"Camera doesn't matter" fact not true?

ANDS! · Oct 25, 2009

Since 2006 I've been shooting motorsports professionally* with a Sony Cybershot DSC H5. On a good day I can fire about a shot a second. Usually not. My shots are usually planned ahead of time because it's so easy to miss it when you get one or two chances.

We would call you the exception, not the rule.

I maintain stronger than ever than camera does matter.

To a point. But the situations you describe are not similar. An analogous situation might be a laborer complaining that he needs a vehicle, and the good samaritan comes up and gives him a KIA. Can he get his tools and gear and what not into the KIA and to his work-site? Sure. Is that the right class of car for the job? Not even close. Now if you took him to a dealership that ONLY sold heavy load trucks, the differences are going to be in comfort and ease of use, not usability. The same applies to cameras. No sane person is going to bring a disposable camera to Fashion Week or to a once in a lifetime trip to Thailand. There are (pretty clear to most people) levels of "cameras", and once you get into a specific level any camera will suffice (this includes - for whatever reason - using a D40 to take in-studio portraits). It is the ease of use and comfort of the individual cameras that will seperate them from the pack, but they will not leave the level of usability they are assigned to.

porkphoto · Oct 25, 2009

I propose the following: lets place camera X on a table and camera Y beside it. Now lets all stand back and watch and wait to see which camera will take the better picture. I can guarantee the result.

GeneralBenson · Oct 25, 2009

God, I can't believe I read this whole thread. I want my money back. The answer is that there is no one answer! There never will be. The answer to this question lies completely with in the circumstances of the person who is asking it. EVERYTHING is a tool that one uses to make photographs. Reading a book is a tool, a D3x is a tool, going to the art museum to get inspired is a tool, and 70-200 is a tool, spending time with other photographer and artists is a tool, a tripod is a tool, your eyes are a tool, you mind is a tool, the total sum of your life experiences is a tool. Everything you have comes together to create an image. Only when honestly looking a your specific situation, can you answer the question, 'What is currently holding me back from making better images?'. The answer is different for every situation, but I do believe that the majority of the time, it's not the equipment holding one back. That doesn't mean that better gear won't ultimately yeild better pictures than lesser gear, but only that more than likely, the biggest law in an image isn't likely to be it's resolution or noise. A person who has a creative eye, a good understanding of exposure and composition, years of experience shooting in different environments and a rebel xti and kit lens, would likely be best served by upgraded his equipment. A person with a poor understanding of the fundamentals of photography, a lack of creative inspiration, and a 50d, would not be best served by upgrading to a 5dMKII. It would be best for that person to work on their skills and make the most of what hey have; when and only when, they are in fact being held back by the limitations of their gear in an area where the need beter performance, upgrade.

I have great gear, but not the best. There is a list of things I want a mile long. Most of these thing would in fact help me make slightly better pictures. But. That list of gear does not represent the area of my photography that needs the most improvement. I will now an almost always be best served by working on my eye, my ability to see and capture energy, and my excitement for photography. In the last 6 months, my equipmet has tripled in quality, but I've sen the greatest gains in my images by working on things like my relationships with people, the way I interact with the world around me and devoloping a greater appreciation for life. To really throw a wrench into this thread, I would argue that these intrinsic things are ultimately more important than equipment or skill. I've seen way too many technically perfect, sharp as a razor, flawless images that bore the crap out of me. And I've seen even more noisy, soft, weak colored pictures that evoke emotion and make a lasting impression. Gear will take the picture, and knowledge will let you take it correctly, but only the way you live life and how you see the world will affect what it is that you take.

GeneralBenson · Oct 26, 2009

Yes, I killed it!

NateWagner · Oct 26, 2009

are you trying to bring it back to life or something?

GeneralBenson · Oct 26, 2009

Haha, nope.

Village Idiot · Oct 27, 2009

porkphoto said:
I propose the following: lets place camera X on a table and camera Y beside it. Now lets all stand back and watch and wait to see which camera will take the better picture. I can guarantee the result.

So you can guarantee that if camera X was an entry level Olympus DSLR and camera Y was a Nikon D3x and the user (who knows how to handle a camera) was shooting in a dimly lit situation with no strobes, then the results would point to that the camera does matter?

bp4life71 · Oct 27, 2009

PHOTOSHOP.

Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.

Too get the most out of your starter camera, get better at photoshop. Is it cheating? No, not at all. It takes skill to work photoshop.

Here's something to consider:

Canon XS+Lense+Photoshop= $750-$950 / Great Photo produced

Pro Camera+Pro Lense= $3000-$5000 / Great Photo produced

I'm just saying, you can have great looking pictures that are equal to the pro equipment if you know how to use Photoshop. Alot of people on here who spent all the money oh pro equipment might say otherwise, but honestly, I get some killer shots with my Canon XS that I honestly believe can not be any better with pro equipment.

Body not as important as the lense.....but the body can make the job easier with less post editing required.

