I came across an interesting “debate” between the two. Ken Rockwell wrote an entry stating that “Your Camera Doesn’t Matter” which reads in part:
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.
Michael Reichmann wrote a rebuttal entitled (surprise! surprise!) “Your Camera Does Matter” and his shock quote is:
Let’s get something straight right off. Photography is not possible without a camera and a lens. (Don’t talk to me about the camera obscura and pinhole cameras. The pinhole is in essence a lens, and the room or box is indeed a camera).
There is also the forum discussions on luminous-landscape and on dpreview.
To settle this important dispute once and for all (and since I know better, of course), I put Michael Reichmann vs Ken Rockwell in googlefight.com and here is the result:
Sorry Michael…
March 15, 2008 at 1:09 am |
Sorry, but what does the Google search prove besides the fact Ken Rockwell is a blow-hard?
March 15, 2008 at 2:22 am |
Ah, but if you googlefight Ken Rockwell vs. Luminous Landscape, you get the opposite result!
March 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm |
For all of those who think the equipment makes the photo: buy a Nikon D3 and have your 6 year old take it to school for a few weeks.
For all of those who think the photographer makes the photo: take a Canon Ixus to a rockconcert or to your grandchild’s birthday.
As usual, the truth lies in the middle but it doesn’t get a chance to stick its head out. A good eye, some technical skills, a camera that matches both eyes and skills and a photo-opportunity that matches all of the above – that is what make a photo.
I wouldn’t dare take my K100D to snap penguins at the South Pole or Keith Richards in concert. My son would rather take the G5 anywhere and a pro will depend on a full-frame 5000$+ piece of equipment with 3 times that much in lenses. I guess all of us get the shots we want and/or deserve.
Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not! Probably my shots would not improve if a wizard turned my K100D into a D3/E3/1DS-Mark3 today. A pro would take great shots with my K100D but he would feel slightly confined by the limited scenarios the technical capabilities of my camera dictate.
You choose or you loose! Select what suits your creativity, experience, time/money available and willingness to get technical.
Whatever you do, for godssake enjoy photography to the limit!
March 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
I think Rockwell (yes, a blowhard) wasn’t trying to say anyone could do with a Box Brownie that a pro was doing with a D3, 1Ds, etc.
I think Reichmann (at times, also a blowhard) was taking Rockwell’s argument too literally. What did surprise me about the whole thing was how much crap MR took after his Sony F828 review and how much he used ‘Rockwellian’ methods to defend his favorable opinion of the camera – but now he went in a contrary direction.
What KR didn’t do hard enough and what MR ignored is that you need to focus on the equipment that delivers your vision. If a Diana with color neg does it for you, then great. If you need ultimate in low-light, then a D3 may be required. If you have to have large prints, then a 1Ds Mk III is probably the answer.
I liken the argument to race cars: if you want to run at Indy, you need an Indy car – the jalopy ain’t gonna cut it. But if you want to have fun on a Saturday night at the fairgrounds, the ol’ stocker is the ticket. Not that one’s better than the other, they’re just different.
And I think that what happens far too often, especially since digitals taken over, is that most people want the greatest in equipment without knowing what the hell it is they want to do with it.
March 16, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
Hi there,
@Mike & Jason: I didn’t think anyone would byte the bullet and you are doing a rather good job at it. Thanks for your comments. I like what you said and I would say that you are right: the truth is somewhere in the middle
@smably: so it looks like my way to sort it once and for all doesn’t work. The world is a complicated place.
Take care
Joel
March 16, 2008 at 10:33 pm |
and by the way, there is another thread on dpreview about this debate: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=27162906
March 17, 2008 at 1:39 am |
“I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke.” — Ken Rockwell – http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm
People, please stop talking about Ken Rockwell as if he provides valuable insights. His site is nothing more than his way of being a troll.
March 18, 2008 at 5:17 am |
Brian, frankly I think Ken’s writings stray toward megalomania. That “about” page just almost seems like he printed his own license to be wrong. I think he’s more serious than he lets on, he just is writing that in the way someone tries to flounder their way after making an off-color joke that elicits anger instead of laughter.
And if he’s trying to be a humorist, he falls flat. He’s not smart enough in his writing to be clever nor witty enough to deliver the joke. Plus, for what it is, his friends must be pretty self-centered if they “get the joke,” because nobody else is laughing. He spends way too much time filling in the details (tests and whatnot) and not enough being wry – a la, The Onion.
Whatever one thinks about Rockwell, regardless if he is a dope and/or troll, the article does serve a purpose in that it still touches upon the “does your camera matter” debate.
May 26, 2008 at 7:39 am |
This isn’t a fair comparison because Ken Rockwell’s website is his name, and thus people recognize and search for that, whereas Michael Reichmann’s website is “Luminous Landscape”.
A Google Fight with Luminous Landscape vs. Ken Rockwell yields 2,150,000 vs. 367,000 in favour of LL (Michael Reichmann).
June 3, 2008 at 9:58 am |
When KR says Cameras & MP’s don’t matter he actually means that a good photographer will make a good picture with ANY camera.
MR respected as he is, has to me, taken this too literally.
Neither is fool-proof in what they say.
Certain prophets say different things to get the message through to different minds.
So the bottom line is, “of course your camera does not matter”
AND of course,
“the camera matters” …both are TRUE!
BUT the REAL message is:
“what TYPE of camera does not matter” because
the REAL message is:
“Knowest what thou doest with thy camera!”
