# It's not the camera, it's the photographer...



## manaheim (Mar 20, 2013)

I was taking pictures at my daughter's chorus concert tonight.  I was a good distance away and the light was pretty horrible.

I picked up my camera, zoomed in to 170mm, set it to 1/60th of a second (handheld) and came out with shots that looked like this:








How could I possibly pull this off, you ask?

Why, because of my gear!

ISO 1600, creamy smooth and almost no noise... because I have a full-frame D800 that looks at ISO1600 and laughs.

170mm at 1/60th of a second because I have a 70-200 2.8 VR2 lens that allows me to take shots at stupidly slow shutter speeds and still get away with stopping down a notch or two to maximize that quality.

And I could do it from where I was seated because it's a 200mm lens.


Now was this an amazing photo?  No.  Proof positive that gear alone won't get you there, but the key thing I'm always thumping the table about is that... in certain situations... if you don't have the gear, you have no HOPE of getting there no matter how good of a photographer you may be.

My D300 and some of my "standard" lenses would NEVER have pulled this off with this kind of quality.

Just thought it might be worth the object lesson.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 20, 2013)

Ohhhhh you done did it nowwww :lmao:


----------



## pgriz (Mar 20, 2013)

Pfttt.  Being your usual humble self again, and NOT mentioning that you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer who was trying to get his paws on your sweetheart, or that you had to balance on top of the theatre chairs because ... well just because.

Other than that, thanks for letting me know who's gear I will need to borrow when one of MY daughters is performing.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

+1

I'm luvn' the D800 shooting stage events in low light too, and its not even close to what I bought the cam for.  Hired for one event and word of mouth has led to several, and that workhouse D800 keeps pulling it off no matter how dim the stage lighting


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 20, 2013)

They're actually wax models. He's in a wax museum.  He used an iPhone and he doctored the EXIF data.  Admit it.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> They're actually wax models. He's in a wax museum.  He used an iPhone and he doctored the EXIF data.  Admit it.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 20, 2013)

Isn't that VRII sweet? lol, I've got usable images as slow at 1/20 at 200mm....not that I'd try that too often.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Isn't that *VRII sweet*? lol, I've got usable images as slow at 1/20 at 200mm....not that I'd try that too often.



YES!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 20, 2013)

So is it safe to say that the noise is not much of an issue even with the 36 MP?


----------



## desmondlewissmith (Mar 20, 2013)

Funny that you write this now...  I recently picked up a D3X.  Previously I shot a D2X.  At 1600 or HI rather, the noise on the D2X is HORRIBLE.  The D3X at 1600 is FREAKING INCREDIBLE.  I totally agree that you must at minimum have the gear to accomplish the great photos your talent will allow you to accomplish.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

manaheim, at least adjust the WB?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> So is it safe to say that the noise is not much of an issue even with the 36 MP?



my D800 handles noise better than my D700 did, not saying its the best but it sure works for what i use it for in dim light


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 20, 2013)

pgriz said:


> you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer




yup, I read that wrong. . .


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 20, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer
> ...



Totally read it the same way.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 20, 2013)

Yep.. same here! Those damn bunnies.... the things they do!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 20, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > So is it safe to say that the noise is not much of an issue even with the 36 MP?
> ...



I want to upgrade from a D7000... I'm looking for a reason not to... but I can't find one


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Do it!!!!  =)


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 20, 2013)

I think I'm going to


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 21, 2013)

Yes, it's more about the photographer than the equipment, but, there's times that having the right equipment is what makes the shot possible. 

While a carpenter can build a house with little more than a hammer and a hand saw, having a nail gun, power tools and a table saw and using them effectively can produce better results in less time. Putting the same tools in my hands, for example, would produce a shack that is likely to fall down tomorrow. 

The same is true for photography. High priced gear won't necessarily produce better pictures. But having the right gear AND the skill to use it effectively can produce exceptional results!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 21, 2013)

If the saying 'it is not the camera, it is the photographer' was not gospel...you would all be producing great photos with your high priced gear. And that is not the case. 

Sure, cams are important. If you used a brownie your photo would have been crap. But what you offered is not a photograph. It is just a snapshot in my book. Your photo holds no interest to anyone except to you and those personally involved. 

