Luminous Landscape: Your Camera Does Matter

[Suhit Gupta]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/e...as-matter.shtml

"One of the most annoying questions on the web is seen when someone on a forum asks – Should I get a Whatsiflex or a Thingabobblad? Which is better? The problem is not with the questions. The problem is the answers! This often innocent query unleashes not only the dogs of war, but the clowns of cliche as well. Among the fan boys rallying for their favourite brand there are bound to be at least a couple of bright sparks who write – "It's not the camera, it's the photographer", or some similar pithy aphorism. Inevitably someone will also quote from Saint Ansel (who in reality was quite a gear head himself). Then some kind soul will start ranting about how even a Holga can take great shots, pinhole cameras are all one needs, and how the camera industry is a vast conspiracy intended to turn us into mindless robots, godless heathen, communists, or worse."

This article reads more like a letter to the editor than anything else. And I agree. While a person's photography skills are crucial, the tool itself cannot be underestimated. My favorite quote of the article is "Discussing the merits of one tool over another is relevant. Some lenses, cameras and other photographic tools are better than others. In some cases they are objectively better, while in others their degree of betterness will be subjetive and will depend on the specific needs of a particular photographer". Do any of you believe that a great photographer can get good shots out of pretty much any equipment?

[Suhit Gupta]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/e...as-matter.shtml

"One of the most annoying questions on the web is seen when someone on a forum asks – Should I get a Whatsiflex or a Thingabobblad? Which is better? The problem is not with the questions. The problem is the answers! This often innocent query unleashes not only the dogs of war, but the clowns of cliche as well. Among the fan boys rallying for their favourite brand there are bound to be at least a couple of bright sparks who write – "It's not the camera, it's the photographer", or some similar pithy aphorism. Inevitably someone will also quote from Saint Ansel (who in reality was quite a gear head himself). Then some kind soul will start ranting about how even a Holga can take great shots, pinhole cameras are all one needs, and how the camera industry is a vast conspiracy intended to turn us into mindless robots, godless heathen, communists, or worse."

This article reads more like a letter to the editor than anything else. And I agree. While a person's photography skills are crucial, the tool itself cannot be underestimated. My favorite quote of the article is "Discussing the merits of one tool over another is relevant. Some lenses, cameras and other photographic tools are better than others. In some cases they are objectively better, while in others their degree of betterness will be subjetive and will depend on the specific needs of a particular photographer". Do any of you believe that a great photographer can get good shots out of pretty much any equipment?

[Jason Dunn]

I have so many thoughts about this, mostly after reading Ken Rockwell's article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

As with most things, there a bit of truth in both points of view - my response will have to be a front page rant I think, but it will have to wait until mid-April...

[Neil Enns]

Do any of you believe that a great photographer can get good shots out of pretty much any equipment?

What do you mean by "good shots"? Can I get a well-composed shot out of any equipment? Sure. Can I get a shot that reflects the vision I have in my head for what the final image should look like out of any equipment? No.

Step outside of the digital world for a minute and think about the print world. When I make a "wet darkroom" print, sometimes I use different paper. Sometimes I use different techniques (lith vs. silver print). Why? Because they give me different final images. The equipment *does* matter.

Neil

[Vincent Ferrari]

I've never seen one credible argument from anyone that invalidates the fact that the camera (or at least the glass that one chooses to mount upon it) does really fricking matter.

For example, I use myself. I was shooting a lot of street, mostly subway and urban stuff, with a Minolta P&S. The minute I upgraded to a DSLR, my photos improved tenfold. My compositional skills didn't improve. My ability to SEE (note the caps? Just like Ken used!) didn't change. My ability to capture, however, improved with the improvement of the camera.

In the article Suhit quoted, there's this:

Photography is both an art and a craft.

That is the absolute 100% truth of the whole thing. The art is knowing what to do. The craft is having tools capable of doing it. If the tools didn't matter, Ken wouldn't own so many cameras, he'd carry his beloved Casio P&S with him everywhere and call it a day.

But he doesn't.

Because the camera does matter.

[marlof]

Originally Posted by Suhit Gupta

Do any of you believe that a great photographer can get good shots out of pretty much any equipment?

Yes.

But that doesn't mean the camera doesn't matter.

Alex Majoli is often referred to in this argument, since he chose to use Olympus point and shoots for his assignments to shoot award winning images. But that doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter: he chose those cameras exactly because of their strong points, and believed he couldn't have made the same images using a big DSLR. So even to him, the camera matters.

Going from a P&S (Ixus) to a Prosumer camera (F828) I saw my images technically improve. Going to a DSLR (E1) I again saw an improvement. Going to a modern age DSLR (E3), I saw yet again an improvement, and now I can get some images I couldn't get before.

Still I'm pretty sure that a really good photographer can run circles around many of my E3 image using my old Ixus. But I guess many of those circles would be even more impressive if he used an E3 as well.