[Radiohead]

Ken Rockwell says Your Camera Doesn't Matter

Luminous Landscape's Michael Reichmann doesn't agree.

I'll declare an interest here, I'm a gear-head and I think Rockwell is generally an idiot and a deeply average photographer. That said, he's know what he's doing here - write something that will work people up, get people talking about it,m drive traffic to site, sit back and watch income from said traffic roll on.

[jenufa]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Ken Rockwell says Your Camera Doesn't Matter

Luminous Landscape's Michael Reichmann doesn't agree.

I'll declare an interest here, I'm a gear-head and I think Rockwell is generally an idiot and a deeply average photographer.

He speaks well of you

[stevegreen]

I would probably say no.

Look at some of the great shots that have been taken with the cheap plastic Lomo cameras. Yes, having capable equipment helps in certain situations but a great photo can be taken on virtually anything. It's more about 'moments' and 'feelings' that can be captured or expressed through the photo itself IMO.

[tomson]

I'd put subject and creativity way above camera in terms of importance.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

I would probably say no.

Look at some of the great shots that have been taken with the cheap plastic Lomo cameras. Yes, having capable equipment helps in certain situations but a great photo can be taken on virtually anything. It's more about 'moments' and 'feelings' that can be captured or expressed through the photo itself IMO.

This is where we'll disagree then - some photos can't be taken on some kit. Ergo, the camera matters.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by tomson

I'd put subject and creativity way above camera in terms of importance.

That's not what we're talking about though - we're talking about whether it's true when someone says 'the most important bit is the photographer'. By extension the camera is there unimportant.

Looking at the number of sports photographers using Holgas I'd say it's not that simple.

[Yandros]

I think we kinda had this argument a week or two back when discussing compacts vs DSLR. I think the consensus was that for middle of the road conditions, it doesn't matter, but as soon as you try to do something technically difficult, the hardware sure as hell DOES matter!

I agree with Guy - the images routinely posted here are vastly more impressive than Rockwell's galleries - so I'm afraid I don't take him very seriously.

[salubrious_k]

It's all shades of grey.

Well, it is, if you're shooting in b&w...

[dazza74]

Doesn't this really boil down to your branch of photography and your intended print output. I'd imagine "Radiohead" if you covering a wedding and it's a poor overcast day your D3 will be worth every penny with it's high ISO performance amongst other things.

If you doing landscape photo's and you've no intention of blowing them up super large most of the focusing will probably be hyperfocal manual so would you really need 51 point autofocus D300 over say 11 point autofocus on a D80.

From looking at images on this forum, the only thing I can normally tell is expensive glass over inexpensive glass, guessing the camera they were taken on is almost impossible I'd say outside of "BristolPete's" sport photography.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Doesn't this really boil down to your branch of photography and your intended print output. I'd imagine "Radiohead" if you covering a wedding and it's a poor overcast day your D3 will be worth every penny with it's high ISO performance amongst other things.

If you doing landscape photo's and you've no intention of blowing them up super large most of the focusing will probably be hyperfocal manual so would you really need 51 point autofocus D300 over say 11 point autofocus on a D80.

That's EXACTLY the point. We should be asking what people are shooting and choose the kit accordingly. Therefore the camera may well matter, as may the lens, and supplementary lighting, and tripods and so on ad nauseum....

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

This is where we'll disagree then - some photos can't be taken on some kit. Ergo, the camera matters.

Well, I suppose if you look at it like that then yes kit does matter.

I suppose it depends what you are shooting. Admittedly no-one is going to get good sports shots without the right equipment but, you can take a great picture on the cheapest of equipment.

It depends on the situation and what the photographer is trying to achieve.

[T0MAT01]

Let's face it, the kit you use does make a difference.
But it depends what you use it for.... after all, you don't need 50 auto focus points to take a macro shot of a flower. It's all relative to what you want to be able to do with a camera and what sort of photography you're into.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Well, I suppose if you look at it like that then yes kit does matter.

I suppose it depends what you are shooting. Admittedly no-one is going to get good sports shots without the right equipment but, you can take a great picture on the cheapest of equipment.

It depends on the situation and what the photographer is trying to achieve.

Here we do agree. The context of Reichmann's point is crucial here - he's specifically talking about people asking whether they should buy cameraX over camera Y and being told that it doesn't matter anyway....

[onefivenine]

Horses for courses.

Not many macro shooters use Nikon.
They use a Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x lens.

I don't think Nikon or anyone else has anything comparable to that lens... or do they?

[PoisonJam]

The camera matters, yes. If only to an extent. My results have been a lot better since I got a DSLR over those I took on my compact and my knowledge hasn't really expanded at all, other than how to work the DSLR. Apart from the fact to set-up my compact took an eternity, there are just things my compact wasn't capable of e.g. 1.8/f shooting at a gig without a flash.

I've seen some great shoots taken with a compact but that's irrelevant to me: I couldn't do it. But I expect I'd have a much better chance of capturing it with my DSLR, especially if it was a particularly demanding shot or if there was a limited window of opportunity to set-up and shoot.

Sure with shooting static images which don't exceed the limitations of a compact (i.e. shooting some trees ) there's little difference but shooing in more extreme conditions is much better suited to DSLRs where you might not have got the shot at all with the compact.

I thought the point in (D)SLRs is they allow you to be more creative?

[h4rri]

Agree with RH here, it all depends on the type of photography but in essence yes it is important to me personally.