Someone with less mp would have just gone closer for the pix. If that was not possible then they would have needed a better cam if they wanted a photo like yours. But if you look at all the photos in museums, they were all done without the help of a D800. Your photo skills came out with the handholding and composition...good work! If your cam was used by a lesser photog the photos masy have been poor. 

Again, you underscore *'it is not the camera, it is the photographer'*


----------



## runnah (Mar 21, 2013)

I am just amazed that mainhiem procreated...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 21, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> If the saying 'it is not the camera, it is the photographer' was not gospel...you would all be producing great photos with your high priced gear. And that is not the case.
> 
> Sure, cams are important. If you used a brownie your photo would have been crap. But what you offered is not a photograph. It is just a snapshot in my book. Your photo holds no interest to anyone except to you and those personally involved.
> 
> ...



Those early photogs would've selected and used better gear had the options been available back then


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Ohhhhh you done did it nowwww :lmao:



I know... Lol



pgriz said:


> Pfttt.  Being your usual humble self again, and NOT mentioning that you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer who was trying to get his paws on your sweetheart, or that you had to balance on top of the theatre chairs because ... well just because.
> 
> Other than that, thanks for letting me know who's gear I will need to borrow when one of MY daughters is performing.



Hahaha you're welcome! 



2WheelPhoto said:


> +1
> 
> I'm luvn' the D800 shooting stage events in low light too, and its not even close to what I bought the cam for.  Hired for one event and word of mouth has led to several, and that workhouse D800 keeps pulling it off no matter how dim the stage lighting



Yeah.  I really DID want a low light camera, and originally had preordered the D4 ... But for that much money I jus wasn't floored by the camera generally, and figured since I didn't need the low light all the time, that half the money for a camera that was nearly as good (and better in some few ways) was a better choice. It obviously handles very well, so no complaints...



TCampbell said:


> They're actually wax models. He's in a wax museum.  He used an iPhone and he doctored the EXIF data.  Admit it.



Lol



Trever1t said:


> Isn't that VRII sweet? lol, I've got usable images as slow at 1/20 at 200mm....not that I'd try that too often.



Yesssss.... And I have to say the d800 really is the first camera I've had that REALLY shows off its capabilities.   I'm looking forward to a couple weeks from now where I'll be the official photographer for a kids production of footloose.  Should be a nice challenge. (for me... Not the camera) lol



Ballistics said:


> So is it safe to say that the noise is not much of an issue even with the 36 MP?



Yes.  Actually the high MP allows it to compensate for it even more because quality increases as you down sample.  So if you bring a 36mp image down to, say, the 16 mp of the d4 you actually get better low light handling... Which is a little messed.  I'll post some full size crops later tonight.



desmondlewissmith said:


> Funny that you write this now...  I recently picked up a D3X.  Previously I shot a D2X.  At 1600 or HI rather, the noise on the D2X is HORRIBLE.  The D3X at 1600 is FREAKING INCREDIBLE.  I totally agree that you must at minimum have the gear to accomplish the great photos your talent will allow you to accomplish.



Heh, yeah it's a it diff between those cams.



2WheelPhoto said:


> manaheim, at least adjust the WB?



Lol.  I think something's up with IE.  In photoshop, Firefox and my iPad that image looks perfect.  In IE 9 it's all red.  Really weird.



Ilovemycam said:


> If the saying 'it is not the camera, it is the photographer' was not gospel...you would all be producing great photos with your high priced gear. And that is not the case.
> 
> Sure, cams are important. If you used a brownie your photo would have been crap. But what you offered is not a photograph. It is just a snapshot in my book. Your photo holds no interest to anyone except to you and those personally involved.
> 
> ...



An!  Someone took that line, and your logic here is exactly the problem people get stuck on all the time.

Just because someone has top quality gear does not mean they can produce amazing images.  Correct!  However, that DOES NOT mean that there is not significant value in amazing gear!!!  

I also specifically said that the photo was nothing special... Just a demonstration.  And in fact I chose that photo specifically for the purpose.  I had far better ones, but the compositional elements of the photo were outside the point.  This photo is a pure demonstration of a shot you could not get with such quality with lesser gear.

And you can't always get closer. 



runnah said:


> I am just amazed that mainhiem procreated...


