I may regret starting this one

stumac

stumac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,369
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
"Its not the camera but the man/woman behind it"

I must have read that comment 1000 times on this forum and if thats the case why are we not all running about with £100 compacts and being super creative with them.

before i get slated for this i must say i think its 50/50 as you must have a decent eye for photography but at the same time better gear will produce better photos.

as a photographer I would like to think this statement is correct as it makes me feel like more of an artitst with an actual skill but i really dont think its the case.

what do we all think??? let the fun begin
 
I believe a skilled photographer would be able to wrestle with any kit to get some form of reasonable shot, better kit just expands the capabilities and makes some situations easier. The "easier" part is what amateurs can jump on to to get a shot.
 
yea i agree with the luck bit i may even have to up the percentage in my case
 
It depends. For example motorsport - to be able to get every shot when it matters, you need decent fast kit to be able to focus fast enough on a bike or car travelling at nearly 200mph.
 
There is a series of videos on YouTube from digital_rev where they give a pro photographer a crappy camera. The latest was an iPhone 2g. He still managed some really nice portraits with it. It definitely more the photographer than the gear.
 
The 'better' camera (and lenses) makes a wider range of possibilities available and give the control to make other things easier.

A simple example of this would be a vertical grip - by no means an essential item to take pictures in portrait orientation, but generally people find it easier to do so with one.

A full frame camera with a fast lens makes shallow DOF 'easy' (or, compared to some compacts, possible).

There are lots of great shots possible with compacts, but there are also many that 'need' the larger sensors, lenses and controls that a DSLR brings.
 
I'm hoping that decent kit gives you a bit of a start, but in truth I think that the photographers' skill is at least 60% of the whole.
 
barney that would tell me in that situation it is the kit and a very basic knowlage of shutter speeds "the man behind the camera" is going to struggle with with the wrong kit no matter how good a photographer he is
 
A full frame camera with a fast lens makes shallow DOF 'easy' (or, compared to some compacts, possible).


so its the equipment that makes the photo better in this case
 
A good photographer, in my mind, will always have better keeper rates than a bad one. The better the equipment on offer will probably mean an even higher keeper rate for the good photographer but less so for the bad one. Would anyone agree with that?

Having read that back I've just cancelled my order for the D3s:bang::lol:
 
It depends.

There's plenty of gear collectors who like shiny toys so enjoy obsessing over the latest gadget or gizmo.

There's professionals who need reliable equipment with backups and the reliability to be able to serve their clients to a professional standard.

There's certain things that do require more than just a point and shoot, as a mere fact. Professional sports photography NEEDS a fast aperture supertelephoto lens, studio work needs lighting equipment.

It is largely just gearwhoring though...
 
yes i agree,so due to his better more expensive equipment he gets more keepers
 
A man's got to know his limitations.
 
No matter how great you are you can be limited by lack of equipment.

No matter how much gear you have you can be limited by lack of talent.
 
punkuate said:
No matter how great you are you can be limited by lack of equipment.

No matter how much gear you have you can be limited by lack of talent.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of people get limited by their equipment, not because of how good it is, but by worrying too much about it too much, panicing about 'IQ' or the 'ideal lens' and carting about several tonnes of kit on their back 'to be prepared' - when actually all that having all that kit does is make taking photos more of a chore.

So nice to sometimes just ditch the bag and wander round with one camera...
 
At the end of the day, most of it is because were men, and mines got to be bigger and better than yours! :razz:
 
It comes down to the 'seeing-eye' and this IMVHO is something one is born with.

If one has the seeing-eye for a picture then it dosen't matter what the equipment is.

The seeing-eye cannot be tought, picture composition can, rule of thirds etc.

D in W
 
Whilst kit is important the most crucial aspect of any shot is light. You can make a great picture with anything if you understand light.
 
Its Both, better equipment will get you a sharper clearer image, but it won't find that image for you, personally i am enjoying the challenge of trying to get great photos out of a base level DSLR and lenses, only when i amm happy with what i'm getting will i move on, and it will be glass before an upgraded body
 
Good camera and very good glass (not necessarily expensive), with a good eye for an image. The ability to "see" a shot in your mind, and the good fortune to be able to put all of these together when the light is perfect.
 
