Cameras over Lenses

[D. Kevin Gibson]

the sight of a modern high-tech lens on say an Ebony looks ubsurd to me."

You are concerned about fashion...? who cares what it looks like - the camera is just a box with a whole and a lump of glass on the front.

The camera and lens is there for one purpose and one purpose only - to make a photogorpah. Some combos will do a marginally better "technical" job than others. Much more important is the eye and imagination of the the photographer - by a huge ratio. It matters little if the camera wobbles a bit or if the standards are out a few microns (heck even a few mm) or if the lens isn't sharp enough to shave the fuzz of a teenagers chin. So what. And what the camera looks like matters even less. It's about making pictures. What is between the photogorpahers two ears outweighs any of those things.

[Gem Singer]

Donal,

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. By "improper" lens I was referring, for example, to mounting a 400mm lens on a camera that only has a maximum bellows extension of 300mm. Then wondering why it won't focus. Or, wondering why the vignetting when using a lens that has a 200mm image circle on an 8X10 camera?

How about attempting to use a large size lens, mounted in in an Acme 5 shutter, on a lightweight 4X5 wooden field camera that uses a Linhof Tech lensboard? It probably can be done, but it would be the "improper" sized lens for that camera.

[John Kasaian]

I suggest that it is niether camera or lens that it the "critical" component---its the Photographer! If it isn't so, how can all the great photographs of the past, taken with what we'd now certainly reject as "cutting edge" technology be worthy of any interest other than as antiquities or badly made photographic records?

While I have yet to consider anything I've done with a 50 year old 'dorff and a 96 year old Dagor as a "masterpiece" I am well aware of "masterpieces" that have been made with identical gear, so the weak link therefore is---the Photographer(In this case, ME!)

Cheers!

[R.Hageman]

Thank you for the imput. As I do a fair amount of "copy work" (paintings) the allignment and parallelism issue is important to me and I don't suppose that's either scientific OR artistic. All I wanted to say is that I think lenses should get more credit. Even a casual look at a typical film holder will tell you all you need to know about where the tolerance standards for most cameras lie.

[wfwhitaker]

I've always thought the final print should be "dominant". I guess it's hard to be serious when you're in a candy store. At least, I find it that way.

[Capocheny]

Bob S is right in that it's both the camera and the lenses that's important. However, John K is equally right in his assertion that it's the photographer that's the crucial component. One without the other is pretty much useless.

In the human body... what's more important? The brain, heart, or lungs? I suggest that they all have to work together in order for proper functioning. One won't work without the other (properly, that is!)

Lens technology is advancing and manufacturers are coming out with better and better products. If you use a great lens but the camera won't/can't use this technology to its fullest intent, then it's inevitably the photograph that suffers. Conversely, if you take a "state of the art" camera and mount an incredibly useless lens onto it... again, the photograph suffers (but not if this is your intent, i.e. Sally Mann).

Lastly, if the best camera and lens combination is used, but by an inept photographer, then, what's the import of this whole discussion? The photograph is going to suffer without every one of these elements working in concert.

In this case... the whole is stronger than each of its individual parts!

Only my 25 cents worth!

Cheers

[Michael Veit]

I don't think emphasis on camera is totally misplaced because, more than lens, it's the thing that most obviously affects the field experience. When I set up for a shot I know I spend time wrestling with the tripod or camera, but can't ever remember thinking, "damn, I wish I had a sharper lens for this one."

[Eric Rose]

I think the reason the cameras get the most "talk" is because we can play with them, tweak them, add stuff to them etc. Lenses just sit there. They do their job, but they just aren't sexy. Try either building or refinishing a lens someday. I think not!

[R.Hageman]

I think that must be it Eric. The camera "needs" us thereby creating a relationship. But Michael, I have to say that I HAVE found myself wishing for a sharper lens while setting up, PLUS a sharper camera.

RH.

[Dan Fromm]

My cameras are fine, most of my lenses are sharp enough. What I need is a sharper eye.

Cheers,

Dan