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 21, 2013)

A Trip to Iran - In Focus - The Atlantic

All taken with a little m43_...it is NOT the camera...it IS the photographer!_


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 21, 2013)

pgriz said:


> you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer



Rather than making fun of him, I think we should applaud him for coming out publicly in such an off-handed way.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 21, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer
> ...



^^^   that


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

Oh, it was on his hand.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> A Trip to Iran - In Focus - The Atlantic
> 
> All taken with a little m43...it is NOT the camera...it IS the photographer!



Yeah you're missing the point.

I can make awesome photography with a pin hole camera... But there's no way I'd have been able to get that shot I did with one.


----------



## Dikkie (Mar 21, 2013)

manaheim said:


> if you don't have the gear, you have no HOPE of getting there no matter how good of a photographer you may be.



That's like that story of that great basketball player. 
He could have been sooo good, but without a ball, he was worth nothing.

Yet, not mentioning the ring, though.

And remember: the better the ball, the better the player will play


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

Dikkie said:


> That's like that story of that great basketball player.
> He could have been sooo good, but without a ball, he is nothing.
> 
> Yet, not mentioning the ring, though.
> ...



Right!  Exactly!!


----------



## Dikkie (Mar 21, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Right! Exactly!!


But still, even if you own the best ball in the world, without basic basketball skills, condition or dunk experience, you won't get far with that ball.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

Dikkie said:


> But still, even if you own the best ball in the world, without basic basketball skills, condition or dunk experience, you won't get far with that ball.



Yes.  No question.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

To an extent I think this whole thing is a straw man.

Nobody sensible says that a good photographer can make any photograph with any camera. What people actually say is that a good photographer can make good photographs with any camera.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 21, 2013)

You, the  photographer, picked the gear you needed for the situation at hand......


----------



## Dikkie (Mar 21, 2013)

jake337 said:


> You, the photographer, picked the gear you needed for the situation at hand......



Or, with the gear you have, you'll search for situations that fit for the gear you have.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> To an extent I think this whole thing is a straw man.
> 
> Nobody sensible says that a good photographer can make any photograph with any camera. What people actually say is that a good photographer can make good photographs with any camera.



No, not really.  What happens a lot is person a gets defensive when person b suggests they need better gear to execute effectively on situation q.  Especially so when the suggested gear is outside the budget, or even outside the budget of person c, who isn't really affected by the suggestion anyway... except for them feeling threatened if THEY were ever in situation q and might not be able to execute because they don't have the suggested gear.

Then they whip out "it's not the gear, it's the photographer!" which is a point that really only applies to compositional elements and occasionally (as in the case where you can compensate for lesser gear with experience and street smarts) cleverness.  It is not a phrase you can apply when there is simply no way your gear can execute and a better piece of equipment is needed... But in defensiveness, they use it that way.

You're right... Nobody sensible... Or perhaps nobody who truly understands... Makes these assertions.  But my target audience was those who DON'T understand.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 21, 2013)

The Amateur Photographer's Handbook is a classic instructional book on photographic theory,methods, techniques, and approaches to various types of photography. As I recall, there is a picture in the book, taken at a professional boxing match. The shot was made with a Leica rangefinder, and is held up as an *example* of indoor, low-light photography. It is reproduced not much bigger than a playing card in the book. And it looks *like UTTER RUBBISH*, compared to what an entry-level modern d-slr can make. Seriously. The degree of technical advancement and capability that we now enjoy,every single day, make the "camera" part of the equation worth soooooooo much than it was before. Add in autofocusing, VR lenses, ED-glass, nano-crystal antireflection coating, and incredible 11-stop dynamic range...and anybody who has been shooting photos dfor more than 15 or 20 years will tell you that the "camera" is,today, a simply HUGE part of the equation in difficult conditions.

I'm telling you, the boxing picture in that book, first publiushed in 1973, and shot with a high-end camera but old-school B&W film,looks like *utter crap* compared to manaheim's indoor, equivalently-lighted school stage picture. And his is in full color! With at least passable skin tones!

