A light observation on Gear vs. Talent

[joshroot]

<p>The analogy isn't just "not perfect" Bob, it's useless. People with $5000 cameras aren't in danger of killing anyone on the road like someone in a Viper is. Cameras aren't cars. I'm not even sure why you would bring it up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have something that geatly exceeds both your skill level and your understanding, you are in trouble. Most users barely understand how to operate entry level DLSRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"In trouble" with who? If people want to spend their money on a camera before they know how to use it, who is anyone here to tell them they shouldn't? It's their money and they should spend it on whatever makes them happy. Particularly if they aren't harming anyone else. The idea that someone should have to somehow "earn" the right to own a particular camera is as laughable as it is elitist.</p>

<p>In addition, I never said anything about an advantage or a disadvantage in what a beginner owns. I didn't even say anything about "talent" or how it might or might not "shine through". My point is that it isn't for anyone here to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do with their money or for their enjoyment and that I am amazed that people have been so overly obsessed with this conversation over the past decade.</p>

[User_276104]

<p ><strong><em>Scott Wilson:<br /> </em> </strong><br>

<em>Eric, can we ask how much you paid for your trumpet?</em></p>

<p>The one I perform on every night cost US $1,185.00 in 2001.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I have a friend who has lots of money but is not all that much into photography. He went from a Sony CyberShot 707 to a 5D mark II. It was the HD video that was part of the reason for him getting the 5D II, but I can tell you that his photos are looking way better now then there were with the 707. It does not matter one little bit if someone thinks that they are some kind of photographic genius who could take great shots with the 707, he is photographing the things he wants to photograph, not the things you might want to. The photos that are much improved at the ones where he is shooting inside with available light.<br>

　<br>

I had another friend who was an average bowler, I beat him a bit more then he beat me. We were all using $20 bowling balls at the time. One day he comes in with a new $80 ball, and now was winning most of the time. But much more then that the better ball allowed him to learn better technique.</p>

<p>Better gear is not all it takes, but it sure can help.</p>

</p>

[joshroot]

Bob,

 

I believe I need to apologize. I thought "tosh" was a typo directed at me. However, it appears more likely that you were

using a british slang term that I was unaware of. Probably in reply to the post starting with "rubbish".

 

My apologies for my own confusion.

[akgraham]

<p>Ken Doherty, former World Amateur and later World Professional Snooker Champion, has played his entire career with a warped cue randomly selected from the cue rack in his local snooker club. The club manager originally wanted £5 for it but Doherty got it for £2. "I must be one of the few professionals playing with a warped cue, but I wouldn't dream of changing it. I have got used to holding it in a certain way, with my eye trained on a piece of grain".</p>

<p>My liking for cameras and other gadgets is a parallel but separate interest from my photography and is about the joy of using more than image quality or any artistic reason. That said, my beloved film rangefinder has very different limitations from my DSLR, and if my livelihood depended on it I know which I'd use most.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Josh, are you saying the advertisements aren't true? You mean I'm not going to shave 10 strokes off my game. Now I just don't know what to believe any more.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Josh - sorry. Yes, "Tosh" is indeed a british term meaning Foolish nonsense, not a typo for "Josh". No offense taken! I guess I should have said "Piffle".</p>

<p>A beginner buying an EOS 1Ds MkIII and a bagfull of "L" lenses is indeed doing nobody any harm (except possibly to themself). It's just a question of learning to walk before you can run and I suspect it may be easier to learn how an EOS XS works than it is to learn how an EOS 1Ds MkIII works. The more adjustable parameters you have the more confused a beginner is likely to get. But as you say, it does no harm to anyone else.</p>

<p>Most of the objections are probably based on jealousy. Few of us can afford to indulge ourselves to the extent of "top of the line" gear and there's resentment that a neophyte can.</p>

<p>We have to remember of course that this is America, where success depends on how much money you can throw at something. Whether that's $10,000 to get the best camera or $100 million to become mayor of New York, it's the American way. It's positively unamerican to think that anything but the very best can be "good enough". Indeed the very concept of "good enough" is almost sacrilege.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Josh - sorry. Yes, "Tosh" is indeed a british term meaning Foolish nonsense, not a typo for "Josh". No offense taken! I guess I should have said "Piffle".</p>

