"The photographer with the better gear will take the better images" - Opinions?

[alexniedra]

I have seen many people say that the photographer with better gear will take the better picture.


What do you think of this statement?



I personally think that this is bogus.



Think of a 5D II and a 70-200 2.8 IS in the hands of a fool, who sets the camera on full-auto mode (I'm not condemning full-auto, just the use of a 5D only in full auto), and has no idea what Av, Tv, or M means. I would believe that the image quality will be well, far better than a consumer body/lens combination. But many people overlook the things that make photography what it is.


To me, a good photographer is a person with both technical knowledge and skill, along with plenty of creative thinking. I don't believe that better gear directly influences the overall photographic skill of the photographer. What I do believe is that good gear can capture good scenes. Talent and knowledge, on the other hand, capture great moments.


I also fear that many photographers, who are new to the DSLR scene, feel pressured into buying more advanced gear in the hopes of making themselves better photographers.





Thoughts?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I have seen many people say that the photographer with better gear will take the better picture.





I hate to say itbut I agree. However, the phrase should be "The photographer with the right gear will take the better picture"


No matter how great aprofessional bird photographer is, if he's armed with a 14mm prime, it's going tobe hard for him. A rich amature with a 800 f/5.6L will have more keepers than the professional in this case.


No matter how great a wedding photographers is, if he's armed with only super telephotos, it's going to be hard for him also.

[alexniedra]

Very true.



And I should have thought about my opinion a little more carefully:


To me, the photographer makes the picture - not the gear. When I take a good picture and show my friends, they look at my 40D and give me a look of "Well, you do have that nice camera".



That sounds a little better.


What you said is totally true, and I agree. Do you agree with my new idea?

[peety3]

Perhaps the right statement is the photographer with better gear can take the better picture. The photographer with a point & shoot can't duplicate the thin depth-of-field that a DSLR and a fast prime can capture. Doesn't mean that the photographer with the right gear would have settings dialed in to capture that, but the P&S can't do it.

[Dallasphotog]

This one is a little complex.


I have an XT, XTi, 1DMKII and the new 5DMKII. Two weekends ago, one of my best shots at the state soccer playoffs came off the XT wearing the EF24-70mm f/2.8L. I had the EF400mm F/2.8L on the 1DMKII and was dropping it to shoot close-ups with the XT. So, I can see the point that gear isn't everything. The old, slow, unsophisticated XT, can still pop out plenty nice images.


On the other hand, I shot volleyball indoors today and used the 5DMKII jacked up to ISO-H1 (12,300). I got shots that none of my other cameras could duplicate, ever. Without the noise handling and high ISO performance of the 5DMKII, none of my shots would have been possible.


Is there pressure to buy expensive gear; especially for working pros? Yes. Does it make a difference in some instances? Yes.


If you want to really talk about image quality that can't be duplicated, start looking at the shots off the EF300 F/2.8L and the EF400 F/2.8L. Those lenses might make make a blind photographer look good.

[ShutterbugJohan]

<style><!--

--></style>

<div>
<style><!--

--></style>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;"]A photographer once went to a friend's house for dinner. He
brought along a few prints of his photos; his friend "ooh"ed and "ahh"ed over
them for a few minutes. "You must have a great camera!" he said. After dinner,
the photographer was preparing to leave. "Thanks for the deliciousdinner!" he
said. "You must have someawesome pans!" </div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>



the phrase should be "The photographer with the right gear will take the better picture"


No matter how great aprofessional bird photographer is, if he's armed with a 14mm prime, it's going tobe hard for him. A rich amature with a 800 f/5.6L will have more keepers than the professional in this case.


No matter how great a wedding photographers is, if he's armed with only super telephotos, it's going to be hard for him also.
</div>
<div>I agree.
</div>

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I think this is a good article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml ("http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)

[Keith B]

I know a girl, all she shoots with is a 30D and a Fisheye 15 2.8 lens. She has used that set up for a few years. She started out with that set up to shoot skate pics. Since she couldn't afford all different lenses she just shot everything with the fish. She takes a pretty good pic.


My point is, she knows her gear really well and she has developed a style.


Use what you got, get good with it. Develop a style and just be you.


People will seek out your style, not your gear.

