Adoration of cameras

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Guest, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
    their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
    with the tools than the images they make?
     
    Guest, Oct 4, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Charles Guest

    Gee, where did you ever get a crazy idea like that? ;>)
     
    Charles, Oct 4, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Robert Coe Guest

    Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
    : their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
    : with the tools than the images they make?

    It's just you.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 4, 2009
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Maybe so. Based on the responses, I may be wrong.

    I just seem to see many many post about this lens or that
    camera or a plastic part used here or there or someone worried that
    that this or that camera has 5% more pixels.

    Time and ime again, their arguments all tend to be, plastic is
    bad, or this or that lens may resolve a couple of additional lines for
    1,000. They tend to embrase the science of photography while ignoring
    the art of photograhy, the end result.

    I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of
    photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely
    talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better
    results than the lesser photographer with the best gear.

    I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this
    NG is devoted to a specific type of camera.
     
    Guest, Oct 6, 2009
    #4


  5. Pretty much.

    But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the
    artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with
    his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in
    artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the
    science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very
    unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it
    becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page,
    only speaking different language.

    Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads.

    There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of
    photography. And there are some talented artists out there who
    really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very
    skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The
    difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent
    is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does.
    Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill
    may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if
    you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning
    scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it.
    Performance differences between skill and talent can be
    negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does
    inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art.

    And there will usually be more skilled photographers than
    talented photographers.

    So, the discussions tend to the science.

    And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will
    be fewer discussions by the talent of the art.

    So, again, discussions tend to be of the science.

    Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled,
    learning the science, pursuing the art.

    Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for
    the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant.

    But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they
    tend to take the last word, about the science and the art.


    And...yes, plastic is bad.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 6, 2009
    #5
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest


    I agree. I am also sad to say I am not a talented
    photographer. I am fairly well skilled, but most of my skill set goes
    back to a different context (I worked with 20X24 to 2¼ equipment) I
    and just over snapshoot shooter with modern equipment.
     
    Guest, Oct 6, 2009
    #6


  7. In reality, it doesn't matter your level of performance. If
    you're getting the results you want, and you're enjoying the
    process, you'll improve to the level you wish to pursue.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 6, 2009
    #7



  8. I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain
    Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot
    of fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was
    shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my
    side and said, "Let's see, EOS......."

    I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!"

    By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped
    back looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet.

    "Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away.

    I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago.

    It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand.

    And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 7, 2009
    #8
  9. Of course.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 7, 2009
    #9
  10. Even Nikon plastic.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 7, 2009
    #10

  11. I realize that. I was making one in return.


    As with the example posted here, plastics, even polycarbonates
    shear. And are generally not repairable when they do. Polycarbonates
    are cheap, easy to manufacture, but when a lens housing, for
    instance is made in a single casting, the mounting flanges can be
    shorn off with rough handling. With no way to return them to
    servicability. Machined parts can be replaced.

    Polycarbonates may have their place. Many times they're in the
    wrong places.

    And no one has ever suggested otherwise.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 8, 2009
    #11
  12. Apologies unnecessary. Shit happens.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 8, 2009
    #12
  13. Guest

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 10/6/09 17:44 , Rich wrote:
    : > On Oct 4, 10:09 am, wrote:
    : >> Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
    : >> their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned
    : >> with the tools than the images they make?
    : >
    : > It's not you. Too many are pathetically and emotionally tied to their
    : > equipment. Just look at the reaction when anyone criticizes a brand.
    : > If they could convert neurosis into picture-taking talent, they'd all
    : > be publishable.
    :
    : I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain
    : Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot
    : of fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was
    : shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my
    : side and said, "Let's see, EOS......."
    :
    : I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!"
    :
    : By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped
    : back looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet.
    :
    : "Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away.
    :
    : I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago.
    :
    : It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand.
    :
    : And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing.

    So what do you make of me, a three-time Nikon owner in film days who bought a
    Canon when I went digital because my daughter liked her Canon P&S?

    Judas
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 9, 2009
    #13

  14. That's exactly my point. Shoot what you want. It's the output
    that matters. If you're producing the images you want to produce,
    the hardware is irrelevant.
     
    D. Peter Maus, Oct 9, 2009
    #14
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:43:40 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"

    .....
    I totally agree.
     
    Guest, Oct 10, 2009
    #15
  16. Guest

    Robert Coe Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : : []
    : > So what do you make of me, a three-time Nikon owner in film days who
    : > bought a Canon when I went digital because my daughter liked her
    : > Canon P&S?
    : >
    : > Judas
    :
    : If you bought without handling both Canon and Nikon DSLRs then you may
    : have made the wrong choice. The feel and ease-of-use of a camera is
    : rather important, and somewhat different between Nikon and Canon. You
    : also may have lost the investment you made in Nikon lenses.

    I'm afraid Martha and I blundered into digital photography fairly cluelessly.
    Our daughter liked her S-50, so I got one of those for Martha and a G-5 for
    myself. Those were OK cameras for their time, and digital SLRs were still
    pretty expensive. But after a while the shutter lag nearly drove us nuts,
    especially when we tried to photograph our grandchildren. Martha got so
    frustrated that she almost went back to her film Nikkormat. So I bought us
    each an XTi (400D). At that point my main reason for sticking with Canon was
    that the features and controls on their DSLRs were very similar to those on
    their P&Ses, so I thought we might have less to re-learn.

    All our Nikon lenses were manual primes, so they wouldn't have been useful in
    any case.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 10, 2009
    #16
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:34:16 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"

    ....
    Exactly! I have been able to keep my skills to a level I am
    happy with. I have many interest so photography has to share my
    attention with other persuits.
     
    Guest, Oct 10, 2009
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.