<p>A beginner buying an EOS 1Ds MkIII and a bagfull of "L" lenses is indeed doing nobody any harm (except possibly to themself). It's just a question of learning to walk before you can run and I suspect it may be easier to learn how an EOS XS works than it is to learn how an EOS 1Ds MkIII works. The more adjustable parameters you have the more confused a beginner is likely to get. But as you say, it does no harm to anyone else.</p>

<p>Most of the objections are probably based on jealousy. Few of us can afford to indulge ourselves to the extent of "top of the line" gear and there's resentment that a neophyte can.</p>

<p>We have to remember of course that this is America, where success depends on how much money you can throw at something. Whether that's $10,000 to get the best camera or $100 million to become mayor of New York, it's the American way. It's positively unamerican to think that anything but the very best can be "good enough". Indeed the very concept of "good enough" is almost sacrilege. If you couple that with the belief that anyone can do anything and nothing is anyone's fault, it's obvious why many people think that all they need is better gear to take better photographs.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Actually, instruments are often described as "solo quality". And you will find plenty of musical instrument ads with the same sort of wording, although adjusted slightly for context instead of the silly "fill in the blanks" substitution you made.</p>

<p>Photography is no different than music, you hit a point of dimishing returns that still has pros spring for $50,000 medium format digital backs or solid gold hand built flutes with platinum headjoints (and let's not even get into violins that hit $2M at auction).</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I had a chance to play James Galway’s gold flute a number of years ago, but my level of play is such that I just could not do it in front of him. Neat guy however.</p>

</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Maybe we all need gold Leicas?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M3/M3-Gold/index.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M3/M3-Gold/index.htm</a></p>

<p>

They must take <em>really</em> good pictures.

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>I saw an interview of Quincy Jones...he had a small story in the same vein:<br />"Put a Piano and one million dollar in bank notes next to each other and you still don't have a good melody as they don't talk to each other"....<br>

<br />It's the same in every field, you need people and their curiosity and skills to produce something...tools are OK and have consequences in that it shapes to some extent the work you can do with them...but you can have curiosity & creativity with any tools...</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think people walk up to Wynton Marsalis and say, "That must be a good trumpet."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although it probably is.</p>

[stan_schurman1]

<p>Having good equipment doesn't hurt, but buying a $600.00 tennis racket wont make you Roger Federer either. The analogies go on and on.</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a>, I do not agree that a owning a camera make a good photographer, there are millions of people in this world having cameras but the ant photographers by any means.</p>

<p>You can have a brush in hand but thats do not make you a painter, Art is a gift and if you do not have that gift you will never be an artist.</p>

<p>Sorry my friend for my replay to your statment, I do not mean being rude , wishing you all of the best my friend.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I agree with Bob. I'll teach a trumpet player about photography for an hour, and the trumpet player will teach me to play the trumpet for an hour. I bet the trumpet player takes a decent photograph long before I play a decent trumpet tune. :) </p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p> I'll keep this in mind when I buy my next set of golf clubs! I'll make sure I buy a set that "hits good shots". JJ</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I myself am a scratch golfer, but I am willing to bet that Tiger Woods on his worst day could beat me using a set of K-Mart golf clubs..and I have very expensive clubs. LOL</p>

<p>That being said, there are many images I capture that would not be possible witjh a P&S.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'll teach a trumpet player about photography for an hour, and the trumpet player will teach me to play the trumpet for an hour. I bet the trumpet player takes a decent photograph long before I play a decent trumpet tune. :) "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, your analogy carries a hint of teaching old dogs new tricks.</p>

<p>Try this: Give a 4 year old any camera you wish (with lessons), and give the same child a piano and piano lessons. Assuming the child pursues both with equal enthusiasm, I bet she'll be an accomplished pianist long before a photographer of the same caliber.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>... I am willing to bet that Tiger Woods on his worst day could beat me using a set of K-Mart golf clubs ...</em></p>

<p>Perhaps, but he wouldn't expect to beat the players he need to beat as often as he needs to beat them (the beat goes on - kabam!).</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe we all need gold Leicas? ... They must take <em>really</em> good pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Flutes are a bit different. Material itself makes a difference in the sound. It's sort of like the way adding rare earths to glass to raise the index of refraction and/or lower dispersion (ED, SD, SLD, etc) reduces aberrations and makes for better images.</p>

<p>And, whether it's photography or music</p>

<ul>

<li>the well practiced artist knows how to squeeze the last bit of performance out of the tool, and the newbie doesn't.</li>

<li>a top pro photographer, a concert musician, a race driver, and a pro golfer all need those last few percent of performance to compete against the other pros in their field.</li>

