Is how expensive your camera is important or isn't it?

[Derrel]

One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what: It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.

The BEST spot news photos that I saw from the London subway bombings a few years back were shot with a cell phone camera. At that particular stage in the development of cell phone cameras, the images were NOT of very high quality; cell phone cameras have made HUGE strides in improved image quality since then. Of course, the technical quality of the images was not good--it was, as was the case with c.cloudwalker's mother's photo, a very newsworthy event, and so the "quality" of the images in many cases with news and events was not about how good the photos were, but rather about just having an image, any image, of the events. Spot news photos can be made with ANYTHING that'll shoot an exposure; if the event is newsworthy, media outlets will run the image(s). Hell, last night I saw some surveillance video of a Mississippi beating/vehicular homicide; the image of the man who was run over by a teenage driver was basically nothing more than a white blob, barely,barely visible from the farway surveillance camera's vantage point; yet the video received major coverage on a national web site. On the other hand...if you try and shoot advertising, or stock photos with a Canon Digital Rebel, the image files are going to be rejected out of hand by the majority of stock agencies because the technical quality of the camera's files is not high enough. The camera simply "does not qualify" for consideration. It's just like 35mm transparencies back in the 1980's; many organizations insisted on 120 rollfilm or large-format transparencies, simply because the technical quality of the images can be so much higher with a larger-format capture.

I find it amusing that one of the people in this thread is attempting to pooh-pooh the topic under discussion, and yet owns a good number of some of THE MOST-EXPENSIVE cameras and lenses sold in the world...

 

[usayit]

Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?

Just sayin...

Cellphones ENABLED anyone to record / create photographs of unexpected sometimes important events...... the cell phone/camera and the person cannot be separated. What's neat about cell phone cameras is that they are with everyone all the time... unlike traditional cameras which most people leave at home.

 

[imagemaker46]

Like everything there are, and will always be exceptions to the rules. Being the only person around when something happens and using whatever visual recording device you happen to holding to record it, will get it published. Quality goes out the window when it is the only photo avaliable. If someone in a plane crash happens to be shooting inside, even if the images look like crap, they will end up published. As long as the phone/camera survives the crash. The person shooting may not survive, and in most cases they may not even know which passenger shot the images.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Like everything there are, and will always be exceptions to the rules.

There are no exceptions in photography (or the arts in general) because there are no rules... only suggestions, guidelines. And for that reason I have to agree with usayit here even though that's pretty rare

I was just pointing out that there is no end to the discussion because essentially both sides are both neither wrong nor right. Both sides are valid because the underlying assumption is moot.

Just a couple days ago I mentioned buying my first Hasselblad to shoot weddings. Not because of the superior quality over 35mm but because in DC and with the crowd I was working for you would not have been taken seriously with a 35mm which everyone at the wedding had...

Only a couple weeks ago I mentioned using my Kodak Brownie on a job. Yeah, no kidding. The idea came around while in a conference with the client. He agreed to pay for a half day of studio for a trial run. He liked the results enough to take the shots to his boss to pitch the idea...

My mom getting published was a freak accident. Or is it called being in the right place at the right time and damn the gear or quality?

Same with the photo linked to by unpopular although he didn't get it. Whoever shot this image just happened to be above the cloud line and got a funky shot which the pros on the ground could not get. Plus if they paid this person as much as my mom, that means they didn't spend a penny.

So, anyways, the exceptions keep piling up. But overall, of course gear matters. Just as usayit said it, lol.

The kind of work I do today is out of reach for most photogs. Not because I am a better photographer but because I can afford the gear. And you are not going to get into my field without it. Period.

 

[NadiaC]

I'd definitely take the stance that the person behind the camera is what makes the photograph. It's the vision they capture and how they capture it.

 

[terri]

Okay guys....time to tone it down a notch and stop with the personal attacks.

Can a little old thread survive around here these days without them? :hmm: I'll remind you all of the Ignore feature. If I continue seeing reported posts over these kinds of deliberate pot-shots amongst you, with no effort being made to honestly ignore an on-line persona, there are going to be repercussions.

