Its not the camera, its the photographer

cyKey

cyKey

cyKey

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,814
Location
Nr. Liverpewl
I was just reading a really great article about photography. With all the "Wow great shots, what camera?" questions, and what lens/camera threads, I thought some of us could do with reading it. :) The guy makes some very good points. I've been thinking myself about why were photographers so fantastic 50 years ago and yet 50 years later with sharp lenses and flashy cameras Ansel Adams work hasn't been topped. Its been at least 50 years, shouldn't all lenses be uber sharp? Shouldn't we all be able to take amazing shots? I've been thinking how a good band has their own sound, like Coldplay or Rage Against the machine. They both use drums, singers, guitars, yet they sound totally different. It simply is about the photographer, not the equipement.

When I had a Canon A70 I was always amazed by photos taken by photographers on here and on other sites. I believed that if I got the same camera as them then the only difference between us would be skill. That was something only I could work on. Its been over a year since I got my 10D and I've gone through various phases. At one point I really truely disliked parts of my 10D and desperately wanted to buy a 20D. Why? I wanted better noise management and a faster buffer. Its been about 10 months since I felt that way and now unless the 30D had something unbelivebly special I wouldn't buy it unless I had a spare £1k. I've learnt to take the problems I had with the 10D and incorporate them into my photos to create my own style. I can shoot at ISO800, and even ISO1600 and not worry.

Photography is nothing more than capturing light. Knowing the best way is the photographers job, not the cameras. Photos don't always have to be sharp, or noise free. They just have to capture life.
 
Last edited:
That's why I am not impressed 1 bit when people say they camera is 8mega pixels, blah blah when they have no idea about how to take a photo. A photo is more than its technology, at the end of the day, the camera is only a light box. The hard part is pressing that button and poing it at the right place.


FYI - Ansel Adams used Large Format (Negative the size of A4, now imagine that a 35mm negative is about 12mega pixel, then imagine how many a A4 size is equavlant to), he also use F/64 lenses (imagine the sharpness), woodern tripod (purist will tell you its best.). Though all that gear he hired a crew with donkeys to carry it all. :p
 
Last edited:
Interesting read there!

My 1985 Minolta 7000 is a fantastic bit of kit - it can't autofocus well, so I manually focus it and it's faulty. Although it still comes out with some smashing photos as can be seen on my Deviant Art.

My Canon EOS 300 doesn't take any better pictures, although it does alleviate the fault and makes a nice stop gap to go the Canon route.

But since I like my Minolta loads, I plan to get a second 7000 body for my Minolta lenses which won't cost much, as well as another lens for my Canon camera. I'll have two very useful film bodies, some lenses for both and be able to use either accordingly - the Canon being easier to carry around.

Also, my photography has been steadily improving since I started properly in early March 2005, acquired my Minolta equipment in late February 2005 :)

For example:

April 2005 (Stockwood Park, Luton)

http://www.deviantart.com/view/16810889/


January 2006 (Wardown Park, Luton)

http://www.deviantart.com/view/27129047/
 
Well said. I have just finished reading feedback on one of my DA pieces where the person said. "wow what camera did you use" It really stresses me out. Its like been told your crap but it in a polite way. The advances in cameras has lead more & more people to be sloppy about the way they take photos. This too pecks me off as you can imagine.

I am all for further processing to enchance an image but I do feel that from a role of a photographer, he/she should excell the all the avialable techniques as you take a photograph. The noise issue has been around from the very start. Film grain has been more noticed than fine fine smooth grain and its all because of the way inwhich its incorporated
( see cykeys argument )

Sure higher spec camera will produce cleaner & higher res pictures but as the old saying goes. A fool blames his tools.

I believe any true photographer should try his hands at film photography on a Slr body as it will force you to take better shots by using your film as 24/36 lives not to waste.

Good find Pete.
 
I'm amazed how bad some peoples photos turn out considering the technology is now on their side!
 
I remember bringing this up a few years back on here and I was shot to pieces by everyone saying I was jealous of their equipment ;). I've always stood by the argument that it's the Photographer and not the equipment. I'm constantly amazed and how many bad shots I see with 2 grand cameras and how many good ones I see with a cheapo nasty one. Granted it can help in many situations with a good camera but if you don't know the basics of composition, have a good eye and some basic understanding of light then your camera isn't going to help you much ...
 
