Is It Really the Photographer and Not the Equipment?

[AgentDrex]

Just wanted to get any opinions on this subject. I hear people telling each other that it isn't the camera that matters but the photographer. I agree with that idea a little, but I tend to believe it is both the photographer AND the equipment. I figure it like this, give a beginner a thousand dollar camera (Nikon D90 or something) and they'll take snapshots similar to a basic P&S. On the other hand, give a pro a short-lens P&S and nothing else, they will most likely take nice photos but they won't be able to do much for DOF. They won't be able to zoom on a wild creature from a sufficient distance to not scare the animal away. That would take higher quality equipment. Does anyone agree with my idea about equipment and photographer or am I talking out of my posterior?

 

[flyingember]

it's both, only if you are using a camera's capabilities to it's fullest.

I get perfectly fine photos on an iPhone but I can do a ton better with a SLR. But if I were terrible a simple camera would do better.

For my wife, she does ok in auto mode on a P&S. With maybe 10% more skill she would find it limiting. I could give her a P&S with shutter control, teach her how to use it, and her photos would turn out better.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Not only dramatic effects that a quality lens can add to a camera, but the more expensive cameras have larger/better image sensors. They handle color and detail so much better.

The day I got my first SLR was the day I started getting compliments on my "photography". Pictures just look so much better when taken with good equipment.

I get a laugh out of people carrying a 14MP camera who look at my pictures and ask, "How many Mega Pixels does your camera have" and I tell them "Six".

If you take an SLR and a P&S and make the same settings with both cameras, the SLR will win every time.

 

[Village Idiot]

If you take an SLR and a P&S and make the same settings with both cameras, the SLR will win every time.

So an old DSLR with a CCD sensor bumped up to 800 ISO will look better than the newest technology P&S, with a CMOS sensor, set at 800 ISO?

 

[Boomn4x4]

If you take an SLR and a P&S and make the same settings with both cameras, the SLR will win every time.

So an old DSLR with a CCD sensor bumped up to 800 ISO will look better than the newest technology P&S, with a CMOS sensor, set at 800 ISO?

No

I guess I have to rephrase my statement to satisfy the inablity to make gernaral assumptions.

If you take a modern SLR and a modern P&S, maufactured at about the same time, and make the same sttings eith both cmaeras, the SLR will win every time.

Like wise a gasoline powered engine in a 2010 Ford Focus will function more efficiently than a gasoline powered engine in a 1909 Ford Model T

 

[Dionysus]

it's both...but it depends on where you're at.

IN THE BEGINNING (as a newbie), 99% of your problems are due to user error, and not the equipment. It takes a while to TRULY outgrow equipment. I always tell new people to blame themselves before the equipment, it will save them thousands of dollars, over the people that blame the camera first, and spend tons of money chasing the perfect shot, and never getting it, becauase they never taught themselves to be better, because it was always the equipments fault.

Now after you've built experience, it's both. That takes a long while of building knowledge and constant shooting before you even come close to that point. You start FEELING like you get it all after a couple months, but try stepping out of your comfort zone and shooting something you dont shoot regularly, and you'll see how much of a newb you really are.

If you put a Canon 1Ds in my hands now, I could work some magical images....but put that camera in my hand 2 years ago, and it would be the biggest waste of 6,000.00 ever recorded in history. I would be taking shots that look like they came out of a polaroid.

 

[DennyCrane]

Oy, this thread again?

 

[Boomn4x4]

Oy, this thread again?

And you still decided to reply to it

 

[Overread]

it's both...but it depends on where you're at.

Exactly. Photography is like any craft - one part is the user and the other part the tools. A good user can make things that are good even with poorer grade tools because they have experience as well as skill. A poor user can make disasters even with highgrade tools because they don't know how to use them and lack the skills and experience.

Where the point divides is impossible to say (though some think that as soon as you start charging money you should only ever be using toprange gear no matter your skill level ).

Generally speaking I don't worry about it at all - I aim to use the tools to the best of my ability and to learn to use them whilst also aiming to own the best tools that I can afford. Better tools are less limiting and offer more options as well as other things (like durability and overall quality).

This sort of argument only ever comes up when you have people with highgrade gear and no idea or lowgrade gear and a wedding booked for a months time

 

[vtf]

Oy, this thread again?

Gotta listen to the "Shat":gah:

 

[katy625]

I'm gonna say that it's both. Before I bought my dslr I was taking some pretty great shots w my nikon p&s. However I think that the reason they looked good was because I studied composition, lighting, etc for almost 2 yrs before I picked up a camera. Now that I have a dslr I can say that there have been plenty of shots that could not have been produced by a p&s because of dof and so on.

 

[subscuck]

It's an all things being equal situation. Put a high end P&S in the hands of a pro and a beginner, and the pro will pull everything he/she can get out of it and the beginner won't. Likewise, put a 1D in the hands of a pro and beginner, and the pro will pull everything he/she can get out of it and the beginner won't, both on a technical and artistic level. So yeah, the photographer makes the difference based on skill level and knowledge of photography and equipment.

 

[AgentDrex]

I'm sorry that this was a re-run of some thread I wasn't involved in. Now that I look back, maybe I should have searched for a similar thread so I didn't re-hash old conversations. I am glad I asked though and had this chance to find everyone's insights. I use a P&S, since it was something I could afford at the time and would give me practice at composition if nothing else. When I mention to people that I wish I had a nice dslr, they keep mentioning "...it's the photographer, not the equipment". I certainly understand that at this time it isn't in my best interest to plow money into an investment I'm not ready to make with my current skill-level. There are just so many more shots I'd like to practice on that my current camera is pretty much incapable of making. Thank you all for the great replies. I certainly enjoyed reading them.

 

[benlonghair]

I agree it's both. A technician (I won't say pro, just somebody who really knows how cameras work) will become limited by his or her equipment at some point.

Personally, I'm constantly bumping up against my limits with my camera body and lenses. Both are slow, which not only means i need good light to get the shots I want, but I'm also limited creatively when trying to throw backgrounds OOF. I'm learning to work around this, but it can be difficult.

 

[gsgary]

The photograph is in your head and the camera is just a tool to capture what you see, the only time it is the camera is when you are shooting above ISO1600