# Ken Rockwell was right: your camera *doesn't* matter!



## epp_b (Dec 24, 2008)

OK, provocative title, I admit it.  But consider this...

I was sifting through some photos I took with some cheap digital point and shoot for my grandparents when they asked me to create a little website to sell their cottage and I stumbled across these gems...





















I was totally blown away!

_I_ took these pictures?  _Really??_  Before I ever actually got into photography or knew anything at all about cameras?  With some point and shoot I'd never used before?

As long as we're talking about landscapes and mostly still subjects, your camera really does matter a whole lot less than lighting, composition, timing, colour and all the other basics of good photographic art.

And now I really hate myself because I'll never go there again (they sold it).  What an absolutely fantastic place to take photos that was...and I was never into photography back then


----------



## kundalini (Dec 24, 2008)

But yet, you have preserved some of the memories.  Color yourself lucky.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 25, 2008)

Yeah, I just wished I had preserved more...


----------



## Eldrich (Dec 25, 2008)

Great photos! I particularly like the last one, the way the sun burns into the water.

But it shouldn't be surprising that we capture some great ones with our point and shoots before we know anything. Those lucky catches are what prompted me to start spending a lot of time and money so that I might make lucky catches more often.


----------



## jwkwd (Dec 25, 2008)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day......in regards to KR


----------



## Eldrich (Dec 25, 2008)

I can only hope to create more opportunity for successful mistakes. I will never hope to actually plan for success...but maybe thats just me


----------



## Jedo_03 (Dec 25, 2008)

You have to take into consideration that you are attached to these images emotionally via your grandparents and the cottage they used to own and your memories of that place - and your sense of 'loss' because you'll "never go there again"...
(Well you could go there again - why not ask the new owners... I'm sure they'd allow you access if you explained your connections to the place..)
Anyhow - to the pics...
Memories and emotions apart - The content of these pics mean a lot to you.
To viewers (me) they are snap-shots of sunsets across a lake - nothing terribly exciting... Additionally, the quality/clarity/exposure/colour/WB are typically P&S - auto rendered, drab, foggy...
Anyone with even an entry-level DSLR would get superior images to these - even shooting in Auto... And that is because the sensor-size in a P&S is far smaller than that in a DSLR...
I'm afraid that I have to burst your - and Ken's bubble... No... The camera and the lens DO matter...
Jedo


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 25, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> I'm afraid that I have to burst your - and Ken's bubble... No... The camera and the lens DO matter



I'd have to agree, equipment makes a huge difference.  KR is being true to form, unfortunately and if you need proof of that, grab a P&S and meet me and my D700 in any church, let's take 5 pics together standing side by side, and look at the results.

I looked at the subject, then the pictures before reading the post and was wondering "what are they talking about?".  Then I read the post, understood that there was an emotional connection that biased the pics for you.  They are basically ordinary pics of a lower quality of a sunset and a silhouette of someone.  The focus is soft and the wrong aperture for best results was used. To me, it doesn't come close to being a "gem".  

That said, my opinions should not matter to you, as I do not have the same attachment to these pics that you do, and they have no meaning to me beyond what I see.  To you, you have the pleasure of seeing and remembering some place and someone important to you.  That is the true gem.


----------



## patrickt (Dec 25, 2008)

A camera won't take a picture without a photographer but a great photographer without a camera won't take a picture either. The truth of the matter is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 25, 2008)

patrickt said:


> A camera won't take a picture without a photographer but a great photographer without a camera won't take a picture either. The truth of the matter is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.



+1


----------



## pm63 (Dec 25, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I'd have to agree, equipment makes a huge difference. KR is being true to form, unfortunately and if you need proof of that, grab a P&S and meet me and my D700 in any church, let's take 5 pics together standing side by side, and look at the results.


 
I think you are speaking of _technical_ as opposed to _artistic_ quality. Obviously, your D700 will blow any P+S out of the water in a situation where high ISOs matter especially. But will your photos be artistically better than the other persons? Will I want to hang yours on the wall, or the other persons? The answer will be decided by how much of an impact the photograph makes for me, not how many dots I can see when I press my nose to the print.

As much as I dislike KR, he has got it right here: your camera has _nothing _to do with the artistic quality of your shots, and as much as this should be absolutely obvious to any photographer, too many of us get obsessed with the equipment, and remain crap photographers (hell, look at KR!). An artists skill does not lie in his tools. I've proven this time and time again to friends who have said to me "yeah, the quality of your shots is in the camera", or otherwise implied it because to a layperson, a D40 looks big, black and dangerous and therefore must be good, right? I offer to switch cameras and then see who gets the better shots. Do you think it changes?

Unless you're shooting sports, photojournalism and maybe wildlife, you don't have an excuse to blame your equipment. Photography is about your understanding of light composition, shape, colour, being in the right place at the right time, and to an extent, luck.



> a great photographer without a camera won't take a picture either


 
Yes he will - mentally. Don't you ever find yourself walking through town, and suddenly spotting something that you know would just click in a photograph? A camera is the last thing you need to take a photo.


----------



## McQueen278 (Dec 25, 2008)

Those are nice pictures, but they could benefit greatly from a little work in photoshop.  If you have a program that can allow you to play with tone curves, I would do a few quick adjustments to them.

I did a 2 minute job on the first one in lightroom to show you what I meant.







With very minimal post processing a lot of photos off of P&S cameras can look quite nice at small sizes.  They still produce too much noise for my taste though.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Dec 25, 2008)

PM3 Quote:<<
As much as I dislike KR, he has got it right here: your camera has _nothing _to do with the artistic quality of your shots, and as much as this should be absolutely obvious to any photographer, too many of us get obsessed with the equipment, and remain crap photographers (hell, look at KR!). An artists skill does not lie in his tools. But if your camera can't/doesn't replicate what YOU SAW then what was the point of taking the picture?? I've proven this time and time again to friends who have said to me "yeah, the quality of your shots is in the camera", or otherwise implied it because to a layperson, a D40 looks big, black and dangerous and therefore must be good, right? I offer to switch cameras and then see who gets the better shots. Do you think it changes? So why are you lugging a big black dangerous Nikko around when (according to you) you can achieve the same outcome with a P&S..???
Unless you're shooting sports, photojournalism and maybe wildlife, you don't have an excuse to blame your equipment. But as you have found with your D40, you have plenty of excuses to PRAISE your equipment. Photography is about your understanding of light composition, shape, colour, being in the right place at the right time, and to an extent, luck.>>
Try this:
Borrow one of your friends P&S cameras: make sure you are at the right place at the right time; and take some 'artistic' shots with both it and your D40 - same light, same framing and composition, same scene (shape and colour), assume your luck is 'in' - and see which camera produces the better shot that pleases YOU artistically... If it DOES turn out to be the P&S (or if there is no discernable difference), then swop cameras with the friend who loaned you the P&S....
Jedo


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 25, 2008)

The ironic thing about crediting KR for "the camera doesn't matter" attitude is that he runs a photo gear fetish site.


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 25, 2008)

There are pictures that will turn out just as good with a P&S as they will on a SLR and there are pictures that won't.  A P&S has a specific function that it is good at an SLR is more flexible.  There are pictures you just plain can't get with a P&S that you can get with an SLR and there are pictures where the camera probably won't make any difference.  Artistically you just plain have more choices with an SLR than a P&S.  If you pay attention to composition and all that stuff you can good pictures with either a large part of photography is deciding which pictures you can get with the camera you have and which ones you can't.


----------



## Kendo (Dec 25, 2008)

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The camera does not "make" a good picture, it captures what the artist "sees". Just because you have the best camera does not mean that every picture will come out stunning. Sure the "quality" of it will be nice, but if you don't know how to make a good picture the camera won't do it for you.


----------



## Kendo (Dec 25, 2008)

epp_b said:


> As long as we're talking about landscapes and mostly still subjects, your camera really does matter a whole lot less than lighting, composition, timing, colour and all the other basics of good photographic art.


 
I totaly agree!!!:thumbup:


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 25, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> The ironic thing about crediting KR for "the camera doesn't matter" attitude is that he runs a photo gear fetish site.


