The camera really doesn't matter

<p>I just came from Borders where I looked through a magazine called "Digital Camera Photographer Photos of the Year 2008". They list equipment used and the thing that struck me how little discernible difference there is on the printed page (and these were large pages) between the lowly point and shoots and the top of the line full frame sensor cameras. </p>

Camera's don't make photographers, but they do matter. Wander into a hardware store and look at the hammer section. Why the heck are there so many of a certain type. Different handle shapes, sizes, weights. It's because people who use hammers all day want one that fits them. I think it's the same with cameras. The better the fit of the camera, the better a photographer can be.

<p>Tony has a good point. An already good photographer can do even better with higher quality equipment. On the other hand, buying really expensive equipment won't help someone with no skills, talent, training etc. etc.<br>

<br />Personally, I was amazed at the quality of shots out of my very first little point and shoot Nikon Coolpix s10 with 6 megapixels and 10x zoom. The next one (I just bought) a Nikon P90 with 12 megapixels and 24x zoom is even more amazing.<br>

<br />Someday when I have way too much money, I will go up to the Nikon D300 level, but since my lottery tickets are not cooperating, that will be a long, long time from now ;)</p>

<p>As a professional photographer who is also a carpenter, I have used the same Estwing hammer for 35 years, I can attest to the value of a quality tool that 'fits'. I can nail close in using panel pins, or at arms length onto the head of 6inch wire nails, and tackle everything in between. But, you know the funny thing is - I can do the same with any hammer. And even more strange - its the same with cameras too............</p>

<p>Tony's comparison is good. I personally love my wood handled 16oz claw hammer, but frankly when doing any sizable amount of construction I reach for a 22oz steel haft framing hammer, even though I don't like it as much, it just does a better job when banging 12d nails all day long. I reach for my ball peen hammer when I need to whack on some metal (such as riveting).</p>

<p>Similar experience here, I'm an auto-mechanic and my tool box (Snap-On) is stocked full of Snap-On tools (it has to be up around the $45,000 mark not counting diagnostic equipment).<br>

When you use something day in and day out, you want them to 'fit' - both in form and function. It's true, I could do the same work with Craftsman tools (which are normally less than half the price of Snap-On) in most likely the same amount of time but the Snap-On stuff just feels better to work with.<br>

At home, Canadian Tire's "Pro" series is good enough for the little use they get.<br>

And L.J. LOL at the lottery comment - so true.</p>

<p>Just because they seemed comparable in a magazine (where only the best-looking p/s photos were included) does not mean they are equals.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think that many of us have been grabbed by market hype about certain cameras and camera systems. I can see the difference when pixel peeping, but when my photo book comes back with examples from many different cameras the differences are really insignificant.</p>

<p>A professional photographer and carpenter? Seems like there ought to be a joke in there somewhere:</p>

 

<h1>Motto: "Either way he nails it." </h1>

<p>?<br>

Sorry, it's just this irrepressable sense of whimsey, it must have been the radishes I ate....</p>

<p> I have that hefty magazine. They included many of the best pictures from DSLRs, too. Don't kid yourself: Under good lighting conditions, many upper-end P&S's can easily make very decent 11x14's or bigger.</p>

<p> I think the camera matters, particularly with digital, but no matter how good, it is no better than the man behind it when it comes to an interesting picture. A technically perfect boring picture is still a yawner. The grainy, contrasty pictures from _The Americans_ still brings in tens of thousands of people to look at it. The camera matters, but the photographer matters more.</p>

<p> Great magazine, btw...</p>

Everything matters.

<p>The camera is only a tool. Sometimes a better tool lets you do a better job, But you still need to know how to do the job and what you want to do.<br>

<br /> Cameras are important, but not the most important item. Pinhole cameras without lenes have taken classic photos. If I had to pick the most important item in photography, its - YOU.<br>

<br /> You just want a camera that doesn't hold you back for what you want to do.</p>

<p>Of course the tools matter. But not always the best known brand or the more expensive fancy product will be better for your needs.</p>

<p>I was watching Eric Clapton a few days ago in an "unplugged" session...and now,reading this thread I was reminded of something I learned about guitar playing years ago. A cheap guitar will always sound like a cheap guitar...even if Clapton is playing it. Sure, Eric could woo the cheap guitar into sounding much better than the average guy...but even <br />Eric can't get the same sound guality out of that $20 guitar as he could with a Martin that's had a few decades in which the wood can age and the tonal quality mellows.</p>

<p>But back to talking cameras...it's not just the matter of picture quality, and though important...it's not just about using a camera that "feels right" to the photographer. It's about using the right camera for the right situation. I was talking to a rather accomplshed photographer last year and we discussed this same subject. He brought up the fact that although he mostly uses a $40,000 Hasselblad...that some of his photographs have required the use of a $20 Holga.</p>

<p><strong><em>I think the camera matt</em></strong><strong><em>ers, particularly with digital, but no matter how good, it is no better than the man behind it when it comes to an interesting picture. A technically perfect boring picture is still a yawner</em></strong></p>

<p>While I largely agree with this statement, what is missing is that in most cases the "technically perfect" photograph can also be an "interesting" photograph. While "imperfect" photographs can certainly be "good photographs", I doubt that most of us go out for a shoot with the intent that we'll make technically "bad" photographs...and that as long as these shots are "interesting"....the technical stuff doesn't matter. But if we do think this way...I suppose what camera we use would be the least of our worries...</p>

