Wondering if this comment bothers any of you or if I'm just a baby

[doziergraphic]

Devil's Advocate here...

LOTS of posts on here about needing a 'better' CP filter, or 'better' lens, or better ...?

so what we say to each other is 'gear does make a difference.' But we want non-photographers to congratulate US, with no regard to the gear.

Am I going to get the same shot from my Rebel than you are from your 50D? If you say yes, then why did you pay all that cash for the 50D? And while I'm happy with my Rebel, I WANT to upgrade. Why? I don't know, because I'LL GET BETTER PHOTOS?

Guess the manufacturers have brainwashed me too? no, I likely WILL get better focus, light, etc with a better camera.

And people that aren't into photography - say a golfer, knows that a better club head WILL make you a better golfer. A bowler who gets a perfect 300 may not have been able to do that with an alley ball, but his TALENT along WITH his custom ball gets him there.

I think just the fact that someone LIKES my shots is enough. They may not understand all the dynamics that go into it, but at least they don't say - YOUR CAMERA TAKES TERRIBLE PICTURES!

 

[Boomn4x4]

I know where you guys are coming from but com'mon.... lets face it, a $800 slr WILL take better pictures than an $80 point and shoot.... better glass, bigger image sensor, better autofocus, better metering....

That's what most people are comparing this too... they are basing it off of their $80 P&S... and they are right, "Your camera does take really nice pictures"

 

[Christie Photo]

I know where you guys are coming from but com'mon.... lets face it, a $800 slr WILL take better pictures than an $80 point and shoot.... better glass, bigger image sensor, better autofocus, better metering....

Ummm.... no.

Neither of these cameras can do anything. Nothing at all.

Sure, one has more capabilities that a photographer may or may not take advantage of... but the camera is merely a tool.

-Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

...I plan how and when to take them, research about others who have taken similar ones and read, read, read. ...does everyone just think that we just run around in Auto mode and pull pictures from our butts?

Yeah... pretty much. But it's all they know. That's what THEY do. They TAKE pictures. You, on the other hand, are MAKING pictures and not merely "taking" whatever is in front of the lens.

I know it's a subtle nuance, but the more WE think this way, the more we elevate what it is we do. Then there's a chance that others will come to understand... slowly... maybe... probably not.

Oh well.

-Pete

 

[LCARSx32]

I know where you guys are coming from but com'mon.... lets face it, a $800 slr WILL take better pictures than an $80 point and shoot.... better glass, bigger image sensor, better autofocus, better metering....

Ummm.... no.

Neither of these cameras can do anything. Nothing at all.

Sure, one has more capabilities that a photographer may or may not take advantage of... but the camera is merely a tool.

-Pete

$80 P&S on green mode vs $800 SLR on green mode (Same person using each camera, shooting the same subject) -- Which picture do you think will look better?

A seasoned photographer can do more with each camera and will also take better pictures than an amateur because they understand composition. So both sides of the argument are valid.

I would simply explain to your friend that the camera is only half the equation.

 

[Taylor510ce]

I know where you guys are coming from but com'mon.... lets face it, a $800 slr WILL take better pictures than an $80 point and shoot.... better glass, bigger image sensor, better autofocus, better metering....

That's what most people are comparing this too... they are basing it off of their $80 P&S... and they are right, "Your camera does take really nice pictures"

Th man makes a point. Try shoting a soccer game with a.point and shoot. I could shoit in auto without even loking through the viewfinder And takebetter shots. So there is some merit to it. I kinda get a kick out of people saying that because they dont have a clue and it would be funny to see the try. Some times its annoying though.

 

[doziergraphic]

If gear isn't important, and the GEAR doesn't matter ($80 vs $800) then why do all of you have it listed on your posts/sigs?

 

[LaFoto]

When it comes to specific fields of photography, macro, for example, or birds, or sports etc, then I do believe that equipment can make just this significant bit of a difference. Look at the bird photos of EricD, or at ArkanielImaging's macro shots (there are other really good bird or macro photographers, I'm taking these two as examples only) ... they would NOT be able to take THEIR kind of photos with an all automatic point&shoot. There is no doubt about that.