*AND* gets all his personal equipment for FREE.

Very easy for someone to say equipment doesn't make a difference when they never have to pay for it.

Know what?  Those that think that equipment doesn't make a difference fall into 2 camps:

- The totally cluless
- The ones that are wishing that this was true becuase they cannot afford the better equipment.

My example of the church *is* looking at it from a completely artistic manner.  No P&S is able to recreate my artistic needs and visions in the same way that my dSLRs can.  They are so limiting as to be a joke.  Now, if your idea of being artistic is drawing a stick man vs trying to reach that elusive Modet or Piccaso, *sure* that P&S will do for you... but for anyone with true cabilities and desires to excel, they will quickly find that they cannot paint an incredible *oil painting* with crayons.

Unless you have both and can speak from personal experience, you will have no frame of reference.  I also doubt you will find anyone here on this board *with experience *that will tell you that they can get better results from a P&S than they can get from a high end dSLR... unless they are very inexperienced in photography, in which case no matter what you place in their hands, it will still be mediocre.

Then we have the concept of... "if you take pics only during the day or on perfectly lit conditions or of things standing still...", all of a sudden, for me to get these incredible shots, I must LIMIT myself?  That's not photography, thats a jail cell.

My equipment should let me be free to do AS I WISH in the manner that I wish... without constraint.

Hey Michael Angelo... you can paint anything... just that you are NOT allowed to paint your people using anything close to flesh tones, they must all be purple.  Uhhm, no, not quite.

Hey Mr Ferrari owner, my pinto can beat you in a race... but you are NOT allowed to use more than 1st gear and never more then 500RPM or 2% throttle.

Put restrictions on anything, and anything can be achieved... but are you really achieving anything? Yes.  You have achieved one thing... you've achieved to fool yourself into believing something not even close to reality.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 25, 2008)

Some advice about gear from H.P. Robinson's book on landscape photography published in 1888.


"First, of the Camera. This essential tool should be light, strong, and have all the necessary movements. It must at the same time be observed that in some modern cameras there are movements which are not at all necessary, and appear to be added only for the purpose of displaying the ingenuity of the inventors. These clever machines defeat the object for which they are intended. If a camera is efficient, it cannot be too simple. With a perfect camera a photographer of even small experience knows how it works at once, and what to do. The tripod stand should be firm and rigid, as well as light and portable. This you will easily judge for yourself. 

The lens is always considered the most important of all the tools the photographer employs. So it is, but I should like to say boldly that, within limits, I do not care what make of lens I use. It is as well to have the best your means will allow, but there has always been too much made of particular variations in the make of lenses. It has been the fashion to think too much of the tools and too little of the use made of them. 

I have one friend who did nothing last year because he had made up his mind to buy a new lens, and could not determine whose make it should be, and he was tired of his old apparatus. His was of the order of particular and minute minds that try to whittle nothing to a point. I have another friend who takes delight in preparing for photography, and spends a small fortune in doing so, but never takes a picture."

Hilarious!  It's been 120 years, and it's still the same.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Dec 26, 2008)

I have no further questions or comments, M'Lords...

Jedo


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 26, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> Hilarious!  It's been 120 years, and it's still the same.



Doesn't surprise me, but yes, cracks me up! 

I suppose it is fair to say that inexperience will be inexperience... no matter what generation, in photography.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 26, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I suppose it is fair to say that inexperience will be inexperience... no matter what generation, in photography.



I think what old H.P. was saying is that while top quality gear is nice, the important thing is getting out and shooting with whatever gear you've got.  

I'll admit that saying "the camera doesn't matter" is an oversimplification, but it's a reaction to the grossly out of proportion obsession and reverence that's been placed on the gear.  

Which would help a newbie, or even experienced photographer more:  a $300 semester long photography or art class, or a $3000 equipment upgrade?    

If they are going from point-n-shoot to SLR there may be some noticeable improvement caused by the gear, but I still say the class (assuming a decent teacher) will have much more significant effect on the photog's image quality.

If they are already working with a DSLR the improvement caused by upgrading to a fancier DSLR will be insignificant compared to the improvement caused by attending lectures, completing projects, and participating in discussions with other photographers.

Is the camera important?  Sure, and camera gear is loads of fun!  But it's not as important as people usually make of it.  Spending time studying and practicing photography will give a much greater quality return for the investment than spending money on new/better gear.  I spent a decade obsessed with the gear, as you could tell if you saw my obscene heap of cameras, and my advice to newbies is that gear worship is a hang-up if you are mostly interested in creating photographs as art, and the sooner you can get over it the sooner you can concentrate on the important stuff.  Or at least the concern over bodies and lenses is way overdone; if you are going to be obsessed with gear be obsessed with lighting gear.

Then again I know many photogs who's only interest in photography is the gear and process.  They make boring photos that demonstrate technical excellence or historical processes, but they are having fun, and that's what's important to them.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 26, 2008)

Ken Rockwell is a joke. That's all I wanted to say.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 26, 2008)

OK, like I said, I was just making for a provocative title.  Perhaps my emotional connection with the place has something to do with it, but I still think they're genuinely good pictures.

I lawlzore'd at the clock comment, too


----------



## Battou (Dec 26, 2008)

epp_b said:


> I was totally blown away!
> 
> _I_ took these pictures?  _Really??_  Before I ever actually got into photography or knew anything at all about cameras?  With some point and shoot I'd never used before?
> 
> ...



Two things:

One: You know what it is...It's kind of ironic, it's a very similar thing that happened to my GF. She got luckey and captured a lightning bolt some years ago. She did not realize it at the time but it was the memory of that very photo that brought about her desire to get into photography. She remembered that photo reasently and shared that story with me. It is very possible that these photos could very well be the foundation of your interest in photography.

Two: Well....If you really wanted to, you could go out to the cottage and talk to the current owners. Tell them that your grandparents where the previous owners and you had photographed the aria for the sale of the location and wished to do some personal shooting of the surrounding aria. Granted you prolly won't have access to the cottage it self but the landscapes are there for the taking and I assume that if you ask nicely they would let you roam freely around the property.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 26, 2008)

Bull Pucky, He's right (KR) in sence that art is art.  What did ol Ansel use?  
The only real advantage between my Canon sure shot and my Nikons is my ability to choose a lens needed for the subject, larger uncompressed files for editing and the ability to use better lighting.  My Canon as manual settings along with A, S priority modes not to mention a custom white balance.  All for 150 bucks.  

An Artist can make art with anything be it pencil or oil.  I've even seen some outstanding exhibits with steel.

As for the Church bet.  Make that a church that doesn't allow electronic flashes and your on.  Just let me have a tripod and my reflectors. 

I'm willing to bet if the author of this tread hadn't mentioned the story about the P&S most would have ahhhh, wow'd the crap out of them.  
Luck?  I doubt it.  Looks like he had a clue to what he was doing or at least had a good eye he didn't know he had.

Lets get real.  If it's all about the equipment then tech the best shots should be with the one with the most disposable income right?


Nice shots BTW.


----------



## mrodgers (Dec 26, 2008)

The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality.  But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.

My coworker with his $1500 worth of dSLR and accessories could never make the shots that I have recently made with my Fuji S5700 superzoom POS.  He shoots in full auto mode and it would be impossible for him to get a shot of my daughter blowing out her birthday candles with the natural light of the lit candles.  It would be impossible when his flash automatically goes off.

The statement by KR, "your camera doesn't matter" simply refers to the artistic quality of the shot.  In this sense, it is an entirely true statement.  Comparing my coworker's photos and my photos are proof.  I don't necessarily have the greatest technical quality (sharpness, noise, etc.) but I can control the exposure, using flash or not, or DOF to an extent where as my coworker can't control any of that.  It is what it is when he shoots in fully automatic.  No lights on his Christmas tree shots because of the flash.  No night shots for him because the camera will flash.  No DOF or noise control because it is all automatic.


----------



## Battou (Dec 26, 2008)

Patrick said:


> Lets get real.  If it's all about the equipment then tech the best shots should be with the one with the most disposable income right?



