people get so enamored about their photography equipment
that when they meet a fellow photographer, they can talk at length about their
canon mark 5d iii or their Nikon d3. it’s not rare to go to photo forums and
see the debates between the canon fans and the nikon fans. I personally prefer
nikons though I have used in the past, when I was shooting film, a canon ftb
and a canon ae1. my love of nikons stems from how their gear looks, their
aperture priority mode, and maybe a good dose of marketing. though canon has
always had top of the line, nikon somehow managed to position their camera as
status symbols with so many great photographers swearing by nikon. so I call
this guy but for nearly half an hour it was a litany of effusive talk about
photoshop, lightroom, canon cameras and lighting equipment. I have never been
that much into gear. of course, if you’re photographer you may have some liking
or bond with a particular brand but my point has always been that it’s not the
camera that makes the photographer. I’ve always thought that these guys who
would tell you how canon is superior to nikon would be hard pressed if shown a
photograph to tell you if it were taken by a nikon or a canon. plus, it’s
sterile. I really don’t know what you can get out of an hour’s conversation of
canon vs nikon, aperture vs lightroom. I don’t use either anyway. I come from a
background of film, so I was trained to use as much photography skill that I
can pack into producing a very good image right out of the camera. so, to me,
the camera is only the extension of my eye. any artist may feel more comfortable
using a particular tool rather than another but it’s not like, if you gave jimi
hendrix a gibson guitar he would be utterly incapable of playing a note. photography
plays by the role of any artform. it’s not the tool but rather how you can use
it, what you can do with it.
if you like photography, chime in. my photography can be seen here.
