I always get a big laugh when I see statements by photographers who should know better come out with such utterances as "Your camera does not matter" or "It's not the camera that counts; it's the person behind it." Those making such statements invariably are very experienced photographers who have one or more high-end Nikons or Canons and a truckload of lenses and other paraphernalia to match. I'm waiting for the day when one of these guys declares that he has sold all of his high-end photo gear and from now on will depend upon his Kodak Instamatic for all of his photographic needs. Until that day arrives I will take all such statements about the camera not mattering with a very large grain of salt. Are you listening, Ken Rockwell?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The best tools are only as good as the person that uses them---so one or the other will be the weakest link

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Well said that man!

Bob,

I'm waiting for the day when one of these guys declares that he has sold all of his high-end photo gear and from now on will depend upon his Kodak Instamatic for all of his photographic needs.

Well, I have a friend who is a retired professional photographer.
By professional, I mean published in magazines such as Life when he was younger.
Now he prefers a small Olympus P&S and his images are incredible.


Bill

Visit me at My site

David Hobby at Strobist does his seminars with a D70 and a pair of third party lenses. This is after a career as a pro PJ at the Baltimore Sun... D2Xs, etc...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes, but he has had the pro cameras and accessories. Some of us just like new toys! Is that so wrong!

Some of us need to actually find out first hand that we suck, even with pro equipment. Before anyone takes offense, I am speaking for myself. Now, off to play with my new D300

-Doug

Doug Lee
New Jersey Exit 4

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Some of us need to actually find out first hand that we
>suck, even with pro equipment. Before anyone takes offense,
>I am speaking for myself.
>
>-Doug

Funny, I determined the same thing for myself.
After many years and yes too many other camera
makes and models have determined my colour slides
are mediocre as well. They aren't image showpieces,
rather memory recordings of in my case railways
and the like.

Had thought the influx of digital would help my
lagging interest. It didn't!

A digital recording device, ie a camera is really
different in the sense of you the recorder of the image
also is the developer, printer/manipulator of the timage;
and you do it all on a computer. Which to me isn't real.

Nope, now back to just a Nikon F100 film camera and
a small Pentax Espio point and shoot. Somebody else
processes and mounts the slides and yet again somebody else
processes and prints the colour negative film.

Suspect down the road even digital recording devices will
not longer be in vogue, replaced by some other recording device.

Photography should be pleasure for one's self.
however such pleasure no longer exists
hence all kit has now been sold.

>Some of us need to actually find out first hand that we
>suck, even with pro equipment. Before anyone takes offense,
>I am speaking for myself. Now, off to play with my new
>D300
>
>-Doug

That's hilarious!

But at the same time, it is VERY true. The first shots I took on my D80 using my customized lense kit were very disappointing. I had in mind that I was automatically going to be able to shoot professional quality photos with my brand new $1300 system. It was a very humbling experience. To be frank, I realized that my 3-4 year old $350 point-and-shoot digital camera was capable of taking higher quality shots than my D80. I never imagined that!

I also realized that I shouldn't take my $350 camera for granted, and it goes with me where ever my D80 goes, haha. The first shots with my D80 sucked compared to my best shots with my point-and-shoot. And my best shots with the D80 were no better than average shots with my point-and-shoot. But that occured because I didn't know much about composition and technique. Once I learned more about composition, my D80 images started blowing my point-and-shot images away.

So I think the photographer matters as well as the equipment. The equipment should not be underestimated in its importance, but neither should the skills of the photographer. So you might ask yourself this: Who would take better overall photographs? Would it be the novice with a $1300 system he doesn't know how to use? Or would it be the well experienced pro with a $350 digital camera who understands composition, lighting, and technique? I'd put my money on the experienced pro with the cheap digital camera.

Now that does not mean that the pro would better results with a $350 digital camera as opposed to a $1300-$5000 system. I don't see everything Ken Rockwell's way, but after skimming through his web site, I applaud him for bringing up a variety of important things that aren't always realized. I made the mistake of believing that an expensive camera was going to automatically give me great results, but I was totally mistaken. I think Rockwell is just trying to keep people from making the same mistake I did.

Brandon
Nikon D80

"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins

Brandon
Nikon D80, D300, & F3

"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins

www.photobrandon.com

I'm sure the images he makes with the limited equipment he uses are fantastic, but more versatile equipment (faster lenses, shutter speeds, etc.) allow a photographer more opportunities to make great shots.

Jim
FM/FM2n

It's easy to overstate things both ways and hyperbole doesn't help anyone. Good equipment can make photography more pleasant and can increase the number of keepers, but I've seen great photos made with Holgas and horrible ones made with D2X's and 200-400mm's. Anyone thinking their photography will dramatically improve by getting a new camera is bound to be disappointed. That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter, just that the single biggest factor in the quality of an image is the photographer. Recognizing that doesn't mean that you'll never get a new camera or lens, just that you'll put reasonable expectations on what they'll do for you (or not).

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

I completely agree that great photos can be made with any camera, and that one will observe the existence of great photos which were taken with all sorts of cameras. It is just that the types of great photos taken by cameras of various quality will be be different.

When you take a photo in available light, and wish it had less noise, or even just more attractive noise grain, or when you try to focus on quick moving wildlife and get some blur, or miss the moment due to shutter lag, then you are left feeling that the only way to be able to reliably make those "greate photos" that people will remark upon, is to wait for brighter light or shoot only unmoving objects.