If you don’t understand this, it does not matter!
otto
June 3, 2008 at 10:10 am |
The Prophet OTTO’s sermon on whatever Mount you are sitting on, is this:
No camera is more important than knowledge of the principles of photography and just WHAT works according to the Laws of Physics.
Even if you knew nothing about the Laws of Physics, you can still make a good picture if you knew how to get the best out of your equipment. In other words, know what works and what doesn’t.
Finally, NO camera is any good, if you do not have Imagination.
June 10, 2008 at 4:51 am |
While Ken Rockwell may not be a god, he does have some good insights. Nobody is right 100% of the time. And nobody is wrong 100% of the time. The fact is, I have put to use some of Ken’s advice and it has helped me make better pictures.
I think Ken gets a lot of flak from other photographers because they’re threatened by anyone who believes that anybody can take good pictures if they try. Professional photographers have invested a lot of time and money in their craft.
This is the same knee-jerk reaction that you get from any “professional” that places themselves above others simply because they have some knowledge that the rest of us don’t possess. I see a lot of this in the IT industry.
Bottom line: People are stupid.
September 5, 2008 at 11:32 pm |
Ansel Adams said “The single most important component
of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”
I wouldn’t want to argue with him! Are you pictures good enough that you would?
All these anti Ken Rockwell people are the typical type who love to pick holes in anything. They know best about everything too. No one else is allowed an opinion. Opinion being the magic word!
Next week they are going to be hitting out on Salvador Dhali for using the wrong type of brushes.
September 9, 2008 at 8:16 am |
People that argue over dumb points like this are idiots. Get whichever camera you can afford and go take pictures! Or get some other hobby! You have too much time on your hands.
October 22, 2008 at 1:09 am |
when Ken Rockwell said that, i think he forgot that the sensors is the body ^^,
ok, i agree that in great lightning conditions the difference will be less visible, but in general the sensor will play a role as important as the lens.
November 18, 2008 at 10:52 pm |
I think that what people fail to realize, is that while it is true that your camera does not matter IF YOU DON’T GET THE BASICS RIGHT, saying that “your camera does not matter” as a blanket statement is actually quite misleading and, frankly, stupid.
If someone thinks they can handle a professional studio “commercial product shoot”-type photo assignment with a Quicksnap, they are absolutely, resolutely, categorically, WRONG. The reality is that to deliver the look and quality that these clients want and need, you ned professional lighting and camera equipment. Period. End of story. Try and photography birds or wild animals with a Quicksnap. Good luck. See the point?
Maybe if one’s only photographic endeavour in life is to create abstract art by photographing lego blocks, treas or any abstract pattern such as building windows light by sunset, etc., yeah, I guess the photographic requirements do not necessarily dictate very high-end equipment. But some people, in addition to composing a nice photograph, also require (or simply like!) image quality to go along with hit.
So, one can certainly create interesting images regardless of what camera he or she is using. However, your camera does matter, insofar as image quality is concerned. To not recognize this fact is to be, simply, ignorant and dumb.
P.S. While he describes himself as a photographer, I don’t personally consider any of Rockwell’s photos to be that good…
November 22, 2008 at 8:32 pm |
Ken Rockwell is my hero.
March 11, 2009 at 8:34 pm |
It is rather interesting two persons behind the two of my favorite websites dueling it out on a specific subject.
I enjoy KR’s work for he differs from most photographers by coming from an engineering background instead of art, which gives me a (false) hope of if I work hard and trying hard in learning, may be I can be better. I also enjoy his candid and enthusiastic style of writing, like reading a diary. On the other hand, I also enjoy MR’s work and the contributions of others to his website. I feel that I have been progressing by frequenting their sites and trying to put their theories into practice.
I feel the title of KR’s article although exaggerating a bit, but is very well intentioned for the effect. After reading the whole article I feel I understand where he is coming from and feel he encourages us to stop waiting for the next better camera over the horizon and go enjoy what we have today, paying more attention to what is in front of us instead of bitching or over indulging what is in our hand.
As a technical person I also understand where MR is coming from, which is technical correctness, but I do believe many of us understand if “Your camera doesn’t matter” is a true statement, may be the majority us will be using pinhole camera today. I also believe many of us knows about the meaning of “right tool for the task” and “there is no one size fits all”.
There is an old Chinese saying of “If you blindly believe everything in the book, it is better that there is no book”. So please believe in what you feel is truth and may peace be with all of us.
April 15, 2009 at 3:09 am |
I love it when people who are new to photography pick up on some of Ken-boy’s writings and profess them to “make sense” or “work for them”. Ken Rockwell has no earthly idea what he’s talking about half the time. I don’t know a single professional shooter or Photoshop expert who has a high opinion of the guy. He’s all about web clicks, not about actually researching and understanding and spreading knowledge. He’s a tool. Follow his simpleton advice at your own risk.
April 29, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
Ken Rockwell is such an ignorant and obnoxious douche.
May 19, 2009 at 5:26 am |
I used to like Ken’s site and info. Yes, some of it is useful, but lately he does come across as an obnoxious know-it-all, you know, that kind of kid in high school that you all wanted to give a wedgie.
Noe he bloviates about everything. His stupid piece on “socialism” today was so off-base. Convenient how he forgot Scandinavia. Hey, those Finns make a pretty good phone, for socialists!
And sorry, Ken, I don’t give a rat’s ass about pics of your kid. Do you want to see pics of my cat? I doubt it. Almost anyone can have a kid. So what?
I sense a lot of megalomania in his site now. I bet he is pretty obnoxious in real-life, probably even more that me. Ha ha!
But, again, thanks for the info Ken. Maybe just tone it down a bit..
A Former Admirer