It ain't the equipment (Page 8): Thank you...

tnturk Loc: Gallatin Tennessee

Thank you

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

OK≤ what are we talking about? The quality of the picture in technical terms or the vision. Is it great to take a mediocrity picture and fix it up or take a great picture that needs no computer work? The great pictures in both cases were people who took great slides I guess. Ar we trying to take art pictures or perfect technical pictures or maybe both. Does it make any difference if most if not all is done with the camera or time with software?

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

burkphoto wrote:

I agree with you... and with SharpShooter. Knowled... (show quote)

I totally agree. When a user has more knowledge and skill, the more demanding that user becomes with his gear. Users with lesser skills and knowledge may not be able to take advantage of higher end gear. Shooting action and low light situations only requires better gear if the user knows how to use it. If the user doesn't have the skills and knowledge to get the shots they want, better equipment is a moot point.

Put a beginner on a Stradivarius and a virtuoso on a entry level instrument. The virtuoso will sound better, but I bet you the virtuoso is going to wish he or she had a Stradivarius.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

dsmeltz wrote:

But, if you are trying to carve Mount Rushmore, you better give a lot of thought before you commit to "just" a chisel.

(getting the job done right)=(choosing the right tool for the job)+(knowing how to use the tool)

LoL, but ds, now you're talking about professionals, not amateurs.
Since when have the two ever thought alike!!! LoL
SS

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

This subject has been visited on numerous occasions, 'it's not the equipment but the photographer'. The only analogy I can think of regarding equipment is; my first car was a 53' Pontiac and it certainly got me where I needed to go. But my 14' Chevrolet Equinox does it so much better, and I'm so much more comfortable, safer and it's a pleasure to drive. Same thing with cameras and lenses for me! I might keep the old Pontiac around for a novelty item, but if I needed to go somewhere it would most definitely be in the Equinox. I thrive on learning and using the newest technology Canon comes out with, and I believe my images show it.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

RRS wrote:

No, your film camera can't do all that my digital can! I shot Hasselblads for years and believe me I know. How many FPS does your film camera do? Do you send prints to your publisher or do you digitize them?

Have to agree with you. When I was shooting film, I ccouldn’t change ISO on the fly, reset white balance, shoot 10 FPS in a football game or car race, instantly review my image. There are many other advantages. Yes, you can make perfectly wonderful picture with film. I still use Fugi Velvia for flowers.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

This does not distinguish between the computer guy from the picture taker. Is it one or the other or a combination?

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

As to sensor size, I disagree that any quality differences are "extras." I do landscapes with a full frame and am looking for the capability to produce very large prints. FF has an advantage for that over APS-C. I wouldn't think of that as an extra.[/quote]

I agree, remember I did say comparable sized sensors, I do not consider FF an extra, however video, in camera HDR, color modes, connecting to cell phone for immediate uploading,things like that are unnecessary extras that raise cost without any creative advantage, BTW a viewfinder is not an extra.,

SteveR Loc: Michigan

bobmcculloch wrote:

As to sensor size, I disagree that any quality differences are "extras." I do landscapes with a full frame and am looking for the capability to produce very large prints. FF has an advantage for that over APS-C. I wouldn't think of that as an extra.

I agree, remember I did say comparable sized sensors, I do not consider FF an extra, however video, in camera HDR, color modes, connecting to cell phone for immediate uploading,things like that are unnecessary extras that raise cost without any creative advantage, BTW a viewfinder is not an extra.,[/quote]

Bob, wouldn't you consider higher fps, 153 focal points and sophisticated focal system, and better processing system to be extras that distinguish a camera and its results from others?

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

It is like catching a Marlin with a 18 lbs line. World class technique is required indeed. When you are awarded, only you and the Marlin is on the record, not the rod, line or reel.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

SteveR wrote:

Bob, wouldn't you consider higher fps, 153 focal points and sophisticated focal system, and better processing system to be extras that distinguish a camera and its results from others?

I don't shoot sports so why do I need a high fps? I only use 1 focal point, I want to know where my point of focus is!, if the lens does not focus the way I want I use manual, actually only have to do that occasionally on 1 lens, processing is done on thee computer all the camera has to do is RAW capture. BTW AA , from what I've read, was an even better darkroom tech than photog.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

bobmcculloch wrote:

I don't shoot sports so why do I need a high fps? I only use 1 focal point, I want to know where my point of focus is!, if the lens does not focus the way I want I use manual, actually only have to do that occasionally on 1 lens, processing is done on thee computer all the camera has to do is RAW capture. BTW AA , from what I've read, was an even better darkroom tech than photog.

That's the point. The O.P. stated "it ain't the equipment." What you have agreed with me on is that some equipment is certainly is just as good today as yesterday for certain types of photography (how can you beat a large format camera for portrait photography?), but action sports, wildlife, bif, is a totally different animal.

LouV Loc: Juno Beach, FL

A great photographer with mediocre equipment will almost always produce a better image than a poor photographer with the greatest equipment. But, all other things being equal, better equipment will usually yield better images.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Meganephron wrote:

There is no arguing with your logic. Practice makes perfect, however, advances in equipment can add greater flexibility and expanded capability to your skills. I do a lot of low light night photography. My D1x was plagued with noise. My D4s handles these condition. Shadow definition is much better. It takes practice with the new gear also.

Let’s give everyone the same top of the line camera/lens combo. Guess what is going to happen? Those with skills will continue to produce work of art. The rest of us snapshot shooters will continue producing snapshots. The issue with threads like this, is that a lot of the members think that they are good photographers just because if their equipment.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Ched49 wrote:

This is unbelievable, the original poster comes up with a simple statement and everybody tries to make rocket science out of it. Oh! by the way RRS...thanks for giving me your life's story.

Hey, sorry to bore you with that last sentence. The OP's statement "It ain't the equipment" may be true if we are shooting telephone poles that don't move in good light but after that all bets are off. Where ever anyone is with their skill will depend if they feel that a better camera or faster lens may help. Without knowledge new equipment alone won't make much difference. Use what works best for yourself or what you can afford.