My first "real" camera was a Kodak Pony 135-B, with a 51mm f/4.5 Anaston lens, and shutter with speeds of 1/25,1/50,1/100,and 1/200, focusing by scale, and knob-wind film advance. THAT is what I learned adjustable lens photography with. I would trade a hundred of those for one, outdated Nikon D40.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 21, 2013)

I was always tough a true craftsman(or woman) doesn't blame their tools. Find a way, or make a way.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 21, 2013)

A true craftsman will never, ever, EVER, be able to build a house with ONLY a screwdriver. He needs a lot of lumber, a level, saws, fasteners, cement, roofing, wiring, etc.etc.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 21, 2013)

I wouldn't expect that, duh. I wouldn't expect a "craftsman" to show up to build a house with a screwdriver. Craftsmen show up with their "quiver" or box of goods and take it from there. 

Sure, having all the most up to date, "best of the best" helps, but that's not always an option. Understanding what you have, understanding your tools strengths and weaknesses and knowing what the sum of all your parts are, you can find a way or make a way.

A good photographer should be able to capture what they have in their mind and then some, even if it's a P+S that someone hands you and asks you to take a picture of them, or a camera from your own bag of tricks. 

Some folks just have better tools to play with. . . wait, that doesn't sound right at all. . .

I think the Indian girl in the top row, middle, might be asleep too.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 21, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> I wouldn't expect that, duh. I wouldn't expect a "craftsman" to show up to build a house with a screwdriver. Craftsmen show up with their "quiver" or box of goods and take it from there.
> 
> Sure, having all the most up to date, "best of the best" helps, but that's not always an option. Understanding what you have, understanding your tools strengths and weaknesses and knowing what the sum of all your parts are, you can find a way or make a way.
> 
> ...



You say "duh" but Derrels argument was exactly counter to yours.

The point is you need the right tools for the job, and not having them will produce subpar work... Or utterly fail.

If the carpenter has a hammer, but it's too small and weak for framing... Or he has a saw, but only has a concrete blade for it... Etc.  I'm not a carpenter so I can't make good parallels here, but you get the point.

If a photographer shows up to a low light situation and has a kit lens, a camera that doesn't handle light well and they can't use a flash... They're hosed.  They're not equipped to do the job.

Funny you mention the p/s.  my friend and I both have our daughters in plays together.  He brought his pretty nice point and shoot camera to the play and was trying to get pictures of his daughter and just couldn't make it happen, so he turned to me and asked me if I could get shots of his daughter for him.

He just couldn't get the shots.  Period.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 21, 2013)

Here's my take on this whole thing.

I've been doing research on car photography for a few days, and I recently found a video with a dude who takes very well done photos with a Canon 20D and a Tamron 17-50mm lens. 
The shots are without a doubt well done. In the comments section you see the obvious "This just proves that you don't need high end equipment to take high end photos"... and that is true... to an extent.
But what that really means is, you don't need high end equipment to take *those specific* high end photos, not ALL high end photos. 
You can take good pictures with mediocre gear. But there are limitations to that gear, that you are going to meet from time to time and you're going to say "Man... if I only had X product, I could make this happen". 


In perfect circumstances, just about any DSLR is capable of a very nice shot. But so are iPhone cameras. Can an expert photographer take my camera and my 50mm 1.8 and take amazing photos any where at anytime? Sure.
But what if that same photographer were at a baseball game, in the nosebleed section, and he needed to take pictures of the hitter hitting the ball? What then? He'd probably get some excellent candids of nearby crowd members. 
But will he get the shot that he wants with the gear that he has? I'm going to say no.

How about if someone down below has a D4 and a 500mm 2.8 lens, who has little photographic experience? He's got the camera on auto, and using it as a $30k P&S camera. Between him at the lower level with that gear and his, say 2 months of photographic experience, and the expert with the D7000 with the 50mm 1.8 and 25 years of experience, who is likely to take the better shot of the batter hitting the ball? I'm going with the noob 10/10 times.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 21, 2013)

top~!


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 21, 2013)

Derrel said:


> A true craftsman will never, ever, EVER, be able to build a house with ONLY a screwdriver. He needs a lot of lumber, a level, saws, fasteners, cement, roofing, wiring, etc.etc.



And beer!  Don't forget the beer!