The unique dream of 35mm SLR cameras I think is to have a camera that can "do it all". Other formats tend to be more specialized in what they are optimal for. I think that is why we all pine so heavily for better cameras, to try and realize that dream.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The BBC ran a series last year called "A digital picture of Britain". In the series, Tom Ang took three professional photographers each week and gave one of them a top end dSLR, one of them a mid-range point and shoot, and one of them a mobile phone camera. The trick was, none of the photographers chosen were digital photographers, so the shows were as much about their struggles with the technology.

What was amazing was that, within the limits of the technology, even the guys with the mobile phone cameras were able to produce amazing images.

Verdict: it really is the photographer, not the camera.

However, it's in the nature of the good workman to get the best tools they can. It's no surprise then, that top photographers have top equipment.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, http://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

As a professional wedding photographer, I can tell you that it takes both a good camera and a good photographer to be good at weddings. I think some other types of photography might be possible to do professionally with a low end P&S, but not weddings.

You can be the best wedding photographer in the world, and your results will be mediocre at best if you use a low end P&S on a wedding. The focus is too slow, the flash is too weak, the lens is too slow, etc. The pro's shots with a P&S would be, no doubt, much better than the guests shots, but still not good enough to be considered professional.

And if you are an amateur shooting a wedding, a good DSLR won't make you into a professional wedding photographer, but it can certainly help significantly, and you might then be able to learn to shoot at a professional level given enough practice. You certainly could never become a pro wedding photographer using a low end P&S.

Russ
http://russmacdonald.smugmug.com/

Russ
Nikonian Moderator
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

I have heard people say "The camera doesn't matter" for over 35 years. It's bologna.

Examples--shoot with a camera with an inconsistent shutter, or which doesn't have slow shutter speeds, or doesn't have interchangeable lenses, and you are at a spot from which you can't move to adjust field of view. Shoot with a camera that is not light tight. Shoot with a camera whose lenses are very poor, or whose diaphragm blades are sticky. You can think of thousands.

I shoot with Nikon SLR's, but also with a 1957 Kodak Pony, a rangefinderless 35mm camera with shutter speeds of 1/30-1/250 sec plus B. It has a non-interchangeable 44mm f3.5 lens which is decent.
To say that I should be able to make all the shots with the Pony I could make with my FM2n and 35, 50, and 105mm lenses is absurd. I can do things with depth of field with my 50mm f1.8 and 1/4000 sec. shutter speed on the FM2n I would never be able to do with the Pony. That's just one example. I can stop action with fast shutter speeds on the FM2 where the Pony's top speed is 1/250 (probably closer to 1/200, actually).

I also own and have used a Holga. The black and white shots I have made with it are interesting, but much different that those I make with my Nikons.

I am tired of hearing "The camera doesn't matter."

Certainly great shots can be made with simpler or inferior cameras, but not the range or variety of great shots. The camera matters.

Jim
FM/FM2n

Agreed.


> but also with a 1957 Kodak Pony, a
>rangefinderless 35mm camera with shutter speeds of
>1/30-1/250 sec plus B. It has a non-interchangeable 44mm
>f3.5 lens which is decent.

I have one of these too. Where do you get your 828?

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

I cannot speak for others. I can only say what my experience has been in the more than 40 years I have been photographing.
Like some of you have already stated, a great photographer will do very well with a fairly good camera. A good photographer will do very well also with a fair lens.
I have seen outstanding pictures by good photographers from using kit lenses. I have seen outstanding pictures from good photographers using point and shoot cameras. I am fair when I say that those photographers do an outstanding job when using professional cameras and professional lenses. We all know the results when a professional camera and lens is used by someone who does not have the expertise and experience a professional has.
I know what Galen Rowell was capable of doing with a cheap 80-200 lens and what Freeman Patterson does with his Minolta film camera.
Yes, the photographer matters.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Scott--
Mine's a 35mm! It's the Pony IV.

Jim
FM/FM2n

Nice, I didn't realize it came in a 35mm model.

Scott Chapin
Powder Springs, GA, USA
Nikonians Team Member

I think philosophically, Ken Rockwell is correct. However literally, this is where we diverge paths.

At the end of the day, Ken may prefer his D40 for candid shots of baby Ryan, but rest assured, he'll be grabbing his high-end Nikon or Canon for the shots that really matter.

-Dan

www.danielstainer.com

>I always get a big laugh when I see statements by
>photographers who should know better come out with such
>utterances as "Your camera does not matter" or "It's not the
>camera that counts; it's the person behind it."

Yo Bob,

not surprisingly, virtually everyone will see the ultimate benchmark against which to prove their viewpoint as a comparison of the camera's output: negative or positive film, or digital file. But what if we take other also-just-as-important factors into consideration?

Only as an example--How about the pure joy of feeling connected with your MF camera? The simplicity of a system which does not require cheat-sheets and scrolling menus? The peace of mind knowing that focus could not possibly have been fouled by an "inappropriate target"? The tactile pleasure of adjusting such wonderful analog controls? The sense of pride and achievement which comes with the knowledge that you did it yourself?

Of COURSE the camera matters!

best, andy

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

To me it all depends on what you are shooting whether the equipment matters or not. In any case, you need to know the basics of photography.

