more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[Bill Burk]

But you have a chance still. All that money you didn't spend is still waiting to do its bidding for you.

 

[Bill Burk]

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

The next ambiguous question occurred to me... your photos never were better?

 

[scheimfluger_77]

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

Not if you keep the aperature at f/1.4. I know, I have one new from 1970 and if I was forced to keep only one camera, this would be it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Not if you keep the aperature at f/1.4. I know, I have one new from 1970 and if I was forced to keep only one camera, this would be it.

It would, of course, need new light seals from Jon Goodman ($20). If the shutter caps, you'll need a CLA ($150). Then you must add a 105mm f/2.8 ($200) and 35mm f/2 ($300) (not the one with 49mm filter size but the 72mm filter size). A macro lens 50mm f/4 or the bellows macro ($150). You probably already have the 49mm filters but 72mm filters are a bit expensive ($100).

Let's see: If my guess is anywhere near right, $920, you are nearly out a thousand dollars just because you picked up that $2 camera.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Yeah, and I'd like to have one of the 85mm f/1.8's as well, but that won't happen anytime soon.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It would, of course, need new light seals from Jon Goodman ($20). If the shutter caps, you'll need a CLA ($150). Then you must add a 105mm f/2.8 ($200) and 35mm f/2 ($300) (not the one with 49mm filter size but the 72mm filter size). A macro lens 50mm f/4 or the bellows macro ($150). You probably already have the 49mm filters but 72mm filters are a bit expensive ($100).

Let's see: If my guess is anywhere near right, $920, you are nearly out a thousand dollars just because you picked up that $2 camera.

I use wool and felt for lightseals, it doesn't degrade with time. The camera is a Spotmatic F with a 55/1.8, that means open aperture metering with the right SMC Takumars. The meter works accurately. The shutter doesn't cap, and I'd CLA it myself if it did. I don't need more lenses, I have all those with my Nikon stuff - including the 20/3.5 Nikkor UD that takes 72mm filters, which I also have - multicoated Hoyas, no less. I'm worried that I didn't pay enough for the camera, a $2 camera just can't take good pictures, right?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What about film, though? I heard that the new Rollei RPX films, which are twice the price of Ilford and Kodak here in the US, are twice as good as most anything else. Maybe the film comes pre-exposed by somebody with a really expensive camera, to guarantee good pictures! That would be totally meta.

 

[Bill Burk]

What about film, though?

That Kodak Premo Film Pack manufactured in 1912 that typicalaussiebloke shot is about the most exciting development in this direction. When you try to amass a quantity of it, the price is sure to skyrocket.

 

[removed account4]

fellas,
the consumables are secondary to the gear.
you should know this by now ...
you can have a ULF camera made by TJMAXX
and you don't have to expose anything .. you just have it set up
and have people come by, and ask you questions who cares
what you expose or don't expose at all, its just bling to boost your ego
seeing might actually have to have some talent to process old emulsion
and make it look good ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What about film, though? I heard that the new Rollei RPX films, which are twice the price of Ilford and Kodak here in the US, are twice as good as most anything else. Maybe the film comes pre-exposed by somebody with a really expensive camera, to guarantee good pictures! That would be totally meta.

Thomas, IIRC 8x10 Fujichrome is still available at $480 for a 20 sheet box.

 

[removed account4]

EVH you and thomas and bill got me
i keep forgetting if you shoot an uber expensive LF gear
you BETTER be feeing it FUJICHROME
cause anything else you would certainly be a putz
or you could just tell everyone you use that film
and carry around an empty box to complete the look

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, IIRC 8x10 Fujichrome is still available at $480 for a 20 sheet box.

Ya, but does it come pre-exposed with amazing photographs via very expensive camera equipment?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ya, but does it come pre-exposed with amazing photographs via very expensive camera equipment?

I have a Deardorff and a set of Dagors; but those might not be expensive enough.
As for amazing photos, I know a six-foot red haired green eyed 25~ year old, I'm sure a decent portrait of her (with an apochromatic Artar, of course) would qualify as amazing.

 

[Arcturus]

This reminds me of when I used to run a whale watch boat. So much expensive gear, so little idea of how to use it. Once I saw a woman with a very long "L" telephoto lens attached to the latest digital slr trying to take a picture of herself. She could barely hold it far enough away to keep it from hitting her in the face, and could not figure out why it just wasn't working. She decided the reason she couldn't take a selfie with her expensive telephoto lens was that it was "junk".

