Your camera doesn't matter

<blockquote>

<p>This subject must come up at least once a month</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />See the link I gave above...</p>

<p>The usual KR silly generalizations about "great work," "talent" and AA stuff was pointless but if you gotta do a blog ya gotta write something.<br>

Have to agree with the general responses here and add my slant on to it.<br>

<br /> Up-media comparisons and down-media attempts mostly reveal a limited depth of experience with art or photography. Just knowing that there IS a <em>right</em> tool for the job is important for most things. It is clearly evident in all kinds of crafts when someone's choice of method is skillfully applied. <br /> A simple pencil sketch or watercolor dabble on a ruled pocket notebook can possess a remarkable degree of expressiveness.<br /> Thinking about method alone, stunningly beautiful, 19th Century photographs made with the simple equipment of the times could not have been made <em>better </em> with more sophisticated technology.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Given what Ken Rockwell has to say about his own website, it's amazing this would merit discussion on the Philosophy Forum, or anywhere on photo.net. A self-described "entertainer" is not writing for discussion, it's basically an ego thing.</p>

<p>Another common response I see on this theme is something about "the right tool for the job" which is a fallacy based on the idea that there's a job.<br>

Most people (many people?) who buy the latest prosumer DSLR have no job in mind. There are certainly jobs for which the thing they just bought is among the best tools. The point is, however, that these consumers didn't buy it for any of those jobs, or indeed any well defined job at all.</p>

 

<p>I wonder how different an article of the same title would be if one existed in the photo.net "Learn" section. </p>

<p>Michael, interesting question.</p>

<p>One observation I've made about blogs and Internet forums in general is the "debate" approach to OPs and to the discussions in general, the "this vs. that" or "is this better than that" approach. It seems to get people's juices flowing. When I think of college courses I took, chapter titles of many non-fiction books I read, etc. that's not as much the case. In my talking with other local photographers, artists, poets, etc., we rarely approach things from the better or worse perspective. So, for example, instead of titling a thread "your camera doesn't matter" or making an opening statement suggesting a focus on cameras as being a waste of time, one might start a thread such as this by saying "In what respects is the particular camera you use relevant?" or "Why do you use the various tools and materials you use?" "Do your tools help you execute your vision? If so, in what ways. If not, why not?"</p>

<p>But, then again, that might not be sexy enough to capture the attention that someone like Rockwell may want, or any of us for that matter. A little provocation can be very effective. It's just that when provocation takes over completely and substance, good sense, and openness are stifled by it, there is a problem. My offhand guess is that my suggested openings would wind up leading to debates as well or wouldn't get much attention, but maybe it could also allow some latitude for constructive dialogue.</p>

<p>KR's schtick isn't so much about ego as it is marketing. He knows his over the top bluster and regular infusions of "THIS IS THE BEST CAMERA EVER!", each enthusing over a different camera, generates page views and ad revenue. Any appearance of common sense is also a carefully crafted marketing strategy, since he's savvy enough to know mere uninformed raving alone isn't enough to hold the niche as he's had for over a decade.</p>

<p>And of course the tools matter. I may not need the finest Kolinsky sable brushes, but I sure as heck don't want to paint watercolors with hog bristle. Likewise, alla prima oil painting using only a rigger's brush would be an exercise in frustration. But if I was a merely competent painter who wanted to fabricate a niche as a web pundit and sell ads, I'd sure as hell claim that a hog bristle brush would have been good enough for J.M.W. Turner, that Thomas Kinkade really was the epitome of fine art because he cranked it to 11 and painted in JPEG only, that archival material was for elitists and that hand grinding my own pigment was "real raw", not that fancypants readymade stuff sold by Sennelier.</p>

<p>Andrew Molitor, I agree with you.</p>

<p>I've noticed that the bitterest squabbles about cameras tend to be in the mid-range consumer brands, so for those people, Rockwell is useful. They're buying cameras because such and such one is the latest and best according to reviews and promotion, not because they really need a high pixel density 30 something MB camera to post pictures to Facebook. My last two used cameras had barely been used before something newer caught their respective owners' eyes.</p>

<p>Any given camera design is a compromise. I'm now shooting a Panasonic GF1 with some decent Panasonic lenses because that's what I can carry easily and what I could afford to walk away from if someone put a machete to my throat. It does some things well enough and other things not so well. As a "looks like a point & shoot," it works very well indeed. </p>

<p>A friend came down to visit with two Canons set up for birding photograph: a medium telephoto and a long telephoto zoom on each body. I and the workers at a finca we visited got very nervous watching her walk around as though that wasn't several years wages on her shoulders. But for her, a camera that doesn't photograph birds isn't a camera worth having. Photography for her is mostly an extension of her birding. Travel for her is about birding (I'd suggested that she wait for two weeks after the Nicaraguan elections before flying down; she flew down the day before the election -- fortunately, nothing bad happened other than lots of fireworks, which disturbed the birds).</p>

<p>For her, a Hasselblad or anything bigger would be pointless, and my current camera would be marginal.</p>