I have shot things recently with my D2X that I could have shot with my F2AS but on the other hand, tomorrow, I will be shooting a football game. No matter how much I know my F2AS, I certainly cannot be as successful shooting with it tomorrow as I will be with my D2H and D2X with my 70-200/2.8 and 200-400/4 attached to it.

The importance of equipment can vary with what you are shooting but skill level is just as important.

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

I have been confirmed to have a bad case of NAS. Nevertheless, I agree with overall premise. It's not the camera. All things being equal a million monkeys with a million D3s with not equal the graphic impact of a gifted and skilled photographer with a Kodak Instamatic.

Sometimes better equipment means that we have better equipment. What matters is what to take out of the shelf on a given day and what to use for a particular objective. So with a closet full of equipment some folks go out with one body, one fair (and versatile) lens, maybe a flash and do great work... Others of us produce snapshots...

Imagine this - instead of working on our skill, developing our eye, learning limits and strengths of our equipment; we go to seminars to learn how to buy just the right gadget that will compensate for bad technique. For every photographer who uses a tripod judiciously, there must be 100,000 photographers who believe that they can hand hold equally well in any type of light. Then there are the interminable discussions on why this lens or that lens is "soft." Most often, it just isn't the lens...

Cameras, lens, strobes are tools. Just like hammers, chisels, saws... Just because I have a shop full of tools doesn't make me a skilled cabinet maker - $10,000 in photographic equipment doesn't mean much more than I've spent $10,000 on photographic equipment.

On the flip side - if I had a dollar for every time I heard, "That's a great photo, what camera did you use?" I could retire...

Geesh - I think I'm a way too sensitive here...

Thanks for the chance to rant. Take care.

Bob
Nikonian in Southeast PA
Currently in Kansas City, MO
http://bobsimrak.blogspot.com
http://bobsimrak.zenfolio.com/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Bob

I would simply take it as a complement, smile, and move on with life.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well here is my 2c worth...

I used to go to a photography course and as usual there was this wealthy guy with more cash than sense who would buy all the latest gear, spend thousands on lenses etc. He would also take himself off abroad to take pictures for our weekly assignments. (We struggled in dark cold November, he flew to Spain for the weekend). He had some amazing gear and yep you guessed it his pictures were at best average, most of the time poor. No matterwhat gear he had couldn't shoot for toffee.

I progressd to being semi-pro - shooting weddings, tourism brochures, exhibitions etc. I used an F90XPro with 18-35, 28-105, 105 macro and 300 f4. All good gear but none of it top pro stuff (no f2.8 lenses, no F5 etc.).

Do you need top pro equipment to shoot for a living? No

Is new geat fun to play with? You bet!

I would love to own a D3 have a host of f2.8 zooms, some lovely fast primes, several pro speedlights etc. New gear is such fun to have but not essential

D2XS + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8. or...

Nikkors - 28mm f2.8 AFD + 50mm f1.8 AFD + 85mm f1.8G AF-S...

Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel
http://alexjpscottphotography.yolasite.com/

LIKE me on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AlexJPScottPhotography

Follow my blog...

http://alexjpscottphotography.blogspot.co.uk/


Alex

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Use the right tool for the job. My Coolpix has been great for purely creative enjoyment. I don't think I'd be satisfied with it if I were a pro wedding photographer.

F80

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is always far more weighted to the photographer than the equipment. I have seen shots from certain photographers using inexpensive lenses and bodies that blow away people shooting the highest end bodies and lenses.

I can't tell you how many bad pictures I've seen from people shooting single digit Nikon models and conversely some fabulous photos out of a D40.

So, on the face your contention that it really is all about gear, I completely disagree.

I've seen the exact same thing in music.

Fender makes a line of Stratocaster guitars, made at different price points and levels of quality and attention to detail. One model currently available is the Stevie Ray Vaughn replica called Lenny. It is a $17,000 hand built guitar by the Fender custom shop. Every aspect of this instrument is as precise a recreation of SRV's old instrument as is possible.

Its $17,000 purchase price would not even remotely make me a better guitarist than I am today from my current American series Strat, (retail $989 - I bought mine used for $570). In fact, an American series does not make me a better guitarist than if I bought a Fender Squier student instrument for $200.

To further support my contention, a few quotes...

The late Michael Bloomfield said, "Hendrix had no favorite guitar... Buddy Miles has some of his Strats, and all the ones I've tried are hard to play... heavy strings and heavy actions. I'm amazed he could play them a facilely as he did."

"To take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis."
Henri Cartier-Bresson

I found a lot of Bresson quotes about the act of photography, but nothing about equipment.

It really is about the user/performer/photographer, not the cost of the equipment.

""

>It really is about the user/performer/photographer, not the
>cost of the equipment.

Well, I have to disagree to a point. The photographer doesn't matter if the equipment can't do the job. Once the equipment is good enough to do the job, then the results depend far more on the skill of the photographer.

Example: shooting weddings requires a camera with high image quality, fast/accurate focus, and a fairly fast lens. No pro could ever do a great job using a low-end P&S at a wedding. He could shoot some parts of the wedding OK, but the available light shots during the ceremony (especially the kiss shot from the back of the church) simply would not be good. His overall results would be mediocre at best.

Example: shooting the craters on the moon requires at least a 10X lens. A typical low-end P&S has only a 3X lens. Even the best photographer in the world couldn't use a low-end P&S for shooting craters.

Example: shooting a football game at night requires a fast accurate focus, ~zero shutter lag, good high ISO performance, and a fast lens. No one could do a really great job of this using a P&S.