Well that rules out the artists...cuz we're all broke, it's like a requirement in the art world or something.


----------



## KD5NRH (Dec 27, 2008)

To paraphrase people in several other types of endeavors, when you need a camera now, the $100 P&S in your hand beats the Hasselblad you left at home.


----------



## cochiece (Dec 27, 2008)

jwkwd said:


> Even a broken clock is right twice a day



That's a great quote! But back on topic, depending on what type of photography you want can dictate what features you must have on a camera. From personal experience I need/want a camera that can take auto-bracketed raw images so a point and shoot is useless to me.

Don't get me wrong, I have a point and shoot for spontaneous images, e.g. if I'm out with friends and can't be lugging my D300 around while ordering my next Guinness, but I think it's a combination of the photographer *and* the camera that produces wonderful image.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality.  But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.



Define quality. 

The photos above probably would look horrible at 16x20 print.   So is the quality we're talking about in the print or the digital file.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 27, 2008)

Somebody once said, "Whatever get's you through the night.".  









But then again, somebody else shot him in the back so maybe throwing money at a camera is a good idea.


----------



## Battou (Dec 27, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> But then again, somebody else shot him in the back so maybe throwing money at a camera is a good idea.



This is why cameraadict.com and broadway photo exist....to shoot you in the back, so maybe that $100 wal-mart special is a good ieda as well.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

Battou said:


> This is why cameraadict.com and broadway photo exist....to shoot you in the back, so maybe that $100 wal-mart special is a good ieda as well.



:thumbup:


----------



## pm63 (Dec 27, 2008)

Jedo_03 said:


> But if your camera can't/doesn't replicate what YOU SAW then what was the point of taking the picture??


 
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but accurate reproduction of a scene is only really required in scientific/journalistic photography. In general creative photography, the aim is almost always to make things look better than they are, not accurately reproduce them.

 


> So why are you lugging a big black dangerous Nikko around when (according to you) you can achieve the same outcome with a P&S..???


 
It has an optical viewfinder, which I prefer. It is much easier to use with better ergonomics, and the manual mode is a hell of a lot easier to use. It can take square filter systems for my landscapes (or at least the lenses can). It is more comfortable to hold and easier to use for longer durations. It is faster, both in terms of use and factors like shutter lag/zooming. It is more pleasurable to use, and gives a satisfying mirror slap when the shutter release is pressed (I'm not kidding, do we not all use SLRs partly because they're more fun?)




> But as you have found with your D40, you have plenty of excuses to PRAISE your equipment.


 
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate?
 



> Try this:
> Borrow one of your friends P&S cameras: make sure you are at the right place at the right time; and take some 'artistic' shots with both it and your D40 - same light, same framing and composition, same scene (shape and colour), assume your luck is 'in' - and see which camera produces the better shot that pleases YOU artistically... If it DOES turn out to be the P&S (or if there is no discernable difference), then swop cameras with the friend who loaned you the P&S....


 
I have done it - I've had both my D40 and his Canon P&S (one of the basic 150 pound ones), and would you believe that I preffered the shots of the Canon? It was compact, discreet, the auto mode with flash off allowed me to take some fantastic abstract and discreet party snaps. However, I won't be swopping because I like my D40 for the reasons outlined above.



> Know what? Those that think that equipment doesn't make a difference fall into 2 camps:
> 
> - The totally cluless
> - The ones that are wishing that this was true becuase they cannot afford the better equipment.


 
Know what? I don't fit into either of those categories. I had the pleasure of using my uncle's D300 for a few days and it was nice, yes. Did I take better photos? Hell no. It felt nice and solid, and weighed me down even more than my D40, but no difference apart from that.

In fact, I'll argue that those that think that equipment _does _make a difference, in actual artistic quality, are the ones wishing it was so. They're the people who spend their time shooting brick walls and test charts and have less than 10,000 actuations after a year of owning their camera.

Professionals with more shiny equipment than you can imagine also hold this view. David Noton repeatedly states in his columns that equipment doesn't matter, and Bert Stephani goes as far as to say that having limited gear is an asset, not a disadvantage. These are photographers at the top of their game, so you'll forgive me for reffering to them. See the party shot Stephani made on his Canon P+S. Hell, I doubt I would have produced so creative a shot even if you had given me a D3.



> My example of the church *is* looking at it from a completely artistic manner. No P&S is able to recreate my artistic needs and visions in the same way that my dSLRs can.


 
LOL so your DSLRs magically teaches you about the nuances of composition, lighting, colour, etc, and you seem to forget these when a P+S is placed into your hands? I would love to see that. As someone else said, if only being an ace photographer were as easy as having a large disposable income...



> Then we have the concept of... "if you take pics only during the day or on perfectly lit conditions or of things standing still...", all of a sudden, for me to get these incredible shots, I must LIMIT myself? That's not photography, thats a jail cell.
> 
> My equipment should let me be free to do AS I WISH in the manner that I wish... without constraint.


 
That is true to an extent, but not all of us want to burn away at 10FPS and ISO 25,600. Even looking through your flickr, you don't seem to be shooting much sports or things that truly even require SLRs.

Every since I dug out the shots I took when I was five years old on my mum's Olympus compact, I have always stuck to the view that artistic quality is independant of the tools used to create the art, and I always will. It's easy to get fixated with the technical aspects of it, and sadly, too many of us do.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

PM63,  I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

pm63 said:


> Know what? I don't fit into either of those categories. I had the pleasure of using my uncle's D300 for a few days and it was nice, yes. Did I take better photos? Hell no. It felt nice and solid, and weighed me down even more than my D40, but no difference apart from that.


In a few days, you MASTERED his D300?  I *am* impressed.  (ok, well not really, becuase we both know you likely learned nothing about it's advanced functions in those couple of days... and it would not surprise me if that camera had never even left Auto mode)




pm63 said:


> They're the people who spend their time shooting brick walls and test charts and have less than 10,000 actuations after a year of owning their camera.


Well if that is referring to me, I do test out all my lenses on a focus chart.  Never shot a brick wall unless it was part of the scene, not for any technical reason.  My D200 has over 65,000 actuations before I retired it to backup status camera in October 2008... I bought it new in June 2007, so a bit more than a year.




pm63 said:


> See the party shot Stephani made on his Canon P+S. Hell, I doubt I would have produced so creative a shot even if you had given me a D3.


That would be *YOUR* fault, not the camera's.  If you are not able to get the most out of your gear, why are you even spending the money on it??
 



pm63 said:


> LOL so your DSLRs magically teaches you about the nuances of composition, lighting, colour, etc, and you seem to forget these when a P+S is placed into your hands? I would love to see that. As someone else said, if only being an ace photographer were as easy as having a large disposable income...


I did not say the value of your equipment defines your abilities as a photographer.  Go back and reread that.  I *did* say that the better the equipment, the better the results.  Unfortunately, if you don't know anything about this new equipment, thats not the fault of the equipment, is it?

You seem to forget that the same person holding 2 cameras (low end and top end), the results *will* be different.  Now, if you are not seeing these differences, *YOU* are the missing link in the chain, not the cameras.
 
Using the point of reference in the church scenario, how can a P&S get even a proper exposure in a dark moody location?  Answer:  It cannot, and no amount of camera expertise or knowledge will help.  Most P&S cannot even reach ISO 400 cleanly, much less ISO 1600 or higher!

A camera with higher potential frees me to go from locations that have full daylight capabilities right down to those little dark back rooms and give me the ability to concentrate on the composition... rather than think about "oh, its too dark here, maybe I need the on camera flash... no wait I know that will make the pic suck... ok, lets raise the ISO... no wait THAT will make the picture suck too... ok, lets add a tripod... no wait, they're not allowed in here... well let me hand hold this pic for 20 seconds... nope, can't do that either.. oh well, let's go to the parking lot... lots of light out there!"



pm63 said:


> not all of us want to burn away at 10FPS and ISO 25,600. Even looking through your flickr, you don't seem to be shooting much sports or things that truly even require SLRs.



Careful what you ask for.  Just becuase I do not show people everything in my flickr stream doesn't mean I don't have it (fact is, perhaps 1% of all my pics are on flickr... and less than 20% are even available for the public to see!).

