Ken Rockwell was right: your camera *doesn't* matter!

[Patrick]

Why is that... can't it be exposed properly straight out of the camera? My ISO 6400 pics are just that... basically SOOC just converted to JPG and uploaded to flickr. The 25,600 one *is* post processed to remove the noise. I hope no one thinks otherwise... no camera can do that... yet.

Are you admitting that there is SOME equipment that does things better than others??? Heaven forbid!

Now don't go putting words in my mouth. Would I go into a sports arena personally with a P&S No.
If the orignal poster had not told what he used and the story behind it would everyone had gone "wow, Nice shots" yes. Is it the equipment that makes a good image. NO .
Could you hand your camera to the fan next to you and expect the same as you posted? Could I get a better picture with a point and shoot than the guy/gal sitting next to you, You bet.

In fact I bet I could shoot damn near a whole wedding with a point and shoot and a tripod. Would I? NO Because I want big RAW files as a back up.

Thus, KR wasn't far off. Your camera, for the majority, does not matter.

 

[Patrick]

why settle for 10fps when you can have 60fps in a P&S EX-F1 - High Speed EXILIM - Cameras - Products - CASIO

Very nice. Not badly priced either.

But it's not a DSLR so the pictures probably look like crap. :gah:

 

[JerryPH]

Sorry, I do not consider that very dim light... there are streams of daylight sun coming down all over. Cool for ISO 50 film, but overall, not that dark of a condition to be working in and not what we are really discussing. :er:

Now this... is low light. At ISO 3200 and F/4, you can see how dim the room is... the candle light, which is the brightest light source in this area, is clearly reflecting off the walls and subject's face. This means that I would have NO compunctions about shooting an all candle light wedding ceremony with lots of room to accomodate even darker scenarios. To get back to the point... lets see a P&S do this.

 

[JerryPH]

If the orignal poster had not told what he used and the story behind it would everyone had gone "wow, Nice shots" yes. Is it the equipment that makes a good image. NO .

You're kidding me, right? I think my response at the top of the thread was:

The focus is soft and the wrong aperture for best results was used. To me, it doesn't come close to being a "gem".

That said, my opinions should not matter to you, as I do not have the same attachment to these pics that you do, and they have no meaning to me beyond what I see. To you, you have the pleasure of seeing and remembering some place and someone important to you. That is the true gem.

Thus, KR wasn't far off. Your camera, for the majority, does not matter.

I could also add, that for a picture that is to remind me of someone... I would at least want to see their face.. which is NOT visible in any of the pics shown. I could go on, but the point is made. They are not all that great... and I apologize if that sounds harsh, but its the truth!


lol... you enjoy running around in circles. If it doesn't make a difference... then grab a P&S and come shoot with me in my locations, or at the very least show me a REAL quality shot equal to the ones that I show above, in any of manners I outlined above!

My friend, you cannot... hence... it does make a difference. It limits you tremendously.

Can you get a nice shot with a PS? Yes
Will it be better with a better quality camera? Yes
Does equipment make a difference? If it is within the abilities of the photographer... YES. They have to be able to take advantage of it.

I think this is all starting to get boring for the people here... I'm hearing a lot of talk, but no proof.

I'm outta here.

 

[KD5NRH]

In a few days, you MASTERED his D300? I *am* impressed. (ok, well not really, becuase we both know you likely learned nothing about it's advanced functions in those couple of days...

So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use? Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.

Skill can make up for a lack of equipment. Sometimes to an extreme degree.

 

[JerryPH]

Skill can make up for a lack of equipment. Sometimes to an extreme degree.

I never said it could not... amazing bit of selective reading there dude... but no amount of skill can give you a picture that is beyond the capabilities of low end equipment. And what happens when a skilled photographer takes pictures with both low end P&S and high end cameras, do you honestly think the results are the same?

Show me any pic from a point and shoot that has more resolution than the resolution from a 24MP camera!

You can learn composition, you can learn to become a better photographer... you cannot learn high ISO low noise and your 8MP Kodak cannot learn to take pictures as well at a concert as a high end dSLR. As Garbz once said (not in the same context, but it fits... lol), "you can't polish a turd".

Ken Rockwel is well known as the court jester of photography. Funny how only the inexperienced grab at him like a life buoy to justify their choices in anything that fits their current needs.

