Why your camera does not matter

Jared Meyer

Jared Meyer

Veteran
This should be required reading for all indie/digital filmmakers. It's about photography, but the advice applies equally well to the world of video. Obviously photography has matured a little differently than video over the last 10 years, but the principle still holds true.

Mostly common sense stuff, but the writer says it so nicely.

Now if we could just force everyone who posts "What camera should I buy/What camera is better/What camera looks most like film/DVX vs HVX vs XL2 vs HD100 vs whatever" questions to read this article 50 or 60 times....

Anyway, an interesting read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
 
Last edited:
A quote from the article:
"Jesus Christ's dad Joseph built a masterpiece of a wooden staircase in a church in New Mexico in 1873, and does anyone care what tools he used?"
Uhm, didnt know Joseph lived that long... :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I got really amped up when I read that, especially the Ansel Adams part... completely ignoring that Adams used a full frame large format camera for his images (forget 1" 35mm, we're talking 8x10).

I don't think that camera matters when it comes to anything, but different tools enable people to get the results they are looking for with more ease.

I could make a phone call with a rotary phone or a push button... Both phones will give me the same ultimate quality but with the push button I can dial quicker.

I can drive from Charlotte to Raleigh on a ten speed or in a car, both will get me there, but the car will get me there quicker and with more ease.

When it comes to cameras, video or film, still photography or motion, the tool that you use only enables you to get the type of image that you are looking for with more ease. With the DVX, 24p is important. With digital SLR cameras interchangable lenses are important. Can someone make a film with a Panasonic GS120? Sure, and it might look great. Can someone take an Ansel Adams emotion filled photograph with a point and shoot camera? Sure. Does that mean that these are necessarily the best tools for these jobs? That's where personal preference and ego come in.

Ken Rockwell makes a couple of good points and it is motivating, but I think that he ignores a couple of issues that are important.

-Jeremy
 
that was a good read. I think this statement that he says really sums it up

"Sure, if you're a pro driver you're good enough to elicit every ounce of performance from a car you will be limited by its performance, but if you're like most people the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance since you are always the defining factor, not the tools."
 
To expand on Jeremy's point, tools do make a difference; there's a right tool for the job. You know that old saw about if you have only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? It's no less true for tools used in making video images.

The point that you have to know how to utilize the tools before they do you any good is a first principle, of course. But "doesn't matter" is far too strong a term.

Anyway, those cell phone photos that Rockwell linked to, that he's so impressed with? Some of them are composed well (though some of them are not), but really, they DO show that the tool DOES matter. On the whole, those are not very good pics.
 
Just to come back to this again:

Tell anyone who has shot a feature film, commercial, or presentation video that quality doesn't matter and watch them laugh their ass off.

I wish a $200 minidv camera gave me the same image quality as something that is $3500. I wish my RAZR phone's camera took images at the same quality as my Nikon, but to quote Ice-T (because, as Jimmerson knows, I'm street!) $hit aint like that :)

-Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
Just to come back to this again:

Tell anyone who has shot a feature film, commercial, or presentation video that quality doesn't matter and watch them laugh their ass off.

I wish a $200 minidv camera gave me the same image quality as something that is $3500. I wish my RAZR phone's camera took images at the same quality as my Nikon, but to quote Ice-T (because, as Jimmerson knows, I'm street!) $hit aint like that :)

-Jeremy
Click to expand...

Yes but all of those things are still dependent on the premise that you know what you're doing and that's the point I think he was trying to make. That getting a better camera won't make you a better filmmaker/photographer etc.. It will just make your crap that much clearer.


-Note: I do agree with what you said and by crap I didn't mean literally "your crap" I was just talking in general
 
I agree that a better paint brush does not make a better artist, but the thing that I disagree with though is that to a better artist a better tool does not make a difference.

-Jeremy

EDIT:

Any my crap is crap, so I'm not offended :)
 
Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.
Click to expand...

Seems like a contradiction? No? Anyway ........ With the right equipment that makes you comfortable etc you dont wory about it and release yourself more to the job at hand.

Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.
Click to expand...

