©kirk tuck.
Change or die. When people ask me about camera brands I think about the second "Thor" movie from Marvell. The scene in which Odin asks an almost defeated Thor, (who is convinced that not having his magic hammer will lead to his defeat), "Are you the God of Hammers?"
Odin reveals that Thor's hammer is not the source of Thor's power but just a tool to help him channel that power. As photographers we get to use whatever cameras we want to channel our powers, we are not wed to our current cameras for life. Only Loki worships the brands.
7 comments:
"we are not wed to our current cameras for life." Yes we are. It's hard to give up a brand of camera we were wed to years ago. We seem to have the longing to return the good old days, and once we get there we wonder why we left. Is the new "Hammer" better? I think not, just different. Cameras are like the Hotel California, you can check out, but never leave. I sold gear that got me where I wanted to be in the business, and I regret selling it. My cameras were my friends, they were a extension of me. I slept in the jungles of South America with them, in the deserts of the middle east, ate breakfast with them in my studio, and took them out for a mid night stroll in the Rockies of Colorado, and now they're gone. Why did I sell them? To have the latest and greatest new shiny toy. I can buy gear like them, but it's not my gear, my friends.
Have a great day
Roger
Loki uses a smartphone. He doesn't care.
There's a bunch of folks whose interest in "photography" is really about the gear. Kirk sees those clicks go up when he talks gear.
I'm lucky that when I first become interested in photography, my mother insisted that "I show her the pictures," if I wanted any financial support for my expensive hobby. So from the outset, I was oriented to the product, and the gear was a means to that end.
However, photography is a blend of the technical and the aesthetic. A part of artistic endeavor is trying to do something as well as it can be done. Which brings us back to tools, and which is the best for the job at hand. Kirk makes a great point, that almost all the modern cameras and lenses are "good enough," to produce great work. But our religion is consumerism, and cultivating an connoisseur's sensitivity to minute performance differences, before laying out huge sums to purchase the latest iteration from multinational corporations, has become "photography" to many.
A sincere "Thank you" to Phil as that is pretty much exactly what I was thinking. I just didn't write it clearly enough.
Thumbs up to Phil.
My favorite thing about photography is learning about the technology behind our miniaturized wonders - once an engineer, always an engineer. My second favorite thing is making a good picture that tells a story.
I guess I should consider myself a geek instead of a photographer. Definitely instead of an artist...
And by the way, Loki's got some great horns on that conniving little head.
I would just add my 2c. Kirk's perspective is of someone who can make a great portrait with a Nikon D40 and whatever ancient or modern lens he has in hand, plus the light he would create. At this level, all current cameras and mid-telephoto lenses are perfectly fine and are no an inhibition. However, we, the dirty masses, need all the help we can get. It is the same with skiing: great skiers can ski any skis anywhere and look fantastic. A mediocre skier like me needs better skis to help him. The new cameras and lenses do not make us better photographers by any means, but occasionally (and only occasionally) they do help hide our shortcomings from an untrained eye. I think this is important to a non-trivial number of people, and it brings smiles to the faces of their friends and families with their generous if somewhat ignorant eyes. This does not contradict that one should seriously try to improve your skills, vision, study the classics, and so on. Having said that, I buy a new camera once every 3-4 years, and maybe one lens a year, and never switched from Nikon, so maybe I do not know what I am taking about.
Kirk, that hammer reference was from the third Thor movie, not second!
Post a Comment