Quixdraw Loc: x

I have been a serious photography enthusiast for better than sixty years. Bought my first darkroom at twelve, got hold of my first "Real" camera at 15, and have been learning and working on photography ever since. As an adult, acquired the best equipment I could afford and continued to learn. I was a little slow going digital because I was pretty happy where I was, but made the switch and went all in. Continued on the learning path, and generally getting pretty decent results. For a very long time, I believed it was all about the photographer, Eye, Skills, abilities. Then I realized it sometimes is the photographer, but the camera and lens enable achievements / captures impossible otherwise. Think Bugs or Birds or Astro. I cheerfully use the various built in features of the cameras, on the other hand, most times I don't really need VR, I generally get the photo. The years of learning, practice, and experience will usually carry me through. I have some deletes, but except in the worst conditions, a small percentage.
I got an advert today for the newest pro super camera, I'll leave out the brand to avoid that swamp. From the intro piece it sounds as if the camera will do everything but trigger itself. The sample photos were stunningly good. The eye, of course, remains, but does someone acquiring one of these, and learning its capabilities, jump past decades of skill development and learning? I won't buy one, and have an old style background, so even if I did, could never know. What do you think?

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I think you're right on target, Quixdraw.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's never been only about the photographer or only about the camera. It's always been about the photographer using the best and most appropriate tools for the job.

I'm sitting here right now listening to Rafael Aguirre play the guitar. I happen to know he plays an Alhambra guitar -- nice instrument. I doubt he'd show up at a concert with a guitar he bought at Walmart. Arguably he'd play it as well as possible but such a tool would prove severely limiting to the point of making the attempt to play it futile.

It's always been both the artist and her/his tools together.

BebuLamar

I am getting older so to shoot a bird in flight I won't be able to develop skill to get them with my manual focus camera not even with my slow AF camera. So I wouldn't even try.

User ID

That new Nikon Z9 looks to be terrific and competitively priced. Acoarst it’s not for everyone.

I hope someday new battery technology allows getting rid of that lower grip. Need a “portrait grip” ? Cool, but it could be optional like on “lesser” cameras. Other than that little gripe, if I had a $6000 B&H gift card I’d buy a Z9 instead of some other stuff.

Do I need a Z9 ? No. Can I benefit from the Z9 ? Yes. But only in pixel count. It doesn’t appear to do anything my G9 doesn’t already do, but it does it with more pixels (not bigger, just more).

In some major ways the Z9 really falls short of the G9. But maybe more pixels in an almost-as-good camera is worth an extra $4500 for certain users.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

An unskilled photographer won’t be able to take good photos with even the best equipment if he doesn’t have the skills with which to use it to its best advantage. At best he/she might be able to produce high quality mediocre images. But good gear in the hands of a skilled photographer will enhance his/her ability to produce high quality images. My opinion, of course. I appreciate a good camera, but what use is it if I don’t know how to take advantage of it? I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

BebuLamar

I won't play as well as Aguirre in fact far from that but I play much better with the Alhambra than a cheap guitar. So good equipment helps a lot.

User ID

Fortunately, all that parrot chatter just falls on numb ears.

IMNSHO all of those insufficiently skilled users should buy a Z9, a1, R3, etc. Good clean used top shelf gear doesn’t grow on bushes and gear snobs usually take very good care of stuff.

I don’t really care if dilettantes ever learn photography as long as their mistakes benefit those of us who bother to learn.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Your biography is a near match for mine, except that your keeper rate may be higher than mine. Notice my avatar. I think I was about 9 when that was taken.

The newest super pro camera does not "wind my watch". They don't have a monopoly on innovative use of technology. Nor do I have a desire for a camera that big that needs big lenses.

From a review, "And with xxxx leaning even further into the xxx's video capabilities, we’re looking at something that should be equally adept at capturing both videos and stills." That is not new innovation. That's catch up engineering.

My current camera technology fascination is with a $500 camera that flies, weighs about half a pound, fits in a pocket and takes images that survive to 13"x19" prints! If that is not enough, it borrows some tech from my phone and Adobe sot that the images are already in Lightroom Classic when I get home from a "flight"!

Quixdraw Loc: x

An invalid example - the guitar has not been technologically transformed. If you want an honest example, think Long Range Computerized rifle sights. Once learned and programmed, they allow average, trained shooters to make hits that only a few elite shooters could have achieved in the past. A bit of what I see with camers.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Sorry, I still can on a good day, and I will try for any interesting photo, but that isn't the issue. Would the new gear let you succeed?

Quixdraw Loc: x

Apples and oranges as previously stated, also we are not talking about cheap vs. quality.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I avoided brand, and don't thank you for introducing it.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Again, introducing brand, product specifics and comparison - unhelpful to the conversation.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thanks for your input - the thread is questioning if newest camera features, adequately learned, will jump past learning and experience. Obviously the Eye, Composition and some other factors cannot be automated.