Why it matters.

[JerryPH]

^^ Actually that is a quote from Winston Churchill.

Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

ROFL... cool, I was quoting a famous man and was not even aware of it.

Thanks!

 

[TBAM]

The entire camera matters debarcle is entirely a subjective debate, and that's that.

In most cases, the camera doesn't matter...at all...

Photographs are made for people to view, and 99% of people don't know anything about photography, photographs or even cameras.

They know what they like, and that's all.

Studying art and photography is studying the aesthetic aspect of imagery so you know HOW to create an image that is pleasing to the eye of the average person. That is why artists / photographers are employed in the first place, because they know what to do to make an image that someone likes.

For the end consumer, 99% of the time, the gear does not matter. They just care whether the picture is aesthetically appealing or not.

When a photographer examines their own or other's photographs, then the camera matters to an extent, as they understand the technicality of creating the photo, and are able to critique what could have been done BETTER by their own opinion, even if the average viewer could find little to critique. However, even in this circumstance, it is not so much a problem with the camera gear, but the choices made by the photographer, and what could have been changed to optimize the photo technically.

I've seen photos in professional prints that are noisy, badly composed, but you know what? They captured the moment and fulfilled their employment contract.

You can say that you can't acheive the same image as an oil painting with crayons. However that is not the point, nor even the issue that is being debated. You can create a visually appealing image with oil paint OR crayon. Creating the SAME image in oil paint or crayons will give a different outcome, however whether someone thinks one is better than the other is entirely a point of personal opinion.

In most situations, the person viewing the photographer is not privvy to the knowledge of the possibilities, or privvy to the benefit of a comparison, only what is in front of them.

It seems that gear isn't the problem, or isn't the issue that matters or not, it is convenience. You can get well lit photographs for a wedding in a dimly lit church without the latest in technology, however it is difficult and requires a lot of effort and as opposed to getting 300 shots for that moment, you might only present 30.

People seem to want to take the best possible image the easiest possible way. Which is understandable. Sure, I want a d700 with some good glass so that I don't have to worry about lighting as much, or depth of field so much. But at the end of the day, if I am any kind of photographer, I SHOULD be able to take the photo that is required, albeit with considerably more effort.

In summation:

Whether the camera matters or not, is completely up to the person viewing the photograph.

For the photographer, what matters is using anything and everything you can to photograph what you want to present to the person who is inevitably going to view the photo.

The camera doesn't matter, the photograph matters. Whatever is necessary to create the photograph is nothing more than due process.

 

[Alpha]

Of course gear matters. Right tools for the job. This is simply a matter of appropriateness, which, if you'll grant, means that any instrument capable of capturing an image is not necessarily the appropriate one. That would be like saying a scalpel is appropriate for surgery so long as it cuts. There are many varieties of blades, you see. An SX-70 is not appropriate for the same applications that an 8x10 is, which is not appropriate for the same applications as a 1DS MKII, etc etc.

Where this argument is too often derailed is arguing about things between which few important distinctions can be drawn. Consider whether the tools being compared are roughly equivalent for the task at hand. I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, the D40 and 5DII are interchangeable. If you're thinking of a particular instance in which one is more appropriate than another, you shouldn't be asking yourself whether one is better than the other. The better one is the more appropriate one. End of story.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Show me one photo by Michael Reichman that couldn't have just as easily been made with a Rebel or D40.

LOL, touché. Or a G9, for that matter. He does really cool digital Medium Format work, but on the internet, everything becomes a 72dpi JPG that looks like EasyShare.

Great post, Iron. (yet another does camera matter thread...) I'm glad you are here - your posts and opinions are some of my favorite to read.

Glad it was helpful. I love the community aspect of TPF, and need to remind myself that it is o.k. for others to hash through conversations and thought-processes that we've all long internalized.

 

[Battou]

Ken Rockwell this, Ken Rockwell that, Ken Rockwell can suck my balls.

A camera is made to take a picture, however different cameras are designed for specific tasks. The whole point behind if gear matters or not, is not getting dSLR quality out of a Point and Shoot. It's all about getting the right camera for the task at hand.

Gear does not matter....well a wedding photographer comparing a F-1 to a 1D mark II...thirty year old will preform just as well as it's modern counterpart, it don't matter.

Gear does matter...A sports photographer compares a XTi to an Easy Share...XTi = Epic win,

Yer kid does something stupidly funny, you have an XTi in the closet and an easy share on the desk, that easy share wins hands down.

Sitting there at work and you see Jesus in your coffee stain on the desk that cameraphone on your belt is a hell of a lot more practical than running home for your dSLR.

