[biz-engineer]

When you shoot with a smartphone, and the picture turns out to be a bad one, you can always blame the camera. Now, imagine the camera is super expensive, the picture turns out bad, who is responsible for the result? You! Ouch you got the pressure now, next time you'll fine tune that composition and exposure before you press that shutter button, otherwise you'll look like what? You'll look like a bad photog! Moreover, let's do a blind test with randomly chosen photographers, one group is given a no brand camera (the control group), the other group is given a Leica. Now, imagine the pressure on the Leica group, they can't afford to make bad pictures and lose face ("what? you spent 15 grands on a camera and one lens to produce THAT?"). Have placebo, pygmalion (yes!you can do it!) and milgram experiment (under authority "you gotta take that picture or what?") effects been studied on photographers? If the camera is red, does it take better pictures?

[AfterPentax Mark II]

If you make a bad picture either the lens, the camera and, if appropriate, the flash is to blame. However, if you make a first class picture it is you that made the picture. The lens, camera and flash were only there to help you. Indeed a red camera takes better pictures if, oh no, it is you that make the better pictures with the red camera and if you fail you can only revert to telling that you usually use a silver camera and are not used to a red one.

[35mmfilmfan]

How are we defining a 'good picture' ? One which pleases the photographer (with whatever equipment), or one which pleases a putative audience, who may have heard of a few camera makes, but often have no idea of the effect using a particular make or model has on the final image ? Several of my favourite images (not necessarily 'good' ones) were taken with a K10 and kit lens - even some with a second-hand bridge camera held together with gaffer tape !

Who decides ?

[Lord Lucan]

one group is given a no brand camera (the control group), the other group is given a Leica. Now, imagine the pressure on the Leica group, they can't afford to make bad pictures and lose face ("what? you spent 15 grands on a camera .....

Only perhaps if they had bought the Leica. If they only had the Leica on loan for the test (as implied by "given") they would not feel such pressure to excel over the riff-raff - at least I wouldn't. But when I was regularly using both 6x7 and 35mm film cameras, I certainly took more care with the 6x7 shots for all sorts of reasons, including fewer pictures on a roll and the fact that there was no point in choosing to use it over the 35mm, and lugging the weight, unless the shot was something more special. Very often if I got a good shot with the 35mm I would return another day for the same scene with the 6x7 when the weather was ideal for it, and taking more care over the shot, using tripod, spot meter etc.

Then again, I can't get inside the head of someone who buys a new Leica because I would not myself. I do know that I would have the same outlook taking a picture with any modern digital camera (MFT, APS-C or FF), and I'm pretty sure the resulting pictures would look the same.

[pschlute]

Wait......people take pictures with a Leica ?

[ramseybuckeye]

I don't think it does, but it definitely make some people look at the pictures differently. You could shoot a nearly identical photo with two different brands, and the owners of each would say the one from their brand was better (if they knew). It's human nature to reinforce your decisions.

[AggieDad]

biz-engineer - You raise an interesting point. We always want to justify our decisions, choices, expenditures. We hate buyer remorse. And we aren't always honest about our own abilities and limitations. So we tend to reach up to a higher shelf even when our needs don't justify it. Then we work hard to convince ourselves that we have had some kind of improvement or positive experience that proves our decision the right one.

I learned about tools and abilities from my father who impressed upon me that it was a poor craftsman who blamed his tools.

Pop knew how to use whatever tools were at hand, and built our 3-bedroom summer cottage in the late 1940s with a hammer (no nail guns then) and hand saws (power saws were expensive). So when I went to college and tried to blame my poor grades on bad pencils and pens without ink, he wasn't buying it.

I guess I learned my lesson – I never looked covetously at a Leica – although maybe a K-3 Mk III ...

[stevebrot]

He who has no camera gets no photos and the camera I have with me is the one that gets used. I have managed memorable results with all of them.


Steve

(...will buy a Leica if and when I wear out the Bessa R3M...)

[AstroDave]

I dare say I take better crappy pictures with my K-1 than I do with my K-3!?

[BarryE]

Unless you are shooting for a commission, there is no such thing as a bad photo. Any photograph can be used to develop skills and a good eye. So it follows that any camera can be used to progress and improve. Photography is a mindset (a lot more can be written about this, of course) so the gear shouldn't matter. A fancy camera will likely just reduce the risk that the technicalities (eg exposure etc.) will be wrong.

So, for some, having something expensive to use will make them take things more seriously. Photography is no different.

Would the ultimate camera would be a flame red Leica? Maybe with a Bluetooth feature that pings nearby users to say look at me ...

[StiffLegged]

Now you know why a fair number of Leicas get bunged in a safe deposit box or glass case - owner couldn’t photograph a barn door without help…

(although many years ago I had the use of one for a weekend and did some very satisfactory shots with it as light and spring foliage played for me. Go figure.)

