lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

:thumbup:

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Three EV difference in dynamic range can make a huge difference in a final image.

excaliburgc Loc: Daytona Beach Florida

As in most thinks today, People want a larger computer with globs of everything in it, but in most cases don't use it, They want internet speeds faster than what anyone could possibly use, they have 1000s dollars of software to adjust their pictures, that in most cases goes mostly under utilized and to me Cameras seem to fall into this group of to much. Look at all the true master photographers and what they had to work with. It's all about capturing light and emotion and you can do that with any camera. With all the equipment and software one uses today one could ask if it's the photographer talent or the money one spent that took that great shot.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I tend to agree with you with the caviat that it is the photographer using the best tools available for his/her time period. All would agree that most bottom level DSLRs today are better than the camera Ansel Adams used (except that he shot with a large format camera, not by choise but because it was the best of the time). Had Adams had the ability to use a Hasselblad or some current large format digital camera that is available today, he probably would have. The key here though, is that, with certain restrictions, it isn't the quality of the camera but the ability of the photographer using the camer and his/her understanding of how to make a good photograph with that camera. Adams or any other great photographer would (probably) be hard pressed to take a camera unknown to him out and create a great shot on the first take. But, the ability of the photographer to understand what the camera is allowing him to do and push it to it's capabilities. Adams would not have gone out and taken the shots he took with a camera made from a shoebox. He used (what he considered) the best camera available to him for the day. Yes the qualities of that camera are probably equaled by the least expensive DSLRs maybe even the point and shoots today but Adams had the large format and his skill.
I have seen photographers of all qualities, some on here, and many more while working with Nikon. Some have created extremely good photographs with entry level cameras and I have seen some photographers with thousands of dollars worth of camera and lenses that struggle to get a decent snapshot, not because of the image but because of their skill set. These are the guy down the street ( you all know the type) that has no knowledge or skill in photography and buys the most expensive gear and wonders why his images are no good. The fact that we are all here separates us from that type, be cause we all recognise the fact that no matter how good any one of us is, we can all learn something from someone else that we might not have thought about. And each of these discoveries (not necessarily the equipment) makes us better photographers. Sure at some point each of us may hit a point where moving up to that next level camera is necessary to take the next step.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes. It seems like he is putting down landscape photography as frivolous, and saying the camera is irrelevant.

mj24

Agree with duck runs here !!

Its horses for courses innit.

Average holiday snapper won't get any better results with the expensive cameras, but won't get a good portrait in a studio with a cheaper end of the market camera.

Also agree with the man behind the camera bit.

Skill will win out with almost all reasonable cameras.

IMHO

Mj

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

That's a fair list of ideas although I personally do not always use a tripod.

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

In my opinion, the message is way too simple. But if all you ever print is 4x6 images, you may not notice significant differences between landscape photos taken with less expensive DSLRs and quite expensive ones, especially if you use any kind of post processing.

big ed Loc: Dudley UK

I think a lot of it is camera snobbery....

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The photographer is 80%, the equipment 20%. Does 20% matter to you? It does to me.

gplawhorn Loc: Norfolk, Nebraska

I've played guitar much longer than I've taken pictures; I picked up my first acoustic 38 or 39 years ago. I've played solo, I've played in bands, I've played rock, country, jazz, blues, etc.

I can tell you that, for the most part, the guitar doesn't matter, as long as it meets some basic requirements (the neck is straight, frets are properly placed, tuning pegs work, etc). Eddie Van Halen could have picked up my first electric guitar, an El Cheapo that cost me about $150 bucks, and made it sing. I've picked up nasty guitars in pawn shops, tuned them, and played some pretty tunes.

And, I can also tell you that the guitar DOES matter. When I trashed my El Cheapo and bought a Taylor Electric, my playing improved. The pick ups gave the instrument more options. Tuning was easier and more accurate. The frets were perfectly placed, and I could play in tune high on the neck.

But, while you can buy a more expensive guitar, you can't buy ability. I tell novice guitarists, "Do as much as you can with what you have. Don't buy a better guitar until this one is holding you back."

Maybe the same thing is true of cameras. The world's best camera would make better pictures, but it wouldn't make ME a better photographer.

zigipha Loc: north nj

that may be true, but that has nothing to do with the op question

"is there a difference in cameras for landscape photography if you follow the guides given to the op"

RAFriedman Loc: NYC/ Philadelphia

IMHO a tripod usually gets in the way more than improving the final result. The ability of cameras to shoot at high ISO and produce clean files, plus image stabilization is further reason to leave the tripod at home and use it only for the most critical work and situations where it IS really necessary to have a fixed support.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

And the price is fifty twice! :roll:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Yes and No ... Light and composition are key elements to a good image. When that is included, slight imperfections in the camera differences take a back seat. I am sure your friend spoke just about camera because glass is another subject. However, you can't dismiss the dynamic range, low light and high resolution differences out there.