Can the camera have an effect on your abilities as a photographer?

<p>Good thread. No two photographers are exactly alike, it seems. To me, seeing the camera as a tool, includes using it as a tool for exploration. Also, "mastery of a craft" isn't necessarily perfection, is it? Anyway, I hope I'll always be learning. (I have a lot to learn, too!) </p>

<p>I would have to say that it depends on whether the camera is the limiting factor in the person's photography. If it is, a better model (with regard to the feature(s) needed) may help him/her improve. But I have to agree with the general sentiment that typically, photographers get gear envy long before they hit the limits of their initial cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Modern Archery is much like Photography in that you can start out with lower priced equipment, but at some point if you stay with it, you are going to benefit from top notch equipment.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Cycling is no different. A pro athlete on a $600 road bike will easily beat an elite cyclist on a $6000 bike.</p>

<p>To a beginner the only goal of equipment is to GET OUT and USE IT -- whether it's a bike or a camera. Eventually equipment makes a big difference. Simple stuff. No need to write 1,000 words.</p>

<p>Well a new camera will not change the the photographers ability. That is something only the photographer can work on. A new camera can certainly change the results that a photographer may get.</p>

My view is that a trully great photo is aboy 90% inspiration, and 10% hardware.

 

Sure a better camera allows me to capture an image in a way that I can do more with it later, but the soul of the photo

isn't that, it's the image I captured when I pressed the shutter. Some of my favorite pics were taken with a cheap Pentax

film camera, or my first digital camera (a 1 MP Kodak)

 

Buying a full set of Big Bethany clubs won't make a golfer make an excellent shot. Its a tool.

If you are shooting high speed action wildlife sport then you need fast tracking camera like 1d or similar and here the

camera makes a huge different

But if you are shooting land scape or similar with prepared Sean than entry level dslr is more than requirement

Infact I use compact camera that has manual setting

Most of people that do such argument are camera collectors and not photographers

<p>A camera that will make you a "better photographer" IMO is one that doesn't do your thinking for you so you have to learn something about the principles of the photographic process and apply it to your work, because there are too many "photographers" these days who if the cameras automation can't do it are completely lost because they don't know the basics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Scott Norville , Nov 22, 2011; 01:09 p.m. Obligatory trite quote for essay: "A poor craftsman blames his tools"</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Scott, there is another side to your quote. A poor craftsman does blame his tools, but a good craftsman owns all the right tools. You simply would not use a 12 pound sledgehammer to build a picture frame. Yes, a hammer is a hammer ... but no matter how strong you are and how great your control is, you're just not going to be able to do it without wrecking the frame.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZdrF"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2398603">John Crowe</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 22, 2011; 06:20 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[more archery references]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a rifle shooter and not an archer, but I think that they're close enough that I understand the point here. It's the archer, and not the arrow that makes the shot. But then again, it's the arrow, and not the archer, that hits the target. To use a gun analogy, I can very easily get a bullseye at 50 yards with just about anything with a decent scope and acceptable ammo, since 50 yards is not a very difficult shot. At 100 yards it's harder. More expensive ammo generally shoots truer, while some cheaper ammo will drop in flight. If I know that the round is going to drop an inch over 100 yards, it's very easy to just aim an inch higher.</p>

<p>But if the ammo in inconsistent, and shoots wild (or to use the arrow analogy, if the fletching is bad and the flight feathers are all banged up), it doesn't matter how good I am at compensating, because the shot is going to go where the shot is going to go. No amount of skill will let you get a bullseye at any distance if there isn't reliable performance from your equipment.</p>

<p>I think with digital cameras, the camera is darn near unimportant. They build so many of them so fast that in order to keep up production, a lot of the parts come from the same places, and they usually make them to similar designs, aside from Leicas, Fujis, and a few new Sonys. With digital cameras, if basically breaks down to size/versatility vs. print quality, and new vs. old. I still get great results from my D70, largely because I rarely shoot over 400 ISO.</p>

<p>For film cameras though, the camera is a lot more important. There are pinhole cameras, view cameras, twin-lens cameras, and all sorts of other designs that all operate very differently from each other. Digital doesn't have that. I know some cameras have a flip-up LCD, but anyone that's used a good twin-lens can tell you that it's not the same; you don't <em>see</em> the same way. And this difference in seeing and operating changes the way you as a photographer work. For instance, almost all of the really good photos I've taken over the last few years were done with my Hasselblad or my Yashicamat. It seems like I just see in the square format, and viewing on the ground glass feels more natural to me. I own a good 4x5 and a good DSLR, but those cameras don't feel as 'correct,' and it usually shows in the prints.</p>

