Nikon Facebook post saying "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses..."

[dennisgg]

I don't know if this was posted already or not.

 

We have been saying all along that it is not the camera or equipment, but the photographer. Yet, here is Nikon saying the opposite:

 

http://www.facebook.com/nikon/posts/10150316773294620

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Hardly worthy of comment - some marketing guy went of the end of the pier... ;-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I'm sure you can find a Facebook post saying the world is flat also.</p>

[dan_south]

Manufacturers of camera equipment have a vested interest in convincing you that your current gear is for wussies.

Some of them are quite good at it.

[dave_s]

<p>This may have been an intentional ploy by some marketing dork. By saying something stupid, he's goaded us into talking about his brand. People will also talk about this on Facebook, and on other photo forums, and in conversation. This is free secondary advertising for Nikon.</p>

<p>In other words, "I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and you spell my name right."<br>

<strong>.</strong></p>

[richardsperry]

<p>There is an interesting, and memorable, set of images in the Renner Pinhole book.</p>

<p>Taken by pieces of cut 35mm film in the the photographer's mouth. His lips were the lens.</p>

<p>To bad there is not an 'unlike' choice. And I am a Nikon shooter.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>It's all flamebait, of course, but the truth of the matter is the photographer can do no better than his gear will allow. Ergo...<br>

Is there no one else here at all who has hit the full capabilities of their cameras? ;)</p>

 

[jan_h._voigt]

<p>Well, a fully manual camera has no real limitations exept slower speed... But I have met lenses that are not capable of rendering the subject the way I like it. Example? The Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2. Loved by many for its soft focus effect and swirly bokeh, I prefer the Tessar because of higher sharpness and contrast. So I think, if a particular piece of gear is limiting you is just a matter of photography style and taste.</p>

[arthur_cargill]

<p>That gave me a good laugh, I'm a Nikon user and couldn't come up with any defense for that one...</p>

<p>I can only imagine there's someone unemployed out there now with a resume "Handled Nikons facebook page" on it :)</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>I wonder why we are talking about Nikon in a Canon EOS forum? Ever wonder?</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>> I wonder why we are talking about Nikon in a Canon EOS forum? Ever wonder?<br>

+1</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>> I wonder why we are talking about Nikon in a Canon EOS forum? Ever wonder?<br />+1</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you all know which brand of camera you must use to get good images. :-)</p>

<p>Just kidding.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>The rejoinder on the Canon FB would be something like,</p>

<p><em>"You're only as good as you allow, and for that the EOS system makes the path smoother for the 'photographer within you'... for those of you interested in pure hardware, we suggest you like and be a fan of the Nikon FB..."</em></p>

<p>(Also LOL as it's way too squishy!)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Because you all know which brand of camera you must use to get good images. :-)

 

I thought that was Leica. No?

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder why we are talking about Nikon in a Canon EOS forum? Ever wonder?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Pity..?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>two words:<br>

Ashton<br>

Kutcher</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Dear Mr. Nikon:</p>

<p><em>"The equipment is only as good as the photographer who uses it."</em></p>

<p>:-)</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>They're right you know. The photographer is only as good as the equipment, the studio musician is only as good as the microphone, and the shooter is only as good as the rifle. It's a hard, tested fact that you can never be any better than your equipment allows you to be.</p>

<p>But they're not required to tell you that 99% of the time, your equipment is indeed better than you are.</p>

<p>If anything, it is a lie of omission. Marketing guys do worse than this every day.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>. The photographer is only as good as the equipment, the studio musician is only as good as the microphone, and the shooter is only as good as the rifle. It's a hard, tested fact that you can never be any better than your equipment allows you to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, that's just not true. A photographer can easily overcome the limitations of the equipment (the camera user doesn't), the studio musician can easily sound far better than one would expect from the equipment. I've seen both. I can't comment on the gun stuff, don't know. But I have seen the other stuff, over and over and over. </p>

[michael_young3]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, that's just not true. A photographer can ... overcome the limitations of the equipment</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, that can't be true in any sense, even without the "easily" qualifier. I don't care how careful or good you are, my 7D isn't as good as his 5D2!</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I can't believe that someone is actually arguing in favor of the "your are only as good as your equipment" business. It is blatant, flat-out nonsense.</p>