Seriously, guys, it's just a forum.

 

[Neil S.]

Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?

Just sayin...

Cellphones ENABLED anyone to record / create photographs of unexpected sometimes important events...... the cell phone/camera and the person cannot be separated. What's neat about cell phone cameras is that they are with everyone all the time... unlike traditional cameras which most people leave at home.

Of course pics from a cell phone camera are still considered photography. What I am saying is that a DSLR and killer lens will take better photos than a cell phone, all other things being equal (photographer, etc).

Clearly if the only pic available is from a cell phone, then its valuable. But imagine if a good photographer happened to have a pro DSLR/lens ready, and shot a great picture of that same event?

I am all for people using a cell phone camera. However, I realize the difference between them and DSLRs.

Neil

 

[usayit]

Didn't we have a long thread somewhere regarding P&S/snapshots/cellphones etc.. and whether or not they are considered photography?

Just sayin...

Cellphones ENABLED anyone to record / create photographs of unexpected sometimes important events...... the cell phone/camera and the person cannot be separated. What's neat about cell phone cameras is that they are with everyone all the time... unlike traditional cameras which most people leave at home.

Of course pics from a cell phone camera are still considered photography. What I am saying is that a DSLR and killer lens will take better photos than a cell phone, all other things being equal (photographer, etc).

Clearly if the only pic available is from a cell phone, then its valuable. But imagine if a good photographer happened to have a pro DSLR/lens ready, and shot a great picture of that same event?

I am all for people using a cell phone camera. However, I realize the difference between them and DSLRs.

Neil

Sorry Neil.. the gist and most important parts of my response was edited... thanks to improper moderation :-/ And thus implying not what was intended....

See c.cloudwalker's quote for at least the gist....


ahha...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...gallery/248155-what-buy-next.html#post2275329



I'm out.

 

[IgsEMT]

A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must hava a terrific stove.' - Sam Haskins
from
Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography

 

[Kerbouchard]

A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must hava a terrific stove.' - Sam Haskins
from
Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography

"What a wonderful compliment. You have a fantastic mouth." There are a ton of witty responses to statements like that, but the gear still matters. Heck, go to your local church and see if the Pastor wants some new photos for the Church website. Most will say okay. Schedule a time with him and try taking some shots with flash, without flash, with a DSLR, with a P&S, under the kind of lighting conditions that he normally preaches in.

That should give you an idea of what equipment works, and what doesn't. Trust me, your I-Phone shot isn't going to work out. Your P&S won't either. Your entry level DSLR with the kit lens isn't going to cut it, either. Your D3s with a 2.8 lens is still going to require some editing. It's just goofy to say the equipment doesn't matter.

But then again, I guess it all depends on what your standards are.

 

[IgsEMT]

A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must hava a terrific stove.' - Sam Haskins
from
Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography

"What a wonderful compliment. You have a fantastic mouth." There are a ton of witty responses to statements like that, but the gear still matters. Heck, go to your local church and see if the Pastor wants some new photos for the Church website. Most will say okay. Schedule a time with him and try taking some shots with flash, without flash, with a DSLR, with a P&S, under the kind of lighting conditions that he normally preaches in.

That should give you an idea of what equipment works, and what doesn't. Trust me, your I-Phone shot isn't going to work out. Your P&S won't either. Your entry level DSLR with the kit lens isn't going to cut it, either. Your D3s with a 2.8 lens is still going to require some editing. It's just goofy to say the equipment doesn't matter.

But then again, I guess it all depends on what your standards are.

No1 said equipment doesn't matter, BUT knowing how to use it, is what really counts. Almost every client that comes into my studio thinks that whats on my wall looks good b/c of my camera, until they see how we bust our assess of getting that shot, whether its a wedding or newborn shoot, THEN idea changes that its MORE then a camera.
Statement above about "stove" is pretty accurate today w/ digital photography. NO ONE ever dared to say 'oh its the camera' when I was shooting weddings w/ bronica or fund-raisers w/ F100, b/c photography was respected way more then it is now.

