A few threads down, someone said:" Real phorographers don't care too much about the camera they use. They can get the same images using watever cameras given to them. BUT Non-photographers obsessed over their gear". FINE.

Another poster said:" The camera is not important. take pictures you cared for." FINE too.

Personally, these are the most pretentious and ridiculous comments I've seen for quite a while.

Since these comments came from a Leica forum and I'd guess most here would agree with the 2 comments, HERE'S MY CHALLENGE TO U.

Drop all your leica gears for 6 months and just shoot with a $50 POINT & SHOOT camera. Let's see if you like it. And let's see if you still think your gears are important. ANd tell me what's important to you afterall, the image or the gear or both.

Let's see who the real photographers are.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002

Answers

My answer is I agree- and I don't agree. No I don't want to use a $50 point and shoot, but it is surprising what can be done with an inexpensive classic camera. Before I got into Leica, I had a thing for Spotmatic and pre-Spotmatic Pentaxes. why - Because I was surprised with the quality of images able to be achieved with what is a garden variety populist camera - which most, both then and now would say is nowhere up to say a Nikon, let alone Leica in quality. But DAMN, they are good - and fun to use. Maybe the lenses don't have quite the flatness of field and edge quality and maybe their build quality is not as good - but believe me they ARE good - at least with the lenses (But I have always thought that the bodies have let the lenses down. The lenses are really very nicely made and the best of them perform very well indeed.) But having said all of that who would not rather drive a Beeemer than a Chevvy, even though they will both get you round the block. I know which one I would choose, even if I am choosing with my heart not my head and paying for it with my pocket book. Life is too short. So as the man says - "If you've bought it, flaunt it."

-- Peter (peterm1@ozemail.com,au), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, this is really all in your own head! Why is it all so important to you? Just curious.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

Yo are really stupid! But we aren't, and already know who you are. I'm just sending a morning gift.

-- Peter (pturnout@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. My challenge to you: is talk all you do? yak, yak, yak, yak! Maybe it more than $50, but it's well within the spirit of your challenge. VOITLANDER BESSA-L (well under $200), VOITLANDER HELIAR 15mm, 1:4.5, T-MAX 400 IN XTOL 1:1, POLAROID SPRINTSCAN 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Most here know that I am new to the forum (and I'm toning it down). I've been an amateur off and on for almost 20 years. When I bought my first camera, I saved up money from a paper route and got ahold of a Pentak K1000, back then (youth helped) I was nutty about taking pictures of everything, my dog taking a leak, friends giggin frogs, even a tornado half a block away. I still think my best pics came from the first 3 yrs I had that camera. Then I had to go to school, think about making a living, got distracted with other hobbies. I've had other cameras since then, but I got too used to automatic functions, a terrifying crutch. Now I've had a Leica for three weeks. Maybe the equip doesn't matter but there is a psychological thing there... I'm passionate about it again after shelling out the money. I've burned more about 12 and half rolls and my fridge is filled with HP-5 and Delta400/100. And well, I'm rediscovering my love of the click. If the equip helped me get to this point, that's fine. I'm no HCB, Salgado, Eggleston or Brassai, all who could probably do amazing things with pinholes, lomos and polaroids, but maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't enjoy it as much.

I'm betting, that if I keep taking pictures, what I'll learn about using all manual functions again will enable me to go back to my Canon, turn off all the idiot functions and take better pictures with it as well.

Yossi's posted quotes are partially right. Those who are exceptional at what they do can work with any tool. I've got a very good friend who is a freelance journalist who sells a lot of work to AP, her preferred set of tools are what she calls the one of the world's earliest word processors, a legal pad and a No. 2 yellow pencil.

Cheers,

-- Hyatt Lee (shahtmat@ms63.hinet.net), May 20, 2002.

