I agree that driving a formula 1 takes skill and having one to practice on is surely a prerequisite ' I believe in technical progress and putting your '50 year old lens' performance against the latest Sinar hy6 / evolution 75 and a equivalent lens from their Schneider afd selection in the hands of the same craftsman would be unfair- wouldn't it. Edwin -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Mason Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 12:54 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Ok so everyone seems to want lively debate (not flame wars) On Oct 11, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Edwin Blenkinsopp wrote: > Isn't it the case that the best craftsman achieve the best that there > tools can deliver? > Yes, but that doesn't mean rushing out to buy the latest and greatest thing to hit the market. There's a lot to be said for familiarity with the equipment at hand. A Formula 1 car may be able to do great things with an experienced driver at the wheel, but a novice would likely stall it before leaving the start/finish line or spin out on the first curve. In other words, buying a race car doesn't make you a better driver. > Isn't also the case that less good craftsman can also do something > better with better equipment? > Yes, see above. I think most equipment sold as "new and improved" is more of a marketing gimmick than a statement of actual quality or performance. I own a Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8 which has been superseded by several lenses since it came out, but my lens is still sharper than most/all of them. The newer ones have ultrasonic motors and things like image stabilization, but mine is sharper and suits my needs. The sharpest lens I've ever owned is over 50 years old, as is the camera to which it's attached. > I think having the 'latest' definitely gives an edge and giving a good > photographer the most superb equipment one could expect to see > comparable results > An edge over what? Someone used to making happy snaps with their subject smiling in the middle of the frame is going to make the same photos whether they use a cheap point-and-shoot or a top-of-the-line Hasselblad digital camera. Someone who doesn't pay attention to the whole frame with a cheap camera isn't going to do so with an expensive one. Someone who photographs dull landscapes in the noonday sun is going to do the same thing with whatever gear they own. I really wish more people would put the effort into thinking about what makes a photograph good than the type of equipment used to make it. A carpenter would probably tell you that it's much more important to know where to make a cut than the brand and type of saw used to make it. Cheers, Rich > Edwin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Mason > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:32 AM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: Ok so everyone seems to want lively debate (not flame > wars) > > Mark, > > I wish photographers starting out would only be allowed to have one > camera with a fixed focal length lens for the first five years. Then > they would be told to go out and see the world. No zooms. No ultra > wide angles. No super telephotos. No 50 frame-per-second bodies. > The only permitted accessories would be a tripod and cable/remote > release. If more photographers did this and spent their time looking > and seeing rather than fiddling with equipment and pining over what > they don't have, they would become better photographers. > > I agree that a good photographer can make a good picture with almost > any properly functioning piece of equipment. That's because the most > important elements of a photograph aren't reliant on the gear one > uses--composition, content and the quality of the light. Gimmickry > rarely adds anything, but, rather, detracts from the skills of a good > image maker. > > A few years back I did a slide show for a local camera club. I > projected three 80-picture trays which represented 5 or 6 years of my > work as a photojournalist. The only questions I received at the end > of the show were along the lines of "what kind of equipment do you > use?" I promised myself never again would I waste my time doing that. > > Cheers, > > Rich > > > On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Mark Blackwell wrote: > >> Ok I will throw out some stink bait. I am often amazed at how many >> people think that they MUST have the latest and greatest new >> equipment. They have great stuff but no idea of what to do with >> it. Others take junk and excel which begs the question, "Just how >> much of a part of the total success is the tool, and how much of it >> is the person running the tool?" >> >> I use some old stuff. I have an old Voigtlander that was bought in >> the 50s that I still use. I have an old 4x5 view camera that is >> probably about that old. Both still work well, with some >> limitations. >> >> Lenses are another long term investment. Do you upgrade every time >> a new lens appears? Who buys used lenses?? How used??? grin Zoom >> or primes??? Oh the choices. >> >> Digital with its short life expectancy is a much tougher choice. >> It's not a mature industry, at least not yet but it seems to be >> getting closer. Not that long ago for what you would spend for a >> 5D you could get the D30 that was a 3.3 MP and the state of the >> art. Each new model does bring improvements, but when is the >> improvement enough to justify the new investment? It's not like >> the old one quits working. All tough decisions. >> >> Its all part of the overall product. IF money is no object, you >> always get new stuff. Still that rarely is the case. So it brings >> us back to how much of a great photo is tool, and how much is >> between the ears of the person running it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
