The camera is, beyond any doubt, the least important element in the making of any photograph – and by far the most discussed.

Photographers argue equipment matters incessantly in a manner that would do medieval theology proud: Canon or Nikon? Hasselblad or Mamiya? Is a Tamron lens as sharp as a Sigma? How many angels can, in fact, dance on the head of a pin?

All of this, of course, is total evasion. It’s easier to make superficial distinctions about angels and their behavior than it is to live a spiritual life. It’s easier to talk about camera gear than to debate esthetics. It’s easier to blame the lens than it is to refine the photographer’s vision.

That said, though, I can obsess about gear with the best of them. I have suffered my share of Nikon lust. I have agonized over the question of changing camera systems. I have drifted through the B&H web site spinning elaborate rationalizations for spending tens of thousands of dollars on really pretty equipment, sure in my heart that it will pay for itself, somehow. (It doesn’t.)

Really, we’re talking about two separate issues here, and it’s healthier to address them separately: They are photography, and the owning of fine equipment.

If simply making interesting pictures is your goal – and isn’t that what photography is about? – practically any working equipment will do. Unless you’re practicing a specialized field, such as newspaper photojournalism or medical photography, you can take stunningly good photographs with a $50 point-and-shoot. The best advice for beginners here is short and sweet: Spend your money on film and processing, not equipment. Your photography will get much better, much faster, if you shoot a lot of pictures with a cheap camera than if you buy a premium camera and shoot only now and then. A new Nikon F5 body equals (pre-digital prices) roughly 100 rolls of processed color film, or 3,600 photographs. That’s quite an apprenticeship.

If, on the other hand, you want indulge the pleasure of owning fine camera equipment, that’s great, and a big part of me is right there with you. Just as some people love owning Jaguars, others love great cameras. The silky, jewel-like feel of a Nikon FM2N or a Pentax LX in the hand is incredibly seductive. Just don’t confuse this particular pleasure with photography. Think a more expensive camera will make you a better photographer? I know people whose photography is actually limited by the fine, expensive gear they choose to own. They can’t bear the risk that they might damage or lose that wonderful camera or lens if they take it out and use it. For me, that’s a bad trade-off. It’s also what insurance is for.

OK, you’ve stayed with me so far. Now you’re getting impatient and want me actually to answer the question: What kind of camera do you use?

For 35mm, which is roughly half nature shooting in the field and half studio work under lights, I switched in early 2002 from Pentax to Canon. This was an expensive decision, but justified solely and entirely by Canon’s miraculous image stabilized lenses, which add two full stops of hand holdability. I sold off my Pentax autofocus gear and an old and ailing Pentax LX and bought a used Canon A2E and three zooms: the 20-35 f/2.8 L; the 28-135 f/4-5.6 IS; and the 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS.Later I added an EOS 3, which, as of 2007, with the plunge in film equipment prices, is one of the best camera deals around if bought used.

The A2E is a fine if charmless body, but it does its job. The EOS 3 is bulky but very businesslike. The three lenses are superb, and the image stabilized long zoom means you can shoot at 400mm without a tripod at, say, 1/90 second, which would otherwise result in a terribly blurred image. That makes it great for bird photography without the hassle of a giant tripod. The body and three zooms make up a good general purpose system with strengths where I need them.

My main complaint with the Canon equipment is its size and weight. One of the great virtues of Pentax is that it’s very compact; a Pentax M-series body with a 28mm lens nearly fits in your pocket. You won’t do that with the A2E, and certainly not with the EOS 3. As a result I ended up keeping three Pentax M lenses — a 28/2.8, a 50/1.4 and a 135/3.5 — and two manual bodies, a banged up but functioning K1000 and the tiny little MV, a fully auto-exposure, no-manual-override SLR body I once got for $25 at a St. Vincent de Paul store. It works beautifully and I’ve carried it in three marathons. The MV and its cousin, the MV-1, are completely unappreciated gems in the photo world, which tends to dismiss them as toys. Mine is great for encouraging uninhibited shooting, as you can’t actually adjust anything but the focus. It’s also so cheap you can’t possibly worry about it at all, as you can replace the body from KEH for the price of a good filter. Many of the photos I’ve taken with the MV are far more spontaneous as a result, and it’s a far easier camera to always have around.

So even though I’m happy with the Canon system I still use the Pentax manual cameras for casual street shooting and for fun. When I’m feeling wealthier again I’ll probably buy myself another LX, just for the sheer pleasure of holding it. (OK, I confess: I bought another LX in 2006. The lust for fine gear can be insatiable.)

Do I shoot digital? Yes I do, and I love it. I have a Canon 20D and use it almost every day. My biggest frustration with digital is the lousy prints you get from it. There is really nothing out there that comes close to touching the wonderful quality, and exceedingly long life, of a good black and white darkroom print. Someday I hope there will be.

UPDATE: Late last year I switched back to Pentax and bought a used K20D and the marvelous DA* 16-55mm/2.8 lens. Then I bought the Limited 21/3.2 and 70 2.4. I’m very happy, and the Canon gear sits untouched. I need to sell it all. That frustration with digital printing remains. I still spend time in the darkroom.

I also like medium format, and in the studio and out and about I also shoot a Pentax 645, the old manual focus variety, and use the 45/2.8, 150/3.5 and 300/4 lenses. This system has pretty much replaced my ancient Mamiya C3 twins-lens reflex, which produces 6x6cm square negatives, a quite different look and process than 35mm. This brick-like professional camera system was manufactured with six interchangeable lenses, from 55mm to 250mm. I’ve got the 65mm and the 135mm. I like the camera, but it’s a bit slow and bulky and hard for my aging eyes to focus in dim light.

Dec. 26, 2006