# Is how expensive your camera is important or isn't it?



## photogir2002 (Aug 10, 2011)

I've been photographing for newspapers, myself and a business for 14 years now. I don't have the best camera, I don't have the worst. I have an SLR, but it is a Canon Rebel xt EOS and xti. I want to upgrade, believe me I do, and I'm saving my money but for now I am using what I have.

I've heard it said it isn't the camera it is the person behind the camera...

What do you think?:meh:


----------



## EPPhoto (Aug 10, 2011)

The newest camera with all the bells and whistles can make things easier at times.  But you are most certainly correct that it's the person behind the camera that matters the most.  

Don't get caught up in the "latest and greatest" or you'll never be satisfied, because as soon as you buy a camera, another cones out. 

I think that if you're happy with your results your getting now, then keep it.  But if you feel you've reached the limits of your current body, then by all means....UPGRADE!! lol


----------



## analog.universe (Aug 10, 2011)

If you know what you're doing you can get great shots with whatever gear you've got, but that doesn't mean you can get every shot.  Sometimes you need f/1.4 and low noise at ISO3200, or you're just not even going to take the lens cap off.  Other times you're going to be at 5.6 and base ISO no matter what gear you've got, and it all comes down to technique and style.  So if you're running into technological limits somewhere, maybe an upgrade will get you shots you can't get now.  But if you're within the limits of your gear you may not see a difference in quality.

That being said the Rebels are limited a little bit ergonomically, as only some of the important variables have dedicated controls.


----------



## skieur (Aug 10, 2011)

Well, it is the person behind the camera, but if you start noticing purple fringing, light fall off toward the edges or corners of the image, vignetting, drop off in sharpness toward the edges etc. then perhaps upgrading lens and/or camera might be helpful.

skieur


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 10, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> If you know what you're doing you can get great shots with whatever gear you've got, but that doesn't mean you can get every shot.  Sometimes you need f/1.4 and low noise at ISO3200, or you're just not even going to take the lens cap off.  Other times you're going to be at 5.6 and base ISO no matter what gear you've got, and it all comes down to technique and style.  So if you're running into technological limits somewhere, maybe an upgrade will get you shots you can't get now.  But if you're within the limits of your gear you may not see a difference in quality.
> 
> That being said the Rebels are limited a little bit ergonomically, as only some of the important variables have dedicated controls.



I agree. Don't upgrade until you feel limited by your camera.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!


----------



## skieur (Aug 10, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!



In 1977 my 71 VW almost dropped me onto the road beside the spare tire from the trunk due to total RUST.  It was running on 2 cylinders with a rusted out muffler as well.  If a police officer put his foot on the running board, the whole side of the car would have come off, also due to rust.  What a terrible car!:thumbdown:

skieur


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 10, 2011)

Oh stop 

Some people can take a better photograph with their Iphone than I can with a super nice camera/lens and others with more expensive gear take lousy shots. Take an artist and give him crayons and he can draw a picture. Give him oils and he'll give you a masterpiece. Give a monkey either and you get monkey doo!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 10, 2011)

Of course gear matters.  You need the right tool for whatever job you are doing.  In the OP's case, the entry level Canons have quite a few limitations.  Some of those limitations prevent you from taking shots in certain conditions and some of those limitations are just inconveniences like having to dive into menus to make basic adjustments.  Whether those limitations are limiting you, as the photographer, is obviously not a decision that anybody on an online forum can make for you.

Everything from external controls, weather sealing, low light performance, focus accuracy, focus speed, ergonomics, etc, etc make the entry level Canon(and Nikon) offerings a poor choice for me.  I prefer to be the limiting factor.  I don't want to have to fight my gear to get a shot.

YMMV, but anybody that says gear doesn't matter is either not at a level where it does matter or they are fooling themselves.  You can't hand a carpenter a saw and expect him to build a house.  He has to have the right tools for the job.  Photography is no different, and it can be very expensive to do right.  Heck, most of us have lenses or flashes that cost more than our camera body, and it's not just because we like expensive toys(well, not completely anyway).

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions.  Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs  Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc.  The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.


----------



## Overread (Aug 10, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions



You also have to define what a "great shot" is; because most of the time when people say that very low end gear can take great shots because its the photographer, they are talking purely from an artistic point of view with regard to content and composition - quality of the photo and the possible end-uses of it are often not considered factors.
You can take good photos with any gear provided you work within its limitations - however almost anyone who takes photography more seriously than snapshots aims to ensure that they have the best possible tools to produce the best results possible and to have the fewest limitations upon them when shooting - allowing them to better realise and create the art and compositions they want with the tools they have.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 10, 2011)

Oh, I'm in full agreement. My previous statement translates to: Expensive gear does not a photographer make


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions
> ...



Good point.  Great is definitely a relative term.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!



Although I don't see the reason to bash Canon (yet again), Derrel is right here.

