Camera is just a tool.

[hjoseph7]

<p>Just curious, for how many of you is a camera just a tool ?<br>

<br /> For many of us especially for "weekend warriors", the type of camera we choose to purchase plays a big part on how we feel about our photography. We sit there agonizing behind a computer reading online reviews trying to determine what camera would help in taking better pictures. A significant amount of time is spent comparing lenses and/or accessories including photo editing software packages. We try our best to keep up with the latest innovations and upgrade regularly as if last year's model might not be enough to keep up with the competition...<br>

<br /> On the other hand for others, a camera is only secondary to the product they are trying to photograph. For example, fashion designers might not be that interested in extensive features and mega pixels as long as the camera does the job. The camera is seen as secondary while the product they are trying to sell is seen as primary. It could be any camera any brand as long as it does job. Being just a tool they might hire a technical expert to deal with the purchasing decisions, but after that the camera takes a back seat...</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Tool, yes. "Just", I don't think so. I think everyone who uses specific tools develops a somewhat emotional relationship with them. It's why ships are "she", cars get names, why a computer might be "you rotten piece of s**t", etc. Seriously, though, if you regard your camera as "just a tool", I think it impedes the flow of creativity in your work. When shooting, the camera needs to be an integral part of who and what your are as a photographer and of what you are trying to create.<br>

And, no, I haven't named mine. But I have owned a couple that were close relatives of that computer...</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Harry, I don't think you've drawn the distinction accurately. Someone who looks at a lot of reviews could still consider their cameras as tools, but search for the best possible ones. To me, the distinction is between those whose primary aim is to collect cameras (classics or the latest ones), and those whose primary aim is making photographs. Many of us probably fit into both categories. For example, I consider my cameras and lenses to be tools, but thought that my Olympus OM-1 (long ago relinquished so I could buy a film scanner) was very pretty, and I miss it. I still hang to my old Topcon Unirex, another pretty camera, which I never expect to use again.</p>

<p>As to emotional connections to computers, I my Panasonic CF-W2 laptop, bought in 2002 or 2003, crashed its Windows side. (LInux partition still works.) It was a very early ultralight. It served me very well when I was teaching, it's a lovely industrial design, and I'm tempted to have it fixed.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>For me, a camera is a tool - I don't know about "just". From my point of view, there are vast differences between different equipment categories - by and large, the larger and less automated the camera, the better the theoretical technical quality in terms of sharpness and grain, but on the other hand the slower the operation and the greater the potential loss of spontaneity. A mid-range P+S might be the best camera in situations where looking like a pro may get you thrown out of venues, and so on.<br>

To agonize about different examples of the same equipment category is almost always a waste of time - for example, I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II. There is now a Mark III - I have made no effort to find out what this can do that my Mark II can't, and I'm not likely to until my camera breaks. Similarly, I have no doubt that Nikon could sell me a camera much like my Canon - it might even be better in some small way, but I am not interested in finding out what this is. I assume as a matter of course that prime lenses are better than zooms (although the difference is much smaller than it used to be) and that pro lenses are better than consumer-market kit lenses (at least at full aperture - the difference stopped down may be quite small). </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I think personal purchases will always carry some level of value judgement that is proportional to price; the higher the dollar value, the more indecision sets in particular with technology items where much of what we buy is a mystery. </p>

<p>For most people, the utility of the purchase is somewhat independent of the emotional aspect of the purchase decision. We might agonize over which car to buy, but once the deal is done, it becomes, for the most part, just a car to fulfill our functional expectation of it. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Being both an amateur furniture craftsman and photographer, "tools" are an important factor in executing a vision. Sure you can use crude tools and execute a masterpiece...it may require a different skill set and require a different knowledge of responsiveness of materials and more time; more sophisticated or modern designed tools may make the process easier. A Stradivarius is hard, but not impossible, to match with modern techniques. I've had the benefit of using both ancient and modern "tools" in woodworking and photography. I love using my old cameras, "tools", and I love using my modern AF programmed exposure DSLRs. And I like researching any of the "tools", be they cameras and accessories, or woodworking tools. I choose to buy and use those "tools" which I think will bring me most enjoyment in executing my vision.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I am split. With modern gear, I have no "emotional" attachment and tend to buy the least expensive camera I can that will do what I want. I'm after value and function. I see cameras as computer disposables, little more. They are made of plastic by robots and lose value quickly. My thinking is to minimize the $$ loss I will get from them. I do attach more important to lenses, but I see cameras as the LEAST important thing in photography.</p>