----------



## TMC (Mar 22, 2013)

Manaheim, I hope you made nice light saber sound effects as you wielded your D800 and 70-200 to save a friend in need and surely let him know that he was rescued by a Jedi bunnywabbit.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 22, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > A true craftsman will never, ever, EVER, be able to build a house with ONLY a screwdriver. He needs a lot of lumber, a level, saws, fasteners, cement, roofing, wiring, etc.etc.
> ...



But only at the end of the day, when the sharp things are back in their place, and no-one needs to drive anywhere or climb anything higher than a footstool.   Tim, I know this comment was made as a joke, but as a professional contractor, seeing someone with a beer at a worksite is as scary as a doctor with a scalpel in one hand and a martini glass in another.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

5D MK III w/ 24-70L @ 24mm, F5, ISO 400 1/800 sec.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> 5D MK III w/ 24-70L @ 24mm, F5, ISO 400 1/800 sec.



What's your point?


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > 5D MK III w/ 24-70L @ 24mm, F5, ISO 400 1/800 sec.
> ...



It's not the camera, it's the photographer.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...



You're going to have to elaborate, because your example without context doesn't give leverage to either side.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Oh, don't assume I read any of the posts, I went off the title.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...



I still don't get it.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> It's not the camera, it's the photographer.



Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

Nevermind.


----------



## jakubsisak (Mar 22, 2013)

Indoors in ****ty light conditions = Agreed. Good gear is a must, good know-how is a must. Cannot be done with either or. Both are needed.  The line is more blurred in landscape photography where now-how and post processing becomes somewhat more important then gear. I did some pretty good stuff with an entry level Canon 60D and a 18-135mm kit lens.  That being said, the outcome would have been even better with better gear.  Sounds like I am talking in circles.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the camera, it's the photographer.
> ...






"Just because someone has top quality gear does not mean they can produce amazing images."​


----------



## manaheim (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> "Just because someone has top quality gear does not mean they can produce amazing images."



You know... You said yourself you didn't bother to read the other posts, and then you post something that was discussed in great detail already.

So in response to your zero effort remark I'll give you a zero effort response: read the whole thread.


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > "Just because someone has top quality gear does not mean they can produce amazing images."
> ...



After all that, I did read it all (pointless). It's not too hard to figure out I was mocking the title. "A 5D MK III with a 24-70 taking a totally blurry photo". Come on dude, if you need THAT explained something's wrong.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 22, 2013)

I thought it was pretty funny.


----------



## runnah (Mar 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> So in response to your zero effort remark I'll give you a zero effort response: read the whole thread.



I find that doing so often taints my feelings on the matter. Thus I only read the 2-3 most recent posts and react to that.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 22, 2013)

I use a browser plugin that selects random words from the thread and presents them. This thread, for instance, reads:

_Only your context went off sarcastic. Good circles give zero feelings._

and I gotta say, I think you guys need more sleep.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > So in response to your zero effort remark I'll give you a zero effort response: read the whole thread.
> ...



At least you're reading posts


----------



## manaheim (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> After all that, I did read it all (pointless). It's not too hard to figure out I was mocking the title. "A 5D MK III with a 24-70 taking a totally blurry photo". Come on dude, if you need THAT explained something's wrong.



I want the only one who wasn't sure what you were doing.


----------



## runnah (Mar 22, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



You have to set your shutter speed higher, or use an alternative light source.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 22, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...



I had a feeling that's where you were going with that, but people like to be vague and when people jump to conclusions they alter their point because their initial comment was ambiguous.
So instead of assuming, I took the open minded route and gave you the opportunity to explain. 

So now let me ask you, was everything about the camera settings in complete auto? Or did you intentionally sabotage the image and put the scene out of focus? 
Because if it's the latter (which I'm assuming it is), then it doesn't really say anything.