It doesn't matter how good the photographer is, the quality of your photos is directly related to the quality of your gear. This will never change, and bad gear is bad.

You could never take the kind of photo that a DSLR + a high end telephoto (400mm 2.8L for example) could capture, on a cell phone camera. It is just not physically possible for so many reasons.

Also, high quality glass will provide far superior sharpness, color, contrast, and lower CA compared to crappy kit lenses.

High quality glass and DSLR lenses in general compared to P&S+cell phone ones provide for much larger apertures, superior speed of focus, etc, etc

Just last night walking around with my camera I was able to achieve focus lock in pretty much pitch black darkness with my 70-200 2.8. Do you really think a cell phone camera could do that?

And go try to shoot at 8 fps burst (like my 7D can) on a cell phone camera, then come back and tell me how it went. Hell even most film SLR are far superior to them in this area.

These are the cold hard facts people.

Good game, thanks for playing those of you who think that gear doesnt matter.

Even if it is true that an amazing photographer could take a better photo with an iphone than some noob could with a DSLR, what happens when you give the amazing guy the DSLR?

See my point?

Neil


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.



Very well said.

Why on earth would you spend so much time setting everything up (pro lights, etc.) and then shoot with a call phone camera lol.

And imagine what a really good camera could do in the same exact setup.

Here are two images from the Leica S2 that I originally posted in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ou-could-have-any-camera-body-what-would.html

1)

This is an actual pixels crop from the the 37.5 MP file that this monster of a camera sipts out.








2)

And heres one at full res






Go and do that with a cell phone, ill be here waiting for the results.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 11, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.
> ...


Please don't quote me and use selective color in the same post.  It makes me sad.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 11, 2011)

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions
> ...



Very true. Both.

Not to mention a little something called client expectation: I bought my first Hasselblad to do weddings way back when because, in my market (DC), wedding photogs using 35 mm were considered jokes by the high paying customers who all had fancy 35mm gear.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 11, 2011)

This thread delivers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





So beat the quality of my cell phone cam pic, but please don't judge the poor photo-takin' skillset. Renee wouldn't stand for such chatter


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



I didnt "use selective color".

That is a photo I found when reading this review of the camera Leica S2 Field and Studio Review, and I did not edit it.

So you can see just how much resolution and image detail we are talking about, here is the eye shot again and then the full res of it.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 11, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


A couple things: If you didn't take the shot, you aren't supposed to post it.  Kind of part of the guidelines.  Second, I'm not sure what you mean by full res shots, but generally, the first shot would be referred to as a 100% crop and the second is just a normal resized shot.  Neither are full resolution.  Both are resized, resampled, and compressed.

Regardless, two things are obvious:
1) the first edit was horrible
2) a cell phone camera is never going to be able to reproduce the results from a Leica or even a mid-range DSLR.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> A couple things: If you didn't take the shot, you aren't supposed to post it. Kind of part of the guidelines. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by full res shots, but generally, the first shot would be referred to as a 100% crop and the second is just a normal resized shot. Neither are full resolution. Both are resized, resampled, and compressed.
> 
> Regardless, two things are obvious:
> 1) the first edit was horrible
> 2) a cell phone camera is never going to be able to reproduce the results from a Leica or even a mid-range DSLR.




Your missing the point here lol, and I can see you are one of those people who picks apart posts.

Those photos are clearly for the public because it was a camera review. There is no copyright or watermarks anywhere in the article, so I am pretty sure they wouldn&#8217;t care if people use them. Especially just as an example (like I did).

And who are you lol? The police of these forums? No you aren&#8217;t, so let the moderators do their job and don&#8217;t tell me what to do.

What does the edit have to do with anything? Who cares if it had selective color? Why does that matter for the context of this discussion? Oh that&#8217;s right it doesn't lol.

We are talking about image quality of cell phone vs very high end digital cameras here, and the way someone edited a photo isn&#8217;t very relevant.

I was agreeing with you before by the way, so I don't see why you are arguing with me.

Troll perhaps?

Edit: 

Oh ya I forgot to say "full res resized" which is clearly what I meant.

The image files are 7500x5000 which is like 4x the ENTIRE resolution of my 1080p monitor. Do you really think I didnt know it was resized? 

Keep reaching.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 11, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> Troll perhaps?


Sure, why not.

You've been here long enough to know that the moderation on this forum is just about nill.  Heck, I couldn't care less what you post.  Actually, I agree with you.  You used an image that was availble to the public in an editorial and example manner.  I don't see anything wrong with that at all, but just about anytime somebody does it, there are at least a few members that jump all over them about it.  Heck, we've had threads where somebody will post a picture just asking how they can achieve those kind of results and they get jumped on.

In any case, if you would have credited the original photo(which you should have), then I wouldn't have assumed you had done the edit or said anything about it, which was kind of a joke to start with...You just take yourself too seriously. 

And whoever is using a Leica and decided it was a good idea to use selective color on that photo should be shot.  It still makes me sad.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Troll perhaps?
> ...



