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

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>A good camera does not get in your way when you want to take a photo, and does the things you need to make your vision into real images. But no more than that. Which means, you first still need a vision, an idea on how to create your images. And then you select a camera to match. The camera does not make you the better photographer, but it's there to realise your potential.<br>

If the potential isn't there, no camera on the world is going to help.</p>

<p>As you grow, your requirements for a camera may grow. But then we're beyond the point where you need others to tell you what you need - you know already. The same applies to lenses. Or, in John's case, hammers.</p>

[personal screen]

<p>This has always been a never ending debate, but I do think that gear can make a better photographer, even (may be especially) starting from low-level. But not at all in terms of image quality or upper end specifications; I just think that, at amateur level, each of us has his sweet point camera. I did take photos with Canon and Voigtlander film cameras, as well as with digital equipment, and I know at least 99% of my photos could have been taken with the same success with any of them. Nonetheless, I think my photography (I told you I'm speaking of low level...), years ago, improved going from my dear Canon FD to a Panasonic LX-1, even if I've no doubt IQ was lower. Simply, I started looking at a small 2D screen which help me remind the difference between the perception and feeling from a full immersion view and the small 2D image I'd produce, simply I started making more photos and experiments, having immediate feedback, and this allowed me to interiorize a few useful technique. And I'm sure that if I had an heavy full frame DSLR rather than my handy E-PL1 I would simply give up shooting.<br>

Quoting Leslie: "I'm not debating that a camera can't change the photog, just that it doesn't make the shooter better": different photog means different photos. And a different may be a better one...<br>

And quoting: Louis: "Not a single thing, no camera, lens,or feature ever made me more creative, more willing to get out of bed before sunrise": I've always been willing to get out of bed before sunrise, and I've often done that (a healing broken ankle remind me of my last sunset - full moon - sunrise mountain excursion...). But without a 'proper' camera, may be I would not even attempt to record that feelings.</p>

<p> </p>

[jason]

<p>Jeff Spirer said it all. If you can't see, equipment makes no difference.<br>

I use mostly point and shoots.The weight of those serious cameras an absolute "no" for me! Magnum pros, Fashion shooter Peter Lindbergh and many other "top" pros now working with point and shoots!<br>

I have a ton of equipment which was fun! Now I shoot seriously, like I never have before..with a little as possible. If it's not a P/S compact, I carry an old battered Leica M and one lens..</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Some pearls of wisdom here. I've been inspired to take up archery!</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>From what I've seen, as you suggest, it's the loadacameraguys who promote the 'it's the photographer not the camera' statement. Which says to me, they thought that getting a better camera would make them a better photographer and in the purchase and subsequent use found it didn't make them a better photographer - if it did then why shouldn't a better camera be better for everyone?<br>

Of course, with the top of the range camera/lenses there really is nowhere to hide if you still don't take 'good photographs'.<br>

Setting the photographer aside, would an expensive top of the range camera produce a better photograph than a small compact of the same subject/scene. Personally I think it would - but whether the degree of 'better' is worth the expense against the said subject is entirely another matter. e.g. creating images for ebay.<br>

My advice would be to buy the most expensive kit you are willing to afford - but don't get hung up if your purchase has to be somewhat less than your psychological ideal. At the moment I'd love a 5dII - can't afford it, and I know my old 30D is capable of producing good quality images. Of course this is anchored on the knowledge that should I get the 5dii my photography would not improve ........ course it would, otherwise why do I convince myself I need (I really do) a 5dii.</p>

 

[don_essedi]

A better camera may take a better picture ("better" being subjective), but that doesn't mean the photographer is better. It usually means we can now see his or her mediocrity better.

[ilkka_nissila]

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

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

If you only ever had a pinhole camera, you wouldn't be able to make good images of boxing or bands indoors in concert, because that kind of photography requires practice to develop the required skills. Without a useful camera for the application you wouldn't be able to develop the timing, reflexes, composition in the case of a moving subject, editing, interaction with your subject in the case of portraits etc. appropriate for that field of photography. Virtual shooting in your mind, I am afraid, doesn't do the trick. A camera is needed to learn, and for specific subjects the camera may need to be of a specific type.</p>

<p>If you want to make a detailed image of Jupiter's bands, you cannot do it with a wide angle from your front terrace. If you want to shoot close-ups of baseball players in action, or tern grabbing fish you can not do it well with a point and shoot. If you want specific lighting at a specific time for a portrait, you have to bring in specific lighting equipment (and lighting equipment is no different from cameras in that gearheads get a lot of it and others - more subject and content oriented people - make do nicely with very little).</p>

<p>In my opinion, the subject is the most important ingredient in the image in most types of photography. The photographer's vision is also important but without the subject there is little chance the image will have lasting value.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Capabilities of the camera and capabilities of the photographer are two different things. A photographer at a baseball

game with only a 50mm lens isn't a bad sports photographer, even though he's not going to be able to get a good shot

of a base runner sliding into second. (Once I found myself in that position when one of my friends invited me

unexpectedly the same day - I photographed everything but the game.) A non-photographer with a pro grade DSLR

and an amazing tele lens won't get the base running shot either, if he doesn't know what to do.

 

The reason people are always replying to the "how should I upgrade my stuff" questions with "take a class and get

some practice instead" is that most of the askers confuse camera quality and photographer quality and think that if

they buy more stuff they will automatically take better pictures. Often this is because they're reading too many

"photography" magazines that are actually about gear and get the mistaken impression that their 2 year old kit isn't

good enough. But somebody with a D80 and a 55-200 VR lens who can't shoot a base runner at a day game won't be

able to shoot a base runner at a day game with a D7000 and an f/2.8 lens either - instead he should concentrate on

learning.

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Well let me put this in a simple way: We have our own idea's as to what a camera must be to us, to My Pentax K-10 D is my cats meow, Yes I owned canon before even the F-1. But when I am using a camera Will be my tool at that moment. Now when I take out my Rollieflex and use , now there comes something else , Its old and still gives great photo's for its age, But Its also pride when using it , to me its like Respect of the camera, Does it make me a better Photographer , I doubt it but I know if I do things right, it will give me darn good Photographs: What else can I say when you love your Equipment :</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If you only ever had a pinhole camera, you wouldn't be able to make good images of boxing or bands indoors in concert</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That doesn't have anything to do with the question here. There seems to be a desire to interpret "ability" as shooting anything. That's not what it's about. If I couldn't make good images of boxing or bands, my "ability" isn't affected. It's totally irrelevant. My ability comes from how I see what's in front of me and a certain amount of training and knowledge (with the boxing, for example, I shoot training regularly to hone my sense of timing). My ability comes from looking at photos and understanding why they work. But my "ability" is completely separate from whether I can take a specific photo.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>There have been many great opinions voiced here, and I am continually interested in them all.</p>

<p>I remember a story about Anthony Hopkins, who was starring in a film alongside another actor who's name I cannot remember, but the point of the story was Anthony Hopkins believed one had to work in the moment, he refused to do any rehearsals, prior to set or on set, and preferred to do one take, letting it flow naturally. The actor with whom he was starring opposite refused to do a take without at least 5 rehearsals before hand, and insisted on many takes. Does that mean that Anthony Hopkins was the better actor because he didn't need a rehearsal, or could get it one take? Or that the other actor was better because he was more prepared and had more options to choose from? Neither are true, in fact both are right, because they worked in a style that fit them best. So I think its similar with photographers, some of us work one way where gear is a big part of our creative equation, and some of us work where we are the only equation and the camera is simply a means to solve the equation. But as I see all these responses I do not think its fair for one side or the other to criticize how the other works, but to offer our point view so that we may learn from each other.</p>

<p>For me when I'm just being creative with photography, it means I'm doing something new, it means I'm outside of my box, no formulas, no visions, for I find that rarely does a vision occur that is not based on a previous piece of work that I have done or seen. Often when I'm in these moments, I don't know why I take a picture. Its true, there is no logical reason, there is no vision to take a picture, the most I do as a photographer is realize that the moment is worth capturing. I, the photographer, simply recognize the creative moment that is created partly by the camera & lens. In this kind of moment the camera & lens are a very crucial part of the image, because they determine what kind of images I'm seeing and how I'm inspired by them. But that's how I work. I don't see myself creating the equation, I see myself as part of the equation as the camera is also part of the same equation. A good photographer needs the right camera as much as a good camera needs the right photographer.</p>

<p>So I offer you the age old question, did the chicken or did the egg come first?</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I think that Wouter made the best point when he wrote that a good camera doesn't get in your way and does the things you need to make your vision into a real image. That ties into what I said about my D3100 increasing my percentage of good pictures compared to my old 35mm manual focus manual exposure SLR's. In other words my D3100, or any modern DSLR, doesn't get in the way as much as my old Canon FT did. There are a lot of good photos that I've gotten with a modern DSLR that I wouldn't have gotten with my old Canon FT. In that sense it's made me a better photographer.</p>

