It's the photographer not the camera - or is it?

[rpcrowe]

I don't think that I am in the monority but, I think that technical quality is right up there with composition, etc. when judging an image. Both are important!

If I were in Syria shooting the revolution with my cell phone, maybe technical quality would not be so important.

However, if I wanted an image to display on my wall at home. technical quality would be one of the major criteria in my deciding which image to display.

I haven't saved many images from my previous P&S cameras and they are better than most images I have seen shot by cell phones.

[Glenn NK]

I think it's BOTH. It's just the percentage that varies.

And what would be the relative percentages on this image?

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...p?f=4&t=226510

Of course he isn't a beginner either:

http://www.magichourunplugged.com/20...ool-of-a-took/

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

And what would be the relative percentages on this image?

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...p?f=4&t=226510

Of course he isn't a beginner either:

http://www.magichourunplugged.com/20...ool-of-a-took/

Glenn

50/50 to be honest. I know Kah Kit's work quite well (we're both contributors to the Singh-Ray blog). He's got a great eye - get's himself to some great locations - certainly knows what he's doing ... but those two examples aren't a patch on his usual standard.

Compare it to the DSLR version ...

http://www.magichourtravelscapes.com...e-Cascades.jpg

[BCrose]

It isn't the camera that makes the picture.

I must put my two cents in here. There are a couple of types of photography that do require high end gear. There is just no getting away from it no matter how great an eye you have for the craft.
These two areas are sports and wildlife photography. Nothing but the best telephoto lens will do this job adequately. The camera does not need to be the very top of the line but it does matter to be able to shoot 10-12 frames per second with complete AF and Metering on each of those 12 shots. Only Nikon and Canon's flagships really do this with consistency.

Landscape photography is another area where something like the Nikon D800 is simply one of the best cameras made for this type of work. So, to answer the original question in my opinion the camera makes a huge difference for some. The difference of whether you get the shot or not. In most cases however, the camera is not as important as the person pressing the shutter.

[Glenn NK]

I must put my two cents in here. There are a couple of types of photography that do require high end gear. There is just no getting away from it no matter how great an eye you have for the craft.
These two areas are sports and wildlife photography. Nothing but the best telephoto lens will do this job adequately. The camera does not need to be the very top of the line but it does matter to be able to shoot 10-12 frames per second with complete AF and Metering on each of those 12 shots. Only Nikon and Canon's flagships really do this with consistency.

Landscape photography is another area where something like the Nikon D800 is simply one of the best cameras made for this type of work. So, to answer the original question in my opinion the camera makes a huge difference for some. The difference of whether you get the shot or not. In most cases however, the camera is not as important as the person pressing the shutter.

But as you know, the best gear in the world in the hands of incompetency is worthless.

Did you look at the image I linked to? An i-Pad?

Glenn

[Ricco]

Yes and no to most of it.

Last year I bought myself a 24-105mm lens and 580EX II flash to go with my 60D. I previously had the kit 18-200mm lens so the new gear certainly didn't take me into any new realms in terms of low light or zoom. Am I a pro that knows how to extract every last inch out of my camera / lens combination - no. But it has immeasurably improved my photography. In addition, having the improved gear has provided me with the impetus to learn more about it.

If I handed my camera to my wife who is a novice and shoots in auto (not that there is anything wrong with that...), her photos in general also improve. Are they improved for the same shots beyond what I would take with manual settings and post processing - probably not, but they are better than she would take with the kit lens.

If I handed my camera to a seasoned pro, they in turn would run rings around me.

Using previous analogies, if I jumped in the F1 car, I would probably make it go a bit quicker than my mini and Vettel would probably make my mini go a bit faster than I can make it go. With a little more training and practice I would also get the F1 car going quicker again.

Conclusion: Buy the gear if you can afford it and if it will increase your enjoyment.

Not sure I'm resolving anything or adding much new, but thought it worth adding 2 cents.

[Colin Southern]

Using previous analogies, if I jumped in the F1 car, I would probably make it go a bit quicker than my mini and Vettel would probably make my mini go a bit faster than I can make it go.

Just for fun ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo (Richard Hammond - experienced performance car driver - in an F1 car for the first time)

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTamH8fnBE (Sebastian Vettle in an average car)

[Ryogenetic]

I think this might have been what you were looking for Colin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNJG2npGXc

Now that entertainment!

