What were they thinking? nikon

If what they say is wrong then why do we bother buying quality gear?
 
Mojo Fones said:
If what they say is wrong then why do we bother buying quality gear?
Click to expand...

Are you agreeing with what they say? If that's the case then the person willing to spend the most money on equipment is the best photographer, you agree? Of course not, but you do see my point.
 
No I do not agree with what they say, but nor do I think a good photographer can use any old gear. Otherwise why bother buying the quality gear if the best photographer can use a £50 compact to get pro results?

I will stand by this statement though; "A photographer is limited by his gear".
 
Mojo Fones said:
No I do not agree with what they say, but nor do I think a good photographer can use any old gear. Otherwise why bother buying the quality gear if the best photographer can use a £50 compact to get pro results?

I will stand by this statement though; "A photographer is limited by his gear".
Click to expand...

+1
 
Mojo Fones said:
No I do not agree with what they say, but nor do I think a good photographer can use any old gear. Otherwise why bother buying the quality gear if the best photographer can use a £50 compact to get pro results?

I will stand by this statement though; "A photographer is limited by his gear".
Click to expand...

That could be true in some situations (low light) but by no means does it cover all situations. In good lighting I can get just as good of a shot with my 100$ 1.8 50mm as I can with my 2400$ 70-200 2.8 mark2. Of course the situation needs to work for the 50mm. But the point is I have seen some brilliant photography done with a canon 550 and a kit lens. Better than a lot of others with 1000 of dollars in equipment. The old saying is true. It's not the equipment it's the person behind it.
 
A photographer may be limited by their equipment.
 
Of course the real reply to any of it is "so what?"
 
Good photographers know the limits of their equipment.
 
shaylou said:
http://SPAM/E2DRBA

I can't believe a professional photography company would say this...
Click to expand...

What were they thinking? Marketing. Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, which is not the same thing as making great photos.
 
HoppyUK said:
What were they thinking? Marketing. Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, which is not the same thing as making great photos.
Click to expand...

True but a big part of their market are people who know that statement is not true and a bit irritating. Then again they did manage to get a canon guy (me) to talk about their company. Lol.
 
Only someone far up their own backside would be riled by that statement.
To suggest an amature with expensive gear could possibly take a better photo than a pro with a Polaroid.... how very dare they (Nikon)
 
What really made me smile about that one, was the fact that how many thousands of times has it been written on this very forum that if your going to invest in anything then decent lens' are the way to go? :lol: yet so many got riled when Nikon said it :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Phil Young said:
I don't think it's really anything to over react to.

They are a company that sells lenses.

Lenses help produce better images.
Click to expand...

Whether or not lenses help produce better images is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. That isn't what the Nikon representative said.

People reacted to what the Nikon PR guy ACTUALLY said, and that was that "a photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses."

That's an entirely different point.
 
SimonH said:
Whether or not lenses help produce better images is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. That isn't what the Nikon representative said.

People reacted to what the Nikon PR guy ACTUALLY said, and that was that "a photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses."

That's an entirely different point.
Click to expand...

But is it, there comes a point that equipment can come to limit what your able to achieve hell there are some images that I simply could not have captured so well with my 450D that I've captured with my 5D3 I think this was more a case of viral outrage similar to what can be seen occasionally with broadcasting where most will either have not heard or simply not give a toss about what happened until a few start to make a fuss/make a noise and complain then a tidal wave of condemnation floods in case in point (Ross/Brand)
 
Nikon's statement as posted in the OP's link.

“A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures! Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses? Which is your favorite and what types of situations do you use it for?”

(My emphasis!)

That one word says it all IMO, the statement is aimed at farcebookers who "let's face it" could use a simple VGA quality camera and be satisfied once the pictures are posted to Farcebook. Carry on reading the article and the writer has made all the statements above. It's a pure marketing ploy and it's got people talking about it, even a long time after the statement was originally made!

Kit can make all the difference - not so much to the shot (although a good lens will be sharper than a less good one) as to the possibility of actually getting the shot! TBH, in some cases, it's not necessarily even down to the quality of the lens in that situation - I'm not sure I could have fitted the building
8026091040_95b4112a6b.jpg
into the frame had I been using the (probably) better (and certainly more expensive) Nikkor 14-24 rather than my Sigma 12-24 - the extra 2mm of width made all the difference! Some will shout "footzoom" but in that scenario, footzooming was impossible - I had my back tight against a fence that was itself against a wall! Similarly, I wouldn't be able to handhold some shots if I didn't have an f/2.8 as my walkaround lens. So. it's not so much the quality of SLRs as their versatility that allows us as photographers to get shots that are stunning - and a good photographer will get better images from any kit than a poor one (have a look at the disposable [12" behind the camera] or phonetography threads to see how good some images are from very basic kit).
 
MWHCVT said:
But is it, there comes a point that equipment can come to limit what your able to achieve hell there are some images that I simply could not have captured so well with my 450D that I've captured with my 5D3 I think this was more a case of viral outrage similar to what can be seen occasionally with broadcasting where most will either have not heard or simply not give a toss about what happened until a few start to make a fuss/make a noise and complain then a tidal wave of condemnation floods in case in point (Ross/Brand)
Click to expand...
I agree that equipment facilitates, and in extreme situations make accessible, more/greater opportunities but I don't agree that a photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses. I don't think either is defined by the other and I think it's a common false attribution that you can easily forgive your non-photographer friends ("Wow, your camera takes good photos!") but is not what you'd expect to hear from an equipment manufacturer (paraphrase: 'if your photos are good, you can thank us for that').

FWIW, I think it was simply a gaff on the part of Nikon, rather than an exposé of a systematic problem, but it kicked off a discussion that I think was worthy of exploration, and (for good or bad, also up for debate) probably resulted in the sale of a lot of Lomo kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top