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

<p>A photographer new to photography posts a question like this: "Which camera will make me a better photographer?" Enter a few pros who get on and explain to the new photographer that the camera doesn't matter and that no matter what he chooses they all have excellent output if used properly or along those lines. (for the most part, a few exceptions)</p>

<p>Now this has gotten me to thinking, I personally have used a wide range of professional DSLRs from Nikon and Canon. I realize in the grand scope of photography, these companies & their professional DSLRs represents one slice of the large photographic pie, with many other formats and options in existence. None the less, in my personal experience I find that the camera has a huge effect on how I take pictures, and could be summed up by saying that the marriage between myself a body has a huge impact, i.e. makes me a better or worse photographer depending on how I interact with the body. Before y'all start yelling crucify him crucify him! and before the newbies say "I knew it! I knew it, a better camera will make me a better photographer!", let me explain a bit:</p>

<p>I'm a pretty straight forward kind of person, generally in life I know exactly what I want, and how I want it. This is not necessarily true for photography. Oh sometimes I get a "vision" in my head, but for the most part, the photography process is an exploring one for me. And its this creative process, which I don't know where I begin or where I end up that draws me into photography. What does this have to do with a camera body or lens? When I'm "feeling" my way around a picture, whether it be myself and some beautiful piece of landscape, or a studio shoot with a model, I've got to be in "the moment". I'm not actually thinking, nor am logically processing things, I'm feeling, and when I'm feeling things don't always make sense, and moments can be fleeting, a great moment of inspiration can last a matter of seconds and then disappear for no reason. There is no way to have a guaranteed stimulation of these creative senses, I just go out and give it my best shot. Often times a certain piece of equipment can be the source of inspiration for me. The reverse can be true too though! I can tell you certain things that can easily kill a creative inspiration once it happens, and number one on that list is having to fiddle with the camera body! Even if its something as simple as changing white balance, or how the AF points are laid out, can be enough to destroy a creative moment for me. I have become very sensitive to my body (not my physical body, my camera body), and even so much as a button out of place, or the programming of said buttons can interrupt my creativity, thereby making me a worse photographer. I realize I'm starting to sound a bit like a Howard-Hughes-eccentric-type, but the point is, that's me, that's how I work, and yes a different (notice I didn't say more expensive, just different) camera body can inspire me to take better and sometimes worse pictures than another camera body. I suspect at least at some level a lot of photographers can relate, and if you can, then I want to hear about it! I suppose one could argue that it doesn't really change a photographer, it simply inspires him one way or another. Its an argument I have no answer for, What I do know is, I've been inspired to the point of change, by moving up to a better camera and by moving down to a lower camera; by changing formats (cropped vs FF), by changing AF systems, by the color rendition of a sensor, etc. Choosing the right camera is very important, and its part of who I am as a photographer, and if you feel the same, or if you feel different, then post!</p>

<p>Skyler--I know that really great and profound photographers can take fabulous pix with pinhole cameras, Holgas, etc etc.<br>

And I think that--at least for me--holding a really nice camera in my hands make me stop and consider what kind of photo to take.<br>

A good camera and lens can make a difference, even if it causes the photographer to slow down a bit and consider...<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Gee, recently, somewhere around here I just saw the phrase, "It's not the arrow, it's the archer".</p>

<p>or was it the other way around? hmmm</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

I believe we got off on the wrong foot, I remember us being in a heated discussion on another forum not long ago.</p>

<p>So let me start over, welcome to my post! I would really like to hear your opinion, so please expound on the "It's not the arrow, its the archer"! I've given my side of the story, please, share yours :).</p>

<p>Yes, you did just see that phrase, and that's what got me thinking about it and decided to open a new post just for it.</p>

 

<p>I think a camera can have a great affect on the photographer. If I were using a pinhole camera I would choose and approach subject very differently than I would with a new digital camera that could capture images in a coal mine at midnight,</p>

Yes, choosing the right camera, both for the task at hand, and for the person using it is important. Is that what you wanted

to know? I'm not sure what your question was.