</ul>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>Most people aren't in a place to be getting the last few percent of performance out of their photographic equipment. Most will be lucky to get image which show more than 25% of what could be done (and I'm being generous here).</p>

<p>For example, all we see here on photo.net are small image samples. Maybe 800 pixels wide. Any digital camera with any lens can create images of this size with excellent quality. There's no technical reason why 100% of the shots posted are not superb. They would be no better taken with a 24MP camera then a 6MP camera, nor would they be any better taken with an expensive lens than a consumer zoom or maybe even a P&S. Yet most of what gets posted is mediocre at best. Clearly better equipment is not the solution to the problem of creating better images.</p>

[akgraham]

<p>So by Bob's logic perhaps I'd better sell my tennis racquet - I'll never make a grand slam final now! Dispose of mountain bike and road racing bike, also motorbikes (<em>hardly</em> ever ridden flat out), woodworking tools, fishing rods etc...</p>

 

 

<p>As we all know that talent is the distinguishing feature rather than engineering, technology or price, why does it annoy anyone to see some people with phenomenal camera equipment? This dog in the manger attitude is most unbecoming and says more about the disgruntled person than it does about the subject of their annoyance.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Nope, you should just practice your tennis and ride your motorcycle (I ride mine, even in winter at times, and I do use WOT when I need to and it's safe to!). A new fishing rod probably won't make you a better fisherman and a new motorcycle won't make you a better rider (or allow you to ride much faster unless you race on a track). No need to get rid of them, just use them and learn.</p>

<p>Ther are things that can't be done simply by throwing money at the problem. It's not that anyone objects to people with phenomenal gear who are producing phenomenal results, or even to people with phenomenal gear producing crap results. The problem (for anyone who wants to help others with their photography) is those who believe and those who advise that better gear is the quick and easy route to success. Or those who advise upgrading simply because the new [item] is a little "better".</p>

<p>I've lost track of the number of times I see a post along the lines of "Should I upgrade my [insert item here]", yet who are unable to articulate just why they want to upgrade and what they think the upgrade will do for their photography.</p>

<p>From a purely commercial and self interested point of view, I'm happy when people buy new gear and the more expensive it is the better - as long as they do so via a link either here on photo.net or on my website! If they can afford it, why not. New gear is fun, in fact for some people it's most of the fun of photography. We all like toys. However if someone I knew came to me and asked what they could do to improve their images, in very few cases would my answer be to go out and "upgrade" their cameras and lenses. Sometimes it might be to buy a specific lens for a particular purpose, but rarely would it be to trade their "MkI" lens for the "MkII" version.</p>

[swilson]

<p>For Bob Atkins,</p>

<p>

<p>For the most part it is not about the number of pixels, and this is not what separates a good camera from a poor one anyway. The things I find that help more are good low light performance, good focus even in low light, being able to shoot in raw mode, low shutter lag. For much of my shooting a good sharp long lens is also a huge help. I have been delighted at how much easier it is for me to get a good shot then it was even 10 years ago.<br>

　<br>

It is very hard for someone to try and tell me the camera does not matter, when I have seen a huge improvement in my photos when I went from point and shoot cameras to a DSLR. I don’t buy the latest and greatest, I used a 350D for close to 4 years and only went to a 50D when I killed the 350D. I do have one really nice lens, a 300mm F/4 IS L, I am getting photos with this lens that I did not even try to get in the past.<br>

　<br>

I do think there is diminishing returns as you go to higher and higher end gear, but this is a long way from saying that it is the photographer and not the camera, since from what I have seen most people out there have pretty poor cameras.</p>

<p>If someone wants to really get into photography I would never advise them to buy a cheap P&S, a low end DLSR in my mind would be a much better place to start. I went through this with my wife, we started out with her using a P&S, she was not happy with many of the photos she was getting, so we got her a 20D. It is not hard to tell which photos were taken with the 20D and which ones were taken with the P&S. Thinking back on she should have just started out with the 20D.</p>

</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>Depends on what you're shooting. Sometimes it doesnt matter, sometimes it does. But, i have had people say "you have a good camera (translation: you've spent a lot of money), no wonder you take good photos"... no... i've taken a couple ok photos because i've put the time and effort forth to learn the craft, both while shooting and reading. Theres a Jack London, supposedly, that goes like this: he gets a portrait done and tells the photographer "thats a great image, you must have a good camera", to which the photographer replies "you must have a great pencil, to write such good stories."</p>