For the most part, these are a AMATEUR questions and answers. And maybe that's what the focus should be on this forum. However, I for one do not consider the Leica to be an amateur system. If duffer cameras where just as competent, then no Pro in his right mind would spend the fortune it requires to be equiped for the work they do. I know for a fact that many accomplished professional photographers look to unusual combinations of lenses and accessories to bring a competitive edge to their work. One of the most accomplished of these heavy weights is a friend and mentor to me. He OBSESSES about, and experiments with, equipment...just like the rest of us. He has a couple of tech guys that are constantly cramming new stuff into his hands to see how the gear translates into his vision. By the way, Leica Ms are a mainstay in his considerable arsenal. I wouldn't drop my Leicas for 6 seconds let alone 6 months. If I did, and turned to a Junkier system, I'd be out of business in no time. My competitors would rejoice such a stupid decision.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 20, 2002.

Hey, Yossi: Yawn.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), May 20, 2002.

Glenn, drop your elmar 50/2.8 for 6 months and use something else much cheaper.

What you posted with the bessar and voigtlander is not the real challenge presented.

and FYi, I believe the gear is important as far as we see the intended use in it. Unlike others who give sweeping statements riding on a high horse saying "real photographers don't care about gears".

and i don't just yak, i mean what i say. Now take my challenge.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Take your challenge yourself, Yossi. Let's see some of your snaps. Let's see who the real photographer is.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

What Rob said. It's easy to knock other people when you've got nothing to show

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 20, 2002.

Pretending the gear is unimportant is a form of snobbishness, as much as bragging about one's latest and most expensive gear. To say that is pretentious, as if saying that one is a real artist. B...s, sorry.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 20, 2002.

Rob, I never did say I am a "photographer", because I believe we need to choose gears to suit our needs in different situations. I do not belong to your group of thinking, you know? those who thinks cameras are just tools? and the "photographer" makes all the difference?

Hence, I dun need to challenge myself. Because I know certain gears are not meant to be used in certain needs. I dun use a P&S in a dark cave. I dun hand hold a SLR at 1/8 sec. I know the limitations of some cameras and I know mine.

Only those who THINK they are "photographers" will say the gears aren't important. Hence I am challenging them to prove it to me what they can do with a $50 p&s.

Liked I said much earlier, nothing against you personally. Im challenging differing ideas, not making enemies.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Olivier, so you're on their side?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

"I do not belong to your group of thinking, you know? those who thinks cameras are just tools? and the "photographer" makes all the difference? "

Seems like common sense to me.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

If it's common sense to you, then what are you waiting for? Get a $50 p&s and prove it to me. Show me what you can do in low light with it, perhaps?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Why does anyone here need to justify himself to anyone else?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

Preston, right on. It's a challenge. No one is forcing anyone to take it. If they have nothing to prove, then all they do is making statements.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

a nikon f + 50mm f1.4 can be had for $150. peruse the recent magnum anthology to see the kinds of photos you can obtain with that most basic of all outfits. only at the absolute highest skill levels is the camera EVER EVER going to be the limiting factor. for the vast majority of people, the best reason -- maybe the only good reason -- to own a leica is that its supreme functionality, wonderful design, and amazing ergs will inspire you to (a) take more pics and (b) improve your skills to match the quality of your tool. there is no "leica advantage," at least not one that is not totally swamped by variations in artistic ability and technical mastery.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, The disparity between Leica gear and your point & shoot challenge is so great (and a little absurd, don't you think?) that I feel it tends to negate any validity your position might possess. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this sort of issue is a real "sore spot" for many who are looking for a handy justification for the cost of their Leica gear. I think there are many who need to equate the cost with the certainty of superiour photography - or even more "artistic" imagery. These sorts (still longing for vindication, and possibly absolution) are personally affronted by the possibility that significant and fine work could be accomplished with equipment of lesser pedigree and cost.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, (let's pretend this is really your name for a moment, OK?) I really don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else. Thanks all the same!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

"Olivier, so you're on their side?"

