Sanford Edelstein 
, Jan 21, 2012; 11:21 a.m.
A photograph using a Nikon lens on another brand digital camera via adapter, or an off brand lens on a Nikon digital camera.
Matt Laur 
, Jan 21, 2012; 11:23 a.m.
It depends. Is this a Nikon macro lens being used to photograph the angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Sanford Edelstein , Jan 21, 2012; 11:27 a.m.
Matt, this is why most of my threads veer of course. Here I am on a Saturday morning trying to ask a serious philosophical question while doing my laundry...
Steve Levine , Jan 21, 2012; 11:28 a.m.
It's always been all about the lens. The camera is still just a box.
Sanford Edelstein , Jan 21, 2012; 11:29 a.m.
It is not just a box anymore.
ross b , Jan 21, 2012; 11:58 a.m.
I was in a Minolta forum years ago and as long as you used a Minolta camera body you were ok as some people used 3rd party lenses.. So it was the body that mattered. One guy said it was a Minolta photograph if it came down to only the strap was Minolta. I thought that was kind of funny at the time.
Any way I would go with the body having a Nikon logo on it being the main identifyer. If you are shooting a Nikon with a Tamron lens and somebody says what kind of camera do you have you would most likely say it's a Nikon.
Richard Snow 
, Jan 21, 2012; 12:03 p.m.
According the the Nikon forum and Nikon Wednesday threads, along with everyone I know that shoots Nikon, (both glass and cameras), today both are equally Nikon Photographs.
If you are shooting Nikon glass on a film camera, no matter the camera manufacturer, it's a Nikon photograph.
If you're shooting XYZ glass on a Nikon film camera, it's less a Nikon photograph - the image is made on film not made by Nikon using glass not made by Nikon. Therefore, the only thing contributing to the making of the image is the viewfinder, the metering, (if you're metering TTL), the AF, (if you're using an AF camera), and the shutter actuation.
That's my two cents.
RS
Dan South , Jan 21, 2012; 01:17 p.m.
Truer? What the heck is a Nikon photograph? Isn't it just a photograph no matter what kind of gear was used? And
shouldn't it be judged for its qualities rather than for the camera that took it?
William Kahn 
, Jan 21, 2012; 01:54 p.m.
Dan is right. Ansel Adams' photographs are Ansel Adams' photographs. Does anyone know (without looking it up) the make of the camera or lens he used? Does it matter?
John MacPherson , Jan 21, 2012; 02:31 p.m.
On the Nikon Forum it's the body that matters.
On the Leica forum it's the lens that matters.
On the Large Format Forum it's the tripod that matters.
On the Business Forum it's having the bride sign a contract that matters.
And on the Philosophy of Photography forum something matters, but I'm never entirely sure what it is.