Right.

Right.

And right.

Maybe I had the wrong idea about you lol.

I didnt really like the selective color either, and probably should have used just the normal one in both this and the other thread. 

The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!

Ya I should have credited it at first, Ill start doing that.

Neil


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 11, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!
> 
> Neil



Well, it's no I-Phone, but I guess you gotta work with what you got...


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!
> ...



Although I am somewhat impressed with those photos in the article you linked, they aren't really very good lol. The only reason I am impressed, is because my expectations were so very low.

The iphone 3GS has a 3MP camera, so lets just say you wouldn&#8217;t be able to print them very large.

The dynamic range was terrible, and many of them showed really noticeable image noise. For a studio shot with that kind of lighting (tripod, etc.), its simply unacceptable.

And the article says "Have you ever felt that your digital camera is holding you back and that if only you could afford to buy the latest and greatest DSLR that your images would get that &#8216;Pro&#8217; look that everyone strives for?"

"Pro look" lol? Really?

The photos I posted of the mighty Leica S2 have a "Pro look". Those iphone photos have more what I would describe as an "Ugly look", at least in the context of pro fashion photography.

I could take far better photos than that with just my little 7D, which I love by the way.
:hug::


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 11, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


You either give me so little credit that you are assuming I am a moron or you have no sense of humor at all.  Both of those options disturb me.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 11, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> You either give me so little credit that you are assuming I am a moron or you have no sense of humor at all. Both of those options disturb me.



Na I got it.

Don't worry, the "sky is not falling".

Why do you get disturbed so easy lol?

I was in Kuwait in 03' for the "shock and awe" and the invasion of Iraq.

We had missiles shot at our base for like 2 weeks, and I had to slap on full chem warfare gear and go hide in a bunker EVERY TIME they shot one, day or night.

It takes a lot more than someone not getting my sense of humor to "disturb me".

.....Toughen up soldier!


----------



## usayit (Aug 11, 2011)

Of course gear matters... You want to be a world class photographer, you got to go broke buying equipment.   Forget about affording a house, car, vacations, and skip a couple meals a day.... none of that matters... pure image quality and camera performance is all that is important.  



If photography isn't important in your life, sh!t.... forget everything.  Don't even consider anything but a cell phone... you ain't worth it.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Aug 11, 2011)

usayit said:


> Of course gear matters... You want to be a world class photographer, you got to go broke buying equipment.   Forget about affording a house, car, vacations, and skip a couple meals a day.... none of that matters... pure image quality and camera performance is all that is important.
> 
> 
> 
> If photography isn't important in your life, sh!t.... forget everything.  Don't even consider anything but a cell phone... you ain't worth it.



Are you really saying Equipment is the most crucial thing in taking world class photographs?? Or are you being sarcastic??


----------



## usayit (Aug 11, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Or are you being sarcastic??



To be taken as seriously as the comparison of the Leica S2 to a Cell phone....   

The basic underlying premise of both sides of the discussion is generally incorrect.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2011)

The "top professionals" from EVERY MODERN ERA of photography have pretty much used the SAME, TOP cameras as one another. This was true in the 1890's, the 1910's, the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, and so on. The names and models have been relatively few, actually. Graflex, Rolleiflex,Graphic,Leica, Contax, Nikon F, Hasselblad 500C, Mamiya RB67, Nikon F2, Canon F1,etc.,etc.. Today, when one looks at a press lineup on CNN or any other major network, the cameras in use are pretty much Canon or Nikon high-end cameras. Canon Rebels are not seen. Neither are NIkon D3100's. "Pro cameras" from any era are "pro cameras". They handle the best, shoot the quickest, and deliver the goods, shot after shot, for almost all of the top shooters. If you have never used a top-level camera, you're in for a surprise when you do.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 11, 2011)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!
> ...



At bugout in Manassass VA, they do a primarily air cooled VW show at a strip with races and they have 6-7 second beetles. A lot of them in general have problems keeping the front two wheels from shooting up in the air on launch. That's with aircooled VW motors.


----------



## usayit (Aug 11, 2011)

Begs the question...

Who reached "Top" first... the professional or their equipment?

^ Rhetorical Question as is the chicken or the egg


----------



## usayit (Aug 11, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> At bugout in Manassass VA, they do a primarily air cooled VW show at a strip with races and they have 6-7 second beetles. A lot of them in general have problems keeping the front two wheels from shooting up in the air on launch. That's with aircooled VW motors.



I went to the Audi/Vw meet for the first time last year in Englishtown, NJ dragway.  OMG...  it was so neat seeing those aircooled beetles hit well under 10 seconds.

What's the old sayin?  Enough time and effort can make anything possible (go stinkin fast).
I had a good time even though the group I was suppose to meet up "forgot".  


I've actually been in the market for a beetle... My life is surrounded by digital that and technology, I've grown to miss the simplicity of certain things.