  I challenge you to go out and match the quality and technical aspects within the confines of the locations that they are taken in, of these pictures on *ANY* low end P&S... Let's start easy, shall we?:






A little EXIF data to help you:
Camera:      Nikon D700
Exposure:     0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture:     f/5
Focal Length:     200 mm
ISO Speed:     3200






A little EXIF data to help you again:
Camera:      Nikon D700
Exposure:     0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture:     f/2.8
Focal Length:     200 mm
ISO Speed:     6400

Now, imagine if you will... a tomb in a church with only the faintest of light coming in from one single source above... to the natural eye it is so dark that it is difficult to see detail, yet with this camera, I managed to capture this:




Again a little EXIF data to help you out:
Camera:      Nikon D700
Exposure:     0.8 sec (4/5)
Aperture:     f/16
Focal Length:     24 mm
ISO Speed:     25600

A picture taken while I was firing off shots at 8 FPS:





I do not know how good your timing is, but I doubt you could recreate this picture with a P&S, much less match the ISO 3200 that was used to take THIS picture.  

If equipment makes no difference, please, feel free to *show me* how ANYONE (expert or novice) with a $150 P&S can recreate any of these pictures.  My abilities as a photographer are NOT rooted in my equipment, but my knowledge in photography and superior equipment let me reach into places that the P&S owners (I do not care if they are Picasso himself) can only dream of.

  I look forward to your response, but mostly... I look forward to seeing prove your points via showing me your pictures.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

Fuji A600-  Handheld dim light.  Probably one of the crappiest cameras I've ever owned.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




No one said a P&S could shot 10 fps.  
Are sport shots, action that is, considered art?  Or even brought up till now?
Any who, DSLRs excel in that arena.  I do have some soccer shots using tri-x pushed to 1600 on a foggy misty afternoon I took with a hundred dollar film camera and a nikon knock off cheap lens if your interested.

As far as landscapes, I'll still go with the ones originally posted above.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality.  But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.



That, my friend, is all that I am saying and have been saying since day 1.


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 27, 2008)

Off topic: Patrick, got any more shots of that loco?  Love locomotive shots


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

Patrick said:


> Any who, DSLRs excel in that arena.



I wonder how sports shots ever were taken in the past then, pre-digital?  Had to be done, right?  Did someone go out and buy instant developing film for their Polaroid and get the job done like that?  No, they took ASA 1600 put it into a SLR and pushed it becuase thats what the best was back then.  Same thing today!  You cannot compare good equipment against lower grade equipment and expect the same results... you just helped prove my point... lol



Patrick said:


> I do have some soccer shots using tri-x pushed to 1600 on a foggy misty afternoon I took with a hundred dollar film camera and a nikon knock off cheap lens if your interested.



Sports and what not was mentioned by the kind poster right above that said they looking into my flickr site and there were no pics there needed for even SLRs... lol (50% of what I take is portraiture, the rest is so varied it covers pretty much every aspect from Macro to all kinds of sports and everything in between).

As far as wanting to compare... no prob... side by side, my friend... side by side... grab your Tri-X pushed to 1600 and come shoot beside me in the SAME places.  I doubt the results will be the same.  Especially in darker environments, or in places that are poorly lit and have a little fast motion action.  

I am NOT turning this into a film vs digital thread, this is not the point... YOU mentioned the film, but I am game anyways.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I wonder how sports shots ever were taken in the past then... pre-digital?  Had to be done, right?  Did someone go out and buy ASA 80 film on a kodak and get the job done?  No, they took ASA 1600 and pushed it becuase thats what the best was back then.  Same today!  You cannot compare good equipment against bad equipment and expect the same result... you just helped prove my point... lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DSLRs exel for their ability to shoot 10 fps over P&S's  Not to mention the damn shutter lag. 

Tri X ?  You bet.  But then there will be the debate over the god awful grain and contrast. And this thread is already getting off topic.



BTW that's how they did it with 80 speed film.  You would be surprised what you can pull out of a poorly exposed neg.
My fast becoming favorite film is Adox 50.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

Patrick said:


> BTW that's how they did it with 80 speed film.  You would be surprised what you can pull out of a poorly exposed neg.
> My fast becoming favorite film is Adox 50.



Why is that... can't it be exposed properly straight out of the camera?  My ISO 6400 pics are just that... basically SOOC just converted to JPG and uploaded to flickr.  The 25,600 one *is* post processed to remove the noise.  I hope no one thinks otherwise... no camera can do that... yet.

Are you admitting that there is SOME equipment that does things better than others???  Heaven forbid!


----------



## lostprophet (Dec 27, 2008)

Patrick said:


> No one said a P&S could shot 10 fps.



why settle for 10fps when you can have 60fps in a P&S EX-F1 - High Speed EXILIM - Cameras - Products - CASIO


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

Adox 50@ 50   Very dim light . Handheld braced against a rock.  100 camera.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Why is that... can't it be exposed properly straight out of the camera?  My ISO 6400 pics are just that... basically SOOC just converted to JPG and uploaded to flickr.  The 25,600 one *is* post processed to remove the noise.  I hope no one thinks otherwise... no camera can do that... yet.
> 
> Are you admitting that there is SOME equipment that does things better than others???  Heaven forbid!



Now don't go putting words in my mouth.  Would I go into a sports arena personally with a P&S No.  
If the orignal poster had not told what he used and the story behind it would everyone had gone "wow, Nice shots" yes.  Is it the equipment that makes a good image. NO .
Could you hand your camera to the fan next to you and expect the same as you posted?  Could I get a better picture with a point and shoot than the guy/gal sitting next to you, You bet.

In fact I bet I could shoot damn near a whole wedding with a point and shoot and a tripod.  Would I? NO  Because I want big RAW files as a back up.

Thus,  KR wasn't far off.  Your camera, for the majority, does not matter.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> why settle for 10fps when you can have 60fps in a P&S EX-F1 - High Speed EXILIM - Cameras - Products - CASIO



Very nice.  Not badly priced either. 

But it's not a DSLR so the pictures probably look like crap. :gah:


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

Sorry, I do not consider that very dim light... there are streams of daylight sun coming down all over.  Cool for ISO 50 film, but overall, not that dark of a condition to be working in and not what we are really discussing.  :er:







Now this... is low light.  At ISO 3200 and F/4, you can see how dim the room is... the candle light, which is the brightest light source in this area, is clearly reflecting off the walls and subject's face.  This means that I would have NO compunctions about shooting an all candle light wedding ceremony with lots of room to accomodate even darker scenarios.  To get back to the point... lets see a P&S do this.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 27, 2008)

Patrick said:


> If the orignal poster had not told what he used and the story behind it would everyone had gone "wow, Nice shots" yes.  Is it the equipment that makes a good image. NO .



You're kidding me, right?  I think my response at the top of the thread was:


> The focus is soft and the wrong aperture for best results was used. To me, it doesn't come close to being a "gem".
> 
> That said, my opinions should not matter to you, as I do not have the same attachment to these pics that you do, and they have no meaning to me beyond what I see. To you, you have the pleasure of seeing and remembering some place and someone important to you. That is the true gem.





Patrick said:


> Thus,  KR wasn't far off.  Your camera, for the majority, does not matter.



I could also add, that for a picture that is to remind me of someone... I would at least want to see their face.. which is NOT visible in any of the pics shown. I could go on, but the point is made. They are not all that great... and I apologize if that sounds harsh, but its the truth!


lol... you enjoy running around in circles.  If it doesn't make a difference... then grab a P&S and come shoot with me in my locations, or at the very least show me a REAL quality shot equal to the ones that I show above, in any of manners I outlined above!

My friend, you cannot... hence... it does make a difference.  It limits you tremendously.  

Can you get a nice shot with a PS?  Yes
Will it be better with a better quality camera?  Yes
Does equipment make a difference?  If it is within the abilities of the photographer... YES.  They have to be able to take advantage of it.

I think this is all starting to get boring for the people here... I'm hearing a lot of talk, but no proof.

I'm outta here.


