Your camera doesn't matter

<p>Specialized tools are needed for specialized task. But specialized tools are not needed for every task. Not every task is special. Many (most) are ordinary and can be served well by any number of tools. If the majority of tasks are not special then the tools do not matter as much. If the majority of tasks are special then the tools do matter.</p>

<p>For the majority of photographers in the world (myself included), their tasks are not that special. But a lot people like to believe they are because it allows them an excuse or a justification for their gear obsession. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Charles,<br>

<em>Better</em>.... it is not better. You need both. You need some tool to convert your vision into a photo, in the end. ANd the tool need to support that execution.<br>

But we agree that developing a vision and working on that is far more important (and will ultimately yield more interesting photos), than upgrading gear.</p>

<p>Wouter-I think that you misunderstand the quote; it does not say you don't need both. Gear is good. Vision is better.<br /><br /> cb</p>

<p>The camera is a contributing factor, but...<br>

Give a monkey and a skilled photographer the same equipment and do you expect the same results?</p>

<p>Really, equipment matters, but the photographer is the most important element. The equipment is just the tools to achieve the desired result. The desired result is determined by the brain behind the camera.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>In terms of equipment, lighting matters far more than a camera. You can change from a cheap consumer body to the most expensive professional body and up to a reasonable size the prints won't show any difference. But you switch from an on-camera flash to a couple softboxes and the difference in images is apparent immediately, regardless of the camera. </p>

<p>This is what gets missed in all this debate about equipment - it's always this camera vs that camera or this brand vs that brand or this lens vs that lens. Then someone says "what camera and lens do I need to shoot this?" when it's obvious that "this" was shot with a lot of lighting equipment, makeup artists, backgrounds or location searches, etc. </p>

<p>In the end, light, whether natural or not, will have far more influence over the appearance of the photo than the camera. (Exceptions are special purpose cameras like swinging lens panoramics or Holgas.)</p>

<p>This explains why the best wedding and sports photographers just use the cameras built into their cell phones. Why buy a fancy camera? These people don't need any silly bells and whistles. You can tell the amateur wanna-be's at sporting events, they are the ones with the useless huge lenses on the sidelines. Suckers. </p>

<p>That’s right! It’s all about me, me, <strong>ME</strong>!</p>

<p>If I use a 110 camera, with a Coke bottle lens, and a tiny piece of film, I can get the most beautiful 24” print. You say everything is fuzzy. You’re just stupid. You don’t understand art. It’s really wonderful because I did it. How else could anything be wonderful?</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell likened photography to painting. I presume he was talking about painting a picture on canvas, and not about painting an automobile or a house. Speaking of which, I’d sure like to take up painting because I have vision (no, not the eyes. At my age, they’re getting pretty fuzzy and dim). I’m going to run down and get myself one of those 4” wide house painting brushes from my local WalMart and use it to turn out some really fine art. How do I know it will be fine art? Simple. It’ll be my expression, my vision, me, me, <strong>ME</strong>. Yep, that’s how I define art and I don’t need no stinking artist’s brushes.</p>

<p>I also agree it’s never about the tools. Why, just yesterday, I thought I’d put a nice two foot wide cement walkway next to my house. Ya' know, I was getting real tired of dirty shoes when it rains. Now this friend of mine had a Caterpillar D8 tractor with a ten foot wide dozer blade. No reason I can’t carve out a two foot wide, six inch deep patch of dirt to fill with cement with a ten foot wide blade. After all, I’m special. Too bad the neighbor’s house was only four feet away. That ungrateful *&%@@# didn’t realize that I had just made an artistic statement along the side of his house. The effects of rain that came last night helped change the color on what was left of his carpet in the most artistic way. I know one of these days he’ll come to his senses and thank me. That would only be proper. After all, I’m <strong>ME</strong>. I’m an artist.</p>

<p>******Disclaimer:</p>

<p>I’m sure a very few will understand that I’m just making fun of the “it’s all me, my equipment doesn’t matter” concept. To you few reasonable people, I apologize for being redundant.</p>

<p>For the majority, I was trying to point out that sometimes equipment does matter. I never knew Ansel Adams and therefore didn’t discuss the use of his equipment with him. I just have this nagging suspicion that he used larger models of large format cameras, rather than a Minox, for some specific reasons, which probably included properly making the artistic statement he wanted to make.</p>

<p>Not all photography is done for the purpose of emotional, artistic fulfillment. Some of us low-end people have used it for fun, for illustration, and to document the people and objects of significance in our lives. In one of my folders here on Photonet, I have a picture of John Kennedy, taken months before he died. It was taken from across the street, using a precision camera with a high level lens. Yes, I could have taken it with a Lomo, but I would have missed the vibrant look on a quite pleased President Kennedy. He had just come from doing something he actually liked to do. He had given a commencement speech to people who had made an effort to prepare themselves to improve America’s future. Some presidents actually thought that was a good thing.</p>

