Your camera doesn't matter

<p>Buying more and more expensive equipment without a commensurate upgrade in your skills and knowledge and ability to "see", and relying on even greater levels of automation in the hardware and software of the gear makes you an expensive photographic equipment owner, not a photographer.</p>

<p>Museeb,<br>

I don't think computer images reveal enough for critical judgement. From your gallery I see that you make excellent pictures with <strong>any</strong> camera <strong>you</strong> use.</p>

<p>Museeb,<br>

As Alan Zinn said, you can't tell much difference looking at computer images. I would add to that the fact that you are comparing 21st century digital cameras. How about comparing images from a Canon 5D against those from a 19th century field camera? And a variety of subjects and situations, including movement? And no Photoshopping! It seems that some people on this thread have lost sight of the OP's original statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Recently I came across an article on kenrockwell.com which says that photography is purely a from of art and that it doesn't actually matters which equipment you use. In other words, it went on convincing that your camera doesn't matter. <strong>I cannot accept this fact simply bcz I cannot capture motion or photograph shallow dof with my compact camera</strong>. I think the equipment plays a pivotal role in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly the OP is saying that he cannot make a specific type of image with the equipment he has. In this case (though not in <em>all </em>cases, of course, such as the two sample images you showed) equipment is important.</p>

<p><strong>Lonnie Raffray</strong>, Yes I am agree with your recent comment <strong>" Equipment doesn't matter, is too broad and needs to be qualified "</strong>. Indeed, I also have an impression the article given by Ken Rockwell has some extreme ideas but the good thing that he always emphasizes that one should upgrade his skill better than thinking to upgrade his cameras because the camera it self, for example, doesn't compose the photo.<br /> <strong><em>Michael Reichmann</em></strong> was a more realistic and I have quoted two of his lithe statements like<strong><em> " most </em></strong><em>cameras are better than</em><strong><em> most </em></strong><em> </em><em>photographers</em><strong> </strong><strong>" </strong>This has always been true, and<strong> now </strong>simply more so than ever.<br>

So he also took the time as a factor, and as time passes surely the gap will get less and less.</p>

<p>Thank you <strong>Alan Zinn</strong><br /> Thank you <strong>Lonnie Raffray</strong></p>

<p>It would seem to me that if your camera equipment is in any way limiting you, technically or creatively, then it clearly "matters" and you have good reason to upgrade or purchase something to solve the problem. </p>

<p>By the same token, if you are not being limited by your camera equipment, then further upgrades and purchases will make no difference at all. Either way, your camera is still merely a dumb tool and has nothing to do with your choice of content, composition, lighting, timing or control of your subject. It has no idea what you are pointing it at and cares even less.</p>

<p>Like it or not, there is a strange and unique fascination with the tools of photography, more than almost any other creative pursuit. When people go to see a great movie, they talk about the content as they leave and never about what camera or lenses were used. No-one wonders, as they read a great book, about the writer's choice of word processor. A chef is not interrogated about his pots and pans after he provides an amazing meal. Yet on viewing a photograph, one of the first questions asked is "what camera/lens did you use?" as if the answer is really any more relevant than in the other examples.</p>

<p>To me, this shows that a lot of people's interest in photography is more geared to the equipment than to images. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this - people can buy whatever they want for whatever reasons make them happy, and technophiles and gear heads love camera equipment. Also, there is nothing wrong with pride of ownership for it's own sake. My passion is for images, but I'm happy that people are willing to buy the latest and greatest as they keep the development cycle going and the prices reasonable!</p>

<p>Does anyone know or care what quail pen Shakespeare used, or what sort of brushes Rembrandt used</p>