<p>Remember I said that I was "split." While I have no emotional attachment to modern cameras, I do have some with classic/historic gear. My 1942 Leica IIIc was made by the hands of a craftsman during an catastrophic time in history. I know the story behind this camera too. Among other cameras, I have a 1926 Gundlach Korona view camera. It's made by hand of very fine walnut. It's a gorgeous work with quality nickle plated brass hardware, precision made and very finely finished. Finally, my 1928 Zeiss Cocarette Luxus, made by craftsmen when styling and beauty mattered. I use these cameras because of their beauty, despite the inconveniences of loading film, metering & setting exposure by hand. They have SO much more class than the plastic cameras we are stuck with today. When I make a shot with the Korona, using a lens hand made by Andrew Ross in 1845, I feel like I've personally accomplished something. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[Julie H]

<p>"Just" a tool means that there is some richer un-just alternative. That would be ... ? toy? weapon? fetish?</p>

<p>Given that cameras can make photographs without us but we are nearly incapable of making photographs without cameras, I think it would be more reasonable to ask cameras if we are just a minor button-pushing tool to them.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Like an audio recorder that records audio energy, a camera is a recorder that records light energy. That's it. Put bells and whistles on the box containing your next sensor (we call it a camera), it's still just a recorder. What is recorded, that's determined by Ansel's most important camera part, the 12 inches behind the camera. I raced sports cars in the 70's. I actually used them for their intended purpose and my skill is what determined the result. I was not a collector or affictionado who waxed eloquently over the specs or waxed it and drove it only on Sunday. I am the same with photography. It's called photography, not camera-ography. I tend to avoid "camera clubs" rather than photography clubs. The camera is a tool that I chose to match the task at hand as Kent points out, at the lowest possible price. Perhaps amateurs have the luxury of having an emotional attachment with their camera and make emotional purchases. For someone earning money with it, it's overhead that depreciates like crazy and needs regular replacement. It's cost reduces my profit. I will drive my current camera body till the wheels fall off- to use a car analogy. Or until a new body has enough improvement to warrant an upgrade. </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I use cameras at work. My decision to replace them is mostly driven by either necessity, convenience or competitive advantage. Those are mostly unemotional decisions. And yet...<br>

I think of myself as a "Nikon shooter". To say that I am unmoved by the solid feel and yes, even the prestige of carrying a pair of D3/D4 cameras would be disingenuous. I am at least a little bit "proud" of my equipment and get some joy is showing and sharing it with others. Lately I have become excited about the D7100. The camera inspires me for some reason. </p>

