Jump to content

Your camera doesn't matter


Recommended Posts

<p>Recently I came across an article on kenrockwell.com which says that photography is purely a from of art and that it doesn't actually matters which equipment you use. In other words, it went on convincing that your camera doesn't matter. I cannot accept this fact simply bcz I cannot capture motion or photograph shallow dof with my compact camera. I think the equipment plays a pivotal role in photography. What do you think?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Dear Ruchika,<br>

Depends upon what you shoot and with what objectives. Take example of Bresson. He is considered one hell of a master. His strength was his obsession, his being at right places, his composition and capturing moment. For his full life he used one camera and one lens...................Thats it...........Now what do you say.<br>

But if you are in realm of commercial magazine print photography, then camera does matter. Also for some even in art, the details that is captures, does matter.<br>

Regards,<br>

Avs</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IF you really know how to use _your_ camera, it does not matter very much. Yes, there are limitations with cameras, no matter how good it may be. We just learn to live with the limitations and to use the one we have in any or all possible ways. Back in the 40's taught 4H and Scouts Photography. Many of them learned to produce excellent photos with whatever camera they had. From Box camera's with only two lens openings to the best which compared to today's cameras were very basic... One of them won a N.E. Photography Club competition, with a Kodak Vest Pocket camera. Then, Ive seen some of the worst photos ever, shot with Canon, Nikon, Leica's and other camera's over the years.<br>

Have seen some excellent shots with the first BW Polaroid Camera by Ansel Adams. It is not the camera which creates, but the Brain the camera is just a tool we use. Have used many, many cameras over the past 74 years. Used many formats from 5x7 down to formats as small as 8mm movie frames. In 35mm have been using Nikon since the 50's in the past several years switched to Digital Nikons. But at 81+ carrying two or three bodies and half a dozen lenses gets too heavy to take out every day. You may not be able to get a shallow dof with your compact camera. But Ive bought a cheap Fuji compact digital last fall so that Id always have a camera with me. Can get a shallow DOF with it. Have some really good shots that Id have totally missed without it. In fact some days shooting humming birds in bright sun, the DOF was toooooo shallow to catch five or six birds some blossoms. So had to zoom in close to eliminate the ones that would have been out of focus. The closer you get, the shallower the DOF will be.<br>

First, go through your manual and read it fast, just the headings.<br>

Second read all boldface or italics.<br>

Third, read it like a novel, without trying to remember anything.<br>

Fourth, read it slowly, and HIGHLIGHT the first sentence of a paragraph you feel is important to you or your use of the camera.<br>

Fifth read only what you highlighted each time before you practice, go out and shoot.<br>

USE your camera _every_ day for at least 12 weeks. 12 Weeks is the habit forming cycle, by doing that you will create habits so that you use it automatically without thinking about anything technical....<br>

Each time you use the camera to practice, before you do, read the first sentences you highlighted.<br>

IF the manual is written correctly _that_ sentence will contain all info in the paragraph. If you have a problem, go back and read the manual about that feature of your camera. Before long, you will know _everything_ there is to know about it, and will use it to the fullest. You may not get everything you want, but you will get more than 90 percent of the users who do not practice and learn everything about the same camera.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One bit of advice from a gray hair. The camera and apparatus of the printing and developing process are just tools. Too often, we fall in love with our tools and the art and the science of photography becomes the less important ingredient.</p>

<p>A story-maybe true maybe not: A sports photographer goes to ballgame and you guessed it, his only camera fails. He buys a Brownie from a fan, a Pulitzer Prize results. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Any camera will do me as long as it is easy to use and makes images (film, digital, whatever) which have clean tones and will enlarge to a good size (16x20 inches or bigger). Over the years, I find my desire to carry a lot of lenses has decreased - very often I carry 50 mm only (for full-frame DSLR or 35 mm), although I have one project running which calls for a 400 mm.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It has nothing to do with Ken Rockwell specifically. Many people have said that about cameras, and many people still say that. It's a truism that just happens to be true. The camera matters if you have a specific need that must be met and can't be met in any other way than by a specific camera feature, but other than that, the camera has only ever mattered in pop photography magazines and on internet photography forums. Even so, it's surprising how even specific needs for specific situations can be met with simple equipment. It's all in knowing your camera, and in how you decide to use it and work around its limitations whenever necessary.</p>

<p>The OP's example of depth of field from a compact P&S camera versus a DSLR is irrelevant, because they are totally different classes of camera. But even then, the compact camera has some advantages that the DSLR doesn't, and in the right hands, it might result in a photograph being taken that would not have been taken at all with a larger camera.</p>

<p>Of course, without the people who don't agree with this point of view, there would be no camera industry to speak of, and almost nothing to post about on internet photography forums.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The person behind the camera is more important than the camera. Learn to stay within the limitations of the camera, don't blame the camera. Some recent examples.</p>

<p>A recent thread has someone complaining about the noise from his Canon 5DII. Dude, if one of the best DSLR cameras in the world isn't good enough, find another hobby.</p>

<p>Someone proudly posts some shots from his expensive new lens. They are possibly the worst in-focus images I have ever seen.</p>

<p>At an evaluation at my local camera club, a projected image is praised for having excellent lighting, composition, and mood. It is later revealed that it was taken with a phone camera.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One needs to hear David Doubilet speak on the matter in the National Geography DVD "Photographers". If anyone doesn't know, Davis Doubilet has been an underwater photographer for the last 50 years. Long story short, the equipment is important.</p>

<p>But are <em>you</em> pushing the limits of what your gear can do (and not just for the sake of pushing limits)? As for me, the camera I'd really really want hasn't been built yet... so I learn how to temporarily get around the problems with what I have. The trick is knowing when to compromise, and what to compromise on.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just did a major job for a client, involving 10 models, and 5 days non-stop shooting from dawn until dusk, outdoors, 5500 images taken.</p>