Kind of cool to think we're taking sides here! See you in the playground after class. Be there.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

This is a variation on the million monkeys with a million typewriters eventually producing "Hamlet."

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

Rob, I replied to your last post in the Zen(by Luke) thread. After re- reading your post, I must admit I might have misunderstood your intentions afterall. I must apologise for coming too strong on this matter. I agree with you that we must liberate ourselves from being bogged down by gears and concentrate instead on the subject matter.

That is true.

Once again Rob, nothing personal, just some misunderstanding. Keep up your good work btw. ;)

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

But ROB, someone in the Zen thread said you could take pics better than (listen) 99% of the pics posted here just with a f4.5-6 zoom lens.

Is that true? ;)

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Didn't your posts take sides? So, yes, see you in the playground ;-)

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 20, 2002.

Olivier, mine or yours?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Preston, this is actually a variation of a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 20, 2002.

i'm with Yossi on this one.

Yossi doesn't have to prove anything since he believes cameras are important.

on my part, i'm gonna accept the challenge anyway...even though i also believe that equipment plays a big part to convey one's artistic views photographically. i think it's a good exercise nonetheless.

remember kiddies...point and shoots only...p&s cameras with no manual override.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Hey, Yossi. We'll all agree to take your challenge IF you agree:

1) to take that same 6 months off and just photograph [what with, what of, who cares?], and

2) not to post ANYTHING here during that 6 months.

OK? I'm off with my HOLGA now. See you in 6 months Yossi. Remember, NO MESSAGES!!!!!!! Now, don't forget to come back and we'll compare stories.

-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), May 20, 2002.

see u in 6 years, alex.

I can feel a lot of people aren't ready for this challenge because deep down inside them, they know they will miss their Leicas and they will never see a sharper image or a nicer bokeh with a P&S.

But remember, whatever you do, do it with passion.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Art, I wasn't/am not/will not trying/try to convince myself or equate the high cost of a gear to its expected superiority over the cheaper ones.

It's when all we discuss here is gear gear and more gear and then suddenly everyone(or almost all) is of the idea that "the photographer makes the difference and the gears are secondary" that doesn't makes sense to me.

Why read Erwin Puts reports then if gear is not important?

WHy discuss the choice between a sumilux and a sumicron if gear is not important then? WHY?

This is not about Leica alone. Everyone of us must chose an equipment we know that will suit us for our intended use. This choice of equipment is what makes the gear important.

A real photographer knows when, why and what to use.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Of course good equipment is very important. A 'good' photographer can make good images with inexpensive equipment (of course), but he can probably make better images with better equipment. Using the F4.0 zoom as an example - (I'll use a personal example) - I've worked on and off for 6 years documenting the 'cafe lifestyle', mostly at night. Over half the images are Tri-X, F2.0 at an eigth or a fifteenth of second - easily do-able with a a rangefinder - but with an F4 zoom on a clunky SLR - imposssible. Might be able to do it with a high quality point and shoot (the Yashica T4 comes to mind), but what about when I need a 90mm. I'm sure Ansel Adams would have made some pretty good images with a Canon Sureshot, but I don't think they'd rival what he did produce. It's like this in anything. Tiger Woods (again, for example) is a great golfer who will do well no matter what. But I doubt he'd be at the very top of the tour with a set of 100 dollar clubs from K-Mart. He'd be close, but not #1.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Just adding in my $0.02. Whether non-photographers obsess over their gear or not is something I not particularly concerned about, because I am not a non-photographer (does that make sense?); therefore I couldn't speak for their behalf. However, as a working photographer (and only speaking for myself at that), I do have to say that a camera is a tool for me. True, there are better tools than others to do the job, and as a photog looking for specific results, I choose a piece of gear that will be suitable for the shooting environment. I would not pull out my Leica rangefinder or a $50 P&S while on the sidelines shooting a football game, but at the same time I would not use an SLR with a 400/2.8 lens for my own leisure work around town. That's when I pull out the P&S.