Sorry couldn't resist
Ryo

[MrB]

The contribution from Ricco, Post #28, is well-balanced and sensible - thank you, Peter. That is because it concentrates attention on the individual photographer.

Presumably, each member of CiC is here because he/she has an enthusiasm for photography and, in particular, to improve his/her results. This must involve BOTH the development of the photographer AND the informed use of the best equipment that he/she can afford to buy.

Analogies that refer to different people can be unhelpful because they are unscientific. One variable, in this case the photographer, must always be kept constant to make a fair comparison. Improving the photographer's skills and the use of better quality camera gear can both lead to better results for that photographer.

It would be arrogant to claim that it's the photographer not the camera. As an example that keeps the photographer constant, the chap who recorded the great landscape of Mount Cook was able to do so because of the capability of the iPad - consider the result if his only available option had been the webcam of an old netbook, and also, as Colin references, consider what he might have achieved with his specialist DSLR gear.

Cheers.
Philip

[Ricco]

Thanks Philip - I think that is the first time I've ever been noted as well-balanced and sensible

One other thing that I thought of - very rarely do we talk about the Sebastian Vettles wanting to downgrade their F1 (unless they want something a bit more mobile that they can get around the city with) and almost always it is the person wanting to upgrade the mini.

Invariably, the upgrade will improve on what they had previously. I guess the debate often centres around what upgrade is the best bang for buck (i.e. are you better off investing in a training course or a new lens, lens A or lens B).

[davidedric]

These two areas are sports and wildlife photography.

Hi BCrose - I think some of the bird images you have been posting illustrate this perfectly. You have great technique, but the IQ is superb abnd that must reflect the kit you use.

[MrB]

Thanks Philip - I think that is the first time I've ever been noted as well-balanced and sensible

You're welcome, Peter. However, before you get too carried away, it is worth reflecting that my comment was referring to the content of your post!

Cheers.
Philip

[rawill]

Just for fun ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo (Richard Hammond - experienced performance car driver - in an F1 car for the first time)

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTamH8fnBE (Sebastian Vettle in an average car)

Sebastian Vettle is so funny,

[rpcrowe]

If I were driving an F-1 car to do my grocery shopping, it would not be worth the trip because I would have no money to buy food. AND... I would probably be driving too fast in order to out race the persons coming to repro the car because I could not afford the patments... Driving fast, that is until I ran out of gas because I had no money to fill up the tank after paying for the car and the mechanic to maintain it.

My analogy is, we shoot with what we can afford or what we are willing and able to pay for gear.

I would think that the best thing that we could do is to get the very best gear possible at a price that we can afford.

And, for some folks that would be a waste of money because of their camera skills or lack thereof. I often relate the tale of my daughter shooting an entire European vacation with some sort of plastic digital camera that she found for a couple of dollars at some supermarket checkout stand. Her collection of images were terrible. She now shoots with her phone but, the images are no better. I could give her my 7D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and I am sure that she would not produce images that were much improved.

[Colin Southern]

I often relate the tale of my daughter shooting an entire European vacation with some sort of plastic digital camera that she found for a couple of dollars at some supermarket checkout stand. Her collection of images were terrible. She now shoots with her phone but, the images are no better. I could give her my 7D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and I am sure that she would not produce images that were much improved.

For some reason, this video comes to mind ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Nn-dD-QKYN4

[Colin Southern]

I think this might have been what you were looking for Colin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNJG2npGXc

Now that entertainment!

Sorry couldn't resist
Ryo

Thanks - already seen it though. There's also one where it's 3 Mercedes cars ... same result

[William W]

I would think that the best thing that we could do is to get the very best gear possible at a price that we can afford. And, for some folks that would be a waste of money because of their camera skills or lack thereof.

Beneath the 'lack of skills' there is often simply a lack of interest or a lack of requirement.

Many people do NOT really want a DSLR or P&S but really just want to be part of the genre of capture the moment - by any means.

Technical quality and artistic merit rank very low to simply capturing 'happy faces - we are together in that place - post me on Facebook'.

It occurs to me that many of these folk get wrongly caught up in a 'need' to buy 'a camera' and then carry it as a fashion accessory or status symbol or simply a burden to them: for example - White Cameras are quite the rage in Europe, amongst many tourists.

But no matter whether using a (traditional) camera or a mobile phone or a tablet . . . the Genre of Photography stays the same - what they want to mainly record is simply 'happy faces, together having fun' - and that's fine:


“Photographer #37”
5D; 24~104/4 IS @ 82mm
F/4 @ 1/5s @ ISO1250; IS ON; M Mode; AWB; #593236; JPEG SOOC.