[Bill W]

It's not the hammer and saw that build the structure it's the skill and experience of the carpenter.


Granted an amateur photographer may come up some excellent captures w/better equipment, but a professional w/lesser equipment will produce more keepers that will make his/her editor's decisions tougher.


Simply stated the better (and appropriate lenses for the situation) equipment will not make up for technique and experience.


Regards


Bill

[SRPHOTO]

Use what you got, get good with it. Develop a style and just be you.


People will seek out your style, not your gear.









Spot on.

[alexniedra]

Thanks - I enjoyed reading this.


Equipment matters, but talent is necessary. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't be getting paid thousands of dollars to press bottons and point cameras all day.

[Sean Setters]

A layman sees gear--a photographer sees the creative possibilities his gear enables him to make beyond that of a snapshot.

[Jon Ruyle]

Use what you got, get good with it. Develop a style and just be you.


People will seek out your style, not your gear.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Spot on.



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I find both Keith's original statement, and SRPHOTO's assessment that it is spot on, to be spot on.


That said, I do think you need specific gear to take specific kind of pictures. When I bought my first macro lens (before that I had a kit lens on my rebel xt), my friend said "you dummy, why did you buy that? Don't you know that it is the photographer that makes the picture, not the lens?" Well, I wanted to take macro pictures. I wasn't going to take *better* pictures, but I was going to get to do a new kind of photography. (And, in case anyone is wondering, I don't regret getting the lens [:)])


I believe that it is mostly true that the better photographer will take better pictures. When I buy a new lens, it isn't because I think I'll be able to take better pictures with it, but new kinds of pictures.


In short, I agree with the statement. But still, I like to buy lenses [H]

[Daniel Browning]

Every photo is the result of a combination of many factors. Some of those factors are:


Hard work
Skill/knowledge
Talent
Inspiration
Experience
Luck
Gear


Gear is always one of those factors. Whether it's a large factor or minor factor depends on the individual circumstances.

Sometimes the gear is incapable or ill-suited for a certain shot. If one concentrates on the only shots that *are* possible, it might seem as if gear was not a limitation, but in fact it is.

I make plans for how my shots will be changed by the next opportunity to add gear. In the mean time, I am content with what I have.

[Keith B]

Use what you got, get good with it. Develop a style and just be you.


People will seek out your style, not your gear.









Spot on.









I find both Keith's original statement, and SRPHOTO's assessment that it is spot on, to be spot on.


That said, I do think you need specific gear to take specific kind of pictures. When I bought my first macro lens (before that I had a kit lens on my rebel xt), my friend said "you dummy, why did you buy that? Don't you know that it is the photographer that makes the picture, not the lens?" Well, I wanted to take macro pictures. I wasn't going to take *better* pictures, but I was going to get to do a new kind of photography. (And, in case anyone is wondering, I don't regret getting the lens /emoticons/emotion-1.gif)


I believe that it is mostly true that the better photographer will take better pictures. When I buy a new lens, it isn't because I think I'll be able to take better pictures with it, but new kinds of pictures.


In short, I agree with the statement. But still, I like to buy lenses /emoticons/emotion-11.gif












Yeah, I love to buy lenses too.


One of my first paid jobs was for an interior designer. It was actually a paid audition. She hired 2 different photogs for the job and who's ever work she liked the best she'd use again.


I had a 40D, 24 1.4 L, 50 1.4, Fish 15 2.8 and the 28-135 kit lens. I told my buddy about the job an he insisted on loaning me the his 17-40 4.0 L. I told him it wasn't necessary but I ended up taking it anyway and man am I glad I did. I used that for just about every shot. The designer loved my work and I won the role.


At that point I was bent on getting a full frame so that my 24 would truly be a 24 because the 17 was actually a 27 on the 40D. So I belive the 5D2 was a necessity for me to develop the style I felt fit me. I also now have the 16-35 2.8L II So I feel my style is kind of dialed in now. I got rid of the 28-135 and have the 100-400 L mainly just to have a lens in that range for fun and just to be sure. I don't plan on making a living in that range.


So I agree about the right gear. But I think a good place to start is with lower end stuff so you don't waste a ton of money finding you style. Buy the Xts, Xsi, 40Ds, 50Ds with kit lenses shoot til you drop. Look at the pics that really work for you, see what range you are shooting then start saving for the higher end equipment in that range. Or if you are getting the quality you want out of the stuff you got stick with it.

