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

**alexniedra** · 04-27-2009, 09:44 PM

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** · 04-27-2009, 10:25 PM

I think that's well put.... [

]

**Feanor** · 06-27-2009, 04:03 PM

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** · 06-27-2009, 04:33 PM

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** · 06-27-2009, 06:17 PM

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** · 06-27-2009, 09:25 PM

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 is holding me back.)

**Maleko** · 07-16-2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by 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?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Totally agree with what you said!

**T Bigger** · 07-16-2009, 01:06 PM

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>

[/url]

<div class="menu-divider"]</div>
</div>
<div align="center"]
[url="/tested-recommended.shtml][img]/images-93/tested-small.jpg[/img][/url]</div>
</div>

<div class="menu-divider"]</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:ht tp://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
© 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 & 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>
</div>

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

One of the most annoying questions on the web is seen when someone on a forum asks – [i]Should I get a Whatsiflex or a Thingabobblad[/i]? [i]Which is better[/i]? The problem is not with the questions. The problem is the answers!

This often innocent query unleashes not only the [i]dogs of war[/i], but the [i]clowns of cliche[/i] 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 – "[i]It's not the camera, it's the photographer[/i]", or some similar pithy aphorism. Inevitably someone will also quote from Saint Ansel ([i]who in reality was quite a gear head himself[/i]). 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. ([i]Oops, sorry, communists are no longer the bad guys de jour. Wrong decade[/i]).

This all came crashingly to mind when a bit of web surfing this morning turned up [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm]this recent essay[/url] 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 – 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]I doubt it, but at heart I'm an optimist[/i] so it's worth a try).
<h5 align="center"][url="/1photo-pages/span.shtml][img]/images-78/span-2.jpg[/img][/url]
Span – 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 – 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"]– 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"]– 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"]– 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 – <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 – the toolmaker, has debated the relative merits of one stone axe over another, one horse chariot over another, one sand clock over another, and – 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 – 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>

**Jarhead5811** · 07-16-2009, 03:00 PM

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** · 07-16-2009, 04:42 PM

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

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

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting Permissions