 

For myself personally, I do not like using autofocus lenses. For what I shoot and the way I shoot, I want to have control over that.

<p>I know, I know. Just rattling your chain a little.</p>

<p>Hell, if people generally held grudges here on P.net, I'd have been driven off long ago. ;)</p>

<p>My personal view on the issue is that the <em>archer</em> is foremost, in the sense that a person with good aim and good 'practice' can substantially overcome the limitations of a poorly fashioned arrow (and bow, too).</p>

<p>However, it surely is easier for a good or bad archer to get passable results with good equipment.</p>

<p>The best equipment is that which facilitates good practice-- like an airplane that flies straight and level when you take your hands off the controls....</p>

<p>Skyler, didn't you just argue in the last few threads around here about how much better the D7000 is, and not to listen to the people that say that stepping up to a better camera should be ignored? This is exactly why we tell new users not to get too sophisticated, because there's so much fiddling that a higher-end body can have, that it gets in the way of many photographers. Yes, a better camera is, well, better, but only in the hands of someone that knows how to use it or specifically needs an obscure feature. I would rather have my D200 than my previous D90, or a D7000, but that is because of the features available to me, while 95% of people will take better photos with a D7000, or even a D3100, than they would with my camera. The reason we tell new users not to worry about getting the better camera is exactly because of the reasons that you posted. I came from years of film experience, was a photographer for a newspaper, and had a formal education in photography, and my upgrade path was: D40, D80, D90, D200. Even with all of my experience, it still took me months to be comfortable with the D40. When I got the D80 about a year later, I definitely noticed that it was a much more intimidating camera; while I could take my D40 out and just shoot with it, or give it to a non-photographer friend/family member with them getting great results, the D80 takes a lot more conscious input, and it doesn't invoke the "just shoot great pictures" feeling that one gets with the introductory-level equipment. To say nothing of the D200, which even my film photographer friends feel uncomfortable using, and that's AFTER I adjust the settings to their liking!</p>

<p>So, if the person is asking which body they want, then it is best to recommend a simpler camera, which will ensure that the person is satisfied and confident. This is not to say that the camera is any less professional, however. A landscape photographer friend wanted a new macro setup, and we settled on a D3100 for him. Now realize, this is someone whose main camera is a Linhof Technika 4x5, and his backup camera is a Linhof 220! He wanted nothing more than a shutter speed dial and Live View, so the D3100 was the camera for him. Basically, someone that will fully utilize a D7000, D300, or D700 is someone that doesn't need to ask others, "Should I get it?" If they don't know if they need the additional features, then they don't need the additional features.</p>

<p>Here goes my 2cents.....IMHO..this is how I perceive it:<br>

1. Tom gets an interest in photography<br>

2. "Hey Bob, love that picture(s) what kinda' camera u got?"<br>

3. "Thanks Tom, it's a Can-O-Niko-Shika with a 10-1000mm zoom"<br>

4. "Got it from Bandhadoramakehbestbuy in New York City on sale"<br>

5. Tom buys camera after reading all the reviews on Popoutdoorphotokenrockwell.<br>

6. Tom starts to fiddle and take pictures afterwhile he can't seem to get the NatGeo pics he was expecting.<br>

7. Posts on PNet that the metering and or focusing is off and that the lens he purchased is junk.<br>

8. Posters on forums tell him he should learn how to use his equip before he complains<br>

9. Or posters on forums tell him that he won't be happy until he buys the latest SonOlyTax with video and 35gazzllion megapickles<br>

10. Tom decides that he would rather learn how to fly fish than be a photographer.<br>

My point in this ramble is that for me on my 3rd digital slr camera and shoot with 3 film cameras I couldn't be happier. If you truly want to be a good photographer I recommend that you simply purchase what you can afford. To me ALL modern digital SLR's of any brand WITH THE KIT lens is probably more than adequate for most average people. I think that all of us that hang out here on PN are not average though...It's all about learning to get the most out of the tools that you have. It is very easy to blame the equipment than to push ourselves to the limit. Myself included. If you know how to use what equipment you have and push yourself to the limit you will succeed. If you don't and don't take responsibility for your own learning, you will suck as a photographer....no matter what you have.<br>

