Your camera doesn't matter

[lachaine]

<p>In my other hobby, the forums are full of people who think they need to own a $10,000 Lance Armstrong-approved road racing bike from Trek in order to ride around their town for fitness. I happen to know a little bit more about bikes than I do cameras, and I can guarantee that they don't need the Lance Armstrong bike even to actually race, let alone ride around the park. Every hobby that depends on some kind of machine or instrument is the same.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>But the issue is, if you were entering the Tour de France, could you do so with just any old bike? I'm no expert in bike racing, but my guess is, you could try, but you'd fail miserably.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>That's the whole point of the debate!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lonnie,<br>

Who said that besides you? The debate was too broad you say but most everyone dealt with that. Then the Tour and Lance and a Nikon7000 is a Lomo on steroids... . Nobody really said that yet.</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>My question is: has the OP raised a real question in which she is seriously interested in? I don't see her engaging at all after throwing out a "what do you think" line. Just saying...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Zlight - does it matter? I sometimes feel a little unappreciated if I've expended some effort in trying to answer a technical question (and others have done so) and there's no sign that the person who asked it has bothered to check back - but on this forum, I assume threads are started to kick off a discussion. I'd never assume anyone wanted to listen to me. :-) Besides, I think it's valid to sit back and listen; if the original poster has nothing to add, it's commendable not to say anything. That's really something I should learn.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<blockquote>

<p>The debate was too broad you say...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I didn't say that. I said the statement "Equipment doesn't matter" is too broad. I said nothing regarding the scope of the debate about that statement.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>In my pre-digital days I went out shooting with a 50mm prime and a Soligor 70-200 "macro" lens. On hitting the darkroom I wondered why some photos really popped and others looked flat and dull. It didn't take long to figure out that the good photos came from the prime and the bad ones came from the Soligor zoom. These were photos takes with the same lighting, the same conditions, on the same day, on the same subjects, using the same film, and I found very different results. </p>

<p>When I upgraded from a film SLR to a Canon 20D, the Canon 20D came with a truly awful kit lens. I was horrified to see that my brand new very expensive camera was taking much lower quality photos than the film SLR. On buying a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 everything got better, and the 20D became my favorite for several years. </p>

<p>When I was doing scientific and sample photography using an optical breadboard with camera mounts, an X-Y-Z stage for the specimens, and focusing rails made focusing with a MP-E 65 a lot easier. Could someone take those photos with a cell phone camera? No. Could we have done it with just a tripod and a less capable macro lens? They would not have been as good. I would have preferred a modern digital microscope, but we had the camera equipment and optics equipment laying around from other projects and you can buy a lot of Canon 1Ds cameras for the price of a good microscope. </p>

<p>Once your equipment hits a certain level it becomes less important, but lousy equipment can wreck things pretty quickly. One last observation, people who claim that equipment doesn't matter typically have very good equipment. </p>

[rossb]

<p> The proper tool for the job works for many people. I have found a camera that works well is real good. Probably the two times I failed miserable was the two times my Tripod failed to function. One time was because It fell 100 feet onto some rocks and the other time was my Bogen Ballhead frooze up and would not work. At home I took it apart and found a tiny pebble worked it's way inside and jammed it tight. Well actually I used to own a Mamiya medium format and the back fell off while shooting. That was not fun as the latch broke. The photos were still good however except 2 or 3 frames. Anyway a camera and gear that works for the duration of the project is good. </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons....</p>

<p>For a question or subject which has been considered a bit ridiculous, low end, or banal, this thread now has accumulated 83 responses. Although some of the posters obviously consider the discussion beneath them, they did post. Additionally, I'm just low end enough to think open discussions are a good thing amongst free citizens (unlike my betters). </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p> </p>

[zlight_b]

<p>Andrew, maybe you are right...it's nice to have open-ended questions that generate some discussion. At the same time however, a few days ago Matt Laur made these observations regarding the OP - and I happen to agree with him:<br>

Matt Laur: "<em>Not that I'm a cynic or anything, but I've seen enough of such things, including posts like this that come on the heels of a relatively new (three weeks) member's asking of several generic photography questions that he or she never returns to. No follow-up on those threads, and no social graces (thanking PN's members for their generous and sometimes detailed responses). That's classic window dressing to set up an user profile with some history, the better to disguise the inevitable blog-flogging, later. Which is what this is, I suspect. If I'm wrong, it's because the coincidence, history, and pattern-matching factors are so strong. My gut says that this thread should be titled "What is your secret for getting people to visit your web site?" If not, then I'll be both surprised and contrite."</em><br>