Yes, I have to agree with Yossi that my gear is important to me, but only up to a point: they must work so I can get the photos I need. I don't baby them, nor do I debate the merits of one over the other for hours on end. I just know that the tools I use for MYSELF, regardless of camera brand, price, film format etc., will help me achieve the results I EXPECT when on assignment. I do have preferences of gear, but they all boil down to how they can help me get the picture, and more importantly, if that piece of gear will suit my shooting style.

I read a posting awhile back in this forum, and the person who wrote it couldn't have said it any better: If i were to die tomorrow, I would want to be remembered for the photographs I made, and not the cameras I owned. I would like to be remembered the same way.

Ultimately, it's always the photographs that are more important than the equipment. If the tools to achieve it are important for you, and you use the tools well, then the more power to you.

http://homepage.mac.com/badris

-- Badris (badris@mac.com), May 20, 2002.

I was wandering about the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other day enjoying the work of some of the Dutch and Rennaisance masters. I wonder if those guys, given the internet, would have harangued one another about the excellence of their brushes, the superior quality of their paints, the superbness of their canvas. Or would they be too busy painting pictures? Where's Phil when we need him!

-- John (mymacv@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

These debates have never made sense to me. The vast majority of the world's compelling photographs--the ones that have historical resonance--were not made with Leicas. Their virtues derive exclusively from their subject matter.

The vast majority of professional photographers around the world don't use Leicas exclusively (or even primarily), and nearly everyone who posts to this list maintains another camera maker's system for one reason or another.

Why, then, would it be any sort of challenge for a Leica owner here to shoot for a P&S for six months? And what would we learn in the process? That a P&S can take a great photograph? Would we begin a debate about the bokeh of the Olympus Stylus?

It would be as pointless as the debate about the bokeh of a Summicron.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

"Ultimately, it's always the photographs that are more important than the equipment. If the tools to achieve it are important for you, and you use the tools well, then the more power to you. "

Let me put it this way, "Ultimately, it's the climax that are more important the the porn magazine we J**k upon. If the magazine to achieve the climax is important for you, and you use the magazine well, then the more climaxes to you."

Once the job is done, forget the tools!

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

"Why, then, would it be any sort of challenge for a Leica owner here to shoot for a P&S for six months? And what would we learn in the process? That a P&S can take a great photograph? "

We will learn that a $50 P&S CANNOT take better pictures than most gears, not just Leicas. Hence the gear is important to an extent. The photographer is not at the top of the pyramid alone.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Bob, how ironic that you would cite K-Mart in the same sentence as Tiger Woods, since K-Mart was Fuzzy Zoeller's sponsor for years, until Fuzzy uttered a few bad taste remarks when Tiger won his first Master in '97. Golfers will understand me. Sorry for the digression, folks. Back to photography. Good quality gear (which ususally comes at a price) will make a good photog better, and will definitely help a beginner or mediocre photog learn his craft, more than any P&S.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 20, 2002.

OK, I am putting the finest film in my M4P, with the best lens I own, and I´m gonna sit and watch what it does, I´ll soon know who´s on top. I´ll let you know of results.

Well after two hours the bloody camera seems to be uninspired, not a single shoot, shall I put the rapid winder?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, your argument is that superior cameras produce superior pictures, yet you don't tell us what your criteria include nor do you specify what type of photography you are suggesting in your challenge.

No, an architectural photographer would not be able to earn his keep with a P&S (or a Leica M). A portraitist might be handicapped, but he could probably get by with a consumer zoom on an SLR.

A photojournalist who favored wide-angle lenses could do well with a P&S, but a nature or sports photographer who needed long zooms could not.

The gear is certainly important, but its value derives from its correct application. In many instances, a $50 P&S might be just the ticket.

Having the most appropriate camera for the situation is what counts. Leica doesn't always fit the bill.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

Preston, I agree with most of what you've said. Leica don;t always fit the bill. Gears are tools. We need to be smart enuff to pick the right one for the job.

