I don't know why, but whenever I see "It's not the camera, it's the photographer", I get worked up and am inclined to debate.
I understand because there ARE limitations. To me, a really good photographer with a P&S can take just as good of a photograph as someone with a SDLR. The manner of which the quality is acheived is varied. With P&S, the conditions have to be somewhat in your favor, or at least more so since DSLRs have a lot more options to manipulate what's in front you.
Depends on the subject and depends on the lighting.
That's usually the argument " A good photographer can take a better picture with a P&S than a newbie can with a DSLR", how about the same person with a p&s and a DSLR?
Knowledge is important but it's not everything. Learning the camera takes what, 2 weeks? A month?
As I have recently stated in another thread, if gear didn't matter, 10,000 dollar bodies and $3000 lenses would not be in a professional photographers possession.
I bought a D7000* without every even owning a point and shoot minus my cell phone and in 2 months I have come a very long way. If I went with the D3100, I'd be very pissed that I bought the bull**** I was fed and I could have had the better camera all this time to learn on.
No, a better, more expensive camera will not take great pictures on its own. Just like a professional photographer can't take amazing photos with out a camera.
It shouldn't aggravate anyone that people are not aware that there is a learning curve. What we as knowledgeable people should tell these uninformed people, that there is in fact a learning curve. Not "It's not the camera, it's the photographer."
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32713-7df5aadb952fa8e00260cc48bbf6ab0b.jpg?1734162330)
