Your camera doesn't matter

<p>If this is true, then we waste our time worrying about cameras we own. Is the camera simply a narcissistic preoccupation?<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm</a></p>

 

<p>For me, the most important conclusion to be drawn from the link is that, even if KR says something, it could be true.</p>

<p>For me, there are times when the camera matters a great deal. Other times it hardly matters at all. </p>

<p>The point is that people are missing the point of photography if they're constantly worrying about which camera is "the best", wondering if they should upgrade just because something new came out, or thinking that more expensive gear will make them better photographers. Just about any DSLR or EVIL camera these days is more than good enough for what most people really need. Focus on learning to do better with what you have, and don't worry about whether your equipment is "the best".</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=006577976762569540560%3A1n8vmghdzjw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kenrockwell.com%2Ftech%2Fnotcamera.htm&filter=0&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search</p>

<p><strong>" it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools. </strong>Even Ansel said "The single most important component<br />of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."</p>

<p>Ansel was obviously doing the male exaggeration thing.</p>

<p>We can quote from here and there but in the end there is the right tool for the right job. A D3s is not the right tool for a person wanting a Holga cross-processed look and a Holga isn't the right tool for someone who wants to shoot sports or wildlife. A small sensor camera isn't the right tool for someone wanting shallow DOF portraits.</p>

<p>Now a 50mm FOW street scene might be captured sufficiently by a number of different cameras digital or film. For me the camera doesn't matter chant is just another opinion among many and not much more</p>

Some funny lines in this thread. Thanks for the chuckles!

<p>The thing a lot of folks misunderstALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOKEN!</p>

<p>I was digging in some boxes that were there for years.<br>

I found an old retinete- a second one-.<br>

I opened it and did this n that.<br>

THE camera does matter. this thing is terrible.</p>

 

<p><em>My </em>camera matters. It has to be transparent, dance in my hands, aid and abet me in actualizing my vision and more. It doesn't have to be the newest, most expensive gizmo, either. </p>

<p>Usual blizzard of defective logic. half-truths and unsubstantiated assumptions from KR. Yes, cameras matter - without them, you can't produce any pictures. Of course cameras are tools, great pictures depend on the person holding the camera, cameras don't take pictures by themselves. What is annoying is if you get a great shot with a cheap camera, have an opportunity to sell a large print, but can't make one because the quality is lousy.<br>

Working with top-quality equipment is always an education - you know that the equipment is capable of great results without compromise, if you are not pleased with the results, this indicates that you need to work harder! KR's comments about Ansel Adams not worrying about lens quality are BS - in LF photography, a modest lens will take you a very long way - not so in 35mm or digital photography.<br>

It can be insightful to use an old film camera like a Voigtlander Vito, Agfa Silette. Kodak Retina/Retinette, etc. and see how you can get high technical quality from a second-hand item costing $25 or less, but to use one of these all the time is is restrict yourself needlessly.</p>

<p>Some silly premises and bad logic.</p>

<p>He's right that it doesn't take a Bösendorfer to make a great pianist. But few people would actually claim that so who cares? What's relevant is that many good pianists prefer the sound of a Bösendorfer or a Steinway, say, to the sound of a Baldwin. And that's for good reason. They have very different sounds. Just try playing an old upright piano sometime in a huge concert hall. You'll see just how much the instrument matters.</p>

<p>In part, the comparison between a musical instrument and a camera is flawed because the musical instrument is actually present in the performance of the music, so we hear it. A camera, though it's presence has an effect on the photo, is not present when we view the photo like a piano is present when we listen to the music.</p>

<p>But cameras can matter as well. I pay very little attention to gear and have spent as little as possible over the years on gear. Nevertheless, though I have used a Canon 30D since I was a beginner about 7 years ago, I just bought a 5D, mainly because I am starting to print seriously now and some of my stuff lends itself to being printed big. The 5D will give me better quality prints at large sizes. Again, though Rockwell's premise about it not making me a better photographer is certainly true, it's got nothing to do with making me a better photographer so his main point seems useless. It's got to do with getting the results I want with tools that suit my needs.</p>

<p>Rockwell has it backwards. It's not that the tools and materials will make someone a better artist. It's that an astute and caring artist, photographer, or craftsman knows intimately what various tools and materials can give him.</p>

<p>Art is not a fight between aesthetics/emotion/feeling and materials/craft/tools. It's a marriage of them.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell and Philosophy. Things shouldn't get weirder :-)</p>

<p>The camera does not matter once you looking at an image. A photo is not better because it was made with camera X or Y.<br>

But while using it, the camera does matter. I want to be able to operate it fluently enough to feel ready all the time, it should have the lens (or lenses) available to allow me to get results I want, its characteristic should fit the kind of work I try to do. Try telling a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer the camera really does not matter, and leave them with a rangefinder with a 50mm lens. And give the streetphotographer the DSLR with a 600mm f/4. I doubt any of them would be happy. Tools matter. They allow you to create.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In part, the comparison between a musical instrument and a camera is flawed because......"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I would say the comparison between a musical instrument and a camera is more similar than different. </p>