Gamefreak501 said:
But since I like my Minolta loads, I plan to get a second 7000 body for my Minolta lenses which won't cost much, as well as another lens for my Canon camera. I'll have two very useful film bodies, some lenses for both and be able to use either accordingly - the Canon being easier to carry around.

]
Click to expand...

Can I suggest that you look around for a Dynax 7 body instead of a 7000; the autofocus is so much better as is the metering etc...you should be able to pick one up fairly cheaply.
 
spell said:
Can I suggest that you look around for a Dynax 7 body instead of a 7000; the autofocus is so much better as is the metering etc...you should be able to pick one up fairly cheaply.
Click to expand...

Interesting - would that be compatible with my glass? The Minolta 7000 has loads of computer chips in it and it's not possible to use modern Minolta lenses on it because of the mount it uses and the technology it's got in it.

I have a 70-210mm lens and a 50mm prime for my Minolta, but they won't work on any of the modern Minolta cameras - hence me going the Canon route.
 
Ummm, the 7000 was the first of the Minolta AF cameras and hence uses the M-AF mount. You can use the new lenses etc on it....and your old lenses will be compatible on later cameras.

You could buy a 5D or 7D and use them on that. Who told you that the 7000 was not compatible??
 
Last edited:
spell said:
Ummm, the 7000 was the first of the Minolta AF cameras and hence uses the M-AF mount. You can use the new lenses etc on it....and your old lenses will be compatible on later cameras.

You could buy a 5D or 7D and use them on that. Who told you that the 7000 was not compatible??
Click to expand...

Oh, a friend who works in a photography store told me that they would be incompatible :confused: I guess I will have to try out the bodies and lenses really.

Thing is, I have this Minolta glass, I want to get a non-faulty, older Minolta body I can use them with, that will have a metal body that will be cheap.
 
Okay, you should be able to pick up an Dynax 7 for about 150-200 on that well-known auction site, this is a bargain. The handling is fantastic, I doubt you'll find a bad word about them. However, the real bargain if you can pick one up is the 9000; this is the full-metal body Pro version of the 7000; bigger and heavier, faster AF etc than the 7000.

Personally, I'd still go for an Dynax 7...it's a better camera but the 9000 is cheaper.

If you want to try your lenses on a newer body and you can make it down to London at some point, I've got a few bodies you could try out.
 
spell said:
Okay, you should be able to pick up an Dynax 7 for about 150-200 on that well-known auction site, this is a bargain. The handling is fantastic, I doubt you'll find a bad word about them. However, the real bargain if you can pick one up is the 9000; this is the full-metal body Pro version of the 7000; bigger and heavier, faster AF etc than the 7000.

Personally, I'd still go for an Dynax 7...it's a better camera but the 9000 is cheaper.

If you want to try your lenses on a newer body and you can make it down to London at some point, I've got a few bodies you could try out.
Click to expand...

Nice - cheers for letting me know!

Anyway, I can come to London any time as long as I can fit it in. I only live in Bedfordshire. At the moment I'm seeing the Dynax 7 go for a little over £100 and the 9000 going for around £40 on a popular auction website.

If you would want us to organise something my e-mail is in my trust.
 
Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread starting off about cameras being of little significance has turned into a debate on new cameras...
 
Pah, at least it isn't a debate whether Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta etc are any better than each other!!!
 
Very true!

Back on the main subject, I agree entierly with the general concencus, my best photos have without doubt been taken with a worse camera than I own now. In a way it almost makes you think about the photo more. I mean, for every photo I had to take the appauling shutter lag into account, so think what was going to be in the frame when the shutter actually tripped. Stuff like that does make you think more I reckon, the fact that it is more of a challenge than pointing and clicking, gettting a perfectly exposed, pin sharp photo with no real character
 
I have always said when anyone asks me about a new camera get the one that suits you best as you are the most important part. If you get a camera that suits you and you feel comfortable with then the results will be better, get a camera that confuses you and the results are poorer as you have the block of the camera is too much for me.

If you are relaxed then the photography is a lot easier.

SCM
 
I agree, and i'm the first to admit that I bought the equipment before completely understanding what I was doing.

I actually bought a thick dSRL help book and it's a great help - currently on the section about exposure compensation and mid-tones, very interesting!
 
The art of photography for me is converting what i can see in my minds eye to what the lense sees. When i walk about i can look at something and "see" a great photo but getting it actually into a photo is a whole different thing. For example i have a great image in my head for this months competition, but actually getting my camera to take the same image is proving harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom