DSLR or Mirrorless (Page 5): Yes as said,"It's not what you've ,got it's the way you use it".

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Yes as said,"It's not what you've ,got it's the way you use it".

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

wetreed wrote:

... I also don’t think it would kill people to offer suggestions on what they think would be some equipment options for a person in his position. He can take away from the discussion what he wants and can use. Lighten people.

Who is the "he" you are referring to? Note that this topic is currently five pages long, with several threads interwoven through it.

If "he" is the OP, below is what he wrote in the middle of page 1:
I was referring to the ones that think they are holier than the rest of us because they have the most expensive gear. They know who they are and the rest of you are great photographers and human beings. I knew this post would step on some toes and I apologize to the rest of you that it doesn't apply to.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

stevefrankel wrote:

Everyone says "It's the photographer, not the... (show quote)

There are excellent ILC cameras by Sony and Canon in the lens range of the Olympus at reasonable cost that are light and small but have a larger sensor that you short change readers of your book.

Bill_de Loc: US

Laura72568 wrote:

I have entered and won contests with a DSLR and a mirrorless both...which tells me the camera isn’t the winner and the judges weren’t very good! 😂

--

mniblick

Shutterbug57 wrote:

Can a kingfisher even carry an Instamatic?

African or European?

DesRose Loc: Phoenix, Arizona

AZ Dog wrote:

I subscribe to the magazine "Arizona Highways" and the yearly photo contest winners have been published. This is open to both amateurs and professionals. This years grand prize winner shot was taken with a Fugifilm X-T2. This is to show that the most expensive DSLR's no longer rule the domain.

"It's not the violin, it's the violinist" as stated in my correspondence course with the New York Institute of Photography back in 2006.

jcboy3

AZ Dog wrote:

I subscribe to the magazine "Arizona Highways" and the yearly photo contest winners have been published. This is open to both amateurs and professionals. This years grand prize winner shot was taken with a Fugifilm X-T2. This is to show that the most expensive DSLR's no longer rule the domain.

If the domain is "amateur landscape photographer", then that may never have been the case.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

DesRose wrote:

"It's not the violin, it's the violinist" as stated in my correspondence course with the New York Institute of Photography back in 2006.

Unless of course you have enjoyed the sound of a Stradivarius vs. the Costco model...

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

leftj wrote:

Cameras don't rule. Photographers do.

Top notch FF & Mirrorless vs an Instamatic??? Maybe a bit of both operator/artist and equipment perhaps...

Murray Loc: New Westminster

Perhaps the winner was a good photographer????

Shutterbug57

Murray wrote:

Perhaps the winner was a good photographer????

Undoubtedly the shooter was a good photog. THBS, when a good shooter buys a new camera, what is the reason. In most cases there is at least a perceived capability of the new body over the present body. In my case, this has been true until my latest purchase.

I migrated from a Fuji all in one 1MP camera with a very slow shutter response to a D70s when it first came out. That extra 5MP, along with Nikkor lenses 80-20/2.8, an 85/1.4, a 50/1.4 and a 12-24/4.0 provided me with a huge advantage over the Fuji all in one. I also bought a Tamron 28x75-2.8 which was just OK, but fortunately I was not shooting much in that range.

When the D200 came out, I got one. The extra 4+ MP helped as I was shooting a lot of field sports and having the extra pixels to crop improved my IQ.

When the D500 came out, I doubled my MP, but the real IQ improver was the high ISO ability. Shooting at high school fields under the lights and their poorly lit gyms was a challenge for the D200, even with fast glass. The D500 removes this issue. I also got the Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 lens to shore up the mid range. It has performed well, much better than the 28-75/2.8.