I could go on and on. The camera has to be good enough for the job.

So, the minimum camera is largely determined by the type of photography you do.

Russ
http://russmacdonald.smugmug.com/

Russ
Nikonian Moderator
Russell MacDonald Photography
Nikon CLS Practical Guide

Give a photographer a cheap camera/lens to shoot with, then give the same photographer a high end camera/lens. See what happens. Unless the photographer is totally inept, my money would be on the high end gear producing the best photos.

Way back when the Nikon EM just came out, I bought one for grab shots. Meanwhile, for the good stuff, I used an F3 and an F2A. Believe me, the F3 and F2A are MUCH better cameras than the EM when using the Zone System.

Kiz


"We turn not older with years, but newer every day." Emily Dickinson

Just a few miles away they are shooting 35mm film by the mile using cameras, and lighting setups that makes us look like kids playing with toys.

We all know what Hollywood produces.

My Nikonian Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Fender makes a line of Stratocaster guitars, made at
>different price points and levels of quality and attention
>to detail. One model currently available is the Stevie Ray
>Vaughn replica called Lenny. It is a $17,000 hand built
>guitar by the Fender custom shop. Every aspect of this
>instrument is as precise a recreation of SRV's old
>instrument as is possible.
>
>Its $17,000 purchase price would not even remotely make me a
>better guitarist than I am today from my current American
>series Strat, (retail $989 - I bought mine used for $570).
>In fact, an American series does not make me a better
>guitarist than if I bought a Fender Squier student
>instrument for $200.
>

It wouldn't make you a better guitarist, but the American Strat may enable you to play better. We tried a Mexican Fender Strat and compared it with an American one. The playability was noticeably different. On the other hand, you probably won't get more out of the $17,000 instrument than the current production line model. On the other hand, if your aspiration was to be exactly like Stevie Ray Vaughan, and you had studied his technique in immaculate detail, you would probably want the Lenny.

Musical instruments are fundamentally different from cameras, because each instrument produces a slightly different tone and is slightly different to play. Classical violinists who have access to Stradivarii will pay a fortune for an exact replica of a Bach instrument for achieving the authentic sound for Bach cantatas. The Strad is a better instrument, but the replica is the "right" instrument.

Guitars are even more susceptible to enormous price hikes, because fashion and identification with key players makes such a big difference. When I started playing in the 1970s a 1959 Gibson Les Paul would sell for around £3,000. The list price of a current model was about £700. I found one on the internet today "the reduced price of" $110,000. Gibson are now offering replica 1959 Les Pauls at around $3,999. This should illustrate the difference between guitars and cameras: cameras are not appreciating in value, and camera makers are not making replicas to satisfy buyers who are looking for a better product.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, http://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

>Musical instruments are fundamentally different from
>cameras...

>This
>should illustrate the difference between guitars and
>cameras: cameras are not appreciating in value, and camera
>makers are not making replicas to satisfy buyers who are
>looking for a better product.

Yo Martin,

good post as usual--that these two markets are fundamentally different, I agree with you. We must compare with series-production consumer goods, not one-of-a-kind signature specials.

But may I point out that quite recently there have been Nikon rangefinder camera "replicas" produced in quantity? And couldn't we allow that, just as with your guitar and my piano, there are vast diffences in "feel" between all the thousands of various models of cameras? And that one, especially, and several, more generally, seem to "fit" us better than at least dozens or hundreds of other models? And some feel it is this good fit--the tactile interface-- which accounts for a part of the pleasure which comes from our photography. We are not all sensitive to this in the same way or degree. And of course our tastes and styles and budgets cover the entire spectrum.

best, andy



"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

It's really a matter or how restricted one is. I'm imagining someone deciding to play a joke on me, handing me one of those Kodak HQ single-use cameras with three shots left and saying, "here, go stand on that sideline and make me at least one decent image of this night HS football game!"

Ok... a three-element 30mm lens, stuck at f/11 and 1/100 sec and ISO 800 and the flash reaches to 15 feet. And little shutter lag (but far less than most digital P/S cameras ) This has to be the ultimate challenge.

First, I'd think it wasn't fair. But then I'd probably realize that if I were to wind the film first and then wait until the action came close enough so the built-in flash would reach and the subjects would be large enough in the 30mm lens, and anticipate the shot, making sure to pan with the action, I might make a recognizable image...and so might any one of us. Someone like Dave Black probably wouldn't have much trouble actually. Doable, nonetheless, but a but scary maybe.

Thing is, I'd probably cheat a little and have the film pushed a stop secretly!

Then again, I might feel so restricted that I'd end up waiting and waiting for the perfect opportunity where every condition needed is met, I might wait all night, and never make one image! Talk about contemplative shooting! Maybe someday I'll try to shoot sports with a large-format view camera!

Why even bother thinking about this? I do use disposable cameras at times. But give me one of my SLRs any day, and I'll shoot circles around myself!

Of course the camera matters and better cameras do on average allow better shots due to less restrictions. But playing devil's advocate, any camera is better than none if you need to make an image!

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

Talk about contemplative shooting! Maybe
>someday I'll try to shoot sports with a large-format view
>camera!