But when it comes to more unspecific photography, the kind that requires the creation of a well-balanced, but also interesting, pleasing, "talking" photo that reaches the viewer somehow, creates emotion, makes the viewer look longer, then it is NOT necessary to have all the expensive gear. When you have the eye for things, when you know how to frame them, how to correctly expose (maybe you needn't even know that so much but let the camera decide), then you CAN work with small, simple equipment.

 

[mrpink]

I just smile and nod. Rambling of idiots does not bother me.... probably why I still read through some posts here.





p!nK

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If gear isn't important, and the GEAR doesn't matter ($80 vs $800) then why do all of you have it listed on your posts/sigs?

I know! Right?

 

[Gaerek]

Devil's Advocate here...

LOTS of posts on here about needing a 'better' CP filter, or 'better' lens, or better ...?

so what we say to each other is 'gear does make a difference.' But we want non-photographers to congratulate US, with no regard to the gear.

Am I going to get the same shot from my Rebel than you are from your 50D? If you say yes, then why did you pay all that cash for the 50D? And while I'm happy with my Rebel, I WANT to upgrade. Why? I don't know, because I'LL GET BETTER PHOTOS?

Guess the manufacturers have brainwashed me too? no, I likely WILL get better focus, light, etc with a better camera.

And people that aren't into photography - say a golfer, knows that a better club head WILL make you a better golfer. A bowler who gets a perfect 300 may not have been able to do that with an alley ball, but his TALENT along WITH his custom ball gets him there.

I think just the fact that someone LIKES my shots is enough. They may not understand all the dynamics that go into it, but at least they don't say - YOUR CAMERA TAKES TERRIBLE PICTURES!

You're completely missing the point. No one (until you mentioned it) said that gear doesn't help you take good pictures. Of course an $80 camera will have issues that would likely be resolved with an $800 dSLR. Just like, there are issues with that $800 dSLR that would likely be resolved with a $4000 pro-level dSLR.

It comes to skill level. A true noob shooting in green square on a cheap P&S and on a dSLR at the same subject will produce pretty bad photos, no matter which camera. The dSLR images will be higher resolution, likely lower noise, but they will both still be terrible photos.

Give those same cameras to a seasoned veteran, and you will likely see the same thing. You'll see a very nice, but probably noisy, low res photo from the P&S. You'll see a very nice, and likely no noise, higher resolution image from the dSLR. The gear will only assist in making a nice shot. It's a bit insulting when someone assumes you can take nice shots simply because you have an expensive camera. Skill comes WAY before gear.

 

[Gaerek]

If gear isn't important, and the GEAR doesn't matter ($80 vs $800) then why do all of you have it listed on your posts/sigs?

All of us, right? *looks down* Hmm...

 

[LaFoto]

It's a bit insulting when someone assumes you can take nice shots simply because you have an expensive camera. Skill comes WAY before gear.

It is this bit of an insult that is the whole point and formed nokili's question, of course. Like I tried to say: with your skill growing, you might (naturally?) wish for better tools to work with, which applies to ANY field you can think of, not only to photography, but when you are good in whatever you can do, you can be good in that field with inferior tools, too.

And I don't have my gear listed in my sig, from what I can see...!

 

[Buckster]

Why didn't someone tell me I was supposed to list my gear in my sig?

 

[Gaerek]

It's a bit insulting when someone assumes you can take nice shots simply because you have an expensive camera. Skill comes WAY before gear.

It is this bit of an insult that is the whole point and formed nokili's question, of course. Like I tried to say: with your skill growing, you might (naturally?) wish for better tools to work with, which applies to ANY field you can think of, not only to photography, but when you are good in whatever you can do, you can be good in that field with inferior tools, too.

And I don't have my gear listed in my sig, from what I can see...!

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Gear helps, but a great photographer with a crappy P&S will take better pictures than a noob with a D3 any day of the week.