Why Your Camera Does Not Matter

Found this on Ken Rockwell's site. Now, I don't think he's all that great a

photographer, pretty standard fare, IMHO. But some of his thoughts, insight,

and a fair amount of common sense, along with the links he provides for

support, on the subject of Camera Equipment make a whole lot of

sense.<br><br>It would be advisable to a whole lot of people on Photo net to

take a look at this article <a

href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm"><u>Why your camera does

not matter</u></a> and the links he provides.....with an open mind....before

you buy that next piece of equipment that you think is going to make your

photography all that much better from it.<br><br>I know a lot of you are

opposed to this philosophy, but DO NOT respond to this until you have read the

article and looked at all the links provided. He makes a very good case for

his statement.

oh, and moderators............I may not have picked the most appropriate forum for this, so move it at your convienence. It just seemed to warrant being in this forum to me.

The camera you use matters alot to marketing chaps. The marketing dogma preached is that their Acme camera(s) magically creates the perfect image. Long ago folks seemed to care more about lighting than camera brand. Today if one mentions lighting, reflectors, tungstens, lighting ratios one is shunned. In the movie industry and still food images, and high end advertisting, high end photography lighting IS considered important. Lighting equipment is not often considered sexy. Beginners are taught that their new Acmeflex will make the next Playbooy foldout, using the Acmestrobe's Acme matrixbs settings. Lighting can take time to learn.

Excellent! Should be required reading for anyone starting out in photography. I do take issue somewhat with his "Photoshop can fix anything" stance. I think you should get it right in the camera as much as possible, and mininize the work (corrective work, not enhancement work) needed in PS. Other than that small quibble, Ken Rockwell is right on the mark. I especially like Ernst Haas quote, "Look for the 'aha!'", because I've found it often enough to know I haven't found it nearly often enough.

 

Moderator, gather up the fire extinguishers. Flames to follow.....

We dont have to believe that all he said was true, having an expensive equipment wont improve your image in proportion to the amount you spent on it, True , but if your Lens can only manage F5.6 at 135mm, how would you blur the background and make those circular looking refletions and light source called bokeh with it?. Of coarse you'll gonna need the expensive F2.8 version. especially if you're a pro.

 

Not all thing could be done in a photo editor software. and also if you love a certain feature in your camera that others dont have, why would'nt it matter then?

I believe you uguys are misreading his photoshop statement...."....Why is it that even though everyone knows that Photoshop can be used to take any bad image and turn it into a masterpiece, that even after hours of massaging these images look worse than when one started?..." - Ken Rockwell.

 

I believe that says that photoshop (the equipment) is not the cure all. It tends to make things worse in the wrong hands (the person). But, even again, it's the tool in the hands of the person that knows how to use it that matters, not the tool itself. I believe that was a sarcastic remark by him.

 

as far as Mars C comments......the following quote from the link explains all that

 

"So why do the artists whose works you admire tend to use fancy, expensive tools if the quality of the work is the same? Simple:

 

1.) Good tools just get out of the way and make it easier to get the results you want. Lesser tools may take more work.

2.) They add durability for people who use these tools hard all day, every day.

3.) Advanced users may find some of the minor extra features convenient. These conveniences make the photographer's life easier, but they don't make the photos any better.

4.) Hey, there's nothing wrong with the best tools, and if you have the money to blow why not? Just don't ever start thinking that the fancy tools are what created the work."

Yeah , thats the point , but consider the title, and what the last part seem to suggest.

 

Some of those are even fallacies and mis leading, like making artistic pix with 10$ camera, but crap with 10,000$+ nikon, really? so there is a 10$ camera that is more capable than a 10'000$ nikon. isn'nt what that statement would suggest? cause we all know that there is nothing a Point and shoot could do that a slr can't, except of course he was shooting "upskirts" for vouyeorweb.com, yeah, alright! :D

I agree with Mr. Rockwell's points, as he noted, it's been discussed routinely, and we still

go back to the old images and marvel at them. If you notice many of them don't have the

camera's brand and model attached to them. I'm curious when all this gearhead mentality

snuck into photogaphy, especially 35mm.