 

[removed account4]

This reminds me of when I used to run a whale watch boat. So much expensive gear, so little idea of how to use it. Once I saw a woman with a very long "L" telephoto lens attached to the latest digital slr trying to take a picture of herself. She could barely hold it far enough away to keep it from hitting her in the face, and could not figure out why it just wasn't working. She decided the reason she couldn't take a selfie with her expensive telephoto lens was that it was "junk".

obviously with a lens and camera like that she was an expert !

 

[moltogordo]

I'm a professional violinist, and have been Concertmaster of several professional orchestras. I get asked this question in musical guise, hundreds and hundreds of times. My answer is always the same.

"At the highest level of performance, good equipment is essential. What good is a Stradivarius if it cannot play as fast as you can, or the music requires?" And yes, these beasts exist. Violins are valued as art objects, not on an absolute scale. Thus a Stradivarius may or may not play well, but it will be more valuable than a Cavani or a Rocca. Like a Rembrant will be more valuable than a Pinkham Ryder. Generally a Strad is fabulous, but about 5% of them are dogs.

I played a Cavani for most of my career, and it was BETTER as a tool than several Strads or Guarneris I played. But the bottom line is that it did the job. It recorded well, and I was often asked if I played a Guarneri. I had no problems with response or projection in any of the solo passages in big repertoire like Richard Strauss's Ein Heldenlieben or the Rimsky-Korsakoff Scheherazade. It responded, sounded great, and projected to the back of the hall. My Cavani was a thoroughly professional instrument.

I could also play on inferior instruments and make them sound good, because I was a professional level player - but sometimes if I was playing a student's cigar box, I'd have to alter tempos and work harder to produce a better sound because the instrument was simply an inferior piece of wood. I would like to stress, however, that some student instruments I played were excellent and could be played professionally.

Likewise, photography. A great photographer can take a great picture with a piece of spaghetti. He will be better served by a professional piece of equipment, though. Someone with zero talent cannot take a memorable photograph with a Sinar, Nikon or 'blad unless he goes the monkey and typewriter route.

But if the equipment serves, holds up to use, has good optics and the photographer likes it, who am I to say otherwise?

I put myself through two University Music degrees as a working photographer. My cameras? A Mamiya C330 and a Nikon F3. I was often asked why I didn't use a Hasselblad. I did. I had two. I simply preferred the C330 with a Porroprism. I sold many pictures, and had many satisfied clients. The C330 simply felt right to me, and I did good work on it. It, like my Cavani, was a Professional machine that didn't get in the way of good results. Before the F3, I used a Pentax MX. Loved it and didn't like the somewhat clumsier Nikon F2 that I also had. However, when the F3 came out, I bowed to it's more comprehensive line of accessories because I needed them, and the Nikon Service dept was way better than the Pentax's. Optics? They're all good . . . I can't tell from a picture whether it was made by a Nikkor, Rokkor or Takumar . . . but anyone can see a pictorial difference if a larger format is used. If I had stayed in photography, I would have eschewed 35mm altogether except for newspaper work, and used a Pentax 645, because I liked the feel of it.

Now that I shoot for my own pleasure, what do I use for film? An Olympus Pen FT, a Pentax MX and a Mamiya C330.

As long as the tool doesn't get in the way of results, use whatever you want.

One guy's opinion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm a professional violinist...

Thoroughly enjoyed reading such a level-headed reply. Sort of a breath of fresh air around here. Thanks for that.



Ken

 

[Truzi]

Yes, I can relate to that. I play classical guitar... rather poorly. I have three guitars, one I don't touch anymore. It was a cheap student guitar that my instructor calls the "bird house" (since that is what is good for). I also have a La Patrie, which is decent for a factory-made guitar. My third is unknown, but essentially hand-assembled (long story; likely hand-made, destroyed in a bar fight (literally smashed over someone's head, destroying the back and losing the maker's label), fixed by a specialist, then purchased by me many years later).

Anyway, my teacher can make any of them sound good; I can't. The hand-assembled guitar is very easy to play, and sounds great; it makes me sound very good when playing something I am good at.

