Cameras over Lenses

[R.Hageman]

Something which has long both puzzled and amused me is the importance so many people attribute to cameras as apposed to lenses. Not that lenses aren't considered crucial but how often do you hear "Well I've got this incredible 200mm 6,8 Grandagon attached to some kind of Swiss 8x10". which really would make more sense to me.

To my way of thinking a sophisticatd lens is technically far more interesting than any camera. The complication and precision are often breathtaking and certainly contribute more than a little to the success of the final photograph / image. Camera design really hasn't gone anywhere for well over a hundred years and frankly the sight of a modern high-tech lens on say an Ebony looks ubsurd to me.

So shouldn't a Hasselblad SWC/M really be called a Zeiss Biogon instead? Seems logical to me. But for some reason it's always the camera name that's dominant. And please don't bore me with comments about how car tires are at least as important as the car they support. It's not quite the same. Or is it ?

[Bob Fowler]

You have a couple of good points. Yes, the lens is far more imnportant than the body. I would say that car tires are more like film holders though as they do contribute to performance of the overall system.

To a casual observer, camera designs may not look like they've come very far, but I'd suggest that you give a serious look at the Canham metal field cameras and compare it to something like an R.O.C. Empire State before making the statement "Camera design really hasn't gone anywhere for well over a hundred years".

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I wonder if this issue isn't a some sort of vestige from 35mm and MF. With LF camera choice does not determine which brand or type of lens is used, while, with a few exceptions, if you buy a Hasselblad or a Leica you will use a Zeiss or Leitz lens. Popular discourse also adds to this; if you walk out on the street with your LF camera and lens, nobody is going to ask "what kind of lens is that?".

In any case, I for one am far more intersted in glass than wood (or metal), and I suspect that the majority of readers and writers on this site are also. If you compare posts on this site, you will see that there are more posts on the five lenses topics (1629 posts as of now) than on the camera AND lenses topics (1553).

[Jay DeFehr]

It could simply be a practical convention; the camera, or body, is the constant in a modular system. All components; backs/holders, viewfinders, compendium shades, and lenses all attach to the camera. While a high-dollar, modern lens might contribute a lot to the image, it only takes one simple comparison between a wobbly old Korona and a precision Arca Swiss to understand the central role of the camera.

[Bob Salomon]

"Yes, the lens is far more imnportant than the body"

That is until the body design does not hold film flat, or parallel (when required), or when the focusing mechanism is imprecise or the shutter and aperatures are not properly calibrated, etc., etc., etc.

The process is a chain and every element in that chain contributes to the final outcome. So one weak link can prevent the finest lens or the finest body from producing the optimal result.

[R.Hageman]

Thanks for the responses. But lets consider something. As I have used Sinar cameras for the last thirty years, I'm fairly familiar with them. I should also mention I've spent more than a little time with precision measuring equipment to get them "close" to accurate as far as parallelism is concerned. The adhesive film holders were a nice addition to the Sinar line some years ago and I use them regularly, particularly for 8x10 for obvious reasons. But the point is in my (very limited) experience these cameras all needed adjustment and tuning just to get "close" in they're roll of holding a piece of film in a certain position, which compared to calculating lens design strikes me as rather simple. I should also mention I've also "tuned" the five Hasselblad bodies I use and again was a little surprised at the tolerance levels. Should mention I do not own a MK 70 (yet) which I would imagine sets the standards somewhat higher. The point is that if lens designers were as sloppy as the folks at some (LF) camera manufacturers we'd be in more serious trouble. Additionally I know I could build a view camera that would give me "acceptable" results. Lenses I wouldn't dream about, even if I had the knowledge and equipment. Please understand I'm not looking for an argument; I'm just trying to see where the truth lies.

[Gem Singer]

Which came first, "the chicken, or the egg"? Does it really matter?

The classic example of the synnergy between camera and lens is the fixed-lens Rolleiflex twin lens reflex line of cameras. After WWII, they all but replaced the Speed Graphics that were used by photojournalists. The design of the Rollei is far from perfect. However, the combination of the camera, and the great lenses used on those cameras, more than made up for the shortcommings.

I get frustrated when I see someone on this forum attempting to adapt an improper lens in order to make it fit on a camera that is not designed for that size shutter, that focal length, etc. Then, they wonder why that combination of lens and camera won't do what they want it to do.