Mark</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I do know is, I've been inspired to the point of change, by moving up to a better camera and by moving down to a lower camera; by changing formats (cropped vs FF), by changing AF systems, by the color rendition of a sensor, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Word is cheap. Show and, say, give us a random blind test...</p>

<p>Skyler, <br>

my self-confidence as a photographer changed over the years with changing technologies and cameras. In the late 90s I've felt rarely restricted in my abilities - my cameras, developing and scanning or printing film - everything seemed to work to my taste and I've even developed some kind of a personal style.<br>

This confidence ended 2000 with the purchase of my 1st DSLR - a Nikon D1. A tiny viewfinder, composing difficulties, massive problems with the digital workflow and so on - the easiness was gone.<br>

It took a couple of years until my self-esteem as a photographer began to rise again - still challenged by the tiny viewfinders I've learned to benefit from the digital technology - exploring multiple, off-camera flash-setups as an example. <br>

Three years ago I've purchased a D700 and I was in heaven - finally a useable viewfinder again, my old Nikkors worked better than ever on it and I started to play/work a lot with ultra-shallow DoF, available-light-photography and so on.<br>

I still make a lot of mistakes and I'm rarely absolutely happy with a picture, but don't feel handicapped by my camera anymore.<br>

At least for me it's important that a camera „feels right” - much more important than megapixel-count and so on. If the D700 had just 6MP I would still prefer this camera over every DX-format camera available today (shooting soccer is the only exception).<br>

And regarding the arrow/archer-phrase: while a bad archer will miss the target with almost every arrow - a good archer would be handicapped by a crooked arrow too. <br>

Cheers, Georg!</p>

<p>The number one fact is that nobody becomes a better photographer by getting a new camera. And the number two fact is that most people aren't evolved enough as photographers to need a new camera. Photography is first and foremost about seeing. And secondly about translating what one sees into a flat print or screen image. Cameras don't have much impact on one's ability to do that, even if they have radically different looks, like a pinhole or a swinging lens panoramic.<br>

<br />Now a lot of people pipe in and say something like "You can't shoot sports with a pinhole camera." While that's true, it's irrelevant to someone's capabilities as a photographer. The fact that someone can't take a certain photo with a specific camera is an indicator of nothing.<br>

<br />I will add that most of the working pros I know have far fewer cameras and lenses than a lot of people on here. What they do have is a lot more lighting equipment (if they shoot studio in particular.) And that's it. I do 80% of my paid work with one lens and one camera. I do 20% of it with a second lens. I do most of my personal work with the same one lens and camera or a lighter one, just for carrying. I'm doing magazine covers, a lot of sports that gets published, portraits and live events. All with very little equipment. What has changed in the last few years came about because I looked at things differently and I learned to use external lights better than I had been. But the equipment didn't change...</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

I entirely agree that photography is foremost about seeing.<br>

And I'm sure that a good, big and bright viewfinder for instance helps a lot to create a photo that reflects/translates the scene one is seeing.</p>

I think that many photographers who began in photography recently with the highly automated digital gear available

today, could become better photographers by switching to a less technologically sophisticated, all-manual film camera.

The images may not be better, but the photographer would become more knowledgeable. Just my highly opinionated

opinion, mind you.

<p>Jeff, I'll agree that photography is first and foremost about seeing (in a feeling sort of way), and that was a primary reason for me to purchase and use a square format film camera for a period of time. I wanted to shake up my view of the world, and looking for compositions in squares rather than rectangles (I don't like to crop if I can avoid it) did exactly that. I'm not going to claim that the square format made me better or worse as a photographer, but it sure was different and hugely enjoyable. I also appreciate your comments about lighting; I think that's an under-appreciated aspect of photography among many photographers.</p>

So I guess, yes, choice of camera can effect your ability as a photographer. But in the opposit way the OP was thinking.

