7/29/2019 Your Camera Does Matter

1/3

Contributor Login

A Rebuttal

One of the most annoying questions on the web is seen when someone on a forum asks Should I get a Whatsiflex or

a Thingabobblad? Which is better? The problem is not with the questions. The problem is the answers!

This often innocent query unleashes not only the dogs of war, but the clowns of cliche as well. Among the fan boys

rallying for their favourite brand there are bound to be at least a couple of bright sparks who write " It's not the camera,

it's the photographer", or some similar pithy aphorism. Inevitably someone will also quote from Saint Ansel (who in reality

was quite a gear head himself). Then some kind soul will start ranting about how even a Holga can take great shots,pinhole cameras are all one needs, and how the camera industry is a vast conspiracy intended to turn us into mindless

robots, godless heathen, communists, or worse. (Oops, sorry, communists are no longer the bad guys de jour. Wrong

decade).

This all came crashingly to mind when a bit of web surfing this morning turned up this recent essay by Ken Rockwell. Idon't know Mr. Rockwell, and have never had communication with him, and am only vaguely aware that he is asome-time web writer about things photographic. Regardless, I was at first amused and then annoyed by the piece quite annoyed, and so decided to write this rebuttal. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people read it we can end the

mind-numbing vapidity of this pointless debate once and for all. ( I doubt it, but at heart I'm an optimistso it's worth atry).

Span Sydney, Australia. March, 2008

Nikon D300 with 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens @ ISO 400

________________________________________________________________

It's about the Equipment Stupid

Let's get something straight right off. Photography is not possible without a camera and a lens. ( Don't talk to me about

the camera obscura and pinhole cameras. The pinhole is in essence a lens, and the room or box is indeed a camera). Infact let's deconstruct this all to its most atomic form.

Items needed to make a photograph:

Home

What's New

Store

Discussion Forum

LL Video Journal

Tutorial Videos

Columns

Essays

Locations

Product Reviews

Techniques

Tutorials

Understanding Series

Workshops

Michael Reichmann

Full Disclosure

Contact

Search the site:

advanced search

Content on this site:

Michael Reichmann 1995-2010.

All Rights Reserved

r Camera Does Matter http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml

3 9/18/2010 8:15 PM

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

7/29/2019 Your Camera Does Matter

2/3

A light sensitive substance on a substrate.

This can be silver gelatin on flexible plastic or CMOS photosites on a chip, or anynumber of other processes

A Camera

This can be a Cheerio box with a hole in it, a Hasselblad, or anything inbetween

A Lens

This can be a pin hole, a single meniscus piece of plastic, or a 16 element opticalsystem with multiple aspheric elements and nano coating, designed by elves in the

Black Forest and built by industrial robots in Tokyo

Oh yes a shutterwould be nice to have, and can range from removing your hat from the front of the lens opening for asecond or two, to a Copal #1 shutter with mechanical mechnism. An electronically controlled focal plane shutterallowing exposures from 12 hours to 1/12,000 of a second might be nice.

We can also add a diaphragm to control the amount of light entering the lens, to control depth of field and reduceaberrations. This can be waterhouse stops, a proper iris, or even a phase changing optical plate.

Some means of measuring the intensity of the light is often handy. This can be a cardboard extinction meter ( you're

showing your age of you remember ever using one of these), a hand-held incident meter, or maybe one built into thecamera that measures through the optical system, taking into account 1000 or more segments of the ground glass,measuring colour information, and adjusting exposure automatically with an accuracy of 1/10th of a stop.

Oh yes - focusing. That would be nice. We can do it by measuring the focal length of the lens with a ruler, then itsdiameter, and finally by the use of a printed look-up table set the point where the camera might be in focus for thesubject desired. Or a ground glass can be helpful. Or, how about an eletronic rangefinding system built into the camera

that instantaneously measures the distance to the subject with an accuracy of 1/100 of a mm, and then whichautomatically adjusts the lens elements in a fraction of a second to be in essentially perfect focus. Even better, howabout if it can then follow a moving subject, changing focus as it changes distance?