[Sean Setters]

While you guys are more concerned about cameras and lenses, I'm more concerned with lighting gear. I'm still developing my style, but this from an excellent shoot I had Friday evening.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_4263-small.JPG


And that look wouldn't have been possible without a hefty amount of portable gear:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.08/_5F00_MG_5F00_4287_5F00_setup-small.JPG


The gear was necessary to get the shot I wanted, but knowing how to use the gear made all the difference.


strobist: 1 Vivitar 285HV, camera right, full power in a Westcott 28&amp;quot; Apollo softbox. 1 Vivitar 285HV, camera left, 1/4 power, bounced off of a white door and frame for fill. 1 Vivitar 285HV, camera left behind subject, 1/4 power, shot through a 1/8&amp;quot; Honl Speed Grid for rimlight. Triggered via Cybersyncs and a Wein Peanut optical slave.

[Jon Ruyle]

Cool, Sean.


I've never bought lighting (other than a flash.) I've thought about it, but am not really sure where to begin. What exactly is all that stuff?

[Brendan7]

Personally I think that both make a difference. Good equipment gives one the possibility of taking a good photograph, but skill in the photographer is needed to execute it. A balance is needed.

[Sean Setters]

Cool, Sean.


I've never bought lighting (other than a flash.) I've thought about it, but am not really sure where to begin. What exactly is all that stuff?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I'll tell you where to begin--www.strobist.blogspot.com ("http://www.strobist.blogspot.com) and the Lighting 101 ("http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html) section. Then join the strobist.com ("http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/) flickr community and stroll the discussion threads.


Westcott Apollo Softbox ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/564656-REG/Westcott_2202_Apollo_Speedlight_Set_.html)


Honl 1/8" Speed Grid ("http://www.honlphoto.com/servlet/the-23/HonlPhoto-1-fdsh-8-Speed-Grid/Detail)


Cybersyncs ("http://www.alienbees.com/cybersync.html)


Wein Optical Peanut slave ("http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,4632.html)


Plus flashes, light stands, umbrella swivels, hotshoe adapters (to connect the flash to the Cybersync wireless receivers), and sandbags to secure the softbox from the wind.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks... that's exactly the kind of info I was hoping for.

[Keith B]

edited

[Keith B]

Hmmm. Photobucket rips out the copyright info on images.

[matt.s]

I think you really need to define just what "better" is. All better gear does is bend light a little more precisely. I think a great photographer is simply someone who knows the image they wish to capture, and are not limited by their equiptment or skill, and if there is a limitation, their skill can work around it.

[wolf]

I agree that statement is incorrect. A good photographer should know the limitations of his gear and should be able to take good pictures when he stays within the limitations (including kit lenses). In situations where a lens will not perform, better gear meeting the requirements of the scene will allow the photographer to take better pictures.

[Sean Setters]

Ok...give me an XT with a kit lens and all my lighting gear and I'll still blow the pants off of someone with a 1Ds Mark III with any L glass without the lighting gear. Yes, the gear is key...but knowing how to use it effectively is even more important. However, you could give anyone $100,000 worth of equipment...but without the knowledge and expertise gained through trial and error, they'll rarely make interesting and captivating images. Gear is only part of the equation...expertise is what makes a masterful image.

[Keith B]

Ok...give me an XT with a kit lens and all my lighting gear and I'll still blow the pants off of someone with a 1Ds Mark III with any L glass without the lighting gear. Yes, the gear is key...but knowing how to use it effectively is even more important. However, you could give anyone $100,000 worth of equipment...but without the knowledge and expertise gained through trial and error, they'll rarely make interesting and captivating images. Gear is only part of the equation...expertise is what makes a masterful image.






Yeah Helmut Newton really sucked. What the heck was he thinking.

[TimT]

As several folks have mentioned, good photos are a mixture of lots of key element, including having a good eye and having the right gear. In a way the "right" lens is just a tool in the hands of a good photographer. You can get a great shot with a basic lens and camera. But with the right lens, the good photographer opens up the range of possibilities.