----------



## pjwarneka (Mar 22, 2013)

Funny Pgriz!   




pgriz said:


> Pfttt.  Being your usual humble self again, and NOT mentioning that you got this shot while beating off a jealous fautographer who was trying to get his paws on your sweetheart, or that you had to balance on top of the theatre chairs because ... well just because.
> 
> Other than that, thanks for letting me know who's gear I will need to borrow when one of MY daughters is performing.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 22, 2013)

And it is obvious that only the guys were in this post, because if there was a woman, she'd have asked the obvious question - Which one of those ladies is YOUR daughter?!  Sheesh.  :greenpbl:


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 22, 2013)

This thread is somewhat related to some thoughts I had a while back when shooting one evening.  I was out for a walk with my wife and our dog and snapping a few quick ones before the light was gone.  As I was finishing up our dog spotted a squirrel and was flipping out.  The wife suggests I take some more shots and I told her I didn't have enough light.  I should have said I didn't have enough camera.  I could have pulled off those shots with a 5D3.


----------



## JOSHardson (Mar 27, 2013)

Why did I read all of this? I'm going to bed.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2013)

pgriz said:


> And it is obvious that only the guys were in this post, because if there was a woman, she'd have asked the obvious question - Which one of those ladies is YOUR daughter?!  Sheesh.  :greenpbl:



Oh I forgot to reply to this... None of em. . My daughter is 11.  I just liked how these girls and their black dresses looked against the red curtain.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> This thread is somewhat related to some thoughts I had a while back when shooting one evening.  I was out for a walk with my wife and our dog and snapping a few quick ones before the light was gone.  As I was finishing up our dog spotted a squirrel and was flipping out.  The wife suggests I take some more shots and I told her I didn't have enough light.  I should have said I didn't have enough camera.  I could have pulled off those shots with a 5D3.



Haha


----------



## kathyt (Mar 27, 2013)

Why didn't you get up and walk to the front row. Take off that dumb zoom lens, put on a dreamy prime lens, and then post about how amazing your expensive gear is! That is what I would have done!


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Why didn't you get up and walk to the front row. Take off that dumb zoom lens, put on a dreamy prime lens, and then post about how amazing your expensive gear is! That is what I would have done!
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40153"/>



Wow beautiful shot.

Doing such a thing never occurred to me... The wife always likes to sit back a ways.  That said I'm planning to bolt on the Nikon 105 macro I have and play pretty soon.  I expect that will be pretty insane for clarity at any distance.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 27, 2013)

True story, went to Bestbuy  a few nights ago to purchase a CF card reader on the fly (long story). First time in a BB in a long time. Anyway, they wanted 32, yes *32 bux*!  I said I'll pass, if Target store can't help me I'll order one from Amazon. 

I asked if any cams there could help improve my photography.  He asked if I have any lenses now.  A few Nikons.  He said that's great, you won't need a whole kit. Simply buy the D5100 and you will be *immediately* at pro level.  I asked the price and when he told me I acted like i was choking and said i would never pay that much for a camera body but thanks for the help


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 29, 2013)

think we should take a poll and see how many people are saying its all about the photographer and not about the equipment are using high end camera's.  just seems odd that people who don't feel the camera is making a contribution to the photo would spends tons of money on high end gear when they can get all the same shots on beginner gear...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> think we should take a poll and see how many people are saying its all about the photographer and not about the equipment are using high end camera's.  just seems odd that people who don't feel the camera is making a contribution to the photo would spends tons of money on high end gear *when they can get all the same shots on beginner gear*...



Who said that?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 29, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > think we should take a poll and see how many people are saying its all about the photographer and not about the equipment are using high end camera's.  just seems odd that people who don't feel the camera is making a contribution to the photo would spends tons of money on high end gear *when they can get all the same shots on beginner gear*...
> ...



There's a few threads where people have said that.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Maybe the beginners can get all the same shots on beginners gear, I can't


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 29, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Maybe the beginners can get all the same shots on beginners gear, I can't




I can't either. That's why when I took on my first wedding last summer I went out and bought new glass that was capable of getting me the shots I needed in the low light church. granted i'm not an expert but I new I needed to have some decent gear to get the job done. Gear does play a role in getting certain shots. being able to get the shots in poor conditions. is it more important then the photographer?  no, not at all. but it does play a role.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Yeah +1 and I threw my back-up camera lens on my D800 and the D800 puked on every RAW file


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 29, 2013)

Good gear helps.  It is however possible to get great images without great gear.  Experience and skill plays a part in everything.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 29, 2013)

Exactly. 

Elngerson's photo demonstrates that even if someone has a good quality camera, if the person doesn't know how to focus the damn thing it's probably not going produce a good quality photo. 