Yo Al,

THIS is a GREAT idea! I realize you said this toungue-in-cheek, but I believe you have stumbled upon one of the greatest exercises one could do to become a better photographer. The benefit being that you could get so good that you would have developed your instincts for just WHEN to press that shutter release, rather than holding the motor-drive button down for example. And that you would SEE the shot as it happened in your viewfinder, learning to time your release with your mind's eye, learning to rely upon and trust your instincts. Knowing there are literally an unlimited number of possible shots, any one of which could be a GREAT shot.

Of course many sports were once shot on 4X5 using hand-holdable press-type cameras such as my Crown Graphic. Various motion-stopping techniques, including flash, allowed for producing good results over a wide range of sports. So it is not only possible, but reasonable to consider using a view camera for sports photography.

Choose your sport wisely.

best, andy



"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

>So it is not only possible, but reasonable to consider using a
>view camera for sports photography.
>

Hmm... maybe they'll let me wrap up the pressbox of the Louisiana Superdome with black velvet and I'll use it as a pinhole camera for the next Saints game. Hmm... probably get only one shot per game.

Kiz


"We turn not older with years, but newer every day." Emily Dickinson

yo Andy,

I really do want to shoot sports with a view camera one day.

But I need to learn view camera photography first! i've never even used one. Someday, yes.

Even my toungue-in-cheek comments have a kernel of truth, as you found...you just have to unearth it!

Seriously, no comment is completely sarcastic...that reminds me...

It's time to change my sig!

I love it...fellow nikonians just keep pushing the envelope. Thanks especially to Andy this time! Just for this occasion, I will dig out an old Argus Seventy-Five and run a roll of Tri-X 620mm through it! man, I can't wait until the beatermat arrives on my doorstep!!!!!!!!

Cheers to you, whether you use a D3, a view camera, a disposable, or a cirkut! It's all good! (seriously!)

By the way, the new servers and new nikoscope are a great improvement!

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

>I really do want to shoot sports with a view camera one day.
>
>But I need to learn view camera photography first! i've
>never even used one. Someday, yes.

>I love it...fellow nikonians just keep pushing the envelope.
>Thanks especially to Andy this time!

Yo Al,

"Using the View Camera" by Steve Simmons, or "The View Camera: Operations and Technique" by Harvey Shaman might be all you need to start reshaping that envelope. This is a more deliberate way to make a photograph, one of extraordinary resolution and depth (hey! it's possible). The basic operation is utter simplicity, but there are enough movements to make it interesting. Mastering it is a lifetime's work.

best, andy


"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

Yo,

Thanks Andy; I'll look for that title.

By the way, I like your username, and think it's both interesting and funny how nearly everyone addresses you with "Yo Andy" just as you address everyone else. Thing is, I'll bet there's some poor guy out there somewhere by the name of "Andrew Yo"...and I'll bet he wouldn't be very happy to hear that this trend exists on nikonians!

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

>By the way, I like your username, and think it's both
>interesting and funny how nearly everyone addresses you with
>"Yo Andy" just as you address everyone else. Thing is, I'll
>bet there's some poor guy out there somewhere by the name of
>"Andrew Yo"...and I'll bet he wouldn't be very happy to hear
>that this trend exists on nikonians!

Yo Al,

we needn't be too concerned, as practically everyone with a camera has heard: "Yo! Rocky!", but thanks for the comment.

As to others also catching on to the harmless fun, by honoring me with its' use, and even copying "nice rack!", or some such, in these ways do we advance our ability to communicate, hence share knowledge.

best, andy



"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

I am not a good carpenter so I do not have many carpentry tools. Even if I did I probably would not be interested in doing more carpentry and with a truck load of tools would not improve much.
On the other hand a good carpenter earning a living probably has a van load of tools - primarily so he has the right equipment to earn more money by doing each job in the minimum reasonable time.
***
Pro photographers often take more pictures in a month than amateurs take in a year and are more likely to pay more for durable camera gear to reduce the risk of it failing on a job. Sports photography needs mainly long lenses so whether amateur or pro you need some. A difference is the pro has to deliver when the light gets low so a pre requisite of earning a good living is a long fast lens.
Any pro makes more money by selling themselves. Some pictures taken by pros need no more than a D40 with 18-55. It does help to appear to be better by using more expensive kit.
The point behind the topic is owning expensive equipment and producing high quality images does not always go hand in hand.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

In my own case, I can see a definite overall improvement as my kit develops. And in some types of photography, the improved kit makes a very definite and very measurable improvement.

Yes, I am learning too, so the equipment and my vision are improving together.

One thing I will be forever grateful to Ken Rockwell is this - it works like you would not believe
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/wife.htm


Steve K, Nikonian in Edmonton
My Nikonians gallery

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

>The point behind the topic is owning expensive equipment and
>producing high quality images does not always go hand in
>hand.

I agree with everything you say Len, just to add that I'm particularly glad that this thread didn't turn into another internet gangland assault on Ken Rockwell. It shows that Nikonians have moved on from that kind of thing.

In anycase, the statement that the camera doesn't matter, was around long before I ever heard of Ken R, indeed, well before the internet. Anyone who has ever picked up a camera it's knows that it's quality and sophistication DOES make a difference - but only to those who know how to use it.

David.

Cardiff,Britain.