[biz-engineer]

Only perhaps if they had bought the Leica. If they only had the Leica on loan for the test (as implied by "given") they would not feel such pressure to excel over the riff-raff - at least I wouldn't. But when I was regularly using both 6x7 and 35mm film cameras

When I shot film, I shot less images and avoided snapshots, simply because each exposure costed pocket money.

[35mmfilmfan]

The same phenomenon occurs with birding - often people retire, seek a hobby that will get them outdoors (in good weather) and decide on birding. They can often be identified (although there is as yet no field guide) as they have the appearance of people who have entered an 'outdoors store' and ordered highly-priced but impractical outdoor clothing, then gone to an optics shop and bought the most expensive scopes, bins and cameras they can find.

If they can be persuaded to admit their ignorance, they may be able to accept advice or help from other birders, to assist them in enjoying their endeavours. Many do not, and according to second-hand dealers in such items part with their equipment at ridiculously low prices, frequently dropping several thousand pounds.

These are often known as 'ATGNI' - All The Gear, No Idea.

Having said that, I have both Leica bins and scope - both of which have been used at least weekly for over twenty years.

[Dartmoor Dave]

When you shoot with a smartphone, and the picture turns out to be a bad one, you can always blame the camera. Now, imagine the camera is super expensive, the picture turns out bad, who is responsible for the result? You!

Now you've got my head spinning with photographic syllogisms:

My smartphone has a camera in it.
I take bad photos with my smartphone.
Therefore smartphone cameras take bad photos.
(False.)

Great photographers use expensive top-of-the-range cameras.
I use an expensive top-of-the-range camera.
Therefore I am a great photographer.
(False.)

Good photographers don't blame their gear when a photo comes out badly.
Fred is a good photographer.
Therefore Fred doesn't blame his gear when a photo comes out badly.
(And finally we've got a valid syllogism! Yay!)

But oh how easily a photo-syllogism can turn and bite you:

Good photographers don't blame their gear when a photo comes out badly.
Fred doesn't blame his gear when a photo comes out badly.
Therefore Fred is a good photographer.
(False. The distribution of the second premise "don't blame their gear" is invalid.)


The trap that photographers fall into the most often though is the old post hoc ergo propter hoc:

My photos aren't very good.
The new FuCaNikon XY3000Z has got a 1 gigapixel sensor and can autofocus in total darkness on things that haven't actually happened yet.
Therefore if I buy a FuCaNikon XY3000Z my photos will be great.

[Lord Lucan]

it was a poor craftsman who blamed his tools

Not least because good craftsmen won't be using bad tools. I reckon I'm pretty experienced at hand crafts and have spent time in workshops. A professional craftsman soon recognises and throws away a poor tool, and we were quick to dismiss some brands as rubbish. I have a cheap hand cross-cut saw from my father-in-law which will not cut a straight line and after a few inches it binds in the cut. You can see the teeth all lean to one side of the blade and I now only use it for rough fence work.

But some years ago I treated myself to a Sheffield-made Talisman saw by Tyzack-Turner - expensive but it cuts like a dream. I can cut timber within 1/2 mm of a line with it. I don't know if you can even buy such a saw today, the market is flooded wth Chinese trash supported by the fact that most is bought by amateurs who mostly don't recognise it as trash because they do not use it heavily (if at all). My previous neighbour had a shed full of garden tools he rarely used.

On the other hand, there is a law of diminishing returns. In the vehicle maintenance trade (one of my workshops) Snap-On tools are the Leica of the business but shockingly expensive. I do have a few but they are not 4x better than eg King Dick, but 4x the price last time I looked. When I buy stuff I look for a middle ground.

...will buy a Leica if and when I wear out the Bessa R3M...

I used to walk home from school with a bunch of kids kicking a "ball" as we went. We had two "balls", an old plimsole (=trainer) and a tennis ball. Our leader kept the tennis ball in his pocket and said we would only use it after we lost the plimsole. We never did lose the plimsole (how could we have? - it didn't roll).

Unless you are shooting for a commission, there is no such thing as a bad photo.

As long as the word "bad" is in the English language, there will be such a thing. You should see the results of the occasional "Bad Photo" contests that are held. I remember one winner was a heavily out of focus image titled "My Right Ear". The contestant, using a P&S I gather, had meant to take a wedding scene but inadvertantly held the camera pointing backwards.

When I shot film, I shot less images and avoided snapshots, simply because each exposure costed pocket money.

Adding to what I said about taking with a 6x7, in film days the cost of getting 35mm film processed and small prints made was very competitive. On the other hand, 120 film could only be taken to a professional lab.