Peter Souza: The Way I See It (Page 7): That is true, within the capabilities of the camera in question. The best photographers are not going to get a great sports or performance...

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

insman1132 wrote:

Who was the great photographer who said, "A good photographer will get a great picture with a pin hole camera!"

Probably truer than most of us "multi-camera owners" would like to admit.

That is true, within the capabilities of the camera in question. The best photographers are not going to get a great sports or performance photo, birds in flight, etc. with a pinhole camera.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

hyperbole
[hīˈpərbəlē]
NOUN
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
"he vowed revenge with oaths and hyperboles" · [more]
synonyms:
exaggeration · overstatement · magnification · amplification · embroidery · embellishment · overplaying · excess · overkill · purple prose · puffery

HYPERBOLE is fun, I like to use it from time to time to make a point or when being sarcastic, however, when it comes to photography and equipment, I try to avoid it.

So YES, you can make a photograph, perhaps an interesting one, with a pinhole camera and using a candle for lighting. I suppose, somewhere in the world, someone produced an earth-shattering image with a Brownie Hawkeye or some other Bakolite antique. And...there is still an elderly gentleman still covering current news events with a Speed Graphic and an old Ascorlight- and his work is great. BUT, from a practical and common-sense standpoint, if you are an active serious amateur or professional photograher you need decent up-to-date reliable equipment that meets the requirements of the work you are doing.

Brands alone have never carried any prestige for me. All this "this brand vs. that brand" borders on childishness to me*. I've been at this for a very long time and when I select a camera or a system I look for ergonomics- how the cameras fit into my oversized hands- the layout of the controls. the grip, etc.. I need a system that can overlap into all or most the kinds of work I need to do- versatility! I need a decent selection of good lenses. The gear must be sturdy and can stand up to continuous use. I want a system that won't become obsolete in a ridiculously short time as to the availability of parts and repair, firmware, etc. Those are my*criteria and I don't care which logo is emblazoned on the nameplate. Budget is important too- even professionals don't have unlimited funds- the equipment has to eventually pay for itself.

Overly Concerning yourself with what gear famous and successful photographers use is not the best criteria for selecting YOUR equipment. It is far better to concern yourself with their technique, their work ethic, methodologies, way of seeing, their modus operandi, their philosophy.

I have seen well-known photographers endorsing a certain brand or specific pieces of equipment. Sometimes I realize that I (or he or she) could do just as well with another make or model, and sometimes, frankly, I find that this piece of gear or system is just what I need- the work it is intended for can't be done as well or efficiently with something else. I once attended a 5-day seminar with a great portrait photograher. He had a manufacturer bring in the same lighting system he had in his studio. After the seminar, I purchased the entire system right off the classroom floor. It wasn't an IMPULSE BUY- that was 35 years ago and I still have most of that stuff in service.

My* (personal) rule of thumb is never to define a photographer by his or her equipment. I've seen some amazing work come out of very modest equipment in talented and skilled hands. I have also seen some pretty rough stuff, really poorly crafted work, and was surprised to find that it was made with extremely costly top-of-the-line equipment. Nowadays there may be telltale evidence in the EXIF data!

* I keep writing "my" because theses are my personal opinions and I don't mean to foist them on anyone else or cause more protracted arguments. Everyone has the right to enjoy their photography and purchase their gear as they see fit. I just don't like to see folks spending their hard-earned money on new or more gear because they feel it will improve their work- it may very well do that. I just like to warn newcomers or the uninititiated to examine their technique first and not fall for too much "razzle dazzel" or HYPErbole.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

hyperbole
[hīˈpərbəlē]
NOUN
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
"he vowed revenge with oaths and hyperboles" · [more]
synonyms:
exaggeration · overstatement · magnification · amplification · embroidery · embellishment · overplaying · excess · overkill · purple prose · puffery

HYPERBOLE is fun, I like to use it from time to time to make a point or when being sarcastic, however, when it comes to photography and equipment, I try to avoid it.

So YES, you can make a photograph, perhaps an interesting one, with a pinhole camera and using a candle for lighting. I suppose, somewhere in the world, someone produced an earth-shattering image with a Brownie Hawkeye or some other Bakolite antique. And...there is still an elderly gentleman still covering current news events with a Speed Graphic and an old Ascorlight- and his work is great. BUT, from a practical and common-sense standpoint, if you are an active serious amateur or professional photograher you need decent up-to-date reliable equipment that meets the requirements of the work you are doing.

Brands alone have never carried any prestige for me. All this "this brand vs. that brand" borders on childishness to me*. I've been at this for a very long time and when I select a camera or a system I look for ergonomics- how the cameras fit into my oversized hands- the layout of the controls. the grip, etc.. I need a system that can overlap into all or most the kinds of work I need to do- versatility! I need a decent selection of good lenses. The gear must be sturdy and can stand up to continuous use. I want a system that won't become obsolete in a ridiculously short time as to the availability of parts and repair, firmware, etc. Those are my*criteria and I don't care which logo is emblazoned on the nameplate. Budget is important too- even professionals don't have unlimited funds- the equipment has to eventually pay for itself.

Overly Concerning yourself with what gear famous and successful photographers use is not the best criteria for selecting YOUR equipment. It is far better to concern yourself with their technique, their work ethic, methodologies, way of seeing, their modus operandi, their philosophy.

I have seen well-known photographers endorsing a certain brand or specific pieces of equipment. Sometimes I realize that I (or he or she) could do just as well with another make or model, and sometimes, frankly, I find that this piece of gear or system is just what I need- the work it is intended for can't be done as well or efficiently with something else. I once attended a 5-day seminar with a great portrait photograher. He had a manufacturer bring in the same lighting system he had in his studio. After the seminar, I purchased the entire system right off the classroom floor. It wasn't an IMPULSE BUY- that was 35 years ago and I still have most of that stuff in service.