If you're shooting a sports event, it helps to have a zoom with enough reach and some speed. If I'm shooting at an orchid farm, it doesn't hurt to have a good macro lens in the bag. Sometimes the gear can help you to see the shot you want -- if you're holding a hammer, the world looks more like a nail. But if you don't have an eye for what works, nothing will help.

[Jon Ruyle]

But if you don't have an eye for what works, nothing will help.


I guess I might as well give up, then. [*-)]

[TimT]

Thanks! Monday at 5, I needed a laugh.

[SRPHOTO]

If you're shooting a sports event, it helps to have a zoom with enough reach and some speed. If I'm shooting at an orchid farm, it doesn't hurt to have a good macro lens in the bag. Sometimes the gear can help you to see the shot you want






Yea, I shoot with a XSi + 75-300 at sporting events i can still manage to get great shots at 3.5 frames per second and f 4-5.6





it helps to have gear to suit what your shooting on the other hand you dont have to go all out and spend money on the best to get quality pictures.

[alexniedra]

Thanks for the opinions everyone...


The gear will:

Make certain shots possible (macro, wide angle, etc.)
Improve technical quality of the image (contrast, colour, sharpness, etc.), but not composition, placement of subjects, etc.



The rest is me. And thanks for clarifying this idea to me. Of course, as someone mentioned, a 5 year old could get decent shots out of a 500, but I'm sure a good photographer could get a much better image that moves you.


Thanks for settling my mind. [:)]

[Sean Setters]

I think that's well put.... [:)]

[Feanor]

I haven't read all the above posts, but this discussion crops up with many hobbies and professions that require expensive equipment. In response to the statement "A bad workman blames his tools" I always point out that good workmen almost always have good tools.


To be honest I think the argument is moot. Let's take the argument to the extreme. Pick an intelligent modern Westerner at random and take away all his technology and stick him in a cave with nothing more than cave-man clothing and tools. Will he survive long? Probably not. Will he be able to recreate any of the wonders of the modern world? No. Why? Because he doesn't have the tools.


Everything we do these days requires tools. To do anything really well requires good tools. But give those same tools to a monkey and he'll just try to eat them or use them to hit stuff with. It's a two-way process; good user requires good tools, good tools require a good user to get the most out of them. The end result will only be as good as the weakest of the two.


Which is why I think people who say that the tools don't matter are wrong - but so are those who say that tools are all that matters. In reality I don't think many people are so foolish to really think either extreme is true but it can come across that way sometimes; the real answer is much less simplistic.

[Cory]

My very first thought when seeing that statement...


Between two photographers who know what they are doing the one with the better gear will probably take the better picture.


Yes, luck does play a roll and gear plays a sizable role, but kf you don't have a half-way decent idea of what you're doing you aren't going to get consistantly better pictures than someone who does.


One example: setting the camera to auto will often throw your exposure out of whack in many situations. Take a picture of a person in the shade with a sunlit white wall in the background and you're probably going to get an unusable picture.

[jasbsar]

Personally I think it is down to knowing your equipment and its limitations. Then timing to capture a great moment. Which can be down to a bit of luck or a camera with a high fps.


I have taken some great shots with my Point and Shoot Casio EXP700, Canon 400D and Canon 50D. But that is all down to me knowing what each camera can do and can't do.


I have found the more money you spend on a lens or equipment means you can take shots in poorer light conditions and if you are a pro or a semi pro taking shots at weddings etc... to sell, then you need the kit to be able to perform in all types of light conditions. Like the shot in previous posts, just shoot it in better lightif you haven't got all that light gear. Natural light tends to be best any way.

[Jarhead5811]

I thinkthis is similar to having the best, most accurate,rifle. If your not a good shot, you're still not going to be a good shot. If you are a good shot you can do things you couldn't do with a lesser rifle.


I'm trying to get to the point to where I feel my gear is limiting my abilities but I can't sayI feel like I'm there yet. (Well except for wildlife photography whichI feel my 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM II (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="color: #003399;) is holding me back.)

[Maleko]

I have seen many people say that the photographer with better gear will take the better picture.


What do you think of this statement?



I personally think that this is bogus.



Think of a 5D II and a 70-200 2.8 IS in the hands of a fool, who sets the camera on full-auto mode (I'm not condemning full-auto, just the use of a 5D only in full auto), and has no idea what Av, Tv, or M means. I would believe that the image quality will be well, far better than a consumer body/lens combination. But many people overlook the things that make photography what it is.