<p>Sure, he was campaigning also, no opportunities missed. But you can see a special smile beyond that of a plastic Hollywood expression. I see in that old photo the pride of accomplishment and the vibrancy of a young man at the top of his game. I didn’t get that picture because I was an artist. It wasn’t me, me, <strong>ME</strong>. It was a young man at the peak of his career, soon to have everything snuffed out in tragedy. I, or any photographer, should get artistic credit for any of that? Come on...........!</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Ken, as if often the case, takes a valid point and states it as an absolute. (I read his site with interest, but you have to take what he says with a large pinch of salt - that's why you can't link to him from the Nikon forum...)<br />

<br />

I have quite a lot of camera kit (by standards outside Photo.net); I don't believe any of it makes me a good photographer. However, it does let me take photos that I wouldn't be able to take with different kit - see the "those using less expensive equipment?" thread. Not necessarily <i>better</i> photos, just different ones. My camera allows me to be a bad photographer in far more flexible ways than if I'd spent less on it.<br />

<br />

The photographer is the most important contributor to the quality of a photograph - you cannot buy the ability to take a good shot. The camera matters, but on top of what you do with it. Ken's quite right to point out that a novice shouldn't spend money on preposterous equipment without knowing what they want - but there are good and justifiable reasons to shell out for expensive kit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This explains why the best wedding and sports photographers just use the cameras built into their cell phones. Why buy a fancy camera? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with the intent of the posts here. </p>

<p>FWIW, I shoot sports professionally, I use a Canon EOS 1DMk3. However, I know other shooters who are getting great stuff and working for magazines and web sites using consumer cameras like the EOS 40D. The second shooter for the magazine I currently shoot for uses a very low end consumer DSLR (it's a Nikon, not sure of the model) and gets decent shots.</p>

<p>Tools alone, no matter how good they are, will not help an unskilled craftsman. An unskilled craftsman blames his tools. If you have decent tools, and the tools limit what you're able to do, then you need better tools.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with the intent of the posts here.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Hypothesis:</strong> The quality of photography equipment is essentially unimportant and skilled photographers can take amazing photos with simple equipment.</p>

<p><strong>Prediction based on Hypothesis:</strong> As skilled photographers would be able to take very good photos with simple equipment, these skilled photographers would not buy unusually expensive or inconvenient equipment.</p>

<p><strong>Observation:</strong> Professional photographers in the studio and in the field often have very expensive and inconvenient equipment such as large lenses, multiple cameras, and/or expensive lighting equipment. </p>

<p><strong>Conclusion A:</strong> Professional photographers are unskilled or have fallen for the hype</p>

<p><strong>Conclusion B:</strong> Equipment is actually important</p>

<p>I am going with "B"</p>

<p>BTW, modern DSLRs are very capable cameras. For sports photography I would certainly prefer a 40D or a low end DSLR over the best manual focus camera from 1985. I am not suprised that people are shooting for magazines with consumer-grade DSLRs. I used to use a 1DS Mk II at work for scientific/sample photography, and I would *not* trade my personal T1i for a 1DS MK II. The T1i, while a "lowly" camera, has magnified live view. </p>

 

Ask anyone serious about anything: bicycling, knitting, tennis, cooking, photography, whatever. Equipment matters a lot. But it's never all that matters.

 

In the writing style that Ken Rockwell uses, when he says it doesn't matter, what he means is that the degree to which it matters needs to be considered with some perspective.

 

I guess that's right. But he has also said that JPEGs produce better quality than raws, and that its silly to use a tripod. So perhaps he is just wrong all the time. Excuse me, I meant wrong SOME of the time. ;-)

<p>In my opinion the way you should look at equipment is like this. You as the artist, decide what kind of image you want to create, how large, how sharp, how much DOF, how far away, how bright, how dark etc.... And then you get the equipment that would allow you to do that. So the equipment is chosen after your artistic idea and not before.</p>

<p><em>Recently I came across an article ...</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

You've been had. KR inserts intentionally false claims into his writings to stir debate and to annoy people. Ignore him.</p>

<p><em>In terms of equipment, lighting matters far more than a camera. </em></p>

<p>Equally I could say that if you don't remember to charge the battery of your camera it matters not whether it is a good camera or not. Idiocy should not be assumed. Most people actually know that the light forms the picture. </p>

There are people who make bad pictures with good cameras, and there are people who make good pictures with old,

cheap, or outdated equipment. We have all see examples of each. But these examples don't mean that cameras don't

matter. Gear is one of many factors that influence the quality of a still image. Quality of light and the skill and taste of

the photographer are also very important factors.

 

That's my official response. My unofficial response is that the original post is, in my opinion, intentionally provocative.

I have to wonder why someone would post a question like this in good faith. Was it intended to stir up an argument?