----------



## KD5NRH (Dec 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> In a few days, you MASTERED his D300?  I *am* impressed.  (ok, well not really, becuase we both know you likely learned nothing about it's advanced functions in those couple of days...



So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use?  Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.

Skill can make up for a lack of equipment.  Sometimes to an extreme degree.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 28, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> Skill can make up for a lack of equipment.  Sometimes to an extreme degree.



I never said it could not... amazing bit of selective reading there dude... but no amount of skill can give you a picture that is beyond the capabilities of low end equipment.  And what happens when a skilled photographer takes pictures with both low end P&S and high end cameras, do you honestly think the results are the same?

Show me any pic from a point and shoot that has more resolution than the resolution from a 24MP camera!

You can learn composition, you can learn to become a better photographer... you cannot learn high ISO low noise and your 8MP Kodak cannot learn to take pictures as well at a concert as a high end dSLR.  As Garbz once said (not in the same context, but it fits... lol), "you can't polish a turd".

Ken Rockwel is well known as the court jester of photography.  Funny how only the inexperienced grab at him like a life buoy to justify their choices in anything that fits their current needs.

People, you've GOTTA learn to think for yourselves!!


----------



## Garbz (Dec 28, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use?



Your kidding right? He shot with a large format camera. That is the ultimate of advanced functionality. You can't get a camera more specifically designed for exactly those types of pictures. As a man who's life battle was with the tonal range of his equipment vs the scenery I hardly think he's a model for people who believe that the camera is not important.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 28, 2008)

Patrick, where did you buy the Adox?   It looks terrific!! (Nice shot too BTW)  Is this 35 or 120?

I found it at Freestyle but have never ordered from them-  I will continue the search on my own but would like to know where you got yours.  Also have you tried the 25?  And, do you develop yourself or do you have a lab near you that will do it?

OK, hijack over.  

OK, one more thing, did you use a filter on the shot above or is that really the way the film is?


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 28, 2008)

pm63 said:
			
		

> I think you are speaking of _technical_ as opposed to _artistic_ quality.



Two pages and three days ago and the gear nerds are STILL missing the point of the OP.

As for Ken Rockwell, I do believe the man pays for all the gear he OWNS, and is loaned anything else he might use.  If we're going to hate on the man, at least get the hate right.  The problem with folks who like to harp on KR.com, is that the utterly and completely miss the nuance in what the man is saying (or does so in order to have something to criticize).  Tossing "the camera doesn't matter!" on a headline for an article is a snark way of saying "get your head out of the techie-gutter and stop focusing on learning the art of photography and not the manual to your camera."

As for the OP, definitely agree about the quality of shots that somehow beginning auteur are able to grab in their infancy.  I have shots with a rinky dink 3MP A75 that I wouldn't have minded giving the once over on in the here and now - had my hard drive not gone kaput.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 28, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Patrick, where did you buy the Adox?   It looks terrific!! (Nice shot too BTW)  Is this 35 or 120?
> 
> I found it at Freestyle but have never ordered from them-  I will continue the search on my own but would like to know where you got yours.  Also have you tried the 25?  And, do you develop yourself or do you have a lab near you that will do it?
> 
> ...



The only place I've been able to find to was also at freestyle.  They are good people.  I order from them regularly and have never had a problem.  Their Arista film isn't bad either.  It's re-branded stuff and cheap.  Their Arista II was rumored to be left over Afga.  

I used no filter.  The stuff is AWESOME.  just be careful when it's wet or before hardening, the emulsion requires TLC .
If you like Hi contrast shots try soupin' in HC-110.

Oh and for the post before my reply, I am far from a gear head.  For my own stuff I delight in using the bare min. of gear and my trusted EL-2 is my best buddy.  I'd use a pin hole if it were the only camera available.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 29, 2008)

Thanks, Patrick!!


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 29, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use?  Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.
> 
> Skill can make up for a lack of equipment.  Sometimes to an extreme degree.


Ansel Adams is so frequently misunderstood it makes me laugh. People hold him up as some kind of ideal, but completely miss some of the points that makes him truly interesting.

Two points: 

Ansel Adams was a notorious gear head who bought new crap all the time. Also, he went so far as to shoot with one of the first digital cameras in the early 1980s. That guy LOVED cameras, and always had the best gear.

Ansel Adams was big on post-processing. If he didn't like the sky, he'd insert a different one - just for instance. 

None of this takes away from his particular art.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 29, 2008)

I think those who disagree with the article don't understand who his audience is.  His audience consists of a lot of geeks and gearheads who shoot brick walls and test charts.  If these kind of people are going to consistently make great photos, they need this sort of kick in the pants.

Perhaps the it would be more accurate to rename it to "Until Have Mastered the Artistic End of things, Your Camera Doesn't Matter", but that would be nowhere near as provocative or controversial


----------



## KD5NRH (Dec 29, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ansel Adams was a notorious gear head who bought new crap all the time. Also, he went so far as to shoot with one of the first digital cameras in the early 1980s. That guy LOVED cameras, and always had the best gear.



Are you asserting that he had some crossbreed of the current top-of-the-line DSLRs from every manufacturer?  Because, if not, some of these guys are saying he couldn't have taken a picture that was worth a plug nickel.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 29, 2008)

As a bit of a humorous aside here, and in a sarcastic vein, I was just thinking, "Your camera doesn't matter--Mine does."


----------



## stsinner (Dec 29, 2008)

Sometimes you just don't want that good of a picture.  HD video and photo has RUINED the porn industry!  Yuck!


----------



## epp_b (Dec 29, 2008)




----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2008)

Within certain limitations and with some qualifications there is probably a grain of truth and accuracy in what he is saying.

After all, I doubt that anyone here could, from a selection of landscapes and snapshots determine which 10 megapixel point and shoot took which shot or for that matter which DSLR at 12 megapixels took which shots if the prints were all 5 by 7. Putting top lenses on some DSLRs and kit lenses on others would probably make a difference as well in the comparisons.

So, there are differences between point and shoot cameras and compacts and between compacts and DSLRs but the individual differences within the categories show up more in features, flexibility and ease of use, rather than in image quality.  Full frame DSLRs are probably a category on their own. Yes there are differences but they do not show up in a lot of amateur or enthusiast shooting particularly by those with limited experience.

skieur


----------



## panocho (Dec 29, 2008)

Excuse me if I'm speaking nonsense, but I think I remember Rockwell's writting about cameras don't matter and, if my memory doesn't fail, it was about film cameras. That doesn't eliminate the discussion at all, but it does make some important difference: the huge differences of sensors and pixels don't count there, since the film you're using is the same in both cameras. So that would be like having the D700's sensor on a disposable P&S!

Then the "only" difference that remains is that which has to do with controlling the camera vs letting the camera decide everything, maybe ramdomly. And -again, trusting my memory- in this regard Rockwell minimized that difference by referring to shoots in which one can somehow "control" a P&S camera: well lit situations, without a particular need for a controlled DOF, without action, etc

So the point could look somehow tricky but there was a serious point, seems to me: as some have written above, stop worrying about the gear and start shooting. Nice pictures will come out of a lot of a nice subject, a beatiful light... and a lot practising, not out of upgrading equipment.

And finally, as for the irony in that coming from a fetish camera gear man, it does contain a lot of irony, but on the other hand it can also be viewed as a way to balance the fetishism. And I am NOT trying to speak in favour of Rockwell in any way. As a matter of fact, I am not particularly fond of the guy... to express it nicely


----------



## Garbz (Dec 29, 2008)

panocho said:


> Excuse me if I'm speaking nonsense, but I think I remember Rockwell's writting about cameras don't matter and, if my memory doesn't fail, it was about film cameras.



He did make one comparison I remember between DSLR and a point and shoot. But in the typical Ken Rockwell style he completely pisses all logic and reason against the wall and says the noticeably worse picture taken in the most ideal and easily photographable scene (a tree in high noon ISO100 tiny aperture lighting conditions) is actually good enough and people don't need a DSLR. But I expected no more from the man who fellates the worst lens he owns.