Of course a photographer can sometimes create something interesting intentionally causing something in an image to be out of focus, it takes knowing what you're doing.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 29, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Elngerson's photo demonstrates that even if someone has a good quality camera, if the person doesn't know how to focus the damn thing it's probably not going produce a good quality photo.
> 
> Of course a photographer can sometimes create something interesting intentionally causing something in an image to be out of focus, it takes knowing what you're doing.



No it doesn't. It demonstrates that he put the camera on manual focus and purposely put the image out of focus. My wife has never used a DSLR before in her life. I guarantee that if I gave her the camera,
on complete auto, she would be able to take an in focus shot.

You can take great photos with cheap gear. But you can't take any great photo with cheap gear. The shot you want, may not be the shot your gear lets you take. That is why people spend the money 
on the gear.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 29, 2013)

I will add and this may start some further discussion.  Before digital, or autofocus  or any of the bells and whistles, it took more of an understanding of photography, and skill played a much larger part.  Having great gear but not knowing how to use a light meter, how to know what was the right film to use in each type of light, making the correct adjustiments, and then spending time focusing on a moving object, put it more into the skilled photographers hands.  Gear wasn't as much of a factor as it is now.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 29, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I was taking pictures at my daughter's chorus concert tonight.  I was a good distance away and the light was pretty horrible.
> 
> I picked up my camera, zoomed in to 170mm, set it to 1/60th of a second (handheld) and came out with shots that looked like this:
> 
> ...




Pssshhh, We all know you're full of crap. You did this on a D40 with an 18-55 and pop up flash. It was all skill!


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2013)

Aaron.

Yeah... again, I wish folks would read. There are at least statements which get bungled together in these discussions and people treat them as the same argument AND THEY ARE NOT.

1. You can get good shots with bad gear.
2. You can't get certain shots without good gear.
3. Good gear does not make you a good photographer.

These are all ABSOLUTELY TRUE statements... but they are NOT related and they do NOT serve as opposing arguments to each other.

The first argument is very important, and it speaks to the skill and knowledge of the photographer. YES, you CAN take shots that are AMAZING even with some pretty basic gear. Pinhole camera might be pushing it, but I can absolutely take a very nice shot IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES with my Nikon D100 and my Nikkor 28-100 4/5.6.

This is the one where everyone gets defensive when someone makes the second statement, because they have SEEN people get good shots with bad gear, and therefore... (and here is where everything goes horribly wrong) you don't need good gear! It's just the photographer. This is a not correct.

This is also where they get defensive because they've seen crappy pictures taken with amazing cameras, and assume that means that the gear doesn't make a difference. This is ALSO not correct. In the right hands, good tools can do amazing things. 

Now comes the point of this post... IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES... my older less capable gear will fail UTTERLY... such as in the case of the picture of my daughter's chorus concert. Or a wedding. God a wedding with that camera would be pure hell. In these cases the second argument comes into play.

There is one other element. My better Nikon naturally does better in lower light, naturally focuses better, is naturally higher resolution, etc. This means that if I give an inexperienced photographer my D100 or my D800, they will overall do somewhat better with the D800... even if their composition and whatnot are not so great. From a purely technical perspective (to imagemakers point) there are simply more bells and whistles in the D800 that make photography easier. This also translates to our experienced guy, but it's interesting to note that the inexperienced one is also getting a benefit even if they don't realize it.

Better gear makes a difference.


----------



## nonamexx (Mar 30, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Aaron.
> 
> Yeah... again, I wish folks would read. There are at least statements which get bungled together in these discussions and people treat them as the same argument AND THEY ARE NOT.
> 
> ...



To sum up, better gear makes a difference in certain circumstances in the right hands.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 30, 2013)

> To sum up, better gear makes a difference in certain circumstances in all hands.



Fixed


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2013)

hahaha... yeah, well I tried the simple approach before.  Didn't work.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 30, 2013)

I would add:

#4 - Inexperienced photographers can take great photos.
#5 - Good photos does not make you a good photographer 
#6 - Gear effin matters for both parties


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 31, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Better gear makes a difference.