If you are thinking about something or or you have a question, just post it. Don't rehash other people's blog posts.

Think for yourself. We would prefer to discuss YOUR ideas.

<p>In any activity the tools are more important to some people than to others. If you think it's impossible to do something without a particular item then it probably will be. On the other hand if you are willing to assess the strengths and weaknesses of your resources you may be able to find an alternative solution.</p>

<blockquote>KR inserts intentionally false claims into his writings to stir debate and to annoy people.</blockquote>

 

<p>I think that might be slightly unfair. What he does do is make sweeping (and often self-contradictory) claims without including the small print or context. This does tend to stir up more discussion than qualifying his assertions would have done, which gets him more traffic (and this is apparently not accidental) - which is fine, it's a living, I just warn people before pointing them at his site. But there <i>is</i> some useful information on his site too. There are also some glossed-over issues, some genuine (and I believe accidental) mistakes, some basic misconceptions (the Nikkor A-M/M switch is <i>not</i> a typo) and some significant bias - but this is the internet, and you have to expect it. There are also people posting on photo.net who claim that most modern camera features are useless, for example, and they're sometimes right.<br />

<br />

The camera doesn't matter, film is better than digital, the M3 is the best camera ever made (except possibly the Mamiya 6), auto-ISO should reset when you switch to manual, etc. are assertions with a grain of truth, but to get useful information from his site you have to wrap it all with "...under a certain set of circumstances". The circumstances in question change radically between articles on Ken's site, which is a little unusual, but if you apply your mental filters then he can sometimes provide a different perspective and say something worth listening to - and combining with information from other sources. If you use his site as a sole source of information, I'm not responsible for your schizophrenia.<br />

<br />

However, I don't think he deliberately tries to annoy people or be - strictly - inaccurate. Maybe I'm too willing to see the good in people?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Equally I could say that if you don't remember to charge the battery of your camera it matters not whether it is a good camera or not. Idiocy should not be assumed. Most people actually know that the light forms the picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Whoosh...</p>

<p>Imagine if a racing driver said that the car doesn't matter, it's all the driver. What would you do? You'd hand him a Ford Pinto and let him try racing in the Indianapolis 500.</p>

<p>That said if you handed me a modern indy car, all I could accomplish is killing myself. The result is both dependent on the talent AND the hardware.</p>

<p>There's a huge difference between race car driving and photography. So far, photography is not a competitive sport, nor is it limited to a certain geographic area, nor does it have a ton of rules about what it's required to do, etc. etc. etc. In the school of bad analogies, this one gets an A+.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons....</p>

<p>In defense of Ken Rockwell, whose one article I took exception to above, he does get a lot of stuff right. I find many of his product reviews to be a lot better and more accurate than those written by the pimps at some of the major photo magazines. However, I cannot pass by the irony of noting that he does review a lot of camera gear, but yet strongly implies elsewhere on his site that the gear doesn't make any difference. If the gear doesn't make any difference, why bother to rate whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, or to point out any features that may make a product better, or point out the lack of those features. </p>

<p>Most of all, Ken Rockwell does have an interesting site. He does share with us in the photo community some information. Some of it's pretty good. Some of it is opinionated, which means some of us are going to agree, others disagree. However, if I had to comment on how well he explains himself and how well he states the facts, our Senate and House should be taking lessons from him. </p>

<p>Ken....if you're reading this, please be assured I told my neighbor's insurance adjustor to name you as Doe 1 in his suit to recover damages to his client (see bulldozer results in my prior post in this thread). You wouldn't want to be left out, would you? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mr. Spirer....</p>

<p>If I were to have made Mr. Griffin's analogy, I might have posted: </p>

<p>Imagine a messenger for a title company whose job is to constantly deliver documents from lender to lender, all day in the big city. He drives a Yugo. Although the Yugo may have been the high water mark of Serbo-Croatian technology, it was known to have an almost hourly breakdown rate. Could you expect good dependability and on time results from the messenger? The point I believe he was trying to make is that generally you cannot expect superior results with inferior equipment. On the other hand, the term "Lomography" only came to being because people enjoy and see art only because of Lomo's uniquely low quality results. </p>

<p>Yes, I know that messengering is hardly a competitive sport either. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p><a href="http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/whats-in-the-bag/">http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/whats-in-the-bag/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p> you cannot expect superior results with inferior equipment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Superior results," if one is actually talking about photography, which does not really seem to be the case here, is about the impact of the photograph on the viewer. It can be taken with anything as long as the photographer has the ability to communicate through photography. </p>

<p>Here is some pretty cool shots captured using simple gear and great skill. But I cannot imagine a top photographer going out looking for junk gear to take on assignment. The photographer would want proper gear for the job at hand. That same photographer could most likely make due with less if the need arised.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122/">http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122/</a></p>