I think it is mainly the person. If you look on this forum at the critique you will see that the suggestions mainly involve something that the tog could do better with their existing equipment....very rarely does it say "trade in what you have because it clearly isn't up to the job"!

Having a look at some of the phoneography images on here is also very telling.
 
it seems most would agree then,its not just the man behind the camera

thanks all for your input

and some good points raised
 
Increasingly better equipment can gain you increasingly more accurate representations of what is seen through the viewfinder. In the end though, it is the photographer that contributes the creative and aethetically pleasing aspect of the final image.....at least IMO
 
It's kind of both. But equipment being equal the better photographer will get more good shots, no 'lucky' shots required.

Of course fast lenses, better autofocus etc. Removes limitations, but hand a beginner that pro gear and they won't get the shots the experienced tog can get.
 
stumac said:
barney that would tell me in that situation it is the kit and a very basic knowlage of shutter speeds "the man behind the camera" is going to struggle with with the wrong kit no matter how good a photographer he is
Click to expand...

Thats true enough. It's not the case in all walks of photography. For example, portraits are shot normally at base iso with a static subject, so the ability of it to docus fast doesnt matter. Here it would be more down to the Tog rather than the kit.

Anotehr example is football, rugby, cricket etc. Fast moving people needs fast AF.

Having said that, the photographer is the most important part of the package. If he doesnt know how to use his kit, or hasnt got "the eye" then the most expensive kit in the world is wasted.

I'm just saying that in some cases the kit will limit the photographer.
 
All this talk about equipment makes it interesting to consider the equipment that pros used 40 years ago.

Search for guys like Chris Smith and you'll see some astonishing stuff http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Chris+Smith

Photos from the 60s into the 90s - in the 60s a motorwind was all the automation you had ! In the 90s you had the start of autofocus but a good photographer will get great shots.
 
Hodders said:
All this talk about equipment makes it interesting to consider the equipment that pros used 40 years ago.

Search for guys like Chris Smith and you'll see some astonishing stuff http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Chris+Smith

Photos from the 60s into the 90s - in the 60s a motorwind was all the automation you had ! In the 90s you had the start of autofocus but a good photographer will get great shots.
Click to expand...

But what gear was he using? - in all probability a 35mm SLR, and not a Kodak Instamatic!
 
IMO, it depends on the type of photography.

Obviously the photographer plays a huge role in the quality of the images, but there are things that more expensive cameras do that cheaper one's can't that can seriously affect the images for some types of photography.

If you're talking about 'creative' photography, someone with a decent quality compact or entry level DSLR shouldn't often (or ever) be limited by their camera. But hand a pro sports photographer a 70-300 and entry level body to shoot a night time game and they'll obviously have a very hard time.
 
squishy said:
If you're talking about 'creative' photography, someone with a decent quality compact or entry level DSLR shouldn't often (or ever) be limited by their camera..
Click to expand...

IMHO you are very limited in some situations, maybe not with an entry level dslr judging by the spec of the Pentax Kx but with a compact or bridge you certainly are. For example night shots, many of these cameras have fixed iso`s or a maximum of F3.5 aperture, they also have onboard flash units which are too near to the lens.

I have a Fuji s5700 and am very pleased with it but it is like having my 200mm telephoto on my old Pentax me super, it needs a lot of light or the use of a tripod to get a particular DOF in poor or dimming light.
 
TCR4x4 said:
There is a series of videos on YouTube from digital_rev where they give a pro photographer a crappy camera. The latest was an iPhone 2g. He still managed some really nice portraits with it. It definitely more the photographer than the gear.
Click to expand...

Are those the ones that had perfectly and brightly lit studio shoots - all they showed is the pro photographer knew how to light and had thousands of pounds of lighting gear to hand - in such a perfect situation you could get a great portrait on a disposable camera being waved approximatly in the right vercinity...

Anway, back to the OP:

Lighting is vital. Then Positioning/Frameing. Timing (wait for the moment). Finally, after all that, you can then worry about if the gear is up to it.