----------



## Scoody (Aug 11, 2011)

My wife loaned her camera to her sister so she could take graduation photos of her daughter and friends.  The photos were all pretty terrible.  They looked good as far resolution, but she could have taken photos just as crappy with a point and shoot.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of the argument that just because unskilled photographers produce poor images with expensive cameras, and thus equipment is somehow less important. The question should be can a good photographer create good images with inexpensive equipment?

As Scooty points out, "A [photographer] has got to know his limitations". Working within the limitations of your equipment is always essential to create successful images no matter how expensive your gear.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 12, 2011)

A good photographer with the best gear will take better photos than that same photographer with really crappy gear.

Gear matters.....a lot in fact.

/endthread


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 12, 2011)

It's really a package thing, good gear/good photographer/good images.    Good gear/great photographer/ great images.   Good gear/not so good photographer/not so good images.  You get the point.    It's all relative to the quailty of both, however a great photographer with skill and experience should be able to produce good images from a lesser quality camera, than an average photographer with great gear.


----------



## usayit (Aug 12, 2011)

The false assumption in this thread is whether or not the camera equipment itself has anything to do with DRIVING one's photography.  Both assertions are incorrect since neither, photographer nor camera, can be separated.   Camera equipment, like tools in any activity, is the enabler... no more .. no less.   In the end, the photographer drives their work but the equipment enables them to push past limits.

If you stay within the ideal limits of the equipment, the resulting photo can be indistinguishable between high and low quality equipment.  In this case, what's the differentiator is the skill and eye of the photographer.

If you start pushing the limits (low light, harsh lighting, fast moving subjects, strong highlights where CA appears.. etc), the resulting photo will be distinguishable between high quality equipment and low quality equipment.   Faster glass, faster/accurate AF, elements that correct CA, etc.. all "Enable" the photographer.  They themselves don't  actually create the photo.  In this case, the differentiator is a combination of the photographers AND equipment.

The commonality is the photographer... after all, the camera doesn't produce a photo by itself.

So in essence... the premise or assumptions made by both sides were shaky at best from the very first post.






PS>  so exactly what do people expect when they say "/endthread" LOL?   Really only the mod's have that authority...


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2011)

It is true that a cell phone can't get any DOF, performs miserably in low light, and has very low resolution - no matter how many pixels it can capture. Yet Time Magazine thought this cell phone capture was worth printing (cropped and with contrast adjusted).

It's hard for me to say that a DSLR would do better. This image was taken well within the limits of the equipment. If anything the hyperfocus of the ultra short lens made it possible. The glare you're seeing is from the airplane window, which can be easily removed, and would be there even with a DSLR (polarizers would just make a mess in this case). You won't make a poster out of it, but it's still an excellent image. And since many photographers need an authority to tell them what's good and what isn't, TIME thought so too.

If someone comes out and tries to make excuses a bad image, saying things like "it was the best I could do, it was a windy day!" we all go into into b*tch mode and say "good photographers work with windy conditions!", but if someone makes an excuse saying "it's the best I can do, I only have a point and shoot!" we all say "buy a new camera!"


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 12, 2011)

unpopular said:


> It is true that a cell phone can't get any DOF, performs miserably in low light, and has very low resolution - no matter how many pixels it can capture. Yet Time Magazine thought this cell phone capture was worth printing (cropped and with contrast adjusted).
> 
> It's hard for me to say that a DSLR would do better. This image was taken well within the limits of the equipment. If anything the hyperfocus of the ultra short lens made it possible. The glare you're seeing is from the airplane window, which can be easily removed, and would be there even with a DSLR (polarizers would just make a mess in this case). You won't make a poster out of it, but it's still an excellent image. And since many photographers need an authority to tell them what's good and what isn't, TIME thought so too.




One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what:  It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 12, 2011)

photogir2002 said:


> I've been photographing for newspapers, myself and a business for 14 years now. I don't have the best camera, I don't have the worst. I have an SLR, but it is a Canon Rebel xt EOS and xti. I want to upgrade, believe me I do, and I'm saving my money but for now I am using what I have.
> 
> I've heard it said it isn't the camera it is the person behind the camera...
> 
> What do you think?:meh:



My turn.

OK, from this i gather that you are more than just a photographer, you are in the business of providing images for commercial use.

The photog/camera discussion doesn't apply here.  What is applicable here is your getting the shot, at a high enough quality, to honor your responsibilities.

Pro level gear is designed to deliver that, consumer level gear isn't.

I fully understand trying to gather the gear necessary and pay for it and therefore understand using what you have.  -really-

But, the fact is that you owe the people who pay you, and even yourself, to use equipment that is dependable for the job at hand.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what: It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.





c.cloudwalker said:


> ^^ that isn't the case here. All the pros were on the ground taking yet another cliche image of the launch which would be pretty much indistinguishable from any other at any other time.
> 
> And what exactly do they expect from their $10,000 investment?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 12, 2011)

unpopular said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Aug 12, 2011)

Same event, different vantage point. If it was about technical quality, they'd use the same old same old from the ground.