This article is talking about Still cameras, which are a different beast to motion images. If thisis true Im off to buy the cheapest SD handcam available.
 
would it be completely elitist of me to suggest that "the tool" matters more to a craftsman, who is concerned with technical proficiency and an exacting form, than it would to an artist, who is generally more concerned with the subject of thought and focus of attention in his work? i suppose on a forum named after a tool, it would be.

can i change my username to "elitist cineaste asshole"? :)
 
Sheesh, this was overstated!!

Yes, it aint the plumbing it's the plumber... just look around here at the different levels of creativity and professional images created on the exact same cameras.

But as a professional musician, I KNOW the power of the right wrench.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Sheesh, this was overstated!!

Yes, it aint the plumbing it's the plumber... just look around here at the different levels of creativity and professional images created on the exact same cameras.

But as a professional musician, I KNOW the power of the right wrench.

CaptM
Click to expand...
a musician's wrench. interesting. wasn't it a keyboardist for ELO that used to stick daggers into his keyboard during live shows?
 
cygnet74 said:
would it be completely elitist of me to suggest that "the tool" matters more to a craftsman, who is concerned with technical proficiency and an exacting form, than it would to an artist, who is generally more concerned with the subject of thought and focus of attention in his work? i suppose on a forum named after a tool, it would be.

can i change my username to "elitist cineaste asshole"? :)
Click to expand...

I don't know if you meant to, but you raise an interesting point -- there is an art and a craft to filmmaking, and they're not the same thing. The question is, do you want your film to be an art or a craft? Nothing illegitmate about either, and there are aspects of both in the best examples of either.
 
I think that a camera does matter. I could make a film with a remarkable story, and if I shoot it on a Hi8 home video camera its going to be disqualified. Certain things disqualify things for me. One is image quality. Now grant it. Correctly lit Hi8 footage may be amazing, I've never seen any. But, lighting specifically, and image quality can be disqualifying. Though I'd say a bad script is even more disqualifying.
 
David Jimerson said:
I don't know if you meant to, but you raise an interesting point -- there is an art and a craft to filmmaking, and they're not the same thing. The question is, do you want your film to be an art or a craft? Nothing illegitmate about either, and there are aspects of both in the best examples of either.
Click to expand...

The upshot is, and something I've always noticed, is that in art, the author of the article is correct, the tool does not matter. I'm willing to bet if we had a Pixelvision challenge here, some people would simply not do it because it's too low rez, why bother making images with a toy? However, in the hands of an artist, Pixelvision can look beautiful. For the uninitiated - see "Slacker".

It's when you get to craft that the tool does matter. Someone hires you to shoot a wedding and you show up with a Pixelvision camera, you better hope you have lawsuit insurance....
 
To suggest the tool doesn't matter is just silly. I know many craftsmen who would strenuously disagree. It's like saying "a car doesn't matter, you'll get there either way" but there are some of us who think Lexus & Cadillac have something to offer over Yugo & Daihatsu.

I mean, get real -- is someone actually going to, with a straight face, suggest that a chainsaw is no better than a hand saw? That a woodchipper is no better than a guy with an axe?

Here's the deal, near as I can tell -- there are people who think that it's the tool that's stopping them from doing something worthwhile. Those people are almost invariably wrong, suffering from a delusion and a desire for a "quick fix" rather than taking the effort to learn their craft. But there are definitely tools that enable people to do more than other tools do -- assuming their skills are at such a degree that it actually is the tool that's holding them back.

The question is: is it the tool that's holding you back? Or is the better tool beyond your capabilities anyway?

It's like whenever people ask "should I shoot on film or video?" The answer is always the same: you should shoot on video. Because, frankly, when you're ready to shoot on film (and your project justifies that expense) you won't be asking the question. You'll already know the answer as to which is the right medium for your project.

Absolute newbie beginners should not be hung up on which tool to buy, as if that's going to determine their success or failure. There are many other things to worry about, the particular tool selection is not going to make the difference. Especially (ESPECIALLY) when there are so many people who already have the best tools and will be willing to rent them to you, so don't sweat it.


The better tool will not make you better than you are, it will not overcome your shortcomings.

But better tools will let you do more things, assuming your skills are up to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top