<p>A pianist prefers a certain instrument over another because it's her tool of the trade. With it, she will be able to achieve total control over finesse, gradation, and intrinsic tonal qualities she desires. However, she never hears what the audience hears in the same way a viewer of a photograph never sees it the same way as the photographer who was present at the scene. </p>

<p>In the grand scheme of things, every experienced pianist or photographer understands how important his instrument is to him. It's what he uses to create his art. This type of "doesn't matter" discussion is frankly for newbies who will inevitably need to go through this process in order to "get it". </p>

<p>My personal opinion is, always buy the highest quality tool you can afford if it's important enough to you. This applies to everything from cameras, cordless drills, garden tools, cookware to pianos. You'll likely get far more value out of it than cheap stuff (or in the case of cameras, we want technologically relevant stuff), notwithstanding the cheap stuff's ability to produce acceptable results one might soon outgrow. </p>

<p>If Ken Rockwell voiced it chances are that we are talking rubbish.<br>

Saying that, choosing the camera and associated gear adds to the fun element of amateur photography. For the professional the final image is everything and the gear that allows for the greatest ease to get to the final product is the most useful. For the Facebook and Instagram shooter the product means little other than the possible streetcred of an iPhone made in Chinese factories where workers have committed suicide in protest of working conditions, or that little Nikon badge. <br>

For most here who are amateurs the tool means much. If it didn't the site would not exist.</p>

<p>Michael, I was making a different point. I don't know if you got it or not. Nevertheless, I agree with much of what you said. Whether they are more similar or more different doesn't matter to me.</p>

<p>The camera does not matter until a specific goal is in play.<br>

Do you want to print 20x24? Do you want to do available-light kid photography? Do you want to shoot wildlife?<br>

These are all goals which will require specific equipment. Even here, I think there is room for refining the goal - you want to shoot wildlife, ok. Do you want to sell to magazines? Do you want to sell large prints? Do you just want to upload to flickr?<br>

It's worthwhile sorting out your goals to a pretty fine degree, as doing so will clarify what equipment you need. When I say "the camera doesn't matter" I am really directing that comment to people who are simply buying gear for the love of gear, or in the vague hope that it will somehow make something better about their output.<br>

If you don't know what you want to do, then any camera will do.<br>

I find the remarks on the theme of usability to be humorous. If you find your camera difficult to use, the problem is not that you need a different camera, it's that you need to use the one you've got more.<br>

See also: http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2012/04/camera-doesnt-matter.html</p>

 

<p>Cameras do matter to me. For a start with my back, I can't carry the heavier cameras I used to carry so weight can make an incredible difference. Next in 35mm we were all taking 35mm pictures (or whatever format you want to name) and even someone with an old Minolta SRT101 could be taking just as great a picture as someone with the latest Nikon. Not so anymore. The latest nikon has a higher resolution sensor and better low light sensitivity, etc. It's no longer a box with film. </p>

<p>Yes a great photographer could get a great image with a lesser camera, but the box DOES matter.</p>

<p>Oh no, not KR again</p>

<p>Of course my camera matters, I can't take photos without it.<br>

But what really matters is my tripod, which is too heavy, that's where I might need to spend some money.</p>

<p>I think the people you REALLY have to admire are those who worked with quite primnative equipment and still came back home with great photographs<br>

when I statrted with first a " box" camera and later with a scale<br>

focusing 35mm, the leap from one to the other was huge, and later in 1961 to a Slr.<br>

the leap was again large. but it made it a lot easier to take better if not great photographs.<br>

Yesterday when I fould that old retinet. I realized how hard ot would be to use. let alone take great photos.<br>

the body shitter realese did not work and the squinty viewfinder and scale focusing were less than ptimitive.<br>

My first 35mm a Classic IV ( fujica) $14.00 new<br>

was a world beyond that.<br>

The camera makes some difference,</p>

<p>"shitter realese"</p>

<p>Walter, you're a poet.</p>

Compared to everything else that makes up what my photography is or is about, my camera is at the

absolute bottom of the list in terms of mattering. It's a tool. It just needs to work, not perform

somersaults or put a smile on my face from having a special relationship with it.

<p>More Photo.net navel gazing masquerading as philosophy. This subject must come up at least once a month, if not more, in a variety of guises. Use of software, use of digital, use of film, use of a camera...etc., etc., etc...</p>

<p>Cameras are only important as the choice has a direct affect on the final image - so know your tools.</p>

<p>In lithography, you choose different crayons, washes, etc. as needed combined with hand strokes and other tools to attain the creative expression envisioned. Likewise, with photography, you choose the camera needed to express the aesthetic intent of the photographer.</p>

<p>The people who make the camera into a "narcissistic preoccupation" are the same type of people that pursue audio as a hobby and listen to the equipment instead music...</p>