As noted above, my latest purchase does not improve my stable, but it does make it easier to take with me on business trips. Carrying around a D500 with the 24-70/2.8 & 80-200/2.8 with a flash required extra luggage. I picked up a Fuji X-T2 with the 18-55/2.8-4.0 & 55-200/3.5-4.8 lenses. The camera comes with a small flash. This all fits easily in my briefcase, so it does not have to stay in the car or hotel. I would for sure grab the D500 for sports, wildlife, action or low light shooting. I have printed 13”x19” prints from the Fuji and it’s IQ at that size is similar to the D500 except that the faster Nikkor glass provides better bokeh, but that is the trade-off for light and small which is my mission profile for that kit.

So, in short, yes, the shooter is the key ingredient in quality shots, but gear plays its part too. If you were going to be paid for a landscape shot and the pay depended on the quality of the shot, would you pick a Fuji GFX50S kit or an Instamatic 110?

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

All this shows is that most all cameras at this point can make decent images technically.

DesRose Loc: Phoenix, Arizona

xt2 wrote:

Unless of course you have enjoyed the sound of a Stradivarius vs. the Costco model...

Put Itzak Perlman on a kid's violin and I bet he can still make it sing. A photographer with good sense of composition can still get decent pics even with a disposable camera. Of course, there's limitations in equipment...the point being with any decent or similar equipment, the better photographer will usually create better pics. Typical for many of us- when someone's see a photo of ours they love, they immediately ask what camera you're shooting with or state, "you must have a really good camera". I tell them I have a good camera but it's the person behind the camera that counts. When they scoff at that, I dare them to borrow my camera and shoot pics to compare. That usually shuts them up really quick. LOL.

Murray Loc: New Westminster

Shutterbug57 wrote:

Undoubtedly the shooter was a good photog. THBS, when a good shooter buys a new camera, what is the reason. In most cases there is at least a perceived capability of the new body over the present body. In my case, this has been true until my latest purchase.

I migrated from a Fuji all in one 1MP camera with a very slow shutter response to a D70s when it first came out. That extra 5MP, along with Nikkor lenses 80-20/2.8, an 85/1.4, a 50/1.4 and a 12-24/4.0 provided me with a huge advantage over the Fuji all in one. I also bought a Tamron 28x75-2.8 which was just OK, but fortunately I was not shooting much in that range.

When the D200 came out, I got one. The extra 4+ MP helped as I was shooting a lot of field sports and having the extra pixels to crop improved my IQ.

When the D500 came out, I doubled my MP, but the real IQ improver was the high ISO ability. Shooting at high school fields under the lights and their poorly lit gyms was a challenge for the D200, even with fast glass. The D500 removes this issue. I also got the Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 lens to shore up the mid range. It has performed well, much better than the 28-75/2.8.

As noted above, my latest purchase does not improve my stable, but it does make it easier to take with me on business trips. Carrying around a D500 with the 24-70/2.8 & 80-200/2.8 with a flash required extra luggage. I picked up a Fuji X-T2 with the 18-55/2.8-4.0 & 55-200/3.5-4.8 lenses. The camera comes with a small flash. This all fits easily in my briefcase, so it does not have to stay in the car or hotel. I would for sure grab the D500 for sports, wildlife, action or low light shooting. I have printed 13”x19” prints from the Fuji and it’s IQ at that size is similar to the D500 except that the faster Nikkor glass provides better bokeh, but that is the trade-off for light and small which is my mission profile for that kit.

So, in short, yes, the shooter is the key ingredient in quality shots, but gear plays its part too. If you were going to be paid for a landscape shot and the pay depended on the quality of the shot, would you pick a Fuji GFX50S kit or an Instamatic 110?

Undoubtedly the shooter was a good photog. THBS, w... (show quote)

Can’t argue with any of that. There is a group that shows off their gear and don’t get many good shots ( the GAS folks)

Kuzano

mas24 wrote:

I have read where some grand prize winners of photo contests have been taken by a smartphone. And some winners have been women who aren't even professional photographers. You could say being at the right place at the right time is beneficial. Nothing wrong with that either.

Wow!!! "some women who aren't even professionals???" Mysoginistic are ya? I wouldn't go out alone at night in case anyone heard me say that.