WW

[Inkanyezi]

Of course the camera does matter, in a way. An artist or a craftsman chooses the tool that suits the task. Sometimes that is a specialist tool that does the particular job better than anything else, sometimes it is just an adequate tool of those that are available, but very seldom the skilled worker would choose an inadequate tool.

The analogy with cars can still be used. The F1 car is not the best car, it is hopelessly inadequate for a lot of things for which we would need a car. In fact, it is an extreme toy, not useful for most real purposes, a special contraption made for getting around a race track at the fastest possible pace, but grossly inadequate for anything else. To use it, skill is needed, but once done, you are back where you started, hopefully, and you didn't accomplish anything.

A camera too can be a suitable tool for the task at hand, or it can be extremely well adapted, but also some camera can be just as grossly inadequate for the task at hand. There are extreme situations, where most of our cameras just won't cut it, but where a fairly inexpensive but specialised camera would be suitable. There are also rather mundane tasks, where one camera is better than another even in cases where the other less suitable one is a top of the line product while the suitable one is more mainstream. For most of us, working on a rather tight budget, it boils down to choose the equipment that will do the job reasonably well over a panoply of situations, but where some tasks simply cannot be solved with that equipment, and often a set of more than one camera, suited for different purposes, will provide a choice of tools which may suit more tasks than only one of them can.

And very often, it is not about fps or highest dynamic range or better resolution, but only to get the job done, and lately we have more often found new features that open possibilities that we didn't have before. Some of them make things simpler, some of them enable doing things that were not possible before; i.e. that were not possible to do reliably with a high keeper rate. Those features often come in packages frowned at by some people. For example the time machine that Casio invented, and that Nikon took over for the 1 series, which obliterates shutter lag by literally taking the picture before you press the button. Most of our cameras cannot do that. Then the non-hybrid systems, that didn't borrow from the film era, just as the little Nikon 1, may have new features that the hybrid DSLR cameras don't. For example some of them have lightning fast and dependable AF where the AF point may be set on a touch screen, and they also release the shutter at the touch of a finger. The top line DSLR:s cannot do that, and it enables the photographer with a new tool that we didn't have before. Then the electronic era also enables a feature that so far has been seen only in one model, but which I expect that all top ones will soon have, live bulb and time exposure. You see the image developing on the screen while it is exposed, so that exposure can be stopped when it is as you want it.

I like many of those features, and I have already taken pictures that I know that I couldn't have taken with a DSLR, just for the lack of a tiltable screen with fast AF. Sometimes the DSLR is inadequate for the job, even if it won't include getting it immersed in the drink. Just as the quibble over SLR versus rangefinder fifty years ago, we now have a similar quibble over DSLR versus mirror free systems, and it boils down to more or less the same conclusions. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages, mostly the job can be done adequately with any of them, but there are tasks where one is superior, and it is not always the DSLR that is the best tool for the job. In the same way that the F1 car and its driving skills are grossly inadequate when you need a scool bus and bus driver skills, the DSLR camera is short-handed for some tasks. It is up to the photographer to choose his tool.

[rpcrowe]

I remember my daughter shooting an empty parking space in Monte Carlo because there had been a Mercedes S65 AMG parked there moments before she shot. Her hubby was the one that wanted the shot of the car but, it took her a while to find the camera in her giantic purse and the car drove off. She shot the empty space to remember the incident and showed it to everyone as a souvenier of her trip...

I think that she should heve used a 5Diii with a 24-70mm f/2.8L ii for that shot. Don't you

[Colin Southern]

Beneath the 'lack of skills' there is often simply a lack of interest or a lack of requirement.

Many people do NOT really want a DSLR or P&S but really just want to be part of the genre of capture the moment - by any means.

Technical quality and artistic merit rank very low to simply capturing 'happy faces - we are together in that place - post me on Facebook'.

In other words "they don't want a CAMERA - what they want is a PHOTO".

I'm reminded of someone who expressed an interest in the art that I create -- they wanted to be able to create art like that too, but told me "I'm not interested in the technical side of it -- that's boring".

Boy have I got a news flash for them ...

PS: Bill - if you haven't already, point your browser at this for a laugh (be sure to have sound on!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Nn-dD-QKYN4