To me, a good photographer is a person with both technical knowledge and skill, along with plenty of creative thinking. I don't believe that better gear directly influences the overall photographic skill of the photographer. What I do believe is that good gear can capture good scenes. Talent and knowledge, on the other hand, capture great moments.


I also fear that many photographers, who are new to the DSLR scene, feel pressured into buying more advanced gear in the hopes of making themselves better photographers.





Thoughts?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Totally agree with what you said!

[T Bigger]

Here is another point of view
<meta content="The web's most comprehensive site devoted to the art of landscape and nature photography using traditional as well as digital image processing techniques. " name="description" />
<meta content="photography, digital, landscape, nature, travel, photoshop, epson, canon, locations" name="keywords" />
<link href="/whatsnew/rssfeed.php" type="application/rss+xml" rel="alternate" title="what's new rss feed" />
<style type="text/css"]<!--

--></style>

<script language="JavaScript"]</script>
http://www.3dstats.com/cgi-bin/connect.cgi?usr=00000254Pauto&amp;js=1&amp;title=Your%20Ca mera%20Does%20Matter&amp;url=http%3A//www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml&amp;refer=http%3A//community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/1052.aspx&amp;zone=0&amp;resolution=1920x1080&amp;color=32&amp;Tip s=0.38938616640684653 <noscript></noscript>
<div class="sidebar_wrapper"]<a name="top" href="/"]
<div class="menu-logo"]</div>
[/URL]
<div class="sidebar" id="leftnav"]
<div class="menu-divider"]</div>
<div class="menu-links"]</div>
<div class="menu-links"]Columns (/]Home
What's New
Store
Discussion Forum
LL Video Journal
LLVJ Downloads
Tutorial Downloads</div>


<div class="menu-divider)
</div>
<div class="menu-links"]


Gallery &amp; Studio (/essays/]Essays
Locations
Product Reviews
Techniques
Tutorials
Understanding Series
Workshops
Learn Printing 1-ON-1 </div>


<div class="menu-divider)</div>


<div style="text-align: center;"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/affiliateimages/bh_broad_scope_170x142.jpg (/about/critic.shtml]Michael ReichmannContact

</div>


<div class="menu-divider) http://affiliates.bhphotovideo.com/showban.asp?id=1945&amp;img=bh_broad_scope_170x142.jpg
<div class="menu-divider"]</div>
</div>
<div align="center"]
</div>
<div class="menu-search"]Search the site:
<form action="http://www.google.com/custom" name="searchform" method="get" id="searchform"]<input name="sitesearch" type="hidden" value="luminous-landscape.com" /> <input name="cof" type="hidden" value="GIMP:ff9900;T:cccccc;LW:469;ALC:993300;L:http://luminous-landscape.com/images/LL-logo.jpg;GFNT:ffcc00;LC:cc0000;LH:81;BGC:000000;AH :center;VLC:cc9900;GL:2;S:http://luminous-landscape.com;GALT:006600;AWFID:35f6ab491fb2b550;" /> <input name="domains" type="hidden" value="luminous-landscape.com" /> <label><input name="q" size="15" id="searchinput" /> </label><label><input name="searchbutton" type="image" src="/siteimages/search_button.jpg" align="middle" /> </label></form>
<div class="menu-divider"]</div>


<div class="menu-copyright"]Content on this site:
Michael Reichmann
&copy; 1995-2009.
All Rights Reserved </div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="content" style="min-width: 790px; min-height: 700px; height: 700px; margin-right: 10px;"]
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"]
<table id="header"]
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 68px;"]
<td width="214" class="header-right-txt-highlite"]
<div align="center"]<span class="style9"]The Luminous Landscape Guide to
Lightroom 2
<span class="header-center-right"]<span class="style5"]7.5hr
$39.95 Download Video Tutorial </div>
</td>
<td width="10" class="header-center-div"]</td>
<td width="240" class="header-center-right"]
<div align="center" class="style6"]<span class="style7"]From Camera to Print
<span class="style9"]Fine Art Printing Tutorial <span class="style5"]6hr 40 min
with Michael Reichmann &amp; Jeff Schewe
$34.95 Download Video </div>
</td>
<td width="18" class="header-center-div"]</td>
<td width="200" class="header-right"]<span class="header-right-txt-highlite"]<span style="color: #669900;"]<span class="style4"]Luminous-Landscape Guide to Raw Processing in Photoshop
<span class="style5"]7.5hr
Only $39.95 </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
(/tested-recommended.shtml]/images-93/tested-small.jpg</div>
</div>