My challenge with the P&S is just to get back at those (u know who) who claims "photographers can use any gear to make the same image" and non-photographers are mostly concerned with gears".

This assumption just isn't true!

So we are all non-[hotographers? because we can;t seem to get the same image with different cameras? And Im not talking just about QUALITY OF THE IMAGES.

Im not vain or anything. I am not a photographer, but I take pride in what gear I use, and I pay for them with good money.

I will not stand assumptions like these. Just because I view gears importantly will not make me a lesser photographer, in any way.

I mean, at the end of the day, who is he to make that assumption?

So, the challenge is basically to make me accept that assumption.

watever.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Yossi doesn't have to prove anything since he believes cameras are important.

He doesn't have to prove anything because he doesn't exist. At this time (and that will probably change as soon as Allen, Phil, Casman, or Yossi, whatever his hame is, goes and signs up) there is no yosslee@yahoo.com. The fake name thing is allowing people to perpetuate silly stuff when they have nothing to show. It's intentional.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 20, 2002.

I don't exist, yea, so what?

Aren't you the one who is riding on a high horse and is the only PHOTOGRAPHER here anyway? So your existence is of what value again?

So are you ready to take the challenge? Or do I need to give you my first name?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Instead of taking the challenge, you went to check on my non-existing email?

Why don;t you behave like a real photographer and take up that challenge, Jeff?

"I don't have to prove anything to you, yossi" Jeff would say.

Well then don't make sweeping statements.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Yossi, I don't think anyone would disagree with this, your most recent, post. Or scorn you for appreciating your gear. Taking pride in one's equipment doesn't make one any less of a photographer.

As noted above, Tiger Woods is pretty attached to his titanium drivers--so much so in fact that the Augusta National was redesigned to make the Master's more difficult. And Tiger still won.

In the end, the proper tools allow someone to expand his capabilities. Some people's imaginations are fueled by restriction (these folks use Leica M's), and others are fueled by expansion (these folks use Canon 1v's with motordrives and IS zooms). In the same way, some novelists write in long-hand on a legal pad while others use MS Word. Hemingway used a pencil.

The debate on this board usually comes down to the perception that some people care more about owning an expensive camera than using it to take pictures. But people use Leicas for no other reason than they enjoy doing so and it suits their current needs.

As some of us here don't feel the need to justify our choices, neither should you.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

I meant the post that begins, "Preston, I agree with most of what you've said. Leica don;t always fit the bill. Gears are tools. We need to be smart enuff to pick the right one for the job."

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

Preston..sure. I guess I will have to get use to the irony in this forum, for most parts.

Sometimes, you've gotta stand up for what you think is right. Or else, you'd be shooting Leicas without knowing why.

Thanks for commenting.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Has anyone seen Travis koh in a while?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), May 20, 2002.

Yawn... a lot of hot air in this and other threads from Yossi. Yossi's been butting heads in this and other threads with Rob and Jeff. Well, as anyone who's been reading this site for a while will know, both Jeff and Rob can back up what they say -- they post photos regularly and often. I don't always agree with them, but I respect them cause they're actually out there shooting. You? Your spelling does resemble a certain Travis that was here for a while...

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Hadji, and what about you? Have you ever stood up for what you believe in ,in this forum, and went against the tide?

I bet not.

You are just like the rest of most here, popping up from nowhere and joining the the rest from there. ;)

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

I would use my Leica point and shoot for 6 months.

-- Steve B. (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), May 20, 2002.

I've been lurking on this site for a while. Often, it's not even worth my time to say anything -- it would just add to the noise. You can learn a lot by keeping your mouth shut.

I think it's one thing to stand up for your beliefs, however, it's another to pointlessly clutter up multiple threads. For example, your comment in Ralph Barker's thread was pointless. He had nothing to do with this thread. When you start doing stuff like that you start looking like the other crackpots that show up every few months on this site.