----------



## kasperjd4 (Aug 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The "top professionals" from EVERY MODERN ERA of photography have pretty much used the SAME, TOP cameras as one another. This was true in the 1890's, the 1910's, the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, and so on. The names and models have been relatively few, actually. Graflex, Rolleiflex,Graphic,Leica, Contax, Nikon F, Hasselblad 500C, Mamiya RB67, Nikon F2, Canon F1,etc.,etc.. Today, when one looks at a press lineup on CNN or any other major network, the cameras in use are pretty much Canon or Nikon high-end cameras. Canon Rebels are not seen. Neither are NIkon D3100's. "Pro cameras" from any era are "pro cameras". They handle the best, shoot the quickest, and deliver the goods, shot after shot, for almost all of the top shooters. If you have never used a top-level camera, you're in for a surprise when you do.



Agree'd. I just shot runway at MB Fashion week. Guess how many Rebel's I saw?? ZERO. D90's? ZERO.

I did see a lot of Nikon D3s & D3x, as well as Canon 1Dmk4's & 5dmk2's


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what:  It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.



The BEST spot news photos that I saw from the London subway bombings a few years back were shot with a cell phone camera. At that particular stage in the development of cell phone cameras, the images were NOT of very high quality; cell phone cameras have made HUGE strides in improved image quality since then. Of course, the technical quality of the images was not good--it was, as was the case with c.cloudwalker's mother's photo, a very newsworthy event, and so the "quality" of the images in many cases with news and events was not about how good the photos were, but rather about just having an image, any image, of the events. Spot news photos can be made with ANYTHING that'll shoot an exposure; if the event is newsworthy, media outlets will run the image(s). Hell, last night I saw some surveillance video of a Mississippi beating/vehicular homicide; the image of the man who was run over by a teenage driver was basically nothing more than a white blob, barely,barely visible from the farway surveillance camera's vantage point; yet the video received major coverage on a national web site. On the other hand...if you try and shoot advertising, or stock photos with a Canon Digital Rebel, the image files are going to be rejected out of hand by the majority of stock agencies because the technical quality of the camera's files is not high enough. The camera simply "does not qualify" for consideration. It's just like 35mm transparencies back in the 1980's; many organizations insisted on 120 rollfilm or large-format transparencies, simply because the technical quality of the images can be so much higher with a larger-format capture.

I find it amusing that one of the people in this thread is attempting to pooh-pooh the topic under discussion, and yet owns a good number of some of THE MOST-EXPENSIVE cameras and lenses sold in the world...


----------



## usayit (Aug 12, 2011)

Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?

Just sayin...   

Cellphones ENABLED anyone to record / create photographs of unexpected sometimes important events......  the cell phone/camera and the person cannot be separated.   What's neat about cell phone cameras is that they are with everyone all the time... unlike traditional cameras which most people leave at home.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 12, 2011)

Like everything there are, and will always be exceptions to the rules.  Being the only person around when something happens and using whatever visual recording device you happen to holding to record it, will get it published.  Quality goes out the window when it is the only photo avaliable.  If someone in a plane crash happens to be  shooting inside, even if the images look like crap, they will end up published. As long as the phone/camera survives the crash.  The person shooting may not survive, and in most cases they may not even know which passenger shot the images.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 12, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> Like everything there are, and will always be exceptions to the rules.



There are no exceptions in photography (or the arts in general) because there are no rules... only suggestions, guidelines. And for that reason I have to agree with usayit here even though that's pretty rare 



usayit said:


> I was just pointing out that there is no end to the discussion because essentially both sides are both neither wrong nor right.  Both sides are valid because the underlying assumption is moot.



Just a couple days ago I mentioned buying my first Hasselblad to shoot weddings. Not because of the superior quality over 35mm but because in DC and with the crowd I was working for you would not have been taken seriously with a 35mm which everyone at the wedding had...

Only a couple weeks ago I mentioned using my Kodak Brownie on a job. Yeah, no kidding. The idea came around while in a conference with the client. He agreed to pay for a half day of studio for a trial run. He liked the results enough to take the shots to his boss to pitch the idea...

My mom getting published was a freak accident. Or is it called being in the right place at the right time and damn the gear or quality?

Same with the photo linked to by unpopular although he didn't get it. Whoever shot this image just happened to be above the cloud line and got a funky shot which the pros on the ground could not get. Plus if they paid this person as much as my mom, that means they didn't spend a penny.

So, anyways, the exceptions keep piling up. But overall, of course gear matters. Just as usayit said it, lol.

The kind of work I do today is out of reach for most photogs. Not because I am a better photographer but because I can afford the gear. And you are not going to get into my field without it. Period.


----------



## NadiaC (Aug 12, 2011)

I'd definitely take the stance that the person behind the camera is what makes the photograph. It's the vision they capture and how they capture it.