<div class="menu-divider)</div>

/siteimages/boundarytop.png
<h1>Your Camera Does Matter</h1>
<h2 align="center"]A Rebuttal</h2>
<p align="center"]/images-78/span-2.jpg (http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/Comic_Strips/Entries/2008/3/14_WTD_433%3A_%22Range_Finder%22_2.html]/images-78/duck.jpg


One of the most annoying questions on the web is seen when someone on a forum asks &ndash; Should I get a Whatsiflex or a Thingabobblad? Which is better? The problem is not with the questions. The problem is the answers!


This often innocent query unleashes not only the dogs of war, but the clowns of cliche as well. Among the fan boys rallying for their favourite brand there are bound to be at least a couple of bright sparks who write &ndash; "It's not the camera, it's the photographer", or some similar pithy aphorism. Inevitably someone will also quote from Saint Ansel (who in reality was quite a gear head himself). Then some kind soul will start ranting about how even a Holga can take great shots, pinhole cameras are all one needs, and how the camera industry is a vast conspiracy intended to turn us into mindless robots, godless heathen, communists, or worse. (Oops, sorry, communists are no longer the bad guys de jour. Wrong decade).


This all came crashingly to mind when a bit of web surfing this morning turned up this recent essay by Ken Rockwell. I don't know Mr. Rockwell, and have never had communication with him, and am only vaguely aware that he is a some-time web writer about things photographic. Regardless, I was at first amused and then annoyed by the piece &ndash; quite annoyed, and so decided to write this rebuttal. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people read it we can end the mind-numbing vapidity of this pointless debate once and for all. (I doubt it, but at heart I'm an optimist so it's worth a try).
<h5 align="center)
Span &ndash; Sydney, Australia. March, 2008</h5>
<h6 align="center"]Nikon D300 with 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens @ ISO 400 </h6>
<p align="center"]<span class="style2"]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]__________________________________________________ ______________
<h3 align="left"]It's about the Equipment &ndash; Stupid</h3>
<p align="left"]Let's get something straight right off. Photography is not possible without a camera and a lens. (Don't talk to me about the camera obscura and pinhole cameras. The pinhole is in essence a lens, and the room or box is indeed a camera). In fact let's deconstruct this all to its most atomic form.
<p align="left"]Items needed to make a photograph:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<h4 align="left"]&ndash; A light sensitive substance on a substrate. </h4>
<blockquote>
<p align="left"]This can be silver gelatin on flexible plastic or CMOS photosites on a chip, or any number of other processes
</blockquote>
<h4 align="left"]&ndash; A Camera</h4>
<blockquote>
<p align="left"]This can be a Cheerio box with a hole in it, a Hasselblad, or anything inbetween
</blockquote>
<h4 align="left"]&ndash; A Lens</h4>
<blockquote>
<p align="left"]This can be a pin hole, a single meniscus piece of plastic, or a 16 element optical system with multiple aspheric elements and nano coating, designed by elves in the Black Forest and built by industrial robots in Tokyo
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p align="left"]Oh yes &ndash; <span class="style4"]<span style="color: #669900;"]a shutter would be nice to have, and can range from removing your hat from the front of the lens opening for a second or two, to a Copal #1 shutter with mechanical mechnism. An electronically controlled focal plane shutter allowing exposures from 12 hours to 1/12,000 of a second might be nice.
<p align="left"]We can also add <span class="style4"]<span style="color: #669900;"]a diaphragm to control the amount of light entering the lens, to control depth of field and reduce aberrations. This can be waterhouse stops, a proper iris, or even a phase changing optical plate.
<p align="left"]Some means of measuring the intensity of the light is often handy. This can be a cardboard extinction meter (you're showing your age of you remember ever using one of these), a hand-held incident meter, or maybe one built into the camera that measures through the optical system, taking into account 1000 or more segments of the ground glass, measuring colour information, and adjusting exposure automatically with an accuracy of 1/10th of a stop.
<p align="left"]Oh yes - focusing. That would be nice. We can do it by measuring the focal length of the lens with a ruler, then its diameter, and finally by the use of a printed look-up table set the point where the camera might be in focus for the subject desired. Or a ground glass can be helpful. Or, how about an eletronic rangefinding system built into the camera that instantaneously measures the distance to the subject with an accuracy of 1/100 of a mm, and then which automatically adjusts the lens elements in a fraction of a second to be in essentially perfect focus. Even better, how about if it can then follow a moving subject, changing focus as it changes distance?
