 Super Angulon versus 47/5.6 SA-XL. The XL gives somewhat better image quality in the plain SA's image circle, has a larger image circle and is no easier to use. Here the application makes the difference. Need larger prints or movements, get the -XL, otherwise get the plain ordinary.

Interesting comparison between the Nikon F and Nikkormat. Personally, I wouldn't care much between the two because they'll both hold optics in equally perfect alignment and I'd be using a hand-held spotmeter with either one. For me, it's the optics that make the difference when dealing with nearly any 135 format SLR... though, a mirror lockup would be nice to have for critical work. Technical and large format cameras are different, of course.

Dan Fromm said:

We're in different parts of the photographic universe, might be in different universes. Two examples:

Nikon F with FTn head versus Nikkormat FTN. Removable prism/ability to use waist level finder aside, the Nikon F has less functionality than the Nikkormat and is no easier to use. In fact, some users -- I'm one -- find the Nik'mat easier to use. With these cameras the user makes the difference.

47/5.6 Super Angulon versus 47/5.6 SA-XL. The XL gives somewhat better image quality in the plain SA's image circle, has a larger image circle and is no easier to use. Here the application makes the difference. Need larger prints or movements, get the -XL, otherwise get the plain ordinary.

Click to expand...

The mirror lock-up in particular is better on the 'mat. The F scores on ability to switch screens, which is nice but rarely absolutely necessary. Another nicety of the 'mat is when using the self-timer, the mirror goes up as soon as the timer starts - giving the camera/tripod ten seconds to settle down. Nice if you forgot the cable release.
I have both the F/FTN and Nikkormat FTN. Identical metering patterns, which is nice. When I want averaging instead of center-weighted I have a Nikkormat FT. Or I will when I resolve the battery compartment issue.

i am thinking of selling all my equipment, everything i own, lenses, cameras .. everything ..
if someone could tell me what camera i can buy that is hands down the best there is
the most formidable camera that exists ... and the most exquisite set of 4 lenses ( i want a wide, normal, long and really long )
i am thinking of taking out a home equity loan/second mortgage. can anyone give me suggestions ...
money is no object ..
\thanks in advance for your expert advices
john

jnanian said:

i am thinking of selling all my equipment, everything i own, lenses, cameras .. everything ..
if someone could tell me what camera i can buy that is hands down the best there is
the most formidable camera that exists ... and the most exquisite set of 4 lenses ( i want a wide, normal, long and really long )
i am thinking of taking out a home equity loan/second mortgage. can anyone give me suggestions ...
money is no object ..
\thanks in advance for your expert advices
john

Click to expand...

I hear digital is best these days...

But for my money, in 35mm, I doubt I could make any significant improvement over a Nikkormat with a 28/2.8 or 35/2, a 50/2 Nikkor H, a 105/2.5 either version, and for really long maybe a 200/5 Nikkor.
Please send me the leftover money.

EvH that won't be expensive enough to stroke my ego !
i need something that will cost a fortune

Old-N-Feeble said:

I agree... Dan's analogy is as good as or better than any I can think of.

Here's another: A beginning boxer can learn to fight with one hand tied behind his back. He may learn to fight harder with he other hand and later appreciate the second hand once it's freed... or he may just lose heart... give up... and quit.

I hadn't quite thought of it this way until now but that's exactly what happened to me at age 9 when I was given a Kodak 127 Instamatic. I quickly learned to hate that POS and quit. It wasn't until age 13 when I stumbled across my dad's old Kalimar Reflex 120 format camera that I began to truly appreciate photography.

Click to expand...

I'll quote my father on this:

There have been more good photographs taken with Kodak Instamatics than all the SLRs put together.

There are lots of situations where a more flexible and capable camera either make it easier to make a particular photograph, or in some cases possible to take a particular photograph, but there are many, many circumstances where careful use of a point and shoot box camera will lead to wonderful results.

If your inspiration and interests lead you to more demanding circumstances (e.g. low light or close focus work) then spending more money may very well lead to better photographs.

jnanian said:

i am thinking of selling all my equipment, everything i own, lenses, cameras .. everything ..
if someone could tell me what camera i can buy that is hands down the best there is
the most formidable camera that exists ... and the most exquisite set of 4 lenses ( i want a wide, normal, long and really long )
i am thinking of taking out a home equity loan/second mortgage. can anyone give me suggestions ...
money is no object ..
\thanks in advance for your expert advices
john

Click to expand...

jnanian said:

EvH that won't be expensive enough to stroke my ego !
i need something that will cost a fortune

Click to expand...

I'll build you a set of box cameras made from the best double-thick cardboard with lenses made with bottoms from the finest glass bottles... half-pint (wide), pint (normal), quart (long) and gallon (very long). Since these are custom built my price of only $25K delivered CONUS is an absolute steal. These are the finest cameras and optics available anywhere so don't blame me if your images suck.

EDIT: If you want metric lenses, e.g. quarter liter, half liter, liter and 4 liter, that's custom work and requires a special price quote (usually a 50 percent premium).

jnanian said:

EvH that won't be expensive enough to stroke my ego !
i need something that will cost a fortune

Click to expand...

I have one word.... Linhof

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...lly+ships+in?gclid=CJv7nr2K18ACFQiIaQodyXoATg

Old-N-Feeble said:

I'll build you a set of box cameras made from the best double-thick cardboard with lenses made with the finest glass bottles... half-pint (wide), pint (normal), quart (long) and gallon (very long). Since these are custom builds my price is only $25K delivered CONUS. These are the finest cameras and optics available anywhere so don't blame me if your images suck.

Click to expand...

Nuts. I'll build him a view camera out of wood scavenged from an ancient Egyptian river barge, solid platinum hardware, finest unborn linoleum bellows.
Lenses, I'll make those from glass scavenged from cathedral windows.
If you have to ask the price...

E. von Hoegh said:

unborn linoleum

Click to expand...

This phrase alone makes the entire thread worthwhile!

-NT