KR fans may fall over themsevles looking for the article, forgive me if I am wrong it was like 2 years since saw it ever so briefly


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 29, 2008)

I've never seen ROCKWELL say someone doesn't NEED a dSLR.  He will regularly piss on dSLR's (because, like MATT DRUDGE, the best kind of stories/websites to visit are those where you vehemently disagree with whats being said), but the man DOES use them and goes ape**** over the D40.  

The problem with KR haters is that they only look at the man from one side, while completely jettisoning his statements coming from the other side.  Inevitably the whole "well he doesn't pay for his gear so he doesn't deserve to have an opinion" or the "omg have you see his pics. . .lolz!", which in my book greatly reduces the veracity of anyone arguing against the fellow.  Argue what he's actually saying, not just the portion you've allowed yourselves to see.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 29, 2008)

That's twice now that you've mentioned my comment about his not getting free equipment from Nikon and not in a loaner sense.  I was nice and let it go the first time... not this time.  Ken Rockwell HIMSELF had an entry on his own site stating this... so I would not want to be the one spreading BS rumors when I saw this on his own site by his own admission.

Second.  I do not hate KR becuase he gets free equipment.  I could sincerely not care less.  I am not a hater, but I am not a fan of someone that mixes facts with *his personal opinion* and spreads both as gospel.  There is so much BS peddled on his site as fact that THIS is why the man is considered the court jester of the online photography community.  

Now, I will say it again... note the number of people that support him and the number of people that openly laugh at him.  Correlate those numbers to the experience level of the supporters and what you call "haters" and you will see that people who have fallen for his dangerous mix of good info and BS are those of lower experience and those that have gained enough experience to see through his BS are the ones laughing.

I've said it before... he may be a pretty darn good photographer, but I use a HUGE shaker of salt any time I visit that site... and I haven't in close to a year now... it did not take me long to see through the difference between fact and fiction on his site and I don't patronize the site of someone that calls his own site "a joke" and then asks for donations.

Pfft... thats what I think of Rockwell.


----------



## TUX424 (Dec 29, 2008)

KR seems to have a problem with sigma, he writes off every sigma ever made a crap. Now i have shot on a few sigma and they are quilty peices of glass sure the texture is sorta stange on them but who really cares. (KR seems to care alot about little tiny things like that) Now im not one of those people that follow every thing that he says but he does have somethings that i like to read. One thing that i like about his site is the vast array of old nikon lens that he reviews, i just like to look back on the days decades before me. But alot of things that KR has to say are true. I dont love him but i dont hate him.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 29, 2008)

Some Sigma are pure crap... while some Sigma are superior to even Nikkor gold ring lenses at 1/3rd the price.  If this is true, it would be typical KR propaganda... lol.  One cannot generalize about an entire company's quality in one sentence, it should be done on a case by case basis.


----------



## panocho (Dec 30, 2008)

TUX424 said:


> One thing that i like about his site is the vast array of old nikon lens that he reviews, i just like to look back on the days decades before me.



Just a side note, in case you don't know; ignore it if you do: if you want to check reviews of older Nikon lenses, there are some other sites, like this one, for instance:

Lens Evaluations

Personally, I find one like this MUCH more realiable and worth reading than Rockwell's "reviews". I do agree in the Sigma-fobia issue, by the way. And I also agree with what JerryPH said about being mostly beginners those who like his site, mainly because beginners tend to search for, as Jerry puts it, "a gospel" that gives easy, fast and simple guidelines. That, I think, is far from being a really useful help. I would never trust a reviewer who starts a review saying things like "buy it" or "ignore it, get this one instead". But I guess there are a lot of those who just need reading those phrases to instantly click on the links he himself provides and spend their money without the minimum criterion. Not to speak of the numerous contradictions his opinions seem to envolve. All this, of course, regardless of the possibility that now and then one can find something useful.

Anyway, the man has us here discussing about him! And I'm sure many places elsewhere, as well. That's precisely what he wants and what he aims for when he writes what he writes!


----------



## panocho (Dec 30, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> That's twice now that you've mentioned my comment about his not getting free equipment from Nikon and not in a loaner sense.  I was nice and let it go the first time... not this time.  Ken Rockwell HIMSELF had an entry on his own site stating this... so I would not want to be the one spreading BS rumors when I saw this on his own site by his own admission.



Congratulations to Rockwell! He got what he wants: I've just visited his site. 

I've done it because it sounded to me that he frequently claimed on his articles that he didn't get anything for free from Nikon. So I found this in the "about me" page: 

"I don't get anything from Nikon. They don't even give me the time of day! No loaners (except for the left handed F100 I got before this site went on-air), no special help, no advance information, no hats or even pens. Nothing. Nada. Squat. They don't even send me press releases on time. I always hear about new things from you folks first!" (See: About KenRockwell.com , "How Much Does Nikon Pay Me?" section)

So now I'm very curious if you could provide a link for where he says the opposite. That would be the definitive contradiction, wouldn't it?


----------



## Garbz (Dec 30, 2008)

If I was as openly hated as him then I would write a page like that on my site too.

Evidence or no evidence, many people believe it and it does fit nicely given what he says about all his cheap gear vs his expensive gear.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 30, 2008)

panocho said:


> So now I'm very curious if you could provide a link for where he says the opposite. That would be the definitive contradiction, wouldn't it?



As I said, I've not visited his site in about a year.   I have no intention of perusing through it either.  It was there when I was new and a "KR fan" and about 1-2 months into my D200.  That was about the time I started seeing inconsistencies and other things that showed to me what the place really was... useless to me, and slowly stopped visiting and did not visit since. The line, if I recall  went something like "it doesn't matter that I haven't paid for a camera since (whatever, I cannot recall)...".  It was clear how that statement was meant.

I recall thinking how stupid it was to write on his site, becuase I already started to notice how unpopular he was.  As I learned more and started to discern his opinion from fact, I saw it was not a good place to go and I just dropped the garbage off on the curb and moved on.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 30, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use?  Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.
> 
> Skill can make up for a lack of equipment.  Sometimes to an extreme degree.



I agree


----------



## Patrick (Dec 30, 2008)

You know Jerry, I've come and gone from this forum many times since 2003 and since then there is always one.  Some just don't get it.  
The proof is right in Ansel Adams gallery of masterpieces. A wooden camera, tripod and some Kodak tri-x.  uncoated lens, no AF.  I don't believe he even had 3-D matrix metering (LOL) and I bet he couldn't even get 2 shots off a minute.  No light meter.  
WWII turned out some of the most moving images ever captured.  All manual camera (issued one at that) and some developed in the dead of night using their helmet. 

I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, hell I learn more everyday.  But how on earth can you say the camera makes the Image not to photographer with the masters we've seen in the past?

It's good to be enthusiastic.  But open your mind and for a minute think about your stance on such a subject. Just because you don't personally care for KR doesn't mean he's always wrong either.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Dec 30, 2008)

Patrick said:


> I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, hell I learn more everyday. But how on earth can you say the camera makes the Image not to photographer with the masters we've seen in the past?


 
I may have missed where he said that...but in any event, this is kind of shadow-boxing on all sides, and I think we long ago lost the point.  

To create an image, you obviously need both.  Ansel Adams by himself could not take a great photograph.  If you had Ansel Adams in your hand, and pushed the button, nothing would happen.  (Well, he might slug you...but no image would result.)

Similarly, a camera on its own is nothing -- and a camera in the hands of a monkey will result in nothing but shots of bananas and a gnawed-up Nikon.  

Which is more important?  Depends.  (On the conditions, the application, the skill of the photographer, the quality of the equipment, etc.)  For person A doing one thing the camera might matter quite a lot, while for person B doing another it might be inconsequential.  

To give one example, a camera with automatic mode is crucial for my elderly mother...no automatic mode, no picture.  For WWII images, though, the most important factor was the bravery of the photographer.  No one analyzes the white balance of the sunset in a picture of men fighting and dying.

There are other issues floating around this debate, but I don't think they matter.  For example, is KR an idiot?  Meh.  Who cares -- the world's full of idiots, and none of us are exceptions.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 9, 2009)

Wow, big post.

Dude, take some pictures with people in it. More interesting than just landscapes.

