"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

[Parkerman]

Just wondering.. were these images shot in RAW? So that the camera didn't process them?

 

[chip]

Camera (and any required accessories) matters

Photographic skill matters

You can't have great photos with just one. The two are required.

Let us compare apples with apples now. Two guys, equally skilled. One given a disposal camera. The other given the best pro equipment of his choice. Who is going to produce better photos?

People who say their photographic skill is so great that camera does not matter are just arrogant and foolish. I will be the first to admit my photographic skill is not great and I can use all the help I can get. If a great camera makes it easier for me to produce the result I am after then I am going to take advantage of it.

 

[Josh66]

How is a disposable camera vs. a pro camera comparing apples to apples?

I'm saying something more like a 400D vs. a 50D...

 

[chip]

How is a disposable camera vs. a pro camera comparing apples to apples?

I'm saying something more like a 400D vs. a 50D...

I was saying if CAMERA DOES NOT MATTER...that is a hypothetical scenario - then don't compare a child who has never taken a picture before with a professional photographer. Compare two equally skilled professional photographers, one given a disposal cameera. The other given the best professional camera equipment of his choice. Give them the same assignment such as shooting a wedding. See who produces better results. It will be plain to see at the end that camera indeed does matter.

Basically you are agreeing with me to a point. You are saying the result produced by a good camera vs. the result produced by a better camera may not be noticeable. But what about the results produced by a $5 disposal camera vs. the result produced by a $10,000 camera with a pro lens? Say you were to work the same assignment with the two cameras. Which camera do you think you would pick to use, the $5 camera or the $10,000 camera?

 

[Josh66]

That's still not apples to apples...

By your logic, a pad & pencil would be just as good as a camera.

 

[chip]

That's still not apples to apples...

By your logic, a pad & pencil would be just as good as a camera.

I am sorry Josh. I will agree to disagree with you. I maintain stronger than ever than camera does matter. Chip

 

[fiveoboy01]

The lens is more important than the body.

 

[Josh66]

I get what you're saying, but I think you're taking it too far.

Of course a throw away camera can't match a top of the line pro camera. No one is saying that it can.

If you compare relatively similar cameras, there is little difference in the technical ability of the camera. SLR vs. SLR.

If you're going to compare an SLR to something you throw away when you're done with it, why stop there? How does an SLR stack up to a sheet of paper and a pen? Oil & canvas? Or a stick and a patch of dirt?

You can create an image with any of those, but I don't think anyone will try to say that they are the same thing.

 

[Mr. Murmeli]

I think this fairly interesting thread requires some pictures we could compare .

 

[usayit]

People who say "Camera does not matter" should shoot with 35mm "real raw" disposal cameras exclusively and nothing else. But... we all know that they do not practice what they preach. They are also the people who buy all the fancy cameras. Go figure.

I am sure there are those that do not practice what they preach.... it seems to me that most are on the internet talking about equipment and not out being a photographer. Its not about "Camera does not matter.. go shoot with a disposable camera!" or "Camera does matter buy the most to be a real photographer" its about getting the proper tools. In the real world, you'd be surprised how little interest many photographers have in equipment.... whatever fits their needs to get the job done.

Give a disposable to a newpaper journalist and I am sure they can get much better pictures than I. Give the disposable to the macro-photographer and I guarantee I can get better results.

This is where I leave you with a single photographer's name (there are more like him): Alex Majoli

 

[UUilliam]

End of the day

Ofcourse camera body matters, Why would they make more than 1 (with the exception to make more money) camera body...

skill is also involved. If you have better skills of handling and using the camera, your images will be better but they well be much better (or slightly?) with a higher end camera body.

It all depends on what your doing
If you need Pin sharp lines, go Pro-end with the Nikon D3x or Canon 1Ds III

For snapshots good creative snapshots, Get a nikon D40 or Canon 300D - 450D

you get my point.

 

[Garbz]

I do want to ask something else though, say you were to give a 15 year old who had never used a camera a P&S and a 1DS3 + L lenses you then gave them a year, would you see more difference in his growth as a photographer with the nicer camera and lenses or with the shi**y one?

I get what you're saying, but it's an apples to oranges comparison. They are both fruits but both wildly different.

Now say you give a kid a 450D and a 1DsMkIII the difference in growth is minimal because they are functionally identical. They can both offer full manual control over every element of photography. The expensive version just offers them convenience and ultimate quality, neither of which are necessary to expand your knowledge of the camera.

Ok I may sound hypocritical since the D200 isn't exactly low end, but it was bought because it's metal while all the others weren't. Every upgrade of mine since has been a functional upgrade such as a macro lens, f/2.8 lens, some prime lenses, a tripod, a remote etc. None of this is image quality intensive, but each allows me to do more with the body I have.

So what I am really trying to say here, is that ultimately when people expand in the hobby they will get sick of the new rich kids on the block having shinier pictures and upgrade their camera, but to anyone who is actually learning would you recommend a pro body with 1 lens, or an entry level body with 3 lenses remote and a tripod for the same money? I would argue one would learn much more with the latter.

 

[DennyCrane]

I think the point is, the best camera in the world won't know how to compose a shot, take into account the way the light and shadows are hitting the subjects, the angles, how close to the ground, etc.

The only way to really go apples to apples is to have both cameras take the same shot with a) the correct exposure for the shot and b) with identical settings. Those 4 shots will tell you which is better. And in those cases, I think you'll find the more expensive camera will always edge out the cheaper one. Then the only decision is whether the difference justifies the cost between the 2 for YOUR situation.

 

[NateWagner]

I think one of the things that is taken for granted about high quality equipment is that it makes it easier to accomplish things than it is to accomplish with lesser equipment.

Thus, the excellent AF of a 1D3 makes it a lot easier to get excellent shots of kids going around on a ride at the fair (I'm thinking of a shot I saw by InTempus when he first got his 1D3). Whereas if you have the XT or something of the like while it's still possible to get the shot it's much more difficult.

Same goes for lighting equipment. The best stuff is often the easiest to control and the most consistent. You can correct other equipment etc. but it's more difficult and time consuming.

With that in mind I do thing that better equipment can make it easier to learn, though it's not necessary. I definitely agree that a great lens is going to help more than a great body. That being said, a great body is helpful as well.

 

[inTempus]

Nate, this is the shot you're talking about.

Yes, the AF system of the 1D3 is impressive as it is capable of locking onto a subject and following it regardless of what passes between you and the subject while you have the shutter button depressed.

I would say for a novice that can't fully capitalize on the capabilities of a XTi a 1D3 isn't going to improve their ability to get the shots that make others go "wow". It won't change anything most likely. Heck, it might make things worse as the 1D3 with all of it's settings would really confuse a novice.

On the other hand... give Ken Rockwell a D40 and he'll make Annie Leibovitz look like a novice even if she had a Hasselblad.