Not to single out this post, but use it as an example of generalities that could confuse certain issues ... at least from one professional's point of view.

While the "finger pushing the button" is most important, that has been true since the advent of photography. Photography is part science and part artistic endeavor. You cannot take a photograph without some sort of machine and capture media ... be it a pin-hole camera and photo sensitive plate, film, or today's digital sensor and computer designed optics.

The size of the media in tandem with the field-of-view of lenses used has a direct effect on the characteristics of the image captured. The smaller the media the more depth-of-field per f/stop compared to the same f/stop using larger media. Any given field-of-view of a lens @ f/2 captured on 35mm full frame media has less depth-of-field than the same field-of-view at f/2 on a 4/3s sensor. Same field-of-view using a Medium Format sensor has even less depth-of-field. No "finger" is going to change that, it is physics.

The assumption that computers have equalized optical design is only partly true. It has also propigated homogenization. Many older lenses are prized for their characteristics or character by those that lean toward the artistic part of the science/art equation of photography. In addition, companies such as Leica are renowned for lenses that perform wide open better than so called mediocre optics. At f/8 one is hard pressed to separate many lenses from their competitors ... f/1.4 is a different matter altogether.

You can have lenses that produce extremely sharp images but the over-all impression is lack-luster ... where some lens systems may be equally as sharp but also have a certain impact (look and feel) that is anything but lack-luster ... Zeiss is particularly known for this. I personally have a fondness for the way fast aperture Canon lenses render light and color ... but prefer Nikon optics when doing B&W. It's a matter of taste and one's personal artistic vision.

Citing professional use, and use by increasing numbers of pros is a misleading. It assumes that the quality and characteristics of smaller sensors and performance of optics have leveled the playing field. The true mitigating factor is that professional end use has become less demanding. Printed matter is diminishing and electronic end use has become dominate.

Even though I more recently shot Sony DSLR and SLT cameras for professional work such as weddings/events/portraits, and do not own Canon or Nikon anymore, I would still tout them as "owning" the professional systems market. Just saying they do not doesn't make it true. Look up DSLR sales statistics or ask rental places. Wedding/event photography is dominated by Canikon ... so is portrait, sports, racing, and wildlife ... and for good reason.

Smaller formats, and alternative cameras such as mirror-less have their place IF the photographer ascertains that their needs do not warrant more choice, or faster, or more secure capture. I once owned and used a multi-shot Hasselblad kit that produced breathtaking professional results ... results for clients that required the best color fidelity and resolution possible. Nothing on the market today save the new Phase One 100 meg monster could even come close. When I stopped doing that sort of work, I moved to a lesser kit, but one that was highly capable at the new requirements.

BTW, exaggerating ISOs may make a point, but if there is anything that has distinguished modern sensor design is it increased abilities in lower light. However, I would agree that IF one doesn't need such performance, be it ISO or faster aperture lenses for less DOF, or dual card capture or whatever, then why pay for it? I feel that way about paying for video capture on cameras I only use for still capture.

Marc Williams
Fotografz, LLC
http://fotografz.smugmug.com

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say, but I looked at your site and you ARE what we mean when we say that the chimp behind the camera is what is most important. Of course a technically proper picture is important overall, but to have the creative and artistic skills that you have mister is what makes your work stand out. You are one of those talents who could use a cheap disposable camera and still create art. Give the best of the best gear to the rest of us, and we will gladly produce another snap.

Wonderful work MR!!!!!!

Thank you for your kind words.

What I was trying to say is that the choice of tool can and does make a difference. It is somewhat naive to think professionals do not think, or even obsess, about equipment, and that a "master" is somehow immune to it all. Not only have I done a lot of work myself, but as a professional advertising creative director for ad agencies, I've also had the good fortune to work with many of the best photographers in the world. They may not spend much time on the web discussing gear, nor is it the center of their universe, but they are quite aware of what is what, and how it can advance their creative agenda. The difference is their range of interests can be different than the average photographer ... encompassing specialized photographic hardware, exotic lighting options, and so on. Many of the larger successful studios even employ a technical mavin, partially who's job is to stay abreast of equipment and software innovations and catalog them as solutions to "opportunities" that may arise.

While certain types of paid photography may lend itself to the smaller mirror-less systems ... travel documentation being one of them (i.e., writer/photographer), most pros that travel to shoot for clients often rent gear needed for a specific assignment. The old saying "Horses For Courses" is still very much at play in the professional world.

Probably the most focused way I could put it is that (ideally) ... Ideas/Vision/Purpose comes first ... then the tool is selected to accomplish it. The cart should not be placed before the horse. We don't buy gear and go in search of how to apply it. We start with a purpose in mind and apply the best gear for that task that is available, or that we can afford.

While anyone with talent, experience and training could do a decent photo with a disposable camera, most of the photos on my site could not be accomplished with one. I could not be competitive, nor solve many client problems by severely limiting my gear bag.

In short, don't be ashamed of liking gear, new stuff invigorates a lot of pros just as much as anyone. Figure out how to get the most out of what you have in hand, and when the time comes you'll know when you have outgrown it. Just keep it all in perspective, and spend time accessing your reasons for using your gear ... but most of all, try to improve your work with ideas and vision.

Marc Williams
Fotografz, LLC

Very eloquently put! Because of my wife's travel business, I travel using with a small system with high quality. Even though I am not really shooting professionally, my wife has to have good shots for her site and I have to produce them in 3 to 5 minutes per room (trust me, 5 minutes is a luxury). My next lense is a 7-14mm or the 9-18mm instead of the lense I want, the 40-150mm. Business even affects some of us who aren't professionals. Again, it always comes down to the right tool for the needs or requirements.