Oh wait, it's the internet. Let me rephrase that.

Dude, take some pictures with people in it. IN MY OPINION, they'd be more interesting than just landscapes.


----------



## Arch (Jan 9, 2009)

ah Mav... you do like to shoot yourself in the foot...

If you want to add a point to this discussion by all means do so.... but that mamoth of a rant you just indulged in, lead to you calling another member names and generally being disrespectful.... so as long as that all must have taken you to write, i can't leave that up there. :roll:


----------



## Mav (Jan 9, 2009)

...


----------



## Mav (Jan 9, 2009)

.


----------



## Arch (Jan 9, 2009)

Mav said:


> Gear what?



As for your images... yea they are ok... if they were mine i would wouldn't be too bothered with them tho, in fact id probably bin them. Why? Even at this size and resolution i can see they have masses of colour noise, something i cannot live with.
Like you said in your earlier post, this is why it is ok to have a different approach to photography, don't try and force your approach on others.


----------



## Arch (Jan 9, 2009)

Mav said:


> If I rephrase it slightly may I repost it?



you can try... you have to cut the whole mid section out at least, id let you keep it up if its just full of your opinions on this kind of photography and not on other people.


----------



## Arch (Jan 9, 2009)

Mav said:


> yeah pixel peeping as always.  "color noise"  Ever shoot film?  I hate the clean plasticy look of digital.



To me that is not comparable. Grain doesn't take away resolution like colour noise and pixilation does.
Aside from that, grain can add atmosphere imo, colour noise just appears like a digital inablity to render properly.


----------



## Mav (Jan 9, 2009)

Arch, you'll have a PM shortly.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 9, 2009)

Iron Flatline said:


> Wow, big post.
> 
> Dude, take some pictures with people in it. More interesting than just landscapes.
> 
> ...



Can I assume your referring to me?
If so would you like some wedding or portrait stuff.  Landscapes I do on my own time for my own pleasure.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 9, 2009)

Mav, In my opinion you didn't shoot yourself in the foot.  I was disappointed to get home and not see your post.  Your raised some very true points.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 10, 2009)

Arch said:


> you can try... you have to cut the whole mid section out at least, id let you keep it up if its just full of your opinions on this kind of photography and not on other people.



After re-reading Mav's post, other than the part for Jerry (although he was dead on)  I didn't see anything wrong.  I say take that part out and post the rest.

:thumbup:


He had some very valid points!


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2009)

drat I missed the post - now it shall ever haunt me

including the wondering of if I was in it!


----------



## TwoRails (Jan 10, 2009)

ditto


----------



## Patrick (Jan 10, 2009)

It was probably one of the best response posted on this tread.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 10, 2009)

Found this on another forum.  Figured some would appreciate it.

 Ken Rockwell Facts  Contributed by liem, Epic|, Fufie, michel_v, neom, Wintre, Bas|k, lament, mattsteg__ and pal.  




Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography  
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]  
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.  
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.  
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.  
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.  
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the  light waits for him.  
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth  
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.  
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.  
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo  win first place in three different categories  
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker  
 Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born  
 Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once  
 Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.  
 Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius  
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.  
 Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you  
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure  
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.  
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.  
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes  
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really  a link to National Geographic Magazine  
 Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"  
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos  
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.  
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.  
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF  
 Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.  
 The term tripod was coined after his silhouette  
 Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced  for the viewer  
 A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the  quality was a lot "like a" rockwell  
 Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of  photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.  
 Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 10, 2009)

Patrick said:


> Can I assume your referring to me?
> If so would you like some wedding or portrait stuff.  Landscapes I do on my own time for my own pleasure.


No, I wasn't.


----------



## bdavis (Jan 15, 2009)

In my opinion those photos look a little under-exposed...the camera doesn't matter too much when you know what you're doing, but you can't deny that having a DSLR is a good thing. Besides, Ken Rockwell also says tripods are a thing of the past....


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 15, 2009)

Wow I just saw this.



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> That's twice now that you've mentioned my comment about his not getting free equipment from Nikon and not in a loaner sense.



Sorry, but that statement is not unique.  It is trumpeted by a good number of the KR haters out there.  Unfortunately, you took it personally.



> Ken Rockwell HIMSELF had an entry on his own site stating this.


He does not.



> Now, I will say it again... note the number of people that support him and the number of people that openly laugh at him. Correlate those numbers to the experience level of the supporters and what you call "haters" and you will see that people who have fallen for his dangerous mix of good info and BS are those of lower experience and those that have gained enough experience to see through his BS are the ones laughing.


I choose to look at the MOTIVATIONS of those who seem to deride the man, all the while having FALSE information either about what he's said, or attributing comments to him that he HASNT said (I'll get to that in a minute).  If I went out and spent a ****load of money on gear, and then have some fool dare to suggest that none of my gear matters!  Human beings, whether they want to admit it or not, are prideful and do not like to be told that perhaps they have done something they really didn't need to do.



> The line, if I recall went something like "it doesn't matter that I haven't paid for a camera since (whatever, I cannot recall)...". It was clear how that statement was meant.


Not at all what that says.  The ACTUAL quote comes from an article about NOT having to pay for a camera, buy purchasing and then selling some item or some such.  Not a single line in the article mentions him working for Nikon or getting free items.  You are remembering the article they way YOU want to remember it to advance your opinion of the man.  He updates the article fairly regularly as the latest reference was to the D3x and how to get it for free.  

So, as demonstrated, your opinion of the man isn't based in reality - which is ironic as many are saying the mans opinions aren't either.  Good times.



			
				bdavis said:
			
		

> Besides, Ken Rockwell also says tripods are a thing of the past....



Is that ALL he said, or did he qualify that statement?


----------



## shivaswrath (Jan 16, 2009)

those lake side pictures would've have looked UNBELIEVABLE if you had something as simple as a D40 instead of that P&S.

KR contradicts himself WAY too much FAR too often for me to given any credence to what he says.

I personally think the perfect picture is the right time, place, and SKILL of the photographer combined with the appropriate equipment.

It has to be a mix of all of the above; your pictures have the right time, place, and skill.  You just needed the right equipment to squeeze that last bit of HuAHHH.


----------



## NightElfWarrior (Jan 16, 2009)

I once attended a parade here in Portland. A team of horses passed by me, and one of them made a "mess" about 20 feet away from me, on the street. Not far behind was a troupe of bagpipe players in full traditional Scottish regalia (ie kilts & tam o'shanters). They were marching along, and I could see that one of them would have to break formation in order not to intersect the large pile of horse crap.  I instantly realized that that special moment in time would be a Kodak moment, and readied my Fuji 2mp P&S. Well, the man in the kilt did a little hop over the crap pile, but I totally missed the shot because my P&S has this maddening shutter lag, approximately 1.5 seconds long, and it is very hard to gauge.  That was about 6 years ago, and to this day I still regret not having captured for posterity the image of a middle aged man with salt & pepper beard, in a skirt, doing the high jump over a large pile of horse crap! Now, can you tell me equipment doesn't matter?! :thumbdown:


----------



## bdavis (Jan 16, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Is that ALL he said, or did he qualify that statement?



He said they are a thing of the past because with all the ISO control, lenses and camera's that we have now, there's no need for a tripod. Which I think is a load of crap, there are plenty of reasons to use one, but he said the only use is for night photography like shooting the moon. He claims that all you have to do is open your aperture up and crank up the ISO and you can hand hold everything. That's just stupid imo. What if I want everything in focus and have to use a small aperture? Sure I can walk around my town at night with my ISO cranked all the way up to 6400, but whats the point if you cant make anything out in the pics from all the noise? 

I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens, even with IS/VR, a tripod would be a better option. From his site he says that he aims his camera and takes a burst of shots and says that at least one is sharp. I'm not sure who said it, but whoever it was said it best, "nothing like a little spray and pray."