<blockquote>I wanted to shake up my view of the world, and looking for compositions in squares rather than rectangles (I don't like to crop if I can avoid it) did exactly that.</blockquote><p>

<br />I shoot CD covers, which are square, fairly often. I use the same dSLR I use for other things, I just look at the composition and see if it works as a square. Here's an example, I just made sure the composition was square, didn't require a different camera. If I was doing a lot more square shooting, I would just get a screen with etching for a square, just to make it easier, but it's not really a big deal.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirer.com/newdiplomat/content/images/large/357P2212_Edit.jpg" alt="" width="694" height="694" /><br>

<em>New Diplomat</em></center></p>

<p>Cameras are tools and you need the right tool for the job you're doing. However the skill of the person using the tool is the most important factor in the quality of the end product. Still, even the best artisan needs the right tools to do his/her best job.</p>

<p>In the case of photography, my first good camera was a Canon FX. It was a 35mm SLR with the light meter on the outside of the body. It was a good camera, but I had to take a reading with the meter and then transfer it the aperture ring and shutter speed dial, a relatively slow process. My next SLR was a Canon FT. It had through-the-lens metering so it slowed me down less. I still had to match needles in the viewfinder and focus manually. Next came a Canon AE-1 with auto exposure. It speeded thing up even more. Next came a Nikon n6006 with auto focusing. Even faster. </p>

<p>Did this progression of cameras improve my photography. It did in that I missed fewer pictures while adjusting focus and exposure. Would I have done better with an 8008 or F4? I doubt it. The 6006 had all the features I needed for what I shot. I think that's the key. One needs a camera that has the features one need for the kind of shooting he/she does. Features beyond that are nice but not really necessary and will not improve ones photos.</p>

<p>I now mostly use a Nikon D3100. I like it because it's compact, light weight, and still has excellent IQ. Would a D3 or D700 improve my photography? I doubt it. Neither gives me features that I need and that the D3100 doesn't have, and the added size and weight would actually be a hinderence to me.</p>

<p>So the skill of the photographer is most important, but he/she needs a camera that has the features needed for the kind of photos he/she takes. I loved my Canon FT, but my D3100 has greatly improved my photography simply by increasing my percentage of good shots and decreasing my percentage of missed shots. BTW, I can say the same thing about modern zoom lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did this progression of cameras improve my photography. It did in that I missed fewer pictures while adjusting focus and exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That says nothing about the quality of your end results. Percentages are nice things to improve, but that doesn't make photos better.</p>

<p>Yes, the camera can have an effect.</p>

<p>Suppose you have a pinhole camera and you want to photograph a children's birthday party. You can probably make some sort of surrealistic blurry photo of the experience with your pinhole camera, but even sharp snapshots will be outside of your reach.</p>

<p>You go to your local drugstore and purchase a cheap disposable camera with a flash. You go back to the birthday party. Now you can use the flash to freeze the motion of the children. Every photo is reasonably sharp and their expressions are clear in the prints.</p>

<p>Next, someone asks you to photograph the inside of a church. You have full access. The place is closed, and you can take as long as you need to capture the image. Which camera would you take? The disposable with flash or the pinhole? Either might provide interesting results, but personally I think the pinhole might make more interesting images.</p>

<p>So, yes, gear can impact your ability to make images. It can extend or limit the technical aspects of your image making. But gear can't give you a visions. Gear won't help your selection of subjects or how to frame them. Gear can't help you choose a composition or lighting. Gear can't help you make more interesting photos. A piece of gear can't even tell you the best way to make use of its technical features. You have to figure all of these things out for yourself. The better you are at doing this, the more interesting your images will be regardless of the gear that you end up using to take them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As noted above: a camera body is a tool. A camera lens allows the camera body to capture light. You, the photographer, need to understand how the light will be recorded, or shaped, or be colorful, or in a monochrome scene. You, the photographer, need to be quick to respond to a given scene or action...the camera is not capable of picking the moment to expose that next great image.</p>