Nothing has "driven" equipment upgrade path like my quest for low light, no flash photography in church settings. 30 years ago, I made numerous night shots with tripod, ASA 200 film (fast, in its day!), and a cable release on my trusty Canon EF cameras. But since restarting my photography hobby after 15 years dormancy with a simple point-n-shoot Canon G-3, I slowly moved towards that low-light quest again...even doing time exposures at night with a Canon G-5. When I finally moved up to a used 30D, it didn't take long to realize that slow glass was my big hinderance since I now shoot mostly indoors. After too many 1000's of dollars upgrading, I think I've finally 'arrived' at my low-light goal. L glass and a 5D3. 

As for getting the 'great shot', this one is more being at the right place at the right time, _*and*_ having the gear in hand able to take the shot. Believe it or not, this one's the JPG, SOOC. I tried 'improving' both the RAW and JPG versions of the shot, and gave up.

Handheld, Canon 5D3, 135 f2L at f2.5, 1/250, ISO 4000.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2013)

ISO four THOUSAND. Nuff said!!!


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 31, 2013)

It's not the camera. It's not the photographer. It's the MONEY!!!!!


----------



## manaheim (Mar 31, 2013)

molested_cow said:


> It's not the camera. It's not the photographer. It's the MONEY!!!!!



Yeah that's the real kick in the teeth right there.  The stuff is so damned expensive.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 31, 2013)

Not being a film purest but someone who just misses a lot of the elements that went with it.  The darkroom work, saving a few frames on your last roll because you knew something was going to happen, sometimes it didn't.  What it goes back to, was that because we had to shoot film, we didn't have any choice but to really learn how to shoot, we had to really understand how light worked, especially in low light  conditions.  For all the things that digital has done to alter  professional photographers lives, it has given the skilled understanders a new look at low light conditions and has made a difference.  It allows us to use the light more efficiently  to create images that would not have been really possible with film.  I think this is the single best element of digital, it has given photographers a new ability to shoot better in worse avaliable light  conditions.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 31, 2013)

The original statement at hand "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" is kind of misinterpreted I think. It's obvious that better gear is capable of more things. There are a few scenarios that come to mind that the statement carries weight.

1. A person blames their ability to capture great photographs on the equipment they're using. IE: "I can't take very good pictures because I only have a D40." In this case, the "camera holder" (I'd be hesitant to call someone that says that a photographer) needs to come to the realization that the camera is not what is holding him back.

2. Joe Schmoe had a D3200, and rationalizes his lack of skill compared with others on the fact that, "Photographer 2 is only better because I have a D3200 and he has a 5D III." It's an irrational comparison that, in reality, if photographer 2 picked up his D3200, he'd still make him look like a bad photographer.

3. Photographer who thinks he needs to buy every new camera model that comes out in his line up, in thought that the equipment is going to make his photos better.

This is directly in comparison to a carpenter's hammer. There are good hammers, and there are bad hammers. There are hammers that will last months, an hammers that will last years, there are smooth tip hammers, and grated tip hammers that prevent the hammer head from slipping on the nail head on contact. However, both hammers and ALL hammers are perfectly capable of driving a nail, and which ever hammer you used is not going to make an effect on the way the house looks when it's finished, so long as you know enough about carpentry to complete the job THE RIGHT WAY. 

To put this awful rambling story I've went off in up an end, if you're a great photographer, a great camera will do nothing but benefit you in making your job easier. However, if you're a crappy photographer with a D3200, your photography is going to suck just as bad with a D4 or a 1D-X, a better "hammer."


----------



## manaheim (Mar 31, 2013)

The title of the thread was intended as irony.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 31, 2013)

manaheim said:


> The title of the thread was intended as irony.




Yeah I got that, i just wanted to go into a useless rant lol


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 31, 2013)

Here is the thing. If a specialized cam is the only cam in the world that will deliver the results. Then the pix is dependent on the equipment and the photogs skill. But if a group of cams will offer the same results, then it all depnds on the skill of the photog and not on any one cam.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 31, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Here is the thing. If a specialized cam is the only cam in the world that will deliver the results. Then the pix is dependent on the equipment and the photogs skill. But if a group of cams will offer the same results, then it all depnds on the skill of the photog and not on any one cam.



What?

Seriously this isn't complicated.  Certain situations can only be handled by better gear.


----------