Am I making my point? Whether a home-made pin hole camera or the latest Nikon D3, these are all cameras. Of coursewhere they differ is in their technology, and that difference translates into both difference in convenience of use andultimate image quality.

________________________________________________________________

Brushes and Soup Pots

No, painters don't often debate the merits of one type of brush over another, nor do chefs hang around online forums

debating the relative merits of one brand of soup pot over another. (Maybe the do. I can't be sure since I'm neither a

painter not a chef, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if there are online forums for these and similar topics).

But when people make this point, they're actually missing the point. Photography is both an art and a craft. We can notperform our craft without the requirement of certain tools, including a camera, lens, and light sensitive substrate.

Once we've agreed upon that, then the discussion must of necessity turn to the nature and relative merits of thosetools. And why shouldn't it? Since the dawn of human history, man the toolmaker, has debated the relative merits ofone stone axe over another, one horse chariot over another, one sand clock over another, and need I add, one cameraor lens over another.

Tools have merits, good ones and bad. Tools have so-called personality as well. What suits one person's needs may notmeet the needs of another.

And, herein lies the crux of the matter. We all have different needs. A photographer walking the streets of an urbanenvironment doing street shooting has very different needs than someone on the Serrengetti photographing wildlife. Aphotographer looking to create large prints of extremely high quality landscape work will of necessity need a differentset of tools than a teenager wanting to record her sweet-sixteen party.

Maui Eclipse Hawaii, February, 2008

Nikon D300 with 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens @ ISO 400

________________________________________________________________

Get the ^%^*$ Over It

So, please, and with al l due respect to Mr Rockwell and his brethren, GET OVER IT!

Discussing the merits of one tool over another is relevant. Some lenses, cameras and other photographic tools are

better than others. In some cases they are objectively better, while in others their degree ofbetterness will be subjetive

r Camera Does Matter http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml

3 9/18/2010 8:15 PM

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

7/29/2019 Your Camera Does Matter

3/3

and will depend on the specific needs of a particular photographer.

Come on folks. Don't they teach analytical thinking in schools any more? Enough cliched rejoinders that serve no onesinterests other than to inflate the egos of some, and confuse and embarrass others. When a person asks these type ofquestions let's be generous instead of snarky. Let's ask them the type of photography that are doing, or plan on doing,and then if we have anything worthwhile to contribute, do so. But to spout holier-than-thou cliches one more time issimply the sign of either a lazy or an angry mind.

________________________________________________________________

A Final Thought

One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any

camera. Horseshit.

One can't build a modern house with a stone axe, and a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel. I'm apretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it. But I can't do a formalportrait, an architectural commission, a sports or wildlife shoot, or a table top still life or product shot without the righttools, which may include at any one time a camera with a large sensor, long lens, technical movements, and other toolsand techniques of the trade.

So please folks, stop the childish nonsense. Equipment does matter, and if anyone tells you otherwise, smile, nodsagely, and simply move along. Or, send them here for a good spanking.

March, 2008

Duhhhh!

In its first few days online the above essay has generated a lot of debate. That's fine. But, based on emails received and

what I read on this site's forum and some others, there is a small percentage who either didn't get it, or who simply havesub-optimal reading skills.

Firstly, just because I was arguing that good and appropriate equipment is important when doing many types ofphotography doesn't mean that the inverse is untrue; in other words, that talent isn't necessary. This is a simple logicalfallacy that is taught in any reading comprehension course, yet which some seem to have assumed to be the case.

So just for the record, and as the kids say Duhhhh!Of course talent and artistic skill are also necessary. How couldanyone think otherwise? That's why I put the cartoon on the page. It makes that very point!

Secondly, people have said that I was misinterpreting Rockwell's article. No. I don't think so. Unfortunately, from what Ihave seen of his writing in the referred to essay, as well as the rest of those on his site, consistency of thought andclarity of expression are not hallmarks of his writing style. I was simply using his headlined position as a jumping offpoint to make my rebuttal.

Please feel free to copy and post or quote this comment elsewhere, since it seems that some people are missing the

point completely.