<p>Most were taken with Canon dslr's using their ability to provide excellent af, predictive af, fill flash, selective focus, sequence shooting, and superb low light capture.</p>

<p>But I also shot a load of stuff using a tiny Ricoh GR3 compact with a fixed 28mm lens. using its stealth ability, stunning close focus ability, and its really compelling depth of field that let me fill the foreground with a detail yet retain some background to provide context.</p>

<p>All the images met the clients needs, eloquently.</p>

<p>Needing to interpret a client brief, and exceed their expectations in doing so, is all about knowing how the tools in your box work and when to select a particular one. Then there's your materials knowledge too - light, and people - and knowing how they work.</p>

<p>Cameras matter, but only in so far as they work for you and do what you need.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In some cases that camera does not matter all that much, in other it does.</p>

<p>Shooting indoors with available light work far better with a good camera.</p>

<p>Sometimes a better camera will not produce images that are far better, but is still more fun to use, and for me photography should be fun.</p>

<p>For me I don't want to be limited to taking photo outside in good light, I want to be able to get photos in poor light and have them look good,for me the camera and lens do matter. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em><strong>the right tool for the job is what matter</strong></em>.. could be anything from a shoe box, a iphone 4.. a leica, a nikon a medium format digital back.. all have there + and -.. and all can produce amazing image or bad one.</p>

<p>in way i agree with Ken.. but you need to add some more information when you say something like that because many people just read the first *camera is not important* and start ranting about the subject on something taking out of context ; )</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with everybody. The camera does and doesn't matter. What matters is your visual sophistication. Learn and understand graphics. A good designer can pull a good, interesting picture out of anything with any camera. Experience and familiarity with whatever camera, a toy camera (or Leica set on "TOY"!) informs the designer's imagination.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The camera matters in the sense that your mental model of what a photograph should be needs to be in sync with the camera you use. If I was standing next to Ansel Adams with a Holga when he saw Moonrise, I am probably going to be pretty disappointed if I expect my shot to turn out like his from his 8x10. Mine could be better to some but if my mental model of what the photograph should look like is as his was (at least for himself), then I would be very disappointed.</p>

<p>I think this is the reason why many long time photographers will have different and disparate camera equipment. Each can work to solve certain visual problems--in this sense the camera matters. However, if a seasoned worker were to be stuck with just one camera--any camera--that they understood, they could create wonderful images if they could match their mental model with that device. In other words, if they have the ability to look for images that they want to see in the form that the camera can produce--including taking risks and creating the failures that are important to the creative process.</p>

<p>I think that from a practical standpoint, this statement just suggests that one can make great images with any camera and chasing something better isn't going to make the content of your images better (the idea of the person behind the camera learning how to see). The reason to get a better camera isn't that you are going to make better images but that those same images might be better in a technical sense--eg. can make larger prints because you have more MP or better glass that maintains the sharpness you demand at larger sizes etc. Of course, there is also matching the camera to the task in the way you want to do the task--you can shoot wildlife with an 8x10 but it will be a different thing than one can do with a 35mm.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's easy to say the camera does not matter. Good gear enables, bad gear gets in your way or imposes limits. What is good and bad depends on preference, style and vision. The fact that Cartier-Bresson shot most using one lens and one camera does not mean it's suitable for each and every person. His 50mm lens is known to be problematic to shoot wildlife predators, for example.</p>

<p>So, it's too simple to say the camera does not matter. It's also too simple to say vision is sufficient.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If camera equipment doesn't matter why does Ken Rockwell obsess over each and every minute detail in discussing seemingly every camera, lens, and other piece of gear ever made?</p>

<p>Also, why does he have paid links to so many vendors selling this gear? Shouldn't he have links to gallery openings and web pages of photographers he admires?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Equipment matters for some things, and less so for others. 99% of the photographers out there today could do just as well with a simple point & shoot as they could with a full blown full featured DSLR. If you don't believe me, just look at the sheer number of online photos done with a simple iphone or other phone camera...it outweighs the DSLR shots manyfold. Go to your local grocery store or pharmacy and take a look at what is being printed up at the print machines...mostly P&S photos. People using this site fall into the other 1%, in that they think about things like composition, proper exposure, depth of field, interchangeable lenses, flash setups, etc....things which may be more easily achieved using more complex features. Yet - Gene has a pretty strong following as he uses mostly cameras from the 1930s-50s, developing old films sent to him found in old cameras, and trying out the cameras in our "modern" age with very successful insightful images. Yes - if you want to do a lot of nature photography you may need a telephoto or macro lens. Yes you may have occasions when you need a wide angle lens because you can't back up enough to get what you want into the frame of a normal lens. So equipment may matter...but generally it isn't the driver of good or insightful photos, whether it be wedding, street shooting, landscape, or run of the mill snapshots. Unfortunately too many of us (myself included) got hooked long ago by the marketers who convinced us to buy another lens or accessory, or upgrade our cameras - to become better photographers, or at least expand our skills. I collected camera gear over a half century, my wife collected cooking books. I made increasingly interesting photos and she did the same with food. Could we have done it with our initial tools - probably 80-90% of it, sur, but it has been a fun time upgrading, collecting, learning and using these tools.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Never has..... the camera is a tool..... </p>

<p>I've had a news photo published that was taken with a Panoramic throw away camera because it was the only thing I had at the moment to document a news even. I think your understanding of the limitations of your gear will go a long way to a successful result. </p>

<p>With todays cameras the knowledge of the technology is slowing being eroded which is fine because that allows the photographer to concentrate on more on the aesthetics of the image, or not....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...