BE A BLOOD + BONE MARROW DONOR TO FIGHT CANCER, YOU MAY SAVE A LIFE.
http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=16427

Obviously it all matters. However, there is a ranking from what is most important to what is least important. At the top of the list clearly is the photographer; for this, there is no substitute. Next, it would seem to be the lens. As a National Geographic photographer once said, "It's all in the glass." Then would come the camera body. In the Nikon world, there are a slew of P&Ss, and the DSLRs range from the D40 to the D3. If you have a good lens, you can take absolutely superb photos with a D40. Plus, the more the camera costs, the less the difference from the next step down; i.e., there is more difference between a D40 and a D200 than between a D200 and a D2x, despite the huge jump in price up to the D2x. I think that if you have only $ 5,000 to spend, you do better with a D300 and some outstanding glass than lusting after a D3. My hunch is that most of us have some financial constraints. And has been mentioned earlier, if one had all of the money in the world to spend on equipment, that would not make them an excellent photographer. john4jack

john4jack

The camera! Without a camera you don't have a photographer - you have an artist...

The Photographer - Without the photographer = what good is the camera....

Toss up isn't it!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>The camera! Without a camera you don't have a photographer
>- you have an artist...
>
>The Photographer - Without the photographer = what good is
>the camera....
>
>Toss up isn't it!

Yo Charles,

good post. Although there exist totally computer-operated photographic systems, photography requires a photographer and a camera, among other such things as light, film/sensor/card, shutter--and in the case of a pinhole camera, one need not even require a lens.

To the point of: "your camera does not matter", another post mentioned the major importance of a lens, arguably the single most important element in photography. Except when buying or selling a body, we usually think of a camera as including a lens, not just a bare body with a cap; that complete unit is what we have discussed here so far. We can all imagine an old pro with an old film camera and an old lens, covered with cleaning marks, producing an award-winning image we'd all be proud of. But a pinhole camera? Not for most of us.

It seems unlikely that anyone will deny the importance of a lens in their photography. But the camera body may be considered anywhere from "immaterial", as some have implied, to "I love this old camera", to "gotta have the latest/best". Can it be that we are all attached to our cameras in every manner from "DIS D ONE" to "nah.." ?

best, andy

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

One aspect that I haven't seen mentioned here is how the photographer frames or composes the image. For example, if one has a P&S and takes some pictures at sunrise or sunset he/she is likely to have a better picture than the same subject shot with a D3 at high noon.

Same too with composition. A P&S shooter could frame the picture better, use a more creative angle, "tell the story" better than someone with a pro camera who simply used the camera as a P&S.

Having said that, I do believe that if the photographer with the D2X and some fast primes used the same creative techniques as the P&S guy then the higher quality gear would win out. JMHO

Graham
From St. Augustine, FL. "I like photographers, you don't ask questions." Ronald Reagan to White House Press Photogs

<http://www.ancientcityphotography.com/>

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree. This past spring our family went to Athens for a few days. I took my new D2Xs and 2 lenses. My daughter (15 at the time) took or Nikon P&S. Guess who had more interesting pictures? She did. Why?

1) She has a more creative eye than her father.

2) i really hate lugging heavy camera equipment around. Always have. Should have know better than to take the gear I did.

Next time? Well, I have finally realized al i need is a body and a lens. For me, too much equipment makes for a disappointing time.

Doug Lee
New Jersey Exit 4

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Doug for helping with a real life example. I've got nice gear, but I always struggle with being creative. Maybe your daughter would like to try out one of your D2Xs. It would be interesting to see what effect it would have on her creative eye.

Graham
From St. Augustine, FL. "I like photographers, you don't ask questions." Ronald Reagan to White House Press Photogs

<http://www.ancientcityphotography.com/>

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Not to crash the party here, but I was just wondering...

This is a discussion amongst a tight-knit fraternity who all have the same goal - to produce creative and quality images, and have an understanding of the tools necessary to achieve that goal.

Wouldn't it be interesting, and illuminating, to pose this question to the general public? You know, that class of person who will judge a photographer's skill based on the size and/or price of his kit? Or that huge majority of customers who only shops (and makes qualitative judgements) based solely on the lowest price?

To me, and to most of you, yes, the camera matters. We strive to do the best we can, with whatever gear we are using. To the rest of the world, do they really care? Can they tell the difference between a D3 image and a Holga image? And if they can, does it matter to them?

My guess is that for the general public, the camera would matter to them only if it makes an immediate economic impact to them.

But then again, maybe I'm just thinking too hard about the difference between needing & wanting a D3!

Kevin

To me, it is the camera, in that the cameras I have allow me to mount fantastic Nikkor lenses.

Recently I tried an experiment. Took the same shot, same view, outdoors at a local park/open space area. Nikon FM2, 35mm f2 Nikkor O, and Kodak Pony IV with 44mm f3.5 Anastar. Of course, I backed up a little with the Pony to get the same field of view.

Showed the shots to my wife. Of course I didn't tell her which shot was taken with which camera. She said the Nikkor shot was "better." I asked her what she meant by "better." She said, "It looks more realistic--the colors look better."

As one poster said before, it is the flexibility of the machine and the ability to mount fantastic lenses on it that allows us to make a greater variety of images. My FM, 35, 105, and converter allow me to do much more at my daughter's soccer match than the little Pony with the decent 44mm lens. However, I would challenge anyone to tell which shot was made with FM, and which was made with FM2. (Although I can shoot at 1/4000 sec @f4 using ISO 400,where I would be stuck at f8 with the FM).

It comes down to doing what you can with what you have, and this is where the creativity of the shooter comes out.