<p align="left"]Am I making my point? Whether a home-made pin hole camera or the latest Nikon D3, these are all cameras. Of course where they differ is in their technology, and that difference translates into both difference in convenience of use and ultimate image quality.
<p align="center"]<span class="style2"]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]__________________________________________________ ______________
<h3 align="left"]Brushes and Soup Pots</h3>
<p align="left"]No, painters don't often debate the merits of one type of brush over another, nor do chefs hang around online forums debating the relative merits of one brand of soup pot over another. (Maybe the do. I can't be sure since I'm neither a painter not a chef, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if there are online forums for these and similar topics).
<p align="left"]But when people make this point, they're actually missing the point. Photography is both an art and a craft. We can not perform our craft without the requirement of certain tools, including a camera, lens, and light sensitive substrate.
<p align="left"]Once we've agreed upon that, then the discussion must of necessity turn to the nature and relative merits of those tools. And why shouldn't it? Since the dawn of human history, man &ndash; the toolmaker, has debated the relative merits of one stone axe over another, one horse chariot over another, one sand clock over another, and &ndash; need I add, one camera or lens over another.
<p align="left"]Tools have merits, good ones and bad. Tools have so-called personality as well. What suits one person's needs may not meet the needs of another.
<p align="left"]And, herein lies the crux of the matter. We all have different needs. A photographer walking the streets of an urban environment doing street shooting has very different needs than someone on the Serrengetti photographing wildlife. A photographer looking to create large prints of extremely high quality landscape work will of necessity need a different set of tools than a teenager wanting to record her sweet-sixteen party.
<h5 align="center"]Nikon D300 with 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens @ ISO 400 </h6>
<p align="center"]<span class="style2"]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]__________________________________________________ ______________
<h3 align="left"]Get the ^%^*$ Over It</h3>
<p align="left"]So, please, and with all due respect to Mr Rockwell and his brethren, GET OVER IT!
<p align="left"]Discussing the merits of one tool over another is relevant. Some lenses, cameras and other photographic tools are better than others. In some cases they are objectively better, while in others their degree of betterness will be subjetive and will depend on the specific needs of a particular photographer.
<p align="left"]Come on folks. Don't they teach analytical thinking in schools any more? Enough cliched rejoinders that serve no ones interests other than to inflate the egos of some, and confuse and embarrass others. When a person asks these type of questions let's be generous instead of snarky. Let's ask them the type of photography that are doing, or plan on doing, and then if we have anything worthwhile to contribute, do so. But to spout holier-than-thou cliches one more time is simply the sign of either a lazy or an angry mind.
<p align="center"]<span class="style2"]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]__________________________________________________ ______________
<h3 align="left"]A Final Thought</h3>
<p align="left"]One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit.
<p align="left"]One can't build a modern house with a stone axe, and a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel. I'm a pretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it. But I can't do a formal portrait, an architectural commission, a sports or wildlife shoot, or a table top still life or product shot without the right tools, which may include at any one time a camera with a large sensor, long lens, technical movements, and other tools and techniques of the trade.
<p align="left"]So please folks, stop the childish nonsense. Equipment does matter, and if anyone tells you otherwise, smile, nod sagely, and simply move along. Or, send them here for a good spanking.
<p align="right" class="style2"]March, 2008
<h1>UPDATE</h1>
<h2>Duhhhh!</h2>


In its first few days online the above essay has generated a lot of debate. That's fine. But, based on emails received and what I read on this site's forum and some others, there is a small percentage who either didn't get it, or who simply have sub-optimal reading skills.