----------



## terri (Aug 12, 2011)

Okay guys....time to tone it down a notch and stop with the personal attacks.    

Can a little old thread survive around here these days without them?    :hmm:     I'll remind you all of the Ignore feature.   If I continue seeing reported posts over these kinds of deliberate pot-shots amongst you, with no effort being made to honestly ignore an on-line persona, there are going to be repercussions.    

Seriously, guys, it's just a forum.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 12, 2011)

usayit said:


> Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?
> 
> Just sayin...
> 
> Cellphones ENABLED anyone to record / create photographs of unexpected sometimes important events...... the cell phone/camera and the person cannot be separated. What's neat about cell phone cameras is that they are with everyone all the time... unlike traditional cameras which most people leave at home.



Of course pics from a cell phone camera are still considered photography. What I am saying is that a DSLR and killer lens will take better photos than a cell phone, all other things being equal (photographer, etc).

Clearly if the only pic available is from a cell phone, then its valuable. But imagine if a good photographer happened to have a pro DSLR/lens ready, and shot a great picture of that same event?

I am all for people using a cell phone camera. However, I realize the difference between them and DSLRs.

Neil


----------



## usayit (Aug 13, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?
> ...



Sorry Neil.. the gist and most important parts of my response was edited... thanks to improper moderation :-/    And thus implying not what was intended....   

See c.cloudwalker's quote for at least the gist....


ahha... 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...gallery/248155-what-buy-next.html#post2275329



I'm out.


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 13, 2011)

A photographer went to a socialite party in New  York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures -  they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing  until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must  hava a terrific stove.'                                                                                   - Sam Haskins
from
Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 13, 2011)

IgsEMT said:


> A photographer went to a socialite party in New  York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures -  they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing  until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must  hava a terrific stove.'                                                                                   - Sam Haskins
> from
> Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography



"What a wonderful compliment.  You have a fantastic mouth."  There are a ton of witty responses to statements like that, but the gear still matters.  Heck, go to your local church and see if the Pastor wants some new photos for the Church website.  Most will say okay.  Schedule a time with him and try taking some shots with flash, without flash, with a DSLR, with a P&S, under the kind of lighting conditions that he normally preaches in.

That should give you an idea of what equipment works, and what doesn't.  Trust me, your I-Phone shot isn't going to work out.  Your P&S won't either.  Your entry level DSLR with the kit lens isn't going to cut it, either.  Your D3s with a 2.8 lens is still going to require some editing.  It's just goofy to say the equipment doesn't matter.

But then again, I guess it all depends on what your standards are.


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 13, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> IgsEMT said:
> 
> 
> > A photographer went to a socialite party in New  York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures -  they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing  until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must  hava a terrific stove.'                                                                                   - Sam Haskins
> ...



No1 said equipment doesn't matter, BUT knowing how to use it, is what really counts. Almost every client that comes into my studio thinks that whats on my wall looks good b/c of my camera, until they see how we bust our assess of getting that shot, whether its a wedding or newborn shoot, THEN idea changes that its MORE then a camera. 
Statement above about "stove" is pretty accurate today w/ digital photography. NO ONE ever dared to say 'oh its the camera' when I was shooting weddings w/ bronica or fund-raisers w/ F100, b/c photography was respected way more then it is now.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 13, 2011)

IgsEMT said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > IgsEMT said:
> ...


So, what are you shooting with now?  And why aren't you using a Canon Rebel or Nikon D3000 without flash gear, modifiers, etc.

Yes, if you don't know how to use your equipment, it doesn't really matter what gear you have.  Assuming that most people here do, or at least have aspirations towards learning, equipment does, indeed matter.

And, on another note, when you were doing weddings with your Bronica, how many shots did you deliver to the couple?  How many today?  Times have changed and the expectations have changed.

Just because you used to shoot a 40 picture wedding on your MF gear doesn't mean that you could get away with that today...perhaps to a very limited audience, but I don't think you could run a business like that, and you know that.

That's why you have the right gear for the job.  I guess I assumed that it went without saying that the photographer had to actually know how to use it.


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 13, 2011)

I don't use rebel or d3000 bc of the build quality (weather seal is important), bc of controlling exposure (2 wheels r better then one), and none of those have pc sync (and I need that for my external lights). 

During film days, on a 6 hr wedding I was shooting about 500-600frames out of which 10-15% was junk like blinkies. Today on a 6 hr wedding I shoot about 600-700 frames and 10-15% is junk like blinks, only difference is that I'll take that extra "moment" shot since albums are nicer. Quantity vs quality. Common q is 'how many pics am I going to get?' A-as many as it takes to tell a story of your wedding day. 

Equipment matters but having fx body and 2.8, 1.2 lenses and NOT knowing how to use them is pointless. therefore it isn't a camera that makes a picture, it's only a tool that artist uses to paint along with lighting, editing techniques, printing, etc. 

