A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Adoration of cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 7th 09, 12:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Adoration of cameras


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400,
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 just you.

Bob



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.




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.


Other than Nikon plastic.


  #12  
Old October 7th 09, 12:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Adoration of cameras


wrote in message
...
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?


That's a fair question.

Someone once said there are two kinds of photographers: one kind typically
has one battered, grungy camera and takes lots and lots and lots of
pictures, and the other kind has all the latest and most elaborate equipment
and seldom does any photography.

In my impecunious youth I was the first type, but in my steady advance into
old geezerhood I'm afraid I have moved quite a bit toward the second. I
certainly do have enormous "devotion to [my] cameras and lenses" as you put
it, though I have not entirely given up doing a little photography as well.


  #13  
Old October 7th 09, 02:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/6/09 18:47 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
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.


guffaw!

That's probably true.

On the other hand, of course, there really are only two kinds of people in
the world: Nikon owners and the ones who wish they were Nikon owners. (And I
am saying that with perfect objectivity, not a shred of personal bias.)



Of course.


  #14  
Old October 7th 09, 02:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/6/09 18:49 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400,
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 just you.

Bob


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.




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.


Other than Nikon plastic.



Even Nikon plastic.


  #15  
Old October 8th 09, 06:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Adoration of cameras


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 18:49 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...





And...yes, plastic is bad.


Other than Nikon plastic.



Even Nikon plastic.


Actually I was making a wee joke (as with other replies in this sub-thread),
but seriously, what complaint do you have aboout polycarbonate? It's strong,
light, doesn't dent, has been used for camera bodies for decades and is
all-around good stuff. I assume most DSLRs still use a metal chassis
underneath the polycarbonate for those parts that require dimensional
stability, as 35mm SLRs did. Whatever they do, it works well.

The word "plastic" is sort of off-putting since it makes one think of milk
bottles, delicatessen containers and cheap toys, etc. But there are many
very different kinds of plastic, just as there are many different metals. I
don't think you'd want an SLR made out of lead or even unalloyed iron or
copper.


  #16  
Old October 8th 09, 12:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/8/09 24:26 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 18:49 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...





And...yes, plastic is bad.

Other than Nikon plastic.



Even Nikon plastic.


Actually I was making a wee joke



I realize that. I was making one in return.


but seriously, what complaint do you have aboout polycarbonate? It's strong,
light, doesn't dent, has been used for camera bodies for decades and is
all-around good stuff. I assume most DSLRs still use a metal chassis
underneath the polycarbonate for those parts that require dimensional
stability, as 35mm SLRs did. Whatever they do, it works well.



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.



The word "plastic" is sort of off-putting since it makes one think of milk
bottles, delicatessen containers and cheap toys, etc. But there are many
very different kinds of plastic, just as there are many different metals. I
don't think you'd want an SLR made out of lead or even unalloyed iron or
copper.


And no one has ever suggested otherwise.





  #17  
Old October 8th 09, 06:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Adoration of cameras


"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/8/09 24:26 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 18:49 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...





And...yes, plastic is bad.

Other than Nikon plastic.



Even Nikon plastic.


Actually I was making a wee joke



I realize that. I was making one in return.


Ah. My apologies.

remaining points taken


  #18  
Old October 8th 09, 11:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/8/09 12:22 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 10/8/09 24:26 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 10/6/09 18:49 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...




And...yes, plastic is bad.

Other than Nikon plastic.



Even Nikon plastic.

Actually I was making a wee joke



I realize that. I was making one in return.


Ah. My apologies.

remaining points taken



Apologies unnecessary. **** happens.

  #19  
Old October 9th 09, 01:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Adoration of cameras

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:26:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
: 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
  #20  
Old October 9th 09, 04:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
D. Peter Maus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Adoration of cameras

On 10/8/09 19:05 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:26:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
: 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



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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of their cameras? Paul D. Sullivan Digital Photography 20 August 5th 07 09:03 PM
Best site for buyers of Digital cameras!!! over 200 cameras reviews :) [email protected] Digital Photography 4 August 7th 06 01:23 AM
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More Walmart General Equipment For Sale 0 December 17th 04 12:52 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.