 

To add credence to this argument, Galen Rowell noted similar thoughts in some of his

essays, namely making the point he used Nikon F-series for the reliability and durability,

not their quality. He said once he got familar with a new model, he reduced it to using two

features (one being EV control) and left of the camera out of his mind.

 

Some years ago, and before the real advances in digital cameras, talking with a local

professional, he said the order of importance was the photographer, the film, the lens(es),

and the camera. It's always been my perspective in photography of, go, look, see, and

capture, and the rest are the mechanics, meaning whatever camera and lenses I'm using.

I'm just an ordinary photographer, but the idea is the same. If I don't get a good image I

always look at what I did, and not blame the equipment.

Galen Rowell wrote a book that touches on all of this, <i>The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography</i>. It's worth reading.

"...making artistic pix with 10$ camera, but crap with 10,000$+ nikon, really? so there is a 10$ camera that is more capable than a 10'000$ nikon. isn'nt what that statement would suggest?"

 

no, what it says is that what matters is the person using the camera. They can make a great image using a $10 camera, and a $10,000 Nikon in the hands of someone who hasn't a clue what they are doing can make the worse image.

No offence, but how anyone can take KR seriously is beyond me. Especially when he thinks no

one has equalled AA in the last 60 years. In answer to your opening statement here's my

take on it.

<p>

To me the only common denominator in all the great images ever taken is the photogs desire

to take that image. That desire, or motivation, is most important and could come from a

variety of sources including the work of somebody else. And that somebody else could have

been a painter, poet or camera designer. Therefore it can be argued the camera does matter

to some, some of the time.

"Ken Rockwell's site. Now, I don't think he's all that great a photographer, pretty standard fare" - believe what you want! Why comment like that ?

I do agree with the Ken , that the destination of arriving at a great photograph IS what photography is all about.

 

It's a little like saying that you are trying to get to Washington DC from LA. If having the end product is having a great photograph in your hand, or arriving in Washington DC is the same thing, then it's how you get there that is the difference. You can fly there be there in 4 hours, you can drive a BMW there or take a Yugo. You can ride a mountain bike , or you can walk. If you use this analogy the proper camera ,lens , film , digital CCD, is flying to your destination. If you want to take weeks to get to your destination , you can drive the BMW,and using the analogy again, use a good quality camera, with a medium quality film to get to your destination. If you decide to ride a bike to Washington DC ,and you break down all the time,go slow up the hills, deal with flat tires ,then using the analogy once again you are using a cheap camera that breaks down all the time ,the lenses that are sometimes sharp (front-lit) but can't handle backlighting because of flair. You can still get to Washington DC, but the chances of your getting there more than a few times in a life span are slim. I think that the simplest of cameras CAN take your photography anywhere you want to go,but like anything that is just a tool, the right camera and lens can make life easier and more productive.You can pound in a nail with a screw driver, but a hammer works better, and a Nail gun works better yet.

 

I guarantee that if Ansel Adams had to use a Holga for his photos, very few people would have his photos on their walls.

<i>"...making artistic pix with 10$ camera, but crap with 10,000$+ nikon, really? so there is a 10$ camera that is more capable than a 10'000$ nikon. isn'nt what that statement would suggest?"

<BR><BR>

no, what it says is that what matters is the person using the camera. They can make a great image using a $10 camera, and a $10,000 Nikon in the hands of someone who hasn't a clue what they are doing can make the worse image.</i>

<BR><BR>

I think the corollary here is that a person using a $10 camera is usually not someone with the experience and insight to make using a $1000 camera worthwhile. Once they gain that experience and insight, they migrate up the equipment scale.

I will grant you that "Maybe because it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools" is probably a correct observation/assumption. Impeccable technique and understanding, coupled with pure talent can replace/overcome/compensate for/negate the need for a state of the art camera, but.....