My* (personal) rule of thumb is never to define a photographer by his or her equipment. I've seen some amazing work come out of very modest equipment in talented and skilled hands. I have also seen some pretty rough stuff, really poorly crafted work, and was surprised to find that it was made with extremely costly top-of-the-line equipment. Nowadays there may be telltale evidence in the EXIF data!

* I keep writing "my" because theses are my personal opinions and I don't mean to foist them on anyone else or cause more protracted arguments. Everyone has the right to enjoy their photography and purchase their gear as they see fit. I just don't like to see folks spending their hard-earned money on new or more gear because they feel it will improve their work- it may very well do that. I just like to warn newcomers or the uninititiated to examine their technique first and not fall for too much "razzle dazzel" or HYPErbole.

hyperbole br hīˈpərbəlē br NOUN br exaggerated s... (show quote)

I’ve seen more than one person on here denigrate the brands they don’t use on here and I’ll look at the work they’ve posted and gotten a good laugh.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

I have to opine on your comment. BTW I'm a Nikon user. I worked as a mechanic for several years and the brand of your tools (Snap-on, Mac, Matco, Craftsman, etc.) had very little to do with how good a mechanic you were. It was how good you approached the task at hand and how effectively you used your tools and knowledge to complete the assigned task. I see the very same thing in photography. Makes no difference which brand of camera you use. I've seen some damn good photos shot with an iPhone.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

fstoprookie wrote:

I have to opine on your comment. BTW I'm a Nikon user. I worked as a mechanic for several years and the brand of your tools (Snap-on, Mac, Matco, Craftsman, etc.) had very little to do with how good a mechanic you were. It was how good you approached the task at hand and how effectively you used your tools and knowledge to complete the assigned task. I see the very same thing in photography. Makes no difference which brand of camera you use. I've seen some damn good photos shot with an iPhone.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

fstoprookie wrote:

I have to opine on your comment. BTW I'm a Nikon user. I worked as a mechanic for several years and the brand of your tools (Snap-on, Mac, Matco, Craftsman, etc.) had very little to do with how good a mechanic you were. It was how good you approached the task at hand and how effectively you used your tools and knowledge to complete the assigned task. I see the very same thing in photography. Makes no difference which brand of camera you use. I've seen some damn good photos shot with an iPhone.

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

Thanks JD750 & burkPhoto

ave22

I thought it was an excellent documentary and his photography was so good it brought me to tears. When talking about his choice of camera he said he chose Canon (although Nikon was just as good or better) because it’s quiet mode was more unobtrusive and it was of utmost importance for him to blend into the background. He’s obviously a master of candid photography, his work will live on forever.

GrannyAnnie

JD750 wrote:

Speaking up about what?

Here is my (Nikon user) comment. I say use the gear you like best. If you like Canon, then use Canon. If you like Sony, then use Sony. We are living in the golden age of camera tech. It's foolish to argue about brands when it comes to results. They are ALL good cameras and any one of them, when handled properly, is capable of delivering stellar results. It's the nut behind the lens that makes all the difference with the results.

Absolutely!!

gwilliams6

As a fellow career photojournalist that has covered all US Presidents since Gerald Ford, I have know Pete for many years. It is Pete's skill at knowing how to expose in tough lighting situations, and knowing how best to take advantage of the lighting you are given. Remember Pete also was a White House photographer for President Reagan . I have covered US Presidents and other world leaders with Nikon, Canon and Sony gear over my four decades of my career. As tech changes and improves, professional photographers can choose to stay with the gear they know and are comfortable with, or choose to switch to different gear. It is an individual comfort level, familiarity and performance choice for each photojournalist.

Pete shoots with the best Canon cameras at the time, but he could have equally make great shots with the best Nikon or Sony cameras. https://www.dpreview.com/news/5366410447/white-house-photographer-pete-souza-shows-off-what-gear-is-in-his-bag

Pete is a superb photo editor, but also had fulltime White House Photo editors to get help get the most out of his images. Pete does all his own editing now that he is out of the White House.

Associated Press staffers who also cover each President and all world leaders have now switched from Canon DSLRs to Sony mirrorless gear for all their hundreds of staff photographers and videographers worldwide.

Pete deserves all the credit for his incredible body of work in and out of the White House. I myself briefly was a White House photo intern for President Gerald Ford under legendary White House photographer David Kennerly , and my mentor was the late great Washington Star and Los Angeles Times' Washington D.C chief photographer Bernie Boston. Bernie covered many US Presidents and is best known for his famed photo, "Flower Power" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Power_(photograph)

Here one shot I made at President Ronald Reagan's funeral, and one shot of President Barack Obama speaking at an event.

Cheers. https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

(Download)

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

The best camera you can is the one you are most comfortable with using

frangeo Loc: Texas

JD750 wrote:

No it was the camera. If you buy a Canon you will get results exactly like his.

Oh I should also mention you will also need his years of experience.

We know where your talent is. The camera did it. HA HA HA !!!

gwilliams6

Wrong link above. here is the famed "Flower Power" photograph of my Washington D.C. mentor Bernie Boston

https://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+boston%2C+flower+powwr+photo&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwj1i9OoxcfsAhUB9qwKHVtoCJkQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=bernie+boston%2C+flower+powwr+photo&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoCCAA6BAgAEB46BggAEAgQHjoECAAQGFCh0QFY-vwBYO2EAmgAcAB4AIAB9waIAaI7kgENMC4yLjUuNS4yLjMuMpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=hiKRX_WwLoHsswXb0KHICQ&rlz=1C1CHBH_enUS870US870#imgrc=KRJfyBn8encUUM