The camera, the lens and the photographer

Roger Hicks said:
Some photographers are better than others. Some cameras and lenses are better than others. Why are some people apparently unable to separate these two simple, non-contradictory statements?

Point out that any given lens is (for example) not very sharp, lacks contrast or suffers from field curvature, and immediately, someone pops up and says, "Yeah, but you can still take great pictures with it."

OF COURSE YOU CAN. Only a fool would deny it. You may even be able to turn these defects to advantage, despite the fact that from the point of view of lens design, they are unquestionably defects. But equally, there will be other pictures, other subjects, other ways of seeing, which will work better with a lens that is sharper or contrastier or otherwise technically better. Again, only a fool would deny it.

Any lens is a compromise on speed, optical quality, size, ergonomics and price. My 50mm C-Sonnar, for example, sacrifices quite a lot to size and contrast; my pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux sacrifices a good deal to speed and size. They're both fine lenses. The compromises they make suit me. But I don't pretend that they are in all ways comparable with the latest Leica aspherics in the same focal lengths. They're smaller and cheaper for a start.

Still less can anyone pretend that a lens from 60 years ago is likely to compare with the best of today's lenses when it comes to technical quality. A few do compare well: 21mm Biogons spring to mind. But most don't. You may love them; you may take great pictures with them, or admire the great pictures that others have taken with them. But you can't realistically deny that technically, most high-end modern lenses are superior to most high-end old ones -- especially when it comes to fast lenses or wide angles.

Whether or not the photographer needs, or can take advantage of, better cameras or lenses, is a separate issue. That's down to the photographer, not the camera or lens. But to deny that some cameras and lenses are better than others is as feeble-minded as denying that some photographers are better than others.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think you left out one important element "The film" Example by following the same line of thought the one can still take a good picture with older less technically advanced lenses one can take good low light hand held photographs with older ISO 50 or 100 B&W film. I mean what is technically stopping some one from pushing PanF+ to ISO 1600 or 3200? beside the time it takes do some basic math.
 
Mcary said:
I think you left out one important element "The film" Example by following the same line of thought the one can still take a good picture with older less technically advanced lenses one can take good low light hand held photographs with older ISO 50 or 100 B&W film. I mean what is technically stopping some one from pushing PanF+ to ISO 1600 or 3200? beside the time it takes do some basic math.
Click to expand...
Highlight: very true indeed, but again, if someone asks for a film recommendation, it probably means that they don't know a vast amount about film. Better, therefore, to recommend HP5 in a mainstream developer than a slow, obscure microfilm (or similar) developed in something you need to compound yourself. Especially if, in doing the latter, you're just trying to look clever.

As for Pan F at EI 1600, well, what stops you is insane contrast and absolute lack of shadow detail. You get about ISO 80 in Microphen.

Cheers,

R.
 
Godfrey said:
Two definitions:

1- someone who's photographs resonate with you.
2- someone whom you hire for a job that gets the job done to your satisfaction.

There's very little of the "how sharp my lens is" there ...

G
Click to expand...
Which is why, indeed, I attempted to clarify the difference between the photographer and the lens in the original post.

And, of course, there sometimes IS a good deal of 'how sharp my lens is'. Certain kinds of food and industrial photography, for example.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...
And the thread has also provoked some interesting reactions. At least, I find them so. I found Godfrey's arguments especially interesting, for example.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment, Roger.

I did load up the Robot II and shoot it this morning. Now to process the film and see what it/I did. The suspense is a thrill.

G

ps: it is one darn neat little camera ... :)
 
Godfrey said:
Thank you for the compliment, Roger.

I did load up the Robot II and shoot it this morning. Now to process the film and see what it/I did. The suspense is a thrill.

G

ps: it is one darn neat little camera ... :)
Click to expand...
They are gorgeous, aren't they? I've had two or three. I've seen it alleged that the main body units were milled from big chunks of stainless steel. It certainly feels and looks like it.

Funny, though: I never got on with the lenses...

Seriously, I prefer the (admittedly overly long and thin) 24x36 format to 24x24 and I always found Robots blocky and heavy to carry as compared with screw mount Leicas or Retinas. Have you ever had a Metz Mecaflex, the improbable 24x24 SLR with the folding clam-shell top plate? I found one at Williamsons on Sauchiehall Street in the 1970s. Kilfitt made it, I suspect.

Were you shooting 'real' pictures or just test shots?

Cheers,

R.
 