<p>I would liken camera choice to using different paint brushes or guitars, at least for artistic photography. Different brushes or guitars simply <em>feel</em> different, and you will use them slightly differently subconciously; you almost can't help it. If a certain camera suits the way you work better than another, then the camera is VERY important, regardless of whether or not it is actually a better camera. A hog bristle paintbrush is much cheaper and "worse" than a fine Kolinsky sable, but Van Gogh could not have made the paintings that he made with a softer brush.</p>

<p>I'm actually beginning to think that the Yashicamat is a better camera for me than the Hasselblad. I like them both, but if I'm not doing studio work the 'Mat just seems like a more organic way to work for me. But to others, I could see how it would be confusing as hell.</p>

 

A lot of talk. I am hopeless. Nothing will make me a better photographer. I became passable when I had my wedding and take anything if someone would pay for it business. I leveled off there. I have had at least ten Canon bodies (actually more like 15) in the last 20 years plus four or five MF bodies, lenses, etc. I got pictures I got paid for with a Canon 650 and Bronicas in 1990 and the last time I got paid for pictures was a year or so ago. I have much better equipment, now. I still take the same mediocre pictures. Better cameras don't make me better just more versatile. I can do more run-of-the mill pictures in lower light and I still fix my pictures in LR and PS. The best camera for my jobs is the one I own. I still love doing it and do it for my own satisfaction so the fact that I don't keep improving doesn't bother me. My pictures look a little better because my processing gets better.

<p>Better equipment will give you better pictures if you determine to bring yourself up to the level of the better equipment. I bought a camera that was way above my skill level and made that determination. I'm not there but I am on my way. </p>

<p>This subject gets rehashed on a regular basis, and I read the same old chestnuts about how it's impossible to shoot sports with a pinhole camera, etc. Well yes, it's also impossible to win a horse race on a donkey, so why would you try? Obviously you need the right tools for the job you want to do - that's a given whatever field you are involved in. Once you have the relevant tools, it's up to you to create the images. The equipment has no say, or control whatsoever, in any of your choices about content, composition, impact, lighting, styling, model direction, etc.</p>

<p>All I require from my equipment is that it doesn't limit me, technically or creatively. I don't expect it to provide inspiration or make my images better in any way.</p>

<p>I have to go back to the beginning of this post with the hilarious post of the Popoutdoorphotokenrockwell recommendation that the Nikon D7000 is really good. (Ken Rockwell highly recommends the D7000.) I own 2 of them and cannot blame any other factor on my photography except myself. It makes life pretty simple and makes me focus on my personal vision instead of all the other surrounding noise.</p>

Tudor ApMadoc: "My view is that a trully great photo is aboy 90% inspiration, and 10% hardware."

 

Concise and insightful, this quote sums up the entire discussion quite nicely.

John Bellenis: "This subject gets rehashed on a regular basis, and I read the same old chestnuts about how it's

impossible to shoot sports with a pinhole camera, etc. Well yes, it's also impossible to win a horse race on a donkey,

so why would you try? Obviously you need the right tools for the job you want to do - that's a given whatever field you

are involved in. Once you have the relevant tools, it's up to you to create the images. The equipment has no say, or

control whatsoever, in any of your choices about content, composition, impact, lighting, styling, model direction, etc."

 

If your position is that "you need the right tools for the job", then you are in effect responding that yes, the equipment

has an effect. Otherwise it would be common to see pinhole cameras on the fifty-yard line and disposables at fashion

shoots. This overrides any discussion of composition and lighting, does it not? It's obvious that cameras don't

compose photos.

"It's obvious that cameras don't compose photos."

 

At least, not yet.

<p>If you are a good photographer (i.e. you can 'see'), good gear makes a difference. Just like a quality instrument makes a difference in the hands of a good musician.<br>

Too many people think they can spend their way to good photos.</p>

<p>If you buy a Stradivarius violin, it makes you a Stradivarius owner, not a wonderful violinist. The masters of photography became legends with equipment that most amateur photographers nowadays would scoff at.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If your position is that "you need the right tools for the job", then you are in effect responding that yes, the equipment has an effect.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well if the question was "Can you take pictures without a camera, or can Eric Clapton play music without a guitar" then of course the answer would be no! I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, and if that is the point of this thread, then it's a pretty silly subject. My mistake was thinking there was a larger issue.</p>

