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

[Patrick]

The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality. But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.

Define quality.

The photos above probably would look horrible at 16x20 print. So is the quality we're talking about in the print or the digital file.

 

[Mike_E]

Somebody once said, "Whatever get's you through the night.".









But then again, somebody else shot him in the back so maybe throwing money at a camera is a good idea.

 

[Battou]

But then again, somebody else shot him in the back so maybe throwing money at a camera is a good idea.

This is why cameraadict.com and broadway photo exist....to shoot you in the back, so maybe that $100 wal-mart special is a good ieda as well.

 

[Patrick]

This is why cameraadict.com and broadway photo exist....to shoot you in the back, so maybe that $100 wal-mart special is a good ieda as well.

:thumbup:

 

[pm63]

But if your camera can't/doesn't replicate what YOU SAW then what was the point of taking the picture??

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but accurate reproduction of a scene is only really required in scientific/journalistic photography. In general creative photography, the aim is almost always to make things look better than they are, not accurately reproduce them.

So why are you lugging a big black dangerous Nikko around when (according to you) you can achieve the same outcome with a P&S..???

It has an optical viewfinder, which I prefer. It is much easier to use with better ergonomics, and the manual mode is a hell of a lot easier to use. It can take square filter systems for my landscapes (or at least the lenses can). It is more comfortable to hold and easier to use for longer durations. It is faster, both in terms of use and factors like shutter lag/zooming. It is more pleasurable to use, and gives a satisfying mirror slap when the shutter release is pressed (I'm not kidding, do we not all use SLRs partly because they're more fun?)

But as you have found with your D40, you have plenty of excuses to PRAISE your equipment.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

Try this:
Borrow one of your friends P&S cameras: make sure you are at the right place at the right time; and take some 'artistic' shots with both it and your D40 - same light, same framing and composition, same scene (shape and colour), assume your luck is 'in' - and see which camera produces the better shot that pleases YOU artistically... If it DOES turn out to be the P&S (or if there is no discernable difference), then swop cameras with the friend who loaned you the P&S....

I have done it - I've had both my D40 and his Canon P&S (one of the basic 150 pound ones), and would you believe that I preffered the shots of the Canon? It was compact, discreet, the auto mode with flash off allowed me to take some fantastic abstract and discreet party snaps. However, I won't be swopping because I like my D40 for the reasons outlined above.

Know what? Those that think that equipment doesn't make a difference fall into 2 camps:

- The totally cluless
- The ones that are wishing that this was true becuase they cannot afford the better equipment.

Know what? I don't fit into either of those categories. I had the pleasure of using my uncle's D300 for a few days and it was nice, yes. Did I take better photos? Hell no. It felt nice and solid, and weighed me down even more than my D40, but no difference apart from that.

In fact, I'll argue that those that think that equipment does make a difference, in actual artistic quality, are the ones wishing it was so. They're the people who spend their time shooting brick walls and test charts and have less than 10,000 actuations after a year of owning their camera.

Professionals with more shiny equipment than you can imagine also hold this view. David Noton repeatedly states in his columns that equipment doesn't matter, and Bert Stephani goes as far as to say that having limited gear is an asset, not a disadvantage. These are photographers at the top of their game, so you'll forgive me for reffering to them. See the party shot Stephani made on his Canon P+S. Hell, I doubt I would have produced so creative a shot even if you had given me a D3.

My example of the church *is* looking at it from a completely artistic manner. No P&S is able to recreate my artistic needs and visions in the same way that my dSLRs can.

LOL so your DSLRs magically teaches you about the nuances of composition, lighting, colour, etc, and you seem to forget these when a P+S is placed into your hands? I would love to see that. As someone else said, if only being an ace photographer were as easy as having a large disposable income...

Then we have the concept of... "if you take pics only during the day or on perfectly lit conditions or of things standing still...", all of a sudden, for me to get these incredible shots, I must LIMIT myself? That's not photography, thats a jail cell.

