Craftsman or his Tools?

nilhg

Does your camera matter or not, two of the webs photographic heavyweights go toe to toe.

The truth is out there, probably somewhere in the middle.

PixelTrawler

Read both.

The article that it does not matter is interesting and demonstrates and backs up points made.

The article that it does matter is just a rant

As you say - its prob somewhere in between

Roen

Ken Rockwell. The term 'paper never refuses ink' comes to mind when he writes.

I'm taking the middle ground on this one too.

nilhg

And then of course there is the danger of being hoist by your own petard.

5uspect

There is a difference between a cheap (or expensive) camera and technically good equipment. I think the almighty nifty fifty is a good example of this.

So while a good photographer will have a good eye for photography they can be limited by their technical restraints equipment wise. That doesn't mean that they need buy the latest gear but at least appreciate that the will need the right gear be it secondhand or homemade.

leinsterman

nilhg wrote: »

And then of course there is the danger of being hoist by your own petard.

I like the point being made there ... I've always taken the approach of buying the best equipment I can afford and to hell with the begrudgers ... in my case this gives me the best gear ... but I've never been so arrogant as to think this will make me a better photographer ... I just like well made, good quality gear ...

This is an old pearl of a thread debated here many many times in the past ...

What I do believe is the best equipment will give better results if the photographer knows how to get the best from it ... I have personal experience of this when shooting sport ... the big fast primes give way better results regardless of photographer... however the quality and appeal of the results is still dependant on the craft of the shooter ... this is not to say someone with a lot of talent and cheap zoom can't achieve good results too ... but hand that person a big prime and show them how to use it and after a while it will be reflected in their images.

Thirdfox

Some images are impossible to make with some equipment (I wouldn't like to try and push ISO 25600 on my Nikon D40 ) but a lot is to do with the photographer too. Give me a D3 and I'll be able to photograph a room being lit by one candle (with a reasonable shutter speed).

Often photography is more about being in the right place at the right time (whether by coincidence or intentionally). That is what seperates the "photographer" from the "snapshot" shooter - this intention to make photos and being in the right place to make them.

elven

Ugh, Ken Rockwell is one of those people that just loves to rant and wind people up by going to an extreme end of an opinion, and that's all he's doing here, again. Yer man on LL is just faling into the trap of giving him the time of day and actually trying to make an argument against it, which is pointless.

At the end of the day, it's more important to

a) Match the right tools to the right job - could you get a picture for the sports section of the times with a holga or a pinhole? Not one they'd publish! You can shoot a landscape at a resolution capable of printing up to 6 feet wide with a 350D and a nifty fifty - if you're prepared to take 50 exposures and stitch them together - but it can be done! Sometimes there is a way around using what you have, and sometimes there isn't.

b) Establish your own requirements, and learn what's acceptable, and stick with it. There's never really going to be a huge difference between different manufacturers 6mp compacts/100mm macro lenses/entry level DSLRs so stop agonising over the minute differences, pick one, and spend your time concentrating on taking the fecking pictures.

Ooh, that rant thing must be infectious...

leinsterman

elven wrote: »

Ooh, that rant thing must be infectious...

Go girl ... you tell 'em ..


Oh and that point about Rockwell ... well made ... the word muppet comes to mind when I hear his name bneing uttered ... but sure look what he did ... he got us all in a tizzy ...

elven

Yup, I feel dirty, having joined in. Must resist!!!

pete4130

It's a mixture of both as I see it. My camera allows me to shoot in situations where most cameras couldn't. I've got some nice lenses that cost a few quid etc..

I still find taking nice portraits so very hard. I can't get my head around it, so it doesn't matter what equipment I have, so the problem definitely lies with me, and not the camera. The odd time I do manage to get a semi decent portrait I'm very happy because I know it wasn't the camera that made the shot.

nilhg

OK, its pretty ovbious that the reality is somewhere in the middle, but interesting to think about. Interesting also that most of the examples given are at the extreme end of the scale (one candle power shots, 6ft prints, sports for the Times) are at the extreme end of the scale rather than what 99% of us use our cameras for 99% of the time.


Was also thinking of this this morning when I read the story in the Sunday Times about the UK surgeon who performs brain surgery with a £30 DIY drill when he goes to the Ukraine to help out, to do the same job at home he has a £30,000 drill. No anastethic over there either!!!!!!

Valentia

I'd love to join in but I can't remember the password I used to block all Ken Rockwell sites!