<p>They list equipment used and the thing that struck me<strong><em> how little discernible difference there is on the printed page (and these were large pages) between the lowly point and shoots and the top of the line full frame sensor cameras.</em></strong></p>

<p>"Discernible" to who? The guy whose eye has been keenly trained over a half-century of shooting photographs ...or the hack like me? </p>

<p><strong><em>The camera really doesn't matter...</em></strong><br>

<em></em> <br>

With all respect, I think it's such a ridiculous assertion on so many levels that a whiole series of books could be dedicated to the subject. <br>

<em></em> </p>

<p>I would say look at copy of the magazine before you call my assertion ridiculous.</p>

<p>". . . how little discernable difference . . . "</p>

<p>Here's a point that other people have brought to my attention a couple of times; I've been prone to overlook it:<br /> When people are buying digital cameras, it's akin to: they're buying a camera and a large supply of film at the same time.</p>

<p>Without getting bogged down in technical specifics, that film is big contributor to the physical structure of our syntax. What it is, the qualities of its response, how we developed it, and so on. These are all contributing factors. Digital sensors are in some way, kind of like buying an emulsion that's available in a wide variety of speeds. With film, for a hundred dollars, we may can buy small samples of a dozen varieties, easily. That same money, in a digital photography spending plan, will yield a more forms of the same kinds of recordings.</p>

<p>There's a subtle difference in there. Not to say one is right or wrong, but in a way, the physical structure of the recordings do contribute to the parameters of the syntax. Add in some unified editing criteria, and maybe it's not so unusual that so many digital photos would look similar if made with many cameras.</p>

<p>For example, what if you had a hundred photographers who ran several different film formats, through a bunch of different cameras, but all of their work was unified by pretty much the same emulsion?</p>

<p>The digital cameras have their advantages. But, a lot things could change with a camera body, but if you're using that camera body, there's really only so much deviation from a basic design plan. In some senses, a 12 megapixel will be a 12 megapixel sensor size. In there somewhere will be a core, unifying structure, whose unity and commonality we may not recognize if we don't have a refined understanding of what those sensors are and how they work. A refined approach might seem to emphasize the hardware differences; but, I'm sure that, just as with emulsion construction, there are certain unifying aspects of sensor structures.</p>

<p>There are only going to be so many ways to cram the same number of eggs in a basket.</p>

<p>I empathize with the wonder expressed in the OP, but I have to wonder also, how much of this unity goes back to the sameness in structure? People will see this more and more, and I think, maybe in so many years or whatever, we'll see a trend in customizing or individualizing the digital hardware of the camera. Like the EyeFi wireless cards, using the available jacks to add on more logic-based accessories. Or, maybe a rise of cheaper, more common interchangeable backs. As a film photographer switches between formats and emulsions, maybe we'll also see the rise of interchangeable backs or sensor packs. They're out there, but it's going to take a while for this technology to become ubiquitous, assuming it's not more swiftly replaced by something else.</p>

<p>Then, too, syntax can only do so much. In many respects, I'm more inclined to agree that the camera doesn't matter. If the photographer is capable, all he will need is a basic understanding of a camera that's in basic working order for most projects.</p>

<p>Cameras and lens do matter, when it comes to the quailty of the image, but what really counts is the photographer and the compostion. Tom</p>

<p>Like Gordon said, "Everything matters". You can't diminish one thing or the other. Image quality counts, the camera, counts, the lens counts, the composition counts, and of course the photographer counts. Is there really even a need for that to be pointed out more than once?</p>

<p>Sorry, Sanford, nice try but you still can't post your Olympus photos to the <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00TkEF">Nikon WedNEsDAy PiC</a> threads.</p>

<p>BTW, John, I think Clapton plays a Guild in those unplugged sessions, not a Martin. I tried that same Guild. I still sounded like crap.</p>

<p>Great photography and carpentry both spring from between the ears, not the hands. Tools are unimportant. A master can create excellance with a minimalist gear. Top of the line widgets don't make greatness.</p>

A quote from a former fellow worker,"A poor workman blames his tools, a poor workman usually has lousy tools".

<p>Lex, I don't try that anymore. I tried to start an "Olympus Photo of The Week" but haven't had many takers.</p>

<p>As a professional photographer who is also a carpenter, I have used the same Estwing hammer for 35 years, I can attest to the value of a quality tool that 'fits'. I can nail close in using panel pins, or at arms length onto the head of 6inch wire nails, and tackle everything in between. But, you know the funny thing is - I can do the same with any hammer. And even more strange - its the same with cameras too............<br>

Hammering 6 inch nails with a camera? Better mount a long lens to get proper leverage.</p>

<p>As a professional photographer who is also a carpenter, I have used the same Estwing hammer for 35 years, I can attest to the value of a quality tool that 'fits'. I can nail close in using panel pins, or at arms length onto the head of 6inch wire nails, and tackle everything in between. But, you know the funny thing is - I can do the same with any hammer. And even more strange - its the same with cameras too............<br>

Hammering 6 inch nails with a camera? Better mount a long lens to get proper leverage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I tried to start an "Olympus Photo of The Week" but haven't had many takers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell 'em to quit whining about the E-P1 and use the cameras they already have. Works wonders for morale. Beat fretting over woulda-coulda-shoulda about a camera that didn't meet their expectations.</p>