-- Hadji (hadji_singh@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

It was a legitimate question in Ralph's post. Like your post above is of any point in my thread here?

crackpot?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Yo Yossi, give us some of your images done with a point and shoot. Show as an example in low light photography. Give me some justification to your statement.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), May 20, 2002.

I've got a friend at work who gets great shots from her Olympus Epic with a 35-70 zoom. I mean, I'm really envious. She has an intuitive sense of composition. She's tried other cameras, but she isn't comfortable with them.

It's more important to be familiar with the camera you use than to use one camera over another. It's even more important to not be satisfied until you get the image you want.

-- Steven Hupp (shupp@chicagobotanic.org), May 20, 2002.

>>.. the gears aren't important. Hence I am challenging them to prove it to me what they can do with a $50 p&s.
And to cloud the issue further, loookee these pictures for comparison. No need for a $50 P&S. I've got a $12 Lomo Smena from Freestyle. The other camera cost more than 150 times the Lomo's price but the pictures aren't 150 times better.
So why do I use the name brand camera more often? Because. What does all this prove? Make what you will of it.

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

How about $79.00? That's what I paid for my Olympus Epic point & shoot.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Here's one with the Epic.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Here's one with my $21.95 Holga.

But, then again, what's the point?

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Sorry...

Must remember to type jpg instead of html.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

My fingers just don't want to hit the right keys!

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Hopefully...

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

All right...just shoot me...

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Yossi,

My equipment is bigger than yours and I am not giving it up! No matter what your girl says, size does matter.

-- pinhead (blieb@sheridanross.com), May 20, 2002.

You can also check out Daniel Bayer's Point & Shoot Gallery for more Epic shots.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

I can't believe I wasted so much time reading this thread. But now that I have, I felt compelled to add something.

I am a professional photojournalist. I work every day, and have dedicated my life to my craft. I'm pretty confident that I can make nice images with anything. I personally hate shooting digital, but I'm asked to use D1's at work and I manage to make nice photographs. I've also gotten nice pictures with a cheap PS. For my personal work and long term projects, I shoot with leicas.

As any professional would tell you, in the end, the image is all that matters. If you can go into a situation and make a photograph that tells a story, conveys emotion or is graphically interesting to look at, it doesn't matter what camera you used to take it.

However, photography is both an art and a science. So technique, and the tools you choose to use, are all part of the creative process. People make beautiful photographs with cheap, even disposable cameras. And others choose to work with expensive Leicas and Hasselblads. Equipment is important. But that DOESN'T mean that photographers who use better equiment will make better photographs.

A good photographer will make nice images no matter what camera he or she is handed. But an untalented and non-creative photographer will make average or boring photographs with even the best cameras and lenses.

Instead of saying that equipment is important, I think it's more accurate to say that the equipment CHOICES a photographer makes are important to the image-making process. The actual camera doesn't matter, but using the right tools for the job will improve the end result. As I said before, in the end, only the image matters. In the final analysis, the equipment choices really only matter to the person making the photograph. Most viewers don't care how the image was made. Jim's work posted above is proof of that. I saw the images and I really don't care what camera he used. They would be very nice images no matter how they were made.

I use Lecia M's because of the excellent optical quality and the fact that they are small, quiet and discreet. Ergonomics and the quality feel of the camera are also benefits. Could I make the same images with an Fm2? Of course. Before I could afford leicas, I routinely used a Hexar classic. I work with leicas because for me, they offer features missing in other cameras. Professionals and amateurs who are serious and creative about their work will choose the best tools they can afford for the job they want to accomplish. For some, it's a plastic holga, for others an expensive Leica.

Yossi, taking a $50, all automatic P&S and making good images proves nothing. With a P&S, you're giving up a lot of creative control, since you have no exposure or dof control. A good photographer, however, would still be capable of making nice photographs. The thing is, most good photographers are too busy making nice images to worry about silly games such as the one you suggest.