My equipment should let me be free to do AS I WISH in the manner that I wish... without constraint.

That is true to an extent, but not all of us want to burn away at 10FPS and ISO 25,600. Even looking through your flickr, you don't seem to be shooting much sports or things that truly even require SLRs.

Every since I dug out the shots I took when I was five years old on my mum's Olympus compact, I have always stuck to the view that artistic quality is independant of the tools used to create the art, and I always will. It's easy to get fixated with the technical aspects of it, and sadly, too many of us do.

 

[Patrick]

PM63, I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[JerryPH]

Know what? I don't fit into either of those categories. I had the pleasure of using my uncle's D300 for a few days and it was nice, yes. Did I take better photos? Hell no. It felt nice and solid, and weighed me down even more than my D40, but no difference apart from that.

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... and it would not surprise me if that camera had never even left Auto mode)

They're the people who spend their time shooting brick walls and test charts and have less than 10,000 actuations after a year of owning their camera.

Well if that is referring to me, I do test out all my lenses on a focus chart. Never shot a brick wall unless it was part of the scene, not for any technical reason. My D200 has over 65,000 actuations before I retired it to backup status camera in October 2008... I bought it new in June 2007, so a bit more than a year.

See the party shot Stephani made on his Canon P+S. Hell, I doubt I would have produced so creative a shot even if you had given me a D3.

That would be YOUR fault, not the camera's. If you are not able to get the most out of your gear, why are you even spending the money on it??

LOL so your DSLRs magically teaches you about the nuances of composition, lighting, colour, etc, and you seem to forget these when a P+S is placed into your hands? I would love to see that. As someone else said, if only being an ace photographer were as easy as having a large disposable income...

I did not say the value of your equipment defines your abilities as a photographer. Go back and reread that. I *did* say that the better the equipment, the better the results. Unfortunately, if you don't know anything about this new equipment, thats not the fault of the equipment, is it?

You seem to forget that the same person holding 2 cameras (low end and top end), the results *will* be different. Now, if you are not seeing these differences, YOU are the missing link in the chain, not the cameras.

Using the point of reference in the church scenario, how can a P&S get even a proper exposure in a dark moody location? Answer: It cannot, and no amount of camera expertise or knowledge will help. Most P&S cannot even reach ISO 400 cleanly, much less ISO 1600 or higher!

A camera with higher potential frees me to go from locations that have full daylight capabilities right down to those little dark back rooms and give me the ability to concentrate on the composition... rather than think about "oh, its too dark here, maybe I need the on camera flash... no wait I know that will make the pic suck... ok, lets raise the ISO... no wait THAT will make the picture suck too... ok, lets add a tripod... no wait, they're not allowed in here... well let me hand hold this pic for 20 seconds... nope, can't do that either.. oh well, let's go to the parking lot... lots of light out there!"

not all of us want to burn away at 10FPS and ISO 25,600. Even looking through your flickr, you don't seem to be shooting much sports or things that truly even require SLRs.

Careful what you ask for. Just becuase I do not show people everything in my flickr stream doesn't mean I don't have it (fact is, perhaps 1% of all my pics are on flickr... and less than 20% are even available for the public to see!).

I challenge you to go out and match the quality and technical aspects within the confines of the locations that they are taken in, of these pictures on ANY low end P&S... Let's start easy, shall we?:

A little EXIF data to help you:
Camera: Nikon D700
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/5
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 3200

A little EXIF data to help you again:
Camera: Nikon D700
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 6400

Now, imagine if you will... a tomb in a church with only the faintest of light coming in from one single source above... to the natural eye it is so dark that it is difficult to see detail, yet with this camera, I managed to capture this:

Again a little EXIF data to help you out:
Camera: Nikon D700
Exposure: 0.8 sec (4/5)
Aperture: f/16
Focal Length: 24 mm
ISO Speed: 25600

A picture taken while I was firing off shots at 8 FPS:

I do not know how good your timing is, but I doubt you could recreate this picture with a P&S, much less match the ISO 3200 that was used to take THIS picture.