<p>I took it very personally when. recently, I was blown-off by Nikon Customer Service, and have turned several people who have asked my advice to Canon. Why? Canon has, IMO, much better customer service and clearly more concern for the individual photographer. Even though I am a Nikon shooter my Canon rep treats me with concern and respect and I could call her on the phone. I asked Nikon who my rep was and they would not tell me. If a photojournalist is not even allowed to know who the Nikon rep is (assuming they even have them anymore) then that should tell us something about how Nikon views its customers. I bring this up to illustrate the sense of brand loyalty that most of us feel. Nothing sparks debate on this site like the Nikon/Canon fiascos we see from time to time. Clearly there is plenty of emotional capital tied up in brand loyalty. I wonder what that says about the original question. </p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>We do tend to fall in love with machinery, I have loved cars, boats, airplanes and cameras, and a couple of lenses and always felt bad when they no longer functioned. However, for me my camera is just a tool -- a means to an end. When I was a working photographer I may have had a dozen or more cameras -- probably more because a couple were always in the shop because of the hard use they got on location at times -- dropping from helicopters, for example. The risk you run into if the camera becomes more than a tool is that it may get in the way of the work you are doing. Ultimately the cameral should be as comfortable and forgotten as a baseball glove on your hand. You should not have to think about it any more than a musician concentrating on the music thinks about the instrument. When I was working at this for a living, rather than the much more enjoyable hobby and business sideline, I approached the output as calling for a small camera (rarely -- though I had many more of them), a medium format or a view camera - even an 8x10. The camera never drove the conceived result, it was always the other way around. Contemporary digital cameras have so much potential that I don't miss having to figure out which tool was right for the job -- but it is still the tool.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Actually, as someone who plays the piano, I think about the instrument a lot, though not when I'm in the middle of a performance, of course. When I'm making music, I caress the keys, and want to be very intimate with them in order to get them to sing for me. I can be stern with them, attack them, be gentle with them, all in the same piece. I'm very much in tune with the instrument. I tend to think about the piano as instrument not when I'm performing but when I'm practicing. I try different strokes for different effects, sit differently in relation to it, will sometimes even position it differently in the room (it's on wheels as so many pianos are) just to have a different physical take on it.</p>

<p>The camera can be the same thing. A tool encompasses many things and it's rarely JUST a tool for me. It's also a companion. I move it, I pan it, I aim it, I look up with it and feel its ability to capture perspective. I shoot in rapid succession or in much slower and more deliberate spurts. It's very physical, always tied to the emotional I hope. </p>

<p>I don't worry too much whether I'm emphasizing the camera (or the piano) too much or too little or just right according to someone else's standards and needs. I just do what works for me, and that's to consider it not only a tool but a friend and something I have to relate to sensually in order to get out of it what I want.</p>

<p>And, yes, as Julie says, I even sometimes feel subservient to it, as if it's controlling me. Why not? Anything goes. Any possible relationship is possible with a piano or a tool. It can change from one moment to the next and change over time. I'm happy as long as I don't remain rigid or too limited for my own good in how I view any of my instruments.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

"I think everyone who uses specific tools develops a somewhat emotional relationship with them. It's why ships are "she"......"

 

Some people dismiss the man-machine interface that develops over time. Some treasure it. And brand loyalty develops. I can't detect the difference between a fine violin and a Stradivarius but Joshua Bell can. They are personal selections and creative tools. I don't feel the same way about my lawnmower as I do about my Olympus cameras and lenses and flashes. I appreciate my Honda mower but I value my camera because it is the means of letting me enjoy photography. But having said that I do not worship the photo gear and my photo-inamoratas have changed over the years, so it is a marriage if you will of convenience.

Following the ship analogy per Wm Kahn above, listen to the captain of the new class Littoral Control Ship, or the CO of a new class destroyer. His or her spouse has competition is what I mean. To the shipyard worker they are sheet metal, cables, welds and circuits. Together, well you get the idea. Anyway, we all know that the image is predominant, and the tool is an adjunct. But who can resist a fine hunk of metal shaped just so. Think of those who owned a Nuremberg Egg (earliest mechanical portable timekeeper) when wolves still roamed primeval German forests. What do you think?

[Dieter Schaefer]

A camera is as much "just a tool" as a car is "just a means" to get people and stuff from A to B. Just like for some not any

car will do, not any camera will do either. In either case, I pick the one that helps me enjoy the task rather than "just" be

done with it. A camera is a tool alright - but just like with any tools there are good ones and bad ones; the ones that help

and the ones that just get in the way.