For some artists, surrendering all control of the basic camera controls might be used as part of a creative exploration. For others, it would be a disaster because they need control over the image to express their ideas photographically.

I don't think anyone on this forum really believes that equipment doesn't matter at all. It's really a much more complicated issue than that. But it is important to realize that good equipment alone doesn't make a good photographer. Just because you can afford a leica doesn't make you talented. And if you can't (or don't want one), you can still produce wonderful photographs.

Yossi, may I respectfully suggest that you're oversimplifying the quotes you mentioned, and you're taking them too literally. The camera is important in the process of making the image. As I said earlier, the photograper must make many choices about equipment, film, etc. But in the end, the image is much more important. If anyone doesn't agree, maybe he should call himself a collector instead of a photographer.

Yossi, from the sarcastic tone of your post, I'm assuming you believe that equipment is important as it contributes to the final image. If so, I wholeheartedly agree.

In the context of this forum, which is a technical forum about Leica equipment, readers may be curious about what equipment choices a photographer made. There's nothing wrong with that. I personally have learned a lot on this forum. But it is all too easy to get caught up in all of the technical talk and forget that photography is a creative medium. I think that the people on this forum who say that equipment doesn't matter don't entirely mean what they're saying. I think they're trying to make the important point that equipment is only one very small piece of the creative puzzle.

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), May 20, 2002.

Very well reasoned.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 20, 2002.

I mostly agree with Noah...

Though I perfectly understand the "challenge" Yossi proposed in fact to some people who say only the man (or woman) behind the camera matters.

In fact rhere is a link between the capabilities of the equipement and what you can POTENTIALLY do or not do... Then the expoloitation of the potential is yours.

I dropped my 35 mm outfit completely to go for a SFRF + MF SLR compbination because this combination suited better the kind of pictures I like to make and because modern AF-SLR's diappointed me considerably as what they offer in superior capabilities concerns only sport/action photography, both activities I don't intend to tackle.

The original misunderstanding which provoked such an avalanche of posts is due to the confusion between the importance of the ADEQUATION of the equipment to realize the photographs YOU WANT and the mandatory use of a Leica.

I don't think Leica M cameras (or for all intent and purpose any 35 mm RF camera) are universal (neither any other camera). When you need high quality very large enlargement for example a larger format will give you a real advantage.

The question to know if you can do great pictures with a point and shoot camera (even a disposable one) is totally irrelevant... OF COURSE YOU CAN but within the built-in technical limitations of these cameras. As they will limit you in terms of possible subjects and in the technical quality you'll obtain in the end.

Many point and shoot cameras do not have a fine lens and even if the best of them are respectably good, they have not the same maximum aperture an equivalent focal length from an SFRF camera have. A disposable camera has a fixed focus small aperture questionable quality (at best) lens... To say these cameras can do the same picture a 35mm SFRF camera can do in all occasions is stupid and pointless.

What few seem to understand here is the fact those good images obtained with such equipments are whether the fruit of luck (interesting subject placed within the tight limitations of these cameras) or the research by a relatively skilled photographer of compatible subjects. So if a fine photographer has to operate them he or she can be able to obtain good shots but his (her) skill will be limited by the equipment, not his (her) creativity.

Without going to these extremities, and the only point I have to disagree with our friend Noah concenrs the capabilty of a traditional 35mm SLR like a FM2 (I had an FM, an FE and an FE 2) to do the same job a SFRF can do in all circumstances.

I consider only an SFRF camera is able to give you the necessary degree of certainty in focusing at very wide aperture because the rangefinder system is a binary system (in focus or not) as opposed to the eye appreciation of the degree of sharpness you obtain through a ground glass.

I know many SLR lenses (not zooms) may have a wide aperture but as to use them actually wide open they are notoriously inferior to their RF counterparts. The main advantage of a wide aprerturee lens on an SLR is linked to the clarity of the image on the ground glass helping the focusing process.