Jim
FM/FM2n

The general public will break down into more or less the same groups that they do about everything else.

Some people will say: my camera phone takes great pictures
Some people will say: this pocket camera is brilliant, and I always have it with me
Some people will say: the reason I don't take good pictures is because I have a cheap camera
Some people will say: I used to have a big camera like that, but now I have this one. It's much more convenient
Some people will say: I have 8MP on my (whatever) camera, and you only have 6MP on your D40, so my camera is better
Some people will say: I don't have a camera myself, but I bet you wished you'd bought the (name of top brand as recommended by some magazine)

If you compared their responses with other bits of technology, you'd probably find them similar per person across the board. Only photographers are primarily concerned with the highest affordable quality. Most consumers compare weight, brand confidence, published specifications, recommendation and price against the features that they actually want. Equally, most consumers will find their cameras obsolete long before they have taken enough pictures to (in their mind) justify the cost.

M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk

Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera

My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, http://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/

>I agree. This past spring our family went to Athens for a
>few days. I took my new D2Xs and 2 lenses. My daughter (15
>at the time) took or Nikon P&S. Guess who had more
>interesting pictures? She did. Why?
>
>1) She has a more creative eye than her father.

What a wonderful way to put it. As a former P&S photographer, I have realized another explaination why my P&S shots sometimes look better than shots taken with more professional equipment (e.g., my D80). What I realized was that my old P&S had far less features than my D80, even though, it still let me set ISO, f/stop, and shutter speed. But since the D80 has far more settings and features, there's much more that I need to know about the camera in order to take great shots. The more settings and features there are, the more the opportunity there is for mistakes to occur (i.e., the more of a chance you'll have to "screw things up"). I didn't have to worry about having correct settings as much with my P&S because there weren't as many that actually even mattered.

Brandon
Nikon D80

"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins

Brandon
Nikon D80, D300, & F3

"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins

www.photobrandon.com

You may wish to read Galen Rowell's thoughts on the subject. You can find one such article entitled "Simple Does it Too" here.

There are two types of people in the world -- those that create false dichotomies and those that don't. "The camera doesn't matter" is one such false dichotomy.

I believe photography is an art. Like any art, it is possible to judge it both technically and aesthetically. And like most arts, technology can not only improve the technical execution, but can also expand the range of possible aesthetic expression. As a trivial example, a photographer with the choice of black-and-white and color film has more ways to express an artistic vision than one who only uses black-and-white film.

Cameras vary greatly in the technological issues they "solve" and how well they do so. My 4x5" view camera is little more than a flexible light-tight chamber, but the tilt and shift capabilities permit me to record images that would be extremely difficult to duplicate if I started with a Nikon dSLR. On the other hand, my dSLR allows me to react and capture images in a way that's impossible with a view camera. Either picture could end up in the trash, as an award winner or somewhere in between, but no one gives awards for shots you failed to capture.

So "the camera" matters. The right camera can make getting a particular shot possible, or at least a lot easier. Sometimes, the only tradeoff for better performance is cost. Other tradeoffs, such as format size, are far more complex. And still others, such as ergonomics, are purely subjective.

The other advantage of top-quality gear is that it eliminates the excuses. Once you've got the same gear as your most admired pro, you can only blame the difference in results on the nut behind the finder.

So when it comes to issues like where to stand, where to point the camera, and when to actually take the picture, about all a camera will do is tell you whether it is technically possible to record the shot. A technically perfect shot of a boring subject is a boring shot, and no camera in the world will change that.

P.S. A Kodak Instamatic Reflex with Retina and Schneider lenses was quite a nice system for its time. So was a Contaflex 126 "instamatic."

"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck

>You may wish to read Galen Rowell's thoughts on the subject.

>.. "the camera" matters. The right camera can make getting
>a particular shot possible..

Yo Michael,

good post. And thank you for the link to Rowell's articles. It is surprising to me to learn how much automation he seemed to prefer (the F4 at the time of that article), and how far he was willing to compromise the camera quality in search of an ultra-light body, for some of his extremely physical shooting conditions.

best, andy


"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves.

"THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE"
Not till we have lost the world do we begin to find ourselves

"Your camera does not matter"
"It's not the camera that counts"

Well if it wasn't for the camera (any camera), there wouldn't be any photography . The camera is kind of darn important at the VERY basic level .

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

Yes, the camera comes in handy when you want to capture an image.

As with many of these topics and discussions, there is always more to the issue than the statement reflects. It's not an either/or situation--so taken literally, it simply doesn't work.

However, I agree with the general sentiment that the user is "more" important than the equipment. There's plenty of evidence posted in these forums everyday to suggest that the newest, best model won't guarantee the best images when in unskilled hands, and that a skilled and talented photographer can get outstanding results with just about any camera. There is no camera--yet--that can make up for skill in reading the lighting situation and making good adjustment and setting decisions. Luckily (IMO), knowledge, experience and skill still count.

I suspect that most of the people who make this blunt or glib statement really mean that the user is the most important element, but that having the right tool for the job makes things easier.

Of course, here we like to take things very literally and jump all over an obviously over-simplification of the concept. It makes for entertaining reading if nothing else.

Dan L.
http://larussoweb.com

Dan L.
http://www.danlarussophotography.com/

After my other post, I am going to play devil's advocate:

Someone posted a few weeks ago that they were insulted by people commenting that their camera must be pretty good because of how good their pictures are. I can understand why someone might take offense to such a comment, but I never have.

