Is acquiring high end gear snobbery or does it really make a difference?

The value of experience

I recently came across a post entitled: “Sommelier or Snob” on the “Luminous Landscape” blog. In it the author (Mr. Michael Reichmann) said:

I had dinner with a friend recently; the wine list included bottles ranging from $40 to $400. My friend asked if I had ever had such expensive wines as those on the last page of the list. I replied that I had, and though I love fine wines, especially full-bodied reds, my palette simply was not educated enough to differentiate the more exotic vintages.

I commented that at the retail store I rarely bought anything above $20, because I found more than enough wines in the $15-$20 range to satisfy my everyday tastes.

This then lead to a conversation about cameras and lenses – which is the point of this tale. My friend, who is a quite casual photographer, asked me if the multi-thousand dollar cameras and lenses that I own are worth that expense, or are they, like expensive wines, a matter of – in his word – snobbery?

After some thought, and a sip or two of a very nice California Cabernet that was on the table, I replied that – yes– I usually could tell the difference between images from high-end cameras and lenses vs. those of a less pedigreed lineage. The implication, of course, is that “high-end” is synonymous, much of the time, with “expensive“.

He goes on to say:

Similarly, a sommelier, or someone for whom wine is a passion and also likely a profession, can tell the difference between types, vintages, and other variables, including price point, while I can’t. In each instance one of us is a pro and the other is an amateur, with all that those words entail in terms of training, experience and taste.

And concludes with:

So to argue whether a wine or a lens is worth a certain price requires that one understand the background of the person making the argument. If they have the credentials, and make an observation or judgment on something within their field of expertise, then maybe one should listen-up. If they’re a neophyte with an opinion, and not much else, then maybe just nod, smile, and have another sip of wine.

It seems to me that there are three types of people: 1) Those who don’t know much about a particular topic, but who within the limits of their budgets and their knowledge do that best that they can; 2) Those who are really invested in a particular topic, have considerable knowledge and experience and who arguably know the finer points: 3) Those who don’t know much but pretend that that do: poseurs. I fall (I hope) into the first category.

Can I tell the difference between high end gear and low end gear? Up to a point yes. I can certainly tell the difference between photographs I took with low end, small sensor compact cameras (e.g. the Panasonic Lumix ZS3 and ZS7 that I used to have) and the somewhat higher end (but still not really high end Sony RX100 and Nex5N) cameras that I now use. Could I tell the difference between a high end Nikon camera and a REALLY high end Nikon camera? I doubt it.

And does it really matter? Isn’t it really about the resulting image? I’m in two minds about this one. If you make your money taking pictures then I imagine that you will want cameras with great image quality; which are convenient to use; which are protected against the elements; which will run forever etc. and that to get this you will need a considerable financial investment. I can also imagine that you will probably need the best lenses e.g. for sports photography you will undoubtedly need long fast, long focal length lenses and these don’t come cheap.

However, most of us are not professional photographers and can’t afford this kind of investment so we do what we can. This doesn’t mean that we can’t make decent pictures. I used to carry my Pansonic Lumix ZS cameras with me everywhere and so took a lot of pictures with them – some of which I really like even as I acknowledge the less than stellar image quality (particularly under certain conditions). I even have some pictures taken with an ancient Iphone 3GS that I quite like. Would I want to take pictures of a hunting Cheetah with it? Not a chance (but then we don’t get a lot of hunting cheetahs in NY state) but within it’s limits and my intended purpose (e.g. web sharing and small prints) it can be fine.

Finally I’m always suspicious of people who seem to be saying “I have the skills, the knowledge and the experience and you don’t so keep your opinions to yourself”. In my former professional life (not at all related to photography) I met quite a lot of people who made this type of claim and in many cases this did not lead to their opinions being worth listening to. Sometimes twenty years of experience is really one year of experience 20 times. I’m not at all implying that this is the case with Mr. Reichmann who seems to be incredibly knowledgeable and experienced and whose articles I always read with great pleasure. I merely suggest that not all of those who claim experience and knowledge have it.

On the other hand some of us don’t have great experience or knowledge, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that we have nothing to say and should keep silent.

Fascinating old photographs – some of the earliest

I’ve always been fascinated by old photographs. I’m considering starting a collection, but I don’t really know where to start. Maybe I’ll just begin by going to flea markets and selecting those that I like and which meet my limited funds and then go from there.

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce is a French photography pioneer who is credited with capturing the oldest surviving photograph of a real world scene, a print made back in 1825. In addition to that famous image, titled View from the Window at Le Gras, Niépce also created a number of other photos that are recognized as being some of the earliest photos ever made.

Niépce dubbed his early photographic creations “heliographs,” or drawings created with the sun. There are reportedly only 16 of these early Niépce heliographs in the world today, making them exceedingly rare.

During Niépce’s career, he brought six of these photographs to England in hopes of showing them to King George IV and the Royal Society. He returned to France without having done so, but ended up leaving 3 of the photos behind in England.

One is a photo of what appears to be a graveyard scene, one is a portrait of Le Cardinal d’Amboise, and one is an image of Christ carrying the cross:

via These Are Three of the Earliest Photos Ever Made.

Garrison Landing

View of the US Military Academy at West Point from Garrison Landing.

According to Wikipedia:

The Garrison Landing Historic District, also known as Garrison’s Landing, is a small commercial and residential area located between what is now the Metro-North Hudson Line and the Hudson River in Garrison, New York, United States. Its buildings were mostly erected in the 1850s, around the time the Hudson River Railroad, later the New York Central, laid the tracks. Much of the construction was spearheaded by the president of a local ferry company to provide rental housing for local workers. His descendants lived in the area until the late 20th century and led efforts to preserve it, founding and helping to run two organizations for that purpose.

Saint Joseph’s Chapel, Garrison, NY.

Gazebo in waterfront park. Not such a spectacular picture, but the site is of some historical significance. Wikipedia says:

The town of Garrison, New York, was the filming site for scenes in “Yonkers”. In the opening credits, the passenger train is traveling along the Hudson River. Provided by the Strasburg Rail Road, the train is pulled by Pennsylvania Railroad 1223 (now located in the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania) retrofitted to resemble a New York Central & Hudson River locomotive. The locomotive used in “Put on Your Sunday Clothes” was restored specifically for the film and can be seen at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, Pennsylvania.

The Poughkeepsie (Metro-North station) trackside platform was used at the beginning when Dolly was on her way to Yonkers.

The church scene was filmed on the grounds of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, but the church’s facade was constructed only for the film. New York City scenes were filmed on the 20th Century-Fox lot in California. Some of the exteriors still exist.

The Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations further elaborates:

For location filming, the town of Garrison, on the Hudson River, upstate New York, was ‘beautified’ to the tune of half a million dollars. Garrison is on Highway 9d, about 30 miles north of New York City , just over the Hudson from West Point Military Academy.

Some of the movie’s dressing remains, including the gazebo in Waterfront Park (though this was replaced in the Seventies, when the original temporary wooden structure rotted), and the fake barbershop façade.

I like cats!

Building on Times Square

We went into New York City with our friends Ken and Doreen, to see a performance of Hugh Jackman’s one man show. As we were passing through Times Square in noticed this interesting building and took the picture. I liked the bright colors typical of Times Square and the curving line.

Taken in December 2011 with a Panasonic Lumix ZS-7