<p>For a generalist who doesn't print, probably anything between the best point and shoots and a older full frame camera would be okay. Maybe worrying about the camera is the wrong place to be worrying, if photography is the point of having a camera. Perhaps for some people, it really isn't so much the photography as camera possession. A familiar camera might be a boring camera -- the newer camera is more appealing. I certainly don't want to discourage camera churn -- I get such nice barely used cameras from those people.</p>

<p>Luis, if my camera danced in my hands, I'd cut down on the caffeine. :)</p>

<p>Look deep inside and you will find the answer.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca - "Luis, if my camera danced in my hands, I'd cut down on the caffeine. :)"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

If it did literally, I'd have it exorcised!</p>

<p>I was speaking of ergonomics, which, as every schoolgirl knows, can work with you be neutral, or work against you. It's a personal preference, and one hardly touched on in this "camera doesn't matter" thread. Perhaps it doesn't matter to many, and maybe I'm absurdly persnickety, but it does to me. The physical fit in my hands, controls/dials/buttons, running through menus, flash options, modes, etc. all make a difference <em>to me</em> in actual use. For the figuratively impaired, by "dancing" I do not mean the thing doing a legless Riverdance on its own, but synergizing with my preferences, fit and energies. Sure, it's a small advantage, but a photographer like me needs to stack the deck as much as possible in their favor. <br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>"camera churn"<br /></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>That's funny.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was speaking of ergonomics, which, as every schoolgirl knows, can work with you be neutral, or work against you. It's a personal preference, and one hardly touched on in this "camera doesn't matter" thread.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is that. I liked the D50's ergonomics as well as any camera -- it just had some other issues. And some cameras work by ergonomics that suit them -- Hasselblads are just a different way of working.</p>

<p>I've got the current GF1 set up so I can change all the major functions from the control dial (FN1 is changing the exposure meter mode). For the size that it is, it's transparent enough, but doesn't glue itself to my hand the way the D-50 did (and the D-300, but that was too heavy). I liked the F100, but didn't like the ergonomics of the N90s or whatever it was. Handhold was wrong. It was not an extension of my hand. </p>

<p>What I really want is a D-50 sized body that has a full frame sensor in it and a focus motor so I can use older Nikon lenses, but I'm not sure I want such a thing <em>here</em>.</p>

<p>I've also suspected that whichever camera we owned first tends to be our model camera for that type of camera. I could learn Canon's system for DSLRs, but if I pick up a Nikon, I know what to do with it. This isn't really saying that Nikon is better, but that I've learned the Nikon system. The Panasonic system seems relatively transparent to me, too.</p>

<p>One of the things people in a m43rds forum tell beginners over and over is that it takes time with a camera to see if it works for you. Part of what makes for camera churn is not having the patience to learn any system, but to keep skipping from system to system looking for the perfect camera. The first owner of my D300 apparently was angry at the camera store for not telling him the D700 was coming out soon when he bought the D300 and took fewer than 500 shots on it. I put over that on a camera in two months. The guy who was the first owner of the Asahi Pentax I owned in high school traded it in for a Minox, which doesn't make any photographic sense at all, but does make sense as acquisition of cool mechanical toys (I can't imagine any use for a Minox other than for espionage, but Minox had to sell more cameras than just to working spies and sneak journalists).</p>

<p>If I've learned a system, the best next camera is an improved body in that system. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The camera never made a picture the person using it did that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Do your tools help you execute your vision? If so, in what ways. If not, why not?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

The tools/vision thing works hand in hand. We reach plateaus. I remember way back in the learning curve as a student I was forced to go cheap. Almost immediately I hit a plateau and realized equipment mattered if I were to keep learning. If the current quaint and gnarly look was in vogue back then it would have been a disaster for me. Breaking bad, I'd have surely hung with the wrong crowd. Today my digital learning curve has been less urgent and I can break BAD! all over the place.<br>

Luis,<br>

With regard to <em>feel</em> of things, your love of more lethal gear must make you quite sensitive to the importance of swift and reflexive execution. I find that with an assortment of makes of digital cameras my poor head spins with delays and I'm a goner when the going gets tough. I casually dork around with post-processing, <em>arted/fixes, </em> instead of trying to hone skills. Once in a while friends (the bastards!) will collude and buy awesome new cameras - Sony NEX7's. I stick to my thrifty student habits and vow not to buy before I reach a skill plateau. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Luis, agreed on the ergonomics. It's my favourite line in the beginner's forum, because I think a lot of people overlook this. I can operate my current camera without much thought - it works with me. A feature on a camera - no matter how useful - is rubbish if enabling it makes you loose the shot.</p>

<p>It also makes a bit a point against what Andrew said earlier (even if I agree with his post in broad lines) - indeed there is no job to do for most amateurs (like myself), but that does not mean that there are no requirements at all for the tool. My camera facilitates a wide variety of shooting styles, so whether I work calmly on a landscape, snap-shoot a party, or whether I try to follow fast-moving sports, my camera (as a whole system - lenses, flash etc.) continues to work with me. Different features matter at different times. A camera with good ergonomics help you tap in into that potential, and hence can help you get the camera out of the way and let you focus on getting good images.</p>

