Is it true......

[markplawchan]

that the cheapest, oldest camera in your hand will take superior

photos to the $9,000. outfit in your closet?

[skygzr]

Absolutely!

 

The pictures will be even better once you get around to developing and printing them.

 

:-)

[nancy_bueler]

It's not the equipment, it's the photographer. A good photographer can produce a masterpiece with a cheap camera, while a bad photographer will always produce garbage with even the most advanced equipment.

 

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

 

Nancy

[stephan_sturges]

Nah, with that kind of money you can buy a remote release and hire a group of models to

pose in the closet :D

[h._p.]

What about Bert Hardy's famous picture of the two girls on the seafront, taken with a Box Brownie to prove that any camera could do the job if you know what you're doing with it....

 

http://artscenecal.com/Listings/WestSide/PFettermanFile/Hardy.html

[everett_mac_lean]

Could it be argued that if you don't develop and print the film that you aren't a photographer in the full sense ?

[OCULUS New York]

That answer is tripod dependent. The stability of the closet shelf is fairly assured, as compared to the quivering hand holding the _______. Caution, your meter readings may vary.

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[douglas_green1]

I do know that film and processing is cheaper for the camera sitting in the closet.

[kymtman]

You may be right, but I'll never know because I don't have a 9 gran camera in MY closet.

[vivek iyer]

No, that is not true at all. Any camera that is not funtional and does not have an imager (film/digital/whatever) is no better than the ones in the closet, regardless of the price.

[silent1]

Absolutely true, Mark, and you should know it after the shots you got with the Shur-Flash when it came your way. I get many better images with my 1920s and 1930s vintage roll and plate cameras (none of which cost more than $50), which routinely get out and about, than any Hasselblad will get being dusted twice a week and forgetting what film tastes like...

[michaelging]

I agree with Nancy, The best photographer can not exceed the possibilitys of the least expensive camera. In many cases its being the right person, with the right skills,in the right place,with the right light and subject, with ANY camera .

[michaelging]

Sorry , Its Possibilities----I wish we could edit our responces

[michael_linn]

No...

 

Since I don't have a $9,000 outfit in my closet (unless you count all of the junk I own) I can't really answer that. But, in all of that junk are a few cameras and lenses that I would say don't limit my ability as a photographer in any way. Any limitation would be my own property.

[Matthew Currie]

Speaking of Box Brownies, I was looking through a book of Pulitzer Prize photos recently, and the 1954 winner was taken with one (a dramatic rescue of a trucker whose cab is dangling over the side of a bridge). I couldn't find an image on line, but it certainly did the job.

[john falkenstine]

With all of my "stuff" the greatest fun right now is coming from rescued AF point and shoots from thrift stores whose prices fluctuate between $1.75 to a Max of $5 (It had a leather case!!) A recent set of film negatives from a Minolta Himatic AF showed excellent exposure and focus quality. Less money = more fun!!

[Sandeha Lynch]

Switch media and try the same question with a violin ... you'll hardly need ask ;-)

[._._z]

Come out of the closet, Mark.

[john_robison3]

Cheap or expensive, I really don't take very good photos. I just don't have the "eye" some on this forum have. But...I love mechanical things, old fully mechanical cameras especially. All the adjustments, knobs, and whirring clockwork is just lovely. Also, some cameras are just pretty, they look right, ie; a Nikon F with a plain prism, an Olympus orig Pen, a Leica M2, a....well you get the picture. Regards, John R.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Since the expensive bits are not taking photos, the answer is an unequivocal "no".