----------



## bdavis (Jan 16, 2009)

NightElfWarrior said:


> I once attended a parade here in Portland. A team of horses passed by me, and one of them made a "mess" about 20 feet away from me, on the street. Not far behind was a troupe of bagpipe players in full traditional Scottish regalia (ie kilts & tam o'shanters). They were marching along, and I could see that one of them would have to break formation in order not to intersect the large pile of horse crap.  I instantly realized that that special moment in time would be a Kodak moment, and readied my Fuji 2mp P&S. Well, the man in the kilt did a little hop over the crap pile, but I totally missed the shot because my P&S has this maddening shutter lag, approximately 1.5 seconds long, and it is very hard to gauge.  That was about 6 years ago, and to this day I still regret not having captured for posterity the image of a middle aged man with salt & pepper beard, in a skirt, doing the high jump over a large pile of horse crap! Now, can you tell me equipment doesn't matter?! :thumbdown:



AMEN...

My girlfriend has a little point and shoot and she's pretty talented with it. She's taken photography before so she knows the basics, but wanted a little pocket sized camera that she can snap photos quickly. Meanwhile I'm lugging around my big DSLR and taking shots too and all she can do is complain about how much better my shots work, or how much faster my camera is because she always misses the moment. This goes along exactly with what NightElfWarrior said...the camera does matter!

Ask yourself this, if the camera doesn't matter, why don't pros use Canon Powershots or Nikon Coopix cameras for there photos? Makes ya think...


----------



## andrew99 (Jan 16, 2009)

bdavis said:


> He said they are a thing of the past because with all the ISO control, lenses and camera's that we have now, there's no need for a tripod. Which I think is a load of crap, there are plenty of reasons to use one, but he said the only use is for night photography like shooting the moon. He claims that all you have to do is open your aperture up and crank up the ISO and you can hand hold everything. That's just stupid imo. What if I want everything in focus and have to use a small aperture? Sure I can walk around my town at night with my ISO cranked all the way up to 6400, but whats the point if you cant make anything out in the pics from all the noise?
> 
> I'd also like to see him hand hold a long telephoto lens, even with IS/VR, a tripod would be a better option. From his site he says that he aims his camera and takes a burst of shots and says that at least one is sharp. I'm not sure who said it, but whoever it was said it best, "nothing like a little spray and pray."



Actually I think he was talking about VR.  As usual, he goes way over the top to make his point .. in this case, that he likes VR.  

Probably Manfrotto refused to send him some free stuff, so hence the rant.  LOL!


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

Hahahaha... this one should get "most useless thread that would not die".


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 16, 2009)

> Ask yourself this, if the camera doesn't matter, why don't pros use Canon Powershots or Nikon Coopix cameras for there photos? Makes ya think...


You are doing what several others have done, and that is take the EXTREME of that statement and applied it to what KR has said.  Where on that site will you find him recommend a point and shoot for PROFESSIONALS?  No where.  In fact, in the intro to the D40, he makes a point of saying for the majority the D40 is all they need, however he also makes a point of seperating the pros for average consumners.  The man shoots with a D700, so of course the D40 does not have ALL the tools KR needs, however for the average shot it gets the job done "for him).  A pro needs MORE than image quality, especially action shooters, so of course they aren't going to go for a D40.  And KR knows this.  But "most people" are NOT professional shooters.



			
				Ken Rockwell said:
			
		

> For the best possible camera for just about anything, fun or serious, I use my Nikon D40.
> 
> Sure, I own more expensive cameras, but whenever I grab a camera for my own personal vacations or family photos, it's almost always my remarkable and super lightweight Nikon D40. There isn't anything reasonable I can't do with Nikon's least expensive D40. There is no real reason to pay more for a Nikon D60 or D80. Save your money for more important things, like another lens or flash, or just pocket the difference and enjoy a vacation.
> 
> ...



Read that.  Not just read it, but SERIOUSLY read it.  There are several subtle and nonsubtle qualifiers that it seems KRH8T3RS simply don't pick up on. 

I don't expect anyone to actually "read" his site, and take the time to understand the comments, but it would make false statements like the above and Jerry's less frequent.



			
				Jerry said:
			
		

> Hahahaha... this one should get "most useless thread that would not die".



Hahaha!  Then just skip the thread, close your eyes, and soon enough Big Bad Mr. Rockwell who poopoos on all the learned amateurs haughty misconceptions can live in peace.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Hahaha!  Then just skip the thread, close your eyes, and soon enough Big Bad Mr. Rockwell who poopoos on all the learned amateurs haughty misconceptions can live in peace.



Hahahaha!  Welcome to my ignore list, have good day.


----------



## DWS (Jan 16, 2009)




----------



## ANDS! (Jan 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Hahahaha!  Welcome to my ignore list, have good day.



That is certainly one way of making yourself "right".  In any case, hopefully this thread serves as a warning to others that more often than not, the herd mentality of the internets is more dangerous than any one "egotistical Nikon shooter who gets all his gear for free!"


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> That is certainly one way of making yourself "right".  In any case, hopefully this thread serves as a warning to others that more often than not, the herd mentality of the internets is more dangerous than any one "egotistical Nikon shooter who gets all his gear for free!"




lol


----------



## roadkill (Jan 16, 2009)

I like eggs...


----------



## bdavis (Jan 16, 2009)

roadkill said:


> I like eggs...



I like bacon :thumbup:


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

roadkill said:


> I like eggs...




Obviously you haven't read this article - 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0"]Ken Rockwell - Why you don't need eggs[/ame]


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

Ken Rockwell also recently wrote an article comparing the sharpness of the 5D MKII and the D3X where he *upsized* the 5D MKII file and shot in *jpg* mode. He then complained about the lack of sharpness in the Canon and the amount of noise reduction after shooting a review with the stock settings and not changing either...

What a retard...

And Ken Rockwell is a hypocrite to write an article about how your camera doesn't matter then go and buy a 5D MKII and D3X and shoot in JPG where the camera does all the processing for him.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

Oh wait...no one's talking about anything any more.

People that use the ignore list are assholes. Occasionally there's a little bit of usefulness that leave my mouth other than the generally snide remarks and retarded babble.

How can you not love that?  :heart:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> You are doing what several others have done, and that is take the EXTREME of that statement and applied it to what KR has said. Where on that site will you find him recommend a point and shoot for PROFESSIONALS? No where. In fact, in the intro to the D40, he makes a point of saying for the majority the D40 is all they need, however he also makes a point of seperating the pros for average consumners. The man shoots with a D700, so of course the D40 does not have ALL the tools KR needs, however for the average shot it gets the job done "for him). A pro needs MORE than image quality, especially action shooters, so of course they aren't going to go for a D40. And KR knows this. But "most people" are NOT professional shooters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
David Hobby shoots with a G9 and G10. He doesn't shoot with a Canon Powershot because it doesn't have a hot shoe. Does that make his camera matter?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

Seriously, who posts 4 times in a row?


----------



## bdavis (Jan 16, 2009)

We need to kill this thread, spiraling way out of control


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Seriously, who posts 4 times in a row?




:crazy:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> :crazy:


 
layball:


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

I just wanna say that -

Ken Rockwell is a joke


----------



## Overread (Jan 16, 2009)

its too late dEARlEADER we are here to have you put down now


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 16, 2009)

Overread said:


> its too late dEARlEADER we are here to have you put down now


 
I know. It's pretty f'ed up that he stole my line.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> People that use the ignore list are assholes.


Not really VI.  It's a way of not needing to put up with assholes.  Consider it akin to if we were face to face, me walking away or getting selective hearing.

It makes my world here better when I can remove the assholes since I no longer need to hear their babble.  There comes a line when no matter what someone says, good or bad, that I don't need to put up with their crap.  In this case, KR boot lickers.  That is when they lose all value to me and really have nothing of value for me to even listen to or WANT to listen to.



Village Idiot said:


> Occasionally there's a little bit of usefulness that leave my mouth other than the generally snide remarks and retarded babble.
> 
> How can you not love that?  :heart:



You are not on my list, and I enjoy the odd times you let something coherent out... and often a few of the other times as well... lol.

KR is beyond a retard and people that cannot see that... get what they deserve, becuase thats what they asked for... lol.


----------



## Arch (Jan 16, 2009)

ok im sorry guy, but im getting a little bored of this thread... i bet most of you agree, so lock incoming....


----------