[dazza74]

I find the analogy Rockwell makes about the "Bosendorfer" piano pretty ludicrous, more people will fall by the wayside trying to learn to play the piano as opposed to learning photography.

[danburbridge]

<devils advocate mode on>

It all depends on how you go about it to a certain extent.

For example - one of my favourite sports shots wasnt taken on a huge telephoto lens + slr but with a rangefinder + medium/wide angle lens:

http://masters-of-photography.com/W/...stin_full.html

What I am trying to say is that, if you are good enough and willing to take a different approach based on what you have available to you then the camera you have doesn't really matter.

<devils advocate mode off>

[inkinoo]

The camera only matters if you know what you can and can't do with a camera. For most, and in my mind that most is 80%, shots you could probably achieve the same photo with any dSLR for instance.

It's only when it comes to low light shots (high ISO on D3, mk3) or sports shots (again, mk2n, mk3, D3) for example where you do need the camera. Yes, you probably could get *that* shot with a D70 but it's a lot easier with a camera doing 10 fps.

One thing is most certainly true; a better camera will not make you a better photographer.

[PoisonJam]

Originally Posted by danburbridge

<devils advocate mode on>

It all depends on how you go about it to a certain extent.

For example - one of my favourite sports shots wasnt taken on a huge telephoto lens + slr but with a rangefinder + medium/wide angle lens:

http://masters-of-photography.com/W/...stin_full.html

What I am trying to say is that, if you are good enough and willing to take a different approach based on what you have available to you then the camera you have doesn't really matter.

<devils advocate mode off>

But are you really likely to get what you really want every time with a more limited camera? Are you never found wanting of your proper gear when shooting with a compact? I know I regularly am, it feels like I have to compromise in what I'm doing and therefore what I'd really like to achieve with some shots.

Surely you would expect the yield to be lower, too, if you were shooting something like sports.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

This is where we'll disagree then - some photos can't be taken on some kit. Ergo, the camera matters.

It does but not for all shots. You must agree that some if not most of the photos you've made could have been taken on different equipment and achieved the same result?

[dazza74]

Interesting debate this, it's a bit like do we really need 10MP compacts? people still stuck with an average bit of glass on the end to capture the image, it's all just marketing speak to the average punter who thinks more mega pixels means better pictures.

[stevegreen]

This one will run and run and not reach a conclusion because it depends what you are shooting.

[onefivenine]

Originally Posted by inkinoo

It does but not for all shots. You must agree that some if not most of the photos you've made could have been taken on different equipment and achieved the same result?

You could clean a toilet block with a toothbrush.

People choose certain tools for certain jobs.
They make an informed decision.

What's the big deal?

[tomson]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

This one will run and run and not reach a conclusion because it depends what you are shooting.

Indeed. Which is why earlier I mentioned subject and creativity being more important than equipment. Use your creativity to shoot your subject in such a way that is within your equipments limitations and there's no reason why you can't acheive a decent shot.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

You could clean a toilet block with a toothbrush.

People choose certain tools for certain jobs.
They make an informed decision.

What's the big deal?

It's not a big deal but the OP talked if our cameras matter. For most shots, I would say no.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

Not many macro shooters use Nikon.
They use a Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x lens.

I don't think Nikon or anyone else has anything comparable to that lens... or do they?

They don't have a lens, but they do a range of extention bellows which can take magnification up to 22:1 Put that in your Canon tube and smoke it ;-)

Originally Posted by stevegreen

This one will run and run and not reach a conclusion because it depends what you are shooting.

Indeed.

I would say that lens is far more important than camera. After all, every DSLR can make an identical exposure and focus on the same point.

Before the days of Autofocus you still had photographers making incredible sports photographs that were tack sharp. 101 point autofocus is very useful if you've lost the use of your hands, 5+fps is useful if you don't want to concentrate that hard

Before we had complex matrix metering you still had photographers making perfect exposures.

No, I would say that the camera is not that important unless you have a very specific need for a very specific feature.

A good photographer should still be able to make good photographs with any DSLR camera.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

This one will run and run and not reach a conclusion because it depends what you are shooting.

The problem is that Rockwell should put in front of virtually every grand pronouncement of his "if you take photographs like mine...". He doesn't. The headline stuff is what newbies read - like "your camera doesn't matter". It's only when you read the his site more closely that you notice that he waxes lyrical about the 6400 ISO performance of the D3 vs D300. This isn't a case of "making a shot easier" - cameras like the D3 make shots POSSIBLE, that would be unusable with lesser beasts.

There is a grain of truth there of course. I know for example that I could swap my D200 for a D40 and apart from action shots the results would be pretty much the same. I think he's right to point out to newbies that better gear doesn't improve your photography if the the kit you're buying is solving a problem that you don't personally have.

[dazza74]

I certainly support the lens being a more deciding factor over camera, which is the complete opposite to what I invest my money in I have to admit

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

Horses for courses.

Not many macro shooters use Nikon.
They use a Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x lens.

That's just wrong.

Originally Posted by inkinoo

It does but not for all shots. You must agree that some if not most of the photos you've made could have been taken on different equipment and achieved the same result?

Interesting point. I shot Nikon but went to a 5D precisely because the D2x and D200 wouldn't allow me to get the shots I wanted. The 5D did, and the D3 even more so. That tells me the camera is crucial and there are many shots I've taken that I either wouldn't have been able to get, or at least get as well, without that 5D. It wouldn't be over-estimating it to say it changed the way I shoot.