In the end however, I guess nothing does matter :) (Am I getting tired of these generic questions posted by the OP? Yes! But is it the end of the world for me, No!)<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"we fall in love with our tools and the art and the science of photography becomes the less important ingredient."</p>

<p>There's a good thought.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>If better equipment can inspire you to do better, than it's worth it. If it doesn't inspire you, and you don't need it for technical reasons, than it's just an ego trip. </p>

[indraneel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It's a question of mind over matter; if you don't mind it doesn't matter"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought that was from Calvin and Hobbes! Gee, I must be getting younger by the minute!<em><br /></em></p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"If better equipment can inspire you to do better, than it's worth it"</p>

<p>New toys become old toys when the newest toy arrives. How many new toys do you need to be inspired? Or, is it just a case of having a new toy because it's a new toy...or, should I say tool.</p>

<p>Sort of strange really how the old masters got by with their ancient tools. Of course we all take far superior photos now with our new super tools ....and the photos just keep getting better and better as the new toys...ooops, I mean tools arrive.</p>

<p>Or, do they?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Below, two photos, same sceene, one with camera phone and other with a pro camera and pro lens... <strong>equipment MATTERS A LOT</strong>... whether you are racing road bikes or pushing photography to your limits!</p><div></div>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Which is which? Pushing limits to do what? A snapshot is a snapshot.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I know that messengering is hardly a competitive sport either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A.T. You haven't experienced the no gears, no brakes, bike messengers here in Boston! Check out the hair raising utube stuff on that. Lomography is NOT "low quality". It is quality with a difference.</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>Just a throwaway Alan, relax.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p><strong>Four legs good, two legs better! From Animal Farm - George Orwell</strong><br /> I am not professional, I have Canon 5D as well as Panasonic LX3. Both are great camera <strong>BUT</strong> 5D is a more great !.<br /> This is at lest from high ISO - LOW NOISE point of view.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p><strong>After reading kenrockwell article:</strong><br /> Definitely kenrockwell meant too many in his wonderful article and he didn’t went for special type of photography like Sport, Astrophotography, Underwater, Microphotography and for a Large final print. Yes the camera doesn't matter and he gave an excellent example for this case <a href="http://www.kirstengallon.com/" target="_blank">Kirsten Gallon</a>. Beside this we are in a digital era and there are a lot of effects that we can do in post processing instead of buying a good equipment. Here you can read another GREAT article talking about the same thought.<br /> <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</a></p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Museeb - thanks for the GREAT article. I wonder if mid-format has managed to catch up with digicams by now? The article was from 2008. The G12 or Sony NEX-5 are the new benchmarks.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><strong>Ken P.</strong> Not dissing your pictures except that your demo didn't work because of screen limitations of 72DPI. I'll be interested in your comments on Musseeb's reference to digicam comparo.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p><em>- " <strong>most cameras are better than most photographers</strong></em><strong> " </strong>This has always been true, and now simply more so than ever.<br /> - I am not saying that a Mercedes and a Honda Civic are comparable, but I am saying that for <strong>some people</strong> they'll both get you where you're going<br /> <em><strong>Michael Reichmann</strong></em></p>

<p><strong>Alan Zinn</strong><br /> Whatever the new benchmark camera, I am still thing it doesn't matter, because the question is what we can do with this new benchmark?. Please have a look to the following snapshot photos and tell me, do you find a big difference between them?, good that you can see the Exif data for the photo captured by Canon A610 ( It cost about $350 in 2006 while Canon 5D about $3000 for the body only ). <br /> <a href="../photo/11954878">http://www.photo.net/photo/11954878</a><br /> <a href="../photo/12799913">http://www.photo.net/photo/12799913</a></p>

[Larry_G1664882113]

<p>I agree with Robert and Hector. Ken Rockwell's reviews can be pretty shallow and obvious. I'm pretty sure that his business is giving positive reviews for camera companies who pay him. We all know that images are created - as Ansel Adams says - in the mind of the photographer and transferred to an image, paper by the photographer with a camera and in the darkroom or digital processing stage. Cameras do matter in capturing what the eye sees. The tripod also matters because it aids in composition and provides latitude in the capture.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not saying that a Mercedes and a Honda Civic are comparable, but I am saying that for <strong>some people</strong> they'll both get you where you're going</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They will get <strong>all</strong> people to where they are going (unless you can be allergic to Honda but not Mercedes).</p>