Need a quick shot of your lens....well sorry that $500 dSLR with just the kit lens will not take a picture of the back of your Kit lens.

The point is you don't need a thousand dollars worth of SLR to take a picture.

 

[Village Idiot]

In summation:

Whether the camera matters or not, is completely up to the person viewing the photograph.

For the photographer, what matters is using anything and everything you can to photograph what you want to present to the person who is inevitably going to view the photo.

The camera doesn't matter, the photograph matters. Whatever is necessary to create the photograph is nothing more than due process.

Exactly. The camera matters. If you're trying to take a shot in low light conditions with a 3mp p&S and blow it up to a 30x45 print, you're not going to be able to create the photograph you want the viewer to see, you need a better camera.

As has been said several times in both threads; cameras are tools, if you don't have the right tool for the job then you can't do the job adequately. Ever try and build a car with a box of spaghetti and three drunk chickens?

 

[panocho]

Exactly. The camera matters. If you're trying to take a shot in low light conditions with a 3mp p&S and blow it up to a 30x45 print, you're not going to be able to create the photograph you want the viewer to see, you need a better camera.

Or you need more light.

The camera may or may not matter depending on the photographer, who may or may not take advantage of the camera's advanced features, etc. But in itself, a better camera does not necessarily imply a better picture in the hands of the same photographer. Maybe one can solve the limitations brought by the camera by finding out some creative solution that makes a great picture. Such great picture would have never been shot with the better camera, which didn't require any creative solution, since for it there were not technical limitations.

 

[Village Idiot]

Or you need more light.

The camera may or may not matter depending on the photographer, who may or may not take advantage of the camera's advanced features, etc. But in itself, a better camera does not necessarily imply a better picture in the hands of the same photographer. Maybe one can solve the limitations brought by the camera by finding out some creative solution that makes a great picture. Such great picture would have never been shot with the better camera, which didn't require any creative solution, since for it there were not technical limitations.

How would more light help a 3mp p&s make a 30"x45" print? :er: I guess you could, and it would probably look like crap. A camera with higher MP count would let you print at that size with much better clarity.

Oh wait, camera doesn't matter. Nevermind...

 

[Battou]

How would more light help a 3mp p&s make a 30"x45" print? :er: I guess you could, and it would probably look like crap. A camera with higher MP count would let you print at that size with much better clarity.

Oh wait, camera doesn't matter. Nevermind...

But why does grandma need a 30"x45" print?

 

[JerryPH]

But why does grandma need a 30"x45" print?

Because she wants HUGE prints of all her grandchildren?

 

[Battou]

Because she wants HUGE prints of all her grandchildren?

I think grandma having a lifesized cut out of my kid would be kinda creepy....but anywho.

 

[andrew99]

The problem with this debate is that people are combing the artistic side and technical side. You can make art with a high end camera, and you can also make art with a crappy cell phone camera. This is because art is about the emotional response to the image, and is not related to technical things like megapixels, lens sharpness and high ISO performance.

I see the same thing in music forums .. buying a better guitar will not make you a better guitar player...and it's the musician, not the instrument. 100% true, but a better guitar is definitely less of a struggle and won't get in your way as much. And you can bet that pros are not using crappy $100 guitars.

Anyway, it's funny that since the camera doesn't matter, most of Ken Rockwell's recent photos seem to be from a D3! (or maybe he's just proving the point, haha!)

 

[ANDS!]

How many 3MP cameras are even out there? That comparison is dishonest and out of date. According to Amazon.com, the top 100 sellers, you have a few 7.2MP's, and the majority ranging between 8-10MP. So now, Megapixels, at this point in the game, don't mean a ton of nothing. What matters is how that camera is utilizing those extra MP's.

How would more light help a 3mp p&s make a 30"x45" print?

Presumably, that wonder camera is shooting at a less than ideal ISO which would resolve itself much less efficiently on a lower end camera. Hence - more light. I think you got that but perhaps wanted a bit of snark.

 

[Battou]

How many 3MP cameras are even out there?

Well the one sitting next to me is 3.1 (Kodak ES CD33) but it ain't mine so it's kind of moot, but you can't rule out cameraphones, seems to me they are running around 2 to 4 MGP, I could be wrong as I don't have one nor am I shopping for one so...

 

[Overread]

I think I have a 3mp digi cam somewhere -- last time I saw it it was in the car somewhere - I must dig it out and see if it works at taking insect macro shots.......
and no its not a phone camera - its a real camera!