most of the 'revered' photographers from the past worked with equipment technically far inferior to today's
something very important in that statement. While the gear used by many great photographers of the past may be inferior to the tools we have today, the great photographers used the best gear available at the time. To do otherwise would have been unnecessarily limiting their talents.
As I said in another post on this topic, if Ansel Adams were alive today he would be shooting with the absolute best MF digital with the best lenses. He did the equivalent in his day. His gear was the best available at the time.
How about Robert Frank ( Americans) and William Klein?
Don't know a whole lot about those fellows. Names are vaguely familiar.
What type of photography did they do?
Grainy street.
What equipment did they use ? And in what way was it not the best available ?
Nick
I think they were both Leica shooters
So the best equipment
Not sure NCV thought that one through ;-)
Nick
And how many other companies made great camers that used the same sensor (135 roll film)?
Lots! I always wanted to own one of the old Canon RF cameras more than any Leica.
Leica almost died several times and only persists as a shadow because it still has enough respect to get some to pay huge prices for its product.
Like a cat with 9 lives. I actually think digital actually saved them in a perverse way, but that is long story.
Most will put that respect on a back burner and buy Nikon or Canon, even Olympus (grin) which were of course among the very companies that brought Leica to its knees so many years ago in the days of film. Leica’s RF contemporaries all eventually went to the wall despite many of them still actually making comparible quality cameras.
Few folks not making a good living off of photography would buy Leica. Or maybe I have that backwards as most Leica owners are doctors, lawyers etc.
I guess there is always some company’s product that needs to be put on a pedestal even if few actually buy it. As is well known “nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM”.
Have you seen IBMs stock lately! I owned it briefly a few years ago. Glad I got out, but I don't have a financial advisor (luckily).
If the “Leica” example is realistic then today we would not be just lusting for FF sensor but would not buy any camera with a FF sensor unless it were made by Leica. Simply because everything else is second rate.
PS: Leica do make great gear but as “value for money” it is more questionable and more related to making it obvious that you can afford to buy it than the actual need for its technical capability.
For all the arrows that one can easily throw at Leica, in the post WW II era they were considered the best cameras and surely there is some merit to that. The Japanese quickly created a value proposition that for most people made buying a Leica like throwing money down the toilet.
My original argument in this thread is that if you are extremely talented at something, doesn't have to be photography, you will use the best equipment or your results will ultimately be limited by the equipment.
I'm not talking about myself or in all likelihood anyone that visits this forum, but the absolute best of the best. I can ski down a mountain on skis from the rental shop or the ones used by an Olympic skier and there will be little (probably no) difference. Now put those 2 same sets of ski on an Olympic gold medalist and you will see the difference.