 

 

Would you rather have a Harvard Med school trained brain surgeon operate on you using the latest Western equipment or some discarded relics that are still being used in Russia or Cuba?

 

Would you rather travel cross country by Conestoga wagon, or in a air-conditioned, cruise-equipped Lexus sedan or private jet?

 

If equipment is not important to the creative process, then why aren't the best still using camera lucida and a glass plates?

 

Yes, there are people who must have the latest camera the moment it hits the market, but that has scant little to do with photography.

This topic has perennial appeal to the have-nots - an exercise in reverse snobbery.

 

Whether you are a carpenter or a photographer, you tend to pick tools that will do the job reliably and hold up under considerable use and (often) adverse conditions. A dilitante may pick cameras to be seen with (or to display on a shelf), but what's new about that. Build quality is important to a working photographer, and that costs more. The added performance, including resolution and speed, are expected, but not necessarily the deciding factor.

<i>the destination of arriving at a great photograph IS what photography is all about. - Michael Ging.</i>

<p><p>

Agreed 100%. And how you arrive there has a lot to do with the tools that you use. Ansel Adams obviously had the eye, and a ton of skills, but he also had the right equipment for what he shot. Without the proper equipment, even he would have failed. Or, conversely, give Adams' equipment to one of the master street shooters to do their thing, and I guarantee you they would have failed. The camera is a tool, and just like anything else, while the person using the tool counts for a lot, you've got to have the right tool for the right job. The camera DOES matter.

<p><p>

KL

Gear, technique and point of view. Too much emphasis on the first one. Mastering the other 2 is the key.

 

This is why 'ancient' equipment (before 1984) that allows control is still up to date for most task and extreme lenses are not needed.

Andreas Feininger (French, b. 1905 - d. 1999), said "Photographers � idiots, of which there are so many � say, �Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs.� That�s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It�s nothing but a matter of seeing, thinking, and interest. That�s what makes a good photograph...."

Fortunately for the great thinkers (and some would have us believe for the great artists as well), it really doesn't matter the gear you choose to take the pictures of the angels dancing on the pinheads.

"Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs..."

 

Yes, but they had to have some kind of camera, and I suspect brand did matter, and even if that was secondary to its features, the CAMERA did matter! Painters have favorite paints, brushes and canvas.

Film photography does depend on good optics while digital photography might have an integrated sharpening step not known to the photographer...

 

So with film the camera does not matter much but the lens does matter. And then with digital the lens might not matter much but the little computer inside the camera does matter...

 

In any case a lot of problems can be fixed by being close to the subject. So highly developed equipment is needed as the photographic situations become more difficult. For instance larger negatives for background detail. Or fast lenses for action in deep summer shadow.

 

A lot of the expense of photography is not for the best equipment but for a variety of equipment. For instance wide-angle lens, normal lens, and short telephoto lens. Or is that a zoom ? The zoom may be slow and the prime may have less distortion. So there are situations of giving up convenience for quality or for required capabilities. In other words applying the equipment to the requirements rather than acquiring equipment that is said to be one-size-fits-all...

Let me try a seemingly middle-of-the-road tact:

 

Sam Abell said "It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use. "

 

I argue that once selects a camera (or other piece of equipment) because it helps you do what you want to do well, or best, in the way you want to do it. Mastery of that equipment can come only, or comes easier if you have good rapport with your equipment.

 

So yes, the camera does matter.

Did anyone else notice this piece, right in the middle of his article...

 

"Jesus Christ's dad Joseph built a masterpiece of a wooden staircase in a church in New Mexico in 1873, and does anyone care what tools he used?"

 

What on earth does that mean? More to the point, what was he on when he wrote it? I'd like to buy some, whatever it was.

<i>He makes a very good case for his statement.</i>

<p>

Actually, given the quality of his photography, I think he makes a relatively poor case for a statement that's mostly true but obvious, banal, uninteresting, hackneyed, unoriginal and self-serving.