If equipment makes no difference, please, feel free to show me how ANYONE (expert or novice) with a $150 P&S can recreate any of these pictures. My abilities as a photographer are NOT rooted in my equipment, but my knowledge in photography and superior equipment let me reach into places that the P&S owners (I do not care if they are Picasso himself) can only dream of.

I look forward to your response, but mostly... I look forward to seeing prove your points via showing me your pictures.

 

[Patrick]

Fuji A600- Handheld dim light. Probably one of the crappiest cameras I've ever owned.

No one said a P&S could shot 10 fps.
Are sport shots, action that is, considered art? Or even brought up till now?
Any who, DSLRs excel in that arena. I do have some soccer shots using tri-x pushed to 1600 on a foggy misty afternoon I took with a hundred dollar film camera and a nikon knock off cheap lens if your interested.

As far as landscapes, I'll still go with the ones originally posted above.

 

[JerryPH]

The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality. But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.

That, my friend, is all that I am saying and have been saying since day 1.

 

[TwoRails]

Off topic: Patrick, got any more shots of that loco? Love locomotive shots

 

[JerryPH]

Any who, DSLRs excel in that arena.

I wonder how sports shots ever were taken in the past then, pre-digital? Had to be done, right? Did someone go out and buy instant developing film for their Polaroid and get the job done like that? No, they took ASA 1600 put it into a SLR and pushed it becuase thats what the best was back then. Same thing today! You cannot compare good equipment against lower grade equipment and expect the same results... you just helped prove my point... lol

I do have some soccer shots using tri-x pushed to 1600 on a foggy misty afternoon I took with a hundred dollar film camera and a nikon knock off cheap lens if your interested.

Sports and what not was mentioned by the kind poster right above that said they looking into my flickr site and there were no pics there needed for even SLRs... lol (50% of what I take is portraiture, the rest is so varied it covers pretty much every aspect from Macro to all kinds of sports and everything in between).

As far as wanting to compare... no prob... side by side, my friend... side by side... grab your Tri-X pushed to 1600 and come shoot beside me in the SAME places. I doubt the results will be the same. Especially in darker environments, or in places that are poorly lit and have a little fast motion action.

I am NOT turning this into a film vs digital thread, this is not the point... YOU mentioned the film, but I am game anyways.

 

[Patrick]

I wonder how sports shots ever were taken in the past then... pre-digital? Had to be done, right? Did someone go out and buy ASA 80 film on a kodak and get the job done? No, they took ASA 1600 and pushed it becuase thats what the best was back then. Same today! You cannot compare good equipment against bad equipment and expect the same result... you just helped prove my point... lol



Sports and what not was mentioned by the kind poster right above that mentioned looking into my flickr site.

As far as wanting to compare... no prob... side by side, my friend... side by side... grab your Tri-X pushed to 1600 and come shoot beside me in the SAME places. I doubt the results will be the same. Especially in darker environments, or in places that are poorly lit and have a little fast motion action.

DSLRs exel for their ability to shoot 10 fps over P&S's Not to mention the damn shutter lag.

Tri X ? You bet. But then there will be the debate over the god awful grain and contrast. And this thread is already getting off topic.



BTW that's how they did it with 80 speed film. You would be surprised what you can pull out of a poorly exposed neg.
My fast becoming favorite film is Adox 50.

 

[JerryPH]

BTW that's how they did it with 80 speed film. You would be surprised what you can pull out of a poorly exposed neg.
My fast becoming favorite film is Adox 50.

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!

 

[lostprophet]

No one said a P&S could shot 10 fps.

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

 

[Patrick]

Adox 50@ 50 Very dim light . Handheld braced against a rock. 100 camera.