Do You Really Believe Its The Photographer And Not The Equipment (Page 9): I think there are two variables in photography...the equipment and the talent/abilities of the photographer.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

joer wrote:

Mostly what one hears from photographers, i.e., pro, enthusiast and neophytes, is that the equipment doesn't matter; its the photographer.

Then one has to ask, how many cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories, etc., do you have? Or what cameras or equipment do you lust after?

I think the evidence suggests that gear does matter, although it may not be most important. A skilled lumberjack with an axe will not compete with a man/woman who knows how to use a chain saw.

I think there are two variables in photography...the equipment and the talent/abilities of the photographer. So, I bought the very best camera and lens I wanted so I could eliminate one of the variables...the equipment. If a photo I take doesn't turn out too great, I blame by abilities as a photographer, not the equipment. Works for me.

WarpedWeaver

Linda From Maine wrote:

There are at least two photographers on UHH whose ... (show quote)

Well said.

pdsdville Loc: Midlothian, Tx

A top of the line camera in the hands of a neophyte is usually a waste of the camera and it's capabilities. An expert photographer with a middle of the road camera can produce some great results. An expert photographer with a top of the line camera can produce spectacular photographs. Learn all you can, buy the best you can afford and you won't be disappointed. This subject reminds me of a late 50's or early 60's song about love and marriage. You can't have one without the other.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

CHG_CANON wrote:

When I admire the wonders of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands knowing I captured it with a full-frame camera.

Love it!!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What if the difference between your goals and your accomplishments is just 30 megapixels?

srt101fan

CHG_CANON wrote:

Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying about whether his camera is good enough.

Ahhh! Now I understand......😕

JeffinMass Loc: MA

Without the photographer the gear just sits. With the photographer the gear is used. The results all depend on the skill, knowledge and experience of the photographer. The gear are tools for the artist.

Lemon Drop Kid Loc: Greeley, CO

Depends what your criteria of a "good photo" is. If you are talking about the subject matter, experience and knowledge count. If you are talking about the quality of the image, there is nothing anyone can do about the number of pixels or the IQ of a lens. They are what they are.

srt101fan

CatMarley wrote:

I don't consider racecars suitable photographic subjects. Machines are not objects with any emotional content. Creatures, Nature. people, even architecture - these are things of beauty. I would rather try and photograph a wild boar coming at me. Same danger to life and limb, same equipment would be advantageous.

"I don't consider racecars suitable photographic subjects." Say it isn't so, Cat! EVERYTHING is a suitable photographic subject......

joncogar Loc: WV

Agree if you can see it ,its photographable.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you think all the brands are the same, you own the wrong brand.

PierreD

joer wrote:

Mostly what one hears from photographers, i.e., pro, enthusiast and neophytes, is that the equipment doesn't matter; its the photographer.

Then one has to ask, how many cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories, etc., do you have? Or what cameras or equipment do you lust after?

I think the evidence suggests that gear does matter, although it may not be most important. A skilled lumberjack with an axe will not compete with a man/woman who knows how to use a chain saw.

The photographer AND the gear are complementary and they are not interchangeable, and both matter equally. If the gear didn't matter, how could photographers who say so justify spending thousands of $$ to purchase equipment instead of using cheapo, plasticy, disposable lenses and cameras?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

And without the gear the photographer just sits... It cuts both ways...

JeffinMass wrote:

Without the photographer the gear just sits. With the photographer the gear is used. The results all depend on the skill, knowledge and experience of the photographer. The gear are tools for the artist.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

And without the gear the photographer just sits... It cuts both ways...

True. But I think the real point is a skilled
and talented photographer can capture better images with a 10 year old low end DSLR with a kit lens than a unskilled and untalented individual can capture with the newest high end gear.

A camera system is only a tool. A lower quality tool In the hands of a craftsman will still yield superior results compared to the best quality tool in the hands of someone who is unskilled.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Indiana wrote:

I think there are two variables in photography...the equipment and the talent/abilities of the photographer. So, I bought the very best camera and lens I wanted so I could eliminate one of the variables...the equipment. If a photo I take doesn't turn out too great, I blame by abilities as a photographer, not the equipment. Works for me.

You only eliminated that variable for this moment in time. In 6 months from now you'll have to buy new again, I guess. I also guess all of the incredible photographs taken by photographers 10 years ago, with what are today ancient digital cameras, are suddenly no longer incredible, correct?