<p>No matter what equipment you put in your hands, you are as good as you are. Artists make art from whatever is available. Jeff is completely right that talented people can produce material that is far better both technically and aesthetically than the equipment might suggest. I have, indeed, heard wonderful recordings make on totally poor equipment. (And, it should go without saying, that really awful recordings have been made using fine equipment.)</p>

<p>Someone - sorry, I forgot who at the moment - who is a well-known and highly regarded photographer who also teaches sometimes tells a wonderful story. A student apparently said to the teacher something along the lines of, "Of course <em>your</em> work is great. You have access to tens or thousands of dollars worth of the best cameras and lenses available. I have to work with an entry level camera." To which our photographer replied, "Let's switch gear for a day and see if your work is better than mine."</p>

<p>You know the outcome.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[michael_young3]

<blockquote>

<p>... <strong>than the equipment might suggest</strong>.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. If you doubt the opposite, leave your gear at home and just put the film in your mouth and pucker.</p>

 

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Sorry if I go against the tide but even if it can be considered a stupid statement we've to agree it is correct, as you can't do better than your equipment allows you to do. <br>

Pieces of equipment are just tools and if you choose the wrong one for your craft or one that limits the expression of your creativity you will not get the results you look for.<br>

But this doesn't mean brand name X or Y or last market models of camera or lens. That's the wrong conclusion and the reason this marketing thing can be stupid.<br>

You can create Art and be a great Photographer using a home made pinehole camera, something you can try to mimic using the last top professional DSLR and a lot of digital editing, but it will never be the same thing. So the electronic wonder is making you as good as it allows but not as good as you can be.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I think the only time the equipment really matters is when there is certain equipment required to execute the photographic vision you conceive. I think there have been great photographs taken with pinhole cameras. Recently I saw a site where a woman had made an operating camera out of Legos and gotten some very interesting images. In my mind photography occurs between the ears of the photographer and not in the camera.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<a name="00ZPGw"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 30, 2011; 10:46 p.m.

 

 

. The photographer is only as good as the equipment, the studio musician is only as good as the microphone, and the shooter is only as good as the rifle. It's a hard, tested fact that you can never be any better than your equipment allows you to be.

<blockquote>

Sorry, that's just not true. A photographer can easily overcome the limitations of the equipment (the camera user doesn't), the studio musician can easily sound far better than one would expect from the equipment. I've seen both. I can't comment on the gun stuff, don't know. But I have seen the other stuff, over and over and over.

</blockquote>

Y'see Jeff, you're thinking outside the box. Nikon's PR department is making a statement that is so narrow that it cannot be untrue. Take the previous example of using one's mouth as a pinhole camera. This "overcomes" equipment quality issues by making low-tech part of the appeal. Josh Homme (Queens of the Stone Age, Them Crooked Vultures) uses terrible guitar amplifiers to create cool, nasty sounds. Both of these people are thinking outside the box, and overcoming their limitations.

<blockquote>

Now picture someone like Mariah Carey in a studio that has poor microphones and recording gear. Do you still think she will sound better than the equipment lets her?

</blockquote>

True artists will find a way to work around their limitations. Nikon is not speaking to artists. They are speaking to consumers. Consumers see a limitation, and blame their equipment. The idea of 'thinking outside the box' rarely occurs to your average consumer.

<blockquote>

I used the rifle example because it's the most cut-and-dry. If your rifle cannot hit something 300 yards away, then <em>you </em>can't hit something 300 yeards away, unless you get lucky and hit with a stray. But the same applies to cameras. If your camera always takes bad pictures indoors, then <em>you</em> always take bad pictures indoors. And unless you're the sort of person that tries to find a way around that problem (and most consumers are not), then the equipment is indeed to blame.

</blockquote>

Again, you're not actually wrong. The reason I'm "arguing" with you is that you don't seem to understand that that whether or not Nikon's statement is true depends on how you construct the argument just as much as the words that are said.