Mcary said:
No its not necessary at all! If a person is happy with the pictures they're taking and has no desire to improve then they should keeping doing what they're doing.
On the other hand if a person want to become the best photographer they can be then competing/comparing their work with other people's work as well as their own past work is an important part of the process.
Personally I feel that rather then taking away from the experience working to improve adds to the whole experience.
Click to expand...

of course it´s important to improve, otherwise there would be nothing but frustration.
that begins with technical matters (how to expose the film, choice of focal lenghts, drying of fb-papers, etc), which are the easiest problems to handle. after a couple of years, that should be done.
but further on things get difficult. i also have my favourites i admire deeply for their photographic works, but it would not come into my mind to compare (between hcb and capa, between hcb and me,...). all i can learn from them is some inspiration (the contrasts of robert haeusser) for my own work.

each and every moment in our world, in our lives, is a singular occurence, never to be repeated. every picture taken is the same, no second chance! my conclusion is that the only way to improve my pictures is to improve myself, not in a photographic sense, rather in a very universal sense. competition or even comparison is very useless in that sense. becoming the best photographer one can means becoming the best person one can, which in a photographical sense might mean to be completely in the present to get the best capture. buddhistic, maybe...... what do you think?
 
straightmp said:
of course it´s important to improve, otherwise there would be nothing but frustration.
that begins with technical matters (how to expose the film, choice of focal lenghts, drying of fb-papers, etc), which are the easiest problems to handle. after a couple of years, that should be done.
but further on things get difficult. i also have my favourites i admire deeply for their photographic works, but it would not come into my mind to compare (between hcb and capa, between hcb and me,...). all i can learn from them is some inspiration (the contrasts of robert haeussler) for my own work.

each and every moment in our world, in our lives, is a singular occurence, never to be repeated. every picture taken is the same, no second chance! my conclusion is that the only way to improve my pictures is to improve myself, not in a photographic sense, rather in a very universal sense. competition or even comparison is very useless in that sense. becoming the best photographer one can means becoming the best person one can, which in a photographical sense might mean to be completely in the present to get the best capture. buddhistic, maybe...... what do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you're absolutely right. It can also be foolish to buy kit before you feel a real need for it. the need my be illusory -- for example, I'd be crazy to buy the new M-mount 50/1.5 Nokton in M-mount, because I would never use it (in place of my 50/1.5 C-Sonnar) to justify it enough, even though it's beautiful and I want it.

But if someone asked what 50/1.5 to buy, I'd recommend one of those two, because I've used 'em both and can explain why I'd choose one over the other. I've also used other fast Leica-fit 50s -- Xenon, Summarit, Summilux, Noctilux, Canon, Sonnar and whatever the Soviet 50/1.5 is called. They all have their advantages, and I'd not deny for a second that great pics can be taken with any of them (even the Russian lens, though it's more difficult), but compared with the Nokton even the C-Sonnar is a bit specialized, and the others are either very specialized (read: limited, old-fashioned or tricky) or very expensive or both.

ALWAYS work on yourself before your equipment.

Cheers,

R.
 
Lens design is a compromise a superfast lens lacks in other other design departments a slow lens is highly corrected but lacks speed so what is the best lens? One can compare a lens of similar speed but one lens might be sharp at f1.5 but the out of focus area is so distracting that the lens that might be less sharp renders a better photograph because the main subject has better isolation from the Background. A Heliar loved by many LF Photographers is by many standards not a very sharp lens but it wasn't designed for sharpness but for plasticity as have been many older lenses. So what makes a superior lens sharpness as measured by mtf, good plasticity who knows it all depends on what the photographer is after. The quality of a lens or the definition of best can't be answered by technical comparison and is in my opinion a very personal choice.

Dominik
 
If there is any 'secret editing' it is not I who did it. I stand wholeheartedly by the passage you quote, without apology. If it has been edited out (and I can't seem to find it) then either I apologize unreservedly for inadvertently deleting it or I would be intrigued to know who did delete it. It is not the only post that disappeared, and as I can't delete others'`posts, I suspect someone else has been in among this thread.

Cheers,

R.
 
So what was the ultimate moral of the story again? Lenses matter, but they don't matter, unless we agree they matter?
 
The RH moral is there are fools among us who can't admit to the self-evident fact that some lenses are more equal than others, as are some photographers. And apparently some forum posters. :)
 
The best lens is a matter of taste and opinion and you know what they say about opinions. " Opinions are like a***holes everyone has one."

And yes there are lenses that are better suited to general photography, that doesn't make other lenses less good they might beat the better lens in several cases they are just overall not as well suited to all kinds of photography than some other lenses: Specialists vs Universalists.
 
DominikDUK said:
The best lens is a matter of taste and opinion and you know what they say about opinions. " Opinions are like a***holes everyone has one."

And yes there are lenses that are better suited to general photography, that doesn't make other lenses less good they might beat the better lens in several cases they are just overall not as well suited to all kinds of photography than some other lenses: Specialists vs Universalists.
Click to expand...
And whose opinion do you trust better when you are ill? A doctor who has studied the subject, or someone who was ill once? To pretend that all opinions are equal is downright feeble minded. Deciding whose opinions you trust -- whether mine or anyone else's - is far more important than subscribing to the lazy and ultimately meaningless internet 'wisdom' about opinions.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ade-oh said:
No, it was don't disagree with Roger or you'll get a vaguely intemperate cyber cuff round the ear.
Click to expand...
More, I'd suggest, this: Think before you post. Or at least, think before you post the same opinion several times without further explanation.

Cheers,

R.
 
tunalegs said:
So what was the ultimate moral of the story again? Lenses matter, but they don't matter, unless we agree they matter?
Click to expand...
That if someone asks "What lens should I buy?", they probably don't know much about which lens to buy, and that often, they will therefore be better served by a good general purpose lens than by one that is highly specialized, antique, ridiculously cheap, or alarmingly expensive.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top