Placebo

this sums it up.

I'm going to have to agree with one Mr.Rockwell here for the most part.The only photography I feel a dSLR is necessary for is wildlife and sport or for massively over sized prints.In essence a simple digital camera will be able to take the exact same shots as a dSLR.The only differences will be noticable at a higher res however most amatuer photographers will rarely print this high.Since getting a dSLR myself I haven't noticed any vast differences and infact my favourite shots were taken with my old Powershot which I still use a lot due to convenience.I agree that the gear is a benefit to photgraphers but most of it can be achieved with the simplest of tools.

elven

Deleted User wrote: »

In essence a simple digital camera will be able to take the exact same shots as a dSLR.

Well, unless you want shallow depth of field at something other than macro. Or to shoot at higher than 200 iso. It's fine if you're working at smaller apertures (smaller hole, bigger number that is) but if you like to shoot at 2.8, a compact is all but useless. That's why i'd rather have my 350d with the 50mm f1.8 than a compact, even something like the G9. Your point illustrates that it depends very heavily on exactly what you're trying to achieve... and why you can't make blanket statements.

elven

elven wrote:

Well, unless you want shallow depth of field at something other than macro. Or to shoot at higher than 200 iso. It's fine if you're working at smaller apertures (smaller hole, bigger number that is) but if you like to shoot at 2.8, a compact is all but useless. That's why i'd rather have my 350d with the 50mm f1.8 than a compact, even something like the G9. Your point illustrates that it depends very heavily on exactly what you're trying to achieve... and why you can't make blanket statements.

Well from my experience I would rarely use shallow depth of field at a distance to great effect,so a digital suits my style better.Granted it can only be achieved using a good camera however I do not believe it is something most photographers do depend on.It is rarely utilised by most photgraphers.Most digitals can go up to ISO400 now,anything higher and I believe the image becomes too distorted.Even in low light situations I will rarely go to 800 on my dslr due to the excessive noise.I would rather take my chances and try and keep a steady hand.However withstanding those kind of shots I still believe most shots taken with a dSLR can be replicated using a digital not including some of these technical issues.

Spyral

when it comes to these type of arguments I always think of Jesus and My Grandad - both were carpenters. JC was reknown enough (isn't this the carpenters son?) and my grandad was meticuously good.

jesus didn't have a bandsaw, or stainless steel chisels, or a pillar drill or even prefabricated nails !!

the point is that after a basic level of equipement (hammer, saw wood and nails !) skill and experience plays more of a role than equipment.

you can give someone the next uber nikon camera (d400 ??) and uber lens (1-1000 f.2 or something uber magical that doenst exist yet) and what eve they point at they will get nice technichally good pictures as the camera calculates a lot of it for you.

however muppy mc muppet with a d40 or d80 and a nifty fifty or heck even a film camera while I'm at it will still get better pictures

/rant

summary: kit brings you so far skill can bring you further even with naff kit.

mathias

I shouldnt even bother with rockwell at this stage , but its worth pointing out that in that rant , he has ....

what I shot back in 2001 with my first crappy Sony FD-88 floppy disc camera.

follow the link and look at the shots , nice composition , but that camera ( I had one ) took shots on floppy and could only manage 640 x 480 , and they were always grainy as hell ( exactly like the shots he links too ) , not much use for anything other than doing postage stamps ,

And this is the best bit ,

Here are photos made by a guy in the Philipines - with a cell phone camera!

Follow the link , it brings you to a flicker page and the exifs show that most were done with a Nikon camera and various rather expensive Nikkor lenses. ( some lovely shots there as well , especially the one with the wheat ) He has 20 or so done with a cellphone and this is what the photographer has to say about them ,

The primary photo on this set is taken with a Nokia 3110c

Most photos taken with the infamous budget handheld from Palm - Zire 71. Technically, it's not a camera phone because it doesn't have a phone. Rather, it's a PDA camera.

Maximum resolution is only 640x480, or 0.3 megapixels. Photos are noisy because of the low-resolution sensor. Photos are not altered or enhanced with Photoshop. They're just as they are, straight from the camera.

Ken Rockwell surprisingly finds them interesting,

The mans an utter loon , trips himself up more often that not.

For the record , Im all for the photographer being the main ingredient , but you have to have a basic level of gear for decent usable and printable shots , no matter how good you are you'll never make a Bride happy with a load of cellphone shots ... thats just never going to happen.