[Donal Taylor]

"I should also mention I've spent more than a little time with precision measuring equipment to get them "close" to accurate as far as parallelism is concerned. The adhesive film holders were a nice addition to the Sinar line some years ago and I use them regularly, particularly for 8x10 for obvious reasons. But the point is in my (very limited) experience these cameras all needed adjustment and tuning just to get "close" in they're roll of holding a piece of film in a certain position...etc"

But you know, unless you were engaged in some form of scientific photogorpahy (in which case the Sinar would be the wrong instrument), then I bet no one apart from yourself could ever see any significant difference in the final photograph? It is, after all is said and done, the resulting image that counts. In the final analysis, the question is - was it a good photograph - not how close to technical tolerances was it.

[Donal Taylor]

"I get frustrated when I see someone on this forum attempting to adapt an improper lens in order to make it fit on a camera that is not designed for that size shutter, that focal length, etc. Then, they wonder why that combination of lens and camera won't do what they want it to do."

Improper lenses! how terrible - in this day and age as well. How do you know they're "improper" ;-)

Maybe they doe just what the photographer wants it to? I dare say many of the lenses Sally Mann used on her recent project could be considered "improper" (especially after she's baked them in the oven) - and she has the impudence to attach those cracked, fungussy uncoated old lenses - lenses that vignette as well gosh darn it - on a nice "proper (and suitably modest) modern camera like a Toyo 810.

Funny though - they seem to do the job.

:-)

[paul owen]

I have to disagree with the comment that a modern lens looks absurd on (say) an Ebony camera! IMHO lens "look" has changed very little either in the last 100 years! Ok so gone are the chrome barrels but the general design is similar visually. I think the juxtaposition between a modern lens and a "traditional" looking wooden camera looks fine - certainly better than matching wooden lenses! I have recently added the Schneider 90mm 6.8 Super Angulon "Classic" to my equipment - it is supposed to hark back to the days of "proper-looking" lenses by having a (matt) chrome barrel. To me it looks far more hi-tech than any other lens I have seen! But still looks fine on my Ebony!!

[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

[Graeme Hird]

Why does it matter?

Go and make some photos.

[Brian Ellis]

The lens is important. So is the camera. It doesn't matter how great the lens is if you don't have enough rise to get the top of the building that you want in the picture or if you're a landscape photographer and don't have front or back tilt on the camera, or if you photograph a lot of buildings and don't have front or back swing or if your camera is so heavy you can't carry it anywhere, or if it takes so long to set up that you lose a lot of good photographs, etc. etc. With all due respect to your statements about the importance of lenses, and you're certainly correct about their importance, it's difficult to think of a less productive debate than "which is most important, the lens or the camera."

[R.Hageman]

So what are you doing here Ellis ?

RH.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

In the universe of view cameras, the user is at an advantage in that he or she can actually observe what will be captured on film. This, of course assuming that ground glass/film plane coincidence is proper. That having been achieved, so long as the quantity and types of movements, the lightightness of the camera and its film holding mechanism are sound, there is probably little reason to worry how old or ugly or "unsophisiticated" the beast is so long as the user is comfortable with its operation and it doesn't prevent them from meeting their artistic objectives. In this instance, what lens you use is probably a lot more of a barometer of the results you will achieve (purely from a technical standpoint, understand).

In the hand camera universe (and rangefinder-coupled LF cameras could be grouped here as well to a degree), where the operator never has the opportunity to look at a ground glass that is displaced by a piece of film, the geometry of the camera becomes a lot more critical. Is the back focus of the lens accurately set? Is the film being held flat? Is the film not getting scratched? Is there enough spacing between frames and is it even? Is the instant return or manually returned mirror being returned where it belongs and was it in the right place to begin with? Does the viewing system give an accurate representation of what will end up on film? Is the lens really focused at infinity when the scale indicates so? Does the vibration encountered in operation interfere with the sharpness of your results? All of these and more speak to the technical quality of what you will end up with and have nothing to do with what optical formula was used in the lens or what coating(s) or the profile of the lens elements.

So, in response to whether a Hasselbald SWC should really be called a Biogon? I would have to say no... especially an SWC, where using such a short lens makes film plane accuracy even more demanding.

One last comment I have is that in the technologically driven world we live, we seem to have acquired this need to label everything we own and use with some prestigious moniker. Whether to impress our friends (or strangers), convince clients (or ourselves) that only we are equipped to address their special needs, or create a visible, perceived advantage over others in our profession, I believe we spend far too much time worrying about this sort of stuff. Remember when photo journalists taped up their Nikons (before black camera bodies were commonplace) to make their equipment less distracting? Yes, it is important to use the best tools we can afford, but far more important to know how to best use them and when. That achieved, we might well put tape over everything with a name on it, take that topic off the table completely and spend more time engaged in our passion. Just some thoughts.

[Bob Salomon]

" where the operator never has the opportunity to look at a ground glass that is displaced by a piece of film, the geometry of the camera becomes a lot more critical"

BS.