<p>Let me clarify, as clearly there is some confusion. Yes, you need a camera to take pictures so it has an "effect on your abilities as a photographer". It's amazing that it took seven pages for us to clear up that point. Thanks.</p>

<p>Yes and no.</p>

<ul>

<li>If you don't master your equipment this might seriously hamper your photographic abilities.</li>

<li>Low quality equipment can influence the photographic output. In my case a poor quality lens has largely spoilt a photo with a content/situation which I liked very much.</li>

</ul>

<p>That said, a "better camera" is no guarantee whatsoever for photographic ability, nor for better photographic output (i.e.: better photographs).</p>

<p>Luca, I highly disagree. Was it Terry Richardson that first shot an entire ad campaign with a Yashica T4? Whomever it was, that style is common now. Annie Leibovitz usually shoots with Canon gear instead of her digital Hassys. I can go on forever.</p>

<p>The fact remains that 'better' isn't always better. Leibowitz is known for how she connects with her subjects, and that's harder to do connected to a tripod. Robert Mappelthorpe printed almost nothing himself, and would be called on on this very board for not knowing how to use his camera. I can go on here forever too. But he didn't need to learn to make amazing images.</p>

<p>I guess to sum up, I'll go back to the guitar example. Some guys are technical players. Randy Rhoads or Eddie Van Halen never would have been the same with Sears guitars. Jack White uses Sears guitars, and the first several Zeppelin records were done with Sears amps, because the sound was interesting. But if you ask anyone that's played professionally for a long time, they'll tell you that most guitar players sound similar with any guitar, because they play the same notes. As long as the guitar doesn't hamper your playing, it is good enough.</p>

Zack,<br>

I did not define "better".<br>

On purpose. It can mean all or nothing.<br>

But I think you will agree that optical - and technical - flaws do exist. I referred to these.<br>

Printing is unrelated to "camera". Also William Eggleston does not do his dye transfer prints on his own.<br>

And what you say is completely in line with my last sentence.<br>

A better camera will not make you a better photographer or produce better photographs.<br>

L

<p>While there are elements of truth to both sides of the above argument, this post reminds me of an article in National Geographic decades ago about finding 3,000 year old mummies that had successfully survived brain surgery. NG showed images of skulls where the top of the skull had totally grown back after being removed for brain surgery. I'm sure the ancient Egyptian surgeons were geniuses. However, if I needed brain surgery today, I would much prefer modern techniques and equipment and a surgeon that wasn't quite a genius. </p>

<p>The answer may well depend on what sort of photographs you want to create. The skill set to use a

pinhole camera is different from that need to use a full swing/tilt/shift large format camera or a top of the

line DSLR. Having said that, using a fully functioned DSLR on settings other than P will improve your

abilities in areas like dof, selective focus and exposure compensation, for example. But a good

photographer can attain good results with a disposable or toy camera, especially if they have learned

how to extract the maximum from these consumer products.</p><p>I think any camera can influence

the abilities of a photographer if they are willing to learn and experiment. I know that I have learned a lot

about photography trying to overcome, and facilitate, the limitations of my toy cameras, just as I do

with my DSLRs with their lenses costing more than the body, my home-made pinhole camera,

and as I do when I drag out my Mamiya C330 TLR. </p><p>It's up to the individual to allow their

abilities to be affected by their gear, whether positively or negatively. In fact, one of my tools to be

creative I use often is limiting myself. That may mean only shooting at a given lens length, one aperture,

only from a prone position or with funky equipment like a toy camera with its limitations.</p><p>So,

yes, cameras can affect your abilities as a photographer, and they should. It's up to you to make them

positive, learning experiences. The only reason boxes exist is to give us something to think

outside.</p>

<p>As the last post suggests, it can if you are willing to experiment and use the better camera at its full or near full potential. But that is a rarer situation than it would seem. In a somewhat analogous sense, my Microsoft Word word processor can do a great many things I have never even attempted, and although I achieve quite satisfactory results with my limited knowledge of it, I could do a lot more if I was as fully trained to use it, like the adminstrative assistant who occasionally rescues me at my client's office. You only need to ask yourself whether a better or more flexible camera system will suit your objectives, or not. </p>

<p>effect ? no, not really, excluding that you have good glass, good flash & filters. I could shoot a beautiful wedding with a Pentax K1000 film camera as well as I could with a Canon 1D Mark4.<br>

You may try harder with a expensive camera. Like thinking you will play better golf with a set of Pings opposed to Mcgregor's. Serena Williams can beat the !#$%& out you with a $9.00 tennis racket.</p>