It also exposes the inadequacies of my technique far more than my other guitars. While this helps me improve, I can sound better with the La Patrie before I do.

I've had similar experiences with electric guitar.

 

[removed account4]

As long as the tool doesn't get in the way of results, use whatever you want.

One guy's opinion.

thanks for your opinion moltogordo !
i'm not very level headed
and i've been told all i
spout is gibberish ..
i appreciate your experiences -

john

 

[moltogordo]

Thanks, guys. Appreciate your comments.

John, you said: "
thanks for your opinion moltogordo !
i'm not very level headed
and i've been told all i
spout is gibberish ..
i appreciate your experiences -"

I try to be levelheaded, and usually am in music, photographic, and airgun areas (I'm a fairly serious competivite shot). But there are a couple of areas in which I spout gibberish or can get downright hostile in, too! To save my forum friends from this experience, I stay out of "coffee clutch" forums!

I've enjoyed several of your comments, by the way!

 

[lxdude]

Yes, I can relate to that. I play classical guitar... rather poorly. I have three guitars, one I don't touch anymore. It was a cheap student guitar that my instructor calls the "bird house" (since that is what is good for). I also have a La Patrie, which is decent for a factory-made guitar. My third is unknown, but essentially hand-assembled (long story; likely hand-made, destroyed in a bar fight (literally smashed over someone's head, destroying the back and losing the maker's label), fixed by a specialist, then purchased by me many years later).

Anyway, my teacher can make any of them sound good; I can't. The hand-assembled guitar is very easy to play, and sounds great; it makes me sound very good when playing something I am good at.

It also exposes the inadequacies of my technique far more than my other guitars. While this helps me improve, I can sound better with the La Patrie before I do.

I've had similar experiences with electric guitar.

I've been informed that I even suck at air guitar, electric and acoustic...

 

[Cycler]

I learned my lesson back in the 1980's. I was trying & failing to shoot pics of Flavinus tombstone in Hexham Abbey. They've since banned photography! But my flash had got damp and wouldn't have it. A guy with a Mamiya C330 asked if it was OK to shoot in there. then proceeded to use a tiny, my old DC3 'trigger' flash was bigger! flash to shoot inside the nave.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

in 11 years i have asked this question maybe 4 times
and it is always interesting to read different people's thoughts on this subject ..


why is it that many people believe if they have expensive equipment,
excessively large format cameras &c. that they will be better photographers?

im not talking the fun factor here, or that what used to be obscenely expensive
professional gear a few years back now costs a song and a dance so why not ..
but the fact that if a person cant drive the cheapest of the cheap cars ..
lets say a 1980 chevy citation that they think if they have a carbon fiber
bmw they will be an expert driver?
is it perception? that others will think people are experts, after all the car cost
as much as a house in 1970, and that perceived greatness rubs off
and the photographer actually becomes great by association?

i am as stumped in 2014 as i was in 2006.
back in 2006 i remember an apug member bought an 11x14 ebony (new)
with lenses that cost more than my first 2cars thinking
it would make her an expert, she hiked with it on her back
and did all the things she did with her spotamatic or whatever it was she had before and her photographs were less than expert in look.
she must have exposed thousands of dollars worth of color and b/w film.
i just wondered why she would do this, cause i never understood the point ... sure people do whatever they want and its their money and their business and it really doesnt matter ... but
i just wonder what the point is ..

thanks
john

if you want to post something not serious i couldnt care less
im not anal retentive about seriousness.

I enjoy working with 1st-class equipment;it makes photography more enjoyablewhen you can trust your equipment;money has no purpose other than trading it in for good stuff and Yes,my Hasselblad has made me a better photographer because,with it I new,the weakest link in the chain now was I!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A great photographer can make good pictures with a box brownie, an iPhone, a Hasselblad H5D or a Linhof Master Technika. Better photographers tend to have "better" gear because either it gets out of their way and enables them to make the kinds of images they envision in their heads, or because they use their gear so much that they require the kind of durability and features the "better" gear provides. But the reverse corollary is much less true than the original.

 

[dpurdy]

I do use some expensive cameras but the expense is annoying. If my Rolleiflex cost 5 dollars I would still use it. I very much love my very high quality and expensive LF lenses even though I only have them because they were gifts to me.