By the by, I apologize for gram/spelling errors I'm on mobile browser ad it's a tough to type w / fat fingers and closed eyes


----------



## unpopular (Aug 13, 2011)

Honestly, the only reason I dont use the Rebel is because of the name. Though, every time I pick up my a350 I feel a little more redneck tolerant :/


----------



## chakalakasp (Aug 13, 2011)

unpopular said:


> I'm not a huge fan of the argument that just because unskilled photographers produce poor images with expensive cameras, and thus equipment is somehow less important. The question should be can a good photographer create good images with inexpensive equipment?
> 
> As Scooty points out, "A [photographer] has got to know his limitations". Working within the limitations of your equipment is always essential to create successful images no matter how expensive your gear.


 
The answer to this is yes, yes, a thousand times yes.  I've seen a good photographer squeeze more out of a 2005 Sony point and shoot than most of us could squeeze out of a 5D mkii.  Technical stuff matters, but it is tertiary to photograph subject and photographer skill.


----------



## photogir2002 (Aug 17, 2011)

First, sorry I didn't respond to all these comments. I must have turned notifications off in my email because I didn't realize these were all here. Now, I'm going back to read all the comments....sure it is an interesting thread and thanks for contributing to the question!!!


----------



## photogir2002 (Aug 17, 2011)

Great points! 





Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions
> ...


----------



## photogir2002 (Aug 17, 2011)

Don't think I can end thread, can I? I don't see anywhere I can do that. I'll let the moderator handle it. If that's the case. 


Neil S. said:


> A good photographer with the best gear will take better photos than that same photographer with really crappy gear.
> 
> Gear matters.....a lot in fact.
> 
> /endthread


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 17, 2011)

photogir2002 said:


> Don't think I can end thread, can I? I don't see anywhere I can do that. I'll let the moderator handle it. If that's the case.
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> ...



-10 internets

"/endthread" is when a person thinks they have the best post and reply and that no further discussion is needed.


----------



## photogir2002 (Aug 17, 2011)

I know. I know. Just being a smartass.   Thanks for the education, though! 


Village Idiot said:


> photogir2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think I can end thread, can I? I don't see anywhere I can do that. I'll let the moderator handle it. If that's the case.
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Aug 17, 2011)

/endthread is just arrogant /btard lingo ... 4chan takz ova yur internetz. rezistanz iz fyootile.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 18, 2011)

I was trying to stay away, hoping this thread would die.

Seems theres no such luck with people like unpopular coming in with their winning posts such as "/endthread is just arrogant /btard lingo ... 4chan takz ova yur internetz. rezistanz iz fyootile."

I haven't even decided what language this is yet, I am guessing its some dialect of troll though.

Of course artistic vision and shooting skill play a major part in the quality of your photos. Gear and technical aspects matter as well though. The photographer being equal, better gear is better. This is not something you can argue with me on and win lol, so stop trying.

To all of you that think gear doesnt matter, I say you are just fooling yourself.

Again and again in this thread people are saying that "a good photographer can take better photos with a (insert low end camera here) than some noob could take with a (insert high end camera here).

This is irrelevant though, and it is the same as me saying "A good race car driver with a Prius can beat a 4 year old with a Ferrari in a race". While this is true, who really cares?

When we are talking about the importance of gear, it has to be when all other things are equal (which they are for a single given person).

It's about how much photo gear matters for me, or you, or that guy over there. Not how much gear matters for a noob compared to a pro, your focusing on all the wrong things here. You have been comparing apples to oranges, in a weak attempt to convince people that gear doesn't matter.

Upgrading from a 30D and EF-S lenses, to a 7D and L glass has improved the quality of my photos. The increase in my skill has helped as well, but the pure image quality improvements of my photos are directly related to gear. These are facts, and cannot be disputed.

Why would you even try and argue such an absurd and obviously flawed position?


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2011)

Rob Galbraith DPI: Alex Majoli points and shoots

Yup really obviously flawed.  :er:

There is no obviously wrong or right position here.


----------



## Neil S. (Aug 18, 2011)

usayit said:


> Rob Galbraith DPI: Alex Majoli points and shoots
> 
> Yup really obviously flawed. :er:
> 
> There is no obviously wrong or right position here.



Ya actually they are lol!

You didn&#8217;t notice the terrible dynamic range? Look at how blown the shadows (#1) and highlights (#3) are in them.

Are you saying that a FF DSLR and pro glass wouldn&#8217;t have taken much better photos here? Really?

Also those are like 440x300 pix, not exactly printed large or wallpaper size (1080p+ monitor).

And as Derrel said, don&#8217;t you shoot Leica cameras and lenses lol? I don't see how someone who does can say that price of gear doesn't matter.

You must be a fool for spending that much then, when you could have just bought a point and shoot since it is the same (according to you). Either that or you are a hypocrite, take you pick....