Here's why: there is no way I could have done my better shots with a lesser camera. The TTL viewing, the interchangeable lenses, the adjustable shutter and f-stop, the shoe-mount flash, and the in-camera meter were absolutely essential in most cases.

Show me an inexpensive digital P/S that has a 15mm equivalent focal length with excellent image quality, TTL viewing, fast response, manual settings, and accessory flash capability and I might change my mind.

If someone makes a comment about the camera when complimenting my work, I take it as a real compliment. The fact that I was able to afford the camera's cost and sacrifice enough time to learn to use it both indicate that I worked hard and made the camera work for me.

If you took away my F4, or D1h, or FE2, I'd be pretty upset...and te quality of my photos would go down as a direct result, I am pretty sure.

Just yesterday, I shot a student rally. I had the F4 with a 15mm lens, SB-25 for fill, and one roll of bulk-loaded ISO 400 black and white film for discipline. I was on centerweighted metering, and set the camera to totally manual: 1/250th @ f/8, hyperfocal distace, and 1/32 flash power. I used it like a point and shoot, basically! Anyone could have done that...I could have handed it to someone and said "push here", and as long as they used decent composition, the shots would look pretty good. Sometimes, the point of sophisticated equipment is so you can do things like that and still have good quality. Does that make me a lazy photograpaher? Maybe, but the shots will look good due to the film latitude, and there was really no time to be lost fiddling with metering or other settings (at least for me; I'm not able to meter and compute exposure that fast on the fly for every shot). It was a short, fast-paced, action-filled event. And a lot of fun.

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

And one more thing:

If the camera really wasn't a factor, do you think Ansel Adams would have written a book called "The Camera"?

An undeniable paradox: To think that there is any such thing as an absolute rule is at worst naïve, and at best, shortsighted. There is no such thing as an always-true, all context- or situation-salient, absolute rule that always holds true…including this one!

>And one more thing:
>
>If the camera really wasn't a factor, do you think Ansel
>Adams would have written a book called "The Camera"?

Then again, if the camera were all-important, he wouldn't have written two other books called "The Negative" and "The Print." The theme in all his books is that previsualization and technique are more important than equipment. Ansel's best photographs were made using equipment that was quite primitive by today's standards.

To use another famous photographer as an illustration, Ernst Haas was once questioned by a student about his Leica cameras. His response (as I can best remember the quote) was, "Leica Schmeica, the only important thing is up here," (Pointing to his head.)

Better gear will not make a photographer better, period. But better gear will give a better photographer more opportunities for making great pictures.

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

I think a lot of people are missing the idea behind the statement. "The camera doesn't matter" is really an awkward yet catchy paraphrasing of the the term "You don't need a good camera to take good photos," which is quite true. I've seen wonderful photos from Kodak Brownie cameras and the like, just as I've seen awful shots from expensive pro rigs. It's generally used as a handy catchphrase for new photographers that feel they need expensive equipment to take good photos.

The idea is not that the camera has no influence, the idea is that you can create excellent images with whatever gear you're using. Having the "better" equipment merely opens up more options and situations for the photographer, which is essential for professionals. Having the correct equipment for the job is imperative in business! But that does not mean that even the lowliest amateur should buy every new lens and body, as neither of those things will make them a better photographer, ever. If I gave a pro rig to a bad photographer, he'll take just as poor photos as if shooting with a P&S - but he'd just be able to take poor images in more demanding situations.

So, to sum it up, the camera and associated gear allows a good photographer to capture images in situations where the gear is necessary, but in situations where a simple camera would suffice, the photos will be no better than the simple unit. The most important component, as always, is the photographer.

- Trevor Miles (a Calgary Nikonian)
www.osphoto.ca
"Kick reason to the curb! Who do you think we are?"

Right on.

It all comes down to using the right tool for the job. Those who insist the camera is all-important seem to use as an example things like a P&S can't get the same kind of wildlife closeups you can get with a dlsr and 300mm VR lens. Well, duh. What if wildlife closeups aren't your goal?

Now, let's compare similar tools for similar applications. In the right hands, a D40 with kit lens is every bit as capable of getting a good photograph as a D200 with a faster, "better" lens of similar focal length. Even a good P&S in the right hands will give excellent results, as long as it is used within the limits of its capability.

From that aspect, Ken Rockwell is perfectly right. Your camera does not matter. Better tools get you better reach, better speed and better convenience, not necessarily better quality. That is up to the photographer's ability to use his chosen tools to do what he wants to achieve.

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

Rats. Maybe my tripod is to blame.

Simplify

Cormorants

Good discussion!

Of course the camera matters! You need one to create images! But most of what makes an image memorable has nothing to do with the camera, and all to do with the choices the photographer made. It's all about the subject matter or content, the light, the story, the feeling. The most memorable images that exist in museums and books were taken with simple cameras - certainly certain images cannot be taken without certain technological advances, and you need specific lenses and features to do certain things. But the camera is ultimately just a tool.

It would be silly for a marble sculptor to use the same tools a wood carving artist uses - the right tool is needed for the right job. Of course! But assuming the right tool is used, nobody would care what tools Michaelangelo used to create La Pieta, or what pen Shakespeare used to write Hamlet. When you are in front of a great image, the camera used to create it seems like a small detail.

________________
Paco Romero
(website|blog| RSS|Facebook|gallery)