<p>To use a sports analogy, a 350 hitter is generally a better hitter and a 200 hitter. Likewise, a camera can make you a better photograher by increasing the percentage of good pictures, and by allowing you to get pictures you would have missed with a lesser camera.</p>

<p>A better camera won't improve your photographic vision, but what good is the vision if you can't turn it into a photograph.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Well, as a learning tool, the right camera can possibly make you a better photographer (at least at the craft, not the art).</p>

<p>First, notice I said "right camera" and not better camera. Why, because as someone else mentioned, different cameras, have different advantages/disadvantages. By using these differences at tools, you can work on perfecting certain aspects. For instance, say I wanted to learn studio lighting, I would start with a digital (SLR or MILC) to get the basics. Then I would move to 4x5 view cameras because the larger negatives amplify and make it really hard to not screw up. So as you move closer and closer to perfection, the camera is a tool in teaching you the betterment of the craft.</p>

<p>Digital is nice in that you can basically shoot galore, but film is king in making people stop to think of composition. If I have 1 shot, or even 36 shots, I'm going to slow down and make them count more.</p>

<p>Of course, this is all for craft, and nothing is exactly pertaining to the other half that makes it art. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Skyler, sure, what the heck? ;-) In my opinion...</p>

<p>I am confident I can take some sort of good picture with any camera you care to hand me. If you are so inclined, you can buy an image of mine that I took with a $10 disposable film camera. People often comment positively on the image. I have other images for sale that I took with somewhat humbler gear than I ordinarily use. One of my more popular images was shot with a Canon EF-S 18-55 IS lens. Other popular images were shot with a Canon EF 28-135 IS lens. Some of my images were shot with a Canon G11. If I use any of this cheap equipment in a way that is respectful of its limitations, I can produce a good image, with often superb image quality.</p>

<p>Does that mean that cheap gear will always do what I need it to do? No. Let's say I want to photograph the lead goose in a flock of geese heading south for the winter. I grab my little G11 and head out the door when I hear the approaching honks. I zoom as much as I can, and I shoot into the air at the lead goose. No good.</p>

<p>The next day I get out my best camera for telephoto work -- a Canon 40D (higher pixel density than my 5D). I get out my best telephoto lens -- a Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I run outside with my better rig and try the shot. Better, but still no good.</p>

<p>I might eventually buy a good quality of mirror telephoto (e.g. Nikkor) and find that I'm able to get a few successful shots in some situations if there is not an issue with the crazy donut-bokeh the lens produces. Ultimately a flock flies close enough, and I manage to catch that stunning lead-goose photo I've been wanting. Mission accomplished.</p>

<p>Now if I decide I want to do a lot of goose-in-flight photography, I will eventually find myself wanting some pretty high dollar telephoto optics that give me more light and and let me include OOF objects in the foreground and background without the donut blur pattern (e.g. when the geese are flying close over the water). As I might also need to do a lot of cropping, I might want a camera body with higher pixel density, such as a Canon 7D. I might also want to upgrade my tripod. All of these upgrades will allow me to capture more images, more easily, with greater consistency.</p>

<p>This is my round-about way of saying that SOME things are impossible to shoot with humble, ordinary gear (e.g. a compact camera), and sometimes an equipment acquisition is necessary to complete a given task. Furthermore, there is sometimes utility in getting the top-end gear that will better enable us to deal with subject matter we photograph frequently.</p>

[doug_harl]

<p>When I see a sports photographer taking action shots using a pin-hole camera, then I'll believe that equipment doesn't matter.<br>

Or a macro photographer using a pin-hole camera.<br>

Or a pinhole for bird photography.<br>

Or even a P&S digital camera consistently taking great action shots.</p>

<p>Face it folks, photography is an equipment oriented craft and equipment does matter. The part that one needs to figure out is where does it matter and where it doesn't.<br>

Where it doesn't:<br>

1. composition.<br>

2. message or story; which is really an extension of #1.</p>

<p>Everywhere else, equipment matters.</p>

<p><em>Damn! I should have been a marketing guy for the camera makers!</em></p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>While a photographer is gaining knowledge and skill, a more capable camera can certainly make for better abilities. The photographer who knows what she or he wants will generally reach for the best camera for the job, or else will adapt to the job a camera that may not be the best for it. Once you know your camera well, you can (within reason) do most things with it -- and you can do them better than with less familiar cameras. I think here of the word <em>capable</em> (which is not so different from <em>flexible</em>) and <em>familiar</em> (the old line about camera being extension of eye and hand).</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>1. composition: Gear influences. I am not going to compose the same with an ultra-wide angle that I am with a telephoto. Doesn't make you better, but does influence.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I'll believe that equipment doesn't matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please show where someone said that equipment doesn't matter.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>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 ...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course the camera matters. Of course. Pros know no more or are any better equipped to answer this than skilled, experienced amateurs or semi-pros.</p>