 

[Kerbouchard]

A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must hava a terrific stove.' - Sam Haskins
from
Sam Haskins Photographer - Famous for: Nudes, pre-Photoshop photo-montage (photo illustration) - Quotes about photography

"What a wonderful compliment. You have a fantastic mouth." There are a ton of witty responses to statements like that, but the gear still matters. Heck, go to your local church and see if the Pastor wants some new photos for the Church website. Most will say okay. Schedule a time with him and try taking some shots with flash, without flash, with a DSLR, with a P&S, under the kind of lighting conditions that he normally preaches in.

That should give you an idea of what equipment works, and what doesn't. Trust me, your I-Phone shot isn't going to work out. Your P&S won't either. Your entry level DSLR with the kit lens isn't going to cut it, either. Your D3s with a 2.8 lens is still going to require some editing. It's just goofy to say the equipment doesn't matter.

But then again, I guess it all depends on what your standards are.

No1 said equipment doesn't matter, BUT knowing how to use it, is what really counts. Almost every client that comes into my studio thinks that whats on my wall looks good b/c of my camera, until they see how we bust our assess of getting that shot, whether its a wedding or newborn shoot, THEN idea changes that its MORE then a camera.
Statement above about "stove" is pretty accurate today w/ digital photography. NO ONE ever dared to say 'oh its the camera' when I was shooting weddings w/ bronica or fund-raisers w/ F100, b/c photography was respected way more then it is now.

So, what are you shooting with now? And why aren't you using a Canon Rebel or Nikon D3000 without flash gear, modifiers, etc.

Yes, if you don't know how to use your equipment, it doesn't really matter what gear you have. Assuming that most people here do, or at least have aspirations towards learning, equipment does, indeed matter.

And, on another note, when you were doing weddings with your Bronica, how many shots did you deliver to the couple? How many today? Times have changed and the expectations have changed.

Just because you used to shoot a 40 picture wedding on your MF gear doesn't mean that you could get away with that today...perhaps to a very limited audience, but I don't think you could run a business like that, and you know that.

That's why you have the right gear for the job. I guess I assumed that it went without saying that the photographer had to actually know how to use it.

 

[IgsEMT]

I don't use rebel or d3000 bc of the build quality (weather seal is important), bc of controlling exposure (2 wheels r better then one), and none of those have pc sync (and I need that for my external lights).

During film days, on a 6 hr wedding I was shooting about 500-600frames out of which 10-15% was junk like blinkies. Today on a 6 hr wedding I shoot about 600-700 frames and 10-15% is junk like blinks, only difference is that I'll take that extra "moment" shot since albums are nicer. Quantity vs quality. Common q is 'how many pics am I going to get?' A-as many as it takes to tell a story of your wedding day.

Equipment matters but having fx body and 2.8, 1.2 lenses and NOT knowing how to use them is pointless. therefore it isn't a camera that makes a picture, it's only a tool that artist uses to paint along with lighting, editing techniques, printing, etc.

By the by, I apologize for gram/spelling errors I'm on mobile browser ad it's a tough to type w / fat fingers and closed eyes

 

[unpopular]

Honestly, the only reason I dont use the Rebel is because of the name. Though, every time I pick up my a350 I feel a little more redneck tolerant :/

 

[chakalakasp]

I'm not a huge fan of the argument that just because unskilled photographers produce poor images with expensive cameras, and thus equipment is somehow less important. The question should be can a good photographer create good images with inexpensive equipment?

As Scooty points out, "A [photographer] has got to know his limitations". Working within the limitations of your equipment is always essential to create successful images no matter how expensive your gear.

The answer to this is yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I've seen a good photographer squeeze more out of a 2005 Sony point and shoot than most of us could squeeze out of a 5D mkii. Technical stuff matters, but it is tertiary to photograph subject and photographer skill.