[bob_bill]

<p>Dieter is absolutely right. I don't think about the camera in my hands. It fits perfectly. It gets out of the way and lets me concentrate on the real task at hand, the image. It's like my favorite fly rod. I look at a spot on the water and think the fly there, it's as if the rod and line isn't even there. Had a pair of skis that after 50 hours of tuning reacted as if by thought alone. I literally felt like I was floating down the mountain and wasn't even aware of the skis. I am one with the fly rod,skis and camera, grasshopper. Ohmmm. Do I "love" it? More accurately like. But there is something special when a tool becomes an extension of your mind. A high quality tool doesn't necessarily do that. It requires a skill level from the operator and a mastery of the tool. I wonder if cabinet makers upgrade every time there is a new release of a table saw or planer? </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All things 'handled' by humans are tools. Some simpler than others.</p>

<p>That includes people themselves. This is the essence of what <em>culture</em> is and what it does.</p>

[Brad_]

No, it's just a tool. My life experiences, people I connect with and talk to on the street, close photographer friends, attitude,

ethical/empathic concerns, ability to recognize light and context, ability to see and feel, imagination, etc

solely drive the photographs I make - whether the tool is a camera phone, point-n-shoot, dSLR, or view

camera.

[will_perlis]

<p>I'm on team Dieter/Bill. That "just" implies all tools of a class are very much alike, and that's simply not the way they're perceived for many people. For example, there are differences in the way kitchen knives and other utensils feel in one's hands, it's not only with the more complicated items like cameras and automobiles that one can have a good or bad (for want of a better word) meld.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Recall that the ability to make tools( that make other tools, from stone age to now) really defines our species. That plus the ability to communicate the methods down the line, first with sand scrapings, then wall paintings, totems, victorian cameos and now photographs represent the so called "Ascent of Homo Sapiens." Until that inevitable day we design robots that create more efficient robots on their own I feel safe from the subservience to the age of the machine/or super machine /with a will of its own.

Thinking now that if it appears in a blaze of lightning has an Austrian accent, dark sunglasses, and a hot motorcycle..perhaps a Leica alongside. ah so. then I will have to accept Julie's premise and Fred's elaboration on the theme.... Until then I plan to delude myself that (I) I am in charge:-)

[bob_bill]

<p>Will, whenever I cook at a friend's house, I take my 8" french knife. Not only do I know it is sharp, it fits my hand perfectly. I use the pinch grip on the blade which is super stable and it is thick enough near the handle to do so comfortably. Interesting choice because the knive must have been one of man's first tools. </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Digital cameras are just tools. </p>

<p>Film cameras, at least some of the all mechanical ones, are works art.</p>

<p>Even film cameras, when they started to have electronic control, LCD screens, auto wind/rewind, auto focus, and the ugly melted plastic blob styling started by the Canon T90, well that is when even film cameras became "tools". </p>

<p>Yeah, I'm a crank, so what?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's a toy. It must be a toy. I never had this much fun with tools.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>"It could be any camera any brand as long as it does job."</p>

<p>It's pretty much like that, so long the right camera is chosen for the right job. </p>

<p>For me it's about visual/technique + camera = results. I even wrote to a friend, that even if I had the latest and greatest....the output would likely not improve whole lot. Having said that, I care about good optics and I have no desire to print anything larger than 16x20....or shoot FPS beyond what my camera does. Besides, if I need to go beyond what I own, I can always rent it. Don't give a rats azz about competition, but good DR does gets my attention (less so resolution) and am glad that my camera can pull it off.</p>

<p>Anyway, I do enjoy quality tools, whether they are woodworking type or photographic...and one can get wonderful results without shelling out gazzilion amounts of cash.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Ask anyone who uses tools often and the best of them will tell you that they have favorites. The same with a well designed and made knife or firearm. I'm very big into r/c, mostly airplanes but helis, boats and a few cars. The best flying r/c airplanes are ones that I don't think about, flying an aerobatic sequence without working at it and usually one I can't recall for several minutes afterward. Same with a camera. I've found over the years maybe four or five cameras that I simply use and don't remember doing so after it's over. They meet my design requirement of not getting in my way and I find myself quite attached to them. So far no digitals have made that list even though the ones I have work quite well.<br /><br />Rick H.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>What I was trying to say is that there are some fields where the camera takes a back seat. For example Forensics, Product photography, Fashion design, Medical.</p>