A camera like a Hasselblad, be it a SWC or a 500C can use a ground glass back adapter so it is just as capable as seeing what will be in the film plane as any other camera.

Several other cameras also can accept a ground glass at the film plane or you can simply open the back and place a piece of ground glass or even wax paper on the film rails if you really want to see this.

Of course SLR cameras are showing a pretty good idea of what will be on the fim anyway.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"A camera like a Hasselblad, be it a SWC or a 500C can use a ground glass back adapter so it is just as capable as seeing what will be in the film plane as any other camera."

A point well taken, however while these and other medium format cameras offer this feature, I think it's a pretty fair assumption that most users of them will not avail themselves of that capability, but opt for the convenience of a roll film hand camera with whatever viewing system is the primary one designed into that particular instrument. An exception might be something like the Flexbody, which really is used more like a view camera than a hand camera anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that when you rely on a reflex or a range finder viewing system (or even a simple auxiliary viewfinder), you place a lot of trust in the fact that the film is being held flat and in the proper plane. This just elevates the importance of the camera body in the whole picture taking equation, placing it more on equal footing with lens performance in determining the quality of the final result. With even an old wooden view camera, however clunky and imprecise as it may be, the operator is always basing final judgement on what was last seen on the gg before making an exposure. This gives the user a way to visually judge and compensate for whatever deficiencies the camera body might have, placing more weight on lens performance in the total equation.

[Bob Salomon]

"always basing final judgement on what was last seen on the gg before making an exposure. This gives the user a way to visually judge and compensate for whatever deficiencies the camera body might have"

You are assuming that the ground glass is placed at the proper point. There is no guarantee that this is so without careful checking. And if it is so you are assuming that all of your film holders have the same and proper positioning of the film. Something that is less likely then the positiong of the film and the flatness of film in 35 and mf cameras.

[jantman]

The photographer is the most important element.

However, we photographers have the problem that without our camera, we are just lunatics making rectangular hand gestures and mumbling about light and shape and form and color.

Why do we mention our camera first? Because the lucky ones of us take too long to list all of those Ektars and Dagors and Hypergons and Tessars.

[John D Gerndt]

My Hageman, you are entirely right. The camera’s job is to hold the film in its place, that’s it and no, most cameras are not so hot at that. Luckily it is still no big deal unless you go multiplying that error 10x or so. Myself, I can only go 3x before I get disgusted. I too am more impressed by lens tolerances than my camera’s tolerances and feel they are more responsible for the look of the final image than the camera body is. Yes there are myriad factors that go into the final image. Rank order of these really should put lens before camera, but people usually speak in semaphore and gibberish, about process rather than substance. Logic will not avail. Emotion rules! I am not prepared to turn that ruling river and even generally enjoy the swim.

I tuned up my camera and painted it bright yellow to destroy it’s previous identity. It’s now my own brand. It’s called the: “Take-a-Look.” People forget all about the brand-name stuff when they see what is on the GG.

P.S. I don’t often get asked what camera OR lens I use when I am showing a print. Usually they ask me where IS this place I have captured on film. I think this is a sign of making good photographs…

[R.Hageman]

Thanks John. And frankly, I know I'm right also. In my experience I,ve met thousands of "experts" in all kinds of areas and fully appreciate how hard it sometimes is to seperate truth from all the other flack. I'd also like to mention I'm not at all a "forum type" or "group type" for that matter. In the above example I was merely throwing out an observation to see if others had similar views and was frankly amazed at the amount of contradictory, even angry opposition while wandering way off the subject in the process in several cases. As an independant industrial designer over the past thirty five years or so I suppose I look at most things a little differently from most. But I also believe it keeps me fairly objective. So I'll say it one more time: Compared to the precision of a good modern lens the quality of a typical view camera is a joke. Maybe that's one reason we've got what? Four or five big names in view lenses as compared to literally hundreds of "View Camera Producers" most of whom are only too eager to mount the latest Rodenstock or whatever claiming they "require" this level of quality because their cameras are so incredible. Well folks no amount on Hondurus mahogany or "genuine solid hand rubbed brass" is going to compensate for primitive engineering.

RH

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"You are assuming that the ground glass is placed at the proper point. There is no guarantee that this is so without careful checking".

Bob Salomon, I'm not arguing this point at all. Check the first paragraph of my orginal post! ".....This, of course assuming that ground glass/film plane coincidence is proper. That having been achieved....." As to testing this, I personally encourage doing a film test and even wrote an article for View Camera about why this is important and how one can do it with commonly available materials. So you won't get any argument from me there either.