People, you've GOTTA learn to think for yourselves!!

 

[Garbz]

So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use?

Your kidding right? He shot with a large format camera. That is the ultimate of advanced functionality. You can't get a camera more specifically designed for exactly those types of pictures. As a man who's life battle was with the tonal range of his equipment vs the scenery I hardly think he's a model for people who believe that the camera is not important.

 

[Mike_E]

Patrick, where did you buy the Adox? It looks terrific!! (Nice shot too BTW) Is this 35 or 120?

I found it at Freestyle but have never ordered from them- I will continue the search on my own but would like to know where you got yours. Also have you tried the 25? And, do you develop yourself or do you have a lab near you that will do it?

OK, hijack over.

OK, one more thing, did you use a filter on the shot above or is that really the way the film is?

 

[ANDS!]

I think you are speaking of technical as opposed to artistic quality.

Two pages and three days ago and the gear nerds are STILL missing the point of the OP.

As for Ken Rockwell, I do believe the man pays for all the gear he OWNS, and is loaned anything else he might use. If we're going to hate on the man, at least get the hate right. The problem with folks who like to harp on KR.com, is that the utterly and completely miss the nuance in what the man is saying (or does so in order to have something to criticize). Tossing "the camera doesn't matter!" on a headline for an article is a snark way of saying "get your head out of the techie-gutter and stop focusing on learning the art of photography and not the manual to your camera."

As for the OP, definitely agree about the quality of shots that somehow beginning auteur are able to grab in their infancy. I have shots with a rinky dink 3MP A75 that I wouldn't have minded giving the once over on in the here and now - had my hard drive not gone kaput.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, where did you buy the Adox? It looks terrific!! (Nice shot too BTW) Is this 35 or 120?

I found it at Freestyle but have never ordered from them- I will continue the search on my own but would like to know where you got yours. Also have you tried the 25? And, do you develop yourself or do you have a lab near you that will do it?

OK, hijack over.

OK, one more thing, did you use a filter on the shot above or is that really the way the film is?

The only place I've been able to find to was also at freestyle. They are good people. I order from them regularly and have never had a problem. Their Arista film isn't bad either. It's re-branded stuff and cheap. Their Arista II was rumored to be left over Afga.

I used no filter. The stuff is AWESOME. just be careful when it's wet or before hardening, the emulsion requires TLC .
If you like Hi contrast shots try soupin' in HC-110.

Oh and for the post before my reply, I am far from a gear head. For my own stuff I delight in using the bare min. of gear and my trusted EL-2 is my best buddy. I'd use a pin hole if it were the only camera available.

 

[Mike_E]

Thanks, Patrick!!

 

[Iron Flatline]

So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use? Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.

Skill can make up for a lack of equipment. Sometimes to an extreme degree.

Ansel Adams is so frequently misunderstood it makes me laugh. People hold him up as some kind of ideal, but completely miss some of the points that makes him truly interesting.

Two points:

Ansel Adams was a notorious gear head who bought new crap all the time. Also, he went so far as to shoot with one of the first digital cameras in the early 1980s. That guy LOVED cameras, and always had the best gear.

Ansel Adams was big on post-processing. If he didn't like the sky, he'd insert a different one - just for instance.

None of this takes away from his particular art.

 

[epp_b]

I think those who disagree with the article don't understand who his audience is. His audience consists of a lot of geeks and gearheads who shoot brick walls and test charts. If these kind of people are going to consistently make great photos, they need this sort of kick in the pants.

Perhaps the it would be more accurate to rename it to "Until Have Mastered the Artistic End of things, Your Camera Doesn't Matter", but that would be nowhere near as provocative or controversial

 

[KD5NRH]

Ansel Adams was a notorious gear head who bought new crap all the time. Also, he went so far as to shoot with one of the first digital cameras in the early 1980s. That guy LOVED cameras, and always had the best gear.

Are you asserting that he had some crossbreed of the current top-of-the-line DSLRs from every manufacturer? Because, if not, some of these guys are saying he couldn't have taken a picture that was worth a plug nickel.

 

[abraxas]

As a bit of a humorous aside here, and in a sarcastic vein, I was just thinking, "Your camera doesn't matter--Mine does."