<p>...and you have to add in a little luck now and then.</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

:D You made me smile. You're alright in my book JDM, you can comment on my posts anytime ;). Thanks for your point of view.</p>

<p>Ariel & Mark, and in general, I'm sorry I've given the wrong approach, what I meant to say, what the purpose of this post is, the only time I see the people discussing the benefits of cameras is when its pro criticizing amateurs, I thought it would be good for pros to discuss with pros how they like the various features and how they improve or make it more difficult to shoot pictures.</p>

<p>I think its 50/50. You can have the greatest vision in the world, but with no gear, you ain't doing nothing, and you can have the greatest gear in the world and no vision and still end up with nothing. Creativity to me is like having a baby, you gotta have a man and woman, just like you got to have a skilled artist and the right tools. Sometimes I feel the tools make me more creative. The first time I got to play around with a 14mm on full frame, oh the creativity that sparked, things I had never imagined. First time I played with a 400mm F/2.8, I never imaged in see the world that way. These are extreme examples, but none the less, these are ways I never really thought of to see the world.</p>

<p>You know I come from the film business, and in the film business we have whats known as a "Director's viewfinder". Its sole purpose is so the director can roam the set, looking through the lens without having a camera, so it serves no purpose other than to let the director see what the world looks like through a specific lens. I believe that walking around with a different lens, or a different format FF vs cropped for an example, allows us sometimes to see creativity we miss. You couldn't do that without gear, that's the artist and the tools working together to breed creativity. I ask myself sometimes, if I walk around with an 85mm will I miss a shot if I had walked around with a 24mm? Or vice versa? How do you ever learn new things if you already have the vision and can already take amazing pictures with the camera you have?</p>

<p>Leslie, with no disrespect, but I'm not offering something you can judge. I felt a new beginning the first time I looked through a viewfinder, it was the same and yet it was different, it inspired me to try new things, to try old things on the new format. I'm offering you my personal experience, which is when I tried new things it changed me.</p>

<p>Jeff, why couldn't someone become a better photographer by getting a new camera? For an example, if I shot DX my whole life, and I suddenly bought a FX camera, even if it were an old 35mm film camera, that would open up a whole new world I didn't know, and perhaps that would spark something inside of me to try something in a new way, to have a new birth in creativity, does that not in some part make you a better photographer from that kind of experience? I feel it did me.</p>

<p>Why is it that we photographers are expected to have the vision prior to taking a photo? Is it a crime to discover creativity while one is shooting, and is it ridiculous that your gear plays a part in discovering that creativity, that vision?</p>

<p>I agree, Frank, I think going backward to older equipment will force the photographer to be apart of this gear\artist relationship, and it was as I was thinking :).</p>

<p>Mark, interesting point of view! Thanks for the input :).</p>

<p>Dan, fascinating view point! I loved the pinhole vs flash comparison. I agree, I don't think gear can give a you vision, but if you have a feeling already, but not something that has yet materialized into a thought, have you ever considered that by playing around with gear, that one can materialize his\her vision? As you don't know what you are looking for till you see it, and you can't see it till you have the right gear to see it with.</p>

<p>Jerry, I loved the luck comment and how true it is! Regardless of your talent and\or gear level, sometimes a little truly goes a long ways! And thanks for pointing out the importance of light, because ultimately light is in its various forms is what we are photographing!</p>

<p>Thank you all for input, it was very interesting to read everyone's points of view. I think this is an age old question and I'm pleased to discussing it with fine photographers such as yourselves.</p>