Village Idiot · Oct 27, 2009

bp4life71 said:
PHOTOSHOP.

Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.

Too get the most out of your starter camera, get better at photoshop. Is it cheating? No, not at all. It takes skill to work photoshop.

Here's something to consider:

Canon XS+Lense+Photoshop= $750-$950 / Great Photo produced

Pro Camera+Pro Lense= $3000-$5000 / Great Photo produced

I'm just saying, you can have great looking pictures that are equal to the pro equipment if you know how to use Photoshop. Alot of people on here who spent all the money oh pro equipment might say otherwise, but honestly, I get some killer shots with my Canon XS that I honestly believe can not be any better with pro equipment.

Body not as important as the lense.....but the body can make the job easier with less post editing required.

You can't recreate amazing lighting in photoshop.

Hardrock · Oct 27, 2009

Can someone who has a 40/50d and a 1 d series camera take a picture of something (a still subject like a house) with the same lens on a tripod. Then we can look at the pictures and decide!

NateWagner · Oct 27, 2009

^^^LOL

Yeah, that wouldn't exactly be helpful, for a number of reasons... one is it's been done numerous times. 2. websized images are rarely big enough to show a difference, 3 generally it's not the camera inherent ability to capture the image as it is to make it easier to capture the image (things like great autofocus etc.) that makes better cameras better. and 4 where the cameras stand out is not in taking a picture of a still subject on a tripod, it's in extremely low lighting and fast action.

Thus a test that you were suggesting will show the two cameras to be virtually identical by limiting the two cameras to something they both do well, rather than challenging them in areas they struggle.

itznfb · Oct 27, 2009

Camera matters, lens matters, environment matters, skill matters, experience matters; it all matters. It's everything together that makes the shot.

To answer more along the lines of the original post though.. going from a Nikon D50 to D90 I instantly saw a difference in the quality of RAW images. It had nothing to do with lens or skill or shooting conditions. Simply put the sensor and processor in the D90 just do a better job of reproducing the image passed through the lens into 1's and 0's. Did I see a difference in RAW image quality going from the D90 to the D300s. Of course not. Obviously with film though you didn't see image quality differences between models since (if using the same film) they all had the same "sensor".

As others have said though; without the basic understanding of how to compose or expose properly a higher end camera may take a slightly higher quality image but that doesn't mean it took a better picture.

bp4life71 · Oct 27, 2009

Village Idiot said:
bp4life71 said:

PHOTOSHOP.

Will make your XS seem like a high end camera.

Too get the most out of your starter camera, get better at photoshop. Is it cheating? No, not at all. It takes skill to work photoshop.

Here's something to consider:

Canon XS+Lense+Photoshop= $750-$950 / Great Photo produced

Pro Camera+Pro Lense= $3000-$5000 / Great Photo produced

I'm just saying, you can have great looking pictures that are equal to the pro equipment if you know how to use Photoshop. Alot of people on here who spent all the money oh pro equipment might say otherwise, but honestly, I get some killer shots with my Canon XS that I honestly believe can not be any better with pro equipment.

Body not as important as the lense.....but the body can make the job easier with less post editing required.

Click to expand...

You can't recreate amazing lighting in photoshop.

Oh but you can!

Thats where the "skill" part in photoshop comes into play.

Shutter_to_think · Oct 27, 2009

Hi folks, New to the forum. I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Many thoughts come to mind, like sensors replacing film and the arguments over Fuji and Kodak, and whether Sensia was better than Ektachrome. But that's not where I'm going with this. Many years ago after going digital, I tried desperately to take photos of my kids in sports. My first digital camera was a point and shoot. Trying to take pictures inside under low light during basketball season just isn't going to happen. I don't care how good you are. You just will not get the shots. To claim that this camera is capable, is utter foolishness IMHO.
Point: the camera is not capable.

Usher in a bridge camera. Again, no matter how good you are, you will not get the shot. I asked the local pro guy, who also shoots his daughter playing, to give my camera a try. Now I'll grant you his came out better than mine, but still not acceptable. In his words. -- This camera just won't do it --. The F stop is just not wide enough and the ISO is not high enough .I don't care how good you are. You just will not get the shots.
Point: the camera is not capable.

Usher in, the Canon XTi. Okay, now we're getting in the ballpark, But to be honest, even with fast glass, this camera is just not capable. The high ISO stinks and to me there were other things that made this camera inadequate. In the hands of a pro? You're just not going to push this camera past it's own capabilities.

Usher in the Nikon D700. HOLY CRAP! Anyone who says camera doesn't matter has got to be lost in thought and not planning to return. This camera is the best thing since toilet paper. Now, I can sympathize with some of you. Because a good camera in the hands of a novice is no better than surgical tools in the hands of a janitor. And I suppose you CAN dig a hole with a bowling ball, but it's going to take a lot of time and frustration and you will probably give up. JMHO. Thanks for listening, Tom Oh BTW, the comment that you should get better at photoshop, only solidifies the point that many cameras just don't cut it.