Old debate and possibly done to death?

Terrywoodenpic said:
You are more likely to capture interesting images with a camera that you are familiar with and can use instinctively. As it lets you concentrate on the subject, and not be distracted by technicalities.
This is definitely a factor in camera choice..
Click to expand...

Yes, that is fairly true.

But full frame still gives better IQ than apsc or M43 ;) Much in the same way that MF beats FF.

Gear makes a difference :)
 
woof woof said:
Oh good grief. Do people really believe this?

If you do anything beyond taking pictures of static objects in perfect conditions to print the size of a postage stamp of course kit matters. Unsuitable kit can get in the way and become too much of a factor in the picture or stop you taking the picture at all.

Just look at your own pictures or the ones taken by others you like and decide if they could have been taken with a wooden box with a hole in the front or some awful keychain digital from years ago. Likely they couldn't have been. The kit has to be able to at least let you if not help you to get the picture you want and believing it's all down to the photographer is just fanciful unless your needs are so basic that a wooden box or a digital keychain are enough. If kit doesn't matter you might as well just give up photography and take up drawing and painting as you'll have more chance of capturing an image than with some kit and it'll be a lot more interesting.

And BTW. Who cares what other people think? If you're relying on photography to put food on your plate then I suppose you need to but other than that? Nupe. I don't care.

Better kit is on a sliding scale with each improvement making it easier to get better results more consistently and reliably. The best camera I've had is my Sony A7cII. It has its issues but it also enables me to take pictures and do it quicker and more reliably than any other camera I've ever had. Of course kit matters.
Click to expand...
I don't think @AndrewFlannigan is saying kit doesn't matter, but that if you can't make interesting photographs with your existing kit, getting better kit is unlikely to help.

It may well expand the types of photographs you can tackle, but limited kit shouldn't stop a good photographer from making good (interesting) photographs, albeit within the limitations of whatever equipment they have access to.

While not laying claim to being a good photographer, if I only had a pinhole camera, I would be out looking for subjects that I found interesting and that would also suit the style of photographs produced by pinhole cameras.
 
whyone said:
But not as much of a difference as knowing and not knowing what you are doing with it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the difference it makes is psychological?

I used to find that a new (to me) camera resulted in my producing pictures I felt more pleased with - until it was no longer new to me.
 
The way I look at gear is like this: if Eric Clapton was given a £10 guitar from "Woolies" he would make it sing. If I was given a £6,000 Lowden I would make it sound horrendous.
 
whyone said:
Yes it does.

But not as much of a difference as knowing and not knowing what you are doing with it.
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
Yes, but also no ;)

If you were shooting the Milky Way on M43 with an f/4 zoom and then you shot it on a Sony A75 with a 24GM, you would have a big difference to the final result with the same knowledge ;)
Click to expand...
Both of which will distill into one uncomfortable truth:
A decent photographer will know exactly what the limitations of any gear are, and will know exactly the gear to use to achieve the results they desire.

Controversially the flipside of that could be; if you don’t understand what gear you need, it’s not the gears fault.
 
LeeRatters said:
Yes, that is fairly true.

But full frame still gives better IQ than apsc or M43 ;) Much in the same way that MF beats FF.

Gear makes a difference :)
Click to expand...
Technically that is true, but it is not always the best or most practical choice.
Statistics show that that sometimes smaller and lighter kit gives excellent results,, when heavier and larger kit is more of a handicap to shooting, than a help to better images.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Have you never shown someone two photos, one clearly out of focus, of the same subject and had the OOF one preferred? I have. Many times.
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
Nope. Because I don't take out of focus photos.
Click to expand...

myotis said:
If only I could make the same claim :)
Click to expand...

@myotis sounds like you need one of these ne-fangled cameras that nail focus every frame :)

Mostly joking, but it is incredible how the hit rate has improved over the years. 10 years ago, I would be happy with 90%+ of usable frames after an event, and now it's a surprise if there are any unusable ones from a focus point of view. I'm not saying the camera does it all, but the improvements in tech have made it easier.
 
Phil V said:
Seeing as you’ve said ‘statistics’, I’m presuming you can cite a peer reviewed source for this assertion
Click to expand...
Well spotted
That entire sentence is meaningless.
Much like the thread.
 
Eucris said:
The way I look at gear is like this: if Eric Clapton was given a £10 guitar from "Woolies" he would make it sing. If I was given a £6,000 Lowden I would make it sound horrendous.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of truth in this. Who remembers Digital Rev's "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera Challenge"! Of course, they still had limitations based on the kit they were assigned, but they made the most of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top