<p>I've never shot with an 8x10 but I would think there would be some difference in those situations, where one isn't necessarily trying to get the camera out of the way and really couldn't even if they wanted to. Couldn't it be the case that, sometimes, even with a simple hand-held camera, there's something about the tool actually being in the way that creates a desired sense of plasticity or artificiality forcing one, perhaps, to be super conscious of photographing (as opposed merely to living) and much that photographers do . . . which many wouldn't want but some might. I know I worried when I first went from a point-and-shoot, where I didn't have to have the camera right up to my eye and used the video screen to compose the shot, to a DSLR, I was nervous about having a big machine hovering between my face and the subjects I was shooting. Two things happened. One is that I got used to it and, as Wouter says, the camera slipped out of my way over the course of a very short time. But, at the same time, the camera became more of an issue than it had been, in a positive way which seems OK. It's there, why fight it? I like Luis's metaphors about using the camera. There's an engaged relationship there.</p>

<p>Ansel said "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." from behind his 8x10 (or 11x14) Horseman. I think the key to this whole argument is being able to see through this apparent paradox: as you use increasingly better equipment, your mastery of technique and artistic vision and ability <em>need to similarly increase</em> or you'll wind up with with the same slightly out of focus 8x10 snapshots that no one else really wants to look at for more than a second.<br>

Give me a hammer and a chisel, could I create a David or a Pieta? No. If I got one of those $500 Pentagon hammers and a zircon encrusted chisel, could I do any better?<br>

Bringing in Lomo/Holga/iPhone photography into the argument is false. It implies that<br>

1.) If some particular person took a great shot with a Holga, then NOBODY needs to have anything better.<br>

2.)The photographer behind that great shot taken with such a simple camera has a corresponding simple mind.<br>

Both obviously untrue.<br>

Putting someone with great artistic and technical ability behind a Holga will/can yield amazing results. But for me and probably you, throwing money at the problem of artistic limitations will eventually run into dimished returns.</p>

<p>The question should be:</p>

<p>Given our understanding of the KR audience, is his contention more correct or incorrect?</p>

<p>I would say more correct. He's not addressing professionals or even enthusiasts. He's addressing beginners and people who have found him because of his astonishing search relevance.</p>

<p>I can't see much wrong with telling KR's kind of audience their camera doesn't matter. If they disagree they'll go out and buy a new one...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>your camera doesn't matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is true. Your camera doesn't matter to me at all</p>

I understand what Ken's saying - people do spend too much time on equipment, and a good photographer with a crap

camera will take better photos than a crap photographer with a good camera. But, for me at least, in many or most

circumstances I will get better shots with my D700 and the right lens than I would with, say, my old SD500, and I'll find

a lot of shots easier or quicker to take with the much better camera. Heck, I find noticeable improvements using my

D700 over my D7000, but a lot of that might have to do with ergonomics.

"I would say more correct. He's not addressing professionals or even enthusiasts. He's addressing beginners and

people who have found him because of his astonishing search relevance."

 

That's true - anybody else notice that you can google the name of nearly any piece of equipment now and a KR review

will be in the first few links? I don't know how he does it - to me he's just one guy who doesn't take very interesting

photos - but he's got something figured out.

<p>Andy</p>

<p>Indeed, and it's hard won web relevance. It took him time and effort, more than most may realize, and I believe he's figured out and executed it all on his own.</p>

<p>Where many others have failed, KR has succeeded wildly.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p> </p>

<p>KR also writes extensively on certain Mercedes model-years. It helped tremendously when I was once helping a friend who was interested in a mint vintage SL. The nice thing about his writing is, it's one-stop reading without having to comb through hundreds of forum threads to extract relevant information. </p>

<p>The camera matters to me I suppose. IT's part of the hobby and I want one that I like and one that works real well. Right now it's a F100 but I keep thinking about a M4 or M6 which would mean I could have a camera with me more often. <br>

I watched a you tube about Clyde Butcher and he said photography requires a real good camera and he recommends a Deardorff large format. </p>

<p>Of course your camera matters, to suggest that it doesn't is ridiculous. However, the only really important thing about your equipment is that it doesn't limit you - technically or creatively. If it does everything that you need it to do, and it doesn't in any way impede your process or limit your results, then clearly there's no need to upgrade. </p>

<p>However, for some people a camera is a vanity item and there's nothing wrong with pride of ownership or owning technology for it's own sake. Maybe this issue is being somewhat over thought?</p>

<p> </p>

Your camera gear is now officially worthless. An iPhone can do everything better. You won't even be able to sell your

antiquated SLR bodies and fast lenses on eBay anymore. No one would want that useless junk now that the New iPad is

here.

 

However, even though things are looking grim for your camera collections, I would like to help. Send your cameras and

lenses to me, and I'll recycle them. All I ask is that you agree to cover all shipping charges.. Think of the closet space

that you'll recover. Think of the money that you'll save on baggage fees at the airport. Think of the environment. Think

of your poor, tired back. Think win-win!

 

So, take those D3s's and 70-200 f/2.8's down to FedEx and begin anew in the brave new world of smart phone

photography. You'll be glad that you did - and so will I. $$

 

;-)