It works more the same way it works on a TLR with a focusing lens being of a wider aperture than the picture taking lens. For example if you use a 50mm f/1.4 on your SLR you'll (try to) focus properly with this lens at full aperture and actually you use it at f/2 of f/2.8 (or at a smaller aperture) the DOF will take care of the mistakes you are liable to make when appreciating the degree of sharpness on the ground glass.

With a SFRF you'll simply focus perfectly with the rangefinder and use your lens wide open.

Another point is the fact you might need a camera which is unobstrusive and not too conspicuous... A 35 mm SLR is by construction bigger and noisier than a SFRF camera, moreover when it is a high end modern all integrated one like a F5 for example. There are many circumstances you won't be able to take the picture you want with a 35mm SLR because of these limitations.

Then, but it is a more personal opinion, I see no reason (in the kind of subject I tackle) to limit the format used to 35 mm film when your camera is as massive, noisy and conspicuous as a medium format SLR... This is the reason why I use the combination of an SFRF and a medium format SLR. But someone dealing with sport or wildlife photography may well be inspired to use a modern high end SLR (I think these are the subjects they are optimized for).

The human being behind the camera matters in the end as he or she will be able or not to exploit the capabilities of his (her) equipment but the equipment may be as decisive if he or she has an equipment unable to shoot properly a subject... Try to take the picture of a flying eagle in the distant sky with a $50 point and shoot camera and you'll easily understand what I mean.

That's why saying equpment will do everything is stupid but to believe equipment doesn't matter is equally stupid if you don't want to be lmimitied bu it in your choice of subjects and in the potential quality of its rendition.

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 21, 2002.

Well said Noah. Well said Mr Weill.

That's all folks. At the end of the day, the challenge is till opened. Only you will know what to make of it.

Happy shooting.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

Noah, just to add to what you have said.

I did not say one will give better pictures with a Leica, neither did I say you cannot produce nice pictures with a cheap P&S. I believe they can and cannot depends on who is using them for whatever purposes.

The POINT I am raising is, why would so many agree on the statement :"The tools aren't important anymore than the photographer" when all you see in this forum is gear-talk?

Shouldn't all these people be spending time perfecting their techniques with a 60 year-old lens rather than arguing whether to get the latest sumicron or sumilux? If they thought the tools are secondary?

I believe what you said when you said this issue is not as simple as I took literally. But shouldn't all these people reflect on their ironism?

And the guy who showed me the LOMO vs Leica comparison? What does it prove he asked. Well, it proved that both can take almost the same pictures. He was shooting buildings for god's sake! What should those pictures prove?!

Shoot the LOMO in a low-lit room and tell me why he has to have something like a Leica! or Nikon! or Contax!

Some people will make sweeping statements and get away with it.

happy shotting Noah.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 21, 2002.

François,

You're right. An FM2 isn't interchangable with a leica M system. If it were, I'd have a few Nikon's and a lot more $$$ in my pocket. Clearly most of us who work with Leica cameras do so for similar reasons.

For my work, I would estimate that about 70% COULD be shot with a good manual SLR. But any pro or serious amateur knows that the extra 30% could be the best opportunity to make a really special photograph. If using an M camera gives me an extra advantage, I'll take it.

Yossi,

Some of what I said was directed more at the general public than your specific post. I know you never said that one would get better pictures with a leica. I also didn't mean to discount your challenge. It would be a great exercise, especially for people who are overly obsessed with their equipment.

I also agree that generally, people should think more thoroughly before making a big sweeping statement about an issue. But it's a free forum, and everyone can say what they want. "Shouldn't all these people be spending time perfecting their techniques with a 60 year-old lens rather than arguing whether to get the latest sumicron or sumilux? If they thought the tools are secondary? "

Yossi, I couldn't agree more. But I guess since this is a technical forum, there are many people who are mostly reading to get technical information.

Like I said before, if they really believed that equipment doesn't matter at all, they wouldn't be on this forum.

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), May 21, 2002.