<p>Philosophical question deserves a simple answer in my book: ANY (modern) CAMERA that will get you to get out and start taking pictures and learning photography is the right camera to get, to start making you a 'better' photographer! A camera and some books on photography... simple. Follow your path.</p>

[djolk]

<p>Perhaps it would be better to discuss how a photographer, and the images produced, can be affected by camera choice. The pinhole camera at a sporting event argument doesn't really address the betterment of a photographer's technique. What it really does look to is how camera choice influences the kind of image produced. Obviously, this photographer is not going to be producing crisp action shots, but this won't be a reflection of the skill or artistry of the photographer. Furthermore, to then compare images captured with a pinhole camera, and an SLR at a sporting event brings apples and oranges to mind. If there were two photographers at the same sporting event with pinhole cameras, then we could perhaps analyse their skill. <br>

What I am trying to say is that choice of camera affects how and what images a photographer may capture, and that choice may have a large impact on images produced - especially in the case of pinhole vs SLR - but there could also be subtler differences, I've recently purchased a d7000 after using a d80 for years and years and I find myself taking different photographs, before that I used a nikon FE and again took different photographs. When I'm feeling brave I have a 6x6 I bring out. I think that more then improving my technique, using each of these cameras has subtly and not so subtly has changed the way I take photographs, for better, or for worse.</p>

[scott_norville]

<p>Obligatory trite quote for essay:<br>

"A poor craftsman blames his tools"</p>

<p>This has a lot of implications for this discussion...<br>

The usual interpretation is that a master can create a masterpiece with crappy tools, and the knowledge or effort is to blame for shortcomings. As anyone who has mastered a craft can attest, this is only partially true--and see other discussions for the difference between craft and art, if its not immediately clear to you. A master knows when not to bother with a certain job with certain tools. A joiner is the right tool for cutting a mortise, but I can do it well enough with the tablesaw. A bandsaw is right out.<br>

For much of what I shoot, a 35mm (or digital equivalent) SLR wound be adequate to communicate the "vision", if I were just showing snapshots. It's the tablesaw of cameras--perfect for some jobs (action, fluid situations), adequate for most others without being the best, and completely wrong for a few. That is where being the master craftsman comes in--picking the right tool for the job, and the right job for the tool.</p>

<p>So, if your vision is nothing but infinitely detailed, perspective-controlled indoor shots of architectural masterpieces, moving from a D3^9 with a kit lens to an 8.5x10.5 (just a little bigger) ArsTechnikaPretzel will improve/complete your abilities. For many of us though, there are many competing "visions" as well as other goals in photography, so there are many tools needed for the job, and the challenge is to find the tools whose capabilities and limitations match and complement our own.</p>

[doug_harl]

<p>Whatever folks. I do what I need to do to make my job easier. And if someone asks, I tell them that I used "stone knives and bearskins." to make myself look like a creative God.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I see different components of the photo system -- camera, lens, processing (digital or chemical) etc. as have a profound effect on the photo. Just like painting with oils is not like painting watercolor or and etching. I see the components of the system as tools for the artist to select from once he or she has the vision in mind. You fit the camera to your vision, or the other way around. But in either case they are connected and do effect each other.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I really like the comparison of Photography to Archery. I shot competitive archery for many years. I regularly recommended that people start out with basic equipment that didn't cost too much because you will spend the first year in archery conditioning muscles and working on good technique. That is if you practice a few times a week, seek out help from pros, and shoot thousands of arrows. When I was at my peak I had three different bows all very different from each other and meant to do different kinds of shooting each with their own specialized arrows that where precisely weighed and balanced. Some were aluminum arrows just for indoor shooting or hunting and some were very expensive carbon fiber for outdoor field target or 3d target shooting. Ultimately after years of shooting and conditioning it becomes a brain game. Your own brain can be your worst enemy or your best friend. You also have to pay attention to fine details to ensure that nothing goes wrong.<br /><br />I once discouraged a young man who came into the archery shop from buying a new bow. He had three weeks earlier bought a nice mid priced bow to start out with. I explained how long it would take him to get reasonably competent if he practiced a lot and got good coaching. That would have made him ready for a better bow about the time the following years bows were coming on the market.<br /><br />Modern Archery is much like Photography in that you can start out with lower priced equipment, but at some point if you stay with it, you are going to benefit from top notch equipment.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Mr. Crowe, your point is well taken. </p>