<p>As a side note, I am a very technical person, I can pick up a camera and master it in very little time. The first time I got my hands on a Pro Nikon body was a D3s, having some experience with my D90 I jumped right in, and within an hour I was really comfortable with at least 75% of its features, and by the end of the first day (which was about 4 hours with it), I had completely mastered every aspect of the camera except flash functions as I had no flash, and I had not even seen a Pro body of any kind prior to that day. So for me, every part of the body of a camera is important, its what I understand best and how I channel my creativity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie, with no disrespect, but I'm not offering something you can judge. I felt a new beginning the first time I looked through a viewfinder, it was the same and yet it was different, it inspired me to try new things, to try old things on the new format. I'm offering you my personal experience, which is when I tried new things it changed me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not debating that a camera can't change the photog, just that it doesn't make the shooter better. I have used RF, SLR, P&S, MF, DSLR, Mirrorless, phonecams, polariods etc... </p>

<p>The myth that somehow equipment makes one a better photographer has existed for the 38 years I've been a photographer and existed for decades before that. And what have those years given me from using just about every type of camera and lens, film and digital, ever made? Perspective. Sure, I believed it once myself. If only I had a real SLR instead of this old, obsolete rangefinder then I could really see my picture, imagine the pictures I could take if my SLR had that fancy auto exposure feature, actually in the camera, then that would free me to really take good candids, I simply must have autofocus. With such technology the sky is the limit. Then, I must have faster auto focus, better metering to truly make my creativity flow. Zoom lenses were the keys to great composition. Then "better" zooms were required.Who could possibly make good pictures without the highest optical "IQ". Then larger/smaller formats because of the advantages they offered, then, the holy grail, digital. And better digital and, let's not forget the major key ingredient for creative flow, having the camera buttons in the perfect right places. And so it goes. </p>

<p>In looking back, none of it made any difference to the quality of pictures I made. Yes, some gear helps you make certain <em>types</em> of pictures but none of it helped me make<em> better</em> pictures. <strong>Not a single thing</strong>, no camera, lens,or feature ever made me more creative, more willing to get out of bed before sunrise, or be able to approach strangers better or help make my compositions better. No camera design ever made me feel more deeply or see the beauty of life better. The only thing the change of gear did was to change the <em>way</em> I worked, not the <em>why</em> I worked.</p>

<p>That's when It came to me, like a bolt of lightning, that the path to better picture making was inside of me, not something external to me. Self examination helped me more than matrix metering. Maintaining a child-like curiosity about the magic of light helped me more than zoom lenses. Becoming more sensitive to others helped more than well organized menu systems. Passion, preparation and sheer persistence helped me far more than more precise auto focus or optics with higher "IQ". In the end, it's all about who you are inside that makes the real difference in the pictures you make.</p>

<p>Sometimes I think all this touchy-feely stuff is difficult to discuss, especially for men. It's easier to talk about camera specs and features than emotions. The search for the "right camera" is easier than the search for self-realization. Perhaps there is a fear that, under it all, one doesn't "have it" artistically. I say we all have "it". Let go of the camera and watch your creativity bloom. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm a professional photographer who also served an apprenticeship as a carpenter. Five years of learning all about wood. When I started I used a crappy old hammer and could start with a nail and two pieces of wood and after some intense flailing the nail was fully 'home' and the wood joined. There were a few hammer marks in the wood, and the nail was slightly bent, but I managed. Although my shoulder hurt after a few hours.</p>

<p>Today I use a well worn Estwing, whose grip my brain recognises, and I can start with a nail and two pieces of wood and after only a few wrist flicks, the nail is 'home' and the wood joined. And I can do this below me, above me, to the side of me, even upside down. I can even start the nail into the wood only using one hand, hammer AND nail in the same hand. And I can do this all day with no effort or pain.</p>

<p>When I started I did not appreciate how much difference a well balanced hammer made, what difference a certain grip shape makes, what difference a face-angle makes to hitting a nail.</p>

<p>Funny thing is, I can now do the same with a crappy old hammer too. They must make better crappy hammers today than they did years ago I guess!</p>

<p> </p>