Firstly, just because I was arguing that good and appropriate equipment is important when doing many types of photography doesn't mean that the inverse is untrue; in other words, that talent isn't necessary. This is a simple logical fallacy that is taught in any reading comprehension course, yet which some seem to have assumed to be the case.


So just for the record, and as the kids say &ndash; Duhhhh! Of course talent and artistic skill are also necessary. How could anyone think otherwise? That's why I put the cartoon on the page. It makes that very point!


Secondly, people have said that I was misinterpreting Rockwell's article. No. I don't think so. Unfortunately, from what I have seen of his writing in the referred to essay, as well as the rest of those on his site, consistency of thought and clarity of expression are not hallmarks of his writing style. I was simply using his headlined position as a jumping off point to make my rebuttal.


Please feel free to copy and post or quote this comment elsewhere, since it seems that some people are missing the point completely.








<script language="JavaScript"]</script>
http://www.3dstats.com/cgi-bin/connect.cgi?usr=00000254Pauto&amp;js=1&amp;title=Your%20Ca mera%20Does%20Matter&amp;url=http%3A//www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml&amp;refer=http%3A//community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/1052.aspx&amp;zone=0&amp;resolution=1920x1080&amp;color=32&amp;Tip s=0.007972726062821788 <noscript></noscript>/siteimages/boundarybottom.png </div>



<style type="text/css"]<!--

--></style>

<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"]<span>There are Currently
<script src="http://www.3dstats.com/cgi-bin/countpro.cgi?usr=00000254" language="javascript"]</script>
218 Photographers Visiting The Luminous Landscape


<table id="footer"]
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="290" class="leftpanel"]
<div align="center"]


<a alt="visit our store" href="/store/" style="display: block; text-decoration: none;"]<span class="footertitle"]Luminous Landscape Video Journal 18
HD Download &ndash; Only $14.95 (/1photo-pages/maui-eclipse.shtml]/images-78/eclipse1448-thumb.jpg[/url]
Maui Eclipse &ndash; Hawaii, February, 2008</h5>
<h6 align="center)Older LLVJs Now Available for Download (/store/]<span class="footertitle)
</div>
</td>
<td width="336" class="middlepanel"]
<div align="center"]
<div align="center"]<a alt="visit our store" href="/store/" style="text-decoration: none;"]<span class="style8"]The Luminous Landscape Guide to
Lightroom 2
<span class="header-center-right"]<span class="style5"]7.5 hr
$39.95 Download Video Tutorial (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=1450&amp;KBID=1945]/siteimages/bh-lm-280x100.gif[/url] </div>
</td>
<td width="290" class="rightpanel) </div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" class="footerlinks"]Back to top ("/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=12048&amp;Quote=False)| Home ("/)| Store ("/store/)| Discussion Forum ("/forum/)| Video Journal ("/video_journal/)| Vodcast ("/vodcasts.shtml)| Contact ("/about/contact.shtml) </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>

[Jarhead5811]

Is it just me or is it a little rude to cut and paste a whole article into a forum? A link would get the job done and not be as intrusive.

[T Bigger]

Sorry Jarhead I'm still learning the ins &amp; outs of computer use. Thanks for the update.

[Chuck Lee]

Tbigger,


Not to add insult to injury but this post as well as debate is old hat.


I read both articles and neither does anything to help me be a better photographer.


This kind of stuff, IMHO is a complete waste of time. Entertaining, yes, otherwise ACWOT!!


Take Care,


Chuck

[Maleko]

Photography is only peripherally about the tools--the real purpose is to capture your vision, your interpretation of what you see in those fleeting moments happening around you all the time, moments that will never come again.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

[Jarhead5811]

Sorry Jarhead I'm still learning the ins &amp; outs of computer use. Thanks for the update.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



No biggie, you can just copy and past the url info like this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml ("http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)or make a hyperlink using the little chain link icon on the tool bar like this ("http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)by hilighting the word and clicking on the little chain thing.

[kzuk9237]

Thanks for the good word Keith! I need to remind myself of this each time I (amateur dslr on a tight budget) shoot....otherwise yes, I fall into the trap that I always need to upgrade...






<blockquote>
<div>http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gifKeith B:</div>
<div>





Use what you got, get good with it. Develop a style and just be you.


People will seek out your style, not your gear.
<div></div>
<div></div>



</div>
</blockquote>