Photographer or Camera?

I keep reading in this forum how a camera is just a tool and it's the photographer that is responsabile for the final image. But then again I also keep reading posts from all these D2X and D2Hs owners and all these owners looking to upgrade from a D100 or a D70s to the D200. So here is what I don't get, if the camera is a tool then why would anyone even both buying a $5,000 D2X or a $3500 D2Hs or the $1700 D200?

Let me say that I own a D100 and a D2Hs, and I believe that the camera matters just as much as the photographer using it. A good camera with the right specs is invaluable. If the camera was only a tool we'd all be shooting P&S digital cameras or D50s. I guess I just don't get it; to me a great photographer with an inferior camera will have difficulty producing great shots. Imagine a sports photographer shooting an event with a D100. Take that same sports photographer and give him a D2Hs and it's a different scenario. The 8 FPS and 35+ buffer would make all the difference.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.

You can take great photos with a point and shoot. But you will not be able to do things that more expensive cameras do. RAW, close up lens, telephoto lens, high speed shooting in low light, playing around with lighting...

A better camera expands what a photographer can do.

not equally! Of course in the right hands the improved camera can give a competitive advantage...but a great photographer can be great with almost (Almost!) any camera. A run of the mill photographer might do better..but a D2X will not make him become great overnight!
--
Dave Cheatham

It is all about the photographer, the equipment, illumination, timing (i.e. at the right place at the right time), and luck. You don't shoot lions in Africa with a 20mm lens on your camera (well, not for long anyway) and please don't bother visiting the Grand Canyon with only a 400mm in your bag. IMO, with digital the camera plays into the equation quite a bit more than film but it certainly isn't the limiting factor in the big picture. The camera can improve your success rate depending on what you what to shoot but lenses still rule when it comes to the equipment part of the equation. The shooter's skill in determining what the right timing might be to get the best illumination is a matter of luck (weather, clouds, wind, etc.) when long driving distances or hikes are required. I like to think of it as "everything depends on everything". ;-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Adam!

I love your new Tag Line!! Your other tag was just killing me

I agree with what your saying, it's both not just one! If you need to take a wide shot, you need wide glass or no shot! 12-24 has made the shot as much as me. D70 is great cam, but I'm doing good work, I need larger prints and I need a better camera. If your using the thing to its fullness and there is something bigger and better, it's going to make your work better.

I just finished making a 12-16inch print from my D70..Love it.. Trying for 16-24 next to see what the limit is. I'm really floored at what I got back from the lab! Everyone here talking about making it only 8X10 in hogwash! However if 16-24 is too big then a 10 meg or 12 meg is needed to do the job!

Regards,
JohnnyK

PS: arn't you just a little bit tempted by the D200?
--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com

I guess I'm one of those people who believe it is 99% the photographer, and not the camera. I really believe that fine photography is an art -- and a good photographer is an artist. If you believe this, then what kind of camera you use doesn't really matter. I think that someone who has the "gift" -- the "eye", if you will -- that person can get wonderful pictures with a Kodak Brownie or any of the P&S cameras out there that a lot of us wouldn't be caught dead using. Because in the end, it is all mostly about light -- and shadows -- and composition -- it is about expressing through the photograph. So the tool the artist uses is not as important as the artist's skil and the artist's soul.

Now... this may be what I believe -- but it doesn't mean we all don't want the very finest camera we can afford! So we spend our time lurking around this forum talking about our tools, and coveting the very best technology. But it is important that we don't begin believing that the camera will make us better photographers. It doesn't work that way. Technical skill and practice are important, of course. But true art comes from the heart.

--
Rick A.
Johnson City, TN
http://www.photographyimpressions.com

Both a minimally adequate camera and photographer are necessary to get a decent image.

Cameras are just tools but you are surely better off using the right tool for the job.

You can build a house with a hammer or a nail gun but it's a lot easier with the nail gun.

A top sports photographer at the Super Bowl can possibly get the cover shot for Sports Illustrated with a D70 or a D2H but his probability of capturing the ultimate image is higher with the D2H because of its speed and accuracy. On the other hand the probability of me being able to get a cover shot would be near zero regardless of the camera in use.

Adam Kmiec said:

I keep reading in this forum how a camera is just a tool and it's
the photographer that is responsabile for the final image.

Click to expand...

Why do you think those things are not true? Are there any cameras that can go out and take photos, independent of human programming or intervention?

Adam Kmiec said:

D70s to the D200. So here is what I don't get, if the camera is a
tool then why would anyone even both buying a $5,000 D2X or a $3500
D2Hs or the $1700 D200?

Click to expand...

Do they or do they not, have different capabilities? Have you ever heard the phrase about using the correct tool for the job?

Adam Kmiec said:

Let me say that I own a D100 and a D2Hs, and I believe that the
camera matters just as much as the photographer using it.

Click to expand...