Neil


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Aug 18, 2011)

or so rich people want the common folk to think..


----------



## usayit (Aug 18, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> And as Derrel said, don&#8217;t you shoot Leica cameras and lenses lol? I don't see how someone who does can say that price of gear doesn't matter.



Um... you are so busy writing and tootin your horn that you forgot that I actually did say that gear matters...... just not for the same reasons you give.    I'll say it again...  tools are enablers no more or no less.  

So I have to be poor in order to have an opinion or argument?  That's asinine.    Hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another.   I buy expensive Leica cameras not because it makes me a better photographer.  I never said it makes for a better photographer nor did I say it makes for a worse photographer.   I said it again... its the underlying premise that I disagree with.

Alex is a far more accomplished photographer than you nor I.  The photos you poke fun at are published and excepted for publication.  This simply proves my point  that

1) Best better is so subjective (as someone Overread? mentioned)
2) It doesn't matter within the confines of what you are trying to deliver.   Ex.  Dynamic range etc... might matter to one artisan (you for example) but not for another (war photographer/ journalist).

Since you obviously haven't read my previous post.... I'll say it again

Enabler ... no more no less
Photographer and equipment are inseparable.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 18, 2011)

Neil S. said:


> I was trying to stay away, hoping this thread would die.Seems there&#8217;s no such luck with people like unpopular coming in with their winning posts such as "/endthread is just arrogant /btard lingo ... 4chan takz ova yur internetz. rezistanz iz fyootile."I haven't even decided what language this is yet, I am guessing its some dialect of troll though.



LOL. No speek lolspeek? Maybez good fotoman need sens uf humur an vizit Icanhazcheezeburger.com, no?

Or seriously. The thread already died. You haven't added anything new, Neil, get over yourself; and before posting something as insidious as calling someone a troll, one might want to see what said person has contributed - rather than the manifesto of same old analogies said a billion times prior over the last 5 pages.

Smart fotoman shuld take hiz "nabokov-esque I post, because I _ must _ post' elzwere.

Despite what the profoto establishment believes, image quality is not just about sharpness and resolution, but also vision and communication. My photographs will never be printed at much larger than 11x17 due to the physical resolution limitations of my equipment. I don't shoot beyond ISO 200, nor did I with film. This is the equipment I can afford. I live limited income, have other interests, a two year old son and a wife attending prelaw.

While I am more limited by my gear than I would be if it were more expensive, I don't let that interfere with my artistic vision and intentions. I can still communicate these things effectively by choosing how to make images. I don't shoot in low light. I don't choose compositions that would benefit from large prints. I even believe my artistic abilities improve by these self-limiting measures. No matter what kind of fancy metering modes I may have available, I'm pretty sure I'd always shoot full manual with the spot meter. Photographic technique is, after all, about choices.




Neil S. said:


> You didn&#8217;t notice the terrible dynamic range? Look at how blown the shadows (#1) and highlights (#3) are in them.
> 
> Neil



This is just ridiculous. Every camera has limited dynamic range, it's up to the photographer to work within that dynamic range. Even a Hasselblad is going to face conditions that go beyond it's latitude. Ansel Adams knew this. That' why we have the Zone System.


----------



## photogir2002 (Aug 18, 2011)

Well for the record...I'm not arguing (not that I think you think I am.) I asked the question because I really wanted to know what others thought and I think you have some of the most valid points here. So, to you, I say, thank you!! You have proven your point in a good way! T


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 18, 2011)

This thread is inspiration to purchase the best gear possible


----------



## nickzou (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that good gear is important, but good gear does not always equal expensive gear. I mean, I could've got the D300s because it is more expensive and technically more "pro" than my current D7k. But after looking at the fact sheets and testing both cameras; I think the D7k is the superior camera despite being cheaper than the D300s.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 18, 2011)

Two photographers with the same skill using the same gear standing beside each other should produce very similar images.  Two photographers with the same skill one shooting with a 300 2.8 and one using a 400 2.8 shooting the same subject should end up with similar images, one will be tighter.  Two photographers with the same skill  standing next to each other, one using high end gear the other using entry level gear may produce the same image, the quality won't be the same.

The skill of the photographer matters
The quality of the gear matters.
Luck matters
Experience matters
Timing matters
knowledge matters


----------



## unpopular (Aug 18, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> This thread is inspiration to purchase the best gear possible


Especially true if you aren't very good.


----------



## n.hubb22 (Aug 19, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> I agree. Don't upgrade until you feel limited by your camera.



Agreed.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 19, 2011)

Yea thats why i dumped my 5000 and suggest to folks not to even waste their money on the 5100 as a 1st!


----------



## FstopRay (Aug 19, 2011)

Hi, go and look at the last 100 images taken. By each one write down why it's junk, or should I say, not up to par. Then count how many times you wrote down "because my camera is tosh". I do this, I always have a count of zero. Then and only then do I go and get some more kit 

Cheers, ray


----------