Gear has diminising returns (be it cameras, musical instruments, fine wine, cars, etc etc...), once you get beyond a certain level, you pay ever increasing amounts of money for a relatively subtle increases in quality.:$
 
I would say it all counts, but having the best kit and not knowing how to use it, I'm sure you won't get any good photo.

So in my opinion it's 50% know how, 10% kit and 40% of hard work. Always learning, always trying new things, never give up.

These are my 5 cents. :)
 
It like this, why do racing car drivers have such fast cars, to go faster and compete with other racing car drivers.

They use the best tool for the job and yeah they will do a better job with a good car. But if a spectator jumped into the best car on the track and they had only ever driven an auto passenger car, they would be coming last in the race.

A lot of people think that a good camera automatically translates to good pictures. You hear it all the time, the see a great shot and say wow you must have a really nice camera. Or they look at the camera and say wow that must take really nice pictures.

Theres an old analogy where a famous violinist comes off stage after a great performance, and a journalist says to him your violin makes beautiful music. The musician holds out his violin and says - funny, I dont hear anything.
 
lensflair said:
It like this, why do racing car drivers have such fast cars, to go faster and compete with other racing car drivers.

They use the best tool for the job and yeah they will do a better job with a good car. But if a spectator jumped into the best car on the track and they had only ever driven an auto passenger car, they would be coming last in the race.

A lot of people think that a good camera automatically translates to good pictures. You hear it all the time, the see a great shot and say wow you must have a really nice camera. Or they look at the camera and say wow that must take really nice pictures.

Theres an old analogy where a famous violinist comes off stage after a great performance, and a journalist says to him your violin makes beautiful music. The musician holds out his violin and says - funny, I dont hear anything.
Click to expand...

Great Answer!
 
At least 50/50 kit and skill. I have a D300 and using a 50mm prime or 70-200 I do get some decent shots, even if I say so myself. I also have a canon s95 and while it's a good compact, not in the same league.

Man behind the lens (me) is the same, but unless you have perfect light then kit is essential.
 
Oh, c'mon. A talented artist with mediocre tools will turn out a better product than a mediocre talent with the same tools. But! Give that talented artist the best tools, and you'll see the best possible result. Talent is the critical component to consistent high quality output. Whether you speak of the concert violinist or a woodworker, the most talented people produce the best output with any particular set of tools.
 
A good photographer will still get good results from a cheap, low spec camera - even a phone. He/she will find it restrictive, of course, and the shots won't necessarily be the same as they would have taken with their regular camera, but they will still produce decent images.

A poor photographer will still take poor pictures however good the gear. OK, the better the camera the more chance of getting a decent exposure with the subject in focus but the composition, creativity, use and understanding of light will be just as bad with a £2000 DSLR as with a £80 compact.

It is often said that if this is the case why don't pros all use cheap cameras, but why should they? Successful artists and craftmen from all walks of life choose to use the best tools and instruments when they are capable of doing the job with far less, so why shouldn't photographers?

A better camera will always increase the scope and versatility of a good photographer and it may make it easier for a bad photographer to learn and improve but they have to put in the work, effort and practice, the camera won't do that for them.

Make David Gilmore swap his Fender Stratocaster for a £50 cheapy from Argos and he will still be a brilliant guitarist, just not quite as sublime. Give me his Strat and I guarantee I'll make it sound just as bad as the Argos jobbie!
 
squishy said:
But hand a pro sports photographer a 70-300 and entry level body to shoot a night time game and they'll obviously have a very hard time.
Click to expand...

A pro will still get some shots, they used to cope with manual focus and moderate ISO many years ago. With the gear you mention they might need to shoot set pieces, before the ball is struck and players are not moving quite so much as in open play, or concentrate on expressions of static players during an incident or having just missed a chance on goal, etc. Alternatively they might use a creative panning technique at relatively slow shutter speeds to give their pictures a sense of movement. The focal range may not allow frame filling shots of a single player so the tog may have to look for interesting compositions including several players. Whatever it takes, he will still get some usable shots.

On the other hand, give a bad photographer (or a complete novice who has yet to learn the trade) a top DSLR with long fast glass and they'll produce dozens of perfectly exposed, action stopping close-ups of headless players cut in half by the edge of the frame and always about 5 seconds after the action has passed and the ball is at the other end of the park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top