Of course the camera matters. You select the right tool for the job. But, if you don't know how to use the tool, it wouldn't matter, you wouldn't even know which tool to select.

Adam Kmiec said:

camera with the right specs is invaluable. If the camera was only
a tool we'd all be shooting P&S digital cameras or D50s.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. If that were true, there would be no power saws or even different types of hand saws. There would only be one saw.

I don't know why you can't accept the fact that a camera is a tool. Why does it matter so much to you?

Definition: Tool -- Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

if you put a really good photographer at the edge of the grand canyon with a camera and nothing but a 400mm, that photographer will be able to find a great shot. Of course it won't be a sprawling landscape, but a great composition will be realized. I think this is the point that is being made. The better the photographer, the less they allow equipment limitations to limit their creativity. They will make good use of whatever they have at hand.

--
-Mark

A good photographer makes the best images that can be made with any camera once he/she has learned its capabilities and limitations.

A poor photographer makes poor photos with any camera.

A good photographer makes better photos with a poor camera than a poor photographer with a good camera.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
C P 5 7 0 0
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

Love this thread and have enjoyed and found great points made in every poster's views. Speaking only for myself, I feel the edge decidedly goes to the photographer. However, I also feel that a marginal photographer (such as myself) has infinitely more possibilities for better results with better equipment. I have a D70 and a D2h and I am on a waiting list for the D200. While I love both my cameras I will probably keep the D70, possibly convert to IR only as I am becoming more and more interested in that. Maybe I'll keep both and decide which, if either, to sell after I get the D200. Possibilities are important to me and learning how to get the results I desire artistically and technically (by hard work and whatever means I can afford) is so much fun!!

Just an opinion, nothing more

Mary

I agree with most of what you said! However Please don't say " marginal photographer (such as myself)" leave it up to a critic or something! .. don't take yourself down! Okay?

Regards,
JohnnyK

--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com

Adam Kmiec said:

I guess I
just don't get it; to me a great photographer with an inferior
camera will have difficulty producing great shots. Imagine a
sports photographer shooting an event with a D100. Take that same
sports photographer and give him a D2Hs and it's a different
scenario. The 8 FPS and 35+ buffer would make all the difference.

Click to expand...

I have known a great photographer for about 25 years. He has had 4 books of his photos published and is coming out with a new one in a few months. The new book will be completely made up of scans of prints from his old Polaroid camera. A lot of the photos were taken at the Indy 500. He is, among other things, one of the chief photographers for the marketing department at the Speedway. His best digital camera is a Nikon D70. His motorsport photos are featured on billboards, programs and a lot of other high profile marketing materials for the track and the IRL. Over the years, he has made these photos with all kinds of cameras from pinhole to large format to the D70 to the Polaroid.

I guess I can probably get better side action pan shots than my friend with my fancy D2 bodies. I might be able to get a better yield of Helio coming at me in turn 3 at 225 mph with my fancy D2 bodies. But, even with his lowly D70 my friend is a better photographer than I am. I am a good photographer but this has nothing to do with cameras. This guy sees differently than I do. What he sees is really special. I helped him edit the photos for his last book which were all taken with the D70. When I first saw the files I got choked up they were so good.

Technically my cameras can do things his can't. But on a given day...at the track...as a sports photographer he can take a better picture than almost anyone....almost anyone can learn to take a good side action pan shot or a head-on or any peak action shot. You have to be able to "see" to capture something important on a consistant basis.

--
John Cote
http://www.johncotephotography.com

'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

If the debate was can someone take a particular shot if they dont have camera A, then yes there would be validity.

However, the debate is does a photographer need a good camera to take a good photo and the answer is a resounding NO! Sure, there are some things that simply cannot be done with certain cameras, however a good photographer can, despite his/her equipment can produce a striking image.

A poor photographer can be seen to appear to take a good photo based on the equipment they use, but you will find that their scope is usually quite limited, and their images are visually nice, but emotionally quite empty.

Anyone who used film for a few years would know that there is more to photography than just a camera.. Period....... Digital does make it easier!!!

Camera's are a tool, you can shoot sports on a D100, D2h, D70, you just have to utilise the equipment to the best of your ability and the camera's abilities.

JSP

Nice post! By any chance does your friend have a web site?

Regards,
JohnnyK

--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com

Bobby Orr scores the winning goal in overtime to win the Stanley Cup.

No 8 fps, no 25 frames buffer, not even digital. Can you believe it?

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

where do you draw the line. i've seen marginal phtographers that are great post processors in the digital world! it makes it tough to distinguish a good photographer from a poor one

Digital has made out lives easier and I am definitely thankful for that!
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.

I remember this shot from collecting hockey cards It was the best shot, good post!

Regards,
JohnnyK

--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com

Hi JohnnyK-

I really didn't mean to take myself down.. I was only being realistic given my limited experience with DSLR's (2 years). I am really quite pleased with how I'm progressing with this passion that has become the total thief of all of my non-working time.

Thanks!!

Mary